please help me write an article critique for this article
Leadership in the Human Service Nonprofit Organization: The
Influence of the Board of Directors on Executive Director
Well-Being and
Jaime L. Olinskea and Chan M. Hellman b
aOffice of Development, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, USA; bHuman Relations, University of
Oklahoma, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
ABSTRACT
While one of the most important relationships for the success of human
service organizations, the interplay between an executive director and the
board of directors has scarcely been examined in the field of human
services. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of the
board of directors on well-being and burnout among executive directors.
This study found that when the board of directors was perceived as inter-
fering, the executive director was likely to report less of a sense of well-
being and more frequent burnout. Conversely, when the board of directors
was perceived as an enhancement, executive director sense of well-being
was higher and burnout lower.
KEYWORDS
Leadership and
organizational change;
management; workforce/
workplace issues in human
service organizations
The literature on nonprofit organizational governance has grown significantly over the past two
decades. There is, however, scant empirical literature examining the topic of the board–executive
director relationship, which is identified by many as the most important relationship in a nonprofit
organization’s governance structure (Eadie, 2001; Howe, 2004; Lechem, 2002; Light, 2002; Tebbe,
1998). The purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of the board of directors on
the well-being and burnout of executive directors among a sample of nonprofit human service
organizations.
As government funding for human services has continued to decline in the United States, the public
has become increasingly reliant on nonprofit organizations to fill the gap. The governance of a
nonprofit organization is the responsibility of the board of directors (Carver, 1997; Gies, Ott, &
Shafritz, 1990). The board has the legal responsibility to ensure that the organization is conducting
business in accordance with the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, and the organizational mission
and local, state, and federal laws (Dropkin & La Touche, 1998; O’Neill & Young, 1988). The human
service nonprofit board is generally elected in accordance with the bylaws (O’Neill & Young, 1988;
Wilbur, Smith, & Associates, 2000). Members are often chosen on the merits of business acumen,
professional expertise, community influence, and financial capacity to support the needs of the
human service organization (Wilber et al., 2000). Many of these descriptors may sound similar to
for-profit boards.
For some human service nonprofit organizations, the board has the goal of improving human
capital of at-risk individuals by fulfilling the stated service mission of the organization. Human
service nonprofit boards tend to be rather large, with a median of 17 members (Brudney, 2001).
CONTACT Chan M. Hellman chellman@ou.edu University of Oklahoma, Human Relations, 4502 East 41st Street, Tulsa, OK
74135, USA.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE
2017, VOL. 41, NO. 2, 95–105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1222976
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9897-9637
Similar to for-profit organizations, the members of the nonprofit board are often people in the
community with specialized knowledge or skills that are beneficial to the organization (e.g., finance,
community relations, corporate law). The members are sometimes people of known influence in the
community with the capacity to financially support the organization. Membership to boards is
decided by election, appointment, or the recommendation of other board members in collaboration
with the executive director. Most board members are not paid for their service (Bernstein, 1997;
Brudney, 2001). In contrast to the for-profit organization, human service nonprofit organizations are
accountable to the public at large and provide extensive transparency to the public regarding their
operations, budgets and activities.
The most common board functions cited in the literature are establishing the organization’s
mission; recruitment, selection, and evaluation of the executive director; overseeing strategic orga-
nizational planning; understanding and following all legal, ethical, financial, and moral obligations;
serving as a representative of the organizations in the community; and assisting with fundraising
goals (Herman, 2005; Knauft, Berger, & Gray, 1991; Powell & Steinberg, 2006). In addition, the
board is not to be a demand on the effective executive director by micromanaging the day-to-day
operations and activities. While it is not the intention to provide a comprehensive review of the
governance literature, this summary was intended to contextualize the board–executive director
relationship.
