Earlier today I had a board meeting for the nonprofit I founded, ALTER—and it was a good one. Most of the board showed up. People had looked at the materials. I presented our recent update, funding, budgets, and our plans for the coming year. There were thoughtful questions: what's the path to impact for working on standards, some skepticism about collaborating with non-aligned organizations, and a few suggestions for adjacent things we might consider. No one was asleep. No one was hostile. No one was performatively disengaged.
But when the meeting ended, no strategic direction had been set. The board didn’t tell us what to prioritize next year. They reviewed the presented plans, and the priorities I suggested, but didn’t weigh tradeoffs between mission drift and focus. They didn’t say “this seems off” or “this is the wrong hill.” What they mostly did was react: to updates, to explanations, to decisions that had already been made elsewhere. Their feedback was real, but incremental—more like local gradient information than a global objective.
I’m on a few small organization's boards, and at ALTER I have a board I am responsible to, and I don’t think what happened is particularly unusual. This [...]
---
Outline:
(01:54) Who sets priorities?
(04:33) Who depends on What
(08:20) Ambiguity isn't the problem. Unowned outcomes are.
(10:29) Questions I don't yet have answers to
---