April 8, 2025 • 32 mins
The relationship between nonprofit boards and executive directors can make or break an organization's effectiveness. In this illuminating conversation, governance consultant Nicole Gagliardi unpacks the often challenging dynamics that arise when boards and EDs try to navigate their roles and responsibilities.
Here are some key takeaways:
• Boards hold ultimate accountability and delegate day-to-day management to executive directors
• Executive directors navigate relationships with multiple "bosses" who may not see themselves as employers
• Board members from corporate backgrounds often bring unconscious biases about nonprofit professionals
• Creating a detailed code of conduct helps define expectations and accountability for board members
• Conflict management skills should be a key consideration when selecting board chairs
• Neutral third parties can effectively mediate conflicts between boards and executive directors
• Confidentiality in governance should support trust rather than promote secrecy
Find Nicole (Nic) Gagliardi on LinkedIn or visit her website at riseandrun.co to learn more. Her biweekly newsletter "Nonprofit Board Stories" offers insights on governance challenges, and she has a new performance management system for small nonprofits coming this spring.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hey, nonprofit friends, welcome to the Spring
Forward podcast, where we talkabout all things nonprofit, from
board discord to grant writingand strategic planning tips.
If you're an executive director, nonprofit board member or just
someone heavily involved in thenonprofit sector, then this is
the podcast for you.
Let's spring forward intoexcellence.
(00:24):
This is the podcast for you.
Let's spring forward intoexcellence.
Welcome, welcome, guys, toanother episode of the Spring
Forward podcast.
I'm your host, springRichardson Perry, and today we
have a great topic for you.
We are talking about nonprofitboards and executive leadership.
And to help me talk about thistopic I have Nick Gaglardi and I
(00:49):
know she's going to correct mebecause I'm sure I butchered
that, but she is a governanceconsultant based in Canada that
works with nonprofitorganizations across North
America.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
So welcome, nick Hi thanks, Spring Nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Thank you so much for being here, and so how did I do
with your last name?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, it's Gilardi, but that's okay, it's a tricky
one.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Gilardi, yes, it doesn't look how it sounds, so
it's a tricky one and it doesnot.
But I'm so glad and so thankfulthat you were able to be here
today to lift up this superimportant topic, because boards
essentially run the nonprofitright.
We always think of theexecutive director as the
(01:39):
figurehead right, becausethey're the one that you see on
a daily basis, but in actuality,the board is the one that you
see on a daily basis, but inactuality, the board is the one
that holds all the power.
And yeah, and unfortunately,boards don't always agree on
things, and so, you know, Ireally would love to lift this
(02:02):
up and talk about this today,because you have a great column
that you do on LinkedIn and inyour newsletter just about some
issues that you've run intothroughout the course of working
with different organizations,and it's really good guys, and
so if you get a chance, you needto check it out.
(02:23):
Nicole, say, your last name,nicole Goularty Goularty, and
she is.
It is really good in terms ofgiving you some really good
strategies and some really goodconflict resolution tools if you
are having these issues on yourboard.
So one thing, one thing I wantto start with let's talk about,
(02:47):
you know, what we kind of saidat first right, we think that
the executive director isrunning the show, and which they
are, in a sense, in the day today operations of the
organization.
Right, but how do, how cannonprofit boards and executive
directors establish clearboundaries to prevent role
(03:08):
confusion and potentialconflicts?
Because, like we said, it'sit's the board really running
the show, but the executivedirector also has a level of
power too.
So what are your thoughts onthat?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah, well, I think it's.
You know, I think it'simportant to to realize, as you
say, that the board isultimately the people who are
accountable in the organization,right?
And so, you know, boards can.
They can delegate thataccountability, they can
delegate their governance rolesand they can delegate the
management of the organization.
And so when a board hires an ED, they're essentially they're
(03:47):
delegating the day-to-daymanagement of an organization to
that role.
And so I think, you know, weoften we're looking for this
like clean line between boardand staff, and I think that the
easiest place to find that is inan ED's job description, right?
So if you're a board and you'vehired an ED, you've hopefully
(04:09):
created a job description forthat role and your involvement,
or your direct involvement,stops where that job description
starts, right, because it's notefficient or effective for a
board to be overlapping withwork that they've already
delegated to somebody else.
So I think having a clear jobdescription is the number one.
(04:31):
It's really the most basic toolthat you can have to help
create that role.
Clarity.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, I agree, because the job description is
going to clearly outline whatthe expectations of the
executive director are, and sothat should give the board an
idea.
Ok, we're giving theseresponsibilities to the
executive director.
So now this is our role in one,making sure the executive
(05:00):
director is held accountable tothose things sure, the executive
director is held accountable tothose things.
But two, beyond what theexecutive director is doing,
what else needs to be done tomove the organization forward,
and that part is what would thenfall on the board.
So I really love thatexplanation because it really is
, you know, the most basic thing, like you said, but I think
(05:24):
sometimes we overlook that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah, and I think you know boards most of the time
not always, but most of the timeboards are they're there for
the right reasons.
They want the organization tosucceed, they want their ED to
succeed, and there's sometimes afear of letting go of some of
those, those management rolesthat the e takes on.
And so it's not to say that theboard shouldn't be aware of
(05:49):
what's happening, but theyshouldn't be monitoring.
They should, but they reallyneed to be able to.
You know, when you're, whenyou're choosing an executive
director, that's a reallyimportant decision and you need
to be able to to make thatdecision and stand behind it.
Right?
You, you've picked someonewho's, who's better suited to
that job than you are.
So it's time to kind of take astep back and let them do their
thing.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I love that you hire someone to do a job, so let them
do it.
Yep Period.
So talk to me in yourexperience.
What are some of the mostcommon sources of conflict
between the nonprofit boards andexecutive directors?
And like how can we sort ofpreemptively address them?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Yeah, well, you know there's two underlying trends
that I see a lot that sort of.
You know there's a lot ofdifferent sources of conflict.
Nonprofit governance can be atense space, right, the stakes
are high, the work isn't easy,you never have enough resources,
but I would say, underneath allof that, you have a situation
(06:52):
where, you know, an ED is veryaware of that, but it's their
boss, right, and you know, weall know, how challenging it can
be to navigate relationshipswith the boss.