While the primary role of the board is to provide governance, the human service organization
executive director’s role is to implement the strategic plan and manage daily operations (Duca, 1996;
Houle, 1989; Wilbur et al., 2000). Part of those daily operations should be recruitment, selection, and
retention of effective staff and volunteers who provide direct service to clients (Bernstein, 1997;
Wolf, 1984). The executive director acts as a conduit that connects the board and the staff,
volunteers, and clients of the agency. The board communicates to the executive director, primarily
through the chairman of the board, acting as spokesperson, and the executive director distributes
directions and information to the staff. Conversely, the staff communicates information about the
daily operations to the executive director, who passes along the most important information to the
board through the chairman. This leadership role allows the executive director to function as a buffer
between the board and the staff, supporting effective nonprofit leadership practice (Carver, 1997;
Seel, Regel, & Meneghetti, 2001). Any evaluation of staff performance by board members should pass
through the executive director to the individual (Bernstein, 1997). The ability of the board chair and
the executive director to work together effectively is paramount to the organization’s success.
Sometimes the board chair plays the role of mentor and advisor, while other times playing a more
supportive role with the executive director
While regular communication with the board is vital, flooding the board with non-essential
information does not assist the board in determining whether organizational goals are being met
(Knauft et al., 1991). Indeed, effective leadership at this level focuses on the larger issues of policy and
on the impact of the organization on the community being served (Carver & Carver, 1996a). Rather
than trying to control all aspects of the organization, the board focuses on policy. The board empowers
and delegates to the executive director the responsibility of carrying out policies created by the board.
The executive director is then free to make the decisions necessary to work within the policies
established, but the board does not interfere with those decisions (Carver, 2002). The board clearly
states the expectations of performance to the executive director and monitors progress toward meeting
those expectations. This approach limits the role of the board to these four areas described: connecting
to the moral and legal owners of the organization, creating clear governing policies, establishing clear
expectations for organizational and executive director performance, and creating accountability pro-
cedures. Policy governance eliminates micromanaging, communication breakdowns, vague expecta-
tions, and distractions from the organization’s primary purpose (Carver & Carver, 1996b).
96 J. L. OLINSKE AND C. M. HELLMAN
Several researchers believe the most important relationship in a nonprofit organization is the
relationship between the board chair and the executive director; however, literature on this most
important relationship is paradoxically lacking. Nevertheless, it can be inferred from the literature
that the effectiveness of the organization hinges on the relationship between the board chair and
executive director. One common reason executive directors cite for resigning from a nonprofit
organization is their relationship with the board or the chairman of the board (Peters & Wolfred,
2001; Wolfred, Allison, & Masaoka, 1999). As previously discussed, the executive director and the
board chair are the conduits of communication between the board and the staff that manages daily
operations. The board chair and the executive director should trust one another and work together
harmoniously as the two members of the organization with the greatest amount of responsibility
(Bernstein, 1997; Knauft et al., 1991; Middleton, 1987; Vladeck, 1988; Wilbur et al., 2000). Because of
the nature of the relationship between the board and the executive director, there could exist the
potential for conflict and interference (Houle, 1989; O’Neill & Young, 1988). The best board–
executive director relationships are those in which the executive director does not dominate the
board, the board does not micromanage the daily operations of the agency, the board and the
executive director are not in disagreement about how to carry out the organizational mission, and
requests made by the board to the executive director are not excessive, given the executive director’s
resources (Houle, 1989). It is argued that the executive director be given the freedom and support
from the board to manage daily operations without interference (Wilbur et al., 2000). Given the
importance of the board–executive director relationship, the following hypotheses will be assessed.
H1: Executive director well-being will be negatively associated with an interfering board of directors.
H2: Executive director well-being will be positively associated with an enhancing board of directors.
Burnout
The most influential definition of burnout was offered by Maslach and Jackson (1986), wherein
burnout is described as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplish-
ment occurring in those who do people-oriented work. Over time, the two basic dimensions of
burnout that have shown the most robust relationship with job stressors are depersonalization and
emotional exhaustion (Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). While lack of personal accomplishment is cited
to be an additional factor in burnout, it has rarely been the primary focus of research (Demerouti,
Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2000). The burnout process begins with chronic stressors, which
lead to exhaustion; exhaustion grows into depersonalization and/or cynicism. If conditions continue
without improvement in some way, the worker begins to experience feelings of a lack of personal
accomplishment. This increasingly negative trajectory was described by Leiter and Maslach (1998)
and has been supported by other studies on burnout (Bakker, Schaufeli, Demerouti, Janssen, & Van
Der Hulst, 2000; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Leiter & Meechan, 1986).
