Darren Pleasance’s letter to AOPA Board led to his departure

AV8R_87 said:
Yes, but keep one thing in mind - you could be gone in an instant (case in point here). So the asking price has to include a cushion for when you find yourself out of a career.
If you had a great job that paid well and you had a decent chance of still being there 10 years from now, you'd probably be happy with X as your salary. But if you had an offer from a high-risk start-up, that might fold in a year or two, would you be ok with X, or would you ask for 3X (or more)?
Click to expand...
That is definitely a point to be considered. However, I’m sure the contract comes with a generous golden parachute as well.

The comp doesn’t seem to reflect the relatively small size of AOPA, or its non-profit nature.
 
Okay, I’m kinda out of the loop on AOPA (they’ve been irrelevant as far as I can tell for years now - my last membership year was at least 15-20 years ago) but I just read the letter and have thoughts:

Firstly, I am surprised that no one made the point that this letter was pretty ham-fisted. I doubt the letter itself was worth firing him over (and I doubt that was the sole reason), but it is not the caliber of letter that I would expect from an executive at an organization of AOPA’s size (speaking from a lifetime in and around corporate America). He clearly used ChatGPT to draft it, or modified the letter down to the point of changing colors and formatting to match its style - either of which makes no sense - a minor but meaningful error. But worse, he takes direct shots at the operational history of the organization, acknowledges his own personal failings getting the board on board with his initiatives (pun!), and even calls out the board itself directly. And who knows what is in the “Talent” section, presumably it’s worse or at least more sensitive than the unredacted sections. Further, apparently he has not achieved stopping the membership loss, probably the single thing he was hired for. The only thing that makes me thing perhaps he *didn’t* use ChatGPT to draft this is that ChatGPT would have been smoother and more calibrated in delivering some of those more sensitive messages.

I have questions:
- Why is POA so supportive of Mr. Pleasance? Honest question, not a gotcha.
- What do you think AOPA *should* be doing?
- What do you think AOPA *is actually* doing?
 
AA5Bman said:
Further, apparently he has not achieved stopping the membership loss, probably the single thing he was hired for.
Click to expand...

100% stoppage was never an achievable 1-year goal, especially for someone new to the CEO job. Pleasance did succeed in slowing it, which I thought was impressive in his first year, so I think he was putting it onto the right path. He did this by engaging directly with members at many AOPA gatherings, something the Board has shown itself as reluctant to do.

Furthermore, terminating Pleasance is going to cost them a bunch of members.

Finally, if this was the reason for the termination, the Board should say so rather than spewing the BS they have been.

AA5Bman said:
Why is POA so supportive of Mr. Pleasance? Honest question, not a gotcha.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily very supportive of Pleasance, though I do think he had the right approach. Rather, I have become non-supportive of the Board of Trustees, due to their incompetent handling of the termination (cock & bull story about the reason, not planning for a smooth transition, hiring a PR firm rather than engaging with the members, etc.) and the way they have rendered themselves unaccountable to the membership.

For example, in an earlier post I recounted my experience in an AOPA chat with trying to get email addresses for the Board members. The AOPA bylaws have ensured that only the Board can pick Board members, with no practical means for the membership to block or remove a Trustee. The AOPA does not provide mail-in or online voting for Board selection or any other business issues. The members have no voice in their own Association!

AA5Bman said:
What do you think AOPA *should* be doing?
Click to expand...

Externally, I think AOPA should engage MUCH more strongly on issues that matter to members. The AOPA has a dismal track record so far on things like commercialization of ADSB data, excessive airport fees, airport closures, medical issues, etc., etc. When was the last time the AOPA ever won a significant lawsuit?

Internally, I think AOPA should make itself accountable to the membership. Board membership should have a term limit, or at least require periodic confirmation votes of the members. The membership should have the means to nominate Trustees directly, without approval of the current Board. AOPA voting should be available by mail and online, and meetings should be conducted online. Proxy voting should be handled by an independant agency that can cast the votes as directed by members.

