Tag Archive for: #underperformingdirectors

Posts

Fake Work at the Board Level: Are We Really Doing Governance or Just Looking Busy?

/0 Comments/in /by

A Brief Inquiry Into the Boardroom Equivalent of Shuffling Papers

Let’s start with a pop quiz:

At your last board meeting, did you…

  • Spend 20 minutes debating the font size in the board packet?
  • Nod solemnly while reading a report you didn’t understand but didn’t want to ask about?
  • Re-review last month’s minutes like they were sacred text?
  • Approve the CEO’s strategic plan without a single question, but raise hell over the coffee budget?

If you answered “yes” to any of these—or worse, all of these—congratulations: you might be doing fake work.

And if your meetings consistently feel long but unproductive, filled with movement but little actual momentum, your board might be suffering from a terminal case of Performative Governance.

What Is Fake Work?

“Fake work” is not work that looks fake. It’s work that feels real, consumes time, and creates the illusion of value—without actually moving anything forward.

In corporate settings, fake work includes things like:

  • Meetings about meetings.
  • Email threads that could have been a shrug.
  • Slide decks built to impress no one in particular.

At the credit union board level, fake work shows up wearing a suit, clutching a binder, and usually saying something like, “We’ve always done it this way.”

How to Spot Fake Work at the Board Level

Like a chameleon, fake work blends in. It feels important. It’s often accompanied by furrowed brows and phrases like:

“Let’s table that for next month.”
“I just want to make sure we’ve thoroughly discussed it.”
“This isn’t in our bylaws, but…”

But here are a few dead giveaways:

  1. Endless Operational Noodling

Spending time reviewing which credit union branches need new carpet? That’s not governance. That’s facilities micromanagement disguised as fiduciary oversight.

Unless your strategic plan includes “neutral tones in all locations,” this is fake work.

  1. Performative Questions

You know these:

  • “I just want to be sure we’re asking the tough questions.” (Then proceeds to ask a very soft one.)
  • “Could you walk me through this, even though it was covered last meeting?”
    These aren’t questions. They’re boardroom kabuki theater.
  1. Reports No One Reads (But Everyone Pretends To)

Here’s a fun exercise: randomly insert a line in the middle of a 40-page committee report that says, “If you read this, bring me a cookie.” See how many cookies you get.
Spoiler: not many.

  1. Approval as a Reflex

If the board’s approach to governance is “whatever staff recommends,” congratulations, you’re doing the governance equivalent of clicking “Accept All Cookies” on a website. It’s quick, it’s easy, and it usually leads to regret.

  1. Dashboard Addiction Without Interpretation

Boards love dashboards. They’re colorful. They have arrows. They give the illusion of insight.
But if no one is asking, “What story is this data telling us?” or “How does this trend align with our strategic priorities?” — you’re just admiring bar charts in a vacuum.

Why Fake Work Happens

We’re not calling anyone lazy or malicious. Most fake work is born out of good intentions, outdated habits, and a deeply ingrained culture of looking like we’re doing something important.

Here’s why it happens:

  1. Fear of Looking Ignorant

Asking, “What exactly does this mean?” in a board meeting feels risky. So, we don’t ask. We nod. We move on. We fake it.

  1. Avoidance of the Hard Stuff

It’s easier to debate whether the board retreat should be two days or one-and-a-half than to have a conversation about whether your current leadership team is aligned with your strategic vision.

  1. Boredom + Duty = Overreach

Governance is about oversight, not involvement in every operational lever. But bored board members often reach for relevance in the only place they can: operational trivia.

The Cost of Fake Governance

Let’s be blunt: fake work is not harmless. It’s expensive. It’s distracting. And over time, it erodes your board’s credibility, wastes staff time, and causes strategic drift.

It also makes the CEO wonder whether you understand what governance is—or whether you just like the sandwiches.

What Real Governance Looks Like

To be clear, real governance isn’t about being smarter, more experienced, or louder. It’s about being focused, curious, and disciplined.

Here’s what it includes:

✅ 1. Strategy First, Strategy Always

Every conversation should map back to the strategic plan. Not sometimes. Always.
If it doesn’t, you’re not governing—you’re tinkering.

✅ 2. Data With Meaning

Don’t just review the numbers. Ask what they’re telling you. Ask how they connect to goals. Ask why they’re improving—or not.

If the numbers aren’t changing, and you don’t know why, you’re watching a dashboard like it’s Netflix.