Well, your boss is actually 7,10, 15 people who may or may not
have any kind of structuredprocess in place to communicate
(07:12):
with you.
So that's a challenging dynamic.
The flip side is that a lot ofboard members don't think of
themselves as a boss, they don'tthink of themselves as an
employer, and so you have an EDwho's approaching that
relationship from thatperspective and awareness of the
power dynamic, but thatawareness doesn't always extend
to the other side, and so youend up with board members who
(07:33):
are maybe sharing ideas oropinions off the cuff not
realizing that it's landing, asyou know, a boss.
And so I think that I thinkthat disconnect is is where a
lot of those tensions that wewould expect to see in any
non-profit space can becomeamplified.
Right, and the other thing thatI see a lot and I don't think we
(07:56):
talk about this enough is thatit's not uncommon for people to
join boards without a strongunderstanding or experience in
the nonprofit sector.
And I see this particularlywhen board directors are coming
from a very corporate backgroundwhere they come into the space
with a lot of sort ofmisconceptions or bias about who
(08:18):
works in the nonprofit sector.
And I sometimes you know, in mywork, I'll be interviewing
board members and they have thisvery dismissive approach to
their ED.
They basically come in therethinking this person is
incompetent or they're not verygood at their job.
There's this assumption that ifyou were a good leader, you
would have a different job right, like a quote, unquote real job
(08:40):
and I think that that's areally, really harmful, toxic
perspective.
It's baggage that many peoplebring into the board table and I
don't think that we name that,I don't think we're aware of
that often enough, but it canreally really cause tension for
boards and EDs.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I think that's sort of an unconscious bias that some
people have.
I don't even think a lot oftimes they're aware of that
right, but it's so true thatthey come with this preconceived
notion that if you were anysort of real leader, right with
quotes around the word realbecause if you know, you would-
be in a corporate settinggetting paid all this money, but
they don't take a step back tothink you know you would be in a
(09:22):
corporate setting getting paidall this money, but they don't
take a step back to think youknow this person, their values
are quite different than yourown personal values and they
value something different thanwhat you value.
And and and I'm going to be theperfect example here when it
(09:46):
comes to your parents, right,your parents want what's best
for you and they want to see yousort of continue on their
legacy a lot of the times, right?
Well, my mom came from a verycorporate background, was in a
very large telecommunicationcompany in management for over
(10:06):
30 years, and the way that I sawthings operate in that company,
the things that she dealt withon a daily basis, I personally
vowed to never work in corporateAmerica and so far so good, and
so far so good.
But you know, that's just anexample to show how this is my
(10:29):
mom.
This is someone who has raisedme who I should have typically
pretty much the same values, thesame ideas as this person does.
Very different, very differentin a sense.
Right, because I very muchvalue small, small business,
(10:54):
intimate relationships when itcomes to the work world,
especially in the nonprofitworld.
My heart has always been in thenonprofit world and I think I
think watching her deal with allthe corporate shenanigans sort
of solidified that for me,because you know you think of
the corporate shenanigans, sortof solidified that for me
because you know you think ofthe corporate world as hardcore.
They have no feelings, it's allabout business and nobody's
your friend at the end of theday, right.
But then when you you think inthe nonprofit world, you think
(11:18):
of leading with your heart andyou think of of being aligned
with whatever the mission is ofthe organization and the people
that you're serving.
It's about the community.
(11:40):
And so I think I think watchingher said that story to say that
when people come into thesespaces, like on a board, from a
corporate position, like yousaid, they don't realize their
own biases that they have and itdoes create a very toxic
environment because they mayvery well realize I'm your boss,
(12:04):
and so it's one of those thingswhere now you have, like you
said, five, seven, 15 bosses andthis person who's coming from
this corporate backgroundthey're used to calling the
shots autonomously if they werea director at a director level
for their you know their team,or if they were the CEO of an
(12:27):
organization, definitely makingdecisions autonomously for sure.
But now, yes, you are one ofthis ED's bosses, but you have
other people that are makingdecisions with you that you have
to consult with, that you haveto talk to, that you have to
(12:47):
come into agreement with, tomove this organization forward.
And so I am really glad thatyou said that and that you
really lifted that up, becausewe don't talk about that enough.
We don't talk about how, justbecause someone was a CFO and
now comes to sit on a nonprofitboard as the treasurer, you know
(13:10):
that CFO experience in thecorporate world is going to be
completely different than CFOexperience and being the
treasurer of a board in thenonprofit world.
So amen to that.
That is something that I thinkis going to be a conversation
that we're going to be havingfor a very long time, because
(13:31):
that dynamic is just a trickyone to navigate.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Yeah, yeah, and I think you know, even the whole
bias thing aside, I think a lotof people they don't have a deep
understanding of what it's liketo work in a nonprofit.
Right, there are uniquechallenges.
Right, it's a uniqueenvironment.
Right, it's a uniqueenvironment, it's a unique
culture.
Um, and so there may not be,yeah, there may not be, an
appreciation of what, what youknow, what a, what an ed is
(14:00):
actually dealing with on aday-to-day um, or how valuable
their, their, their non-profitexperience, or their lived
experience might be.
I think I I think there's oftena disconnect there.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Yeah, very much so.
And you know one of the things,because, as we're talking about
these relationships and likethese interactions and the way
that the board, their perceptionand that perception has them to
interact in a particular way,right, you recently wrote an
article about maybe establishinga code of conduct for your
(14:36):
board members, and I absolutelylove that.
I love that how can they eitherimplement a code of conduct
that promotes healthycommunication and conflict
resolution or just develop onein general, because I'm sure a
lot of non-profits do not havethis in place right now.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
Yeah, I think it's a really, really important bit of
governance policy fororganizations to have, and it's
one that that you want to bereally upfront and intentional
about, right.
It's.
It's really important that youknow you've got your governance
binder, your policy suite.
This is something that I think,when directors are signing
(15:20):
their confidentiality agreements, that they're also signing a
code of conduct.
I think it needs to be thatintentional.
There are, like you know,there's tons of policy templates
out there that you could find,but I think the best you know
code of conduct approach is toreally make sure that it aligns
with your organization's values,right, so that's going to look
different from organization toorganization.
(15:41):
I think it's also important toinclude you know examples or
details.
