Patricia Bradshaw, author of “Concise Introduction to Nonprofit Governance.”

, Professor Emerita at Saint Mary鈥檚 University (in Nova Scotia, Canada), has just published a book, 鈥�,鈥� that provides an overview of governance in the nonprofit sector, including board responsibilities. The book draws on interpretive, structural and political perspectives on nonprofit governance and examines contingency factors, including how the external environment impacts governance. She spoke to PANL Perspectives about the value of her book and how it helps with organizational challenges.

Question: Your book is an important contribution to the nonprofit field. What鈥檚 the crux of it?

Patricia Bradshaw: The book challenges us to think about the difference between governance, leadership and management. It also looks at some of the processes and dynamics of governing at different systems levels. We’re seeing now that you govern boards and govern organizations, but there’s also a function for governance at different systems levels, such as network governance, social systems governance, global governance and even AI governance.

Governance is the function of challenging how we make sense of what鈥檚 happening around us. In a world often characterized by multiple and sometimes fractured interpretations and even distortions of reality, where does that function come in to say, “Are we telling the right story? Are there alternate stories that need to be told?” For me, that’s where governance best contributes and is what I call, in my own vernacular, “a loving challenge.”

Question: What governance trend have you noticed, and how does the book address it?

Patricia Bradshaw: The book looks at various theoretical perspectives of governance and looks at the roles, functions and responsibilities of boards. It also explores how we select governance models in different nonprofits. There鈥檚 a trend that I believe is driving the corporatization of the sector — a push to say that there’s one, best way — so the book celebrates the multiplicity of different ways of governing.

The book is based on Contingency Theory — the idea that there鈥檚 no one, best model — and it examines different contingency factors. So, what’s the best governance model? Well, it all depends, says Contingency Theory. There’s a place, in times of more complexity, for alternative models of organizing. 聽for instance, is looking at reimagining governance. There are exciting models that are looking at more flexible, more dynamic, more entrepreneurial models of governance.

The choice of governance model depends on the history of a nonprofit, on what stage in the life cycle the board is at, on values and mission, on external environments and on other variables.

I鈥檓 trying to challenge the dominant model and create space for innovation and alternatives but to do it in a way that’s theoretically grounded. Let’s have some fun. Let’s not be afraid of questioning this governance thing. Let’s keep it adapting to fit the circumstances that we’re in.

Question: Are organizations and the sector in Canada struggling with governance?

Read “Real-Life ‘Succession’,” a discussion with Cathy Barr and Susanna Kislenko about their report, “Good Governance and Leadership in Founder-led Organizations” (2025). It offers guidance for building effective boards, managing founder transitions and avoiding Founder鈥檚 Syndrome.

Patricia Bradshaw: I do think that we’re nervous about having candid conversations at the level of boards. For example: 鈥淲e have a founder who’s dominating the board. We have different ideological perspectives. We have a lack of commitment.鈥� 聽Board members often tend to silence or avoid discussions of interest, conflict, power and different models of working. If we can have frank and honest conversations, I think we can start to have more meaningful governance.

In the book, I talk about latent conflicts; for example, fundamental disagreements and different perspectives, that stay under the surface and then eventually blow up. If we don’t normalize conversations about multiple constituents, multiple meanings and interpretations of reality, and different conflicting interests, we can’t have good governance.

Question: Why talk about power when looking at governance and boards of directors?

Patricia Bradshaw: I’ve frequently felt like the work that the nonprofit sector does is informed by good intentions — the charitable model, that desire for making a difference in the world — but unless we talk about power, inequality and systemic oppression, we’re not going to get to the kind of meaningful change we want.

There’s nothing wrong with power. Power is the ability to get things done. It’s when we don’t talk about power, don’t talk about who’s got the power and what interests their power is being used to advance, and have those conversations that are frank and honest, we’re not going to get to the place where we need to be resilient and move forward.

So, it’s having the courage to surface those conversations, because they’re tough ones: you’re right into talking about oppression, racism, white supremacy and a lot of topics that we’re sometimes veering away from.

Patricia Bradshaw . She suggests considering buying the e-book rather than the paperback:

Question: Why does government have a role in sports, and how is government involved in terms of sports governance?

Prime Minister John Diefenbaker at the opening of the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1961.

Bill Cross: Governments have a huge role. They’ve been releasing sports policies for seventy years; Canada’s first Sports Minister was under Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, who was himself a big sports fan.

Canada has sports policies with enormous objectives, everything from creating national unity to integrating new immigrants into society — to creating social cohesion within communities to creating an international brand of excellence for Canadians through the Olympics. Also, the Truth and Reconciliation Committee has , because sports has an important role to play in reconciliation with Indigenous communities. Then there are all the goals around health benefits and personal development. The federal government has had these aspirations and has put out all these policies, yet they’ve been lax over the years in terms of oversight of NSOs that they fund.

