Some boards need to clarify whether they want (or need) a chief executive or an administrator. Many organisations are at different stages of development. Start-up sports organisations or small organisations that are unlikely to ever grow to the point of being able to hire paid staff might determine that the board volunteers will carry out the operational tasks as well as being the governing body. This is not unusual in the not-for-profit sector.
Once a board has reached the stage when it can afford to hire its first executive officer, it should follow a logical sequence of decision making designed to ensure the success of the appointment.
The board’s primary job is to define the ends or outcomes to which the means or activities are directed. It is then the chief executive’s primary job to carry out the organisation’s operational activities.
Once the organisation’s outcomes have been agreed, the board should ensure there are policies or protocols that guide the chief executive’s approach to the job, charging them with achieving the desired results, making it clear what authorities they can exercise, e.g. their financial delegations, etc.
A board must separate its governance role from the chief executive’s management role and assign responsibilities accordingly. Downstream problems are created when accountabilities are blurred by ad hoc arrangements designed to address a chief executive’s perceived shortcomings.
Some sports organisations unwittingly fragment control of their organisations via the board’s involvement in appointing more than one staff member or having more than one staff member reporting directly to it (commonly a national coach, for example, as well as the chief executive). A board should encourage unity of control and accountability by having one direct employee, usually the chief executive.
The chief executive, or equivalent, should employ all staff and be acknowledged as responsible for the work of volunteers (even if this group includes board members).