✅ 3. Brave Questions

Be the board member who says, “I don’t understand this—can someone explain?” That’s not weakness. That’s leadership.
And chances are, four other directors had the same question and were too proud to ask.

✅ 4. Committee Reports That Matter

Every committee report should answer:

  • What decision are we being asked to make?
  • How does this tie to the strategic plan?
  • What risks or opportunities are we surfacing?

If a report doesn’t help with those, it can go in the archive bin with your 2003 marketing plan.

✅ 5. Time Discipline

If your board meeting consistently goes over three hours and you haven’t solved the succession plan, tackled a major risk, or reinvented your governance model—you might not be “collaborating.” You might just be loitering with paperwork.

How to Cut the Fluff (Without Cutting Each Other)

1. Board Agenda Audits

Go back through the last three meeting agendas. Highlight anything that wasn’t:

  • A strategic discussion
  • A key decision
  • An oversight function

Now count the rest. That’s your fluff ratio.

2. Consent Agendas Are Your Friend

Use them. Ruthlessly. Put everything informational or routine in a consent agenda and reclaim your meeting time for actual governance.

3. Board Self-Assessments

Want a mirror that doesn’t lie? Conduct an annual self-assessment. Fake work often thrives in boards that avoid honest reflection.

Final Thought: Busy ≠ Effective

Credit union board service is a privilege. It’s also a responsibility. That means showing up with intention, asking real questions, making tough calls—and resisting the urge to fill the room with noise just to feel like you’ve earned the sandwiches.

 

 

In other words:

If your board work feels like work but accomplishes nothing, it might not be work. It might just be well-dressed loitering.

Need help distinguishing real governance from well-meaning fluff? Call TEAM Resources. We’ll help you streamline your board practices—and maybe even help you get those meetings down to something resembling human time.

 

The Board That Wouldn’t Let Go: When Legacy Directors Stall Progress

/1 Comment/in /by

How to Navigate Board Turnover, Term Limits, and the Gentle Art of Moving On

It started subtly: A well-meaning board member added “Emeritus” to their LinkedIn title. No one questioned it. Then they started showing up to committee meetings they weren’t assigned to. They brought donuts. They smiled knowingly during strategic planning. No one had the heart to say it out loud, but everyone was thinking it:

“Is this person ever going to leave?”

The Eternal Director

Every credit union board has—or has had—the Eternal Director. The one who’s been around since the invention of the fax machine and insists it still has strategic relevance. The one who’s forgotten more about your credit union’s history than most staff ever knew…but also seems to have forgotten how debit cards work.

They’re good people. They helped build the place. And now? They are also gently slowing it down to a strategic crawl.

The problem isn’t loyalty. The problem is inertia—wrapped in good intentions and reinforced with homemade cookies at every board meeting.

Why Boards Struggle to Let Go

Let’s start by acknowledging something uncomfortable: for many legacy board members, leaving the board feels like leaving the family—or worse, stepping off the only meaningful leadership stage they’ve known in 30 years.

And for the rest of the board? It’s just awkward. We don’t like conflict. We’re a movement of cooperatives. We talk about financial inclusion and shared values, not forced retirements.

So instead, we quietly tolerate the late arrivals, the inability to log into the board portal, and the occasional off-topic comment about “how we used to do things back in the Reagan years.”

The Strategic Cost of Stagnation

Eww! Stagnant pond muck.

All jokes aside, here’s the cost of keeping legacy board members on well past their sell-by date:

  • Innovation stalls. New ideas get quashed by “That’s not how we do things.”
  • CEO frustration grows. They can’t lead a credit union built for 2030 with a board stuck in 1998.
  • Recruitment suffers. Younger, more diverse candidates don’t see a place for themselves.
  • Risk increases. Governance lapses are more likely when directors don’t understand evolving compliance and fintech trends.

Your credit union may be growing, but your board is aging in place.

The Gentle Art of Moving On

Here’s the good news: succession doesn’t have to be a blood sport. You can encourage graceful exits, celebrate contributions, and build a board that’s ready for the future.

Consider Term Limits. Actually Use Them.

You should know by now that at TEAM Resources we have struggled with term limits. They get rid of good and bad board members indiscriminately. And when it’s difficult to recruit, this feels like shooting your board in its collective foot. (So look carefully at the paragraph below about writing a “real” succession plan.)

But the concept of term limits isn’t controversial in any sector outside credit unions. Set limits. Stick to them. Rotate people off the board. It’s not exile—it’s governance. And this can work well when you have high standards and an effective pipeline.