NSOs are at arm’s-length from the government, yet they’re substantially funded by the federal government. One of the challenges is that you need a lot of coordination between federal and provincial governments if you’re going to get to effective oversight of NSOs and their provincial counterparts 鈥� and the coordination could be even more complicated if you consider that most sports are delivered at a municipal level, through city-run programs.

Q: Why and how is there a lack of government oversight of NSOs?

Ontario Appeal Court Chief Justice Charles Dubin led the “Commission of Inquiry Into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance,” or the “Dubin Inquiry,” released in 1990.

Cross: It goes back decades. If you read the report of the , the inquiry after Ben Johnson was caught doping, more than 30 years ago, you’ll see there were federal officials back then who basically said, 鈥榃e have no regulatory authority. We just fund the NSOs.鈥� Charles Dubin, the commissioner of the Inquiry, pushed back on this claim and essentially said, ‘Wait a minute. If you fund them, then you do have some obligation, you must have a regulatory role.鈥�

This has been an ongoing, back-and-forth issue where the government and Sport Canada issue recommendations and mandates but are unclear about what sort of oversight there is or will be. There are examples of the government calling for NSOs to do things, and the NSOs didn’t, and there were no apparent penalties in terms of withholding funding — and that’s a big part of the criticism in the last few years in Canada.

Q: How is anyone tackling these problems? Did the federal government’s parliamentary committees help anything?

Cross: There were two committees. The looked specifically at the experiences of women in sport. Young girls have traditionally been under-represented in participation in sport. The committee was interested in how to increase access and participation, but it also veered into girls’ and women’s experiences, and how to address them when other controversies came to light.

But the committee that was most in the news, in 2023, was the , which, from a parliamentary perspective, oversees sport in Canada. These committee hearings started, really, because of Hockey Canada, and brought in a lot of other NSOs, athletes and academics to give their testimonies. Canadians learned about the problems in our sporting system. We tend to think of sports as a feel-good activity. We cheer for our favourite teams. We play in our beer league on Friday nights. But hundreds of millions of tax-payers鈥� dollars are spent, and millions of young people’s lives are involved at community levels. Without proper safeguards, people are subject to abuse and unpleasant experiences. The committee and hearings provided opportunities for Canadians to learn about what鈥檚 happening in terms of governance and alleged abuses in our sporting system.

Artistic swimming athletes have been seeking damages for alleged abuse by national team coaches.

The committees also provided an opportunity for the opposition parties, and athletes as well, to push back and say, 鈥楾here has to be more oversight and regulation.鈥� One result was that there was some really good journalism done that provided focal points for the parliamentary committee, raised public awareness, and put pressure on the government regarding the glaring lack of oversight in spending all this money in an important area of public policy and people鈥檚 lives. And the hearings weren鈥檛 only about Hockey Canada. There were abuses, problems and allegations in , , artistic swimming, , and on and on.

In my mind, the $64,000 question is: Why hasn’t Sport Canada been more proactive in trying to enforce rules through funding mechanisms? They really seem out of touch.

There was a story, for example, about Sport Canada issuing glowing “report cards” for governance of certain NSOs in 2022 鈥� Sport Canada gave NSOs high marks — when serious problems were being raised about those same NSOs. It makes you wonder about Sport Canada.

The enforcement in sport should be similar to the process in federal funding for healthcare. The federal government doesn’t have authority over healthcare under the Constitution, but it exercises the provisions of the Canada Health Act using the power of the purse: the government will give funding only if provinces and territories agree to certain things. Unfortunately, Sport Canada hasn鈥檛 consistently enforced regulations that way — or in any other way.

Q: In terms of governance, how have sports organizations gotten away with ? I mean, some of it seems systemic.

For more about issues in board governance in hockey organizations, read “The Hockey Canada Fiasco: Yves Savoie Offers Lessons for Nonprofits in Canada.”

Cross: One criticism that comes up relates to boards of directors — several types of criticisms. For example, some boards are amateurish in not having competency matrices for the kinds of people you should have on a board. Too often, boards are filled with people who have conflicts of interest, resulting in boards that are mostly filled with people who had been involved in the sport, and it’s never good to have mainly insiders on a board. You need diverse perspectives.

And the boards aren’t diverse in other ways, so they’re ill-equipped to deal with issues related to misuse of athletes, or racism, or other issues.

When I teach my course at 杏吧原创, I show students a picture of the Hockey Canada board of directors in 2018, when the current, alleged criminal activity took place 鈥� and the picture shows a group of middle-aged, white men, with no women and no people of colour. Even though girls’ and women’s hockey was probably growing faster than boys’ and men’s hockey, there were no women on the board. And that’s not unique to Hockey Canada’s board; other NSOs are similar.

Fortunately, in the past couple of years, I suspect due to the attention brought by parliamentary and media scrutiny, boards are beginning to diversify.

There鈥檚 a lack of board transparency as well. I found this in my own work in trying to go through NSOs’ annual reports and websites to look for sources of funding and other information, and I discovered very little transparency.

