1. What is the issue here?
The issue at hand is a distinct discrepancy between Martha and Zhao’s views on boards. Their understandings are sufficiently different that their conversation is halted concerning Zhao’s possible investment, where he would expect a board is providing governance to ensure accountability and structure (and to safeguard his investment), while Martha is concerned about the operational load and barriers a board would bring into the organization.
2. If you had to summarise Zhao’s perspective in 2-3 sentences, what would you say? What would be his position on ministry boards and why?
Zhao understands boards to be a source of accountability removed from the direct operations of the organization, and voices of wisdom and experience that can provide advice, clarity, direction, etc. In his view, ministry boards would be essential, regardless of church size, as organizations of all sizes need accountability, strategic wisdom, and the like. In a small or new operation, a board is still necessary to provide a foundation for the organization that prepares it for when growth happens.
3. If you had to summarise Martha’s perspective in 2-3 sentences, what would you say? What would be her position on ministry boards and why?
In Martha’s view, boards function as gatekeepers who give specific operational directives. They interfere with the experts, like Martha and her team, in doing their work to the best of their ability. Further, boards are an increase in work for the leadership of the organization that are unnecessary until an organization grows to some larger size. She would presume then that ministry boards are necessary only in larger churches or ministry settings, and then, in such a way that they don’t add burden or barrier to the “expert” workers (pastors, ministry staff, etc.)
4. What are the 4-5 biggest benefits of a competent, committed board of directors for a faith-based ministry, or any organisation for that matter?
Most (good) boards bring accountability to an organization, either bringing outside objectivity that adds an honest and critical (i.e. uninvolved) view to the organization or make the upper leadership accountable to representative members from, and therefore to the whole congregation/stakeholders (depending on board model).
Secondly, a competent, committed board brings their own expertise and experience to bear as resources to the organization. In Zhao’s case, he has been involved in several other philanthropic investments before and brings his own skill with strategy, local culture, etc. to Martha’s attention.
Third, the board can disperse essential leadership activities to a broader base of people, such as visioning or course correction activities, rather than all of that resting on a single core leader or leadership team. Likewise, some activities can be separated, such as policy enforcement and team member coaching, where one leader takes on potentially contradictory hats.
Fourthly, an organization with a competent and committed board is less likely to be led by a single, powerful leader’s agenda, which may or may not be good or healthy for the organization.
5. What are the potential downsides or risks that might be incurred with a board of directors, if any?
Having a competent and committed board is crucial for a board to be effective and a positive addition to an organization. The pitfalls of incompetent leadership are present in boards as well, such as a weak board poorly using funds and causing the organization serious financial damage.
Further, a weak board might be easily manipulated by a strong leader or board member to become driven by individual agendas. Alternatively, the contradictory agendas of multiple strong voices on a board could halt progress and cause division.
Martha’s concern that the board would be a hindrance to her team or would micromanage their operations is also a risk.