The "tyranny of 'nice,'" as I've always referred to it, is far more insidious than we often acknowledge.
The problem begins at a very micro level -- the board of directors level. Because the directors on boards are often neighbors, friends, colleagues, business associates, competitors, clients, etc., there is a dis-ease when it comes to full and vibrant discussion that includes all -- as well as competing -- viewpoints if there is any chance it will "upset" or affect an existing relationship.
As a result, the loudest, or most demanding, or most passionate director will prevail on matters that may concern issues as vital as future direction, program re-configuration, finance, and personnel. Or worse, everyone simply settles for the path of least controversy.
The culture of mediocrity grows from the top down. Until board members interact in a more self-less manner, the organizations they steward will have an uphill battle subverting the current status quo in the sector.
Hands down, the one question I would ask is, "What percentage of your Board members made a gift this year -- not ticket purchases for the gala, raffle, auction, retreat expenses, sponsorship, etc.? What percentage simply wrote a check for 'nothing' in return?"
Note that the question is not "How MUCH?" That is far less relevant than how many made gifts. If the number is anything less than 80%, I'd pass (I'll give the organization the benefit of the doubt on the other 20% and assume that newbie board members simply did not have a chance to write their checks yet).
I wouldn't invest in a company whose leadership had no financial stake (risk?) in the organization. I won't invest in a charity whose board members wo';t invest in the charity themselves
Renata Rafferty
Author, "Don't Just Give It Away: How to Make the Most of Your Charitable Giving," Foreword by Paul Newman
http://www.raffertyconsulting.com
rrafferty@raffertyconsulting.com