Process definitions of burnout also point to stress resulting from discrepancies between expecta-
tions and reality as a contributing factor. As the stress over the imbalance between expectations and
reality grows, how stress is handled determines if the tension reaches an intensity and duration
sufficient for development into burnout. The individual may not notice their progression toward
burnout. It can be present for quite some time before the individual becomes aware of it (Schaufeli &
Enzmann, 1998).
For human service providers, the emotionally taxing nature of relationships with clients was thought
to be the primary cause of burnout (Maslach, 1993). Research by Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) found
that there were other job demands like heavy workload, time pressure, and conflicts surrounding roles in
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 97
the workplace, which were highly correlated with symptoms of burnout. These job demands were
actually more highly correlated with job burnout than emotionally taxing relationships with clients.
Meta-analyses identified many factors related to burnout such as lack of performance feedback, low
social support, and lack of independence. The Job Demands–Resources model takes a broader approach
to workplace stressors, as job demands are defined as any condition that potentially evokes stress
reactions. Thus, the individual worker, regardless of occupation or any other mitigating factor, self-
defines work-related stressors based on individual reactions to stress. It is this principle of the Job
Demands–Resources model that allows for freedom of application across all occupations and personal
characteristics of individual workers (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). From this
perspective, the board can be perceived by the executive director as either a supportive resource buffering
the effects of job stressors or as a demand contributing to the conditions associated with burnout by
interfering with the functions of leadership in human service organizations. Thus, the following
hypotheses are forwarded with regard to the board–executive director relationship.
H3: Board of director enhancement will be negatively associated with executive director burnout;
whereas, interference will be positively associated with executive director burnout.
H4: Board of director enhancement or interference will account for significant variance in executive
director burnout over and above well-being.
Subjects and procedure
Upon approval from the university’s human subject review board, a web-based link to the survey
with an explanatory message was emailed to a sample of 300 nonprofit human service organization
executive directors located in the southern plains of the United States. A statewide center for
nonprofit organizations that provides training and consultation for nonprofit human service capacity
building provided the email distribution list of executive directors. While 181 (60.3%) executive
directors agreed to participate and accessed the web-based survey, 140 (46.7%) participants provided
responses appropriate for analysis.
Participant demographics
It is important to note that demographic information on the 300 executive directors who received
the email invitation was not available. The average age of the participating executive directors was
50.0 years (SD = 10.14). The majority of the sample was female, at 71.7%, and most was Caucasian
(89.1%). Further, 38.6% reported having earned a bachelor’s degree and 42.9% reporting having
earned a graduate degree. Length of time as an executive director was broken down into categories:
less than 1 year (11.4%), 1–3 years (31.0%), 4–5 years (10.9%), 5–10 years (20.1%), and 20.7% with
more than 10 years. Just over 87% of respondents reported that they were full-time employees of the
nonprofit organization. The majority (67.9%) of the respondents had never held an executive
director position at another nonprofit organization.
Organization characteristics
The number of board members ranged between 5 and 100, with an average of 19.09 members
(SD = 14.4). The results show that the average number of volunteers for each organization was
196.99 (SD = 513.5) and the average number of paid staff was 38.93 (SD = 143.4). Most were
independent organizations, with 25.6% having a national affiliation. The participating executive
directors reported the annual budget of their nonprofit organization ranging from $0 to $70 million
with a mean of $2.58 million (SD = 8.43 million).
