Blog 2 - Midwestern Contemporary Art

Hello Everyone!

Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post is about the Midwestern Contemporary Art (MCA) case study from the textbook. I am choosing to do part A and the discussion questions that follow. This dispute is between MCA's board chairman Peter Smith and the MCA. Peter Smith ended up leaving the MCA due to constant disagreements with the executive director Keith Schmidt about expansion choices for the MCA. There was "very critical financial situation" due to the fact that there was a $5 million pledge to the MCA that had not yet been honored.

Discussion Questions for Part (A)

1. Is Peter Smith micromanaging Keith Schmidt? 
I feel that to a certain extent, yes, Peter Smith is micromanaging Keith Schmidt. The roles of board chairman and executive director should be much more defined. The role ambiguity proves a difficult situation for Peter and Keith. Who has more decision power than the other? Peter challenged Keith during a quoted meeting. Keith wanted rent rent extra office space and hire more staff, but Peter challenged Keith's idea. Maybe Peter's claim was just. Maybe Keith needed to be  micromanaged during some issues. It seems like Smith is much more conservative than Schmidt in terms of financial issues, which could be good or bad.

2. What type of conflict are they experiencing? 
Smith and Schmidt are experiencing interpersonal conflicts in terms of risk and being conservative. Smith likes to play it safe and avoid risk and have many backup plans. He also is much more conservative. Schmidt on the other hand, prefers some risk and to reach his defined goals. There could be an age difference here.

3. What can an organization do structurally to reduce conflict resulting from role ambiguity?
An organization can attempt to reduce this type of conflict from role ambiguity by having clearly defined roles with including the amount of decision power and who has the final say. If there was a clear decision structure or flow chart, then this conflict could have been prevented. Stating that the board of trustees has the final say would have reduced this conflict. Consistent communication could have also reduced the conflict in this situation. Clearly defined and widely accepted goals help to align the position of all members in an organization.

Another way to reduce this type of conflict is to not be under such strict financial constraints. This is difficult for many organizations, but the unneeded stress and burden of the fragile financial situation  created much tension for all parties.

4. How should Peter Smith react when his advice is not followed by the board? 
Peter should not act upset when he doesn't get his way. This belittles or eliminates any respect that the members of the organization may have had for him. It shows himself as weak and unwilling to participate when things don't go his way. Holding a grudge shows that a person is difficult to work with and may prevent future relationships both personal and professional. Perhaps Smith can request a more clearly defined role to clarify what he should and should not be doing.

5. How are the roles of board chairman and an executive director different in an organization such as the MCA?
I did some research to get a clear definition of these types of roles.
Board Chairman - (1) Legal Oversight, (2) Management Oversight, (3) Financial Oversight, (4) Program Oversight. "The board of directors provides oversight and guidance to the executive director and the nonprofit’s other staff members. The board ensures that the organization stays aligned with its mission and values in addition to complying with all federal and state laws."1

Executive Director - (1) Staff Management. (2) Development and Management of Policies and Programs (3) Staff Liaison to the Board of Directors. "The executive director is more involved than the board in the day-to-day operations of the organization"1.


These roles sound similar, but when their duties are presented, their roles cover different aspects of the organization. Executive Directors focus on the short-term, day-to-day operations while the Board Chairman focus more in the long term plans and goals of the organization.

Well, that's it for me everyone. I appreciate you all stopping by and if you are new to my blog, then welcome! Stay tuned for more negotiation topics to come.

Thank you

Bret Thomas





Sources:

1. http://cullinanelaw.com/nonprofit-board-vs-executive-director/