"Form follows function" is a principle associated with architecture. The shape of a building or object should be based upon its intended function or purpose. In other words, the way something looks should be determined by its purpose.

This idea can easily be applied to associations. In the nonprofit world, form equates to structure and governance, while function is the mission and strategic plan.

Starting from scratch

"If we started anew, would we keep the same structure?" The question is posed by boards desiring a high-performing organization.

Most associations were founded decades or a century ago. Over time, structure has evolved to be less than efficient.

For example, in one association every chapter is entitled to a seat on the board. Larger chapters, based on number of members, hold multiple seats. Since the organization has grown over time, the composition of the board has exceeded 60 persons selected solely on geography.

Is geographic representation best when we have technology and instant communication between members and leaders? What about representation to include special interests and diversity? Chapters can be represented by designating just two or three board seats.

Case studies

Structures designed 10 or 20 years ago may be inefficient and hampered by a culture proclaiming, "We've always done it this way." However, if "form" is not right for "function," it can be frustrating or impossible to advance a mission and strategic plan.

Consider these examples begging for reform.

• A state association board was the right size and had a good strategic plan. However, the finance committee had become stronger than the board. For nearly every decision, the leadership had to ask the finance committee for permission. The structure and bylaws needed correction to return authority to the board.
• For a century, a national association has relied on a house of delegates to develop policies. The "house" was five times larger than the board and costly to convene annually. Today, members have multiple channels of communication to press their issues on the board, and they are not satisfied to wait for the house of delegates to convene so they can air their issues. The house holds significant influence to the point of board intimidation.
• A board desired to make minor changes to their bylaws. But the bylaws require all amendments be noticed to the entire membership by "U.S. Mail" 90 days before the annual meeting. The members would not release their grip on the bylaws to allow the board to adopt amendments.
• The board was effective, but committees were unwieldy. Directors feared suggesting committee mergers or elimination. They existed perpetually with minimal transition in leadership and assignments. Committees were not aligned with the strategic plan.

Structural review

Return to the question, "If we started anew, would we keep the same structure?"

Structure is more than an organizational chart. Structure is about processes, relationships, resources and people. A review will include an assessment of these elements:

Documents — Remove the clutter from bylaws and articles of incorporation. Update the policy manual. Do leaders have access to governing documents through a leadership manual or board portal?

Mission, vision and values — Vision and values statements are optional; the mission must be clearly stated and easy to articulate.

Nominations — A process for continuous identification and training of future leaders should exist. Strengths and weaknesses on the board are identified and remedied through candidate selection and orientation.

Board of directors — The board must be the right size to get the job done (the average is 15 seats). Volunteers have adequate support and training.

Board meetings — Frequency of meetings is sufficient; too few meetings and work is not addressed, too many meetings may eliminate volunteers with limited time. Review board minutes to assess if meetings were productive.

Professional staff — Staff are provided opportunities for growth and education. Sufficient staffing exists to serve membership and advance the strategic plan.

Strategic plan — Does the strategic plan guide all discussions, decisions and initiatives? Board, staff, committees and members are aware of the plan.

Executive committee — The board should not feel the executive committee usurps their duties. Is the executive committee needed relative to the size of the board?

Committees — All committees are necessary and aligned with strategic plan goals. Every committee has a purpose statement and current year tasks.

Subsidiaries — Subsidiaries enhance organizational efforts; for example, a foundation, political action committee or for-profit entity.

Resources — The board is supported by resources in the form of budget, reserves, insurance, staffing, consultants and training.

The task

There is little risk and high reward for improving structure and governance. Task-force recommendations should not be wholesale reorganization but rather phased-in solutions.

The review can be self-guided and self-paced with volunteers or led by a consultant. Be sure to include legal counsel. The purpose is to sustain a high-performing organization.