98 J. L. OLINSKE AND C. M. HELLMAN
Measures
Well-being was assessed using the Medical Outcomes Survey–Short Form 20 (Stewart, Hays, & Ware,
1988) for mental health and health perception. Mental health (5 items; M = 12.50, SD = 4.23)
includes such things as general mood, affect, and psychological well-being. A representative example
of the items asks how often during the past month the respondent has felt downhearted and blue.
Internal consistency reliability for this scale was .87. Health perception (5 items; M = 12.74,
SD = 4.84) measures the respondent’s overall perceptions of their current health condition. A
representative example of the items asks the respondent to rate their health in comparison to the
people they know. Internal consistency reliability for this scale was .92.
Board interference was measured with 10 items (M = 15.06, SD = 4.94), based on the Family-to-Work
Interference Scale (Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996) developed by the Sloan Work-Family
Researchers Electronic Network. Words such as home and personal were replaced with board, and
the word work to other aspects of my work to distinguish between board responsibilities and other work
responsibilities. A representative example ask if behavior that was effective and necessary for them with
the board was counterproductive for them in other aspects of their work. Respondents were asked to
reflect on their experiences over the past 3 months. The items were presented in four-point Likert scales
(1 = rarely to 4 = most of the time). Internal consistency reliability for this scale was .91.
Board enhancement was measured with 7 items (M = 18.56, SD = 6.15) based on the Family-to-Work
Enhancement Scale (Netemeyer et al., 1996) developed by the Sloan Work-Family Researchers Electronic
Network. Respondents were asked to reflect on their experiences over the past 3 months. The items were
presented in four-point Likert scales (1 = rarely to 4 = most of the time). Words such as home and personal
were replaced with board, to change the wording to distinguish between board responsibilities and other
work responsibilities. A representative example of the original items asks the respondent if his or her family
or personal life gives the energy to do their job. The revised version asks if the respondent’s relationship
with the board gives them the energy to do their job. Internal consistency reliability for this scale was .92.
Burnout was assessed using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI; Demerouti, Bakker,
Vardakou, & Kantas, 2003) to assess exhaustion and disengagement, classic symptoms of burnout.
The OLBI has 16 items (M = 44.26, SD = 7.42) presented in a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
agree to 4 = strongly disagree). Internal consistency reliability for the exhaustion scale was .90. Eight
items measure disengagement (M = 23.53, SD = 3.74). A representative example of the eight
disengagement items asks the respondent if they always find new and interesting aspects in their
work. Internal consistency reliability for the disengagement scale was .78. There are eight items that
measure exhaustion (M = 20.84, SD = 4.35). A representative example of the exhaustion items asks
the respondent if there are days they feel tired before they arrive at work. Internal consistency
reliability for the exhaustion scale was .88.
Data analysis plan
Statistical analyses were computed using version 19.0 of IBM SPSS software. Descriptive analysis
included percentiles, mean (M), standard deviation (SD), and Cronbach’s Alpha. In order to
examine the hypotheses of this study, Pearson product moment correlations (r) and hierarchical
regression analyses (R) were computed to examine the nature of the relationships. Because the
hypotheses were directional in nature, the correlations were tested at the one-tail with statistical
significance criteria set at the .05 type I error rate.
Results
Correlations
As seen in Table 1, a moderate correlation was observed between board interference and mental
health (r = .49, p < .01). Also, health perceptions were observed as having a moderate correlation
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 99
with board interference (r = .37, p < .01). Board enhancement had a moderate correlation with mental health issues (r = –.45, p < .01). Board enhancement had a weak correlation with health perceptions (r = –.25 p < .01). These findings suggest that as board interference increases, health perceptions become more negative. Additionally, as board enhancement increases, mental health becomes less dysfunctional and health perceptions become less negative. Ultimately, executive director well-being was negatively associated with board interference and positively associated with board enhancement, respectively.
A moderate correlation was observed between disengagement and board interference (r = –.42,
p < .01), while a strong correlation was observed between exhaustion and board interference
(r = –.56, p < .01). Also, disengagement had a moderate correlation with board enhancement
(r = .46, p < .01). Board enhancement had a moderate correlation with exhaustion (r = .44,
p < .01). These findings suggest that board interference was associated with higher disengagement
and exhaustion dimensions of burnout. Conversely, board enhancement was associated with lower
disengagement and exhaustion dimensions of burnout.
