College students as catalysts for social change: a case study

Board Dynamics

We initially incorporated with the founders as the Board, which is apparently not uncommon for startups. Our original board was ten people. Then we lost a few members (due to conflicts of interest in two cases, and a lack of fit in another), so we actually needed to add members to regain what we had lost. At the same time, it came down to a need to add certain areas of expertise and experience to the board.

In some cases the founders feel they are not being supported as much as they wish. One of the board members commented: “Obviously the people on the board want to help them but they’re not, they don’t have that same level of passion that the three founders have.” In an interview with one of the board members he states:

Roy, Pete and Mackenzie: they wake up, they live, sleep, they hang out together, this is their life. And you know I think it is hard for them to realize that there are some people, that as important as SLP is to them, you know, they are willing to help SLP. It’s not the most important thing to them, its one of several things on their plate along with their kids, and their job and other commitments.

Nickers who has moved from being one of the co-founders to serving on the board talks about his personal struggle of changing roles:

I think the biggest struggle--is for myself being on the board--is kind of having that gung-ho SLP national core side of it, maintaining that while being on the board… and it is like, ‘Well we need to have a meeting this day you need to do this, and that has to go to the board’ and then they have to be receptive to it as well. So it is kind of that learning curve there trying to figure out, ok, well this is a new position, how do we work on that?

The founders had been used to being able to make decisions without bringing them to an outside group for approval and this has been a change. One of the issues that came up with the board is the need to make the organization understood well enough that it can earn the “soccer mom endorsement.” This is a reference that SLP meets concerns of the average parent that the “product” of tours or camps produces a positive growth experience and is compellingly safe.

There are some additional issues that arose in moving from a board initially made up of the founders and those closely aligned with them. The first board members were all people that knew the founders as students. In my interviews and observations it seemed that this group had a harder time accepting the transition of the founders into their new professional role. Those that came onto the board later did not have that earlier history. The changing composition of the board members also brought older people and the issue of generational concerns was raised several times. One of the board members made this comment:

I think the [national] core in their professional development at this time doesn’t quite identify the difference between mentoring, hard mentoring…and someone telling them no. And they, what they are looking for is sort of enthusiasm and permission on every turn and they get a lot of that too but they sometimes get this cautious perspective. We also, I think, suffer from another sort of generational problem and that is that I think sometimes persons who are older, therefore possibly more experienced, will be cautious about telling young adults that they can’t or shouldn’t and they will…be much less direct in their statements about whether this next action should be taken or not.

This lack of directness on the part of the board has caused some confusion between the founders and the board. Another committee member made a similar statement about generational difference in terms of how the SLP style works with the population they are addressing, but perhaps less effectively with board and committee members.

They’ve got a leadership style that works with those kids and its not about telling them what to do, its about letting kids discover what to do and giving them the freedom to do that and I think that is also a leadership skill…That’s not something that is easy to cultivate, its innate and it might be generational as well. I mean when you look at their co-leadership style it’s sort of in the spirit of that. That they would let, you know, the planning for the trips be more organic and that would drive me nuts, I just didn’t grow up that way.

This honest statement from a committee member gets at the gifts of the group and also perhaps some of the generational differences that created tension between older board members and the founders. He goes on to say:

I think it must be difficult; it would be difficult for a board of directors to work with that style, simply because it might not be a cultural fit in terms of a board having patience with that kind of a program. Not having enough in their mind, maybe not having enough structure to it, it’s too free wheeling.

In discussing growth for SLP and where the group wanted to go in the future a board member made the following comment:

It just hit me that we can’t; it is not the board’s place to tell you what you want to be when you grow up. The struggle is we all have opinions, but yours are the ones that matter when it comes to that, and then we can help you with all the rest. Watch out! That is what the grey hairs do!

As the organization grows and the risk increases the board is also concerned about issues of possible negligence and liability. Concerns were raised from the board regarding some of the in-depth exercises that the group uses on the trips and whether they are therapeutic or non-therapeutic. There was a discussion during my observation of the board regarding the bad things that could potentially happen using a therapeutic model when not properly trained. A concern was raised that unmasking someone’s trauma could cause a suicide after the trip. The question was posed “How much risk taking is OK?” This is a double-edged sword for the group as part of the outcomes they seek is a deep level of intimacy and connection, but at what potential cost?