So I quote you know code ofconduct policies and they say
things like you know, directorsneed to behave respectfully.
What does that mean?
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
What does that mean Exactly what?
Speaker 2 (15:57):
do you mean by respectfully right?
And no two people are going tohave the same concept of what
that means.
When you're working in adiverse environment, you know
that's language that can beweaponized environment, you know
that's language that can beweaponized.
So I think you need to bepretty clear about where those
(16:19):
lines are and I think you knowto your point.
It should.
If you have staff, it shouldclarify how should board
interact with staff, what arethe expectations there?
You want to be reallyintentional about that and it
needs to also have a policy or aprocess attached to it where
it's clear what happens if.
(16:41):
If a board member violates thatcode of conduct.
What happens then?
Right, how does that get calledout?
How is it dealt with?
Obviously, you want to have,you know, fair, reasonable
process.
But there should be a processin place because people make
mistakes, People do the wrongthing, and so you want to.
You want to be fair, you wantto be equitable in how people
(17:01):
are treated on your board.
But you don't want, you don'twait, Something happens and then
have to make it up as you go.
Right, it's best to think aboutthat on the front end, I think
it's best to think about that onthe front end.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
I think I agree, I absolutely agree.
When you're proactive abouthandling these things and not
reactive about handling them, Ithink it sets you up for better
success.
And I'm taking notes, writingthese things down as we're
talking about it, because I'mthinking about the two nonprofit
boards that I sit on and wedon't have a code of conduct and
(17:40):
not that we necessarily needone in this moment, but when the
time does come and we do needone, there will be one there to
reference, and then if somethinghappens we need to reference it
and say it doesn't specificallyaddress that situation, then at
that point we can refine iteven more based on experience
with that, with with thatparticular situation but, having
(18:04):
just having something in place.
Um, I think that's superimportant and I was just in love
with the article that you wroteabout this, because I had never
even it, never even crossed mymind.
You know, you have bylaws thattell you what the president does
, what the treasurer does.
You know everybody has a role.
It's defined.
You talk about your internalcontrols, your programming and
(18:27):
all that good stuff, but wedon't talk about how board
members should act and how ahealthy relationship between the
board and the executiveleadership should look, and I
think that that's importantbecause they have to work
together to move theorganization forward.
So that relationship needs tobe clearly defined, and what
(18:48):
better way to do it than in thebylaws?
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Yeah, and I think I mean, ultimately, it's about
accountability, right, because,right, the board has so much
power and what you know, whenyou're in a position of power or
authority, what you say and do,it carries weight, it matters,
right, effectively, it's reallyimportant that the board can
hold itself accountable and makesure that everyone there is,
(19:15):
you know, is, is a, that theyknow what's expected of them and
and and and and what isinappropriate and and, that they
know that that they, thatthey'll be held accountable for
for that behavior.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
So I love that you say that right Accountability
that we're going to hold peopleaccountable for their actions,
right.
But sometimes accountabilitycan cause conflict.
So, you know, conflict isn'talways necessarily a bad thing.
However, it can.
It can be difficult, you know.
So what are like, what are someways that you would suggest,
(19:53):
what are some effectivetechniques that you would
suggest for facilitatingdifficult conversations between
board members or between theboard and executive leadership?
You know, what are some waysthat you deal with this?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Yeah, it's such a good question, spring, you've
mentioned my newsletter a coupleof times and, honestly and
honestly, I get these stories orquestions from people and I see
it in my own work, in my ownconsulting work too, these
tricky situations, the veryconflictual situations that
organizations get into or thatpop up in governance spaces and,
(20:28):
honestly, you know, there's alot to be said around governance
structures and training and 90%of governance problems are just
a lack of communication and alack of conflict management.
Right, because it's just,you're in a space of power with
(20:48):
human beings.
It gets messy.
With human beings it gets messyand something about those
nonprofit spaces.
Right, where we're really haveme, I don't know if this is the
same as us it's definitely inCanada.
The nonprofit culture in Canadait's very conflict-averse, right
, we've got this sort of likeyou know this, like Victoria,
our Victorian roots, very like aProtestant, like like just be
(21:12):
quiet, be polite, don't rock theboat, don't challenge anyone,
right, and that's a big problembecause conflicts happen, right,
issues come up, and so I thinkthe first thing, we can talk
about policies and process, butthere needs to be a culture on
(21:33):
the board where it's okay tohave conflict, to name conflict
and there needs to be, like, theskills and capacity to actually
work through it.
Um, sometimes that comes downto leadership, and so I think
it's really, really important,when an organization is
selecting a chair, that thatchair has conflict management
skills.
And if they don't't have thator they're uncomfortable, you
(21:56):
know.
You know you get situations onboards where you have someone
with a lot of clout in thecommunity or something, and the
chair doesn't feel able to callthat person out, call that
person in.
You have to find a way to makesure that your chair is capable
of doing that.
(22:16):
So, you know, again, having somekind of a process in place,
right, can be simple, but havingsomething that says you know,
when there's a conflict betweenboard members, this is how we're
going to handle it, this iswhat the process will look like,
that can help a lot to addressthat hesitancy, because what
(22:36):
often happens is it's messystuff, right?
Someone comes to you and says,oh, so-and-so on did this or
that, and I'm concerned, andpeople are like, oh, I don't
really know what to do with that, so I'll just do nothing.
Right, I'm just gonna leavethat one alone.
Um, so having a process inplace means that you can say, oh
god, uh, I am reallyuncomfortable with this, but
(22:58):
here's the process, let's do it.
And when you're talking aboutconflict between the board and
the ED because of that powerdynamic, I think it's really
important to be open to thepossibility of bringing in a
neutral third party to help, tohelp kind of mediate whatever is
going on.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
I absolutely agree with that, bringing in someone
like yourself to mediate thesethings.
And say in someone likeyourself to mediate these things
and say, okay, let's look atthe situation as a whole, let's
look at what policies you havein place right now and then
let's see how we can take thesepolicies, make them better.
If there's nothing already,let's okay.
(23:38):
Let's figure out the wholesituation in and of itself and
what can we do differently,moving forward, what policies
can we put in place?
I love bringing in a neutralthird party because that takes
the feelings out of it.
Right.
