Three words keep coming into my conversations to a degree never before experienced. It happens regardless of whether I’m talking with executive directors or board members. The three words are: civility, tolerance and grace. Sadly, people aren’t using them to praise the board’s performance, but the total opposite. More and more, I’m being asked how to stop the incivility, intolerance and lack of grace that’s taken over the boardroom and beyond. It appears that too many board members have straight-up forgotten how to be decent human beings. (And while here I’m just speaking about boards here, the same words are increasingly used to describe the interactions of staff.)

As with many things, stopping is much harder than preventing. The same goes for a culture where bad behavior has taken root. (I’ve been battling the invasive Virginia Creeper plant, which is right up there with Kudzu in how hard it is evict. Getting rid of toxicity in an organization’s boardroom and/or overall culture is only slightly easier.) While the best solution is doing everything possible to stop the invasion before it happens (more on that later), there are some things that you can do immediately that should start to curb, and ultimately eliminate, the toxic sludge from your board culture.

Neither curbing nor purging bad behavior is for the feint of heart. First, it requires strong leadership in the position of board chair and chair of the governance committee. (And hope that neither of the people in those positions are guilty of the behavior you desire to remove.)

The Chair must be willing - and able - to send a firm, crystal clear message that such negative behavior won't be tolerated anymore. This group message must be reinforced with one-on-one talks with each offending board member, as many as needed. No offender, regardless of their level of toxicity, gets a pass. But if this cease-and-desist order doesn't come with a clear, enforceable consequence, it's about as effective as a slap with a soggy noodle. Thus, the Chair and the rest of the board must have zero qualms about enforcing that consequence. Anything less than full enforcement is basically giving toxic behavior the green light to continue. The consequence is likely already outlined in the section of the organization's bylaws on removing board members. These days, that section usually says a member can be removed with or without cause; in the old days, the language referenced removal for behavior harmful to the board and/or organization. Ugly behavior in general, and ugly behavior that chases good members away, interferes with the transaction of board business, trickles down to staff, is, without question, harmful to all. Use that removal clause. And if none exists (rare these days), immediately add one to the bylaws.

Until the behavior has been eradicated, the Chair must start every meeting reminding everyone that civility is the expected norm, while also listing the behaviors that will not be tolerated, along with the consequences for any violation. To reinforce this, go back to the old days and elect a Sergeant at Arms. Borrowing the language from the US Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is described as the “chief law enforcement and protocol officer.” In less vaulted places than the US Senate, the job of a sergeant at arms is to ensure that a group’s rules (such as Robert’s Rules, if that is how a group operates, bylaws, etc.) are followed, stepping in when decorum and civility are breached in order to return things to a respectful order. Just having this position can serve as an important caution/reminder for people to be on their best behavior.

To really eradicate this behavior for good, greater attention needs to be paid in the recruitment process. Stop just measuring board prospects by how much money a person can give, how many rich people they know, how much status they have in the community. If these are important to you and your organization (and I’d challenge why they even do), think of them as the second or third tier of requirements by which you judge board candidates. Instead, first assess passion for the stated mission of the organization. That’s the deal breaker: no passion and further conversation is not needed. But if passion is there, then assess personality: Is it their way or the highway? Are they flexible? Open minded? How do they handle differing viewpoints? Are they respectful? Kind? (Cue in Tug McGraw’s song, “Humble and Kind.”). But don’t just take their word; observe, talk to others, check references. (Yes, actually check references.) Next determine if they are bringing a plus-one to the boardroom: a personal agenda. Those guests are not welcome.

A final note. One of the most frequent refrains from board members (and often executive directors) is “We’re just volunteers.” While it is usually said to downplay what can reasonably be asked of volunteers (which totally rubs me the wrong way), it’s relevant here. While the work that many volunteers do can be grueling, emotionally depleting, taxing, uncomfortable work, etc., those feelings should never come from how volunteers treat each other. We should never allow negative behavior by volunteers to create a hostile environment for other volunteers just trying to do their job. To do so makes us just as culpable as those who practice the ugly behavior.