Mental health had a strong association with disengagement (r = –.53, p < .01), while health perceptions had a moderate correlation with disengagement (r = –.43, p < .01). A strong relationship was observed between mental health and exhaustion (r = –.57, p < .01). Health perceptions had a strong correlation with exhaustion (r = –.76, p < .01). These findings suggest that executive director well-being was negatively associated with disengagement and exhaustion dimensions of burnout.
Executive director burnout
To test the hypothesis that board of director enhancement and interference would account for
significant variance in executive director burnout over and above well-being, a hierarchical regres-
sion analysis was computed with disengagement as the dependent variable (see Table 2). In the first
step, mental health and health perception [R2 = .303, F(2,124) = 26.925, p < .01] account for 30.3% of
the variance in disengagement. Next, board interference and enhancement were entered into the
regression analysis and accounted for significant variance in disengagement above and beyond well-
being [ΔR2 = .076; R2 = .379, F(4,122) = 18.582, p < .01].
Finally, we examined the board interference and enhancement on the burnout dimension of
exhaustion for executive directors over and above well-being (see Table 3). In the first step, mental
health and health perception [R2 = .592, F(2,128) = 92.848, p < .01] account for 59.2% of the variance
with exhaustion. Next, board interference and enhancement were entered into the regression
analysis. The results of the hierarchical regression show that these variables account for an additional
4.5% of significant variance in exhaustion above-and-beyond executive director well-being
[ΔR2 = .045; R2 = .637, F(4,126) = 55.203, p < .01].
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate human service nonprofit organization executive
directors’ relationships with their boards of directors. Further, this study set out to examine the effect
of the relationship being experienced as interference or enhancement, well-being, and the two main
Table 1. Zero-order correlation matrix.
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mental health 12.50 4.23 (.857)
Health perceptions 12.74 4.84 .605 (.916)
Disengagement 23.53 3.74 −.528 −.427 (.782)
Exhaustion 20.84 4.35 −.760 −.568 .711 (.876)
Board enhancement 18.56 6.15 −.445 −.249 .464 .437 (.918)
Board interference 15.06 4.94 .488 .373 −.416 −.558 −.541 (.914)
Notes. Coefficient alphas are shown in parentheses on the diagonal. Correlations are statistically significant at the p < .01 level.
100 J. L. OLINSKE AND C. M. HELLMAN
dimensions of burnout—exhaustion and disengagement. This study provides new information useful
to understanding the relationship between the board of directors and the executive directors of
human service organizations. The research illustrates the effect the board can have on the well-being
and burnout of the executive director. The findings of this study are supported by conceptual and
empirical models for disengagement and exhaustion (burnout). Board interference, was shown to be
related to higher mental health dysfunction and more-negative health perceptions. Board enhance-
ment was shown to be related to lower mental health dysfunction. The results indicate that board
interference is related to higher disengagement and exhaustion above and beyond mental health and
health perceptions. Based on the burnout literature, when job demands are high and resources are
limited, executive directors are likely to become exhausted and experience limited mental energy
(Bakker, Demerouti, & Euwema, 2005; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli,
2003). Also, the results indicate that board enhancement is related to lower disengagement and
exhaustion above and beyond executive director well-being. This supports the tenet that job
resources (such as a supportive board of directors) buffer the effects of job demands, effectively
reducing the potential of burnout for executive directors.
Table 2. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis—disengagement.
Disengagement
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 30.141 .948
Mental health −.374 .084 −.415*
Health perception −.148 .072 −.192*
R2 .303
F 26.925*
Step 2
Constant 26.144 1.951
Mental health −.226 .089 −.251*
Health perception −.156 .069 −.203*
Board interference −.054 .067 −.073*
Board enhancement .166 .054 .272*
R2 .379
ΔF 7.442*
ΔR2 .076
*p < .05.