Bonus tip: Don’t call it a “mandatory departure.” Call it a “celebratory director emeritus transition.” PR matters.

Create an Offboarding Ritual

Throw a dinner. Give a plaque (or a donation to their favorite cause). Let them make a five-minute speech about their “incredible journey.” Clap politely. Then hand them a thank-you card and remind them that they are now a valued member, not a decision-maker.

Write a Real Succession Plan

A succession plan is not “We’ll figure it out when Jerry finally retires or forgets where the boardroom is.” It’s a written document. It includes:

  • Desired future board competencies
  • Outreach and recruitment timelines
  • Term expirations
  • Mentorship pairings between current and future directors

Use Board Self-Assessments

You know what big fans we are of this process. When the participants are actually engaging with the assessment honestly, there’s nothing quite like a well-designed, anonymous board evaluation to say what everyone’s too polite to say out loud. You know, things like:

  • “Some directors are not fully engaged in strategic conversations.”
  • “We need more technology expertise on the board.”
  • “Please stop telling the same story about the 1992 ATM rollout.”

If you conduct assessments annually, you’ll notice patterns. And patterns are harder to ignore than one-off frustrations. 

Bring in Outside Facilitators

Sometimes, the best way to get Jerry to see it’s time to go is to have someone else tell Jerry it’s time to go. A third-party facilitator ( hi, that’s us) can deliver feedback, coach transitions, and help manage tension so you don’t have to.

But What If They Refuse to Leave?

Ah yes. The “boardroom barnacle.” No term limits. No shame. A deeply held belief that their “institutional memory” is too important to ever unplug.

This is when you need the most radical tool in your governance toolbox: a hard conversation.

  • Start with facts: declining engagement, outdated knowledge, missed meetings.
  • Frame it in terms of organizational mission and fiduciary responsibility.
  • Offer a continued role as a mentor or special advisor—without a vote.

And if they still won’t budge?

Governance requires courage. And the board’s primary duty is not to any individual director’s feelings—it’s to the credit union’s long-term health.

Closing Thoughts (and a Nudge)

Credit union boards are known for their stability, integrity, and community focus. Those are strengths. But when stability turns into stagnation, and when institutional loyalty turns into institutional delay, it’s time to revisit what service and stewardship really mean.

Letting go isn’t disloyalty. It’s leadership.

So if your board has a Jerry (or a Jane) who just… won’t… let go – take a breath. Start the conversation. And maybe bring donuts. You’re going to need them.

Want help crafting a board succession plan? Need an outsider to tell Jerry what you can’t? That’s what TEAM Resources does. We don’t bring donuts, but as I’m from Wisconsin I can be talked into bringing cheese curds. Usually.

The Fine Art of Going Along to Get Along: A Credit Union Board Tradition

/2 Comments/in /by

By Kevin Smith

Credit union boards of directors have a well-documented, time-honored tradition of “going along to get along.” It’s an elegant, time-saving approach that ensures board meetings remain as peaceful and predictable as a slow-moving game of bingo at the senior center. No rocking the boat, no uncomfortable questions, and certainly no unpleasant confrontations. It’s a strategy built on the idea that if everyone agrees, then everything must be working just fine.

But, of course, that’s not always the case. This unspoken rule of unanimous harmony, while convenient, has a few tiny flaws—like, say, the potential to undermine the very purpose of the board itself. Let’s take a closer look at how we got here, why it’s a problem, and how to (gasp) fix it.

How We Ended Up in This Situation

The evolution of “go along to get along” governance is simple. It starts with a group of well-meaning individuals who join the board because they believe in the credit union movement. They’re here to make a difference! They’re here to help their members! And then they attend their first meeting.

What they find is an environment where disagreement is as welcome as a skunk at a garden party. They quickly learn that difficult questions result in awkward silence, darting glances, and, if things get particularly out of hand, a long-winded response that doesn’t answer the question but does ensure that no one will ever ask it again.

Soon enough, new board members realize that life is easier when they nod along, approve the agenda, and save their concerns for private grumbling sessions later. And just like that, another cog in the “go along to get along” machine is installed.

The Problem with Passive Boards

While group harmony sounds lovely in theory, it’s not exactly the hallmark of effective governance. Boards exist to provide oversight, challenge assumptions, and ensure the organization is actually serving its members—not just rubber-stamping the CEO’s latest PowerPoint presentation.