AA5Bman said:
What do you think AOPA *is actually* doing?
Click to expand...

I think AOPA is actually ignoring the voice and needs of its membership.

AOPA has transitioned from being a true membership organization into a subscriber-based services company, and their services aren't worth much to me as a typical bug-smasher pilot. I'm not going to create a complete list, but consider just Pilot Protection Services. There are many things it purports to provide (and how well it works is another issue altogether), but about 2/3 of it has no benefit to me. I fly under Basic Med, so I don't need them to help me with Aeromed. I'm not trying to sell a plane, so I don't need that assistance. I could go on, but the reality is that if I purchased PPS I would be subsidizing people who need a broader array of services than I do. Yet they refuse to offer a more tailored, lower cost plan that provides only what I need (a discussion I had with them a couple of years ago when I dropped PPS).

Also consider how little AOPA is doing to bring in new pilots. What little they do is aimed at recruiting for aviation careers, not for hobbyist pilots.

Bottom line, I think AOPA is aiming its resources at the needs of a small group of pilots and owners who fly for pay or business interests and who are flying high-end, high performance aircraft, and they're using fly-for-fun bug-smasher pilots like me to pay the bill. Dues keep increasing, services I want keep decreasing, and I have no voice to change the organization.
 
Another thought - POA has over 40,000 members. It is a significant aviation forum, and when AOPA shut down the red board many of its members came here.

Has any AOPA board member ever participated on POA?
 
AOPA has always at best been in the magazine and hat sales business

AOPA has never been a advocate for GA, or even business aviation for that matter, for that you need to look at EAA, NBAA, RAF, SSA
 
AA5Bman said:
I have questions:
- Why is POA so supportive of Mr. Pleasance? Honest question, not a gotcha.
- What do you think AOPA *should* be doing?
- What do you think AOPA *is actually* doing?
Click to expand...
First, I thought his letter was well written. The organization has problems and needs to change to improve. His comments were all aimed at improving. Thing is, if you bring in someone to change things, don't be surprised when they point out the unfortunate facts about the King's new clothing.

I think POA is supportive of Pleasance because he seemed to be taking actions which align with piston GA, which AOPA seems to have neglected.

AOPA should fight the 100LL ban as opposed to <seemingly> going along quietly. There are/were a ton of things that could have been done to mitigate the situation and AOPA seemingly just watched it unfold over the last few years. Same thing with ADSB usage and ramp parking fees. They gave in on ADSB very easily 20-30 years ago and have watched it become a billing and enforcement tool. Not good. AOPA also needs to find ways to drive membership. When was the last time an AOPA rep visited your airport or held a meet and greet within 25 miles of your home or home airport? Their outreach needs to improve. Heck EAA hit a ton of places every year with their B-17 tour (RIP). Same with their Trimotor tour. AOPA should figure out something like that to engage the public and members.

What has AOPA been doing? Discontinuing features the populace enjoyed. Creating ones that seemed silly (wine club)? Piling up a huge reserve account while raising, raising, and raising dues. Oh, and not delivering meaningful movement on helping GA.
 
Wasn’t AOPA a big part of getting BasicMed passed? MOSAIC? Like I said, I haven’t been an AOPA member for years but im trying to give the devil his due. My impression is that they have made some meaningful impacts for the typical hobbyist.

After tangling with the FAA, I may be more forgiving for slow progress than the average person. They are unaccountable to anyone including congress, in my experience. So the fact that AOPA or anyone else is slow in getting anything done as it relates to the FAA is no surprise to me. Does that justify a wine club? No, but still.

Sure, I wish they could successfully block the slow-motion death of 100LL and get Canada to accept BasicMed and reduce rules and regulations for the typical hobbyist. But I have basically accepted that all those things will never happen or a significant part of my flying career will be over by the time they do, but it’s the FAA and private interests causing this, not AOPA.