Table 3. Summary of hierarchical regression analysis—exhaustion.
Exhaustion
B SE β
Step 1
Constant 30.971 .796
Mental health −.638 .071 −.630*
Health perception −.180 .061 −.207*
R2 .592
F 92.848*
Step 2
Constant 31.194 1.634
Mental health −.524 .074 −.518*
Health perception −.161 .058 −.185*
Board interference −.178 .058 −.206*
Board enhancement .044 .045 .064*
R2 .637
ΔF 7.756*
ΔR2 .045
*p < .05.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 101
The potential impact of executive director burnout on the human service organization is perhaps
incalculable. The emotional and mental exhaustion, negative attitudes, and decreased effectiveness
and performance could each have serious and far-reaching effects on the organization. Also, the
executive director experiencing burnout is likely to also experience a reduced sense of effectiveness,
decreased motivation, and dysfunctional behaviors and attitudes at work.
Limitations of study
The first potential limitation of this study is the size of the sample used. Clearly, replications using
larger samples could enhance the confidence in the generalizability of our results. The geographic
location of the sample, a medium-sized city in the southern plains of the United States could limit
the generalizability of the findings. Clearly, a more robust design using a nationwide study would
yield more information about the influence of board members on executive director burnout in
human service organizations. Another potential limitation of the study is the demographic and
organizational characteristics represented by the sample. The average age of the sample was 50.0; the
sample was primarily White females with a college education. The characteristics represent a wide
variety of organizational size. Further study is needed to determine the demographics of the
population and to better understand the representativeness of the sample. Another limitation
could be the measures used to assess burnout and well-being and to assess board interference and
enhancement. Alternative indicators may assist in comparing the findings of this study to other
human service leadership studies. Lastly, the cross-sectional, correlational design of the study may
create some limitations. A longitudinal study would yield more information about the impact of the
board. While these and other limitations are important, this study provides new insight into the
relationship between the board of directors and the executive directors of human service organiza-
tions. The ever-increasing role of nonprofit organizations in the United States as the role of the
government recedes and leaves gaps in services for at-risk clients makes the study of the nonprofit
organizational leadership structure not only timely, but vital.
Implications for research
The literature on the relationship between the board and the executive director is lacking. While
many recognize the importance of this relationship, the limited research creates a gap in our
understanding of human service organizational leadership and effectiveness. This study helps lay
the foundation for a more complete understanding of the ways in which the board impacts the
executive director. The results show that for this data, the board does have a significant influence on
the mental health, health perceptions, disengagement, and exhaustion of executive directors. An
interesting finding is that the relationship between board enhancement and more-positive health
perceptions was not statistically significant, but the relationship between board interference and
more-negative health perceptions was statistically significant. This particular finding highlights the
need for further research to understand the impact of the board on health perceptions. Additionally,
this research presents new findings that are needed to better understand the relationship between the
board of directors and executive directors of human service organizations.
Future research could advance our understanding of executive director burnout by focusing on
board-member competency from a human resource management perspective. Is a competent board
of directors a resource buffering stressful demands for executive directors? Wright and Millesen
(2008) found that board member self-report of role ambiguity was negatively associated with their
level of engagement as reported by the executive director. Furthermore, they found that training and
development were negatively associated with ambiguity. Indeed, both the practitioner and research
literature suggest potential strategies for board development that may have bearing on the relation-
ship with the executive director (cf. Brown, 2007; Golensky, 1993; Miller-Millesen, 2003). Volunteer-
board-member competence relies on recruitment and selection and on orientation/training processes
102 J. L. OLINSKE AND C. M. HELLMAN
that will shape the nature of the board’s relationship with the executive director. Recruiting and
selecting board members with key skills (e.g., financial management, public relations, human
resource management) could develop the appropriate level of engagement with the executive
director through formal orientation and training processes. Nonprofit organizations that have
effective board recruitment and development processes are more likely to perform at a higher
level and be perceived as effective by stakeholders (Brown, 2007; Herman & Renz, 2000). Brown
(2007) developed a board-capital-based model in which recruitment, orientation, and evaluation
contributed to board-member competency. Brown’s findings support member competency as a
mediator between recruitment and orientation processes and board performance. Future research
could extend Brown’s board capital model by investigating the relationship between board compe-
tence (human capital) and executive director well-being as an indicator of the relationship capital of
the board.