The government takes responsibility for some of this. For years, they’ve pushed for athletic excellence on the world stage; because of the 1976 Olympics in Montreal and the 1988 Olympics in Calgary, when Canada became the only country in history to host two Olympics and not win a gold medal, the government began pushing for medals. As they prepared for the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, there was a real push to avoid another national sports embarrassment. So, in the early 2000s, was started, and a large portion of government funding depended on athletic success and winning medals at international events.

The increased pressure on NSOs led, almost inevitably, to abuses of athletes. Susan Auch, former CEO of Speed Skating Canada and an Olympic medalist herself, spoke about this at a . She talked about being bullied by Own the Podium and Sport Canada to focus on athletes who would win medals. When that kind of pressure is on NSOs, how do they deal with the successful coaches who are being accused of abuse? The series of was another example.

Q: What is the Canadian Sport Governance Code, and is it helping at all?

Cross: The Code is a few years old, but it was .

Hopefully, there will be more hearings next year to follow up on implementation of the Code鈥檚 provisions, because it calls for things like 40% representation of each gender on boards of directors, for more diversity on NSO boards, for greater transparency in NSOs, and a whole lot more. And the Minister, only when pushed at a parliamentary hearing, conceded that the government would withhold funding from NSOs that didn’t comply with the Code by, I think, April 2025.

One thing that’s disappointing is that the Code recommends more athlete representation on boards, but doesn’t demand that a board position be reserved for athlete representation. For me, that’s a problem. If athletes aren’t members of boards to voice concerns and experiences, that’s a big problem. The Code falls short in that area.

For example, there are power relationships between an NSO and athletes: for an athlete to be funded and to compete internationally, including in the Olympics, athletes have to be recommended by their NSO. This is where the use of non-disparagement clauses and non-disclosure agreements become significant. Athletes have often had to sign these in order to get funding or to compete, so they have to agree to never say anything bad about the NSO or the sport, which has chilled athletes’ abilities to raise allegations of abuse internally and publicly. Athletes brought this up during the parliamentary committee hearings. They said the NSOs were old boys鈥� clubs, and that athletes would be shunned if they brought up allegations.

Sport Canada needs to be vigilant in following up regarding the Code. The new guidelines say that NSOs can’t use non-disclosure and non-disparagement clauses anymore. But how will we know if NSOs are complying with anything? There has to be follow-up. We’ve been talking about the same governance issues in Canada for more than 40 years. We’ll see if there are any teeth to these recent guidelines and the new regulatory environment.

Photos are courtesy of Logan Weaver, Kevin Hamm, PJ Dakota, Hans Deryk, Canadian Press and Wiki Commons.

Dr. Sharilyn Hale

Question: Do charities, nonprofits and foundations really need a board of directors?

“You can have an organization without staff, but you can鈥檛 have an organization without a board.” –Dr. Hale

Sharilyn Hale: Yes, they do. Boards are the ultimate stewards of an organization鈥檚 mission and assets for the public good. You can have an organization without staff, but you can鈥檛 have an organization without a board. And, while a board can delegate authority 鈥� as they do when they hire and empower a CEO or executive director 鈥� they can鈥檛 delegate responsibility. A CEO and board govern together, but the board is always responsible. This is important framing. It鈥檚 why the relationship between a board and CEO is so critical. If the relationship between them isn鈥檛 healthy, often the organization isn鈥檛 healthy.

This requires a positive orientation towards the relationship, with the belief they鈥檙e partners in mission and shared leadership. I鈥檝e seen boards micromanage, disrespect, and undermine their leader. I鈥檝e seen CEOs roll their eyes, saying “Ugh, the board,” and actively recruit directors who will be disengaged, so that CEOs don鈥檛 have to deal with or be hampered by the board. Both approaches create many risks for an organization.

Q: What risks? What are the impacts when a board-CEO relationship isn鈥檛 robust?

“We need exceptional performance in the charitable sector. Many things are riding on being effective and creating meaningful results.” –Dr. Hale

Hale: The quality of the board/CEO relationship tends to range from transformational to problematic, and can ebb and flow over time, especially when there鈥檚 leadership change. There are deeply aligned relationships in which the parties work with high levels of respect, trust and communication, and where 1 + 1 = 3. More common are relationships that are functional or mediocre, but rarely create added value. Then sadly, some relationships are deeply dysfunctional and painful for everyone involved. Mediocre and dysfunctional alike have implications.

First, there are implications for people. CEOs are people, and so are directors on a board. Most of us intend to show up in the world to engage in positive and productive relationships with others in our professional or volunteer lives. When those relationships are poor or when they break down, it hurts. It can be painful. People may question their competence and professional expertise, their sense of self, or become disillusioned, and in some cases, it can impact their sense of well-being and mental health. So, the relationship is important because people are important.

Second, mediocre or dysfunctional relationships can jeopardize purpose. The board and CEO are intended to be partners in purpose, and they need to be aligned on the identity and direction of the organization. When the relationship isn’t functioning well, it can lead to divergence, and clarity around mission can be lost, which impacts the ability of the organization to deliver.