That takes, of course, theexecutive director is closely
tied to the situation itselfbecause I'm sure you know
(24:00):
whatever happened.
They were involved in thatsituation in the organization
and the board, of course, isresponsible for whatever happens
.
So their feelings are involvedas well.
So when you get this neutralthird party to come in, they can
see things with clear eyes andthey can get to the root of the
problem.
Because you may not necessarilybe able to do that.
(24:23):
You know, when you have twopeople who are just going at
each other, you know no onethinks that they're wrong, and
neither may be.
It's not about being right orwrong.
It's always supposed to be inthe interest of the organization
and the community that you'reserving.
And it's interesting when yousay in Canada that the nonprofit
(24:47):
culture is more so like, ooh, Idon't wanna.
Like, you don't wanna deal withanything adverse, you don't
wanna say anything that's gonnamake anybody angry or be
conflicting, right, but verymuch so on the American side.
When you think of social impact, you think of nonprofits.
(25:08):
It's sort of a mix of the two.
There's that culture where it'swhat you're describing, you
don't want to shake it up, butthen it's the other extreme
where we are super passionate,we are advocates and we are just
rebels fighting against everysingle rule that exists because
it's all wrong.
(25:30):
So how do you navigate that?
Right, like you have these verytwo different cultures ideas.
You may have a very passionateexecutive director that doesn't
mind challenging the status quo,where you have these board of
directors who are just kind oflike I'm just here to fill a
(25:51):
seat and I don't really want torock the boat, let's just keep
it going.
So how do you balance?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
that, yeah, I think what I have found is that every
board, every organization, stuffis going to happen.
Something's going to happen.
It's going to get messy.
People can get through it, yourorganization can get through it
, but if you, you know how youhandle it matters right, and I
think how you handle it is thedifference between you know, a
(26:23):
difficult issue kind of blowingup, um, where you have directors
resigning, you have your edresigning.
This, this thing is very common, right, um, uh, you know versus
where you do your best, youhave a process, you follow it,
even if it's not perfect, evenif the the issue is complex and
messy.
If people feel like it, likeit's getting a fair shake, right
(26:47):
, um, if they fee, if they havean opportunity to feel heard, if
, um, you know, if everyone istreated respectfully, then you
have a much higher uh, you knowprobability of getting through
that without, without the bombgoing off, you know probability
of getting through that withoutwithout the bomb going off, I
know, right, that's what I'mthinking about.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
It just an explosion, right, and then you have to,
you're left to pick up thepieces, and that's never easy
trying to rebuild from that.
So I, I appreciate that I wantto, so I'm going to wrap it up
here.
But one of the last things Iwant to so I'm going to wrap it
up here, but one of the lastthings I want to talk about is
the level of transparency rightwithin the board.
(27:27):
But also, you know, there's alevel of confidentiality
confidentiality that needs to behad as well when we're talking
about addressing conflictswithin the organization.
So how do we balance that?
We have this issue that hascome up, and nonprofit
(27:47):
organizations are supposed to bevery transparent in the way
that they operate and the thingsthat they do, because, again,
the organization exists to servethe community, so they need to
know what's going on.
But then also there's thatlevel of confidentiality that
needs to be had sometimes withcertain situations.
So how do you balance that needfor transparency with the need
for confidentiality in certainsituations?
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Yeah, I don't think that they're.
I don't think that they're, youknow, incompatible, right?
So confidentiality is a reallyimportant part of good
governance, but confidentialityand secrecy are different, right
and so.
So I have to tip my hat tothere's a Canadian, grant
(28:32):
McDonald.
He has a great resource on thiscalled you know something like
you know it's about in cameraboard sessions careful how you
use them, right, because a lotof boards they overuse and they
misuse in camera sessions in thename of confidentiality.
But often what they'rediscussing isn't something that
requires confidentiality,they're just being secretive.
(28:54):
And so transparency iscompatible with confidentiality
because you can say hey, this isthe issue we're talking about.
It requires confidentiality,that's transparent.
If you're just having closeddoor meetings and it's all very
hush hush and people are kind ofgoing around guessing, worrying
, stressing about what you'retalking about, that's secrecy,
(29:16):
right?
That's not compatible withtransparency.
So I think boards deal withsensitive issues.
They need to be, you know.
They need to have space forconfidential conversations.
But we need to make sure thatyou know confidentiality
supports trust.
It should never erode it, right?
(29:36):
So if you're in a situationwhere trust is being eroded in
your organization, then that'ssomething.
Trust is being eroded in yourorganization, then that's
something you're going into therealm of secrecy there.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
I love that.
I'm so glad that youdifferentiated between the two
right Between confidentialityand secrecy because, like you
said, that's two totallydifferent things.
If you're being secretive, thenyeah, I'm going to be wondering
what are you hiding, what arelike?
Then, yeah, I'm going to bewondering what are you hiding,
what are like, what is happening.
But you know, if we say, well,we had an incident that involved
(30:10):
one of our employees, they'reokay, but you know, this is all
we can tell you about that, thenthat makes a huge difference.
And so, like I totally I'm soglad you brought that up.
I totally get that, because inmy head I'm thinking, before we,
before you just defined it, I'mthinking how can?
What's the difference betweensecrecy and confidentiality?
(30:31):
Are you holding secrets ifyou're being confidential?
But I'm so glad you looked atthis.
This was amazing.
Nick, I appreciate you so muchbecause you just have so much
knowledge around boardgovernance and conflict
resolution and making sure thatthere's a healthy relationship,
(30:52):
maintaining that healthyrelationship between the board
and the executive director,because that's kind of a tough
power dynamic to navigate.
So I appreciate you.
Thank you so much no, it's mypleasure.
I always enjoy our conversationsabsolutely, and so if, if
anyone wants to get in touchwith you or just learn more
(31:14):
about what you do, how can theyreach out to you?
Speaker 2 (31:18):
uh, yeah, you can find me on LinkedIn.
Um, you can check out mywebsite, divisionrunco.
I have the newsletter you'vementioned a few times.
It's called Nonprofit BoardStories.
I publish it every second week,so it's a biweekly piece coming
(31:45):
out this spring.
It's a performance managementsystem for small nonprofits and
so I have a wait list on mywebsite if folks are interested
in checking that out.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
That's awesome.
