Avoidance or delay may feel more comfortable in the short term, but unresolved tensions can erode trust, diminish organizational effectiveness, and compromise mission integrity.
In the life of any nonprofit, there are moments when boards and executive leaders must step into difficult conversations. Whether it involves a CEO falling short of performance expectations, financial instability, internal conflict, or the future direction of the organization, these moments test both governance and the character of the community around the board table.
Avoidance or delay may feel more comfortable in the short term, but unresolved tensions can erode trust, diminish organizational effectiveness, and compromise mission integrity. Courageous governance means facing difficult issues head-on—with care, clarity, and community at the center.
Why Hard Conversations Matter
Hard conversations are a mark of a healthy board, not a failing one. They:
- Protect the mission and ensure long-term viability
- Create transparency and accountability
- Clarify roles and expectations
- Prevent harm to staff, leadership, or the communities served
Anabaptist organizations are called to steward their missions with humility and mutual accountability. This includes listening well, speaking truth in love, and making space for communal discernment—even when outcomes are uncertain.
Common Tough Issues Boards Face
Some of the recurring hard topics nonprofit boards must address include:
- A CEO not meeting strategic or operational goals
- Significant financial shortfalls or budget cuts
- Persistent staff turnover or toxic workplace culture
- Ethical concerns or conflicts of interest among board members
- Disagreement about affiliating, merging, or strategic restructuring
- Differing visions for the organization’s faith identity or advocacy priorities
These are not just operational concerns—they are governance responsibilities. Board members must be willing to speak, question, and decide, even when it feels uncomfortable.
Framework for Difficult Decision-Making
A values-based approach to difficult conversations and decisions includes these key components:
- Clarity of Roles: Board members must understand their role as stewards of mission and strategy, not day-to-day operations. CEOs and staff need clarity on where board oversight begins and ends.
- Shared Values and Mission Alignment: Return to the organization’s stated mission, values, and faith commitments. This provides a common language and grounding when navigating tension.
- Mutual Accountability: Approach hard conversations with humility and an openness to self-reflection. Everyone around the table should be willing to give and receive feedback.
- Discernment, Not Just Decision-Making: Anabaptist governance is more than majority rule. It values patient listening, prayerful reflection, and seeking unity where possible. It requires time and intention.
- Prepare, Don’t Pounce: Hard conversations go better with preparation. Make space on agendas. Share data or concerns in advance. Avoid springing complex issues on people without time to reflect.
Structures and Processes That Help
Even the most mission-driven boards need scaffolding to hold these conversations well. Consider implementing the following:
- Board Covenant: A shared commitment to how members will engage with one another, including how conflict will be handled.
- Annual CEO Evaluation Process: Regular reviews based on clear, pre-agreed metrics help avoid surprise or ambiguity.
- Executive Session Protocols: Build in time for board-only discussions at each meeting.
- Board Education: Offer training in ethical decision-making, fiduciary duties, and faith-informed governance.
- Use of Outside Facilitation: For especially complex or divisive issues, a neutral third party can help hold space for productive dialogue.
- Decision-Making Frameworks: Use structured tools (like consensus models or criteria matrices) to weigh options fairly and transparently.
In Anabaptist tradition, truth is not owned by one person but discerned in community. Having hard conversations is not a failure of unity—it is a faithful expression of it. Boards that practice courageous governance don’t avoid discomfort; they trust that through it, clarity and commitment can grow.