“When the board/CEO relationship breaks down, it鈥檚 human nature to fight or flee.” –Dr. Hale

Which brings us to performance. We need exceptional performance in the charitable sector. Many things are riding on being effective and creating meaningful results. When the board/CEO relationship breaks down, it鈥檚 human nature to fight or flee. We may step back, avoid difficult conversations, decrease engagement and meeting attendance, or become hyper-engaged, micromanage, stick our fingers where they don鈥檛 belong, or get wrapped up in the drama of conflict, which takes our eyes off the ball. Organizational performance necessarily suffers as a result, leading to programmatic, financial, legal, operational and reputational risks.

Q: Given all this, what does an effective partnership look like between a board and CEO?

“Mutual accountability and clear, honest and timely communication are also critical. Two-way accountability between the board and CEO allows for personal and collective responsibility and helps to build a culture where it鈥檚 okay to hold each other accountable.” –Dr. Hale

Hale: In any partnership, trust is important. If there鈥檚 no trust, it鈥檚 difficult for the relationship to be effective. Trust is built over time by demonstrating trust and being trustworthy. In cases where trust has been broken, that needs to be acknowledged and addressed skillfully.

Shared understanding of the mission, as well as values driving the mission, sound like common sense. In my work with boards and organizations, I often discover material variation on issues of mission and the very identity of the organization. Confusion can breed conflict, so a commitment to seek clarity and alignment is prudent.

Mutual accountability and clear, honest and timely communication are also critical. Two-way accountability between the board and CEO allows for personal and collective responsibility and helps to build a culture where it鈥檚 okay to hold each other accountable in respectful and gracious ways. Annual goals and performance assessments for the CEO, the board, and individual directors provide opportunities for checking in, taking stock, and starting course correction if needed.

Practically, there must also be clear roles and responsibilities between the board and the CEO, and defined lines of authority. The four roles of a board are to:

1. determine the purpose, identity and direction of the organization;
2. ensure adequate resources and stewardship of those resources (including the resource of executive leadership);
3. provide fiduciary oversight; and
4. attend to board operations.

But boards rarely (and ought not) do this in isolation. There are times when the board takes the lead, times when the CEO takes the lead, and times when they must work in shared leadership.

Q: How can boards and CEOs handle tensions and issues when they arise?

“If you have the wrong people on the bus, you鈥檙e not going to get where you plan to go.” –Dr. Sharilyn Hale

Hale: You can solve issues when they arise, but better, you can prevent or minimize issues in the first place. Both have to be part of the governance tool kit. Getting the right people on the bus is crucial. If you have the wrong people on the bus, you鈥檙e not going to get where you plan to go.

For example, you might have a CEO whose values aren鈥檛 aligned or who misunderstands the mission. They may have a skills deficit, or be a fantastic leader at the wrong time of the organization鈥檚 evolution.

A fulsome recruitment process can help unearth some of these gaps in advance, followed by a thoughtful onboarding process, and ongoing support and oversight to ensure alignment as the organization evolves over time. Sometimes, a change in leadership may also be necessary.

Boards, too, need to bring the right people to the table, not just with passion, skillsets and desirable demographic profiles, but with demonstrated ability to work productively with others. If you engage a bully, you鈥檙e going to get bullying behaviour. If you appoint a person who is unable to participate in good group process and decision-making, you鈥檒l get poor results.

Unless you鈥檙e a new organization or a board resigns en masse, you rarely have the opportunity to create a new board from scratch. But you can renew and develop a board over time if you鈥檙e clear and intentional about your objectives. Of course, in the meantime, every board has the responsibility to address poor director behaviour.

Q: Any other advice for boards and CEOs?

Hale: When the relationship between the board and CEO is sound it creates positive momentum and potential for the extraordinary. I鈥檇 encourage boards to lead by example, and remind them it鈥檚 their role to set and maintain the quality and tenor of the relationship with their CEO. For CEOs, I empower them to provide feedback to their board about what they need and where the relationship has potential to flourish. And, everyone should know their deal breakers.

Dr. Sharilyn Hale can be found on . Photos are courtesy of Jonathan Borba and Campaign Creators.

By Dr. Susan Phillips.

Why does Canada lag far behind other countries in supporting graduate education and research for the philanthropic and nonprofit sector? There are numerous specialized centres and programs in Europe and the UK, with a new one recently established at Oxford. China, too, has created a wide range of centres and schools at its top universities and has generated 5,346 doctoral and master鈥檚 theses on nonprofit research over the past twenty years (Yang & You, 2020).

A comparison with the US is particularly instructive for understanding not only why Canadian education and research in the field remains under-developed, but also how to strengthen this infrastructure in our country.

The US has 160 graduate programs with a concentration in nonprofit management and philanthropic studies (NMPS) including 35 full Master鈥檚 programs (Mirabella et al., 2019). In addition, there are 31 centres or institutes (which have direct reporting lines to a dean or provost) on NMPS that support research as well as professional development (Weber & Brunt, 2022). Canada has only one graduate program 鈥� the Master of Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership, at 杏吧原创 University.

