\r\n \t- Sometimes there are external pressures for boards to act in certain ways that come from critical stakeholder groups such as funders, members or associations of other nonprofit organizations in the same \u201cbusiness.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
- In the case of boards of relatively young organizations or those with a high percentage of new members, certain beliefs, attitudes or social norms may come from founders or members who have previous experience on other boards.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Similarly when most board members share a homogenous background in terms of such things as age, social status, ethnicity, etc., there is a greater likelihood that they will quickly evolve similar attitudes toward the way their roles and responsibilities on the board should be carried out.<\/li>\r\n \t
- In some boards, there are members with disproportionately larger resources (largest checkbooks, influential friends, political connections, etc.) who have a greater amount of influence in the group. It is not that they intentionally manipulate others, but nonetheless they may have a larger voice than others in shaping board culture.<\/li>\r\n \t
- One of the strongest influences shaping board culture is the behavior of those in the critical leadership positions of Board Chair and CEO. While these positions do not have formal authority to make board decisions, they do carry a great deal of informal influence over the process.<\/li>\r\n \t
- Finally, in addition to the influence of the Board Chair\/CEO positions, some boards evolve small sub-groups within themselves, sometimes referred to as cliques or \u201ccore groups\u201d (Bradshaw, Murray, & Wolpin, 1992). These informal groups are not recognized officially in any way though they may dominate certain committees or formal offices. They are important because the attitudes and beliefs of their members regarding how the board should operate or what position it should take on various issues can significantly impact those who are not part of the group. It is important to realize that \u201ccore groups\u201d are not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes they emerge simply because some people have more time and interest in the organization so do more and find others with a similar outlook to whom they naturally gravitate. Other inner groups develop because they are made up of people with similar periods of long tenure on the board (part of the founder\u2019s syndrome phenomenon discussed earlier). This is especially common when there are no fixed maximum terms of office for board members. New members might come and go but a core of \u201cold timers\u201d stays around.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n
Core groups become a problem when they engage in any of the following behaviors:<\/p>\r\n\r\n
\r\n \t- Control of information or a willful disregard for providing proper orientation to new members thus leading them to feel like outsiders;<\/li>\r\n \t
- Pushing an \u201cagenda\u201d of their own based on interests or positions on important issues that may not be shared by others; and<\/li>\r\n \t
- Engaging in \u201cbackstage\u201d politicking in the form of \u201csecret\u201d informal meetings outside of regular board meetings to plan how to have their positions on issues approved at the meeting.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\nHowever, whether or not core groups are a positive or negative influence on the board, it is useful to recognize they may exist and discuss the role they play so everything is out in the open.\r\n