I still think the letter was unbecoming for an executive of this caliber. There are more tactful ways to deliver these kinds of messages. The Board might be a bunch of cigar-smoking fat cats, sure, but if I was one of those cigar-smoking fat cats and got a letter like this, it would be at least one small piece of evidence that maybe my guy isn’t up to the job.
 
AA5Bman said:
....but if I was one of those cigar-smoking fat cats and got a letter like this, it would be at least one small piece of evidence that maybe my guy isn’t up to the job.
Click to expand...

I thought the letter was fine. Mr. Pleasance's corporate bona fides are pretty strong. I'd like to understand your point of view here. I have to assume your corporate background was perhaps culturally different from his.
 
AA5Bman said:
Wasn’t AOPA a big part of getting BasicMed passed? MOSAIC? Like I said, I haven’t been an AOPA member for years but im trying to give the devil his due. My impression is that they have made some meaningful impacts for the typical hobbyist.
Click to expand...
Word on the street is/was MOSAIC was led by EAA. Same for BasicMed. But you'd probably need access to the smoke filled rooms to know the truth.
 
kyleb said:
First, I thought his letter was well written. The organization has problems and needs to change to improve. His comments were all aimed at improving. Thing is, if you bring in someone to change things, don't be surprised when they point out the unfortunate facts about the King's new clothing.

I think POA is supportive of Pleasance because he seemed to be taking actions which align with piston GA, which AOPA seems to have neglected.

AOPA should fight the 100LL ban as opposed to <seemingly> going along quietly. There are/were a ton of things that could have been done to mitigate the situation and AOPA seemingly just watched it unfold over the last few years. Same thing with ADSB usage and ramp parking fees. They gave in on ADSB very easily 20-30 years ago and have watched it become a billing and enforcement tool. Not good. AOPA also needs to find ways to drive membership. When was the last time an AOPA rep visited your airport or held a meet and greet within 25 miles of your home or home airport? Their outreach needs to improve. Heck EAA hit a ton of places every year with their B-17 tour (RIP). Same with their Trimotor tour. AOPA should figure out something like that to engage the public and members.

What has AOPA been doing? Discontinuing features the populace enjoyed. Creating ones that seemed silly (wine club)? Piling up a huge reserve account while raising, raising, and raising dues. Oh, and not delivering meaningful movement on helping GA.
Click to expand...

Exactly

I wish AOPA would take the money and spend it on lawyers to fight for GA.

But that has never been their deal, one of the reasons why I never have been a member, plus their magazine was never good, their legal or medical people are less accurate than just asking on Reddit, and I don’t like hats.
 
AA5Bman said:
Wasn’t AOPA a big part of getting BasicMed passed? MOSAIC? Like I said, I haven’t been an AOPA member for years but im trying to give the devil his due. My impression is that they have made some meaningful impacts for the typical hobbyist.

After tangling with the FAA, I may be more forgiving for slow progress than the average person. They are unaccountable to anyone including congress, in my experience. So the fact that AOPA or anyone else is slow in getting anything done as it relates to the FAA is no surprise to me. Does that justify a wine club? No, but still.

Sure, I wish they could successfully block the slow-motion death of 100LL and get Canada to accept BasicMed and reduce rules and regulations for the typical hobbyist. But I have basically accepted that all those things will never happen or a significant part of my flying career will be over by the time they do, but it’s the FAA and private interests causing this, not AOPA.

I still think the letter was unbecoming for an executive of this caliber. There are more tactful ways to deliver these kinds of messages. The Board might be a bunch of cigar-smoking fat cats, sure, but if I was one of those cigar-smoking fat cats and got a letter like this, it would be at least one small piece of evidence that maybe my guy isn’t up to the job.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think the letter was bad. Hard hitting, but factual. BWTHDIK…. I’m just this old chief engineer that one day told the emperor he had no clothes, and then got relieved of my responsibilities. Problem is, I had the last laugh when the project had a failure based upon what I had said being ignored. :dunno:
 
Klapmeier asked that members quell their “passionate” reaction to the unpopular move and not cancel their membership. He also asked that any fury over the decision be directed at the board

Response to the former... Why not? To the latter.. wilco
 
Racerx said:
Klapmeier asked that members quell their “passionate” reaction to the unpopular move and not cancel their membership. He also asked that any fury over the decision be directed at the board

Response to the former... Why not? To the latter.. wilco
Click to expand...
If the board is unreachable/untouchable/unresponsive, what's the point? Ain't like AOPA makes it convenient/easy to reach out to the board. EAA on the other hand, I have Pelton's phone number (not sure why, and never used except for the occasional butt dial).
 