Private Investment and Transformative Gifts

Population size does not account for this big difference. Rather, in the US, private investment was an important mobilizer and continues to be a key factor in building the education and research infrastructure. Beginning in the 1980s, foundations supported the creation of graduate programs with the aim of enhancing management practices in the sector and building bridges between practice and academia (Weber & Brunt, 2022).

This initial investment had a multiplier effect. Educational programs hired faculty who brought in graduate students and research funding. These, in turn, led to the establishment of programs and centres at other universities, generating even greater demand. All of this required and received new philanthropic support that made it possible to create centres and research chairs across universities, and through them provide for diversification and specialization 鈥� as with, say, the Eileen Lamb O’Gara Endowed Chair in Women鈥檚 Philanthropy, the Frey Foundation Chair in Family Philanthropy, and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation Chair on Community Foundations.

A transformative gift from the Lilly family and Lilly Endowment established the , at Indiana University, in 2012. The Lilly Family School has become the world鈥檚 premier academic institution in the field hosting 19 core faculty (among other instructors) and offering a PhD, Professional Doctorate, Master鈥檚 and undergraduate degrees in philanthropy.

The recognition of the need to invest in education and research infrastructure for the sector has largely been absent in Canada. An additional constraint has been the absence of a natural academic home for NMPS within universities. The likely disciplines of Political Science and Sociology have long abandoned any interest in philanthropy or nonprofit studies (as opposed to social movement studies) (Skocpol, 2016).

What Happened In Canada?

In the US, a home was found in schools of public administration that were adept at adding nonprofit management to their existing repertoire of public management programs (Saidel & Smith, 2015). While Canada has a large number of well-established schools of public administration, they tend to be more focused on public policy and the study of administration from an institutional perspective, rather than on management. That 杏吧原创鈥檚 MPNL is housed in a school of public administration, which is part of a unique Faculty of Public Affairs, is a function of the initiative by its founding academic entrepreneurs (as will be discussed in a following piece), rather than a welcoming field of public administration comparable to the US. (Note that the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria has a Masters of Community Development.)

The study of nonprofits and their relationships with governments has been further inhibited by a lack of visibility in Canada both among governments and among scholars who study governance. Neoliberalism and New Public Management became prominent in the 1980s, encouraging governments to contract out or privatize more services. Nonprofits were conceived of simply as alternative service providers 鈥� undifferentiated from private sector firms in spite of their distinctive roles in civil society. The government-nonprofit relationship continues to be overlooked in scholarship and in practice.

When Canadian universities have taken an interest in NMPS education, they took an inexpensive route, due in part to fiscal austerity, by offering certificates through continuing education (Mirabella et al., 2022). Because certificate programs are usually taught by temporary contract instructors and are offered on a cost-recovery basis, they are less costly than investing in permanent faculty or degree programs and centres. While this non-degree programming has value for upskilling nonprofit professionals, it cannot act as a mobilizer and multiplier to build the NMPS field. The cycle becomes self-reinforcing: without faculty, no degree programs are created, and without degree programs, there is no investment in faculty.

As the US experience demonstrates, field-building takes:

1. centres or schools with faculty and direct reporting lines to university decision-making authorities, so they are taken seriously;
2. the cultivation of new academic leadership through bringing in new generations of researchers and the succession of retiring faculty; and
3. the strategic pursuit of endowments and other long-term investments (Weber & Brunt, 2020).

Canada failed to build the substantial educational and research infrastructure needed to support the philanthropic and nonprofit sector. And, what had been built has shrunk in recent years. In the late 1990s, the J. W. McConnell Family Foundation generously funded a master鈥檚 program at McGill to upskill two cohorts of nonprofit executive directors, but McGill did not continue the program after those two years.

The nonprofit specialization in the MBA at the Schulich School is now defunct following the retirement of the RBC Professorship in Nonprofit Management and Leadership 鈥� a position that no longer exists. The Certificate in Philanthropic Management at the Universit茅 de Montr茅al closed in 2022. Humber College has ended its post-graduate certificate in Fundraising Management, albeit with the possibility of eventually reinventing it (note that there is an accelerated pathway into the MPNL for its graduates). Programs that had some NMPS content at Queens, Dalhousie, Grant MacEwan, and Mount Royal Universities have all ceased. Several reasons account for this scaling back: the programs were not fully institutionalized within their universities in the first place, as they were not anchored with regular faculty, retirements were not replaced, or sustained funding was not secured.

Here We Are Today

Read “The Benefits of a School of Philanthropy in Canada,” another installment in the “Building Bridges” series.

And yet at the same time, the demand for education and research in the nonprofit/philanthropic sector is increasing. The 2023 (eleventh) cohort of 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 MPNL program was the largest ever, at 36 incoming students, with more than three times that number having applied. It is clear that investment pays off.

