4 ms·

I would have thought a non-profit board that puts the growth and success of their organization above the mission in their charter, even if they view the organiz

by jph00 3y ago

I would have thought a non-profit board that puts the growth and success of their organization above the mission in their charter, even if they view the organization as going against their mission, sounds like the worst kind of board. How could that possibly be a good idea? Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call? (I'm not saying that this is what is happening here -- just responding to your particular claim.)

Aunche 3y ago
>Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call? Yes. From the board. That's why we typically don't see boards air their dirty laundry out in the open even when in retrospect, they obviously had a problem with leadership.
- jph00 3y ago
  The board seems to be getting an awful lot of crap for not saying enough, and also getting crap because their initial letter was too direct rather than being the usual corporate mealy-mouth BS.
  - lmm 3y ago
    It's possible to simultaneously believe that announcing that the CEO lied to the board about x on day y is better than announcing that the CEO is leaving to spend more time with his family, but announcing that the CEO lied to the board and then refusing to elaborate when everyone including the CEO says "huh? What?" is worse than either.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    The board is getting a lot of crap for being crap. Regardless of your opinion about their goals, their execution was objectively terrible. They were clearly completely detached from their organization. At the very least, they could have made sure their first interim CEO wouldn't instantly try to turn against them. It's not a contradiction to criticize someone for saying too much sometimes and saying too little another time. The board should be open to insiders and cautious with external communications.

by jph00 3y ago

Aunche 3y ago

>Isn't the whole reason we have non-profit boards and charters is so that they can make just this kind of call? Yes. From the board. That's why we typically don't see boards air their dirty laundry out in the open even when in retrospect, they obviously had a problem with leadership.

jph00 3y ago
The board seems to be getting an awful lot of crap for not saying enough, and also getting crap because their initial letter was too direct rather than being the usual corporate mealy-mouth BS.
- lmm 3y ago
  It's possible to simultaneously believe that announcing that the CEO lied to the board about x on day y is better than announcing that the CEO is leaving to spend more time with his family, but announcing that the CEO lied to the board and then refusing to elaborate when everyone including the CEO says "huh? What?" is worse than either.
- Aunche 3y ago
  The board is getting a lot of crap for being crap. Regardless of your opinion about their goals, their execution was objectively terrible. They were clearly completely detached from their organization. At the very least, they could have made sure their first interim CEO wouldn't instantly try to turn against them. It's not a contradiction to criticize someone for saying too much sometimes and saying too little another time. The board should be open to insiders and cautious with external communications.