Yes, I'm sure that isdefinitely needed to give
constructive feedback from theboard to the executive
leadership team, and so Iappreciate that.
Thank you so much, nick, and,as you guys heard, the baby in
the background as well, and sowe are going to sign off on that
note.
Thank you so much and, asalways, guys, till next time on
(32:15):
the Spring Forward podcast.
Hey, nonprofit friends, welcome to the Spring
Forward podcast, where we talkabout all things nonprofit, from
board discord to grant writingand strategic planning tips.
If you're an executive director, nonprofit board member or just
someone heavily involved in thenonprofit sector, then this is
the podcast for you.
Let's spring forward intoexcellence.
(00:24):
This is the podcast for you.
Let's spring forward intoexcellence.
Welcome, welcome, guys, toanother episode of the Spring
Forward podcast.
I'm your host, springRichardson Perry, and today we
have a great topic for you.
We are talking about nonprofitboards and executive leadership.
And to help me talk about thistopic I have Nick Gaglardi and I
(00:49):
know she's going to correct mebecause I'm sure I butchered
that, but she is a governanceconsultant based in Canada that
works with nonprofitorganizations across North
America.
Speaker 2 (01:01):
So welcome, nick Hi thanks, Spring Nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (01:07):
Thank you so much for being here, and so how did I do
with your last name?
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yeah, it's Gilardi, but that's okay, it's a tricky
one.
Speaker 1 (01:17):
Gilardi, yes, it doesn't look how it sounds, so
it's a tricky one and it doesnot.
But I'm so glad and so thankfulthat you were able to be here
today to lift up this superimportant topic, because boards
essentially run the nonprofitright.
We always think of theexecutive director as the
(01:39):
figurehead right, becausethey're the one that you see on
a daily basis, but in actuality,the board is the one that you
see on a daily basis, but inactuality, the board is the one
that holds all the power.
And yeah, and unfortunately,boards don't always agree on
things, and so, you know, Ireally would love to lift this
(02:02):
up and talk about this today,because you have a great column
that you do on LinkedIn and inyour newsletter just about some
issues that you've run intothroughout the course of working
with different organizations,and it's really good guys, and
so if you get a chance, you needto check it out.
(02:23):
Nicole, say, your last name,nicole Goularty Goularty, and
she is.
It is really good in terms ofgiving you some really good
strategies and some really goodconflict resolution tools if you
are having these issues on yourboard.
So one thing, one thing I wantto start with let's talk about,
(02:47):
you know, what we kind of saidat first right, we think that
the executive director isrunning the show, and which they
are, in a sense, in the day today operations of the
organization.
Right, but how do, how cannonprofit boards and executive
directors establish clearboundaries to prevent role
(03:08):
confusion and potentialconflicts?
Because, like we said, it'sit's the board really running
the show, but the executivedirector also has a level of
power too.
So what are your thoughts onthat?
Speaker 2 (03:25):
Yeah, well, I think it's.
You know, I think it'simportant to to realize, as you
say, that the board isultimately the people who are
accountable in the organization,right?
And so, you know, boards can.
They can delegate thataccountability, they can
delegate their governance rolesand they can delegate the
management of the organization.
And so when a board hires an ED, they're essentially they're
(03:47):
delegating the day-to-daymanagement of an organization to
that role.
And so I think, you know, weoften we're looking for this
like clean line between boardand staff, and I think that the
easiest place to find that is inan ED's job description, right?
So if you're a board and you'vehired an ED, you've hopefully
(04:09):
created a job description forthat role and your involvement,
or your direct involvement,stops where that job description
starts, right, because it's notefficient or effective for a
board to be overlapping withwork that they've already
delegated to somebody else.
So I think having a clear jobdescription is the number one.
(04:31):
It's really the most basic toolthat you can have to help
create that role.
Clarity.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
Yeah, I agree, because the job description is
going to clearly outline whatthe expectations of the
executive director are, and sothat should give the board an
idea.
Ok, we're giving theseresponsibilities to the
executive director.
So now this is our role in one,making sure the executive
(05:00):
director is held accountable tothose things sure, the executive
director is held accountable tothose things.
But two, beyond what theexecutive director is doing,
what else needs to be done tomove the organization forward,
and that part is what would thenfall on the board.
So I really love thatexplanation because it really is
, you know, the most basic thing, like you said, but I think
(05:24):
sometimes we overlook that.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Yeah, and I think you know boards most of the time
not always, but most of the timeboards are they're there for
the right reasons.
They want the organization tosucceed, they want their ED to
succeed, and there's sometimes afear of letting go of some of
those, those management rolesthat the e takes on.
And so it's not to say that theboard shouldn't be aware of
(05:49):
what's happening, but theyshouldn't be monitoring.
They should, but they reallyneed to be able to.
You know, when you're, whenyou're choosing an executive
director, that's a reallyimportant decision and you need
to be able to to make thatdecision and stand behind it.
Right?
You, you've picked someonewho's, who's better suited to
that job than you are.
So it's time to kind of take astep back and let them do their
thing.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
I love that you hire someone to do a job, so let them
do it.
Yep Period.
So talk to me in yourexperience.
What are some of the mostcommon sources of conflict
between the nonprofit boards andexecutive directors?
And like how can we sort ofpreemptively address them?
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Yeah, well, you know there's two underlying trends
that I see a lot that sort of.
You know there's a lot ofdifferent sources of conflict.
Nonprofit governance can be atense space, right, the stakes
are high, the work isn't easy,you never have enough resources,
but I would say, underneath allof that, you have a situation
(06:52):
where, you know, an ED is veryaware of that, but it's their
boss, right, and you know, weall know, how challenging it can
be to navigate relationshipswith the boss.
Well, your boss is actually 7,10, 15 people who may or may not
have any kind of structuredprocess in place to communicate
(07:12):
with you.
So that's a challenging dynamic.
The flip side is that a lot ofboard members don't think of
themselves as a boss, they don'tthink of themselves as an
employer, and so you have an EDwho's approaching that
relationship from thatperspective and awareness of the
power dynamic, but thatawareness doesn't always extend
to the other side, and so youend up with board members who
(07:33):
are maybe sharing ideas oropinions off the cuff not
realizing that it's landing, asyou know, a boss.