AA5Bman said:
Okay, I’m kinda out of the loop on AOPA (they’ve been irrelevant as far as I can tell for years now - my last membership year was at least 15-20 years ago) but I just read the letter and have thoughts:

Firstly, I am surprised that no one made the point that this letter was pretty ham-fisted. I doubt the letter itself was worth firing him over (and I doubt that was the sole reason), but it is not the caliber of letter that I would expect from an executive at an organization of AOPA’s size (speaking from a lifetime in and around corporate America). He clearly used ChatGPT to draft it, or modified the letter down to the point of changing colors and formatting to match its style - either of which makes no sense - a minor but meaningful error. But worse, he takes direct shots at the operational history of the organization, acknowledges his own personal failings getting the board on board with his initiatives (pun!), and even calls out the board itself directly. And who knows what is in the “Talent” section, presumably it’s worse or at least more sensitive than the unredacted sections. Further, apparently he has not achieved stopping the membership loss, probably the single thing he was hired for. The only thing that makes me thing perhaps he *didn’t* use ChatGPT to draft this is that ChatGPT would have been smoother and more calibrated in delivering some of those more sensitive messages.

I have questions:
- Why is POA so supportive of Mr. Pleasance? Honest question, not a gotcha.
- What do you think AOPA *should* be doing?
- What do you think AOPA *is actually* doing?
Click to expand...
So what if he used chatgpt? The final message he delivered was his.
 
kyleb said:
Word on the street is/was MOSAIC was led by EAA. Same for BasicMed. But you'd probably need access to the smoke filled rooms to know the truth.
Click to expand...
Actually, AOPA was very late to the BasicMed game. They first actively endorsed it after it passed both houses of congress. AOPA actually had a milquetoast competing proposal that basically expanded D/L med to recreational pilots. Very weak, and they forcefully argued BasicMed would never pass. Glad they were wrong about that and they did get on-board at the end.

EAA was very engaged in MOSIAC, I don't recall AOPA being very engaged at all.

AOPA is very much a get-along-go-along organization. Not only do i not recall them winning a lawsuit, i don't even remember them filing a lawsuit. Maybe I missed some.

I suppose they do advocate for GA, but I really don't feel they fight for us.
 
AA5Bman said:
Wasn’t AOPA a big part of getting BasicMed passed? MOSAIC?
Click to expand...

Much like @Rcmutz , I'm just a retired chief engineer (Lockheed in my case), so WTHDIK? I didn't think the letter was too bad, either. Certainly it was better written and more believable than the ca-ca the Board has published.

Anyway,......

Basic Med - @jbarrass nailed this one above, but to add a little history, prior to about 1960 any physician could do a medical exam for pilots. The FAA decided this wasn't good enough, the AOPA offered some inadequate opposition, and lost. Had not the AOPA lost the battle in the first place, it wouldn't have been necessary to create Basic Med.

MOSAIC - The big push for MOSAIC and the change to LSA and SP rules came from foreign light aircraft manufacturers, who had planes they could sell in Europe but not in the US unless they papered them to lower limits. EAA engaged and helped push for rules that covered more of the US legacy fleet. AOPA did little more than wave pom-poms from the sidelines.

AOPA does not seriously engage in battles. They just claim credit after the fact and raise their dues.
 
Half Fast said:
Much like @Rcmutz , I'm just a retired chief engineer (Lockheed in my case), so WTHDIK?
Click to expand...
I've said the same thing myself when I get some perplexing structural repair detail. What the hell do these engineers know?!
 