The payoff of investment in research is illustrated by the productivity of , a research project housed at the Universit茅 du Qu茅bec 脿 Montr茅al. Focused on research on grantmaking foundations and funded by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and from foundations (a total of $4.8 million), PhiLab has provided funding to scholars across the country to work on issues of relevance to foundations and has been very active in knowledge mobilization. However, PhiLab鈥檚 future is also in question when its funding ends in 2024 and its academic lead retires.

Now is the time to recognize and act on Canada鈥檚 need to build and support an education and research infrastructure for the nonprofit sector. It鈥檚 time for this sector to benefit from a dedicated school, just as the private sector does with business schools.

References

Mirabella, R., Sulek, M. & Teo, T. K. (2022) Mapping the field of nonprofit management and philanthropic studies in Canada: Cross-country comparison of curricular offerings, Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 12(1): 1-21.

Mirabella, R., Hoffman, T., Teo, T., & McDonald, M. (2019). The evolution of nonprofit management and philanthropic studies in the United States: Are we now a disciplinary field? Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 9(1), 63鈥�84.

Saidel, J. & Smith, S. R. (2015) Nonprofit management education in schools with public affairs curricula: An analysis of the trend toward curriculum integration, Journal of Public Affairs Education, 21(3): 337-348.

Skocpol, T. (2016) Why political scientists should study organized philanthropy: Introduction, PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(3): 433-436.

Weber, P., & Brunt, C. (2022). Building nonprofit management education in the US: The role of centers in supporting new academic disciplines. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 8(1): 96鈥�121.

Yang, L. & You, F. (2020) Research trends in nonprofit graduate studies in China: An inside perspective, Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 31: 175-197.

Dr. Susan Phillips is on . Banner photo is courtesy of Keith Kiselstone.

Simon Brault, Director and CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts. Photo by Tony Fouhse.

[Cet article est disponible en fran莽ais.]

At the end of 2022

Simon Brault, Director and CEO of the , sat down with PANL Perspectives to discuss how the organization has been addressing social issues, part of our series on The Arts and Social Issues. The Council is Canada鈥檚 public arts funder, with a mandate to foster and promote the study, enjoyment of and production of works of art. In 2021-2022, it distributed approximately $475 million in grants to artists, organizations and institutions. (This interview has been edited for clarity.)

What initiatives has the Canada Council started in terms of social justice, truth & reconciliation, access & diversity, & climate-change solutions?

Brault: The Canada Council released its 2021-26 strategic plan, , which makes sure that the arts are seen, perceived and are effectively more relevant for all Canadians. The arts sector and artists can’t ignore issues that are front and centre for Canadians — issues like social justice, climate change, diversity, inclusion, representation and the question of the North.

The arts isn’t only a sector of activity. It’s also a dimension of a democracy, of a country, of a community or of our lives as human beings. The Canada Council thinks of social issues when we think of where to invest.

One example is the support that the Canada Council is giving to artists in the North. What we realized more and more is that this part of the country is concentrating most of the challenges we are facing for the future. Climate change, disconnection, isolation, and distance and physical barriers are examples; these issues are enormous and urgent. For years, the vision was that the Canada Council would explain to people living in the North how to access programs that we have here, in the South. What we realize now is that we need to support the artist there, on their own terms. That was a shift.

Another example is how we’re now supporting Indigenous arts, taking into account that, for 150 years, this country, with residential schools and other policies, tried to erase the cultural existence of Indigenous people — and taking into account the systemic barriers that Indigenous people have to overcome, especially the Eurocentric views of the arts. Some years ago, we created a and that’s led by Indigenous staff. All the categories we used in the past are less relevant. For example, we supported literature in French or English, but, now, we support literature and children’s books written in Indigenous languages, namely Indigenous languages that should survive and thrive.

Have you noticed any art sectors taking the lead with some of these strategic changes you mention?

Brault: I have. The theatre world, especially in Toronto, with groups like and many other theatre companies, writers and directors with diverse backgrounds, is discussing and proposing plays that are addressing questions of social justice and inclusion.

And literature 鈥� books, novels, poetry, essays 鈥� both nonfiction and fiction, include these issues in their backgrounds or in their main stories. This includes literature for children and youth. There are many published children’s books about the future of the planet and climate justice — and about the question of how we live together — and addressing poverty and other serious topics that used to be seen as only topics for adults.

The visual arts, as well, have addressed these questions or points of view.

It’s not for the Canada Council to influence or prescribe what the artists are creating, but for us, it’s important to make sure that when they come with their proposals, that we can support them and shed more light on certain proposals that are meaningful for a lot of people.

How do arts prizes fit into this?

“Aki-wayn-zih,” a memoir by Eli Baxter, and won the 2022 Governor General’s Literary Award for English non-fiction. It takes readers into Anishinaabay culture, language and history.

Brault: The Canada Council is in charge of managing, subsidizing and organizing the largest portfolio of arts prizes in this country — in literature, architecture, visual arts and in the performing arts. For example, 14 books were selected by juries for the Governor General’s Literary Awards out of 1,200 books this year.

