I met with a colleague and good friend recently, and we discussed the frustration organisations experience when new leaders resist board orientation which could render their participation more meaningful and on point. Instead, they are eager to teach and inform, even when the guidance they provide is redundant and detrimental to the overall process of effective forward movement.
Ego is prevalent in leadership, and nonprofit boards are no exception. While some directors are more than ready to jump in and execute on historically documented vision, others believe it imperative to 'improve' or 'change' the status quo — even if it's working — so they can go away with an imagined feather in their cap. As a result, board members are subjected to an endless stream of document review, planning sessions, and discussion surrounding the nonprofit's infrastructure, vision, or mission — with little actually getting done.
There is no doubt new board members can be a great asset by introducing new ideas and tweaking old assumptions. However, a constantly changing landscape can be as destructive as arteriosclerotic bureaucracy, and ultimately, too much navel-gazing can lead to running in place. Balance must be struck between meaningful input and analysis paralysis, or nitpicking which merely rearranges the deck chairs without providing much that is comparatively new, inspiring, or relevant to the entity's bottom line.
— From "How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Nonprofit Hell"