When boards avoid conflict at all costs, several unfortunate things happen:

  1. Lack of Accountability: If the board refuses to question leadership decisions, then no one is holding management accountable. Over time, this can lead to poor financial decisions, ineffective strategies, and policies that favor the credit union’s executives over its members.

  2. Missed Opportunities: Good ideas rarely come from an echo chamber. If everyone on the board is simply agreeing with each other (or staying silent to avoid disagreement), then creative solutions, innovative strategies, and potential improvements never see the light of day.

  3. Complacency Creeps In: A passive board creates an environment where stagnation flourishes. If no one challenges the status quo, then the status quo reigns supreme—whether it’s working or not.

  4. Risk Increases: The financial industry is full of risks, and credit unions are not immune. If the board isn’t actively engaged in evaluating potential threats, then they’re setting the credit union up for some unpleasant surprises.

Breaking the Cycle: How to Fix It

So, what’s the solution? How do we cure the boardroom malaise and encourage actual engagement without triggering a full-scale rebellion? Fortunately, there are a few ways to do just that and some of these should be familiar if you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time. 

1. Encourage Constructive Dissent

The first step to fixing a passive board is to make it clear that disagreement isn’t a personal attack—it’s a necessary part of good governance. One way to encourage this is to assign someone the role of “devil’s advocate” in discussions. (Many of you have heard me bring this one up before … repeatedly. It works!) If every proposal has at least one person assigned to poke holes in it, then dissent becomes part of the process rather than an act of defiance.

2. Change the Meeting Format

Most credit union board meetings follow a predictable (read: dull) structure. Reports are read, motions are made, votes are cast, and everyone goes home without a single bead of sweat forming. To shake things up, consider introducing strategic discussions as a standing agenda item and at the beginning of the meeting, rather than the end. Instead of only reviewing past performance, dedicate time to debating future opportunities and risks.

3. Board Education & Training

Many credit union board members come from backgrounds that have nothing to do with finance, risk management, or governance. That’s not necessarily a problem—diversity of thought is a good thing—but it does mean that ongoing education is essential. If board members don’t feel confident in their ability to challenge decisions, they won’t. Regular training sessions on financial oversight, regulatory requirements, and strategic planning can give board members the confidence they need to ask the right questions.

4. Rotate Committee Assignments

If the same board members serve on the same committees for years, they risk becoming too comfortable (or too cozy) with management. By regularly rotating committee assignments, credit unions can prevent stagnation and encourage fresh perspectives.

5. Recruit for Independence

Credit unions often struggle to find new board members, which leads them to recruit from within their existing circles. The result? A board that’s a little too familiar, a little too friendly, and a little too hesitant to challenge the status quo. Instead, credit unions should actively seek out independent thinkers—people with diverse backgrounds who aren’t afraid to ask uncomfortable questions. This should be part of your recruiting discussion from the get-go. 

6. Evaluate the Board’s Effectiveness

Finally, the board should regularly evaluate its own performance. Are members actively engaging in discussions? Are difficult issues being addressed? Or is everyone just nodding along, waiting for the meeting to end? Conducting anonymous self-assessments can help board members reflect on their own level of engagement and identify areas for improvement. You know very well that this is a hobby horse issue at TEAM Resources. 

A Little Discomfort is a Good Thing

Credit union boards don’t need to be battlefields, but they shouldn’t be tranquil meditation retreats either. The best boards strike a balance—encouraging open debate while maintaining mutual respect.

Yes, challenging leadership decisions can be uncomfortable. Yes, asking tough questions might make a few people squirm. But discomfort is not a sign that something is wrong—it’s a sign that something is being done right. Because at the end of the day, the credit union’s mission isn’t to make board members comfortable—it’s to serve its members. And that requires a board that’s willing to do more than just go along to get along.

Should Paid Directors Be Held to a Higher Standard?

/2 Comments/in /by

More credit union boards are moving to or considering payment for service. This means that boards need to reconsider their standards of engagement and director performance. It will be important for boards making this change to re-calibrate expectations.

By Kevin Smith

Ten to fifteen years ago there were two topics sure to get credit union board members riled up and talkative at credit union conferences and training: term limits and paid directors. But I have to say that these discussions instigate far fewer sparks and consternation than they used to. When I was facilitating board roundtable discussions, I used to love to throw those two hand grenade topics and run to watch the smoke fly. It’s generally not a bad thing when people are passionate about things and care about them enough to get animated in their discussion.