As the Director and CEO of the Canada Council, I make a point of reading all 14 books each year, which gives me a sense of what’s being debated by poets, novelists, translators and non-fiction writers, and I can see that all these things that we are talking about are surfacing in powerful and poignant ways. These things matter to artists, who are constantly reflecting and challenging the mindset of a society.

What is the biggest challenge facing the Canada Council?

Brault: The quality and the diversity of artistic production in this country is growing, especially because we can include, support and recognize voices that have been ignored or marginalized for a long time.

I guess where the battle is, is how can we create enough space for people to engage with what is created, because we support a lot of artistic creation, but, at the same time, we know that the major platforms, Netflix and others, streaming and all that, is occupying a bigger space. So, how can we make sure that we pay as much attention to the supply of good and relevant artistic and literary proposals and the engagement, the authentic engagement, of the public — the exposure of the public to this work.

I think this is where we are at this point, and, frankly, I think that over the next 10 years, it will be a big test 鈥� a lot of attention needs to be given to not only making sure, again, that creation is happening, but also that engagement with what is offered by the artists and the authors and the writers, and the filmmakers and musicians, that that offering is seen, heard and enjoyed by everybody. I think that’s our challenge over the next few years.

The Canada Council for the Arts is on , , and .

Photos are courtesy of Tony Fouhse and the Canada Council.

A聽board of directors should exercise a ‘challenge function.’ How does a board ask challenging or hard questions — and do this well?

Yves Savoie is an executive coach and strategy advisor to nonprofits and charities.

Savoie: The ‘challenge function’ is a type of inquiry and is about creating a culture that allows difficult questions, sometimes pointed questions, to be asked. So, when we talk about ‘challenge,’ we’re not talking about challenging an individual. Instead, we’re talking about challenging issues, approaches or frameworks — to hold people to account, to ensure there’s fiduciary, policy and other compliance or to address ethical or strategic issues. For instance, it’s important for board agendas and for information flows to maximize the time during board meetings for the board members, not just staff members, to be engaged and to ask challenging questions. This is central to a board’s role either in public or in camera.

Boards and staff have to work closely as partners, with trust, yet not so close, not so cozy, so as to prevent people from asking tough questions, and that requires a tough skin among CEOs and an awareness that boards have the responsibility to sometimes ask tough questions — and the acknowledgment that such questions aren’t an attack and are, in fact, an exercise of due diligence. I think of governance as an ecosystem, and the CEO and board members are part of the ecosystem, and both have the responsibility to create a culture where difficult questions, processes of inquiry, are invited and welcomed — and that’s what the challenge function is about.

Do you have any advice for nonprofits about their policy manuals and reserve funds, given what happened at Hockey Canada?

Justice Thomas Cromwell, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, wrote a report identifying problems at Hockey Canada.

Savoie: Hockey Canada commissioned a that sheds light on the situation, in plain language, with lots of references 鈥� for people who want a primer on the governance of nonprofit organizations. Hockey Canada is registered as an amateur athletic association, which is akin to a charitable organization. There are two examples that I lift from my reading of the Justice Cromwell report.

First, Hockey Canada doesn’t make public its audited financial statements because they fear they’ll be seen as a ‘rich’ organization and that such perception will impact their attractiveness to sponsors. There’s nothing wrong with being transparent. The University of Toronto posts online . , the , the , the and other large organizations have opened their doors very wide to be transparent about financial statements, policies and procedures, public complaint systems, whistleblower systems, and a lot more. Hockey Canada made clear mistakes in presupposing that people would make judgements of information that should be available to the public.

But the other example is that Justice Cromwell cites intra-fund transfers and funds disbursements related to those who alleged sexual harassment violations and notes that Hockey Canada minutes don’t show any records for decision-making related to those. There’s a big, big mistake in Hockey Canada’s conception of an in-camera meeting. ‘In-camera meeting’ does not mean that there’s no requirement to keep records about decision-making — not what it means at all. It may require that those records be confidential, so that you have a separate part of the minutes that reflects the minutes of the in-camera portion. But the practice on that is very well known. That they should have chosen to make big decisions and not record them is a big failure. So, as you look at this, you kind of say, “Really? No transparency? No record of decisions that have great import?”

For me, those are just two lessons to learn from the Hockey Canada experience.

Under what conditions, and how, does a board fire a CEO? More generally, how does a board exercise effective oversight of the CEO?

Savoie: In the Hockey Canada situation, people weren’t looking for only the CEO to be ousted; they wanted more than that; the board’s integrity was called into question. There are two things. First, what we know is that harm was caused. This wasn’t proven in a court of law, but, in private settlements, it seems harm was caused. However, there’s a second problem: those who are responsible for the possible egregious acts are shielded from accountability (because the settlements are private). These problems of harm to persons and shielding those responsible point to the accountability of the organization, not only to that of the CEO.