Implications to executive leadership
This study has implications for executive leadership in nonprofit organizations. These findings
emphasize the need for effective governance of the organization to protect both the executive
director and the organization from the destructive effects of burnout. For instance, the human
service nonprofit organization leadership should carefully define the roles of both the board and the
executive director (Carver, 2002, 2006). As discussed by Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998), burnout
begins in part with tension arising from the discrepancies between the expectations of a worker and
the sometimes disappointing reality of daily life in the work environment. As the policy governance
model dictates, the board must clearly communicate expectations and monitor the executive
director’s progress toward meeting those expectations. While this clear communication may not
eliminate unrealistic expectations entirely, it lays the appropriate foundation for the board of
director and executive director relationship. Policy governance eliminates micromanaging, commu-
nication breakdowns, vague expectations, and distractions from the organization’s primary purpose
(Carver & Carver, 1996b).
Organizational responsibility
In light of the potential organizational impact of burnout and executive director job strain, what
responsibilities belong to the board, the organization as a whole, or the executive director individu-
ally? Board responsibility (Carver, 2006) would potentially include six basic initiatives. First, the
board must engage in strategic planning, especially as it relates to sources of stress. Second, the board
must prioritize the responsibility of the executive director in light of the ends of the organization.
Third, succession planning must be valued and practiced. Fourth, the prudent board will encourage
and promote training opportunities for all members of the organization. Fifth, offering sabbatical
options for volunteers and staff could provide the kind of break from chronic stressors and could
break the cycle of burnout. Lastly, the board must share the responsibility of acquiring resources,
including fundraising efforts to sustain the work of the organization and the mission.
Organizational responsibility, including foundations that fund nonprofit organizations, is cen-
tered on eliminating as much stress as possible for the organization, the volunteers, and the staff.
These responsibilities mesh with the responsibilities of the board. Sources of stress should be
identified and analyzed to find ways to reduce or eliminate stressors. Funding initiatives such as
training opportunities, multiyear grant consideration, sabbaticals, and job coaches are areas where
foundations can lend financial support and make a big difference day-to-day for the nonprofit
organization. Individuals both on the board and on staff must take responsibility for board devel-
opment, training, wellness, and delegation of work tasks. With the board, foundations, organizations,
and individuals all taking responsibility for the health and well-being of the organization and the
people involved, significant progress could be made toward breaking the cycle of burnout. This work
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 103
would also aid in a shift organizational cultures to a healthier environment for all involved. Healthier
organizations are capable of providing services to at-risk clients with less of a toll on all of those
parties that contribute to the ends of the organization.
Chan M. Hellman http://orcdi.org/0000-0002-9897-9637
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 22, 309–328. doi:10.1108/02683940710733115
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10, 170–180. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the
job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 393–417. doi:10.1080/
13594320344000165
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Demerouti, E., Janssen, P. P. M., & Van Der Hulst, R. (2000). Using equity theory to
examine the difference between burnout and depression. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 13, 247–268. doi:10.1080/
10615800008549265
Bernstein, P. S. (1997). Best practices of effective nonprofit organizations: A practitioner’s guide. New York, NY:
Foundation Center.