Recently, I’ve been involved with a few discussions about the payment of directors. While the overall idea of it has become less polarizing, what I’m noticing is that, as usual, the devil is in the details, and there are quite a few nuances to the application of this idea that can still heat up the room. Primarily, the issue is whether paid directors should be held to a higher standard.

Some of the circumstances to consider:

How large is the payment? For some it’s a nominal stipend. A couple thousand dollars a year. For others it’s low to mid five figures. For some this difference matters a great deal when talking about raised expectations for the role.

Does paying directors have regulatory implications? Does this affect how lawmakers perceive who credit unions are in the market? Lobbyist for our industry are careful to dance around this one, as one of their primary talking points when hiking the hill is the not-for-profit model run by volunteer directors.

One director told me flat out – “we’ve been doing a lot of work for a lot of years already. We’re just now getting paid for that work. So, no, the expectations should go up. I’m already earning that money.”

Naturally there are those who take the opposite stance. The addition of remuneration to a formerly volunteer position changes the tone of the position dramatically.

What’s the Goal

There are also nuances to how boards come to the decision to pay their director members. (And sometimes there are differences within the same board as to these reasons!) Payment can simply be an acknowledgement of the work. But regularly this discussion is about efforts to recruit candidates (and higher quality ones) for a job that has become far more complex and time consuming. We hear a lot of worries in the industry about how difficult it can be to get new, and younger directors to join the movement as part of the board. Payment is the carrot/incentive to make this worthwhile to candidates.

My View

Over the years, I’ve softened to the idea of paying directors. I know just how much work there is and how important it is to have the right people in those seats. With the right understanding of the membership and evolved strategic thinking skills. A salary or stipend just might help in recruiting. But then I worry that people are attracted to the role for the dollars rather than the mission. At the basic level, the mission and purpose should be what attracts the potential board member. This is what we’ve done for a century now – get people to drink the credit union Kool-Aid and see what people-helping-people can do for the world.

So, they paycheck doesn’t change the job, but it does change the perception of it. Because there is such a long history of volunteer board members in this movement, I do believe that the just the perceptual change of adding pay is significant, to the members, the regulators, the general public, etc. And that change suggests to me that there also needs to be change in the performance of the board. I think that is a reasonable expectation as a sharp contrast to the history of the voluntary position. We hope that increased costs to the credit union come with increased value.

Be Careful What You Wish For

There are other sticky wickets to watch out for in this territory. Plenty of credit union boards count on (i.e. hope) that tenured directors will self-select out of their roles when they are no longer “high performing.” (This tees up that other incendiary topic of term limits.) Of course, this doesn’t happen nearly enough. As Tim Harrington says, “If you think some of your directors are sticking around too long, start paying them and see what happens!” 

Our Vantage Point

Tim and I encourage already boards to raise their standards and performance expectations all the time, whether there’s pay or not. So maybe we’re not the two people to weigh in on whether to do it. But we do believe that it changes perceptions. There is a lot to talk through and consider on the issue. Don’t take it lightly. It can be awfully easy to agree to a new paycheck for work you’re already doing. Do it of the right reasons.

Addressing Underperforming Directors

/0 Comments/in /by

Ignoring the behaviors and activities of an underperforming director can have dramatic consequences. Yet among a group of peers such as a board of directors too often these scenarios go unaddressed. It may be easier in the short run to avoid dealing with the problem but it rarely gets easier. This is, in fact, a duty of the board.

By Kevin Smith

“Sadly, boards are more likely to replace a CEO than oust one of its troublesome board members.” Beverly Behan, Board Consultant

Someone is going to call me out on the fact that I’ve used this quote before. I hope they do. It means someone is paying attention. (See the original post here.) But this one needs further attention because I don’t believe circumstances have changed much, if at all. It’s a doozy of quote too. (Tim and I used it in our book too. It makes a dramatic point!).  

 The first time I used the quote in a blog post was in 2016. In my mind that’s long enough to warrant revisiting. But in that post we were writing about renomination and what directors need to demonstrate to earn renomination to the board ballot.

Today, I’m writing about addressing underperformance and having uncomfortable conversations. This is about confronting issues, rather than ignoring them or simply having hushed discussions in hallways after meetings, where nothing gets resolved.

Common Problematic Behaviors

Click the sidebar to see the full letter.

Here are some of the negative/troubling things that I hear about around the country in my hundreds of conversations with directors, CEOs, senior leaders, as well as with others related to board work.