But let’s go to a situation in which only a CEO’s performance is at issue, a situation where there seems to be a clear failure. Actually, a clear failure in the performance of a CEO is rarely the case (unless, for example, a CEO has committed fraud). Situations where problems in performance are observed by some and not by others and are a source of disagreement among the board — these are typically the way these problems arise. Firing a CEO is one of the most difficult decisions a board will ever make, and unlike most board decision-making, they’re fractious and may take time to progress from the hallway to the board table, and from a minority to a majority point of view, and from there, to a termination. And there’s the related question of who will fill the role of CEO later, both the interim CEO and the permanent CEO. These decisions are really difficult.

Boards need to do a number of things to make this easier. One is to make sure that the whole board has sight lines to issues that relate to performance of the CEO. While a CEO performance review may be carried out by a few officers of the board or by a committee, the board should be invited at the front end and be briefed at the back end, in an in-camera session, about what has transpired. For instance, are there areas of shortfall where the CEO has been asked to improve performance or deepen their capabilities? Was this a year in which there were no compensation adjustments because the performance was deemed to be average or unsatisfactory? Often, those kinds of questions only bubble up for the whole board when a real crisis has developed.

Also, I’m one who believes that, on an annual basis, the board should get a confidential briefing on the entire compensation package for the CEO, so that there’s transparency about compensation and performance expectations. And expectations have to cover both the ‘what’ (increase revenue, increase program impact, build another site, run a capital campaign, or whatever ‘what’ is) and cover the ‘how’ (build a culture free of conflict, or another kind of ‘how’). These sight lines give the board signals about a CEO’s performance.

Are there other lessons for nonprofit governance and guidance for boards, CEOs and members — things we can learn from the Hockey Canada case?

Savoie: Yes. Boards rely on management to curate information to them. Most of the information that’s in a board binder comes from the staff. It’s entirely appropriate for boards to consider, at regular intervals (at least once a year or every two years), whether or not the information they’re getting is relevant to their decision-making. Is the information at the right level? Is it timely? And is it framed in the right way?

Let me give you an example. Most CEO reports tend to celebrate success. As human beings, we like that, but the reports invite the possibility that they overlook a challenge, difficulty or failure. It’s important for boards to say, “Let’s ask the CEOs to complete a report about compliance, about certain questions. For example, “Has there been a lawsuit served? Was the whistleblower line triggered? Was there a complaint of violence or harassment that’s been formally made in your workplace?” And the CEO has no choice but to answer those kinds of things. This process augments the richness, the timeliness, of what I would describe as the ‘bad news digest’ for the board. Boards need to be proactive about these kinds of things, and see that failures and mishaps are an opportunity to learn, repair and to grow. And, in my reading of Justice Cromwell’s report, that wasn’t part of Hockey Canada’s culture.

Yves Savoie is on . Photos are courtesy of Yves Savoie and Logan Weaver.

Chapter 8: Board Governance in Practice

By Owen Charters

鈥淏ut, I thought you were the boss 鈥︹��

My son, age six, discovered that I had a boss, even though we鈥檇 previously described 鈥� in simple terms 鈥� that as a charity CEO, I was the boss of the organization. This discovery came as we embarked on a family adventure to meet my board of directors at a social engagement, and after a caution to him from my wife and I that he had to be on his best behaviour for 鈥渄addy鈥檚 boss.鈥�

There are probably few things more complicated to describe than the true role and function of a board of directors. If only things could all easily be explained in terms a six-year-old could understand. Alas, a board does sound simple in concept but is exceedingly complex in practice.
Unlike the private sector, the nonprofit sector is unique in that all formally incorporated organizations require a board: there are no sole proprietors in this sector. Thus, if you work for a charity or nonprofit, you ultimately report to a board in some manner 鈥� you cannot escape this fact. Yet board management is an often-overlooked facet of a nonprofit鈥檚 function. An executive director (ED) or chief executive officer (CEO) entering the role for the first time is probably steeped in some critical function of a nonprofit鈥檚 operations 鈥� fundraising, programs, finance, or marketing 鈥� but is likely a rookie when it comes to managing the affairs of the board.

Franca Gucciardi and Alan Broadbent (2017), in their book, You鈥檙e It! Shared Wisdom for Successfully Leading Organizations from Both a Seasoned and a First-Time CEO, write:

Being the key link between the board and the management of the organization is a very different thing. Learning to do this well is a priority. Successful CEOs manage their board to help it serve the organization effectively. Less successful CEOs manage their board to minimize its impact. Failing CEOs allow their board to manage them.

The rookie ED or CEO must learn quickly and navigate an expansive area of management: managing a board is not the usual case of 鈥渕anaging up鈥� and dealing only with one supervisor. It requires managing the complexity of a group of supervisors that can only act collectively. Group dynamics complicate the relationship, as does the fact that first, boards are not usually involved in the day-to-day business of the organization, and second, board members often do not understand their role intricately.

Click here for access to a pdf of , by Owen Charters, as well as access to other chapters.

is CEO of Boys & Girls Clubs of Canada.