Last edited:
jbarrass said:
AOPA is very much a get-along-go-along organization.
Click to expand...

They're controlled opposition, on the best day. Pilot class solidarity is a myth, but the 'tempo-embarrassed millionaires' gobble that pick-me slop up like baby to formula.
 
I remember Phil Boyer managing to get Congress's knee-jerk reaction to the Jessica Dubroff crash dialed back to something relatively harmless. Those were the good old days.
 
AA5Bman said:
Okay, I’m kinda out of the loop on AOPA (they’ve been irrelevant as far as I can tell for years now - my last membership year was at least 15-20 years ago) but I just read the letter and have thoughts:

Firstly, I am surprised that no one made the point that this letter was pretty ham-fisted. I doubt the letter itself was worth firing him over (and I doubt that was the sole reason), but it is not the caliber of letter that I would expect from an executive at an organization of AOPA’s size (speaking from a lifetime in and around corporate America). He clearly used ChatGPT to draft it, or modified the letter down to the point of changing colors and formatting to match its style - either of which makes no sense - a minor but meaningful error. But worse, he takes direct shots at the operational history of the organization, acknowledges his own personal failings getting the board on board with his initiatives (pun!), and even calls out the board itself directly. And who knows what is in the “Talent” section, presumably it’s worse or at least more sensitive than the unredacted sections. Further, apparently he has not achieved stopping the membership loss, probably the single thing he was hired for. The only thing that makes me thing perhaps he *didn’t* use ChatGPT to draft this is that ChatGPT would have been smoother and more calibrated in delivering some of those more sensitive messages.

I have questions:
- Why is POA so supportive of Mr. Pleasance? Honest question, not a gotcha.
- What do you think AOPA *should* be doing?
- What do you think AOPA *is actually* doing?
Click to expand...
Ham Fisted? Not sure I agree at all with that at all, as I too have spent considerable time in a corporate environment as well as non-profits, and I felt his letter was right to the point. If you require your CEO to send flowery and lovey dovey language in his statement to the board, then it sounds like you don't want to hear the truth. Fragile is the word that comes to mind which is definitely the case in point here - the AOPA BOT didn't want to hear the truth, and instead of addressing the issues in the 'truth', they jettisoned him and are looking for somebody else who won't move their cheese.

I think AOPA is waking up to the fact that the BOT has been relatively unchanged for almost 2 decades, and during that time, we've seen AOPA membership continue to drop, and drop and the organization as a whole continue to get further out of touch with its membership. So I don't think its necessarily a response to being over supportive of Darren directly, but rather, a more of a rebellion against the BOT for firing a proactive and forward looking CEO who the membership felt was actually doing a good job and making incremental gains.

I think AOPA needs to get back to its roots...an Owner/Pilot advocate. They need to either come to terms with their identity, embrace it, and market directly to it. They need to drop this BOT outright, and install a member driven, term limited BOT. It's pretty simple, but the fact they are so out of touch with membership, and the results of everything they do seem to support this (AOPA magazine, marketing, etc.).

This BOT, and the way the current bylaws are arranged will be the death knell for AOPA. You can't keep an organization fresh and current when you have 20+ year old thinking holding it back, and people more worried about their status as a member, than the organizations health as a whole. THIS is why membership is mad, and its exactly why I cancelled my AOPA when I heard the news and learned about the bylaws, the makeup of the BOT, the push for their Proxy, etc.
 
IPS-Legacy said:
The answer lies not in quitting the organization, but rather to strengthen it through the proper means.
Click to expand...
That would require amending the bylaws to remove the Board's exclusive control over its membership. To do that an amendment changing the nominating process would have to be passed by the membership, and probably the Board's ability to postpone or adjourn the meeting to a later date and quorum requirements.

