How executives and board chairs build shared leadership

Executive overview

Most executives treat the board as a boss to satisfy. The more effective frame is shared leadership — two engines on the same plane, each working independently and together.

The ED–board chair relationship is the single most important indicator of nonprofit health. Treating it as a genuine partnership, built through deliberate investment, determines whether the organisation can handle both opportunities and crises.

The board is not the boss — it is the other engine, and both pilots have to trust each other to fly.

The twin engine jet model

• Hierarchy is the wrong mental model for nonprofit governance
• The board and staff are two engines; the ED and board chair are co-pilots in the cockpit
• Neither pilot outranks the other — they have distinct roles and shared responsibility
• Partnership rooted in trust lets leaders anticipate problems and navigate crises
• This logic applies beyond nonprofits: power in most organisations is now far more distributed than the org chart suggests

Starting the relationship well

• A new ED–board chair pairing should begin with a dedicated three-hour conversation — not a task list
• Cover: how each person works best, communication preferences, decision-making style, personal values
• Fewer surprises later come directly from investing time early
• Many EDs are reluctant to ask volunteers for significant time; this is a mistake — people join boards because they want to do meaningful work
• If someone's answer to "why this board?" is "I want to give back," keep looking; the right candidate has a specific connection to the mission

Clarifying who decides what

• Role clarity is not a one-time document exercise — it is built through worked examples over time
• Some lines are clear: the ED hires and fires staff; the board approves new board members
• Even clear lines have productive grey zones — e.g. consulting the board treasurer before hiring a CFO creates buy-in without surrendering the decision
• Board pressure to act (e.g. fire an underperformer) does not override the ED's authority, but the ED remains accountable for the outcome at review
• Start with one domain (e.g. nominations), play it out, then apply the lesson to the next domain
• Trying to map every decision at once causes overload and abandonment

The three altitudes of board engagement

• Tarmac (risk management): boards focused purely on oversight and making sure nothing goes wrong — the most common and least useful default
• 10,000 feet (strategic): boards engaged with direction, tradeoffs, and organisational priorities
• 35,000 feet (generative): boards imagining possibilities, visioning, and acting as thought partners on what could be
• Most nonprofit boards spend too much time on the tarmac; the tarmac is necessary but is not the destination
• Micromanagement often stems from inadequate orientation — board members default to risk management because no one taught them there were other modes

Moving boards to altitude

• The ED must stop thinking of board meetings as report delivery and start designing them as thought-partnership sessions
• Bringing in speakers, presenting programme challenges, and inviting genuine questions shifts the dynamic
• The executive director's job is to fuel the board — give members the context and knowledge they need to be full contributors
• A board member whose pilot light is dim will not fundraise, advocate, or engage; keeping lights bright is a core leadership responsibility
• The shift happens when the ED asks: what would the board need to operate at a strategic or generative level — and then provides it

Recruiting and retaining the right board members

• Prospect identification is naturally an ED strength — they should actively fuel the nominations pipeline
• Final approval belongs to the board, not the ED; unchecked ED influence risks a stacked board
• Evaluate candidates on specific mission connection, not generic willingness to volunteer
• Once members are in place, the organisation's job is to make their commitment brighter, not dimmer
• Poorly run board meetings are one of the most common ways organisations dim the lights on engaged volunteers