written by Avi. S. Olitzky, the president and principal consultant of Olitzky Consulting Group, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Olitzky presented at the OSAP 2025 annual conference in Toledo, Ohio. He can be reached at avi@olitzkyconsulting.com.
In today's nonprofit landscape, governance and management face mounting pressures. Board members are expected to be more engaged, leadership teams must navigate an evolving workforce and staff demand greater transparency and inclusion in decision-making. These shifts have led many organizations to blur the lines between governance and operations – often with unintended consequences.
One of the most overlooked but corrosive dynamics in nonprofit governance is the breakdown of structured communication between staff and board members. I call this the hourglass model, where staff communicate only through the CEO, who relays messages to the board chair, who then filters them to the full board. In turn, the board speaks only to the CEO, who manages communication downward.
At first glance, this structure may seem overly rigid or hierarchical, but it exists for a reason. When staff members begin engaging directly with board members outside of committee work or formal presentations, and when board members initiate operational discussions with staff, the organization drifts into dysfunction. This is not about restricting transparency; it is about preserving clarity, accountability and trust.
Many nonprofits operate with a deep commitment to collaboration and accessibility. Leaders take pride in fostering an open-door culture where staff feel heard, and board members want to be approachable. However, without guardrails, this openness can lead to unintended toxicity.
In a time when social media, remote work and shifting power dynamics have made traditional hierarchies feel outdated, the instinct to flatten communication channels is understandable. Younger employees, in particular, often expect direct access to decision-makers and "a say" in governance-level conversations. Simultaneously, many board members – especially those accustomed to corporate environments – feel compelled to be hands-on, even when doing so pulls them into operational matters best left to staff leadership.
The problem is that these well-intended impulses often lead to gossip, governance creep and role confusion. The nonprofit sector is already susceptible to burnout and blurred boundaries; failing to reinforce structured communication only exacerbates these issues.
When nonprofit staff and board members engage directly without a structured process, several dysfunctions emerge:
Informal conversations between staff and board members often become a breeding ground for tongue-wagging – comments like "I heard that…" or "Someone told me…" gain influence. Whether accurate or not, these unchecked narratives shape board perceptions and staff morale, creating unnecessary friction.
Staff members frustrated with leadership may seek sympathy from board members, using them as leverage to influence internal decisions. Likewise, board members may form alliances with staff members to bypass the CEO, undermining the chain of command and weakening leadership authority.
Nonprofit boards exist to provide strategic oversight, not to manage day-to-day operations. When board members develop direct relationships with staff regarding operational matters, they start offering feedback or directives outside of their purview. Meetings become bogged down with tactical concerns instead of strategic priorities.
When board members receive conflicting messages from staff, the CEO is forced to spend time reining in conversations, correcting misinformation and restoring governance boundaries. Instead of focusing on mission-driven leadership, the CEO is stuck refereeing internal disputes.
While some might argue that a more fluid communication model aligns with the increasing push for transparency in the nonprofit sector, true transparency is not the same as unstructured access. It’s about ensuring the right information reaches the right people in the right way.
To balance openness with governance discipline, nonprofits must:
The nonprofit sector operates in an era of increasing complexity, where organizations are expected to be more transparent, more responsive and more inclusive than ever. But openness without structure breeds confusion.
The hourglass model exists not to stifle communication but to ensure clarity. When it collapses, nonprofits descend into distraction, with board members meddling in operations and CEOs drowning in internal politics. To protect the integrity of nonprofit governance, organizations must reinforce structured communication, ensuring that engagement remains intentional, disciplined and mission-driven.
Nonprofits don’t just need strong leaders – they need strong systems that protect leadership from dysfunction. Breaking the hourglass model may seem like a progressive move, but in reality, it undermines the very leadership nonprofits depend on to advance their missions. It’s time to recognize that structure, far from being an obstacle, is what allows great nonprofits to thrive.