Directors who:

  • Fall asleep during board meetings
  • Are clearly never prepared
  • Are way, way off topic on a regular basis
  • Have experienced mental decline, age related or otherwise
  • Talk far too much (or far too little)
  • Bully staff and colleagues on the board
  • Don’t do what they agree to do (think of those who have to be chased down for everything and never hit a deadline)
  • Cannot let personal feelings and opinions go when the vote goes against them

I’m sure you can add your own examples. (And please do in the comments below. It helps others to know they’re not alone.) These are the most common ones I hear about. And you can let your imaginations run wild with the damage that these behaviors can cause to the board and the credit union. You may have some actual terrifying anecdotes. Don’t underestimate what’s at stake.

In previous blogs, you’ve read about the TEAM Resources approach to strategic governance via written policy to provide tools for managing these scenarios. But let’s talk about actually getting beyond the discomfort of the circumstances and dealing with humans in a way that doesn’t have to be confrontational or hurtful.

Addressing Behavior

  • First, remember your humanity and empathy. You have to confront the situation but it doesn’t have to be confrontational, negative and accusatory. Consider where this director may be coming from, and what they may be dealing with in their life. Keep the discussion as positive as possible.
  • Always start from an assumption of best intentions. Don’t presume malicious intent unless you have significant evidence of that.
  • Schedule a time to meet with the individual one-on-one. This is never something to address in front of a group.
  • Be specific about the behavior you are witnessing and how it may be coming across. “I noticed at the last board meeting that you didn’t seem engaged with the meeting. Your attention seemed to be somewhere else and you didn’t contribute as much as you have in the past.”
  • Ask about the circumstances and be ready to listen and really hear what is going on. Use active listening techniques.
  • Offer support. “How can I, and we as a board, help you so that you can fully perform your duties? What do you need?” You’ll be surprised how far this will get you, either in the desire for help or in the acknowledgement that the behavior is happening and needs to be addressed.
  • Be clear about what plan is in place and a timeline for making things better. “In the next two board meetings, can you try to make sure that you are not the first person to speak up so that we can make room for other voices? And we can see how that goes.”
  • Refer to your well-written governance policies that address how the board has agreed to work as a group. Remind them that this is what they signed and agreed to and that the current behavior violates the policy. “Part of our governance policy on behavior states, ‘Board members will be properly prepared for Board deliberation. This includes, but is not limited to, reading board packet materials in a timely manner, keeping up with industry trends and issues, ongoing training and education that is specific to the individual needs of each Board member.’ And you are not holding up your end of that requirement.” This approach keeps things formal and professional, and keeps your involvement at a professional and not a personal level.

Often, after taking these steps problem directors will see own up and offer to step down. Handled with compassion this doesn’t need to be a fight or a negative circumstance. Though, I can’t promise that this will always be the case. Humans can be messy. But I do know that this approach is far more effective than accusations and confrontations.

Whose Responsibility Is This?

The easy answer as to who should do this is the board chair. That really is part of the job description for someone who is primus inter pares, first among equals. So, if you’re not up to this kind of discussion you can lean in and realize that it is a skill that can be learned. Or, you may have to step back and recognize that by not taking on this task is dropping the ball for the job in a way that can damage not just the board, but the entire organization. If that’s the case, you might not be the right chair for the job. (Small consolation for some of you who “ended up” as chair, I know.)

But I also want to put it out there that it doesn’t have to be the chair’s job. Anyone on the board can take up this task. Remember, you are equals. And with the right kind of culture and trust, it’s reasonable that we should expect all directors to bear the weight of accountability for the group.  

Courage

What I’ve described requires some intestinal fortitude and won’t always work perfectly. It also provides some guidelines that make this less difficult with opportunities for very positive outcomes. If expectations are clear and agreed upon by the board as a whole, you have a foundation for addressing underperformance. But ignoring the situation can never be an option. There’s too much riding on the board.

 

As always, please tell me what you’ve tried and what I’m missing. I never claim to be perfect or completely comprehensive.

Dedicated to YOUR Success . . .

Join our Newsletter

Sign up now to receive Tim’s blog, our newsletter and occasional updates.

Sign Up Now

The TR Blog

Contact Us

TEAM Resources
2665 N. Indian Ridge Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85715
Phone: 520.290.5721

Email Us

Return Info

© Copyright 2022 - Site design by Sprout Studio in Madison, WI