And so I think that I thinkthat disconnect is is where a
lot of those tensions that wewould expect to see in any
non-profit space can becomeamplified.
Right, and the other thing thatI see a lot and I don't think we
(07:56):
talk about this enough is thatit's not uncommon for people to
join boards without a strongunderstanding or experience in
the nonprofit sector.
And I see this particularlywhen board directors are coming
from a very corporate backgroundwhere they come into the space
with a lot of sort ofmisconceptions or bias about who
(08:18):
works in the nonprofit sector.
And I sometimes you know, in mywork, I'll be interviewing
board members and they have thisvery dismissive approach to
their ED.
They basically come in therethinking this person is
incompetent or they're not verygood at their job.
There's this assumption that ifyou were a good leader, you
would have a different job right, like a quote, unquote real job
(08:40):
and I think that that's areally, really harmful, toxic
perspective.
It's baggage that many peoplebring into the board table and I
don't think that we name that,I don't think we're aware of
that often enough, but it canreally really cause tension for
boards and EDs.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
I think that's sort of an unconscious bias that some
people have.
I don't even think a lot oftimes they're aware of that
right, but it's so true thatthey come with this preconceived
notion that if you were anysort of real leader, right with
quotes around the word realbecause if you know, you would-
be in a corporate settinggetting paid all this money, but
they don't take a step back tothink you know you would be in a
(09:22):
corporate setting getting paidall this money, but they don't
take a step back to think youknow this person, their values
are quite different than yourown personal values and they
value something different thanwhat you value.
And and and I'm going to be theperfect example here when it
(09:46):
comes to your parents, right,your parents want what's best
for you and they want to see yousort of continue on their
legacy a lot of the times, right?
Well, my mom came from a verycorporate background, was in a
very large telecommunicationcompany in management for over
(10:06):
30 years, and the way that I sawthings operate in that company,
the things that she dealt withon a daily basis, I personally
vowed to never work in corporateAmerica and so far so good, and
so far so good.
But you know, that's just anexample to show how this is my
(10:29):
mom.
This is someone who has raisedme who I should have typically
pretty much the same values, thesame ideas as this person does.
Very different, very differentin a sense.
Right, because I very muchvalue small, small business,
(10:54):
intimate relationships when itcomes to the work world,
especially in the nonprofitworld.
My heart has always been in thenonprofit world and I think I
think watching her deal with allthe corporate shenanigans sort
of solidified that for me,because you know you think of
the corporate shenanigans, sortof solidified that for me
because you know you think ofthe corporate world as hardcore.
They have no feelings, it's allabout business and nobody's
your friend at the end of theday, right.
But then when you you think inthe nonprofit world, you think
(11:18):
of leading with your heart andyou think of of being aligned
with whatever the mission is ofthe organization and the people
that you're serving.
It's about the community.
(11:40):
And so I think I think watchingher said that story to say that
when people come into thesespaces, like on a board, from a
corporate position, like yousaid, they don't realize their
own biases that they have and itdoes create a very toxic
environment because they mayvery well realize I'm your boss,
(12:04):
and so it's one of those thingswhere now you have, like you
said, five, seven, 15 bosses andthis person who's coming from
this corporate backgroundthey're used to calling the
shots autonomously if they werea director at a director level
for their you know their team,or if they were the CEO of an
(12:27):
organization, definitely makingdecisions autonomously for sure.
But now, yes, you are one ofthis ED's bosses, but you have
other people that are makingdecisions with you that you have
to consult with, that you haveto talk to, that you have to
(12:47):
come into agreement with, tomove this organization forward.
And so I am really glad thatyou said that and that you
really lifted that up, becausewe don't talk about that enough.
We don't talk about how, justbecause someone was a CFO and
now comes to sit on a nonprofitboard as the treasurer, you know
(13:10):
that CFO experience in thecorporate world is going to be
completely different than CFOexperience and being the
treasurer of a board in thenonprofit world.
So amen to that.
That is something that I thinkis going to be a conversation
that we're going to be havingfor a very long time, because
(13:31):
that dynamic is just a trickyone to navigate.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
Yeah, yeah, and I think you know, even the whole
bias thing aside, I think a lotof people they don't have a deep
understanding of what it's liketo work in a nonprofit.
Right, there are uniquechallenges.
Right, it's a uniqueenvironment.
Right, it's a uniqueenvironment, it's a unique
culture.
Um, and so there may not be,yeah, there may not be, an
appreciation of what, what youknow, what a, what an ed is
(14:00):
actually dealing with on aday-to-day um, or how valuable
their, their, their non-profitexperience, or their lived
experience might be.
I think I I think there's oftena disconnect there.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Yeah, very much so.
And you know one of the things,because, as we're talking about
these relationships and likethese interactions and the way
that the board, their perceptionand that perception has them to
interact in a particular way,right, you recently wrote an
article about maybe establishinga code of conduct for your
(14:36):
board members, and I absolutelylove that.
I love that how can they eitherimplement a code of conduct
that promotes healthycommunication and conflict
resolution or just develop onein general, because I'm sure a
lot of non-profits do not havethis in place right now.
Speaker 2 (14:59):
Yeah, I think it's a really, really important bit of
governance policy fororganizations to have, and it's
one that that you want to bereally upfront and intentional
about, right.
It's.
It's really important that youknow you've got your governance
binder, your policy suite.
This is something that I think,when directors are signing
(15:20):
their confidentiality agreements, that they're also signing a
code of conduct.
I think it needs to be thatintentional.
There are, like you know,there's tons of policy templates
out there that you could find,but I think the best you know
code of conduct approach is toreally make sure that it aligns
with your organization's values,right, so that's going to look
different from organization toorganization.
(15:41):
I think it's also important toinclude you know examples or
details.
So I quote you know code ofconduct policies and they say
things like you know, directorsneed to behave respectfully.
What does that mean?
Right?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
What does that mean Exactly what?
Speaker 2 (15:57):
do you mean by respectfully right?
And no two people are going tohave the same concept of what
that means.
When you're working in adiverse environment, you know
that's language that can beweaponized environment, you know
that's language that can beweaponized.
So I think you need to bepretty clear about where those
(16:19):
lines are and I think you knowto your point.
It should.