To amend the bylaws requires Notice by the Board to the members 10 days in advance of the meeting. What happens if the board decides not to send notice? Then there are the voting requirements: Majority. The board holds (held) 49,000 proxy votes. The last member count published was in 2013, with a 7% 2 year loss. It's not clear how many proxies members would need to make the threshold to prevent the board from postponing an unfavorable meeting, but probably at least that number present or attending in person would be required.
 
I'd
AvNavCom said:
Given that the Board has effectively permanently insulated themselves from the rank-and-file via the by-laws, it follows that there are really only two effective pain-points which can be leveraged: advertising income and public credibility.

The former is probably the most easily actionable. If it becomes clear to major advertisers that AOPA has become a "poison pill" in its current form, it's likely that they'll consider using their advertising dollars elsewhere. That has a tendency to affect the metrics and graphs that organizational leadership care (or should care) about.

The latter is more nebulous and would be reflected in one of two major ways: a significant drop in active membership, and public demonstrations of discontent sufficient to generate media coverage (think protest outside the AOPA tent at major air events).

I think it's worth acknowledging that there are still undoubtedly a lot of hard-working, passionate people at AOPA who genuinely want to protect and advance the interests of light GA. Ideally, we wouldn't throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, as having some representation to Congress is much better than none and AOPA does certainly offer some useful resources (BasicMed online training being one). Our concerns are really the Board's composition, actions, and especially the revelations as to how it has insulated itself from the rank-and-file members.
Click to expand...
I'd be skeptical of the ability to influence public credibility and that comes at some significant risk to our mutual goals. The AMA tanked its membership among practicing doctors decades ago, now consisting of mainly medical students and residents (free/reduced dues) and a far fewer practicing physicians, yet it retains a grip on health care far beyond its actual membership composition. Better we work on changing the by-laws and the board.
 
IPS-Legacy said:
It sounds like you would like to start an alternate organization. I applaud that. However, the lobbying and political networks that AOPA has set up are already strongly in place. Disrupting that would be quite difficult and take a lot of time. It’s not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. In my opinion, it might be better to refine the organization rather than to rebuild it. The starting point is quite possibly getting membership to send in editorials to the publications. They might not be printed, but they should grab the attention of the Board in some way. Maybe a better way is to email the Board individually and as a whole. If enough members raise their voices directly, there is a possibility of proper attention given. The threat of membership losses by the volume of emails might be enough to grab the attention of the Board. Again, though, the number is significant here. It has to be a noticeably large percentage of membership. The Board is not paying attention to commentary on YouTube or message boards like this. They absolutely need to hear directly from the general membership.
Click to expand...
I honestly feel that's more AOPA lore than fact. They probably did have solid connections back in the 1950s-1990s, I have my doubts that their influence is as strong as people let on. The usual support for them is that they hold back bad legislation from becoming enacted, but it's pretty hard to prove a negative. How do you prove what "didn't happen" due to their efforts unless it was highly publicized . . . and they are downright terrible at publicizing those items on their own. I gave up my membership a decade ago, but I can't figure out why anyone feels the need to send in their dues when it only accounts for so little of their revenue and gets you practically nothing in return. Plenty of better aviation organizations to support these days, and I doubt very seriously that AOPA has any more influence in the halls of Congress than anyone else. They've yet to prove it in the 21st century.
 
jbarrass said:
Boyer was pretty decent, but that was a long time ago.

For reference, he was at AOPA the same time Charlton Heston was at the NRA.
Click to expand...
Boyer was president of AOPA from 1991 through the end of 2008. And in spite of declining pilot numbers, AOPA membership increased 40% during his tenure, and he held dues to $39/year the entire time. That's back when AOPA actually provided a ton of member benefits, well beyond just being an advocacy group.
 
UPDATE - I exchanged a couple of emails with Jay Wiles, AOPA's director of media and public relations. Jay's email is [email protected] . Jay tells me that "Our Member Services team has been sending all of the emails and notes from phone calls we have received from our members over the last couple of weeks to several members of AOPA leadership, ... They, in turn, are compiling them—along with the feedback they're getting directly—for the board."

