I often work with the boards of directors of not-for-profit associations. Most of these groups include very sophisticated individual members who have day jobs that range from vice presidents of human resources to corporate lawyers to chairmen of banks. A few weeks ago, I was working to facilitate one board's annual strategic planning session. To prepare for the session, I reviewed the board's previous annual strategic plans and conducted in-depth interviews with each board member to identify areas of strategic priorities for the next year.

During the preceding year, the board and the organization had made impressive progress in implementing their strategic plan. But also noteworthy during those same 12 months was the amount of turnover the board had endured. Five new members had taken up membership on this 12-person board. The turnover was the result of some board members having accepted leadership positions in other cities and the terms of service of other board members having run their natural course. In this case, turmoil on the board was not a factor.

During the interviews, I worked to anchor the board members in relation to the current strategic plan by asking them to evaluate the organization's existing strategic priorities. Contrary to what many people believe, I am certain that it is not sacrilegious to alter strategic priorities. After all, as time passes, certain priorities are fulfilled, others lose their importance, and new ones emerge as issues of the day and take center stage. Of particular note, though, are the "mystery" priorities that were a priority at one time, made it into the strategic plan, but although not much progress is ever made to resolve or implement them, somehow remain on the plan, taking up valuable real estate, but rendering it into dead space. I encounter mystery priorities virtually every year and with virtually every board with which I work.

The key to the mysterious power of this type of strategic priority is precisely in the word

mysterious—these priorities are hard to understand and the language used to describe them often ends up saying nothing. But more important to maintaining the mysterious power of these priorities is the inability of the board members to 'fess up to the fact that they don't have the faintest clue what the strategic priority means, what goals are related to it, or how they will be accomplished. In these cases, senior executives with six-digit compensation packages, who are routinely tasked with making decisions regarding multi-million-dollar budgets, often become timid or hesitant to ask the relevant questions, because they are afraid to come across as unsophisticated or clueless. It becomes a case of "the emperor having no clothes," but, unlike the little boy, the board members individually, without any discussion, often enter into a silent group conspiracy that results in no one being willing to challenge the obvious. Their fear can be laid squarely at the doorstep of their own membership on the board.

In the particular case that I've been describing, the specific mysterious priority had to do with branding. The organization's strategic plan vaguely stated that the organization would focus on branding initiatives that would be rolled out incrementally. But at year's end, the board really had nothing to show for this strategic priority. When I questioned individual board members, I realized that they were far from having a uniform understanding of what this strategic priority called for and, worse yet, they were afraid to ask. When they ventured guesses, they were all over the map. The only thing that their responses had in common was that they were all different. The newest board members gave the fuzziest explanations or guesses, and they exhibited the greatest hesitation about asking for clarification. In conventional business settings, these same people probably would have been more vocal, but they were reluctant to ask hard questions in their new roles as novice board members. It sounds counterintuitive, especially in light of a board member's responsibility to ask, vet, probe, and question, but this situation is often the case.

Membership on a board has certain unacknowledged effects on the behavior of the people who participate in these groups. In most cases, board membership is a desired role because it acknowledges a person's achievements in his or her profession or community. By contrast, service on the board of a community association can be a somewhat different matter because many communities struggle to recruit new board members.

Board members donate their time, and they often grumble about how time-consuming their service is, casting themselves as martyrs for their profession or association. Nonetheless, most stick it out and few resign before their term is up. In my experience, board membership is somewhat akin to running for political office. During their campaigns, politicians are very vocal about the agenda they wish to promote and their service to benefit the community, but I have yet to meet one who 'fesses up to being attracted to the power associated with the office for which he or she is campaigning.

The benefits of board membership are many: increased visibility in the community and profession, valuable contacts with other influential people, ability to impact policy, and critical decision-making that has long-reaching consequences. But the job also brings perks that most board members are reluctant to discuss, including meetings at lovely restaurants, retreats in nice locations (all of which are proper in light of volunteered time), and valuable entries on resumes to demonstrate leadership roles and responsibilities.

Once individuals secure positions on a board, they are bound to encounter bumpy transitional patches. This is true even for people who have past experience with board leadership. The confusion revolves around what, exactly, they are supposed to be doing, the scope of their new responsibilities, and the range of their power. They hesitate to ask for clarification because they think that if they have made it to board membership, they surely must know what they are supposed to be doing. Deep down, they may feel like impostors, and many may feel that asking a question might reveal their true lack of knowledge. This situation is analogous to the feelings of most new graduate school attendees, who are certain that everyone else in their class is so much more knowledgeable than they are. It is only with the passage of time that the students discover that their classmates are plagued with the same feelings.

These feelings are universal, and many a seasoned board member has confessed to me in private that during their first two or three years of service, they had no clue about what they were doing or what they should be doing. Generally, this situation can be remedied by asking new members to go through a thorough orientation process. But achieving universal training is easier said than done, because developing a proper and effective board orientation program is time-consuming. The effort, however, is well worth the investment of time and resources if it results in board members being more effective. Most boards will find that even with an orientation program in place, new board members may fail to do their homework, so an orientation must include a strong focus on follow-up and implementation.

Determining if board members are focusing their energies in the right area can be quickly established with one word: What. Strategic boards should be guided by what should be done, what the priorities are, what the roles are. If they veer in the direction of the word

How—as in how a strategic priority needs to be accomplished—then they have waded into operational waters. Of course, the lines blur when one deals with "working boards," or boards that do not have much staff support.

Now consider the board members in community associations. If the members of professional associations have trouble defining their roles and responsibilities, and hesitate to ask questions for fear of appearing clueless, and this is happening despite the fact that they sought out the position, imagine how confused the members of a homeowners' association board might be. This fact is particularly true for condominium boards because participation in governance was probably the last thing on the minds of buyers when they invested in the property.

Governance is not an easy task. Corporate board members, who are often paid large fees for their services, often make egregious mistakes. Need an example? Think of the boards of Hewlett Packard and MCI, both of which have garnered significant media attention in the past few years. It is important to remember that all new board members are "created equal" and, if you decide to serve, make it a policy to dare to ask questions, since your fellow board members are probably just as clueless ... but afraid to ask.