If you have staff, it shouldclarify how should board
interact with staff, what arethe expectations there?
You want to be reallyintentional about that and it
needs to also have a policy or aprocess attached to it where
it's clear what happens if.
(16:41):
If a board member violates thatcode of conduct.
What happens then?
Right, how does that get calledout?
How is it dealt with?
Obviously, you want to have,you know, fair, reasonable
process.
But there should be a processin place because people make
mistakes, People do the wrongthing, and so you want to.
You want to be fair, you wantto be equitable in how people
(17:01):
are treated on your board.
But you don't want, you don'twait, Something happens and then
have to make it up as you go.
Right, it's best to think aboutthat on the front end, I think
it's best to think about that onthe front end.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
I think I agree, I absolutely agree.
When you're proactive abouthandling these things and not
reactive about handling them, Ithink it sets you up for better
success.
And I'm taking notes, writingthese things down as we're
talking about it, because I'mthinking about the two nonprofit
boards that I sit on and wedon't have a code of conduct and
(17:40):
not that we necessarily needone in this moment, but when the
time does come and we do needone, there will be one there to
reference, and then if somethinghappens we need to reference it
and say it doesn't specificallyaddress that situation, then at
that point we can refine iteven more based on experience
with that, with with thatparticular situation but, having
(18:04):
just having something in place.
Um, I think that's superimportant and I was just in love
with the article that you wroteabout this, because I had never
even it, never even crossed mymind.
You know, you have bylaws thattell you what the president does
, what the treasurer does.
You know everybody has a role.
It's defined.
You talk about your internalcontrols, your programming and
(18:27):
all that good stuff, but wedon't talk about how board
members should act and how ahealthy relationship between the
board and the executiveleadership should look, and I
think that that's importantbecause they have to work
together to move theorganization forward.
So that relationship needs tobe clearly defined, and what
(18:48):
better way to do it than in thebylaws?
Speaker 2 (18:51):
Yeah, and I think I mean, ultimately, it's about
accountability, right, because,right, the board has so much
power and what you know, whenyou're in a position of power or
authority, what you say and do,it carries weight, it matters,
right, effectively, it's reallyimportant that the board can
hold itself accountable and makesure that everyone there is,
(19:15):
you know, is, is a, that theyknow what's expected of them and
and and and and what isinappropriate and and, that they
know that that they, thatthey'll be held accountable for
for that behavior.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
So I love that you say that right Accountability
that we're going to hold peopleaccountable for their actions,
right.
But sometimes accountabilitycan cause conflict.
So, you know, conflict isn'talways necessarily a bad thing.
However, it can.
It can be difficult, you know.
So what are like, what are someways that you would suggest,
(19:53):
what are some effectivetechniques that you would
suggest for facilitatingdifficult conversations between
board members or between theboard and executive leadership?
You know, what are some waysthat you deal with this?
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Yeah, it's such a good question, spring, you've
mentioned my newsletter a coupleof times and, honestly and
honestly, I get these stories orquestions from people and I see
it in my own work, in my ownconsulting work too, these
tricky situations, the veryconflictual situations that
organizations get into or thatpop up in governance spaces and,
(20:28):
honestly, you know, there's alot to be said around governance
structures and training and 90%of governance problems are just
a lack of communication and alack of conflict management.
Right, because it's just,you're in a space of power with
(20:48):
human beings.
It gets messy.
With human beings it gets messyand something about those
nonprofit spaces.
Right, where we're really haveme, I don't know if this is the
same as us it's definitely inCanada.
The nonprofit culture in Canadait's very conflict-averse, right
, we've got this sort of likeyou know this, like Victoria,
our Victorian roots, very like aProtestant, like like just be
(21:12):
quiet, be polite, don't rock theboat, don't challenge anyone,
right, and that's a big problembecause conflicts happen, right,
issues come up, and so I thinkthe first thing, we can talk
about policies and process, butthere needs to be a culture on
(21:33):
the board where it's okay tohave conflict, to name conflict
and there needs to be, like, theskills and capacity to actually
work through it.
Um, sometimes that comes downto leadership, and so I think
it's really, really important,when an organization is
selecting a chair, that thatchair has conflict management
skills.
And if they don't't have thator they're uncomfortable, you
(21:56):
know.
You know you get situations onboards where you have someone
with a lot of clout in thecommunity or something, and the
chair doesn't feel able to callthat person out, call that
person in.
You have to find a way to makesure that your chair is capable
of doing that.
(22:16):
So, you know, again, having somekind of a process in place,
right, can be simple, but havingsomething that says you know,
when there's a conflict betweenboard members, this is how we're
going to handle it, this iswhat the process will look like,
that can help a lot to addressthat hesitancy, because what
(22:36):
often happens is it's messystuff, right?
Someone comes to you and says,oh, so-and-so on did this or
that, and I'm concerned, andpeople are like, oh, I don't
really know what to do with that, so I'll just do nothing.
Right, I'm just gonna leavethat one alone.
Um, so having a process inplace means that you can say, oh
god, uh, I am reallyuncomfortable with this, but
(22:58):
here's the process, let's do it.
And when you're talking aboutconflict between the board and
the ED because of that powerdynamic, I think it's really
important to be open to thepossibility of bringing in a
neutral third party to help, tohelp kind of mediate whatever is
going on.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
I absolutely agree with that, bringing in someone
like yourself to mediate thesethings.
And say in someone likeyourself to mediate these things
and say, okay, let's look atthe situation as a whole, let's
look at what policies you havein place right now and then
let's see how we can take thesepolicies, make them better.
If there's nothing already,let's okay.
(23:38):
Let's figure out the wholesituation in and of itself and
what can we do differently,moving forward, what policies
can we put in place?
I love bringing in a neutralthird party because that takes
the feelings out of it.
Right.
That takes, of course, theexecutive director is closely
tied to the situation itselfbecause I'm sure you know
(24:00):
whatever happened.
They were involved in thatsituation in the organization
and the board, of course, isresponsible for whatever happens
.
So their feelings are involvedas well.
So when you get this neutralthird party to come in, they can
see things with clear eyes andthey can get to the root of the
problem.
Because you may not necessarilybe able to do that.
(24:23):
You know, when you have twopeople who are just going at
each other, you know no onethinks that they're wrong, and
neither may be.