If you'd like to send a message to the trustees, I suggest you email Jay and/or another leader of AOPA's leadership. Per Jay, "You can also reach any AOPA team member directly by using the format of [email protected], including leadership." If that's the way they want to handle this mess, I recommend burying the leadership team with emails. Next we'll start phone calls.

I find it noteworthy that, according to Jay, the trustees do not have @aopa.org email addresses. That in itself says a lot.

Jay said he would give me a phone call next week. If it amounts to anything, I'll post about it.
 
I would take the idea that the board has any interest in what members have to say with a huge grain of salt. the hubris with which they fired pleasance and the crisis manager statement tells u all u need to know about the motivation of the board. they need an entirely new board of anything is to change. it’s all a waster of time and energy to email. anyone. cancel membership and come back if and when things really change.
 
wellknow said:
I would take the idea that the board has any interest in what members have to say with a huge grain of salt. the hubris with which they fired pleasance and the crisis manager statement tells u all u need to know about the motivation of the board. they need an entirely new board of anything is to change. it’s all a waster of time and energy to email. anyone. cancel membership and come back if and when things really change.
Click to expand...

You may be right, but I’ll wait to cancel until I see what happens by the annual meeting in May. If there aren’t significant changes by then, I’m out. Meanwhile I intend to exert what pressure I can and to encourage others to do the same.

Remember, Board membership is an unpaid gig. That lowers the the threshold for how much hassle a trustee might tolerate before deciding it’s not worth it. If we can’t outvote ‘em, maybe we can at least be such a PITA that they’ll quit or make changes.

It’s an ancient strategy for when you’re in a weaker position. Refer to Luke 18:2-5 in the New Testament.
 
wellknow said:
Of course u r right. Just incredibly frustrating to have the main pilot advocacy organization be so poorly run and governed
Click to expand...
I'm sure people kinda knew about it, and I can't take it back 2000 years, but I can go back about 175 years. Think it was Clausius that proved that disorder (entropy) can only increase, and energy decrease, in any closed system.
 
A more modern example is the “United Breaks Guitars” episode. There are multiple methods to detach the hide from a recalcitrant feline.
 
ELQ24YBWoAAzIih.jpg
 
Having been a board chair and president of a large national membership organization, I read this as the CEO not-so-subtly calling out the board for being fairly disengaged, and avoiding real accountability with strategic goals. It sounds like the CEO was trying to do the job of the board chair in setting the organizational agenda and focus. The board chair has to be engaged with and partnered with the CEO to advance strategic goals and to establish accountability for meeting those goals. The board chair also needs to ensure that board members are engaged in the work of the organization.

The CEO I worked with in my national org was outstanding. While we did not agree on everything, we both demanded that our board members be engaged in the business of the organization, and were busy doing something to advance it, or else find something else to do. If you are on the board and are not busy, you are not doing your job. We had a strategic plan and had accountability measures built into them so we could honestly evaluate our progress on an annual basis. Our board culture was one of open discussion and tolerance of diversity of opinion. (Sometimes leadership does get things wrong or has not thought of every angle. Tolerating open discussion can make policy and strategic decisions better.) This is what boards are supposed to do. Organizations do not run themselves.

I was a board member of another national membership organization where board members were totally disengaged, and were never involved in any of the business of the organization, other than to show up once or twice a year to hobnob with each other and vote yes with no preparation or questions on everything the board chair or CEO presented. Constructive criticism was dismissed or ignored, and often not tolerated. There was no strategic direction, just one bright shiny object followed by another with no real over-arching priorities. Just whatever the newest thing to come over the transom. It was bizarre. This organization made some catastrophically bad decisions due to top-down certitude and hubris. I quit that board as I did not want to have any part of the decisions they were making.

The worst thing about disengaged boards is that they frequently complain about everything in the organization and/or the CEO but have no interest in addressing any of those complaints. Then they wonder why they can't retain competent CEOs and can't seem to get a handle on finances or membership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top