Brown, W. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications for performance.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17, 301–317. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1542-7854
Brudney, J. L. (2001). The board of directors: Strategic vision for the volunteer corps. In T. D. Connors (Ed.), The
nonprofit handbook: Management (3rd ed., pp. 684–704). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Carver, J. (1997). Boards that make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Carver, J. (2002). John Carver on board leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Carver, J., & Carver, M. (1996a). Basic principles of policy governance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Carver, J., & Carver, M. (1996b). Your roles and responsibilities as a board member. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of
Management Review, 18, 621–656.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). A model of burnout and life satisfaction among
nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32, 454–464.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments:
A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 12–23. doi:10.1027//1015-
5759.19.1.12
Dropkin, M., & La Touche, B. (1998). The budget-building book for nonprofits: A step-by-step guide for nonprofit
managers and boards. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Duca, D. J. (1996). Nonprofit boards: Roles, responsibilities and performance. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Eadie, D. C. (2001). The board-savvy CEO. Washington, DC: BoardSource.
Gies, D. L., Ott, J. S., & Shafritz, J. M. (1990). The nonprofit organization: Essential readings. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Golensky, M. (1993). The board-executive relationship in nonprofit organizations: Partnership or power struggle?
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4, 177–191. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1542-7854
Herman, R. D. (2005). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit
organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30, 146–160. doi:10.1177/02750740022064605
Houle, C. O. (1989). Governing boards: Their nature and nurture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Howe, F. (2004). The nonprofit leadership team: Building the board-executive director partnership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Knauft, E. B., Berger, R. A., & Gray, S. T. (1991). Profiles of excellence: Achieving success in the nonprofit sector. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lechem, B. (2002). Chairman of the board. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
104 J. L. OLINSKE AND C. M. HELLMAN
http://orcdi.org/0000-0002-9897-9637
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320344000165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800008549265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800008549265
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1542-7854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1542-7854
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02750740022064605
Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (1998). Burnout. In H. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health (pp. 347–357). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leiter, M. P., & Meechan, K. A. (1986). Role structure and burnout in the field of human services. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 22, 47–52. doi:10.1177/002188638602200107
Light, P. C. (2002). Pathways to nonprofit excellence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multi-dimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.),
Professional burnout: Recent development in theory and research. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychological Press.
Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The
nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 141–153). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 521–547. doi:10.1177/0899764003257463
Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and
family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400–410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
O’Neill, M., & Young, D. R. (1988). Educating managers of nonprofit organizations. New York, NY: Praeger.
Peters, J., & Wolfred, T. (2001). Daring to lead: Nonprofit executive directors and their work experience. San Francisco,
CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services.
Powell, W. W., & Steinberg, R. (2006). The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London, UK:
Taylor & Francis.
Seel, K., Regel, M. M., & Meneghetti, M. M. (Eds.). (2001). Governance: Creating capable leadership in the nonprofit
sector (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Stewart, A. L., Hays, R. D., & Ware, J. E. (1988). The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in
a patient population. Medical Care, 26, 724–735. doi:10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007
Tebbe, D. (1998). For the good of the cause: Board-building lessons from highly effective nonprofits. San Jose, CA: Center
for Excellence in Nonprofits.
Vladeck, B. C. (1988). The practical differences in managing nonprofits: A practitioner’s perspective. In M. O’Neill &
D. R. Young (Eds.), Educating managers of nonprofit organizations (pp. 71–81). New York, NY: Praeger.
Wilbur, R. H., Smith, B., & Associates. (2000). The complete guide to nonprofit management. New York, NY: Wiley.
Wolf, T. (1984). The nonprofit organization: An operating manual. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wolfred, T., Allison, M., & Masaoka, J. (1999). Leadership lost: A study on executive director tenure and experience. San
Francisco, CA: Support Center for Nonprofit Management.
Wright, B. E., & Millesen, J. L. (2008). Nonprofit board role ambiguity: Investigating its prevalence, antecedents, and
consequences. American Review of Public Administration, 38, 322–338. doi:10.1177/0275074007309151
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 105
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638602200107
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257463
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074007309151
Copyright of Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance is the
property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
The nonprofit human service organization
Executive director
The board chair–executive director relationship
Burnout
Method
Subjects and procedure
Participant demographics
Organization characteristics
Measures
Data analysis plan
Results
Correlations
Executive director burnout
Discussion
Limitations of study
Implications for research
Implications to executive leadership
Organizational responsibility
ORCID
References