It's not about being right orwrong.
It's always supposed to be inthe interest of the organization
and the community that you'reserving.
And it's interesting when yousay in Canada that the nonprofit
(24:47):
culture is more so like, ooh, Idon't wanna.
Like, you don't wanna deal withanything adverse, you don't
wanna say anything that's gonnamake anybody angry or be
conflicting, right, but verymuch so on the American side.
When you think of social impact, you think of nonprofits.
(25:08):
It's sort of a mix of the two.
There's that culture where it'swhat you're describing, you
don't want to shake it up, butthen it's the other extreme
where we are super passionate,we are advocates and we are just
rebels fighting against everysingle rule that exists because
it's all wrong.
(25:30):
So how do you navigate that?
Right, like you have these verytwo different cultures ideas.
You may have a very passionateexecutive director that doesn't
mind challenging the status quo,where you have these board of
directors who are just kind oflike I'm just here to fill a
(25:51):
seat and I don't really want torock the boat, let's just keep
it going.
So how do you balance?
Speaker 2 (26:01):
that, yeah, I think what I have found is that every
board, every organization, stuffis going to happen.
Something's going to happen.
It's going to get messy.
People can get through it, yourorganization can get through it
, but if you, you know how youhandle it matters right, and I
think how you handle it is thedifference between you know, a
(26:23):
difficult issue kind of blowingup, um, where you have directors
resigning, you have your edresigning.
This, this thing is very common, right, um, uh, you know versus
where you do your best, youhave a process, you follow it,
even if it's not perfect, evenif the the issue is complex and
messy.
If people feel like it, likeit's getting a fair shake, right
(26:47):
, um, if they fee, if they havean opportunity to feel heard, if
, um, you know, if everyone istreated respectfully, then you
have a much higher uh, you knowprobability of getting through
that without, without the bombgoing off, you know probability
of getting through that withoutwithout the bomb going off, I
know, right, that's what I'mthinking about.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
It just an explosion, right, and then you have to,
you're left to pick up thepieces, and that's never easy
trying to rebuild from that.
So I, I appreciate that I wantto, so I'm going to wrap it up
here.
But one of the last things Iwant to so I'm going to wrap it
up here, but one of the lastthings I want to talk about is
the level of transparency rightwithin the board.
(27:27):
But also, you know, there's alevel of confidentiality
confidentiality that needs to behad as well when we're talking
about addressing conflictswithin the organization.
So how do we balance that?
We have this issue that hascome up, and nonprofit
(27:47):
organizations are supposed to bevery transparent in the way
that they operate and the thingsthat they do, because, again,
the organization exists to servethe community, so they need to
know what's going on.
But then also there's thatlevel of confidentiality that
needs to be had sometimes withcertain situations.
So how do you balance that needfor transparency with the need
for confidentiality in certainsituations?
Speaker 2 (28:09):
Yeah, I don't think that they're.
I don't think that they're, youknow, incompatible, right?
So confidentiality is a reallyimportant part of good
governance, but confidentialityand secrecy are different, right
and so.
So I have to tip my hat tothere's a Canadian, grant
(28:32):
McDonald.
He has a great resource on thiscalled you know something like
you know it's about in cameraboard sessions careful how you
use them, right, because a lotof boards they overuse and they
misuse in camera sessions in thename of confidentiality.
But often what they'rediscussing isn't something that
requires confidentiality,they're just being secretive.
(28:54):
And so transparency iscompatible with confidentiality
because you can say hey, this isthe issue we're talking about.
It requires confidentiality,that's transparent.
If you're just having closeddoor meetings and it's all very
hush hush and people are kind ofgoing around guessing, worrying
, stressing about what you'retalking about, that's secrecy,
(29:16):
right?
That's not compatible withtransparency.
So I think boards deal withsensitive issues.
They need to be, you know.
They need to have space forconfidential conversations.
But we need to make sure thatyou know confidentiality
supports trust.
It should never erode it, right?
(29:36):
So if you're in a situationwhere trust is being eroded in
your organization, then that'ssomething.
Trust is being eroded in yourorganization, then that's
something you're going into therealm of secrecy there.
Speaker 1 (29:47):
I love that.
I'm so glad that youdifferentiated between the two
right Between confidentialityand secrecy because, like you
said, that's two totallydifferent things.
If you're being secretive, thenyeah, I'm going to be wondering
what are you hiding, what arelike?
Then, yeah, I'm going to bewondering what are you hiding,
what are like, what is happening.
But you know, if we say, well,we had an incident that involved
(30:10):
one of our employees, they'reokay, but you know, this is all
we can tell you about that, thenthat makes a huge difference.
And so, like I totally I'm soglad you brought that up.
I totally get that, because inmy head I'm thinking, before we,
before you just defined it, I'mthinking how can?
What's the difference betweensecrecy and confidentiality?
(30:31):
Are you holding secrets ifyou're being confidential?
But I'm so glad you looked atthis.
This was amazing.
Nick, I appreciate you so muchbecause you just have so much
knowledge around boardgovernance and conflict
resolution and making sure thatthere's a healthy relationship,
(30:52):
maintaining that healthyrelationship between the board
and the executive director,because that's kind of a tough
power dynamic to navigate.
So I appreciate you.
Thank you so much no, it's mypleasure.
I always enjoy our conversationsabsolutely, and so if, if
anyone wants to get in touchwith you or just learn more
(31:14):
about what you do, how can theyreach out to you?
Speaker 2 (31:18):
uh, yeah, you can find me on LinkedIn.
Um, you can check out mywebsite, divisionrunco.
I have the newsletter you'vementioned a few times.
It's called Nonprofit BoardStories.
I publish it every second week,so it's a biweekly piece coming
(31:45):
out this spring.
It's a performance managementsystem for small nonprofits and
so I have a wait list on mywebsite if folks are interested
in checking that out.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
That's awesome.
Yes, I'm sure that isdefinitely needed to give
constructive feedback from theboard to the executive
leadership team, and so Iappreciate that.
Thank you so much, nick, and,as you guys heard, the baby in
the background as well, and sowe are going to sign off on that
note.
Thank you so much and, asalways, guys, till next time on
(32:15):
the Spring Forward podcast.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.