The Nonprofit Board Paradox: A Structure Built to Struggle

Let’s start with something that sounds completely backwards. Imagine a business where the people legally responsible for the organization’s success spend four hours a month thinking about it. Meanwhile, the person who spends forty-plus hours a week running it has less authority than they do. Most people would look at that arrangement and immediately start asking questions. In the nonprofit world, we call it governance.

To be clear, this isn’t an attack on nonprofit boards. I’ve worked with some exceptional board members over the years—smart, generous, mission-driven people who care deeply about their organizations and communities. Most nonprofit boards are filled with people who genuinely want to help. The problem isn’t usually the people. The problem is that we’ve built a system that asks ordinary volunteers to perform an extraordinarily difficult job and then act surprised when tensions emerge.

At the center of almost every nonprofit sits a curious arrangement: The Executive Director carries operational responsibility. The Board of Directors holds ultimate authority. And between those two realities lies one of the most persistent sources of nonprofit dysfunction. Not because anyone is malicious. Not because anyone is incompetent. Because the structure itself creates tensions that are almost inevitable.

The Authority Problem

In the for-profit world, authority and accountability are generally aligned. A CEO answers to a board of directors, but those board members typically have a direct financial stake in the organization’s success. If the company performs well, they benefit. If it struggles, they feel the consequences. Nonprofits work differently. Board members are unpaid volunteers. They don’t own the organization. There are no stock options, dividends, or equity stakes. The organization’s success or failure doesn’t directly affect their financial well-being. That doesn’t make board members less committed. Many care deeply. But it does mean one of the primary accountability mechanisms that exists in the corporate world is absent. The structure becomes even stranger when board members volunteer for organizational activities. A board member may help at a fundraising event, serve on a project team, or volunteer for a program. In those moments, they often fall under the supervision of the same staff they govern. One minute they’re the boss. The next they’re a volunteer reporting to staff. The authority relationship literally flips depending on the context. Organizations that fail to define these boundaries clearly often find themselves dealing with confusion, frustration, and conflict that can be remarkably difficult to untangle.

The Information Problem

One of the least discussed realities of nonprofit governance is that the board and the staff experience the organization in fundamentally different ways. The Executive Director lives inside the organization every day. The board visits periodically. An ED sees every personnel issue, every budget challenge, every grant deadline, every community relationship, every operational headache, and every small decision that eventually becomes a big one. The board sees reports. This isn’t a criticism. It’s simply the reality of volunteer governance.

A typical board member may spend a few hours each month attending meetings, reading reports, and participating in committee work. The Executive Director may spend 160 hours or more each month immersed in the organization’s operations. That creates an unavoidable imbalance: the people with the most authority often have the least direct access to information, while the people with the most information often have less authority. That’s a difficult structure to manage even when everyone involved is acting in good faith. And most of the time, they are.

The Recruitment Problem

Nonprofits rarely recruit board members because they’re governance experts. They recruit them because they’re passionate. Or generous. Or influential. Or connected. Or respected in the community. Those are all valuable qualities. They’re just not the same thing as governance expertise. A person can be an outstanding donor, volunteer, business owner, attorney, accountant, physician, artist, or community leader and still know very little about nonprofit operations. Yet once elected to the board, they’re expected to provide strategic oversight for an organization they may only interact with a few hours each month. That’s a remarkably difficult assignment when you stop and think about it. The result is a governing body that is often asked to oversee work it doesn’t fully understand—not because board members lack intelligence, but because they lack exposure. Passion for a mission and expertise in governance are not the same thing. Unfortunately, nonprofit boards often assume they are.

The Impossible Executive Director Position

The Executive Director occupies one of the most unusual roles in the professional world. They are expected to be the organization’s operational expert. They hire and supervise staff. They manage finances. They oversee programs. They maintain community relationships. They implement strategy. They support the board. They educate the board. And they are evaluated by the board. In many cases, the person being supervised is also the person with the deepest understanding of how the organization actually functions. That dynamic can work beautifully when trust exists. It can become deeply frustrating when it doesn’t. The healthiest board-ED relationships eventually evolve into something that feels less like a traditional boss-employee relationship and more like a partnership built on mutual respect, clear communication, and shared commitment to the mission. But getting there takes work.

The Working Board Trap

Most nonprofits begin with a working board. A small group of founders and volunteers does everything. They write grants. Plan events. Answer phones. Balance budgets. Make decisions. At that stage, the board isn’t just governing the organization. The board is the organization. As nonprofits grow and professional staff are hired, the board’s role is supposed to evolve. The doing gets handed off. The board transitions toward governance: setting strategic direction, ensuring financial health, evaluating the Executive Director, and serving as a steward of the mission. This transition is one of the most important milestones in a nonprofit’s development. It’s also one of the most frequently mishandled.

People who helped build an organization often struggle to let go of operational control. Their identity is tied to the work. Their sense of ownership is understandable. Sometimes this evolves into what’s commonly called Founder Syndrome—a situation in which founders or long-time leaders continue operating as though the organization belongs to them, even after it has grown beyond that stage. The result is often a board that remains heavily involved in day-to-day operations while neglecting the broader strategic responsibilities only a governing board can fulfill. Ironically, over-involvement in the small stuff often coexists with under-engagement in the things that matter most: long-term sustainability, succession planning, strategic direction, and organizational resilience.

A Note About the Rules

Here’s something that surprises many people. Much of what we think of as nonprofit board governance isn’t actually required by law. Governance scholar and nonprofit thought leader Vu Le has written extensively about this reality. Many practices that feel fixed and immutable are actually traditions that have accumulated over time rather than legal requirements. The current model feels permanent because it is familiar. Not necessarily because it is the only way. That’s an important distinction. It means we can examine the system honestly. We can ask whether certain practices still serve organizations well. And we can be open to innovation rather than assuming every governance challenge is simply the price of admission.

What Healthy Governance Actually Looks Like

Critiquing the structure doesn’t mean boards aren’t important. Far from it.  At Hamilton Players, I've been fortunate to work with board members who care deeply about the organization and the community we serve. Like most nonprofits, we've experienced many of the tensions described above. We've also seen firsthand that when boards and staff invest in communication, trust, and shared understanding, those same tensions can become strengths. Great boards are transformational. The best board members understand that their role is not to run the organization. It is to govern it.  Likewise, great staff understand that their role is not to govern the organization. It is to operate it. The goal of nonprofit governance isn't for the board to think like staff or for staff to think like the board. The goal is for each group to contribute the perspective the other lacks. Staff bring operational expertise, institutional knowledge, and day-to-day experience. Boards bring outside perspective, community connections, accountability, and long-term stewardship.

They ask thoughtful questions.

They maintain accountability.

They provide perspective.

They safeguard the mission.

They help ensure that today’s urgent challenges don’t eclipse tomorrow’s long-term needs.

Most importantly, they understand that governance is not about having all the answers.

It’s about asking good questions and being willing to learn. The strongest boards I’ve encountered aren’t the ones filled with people who believe they’re experts.They’re the ones filled with people who are curious enough to become informed. When each side respects the value of the other's role, the partnership becomes far more effective than either could be alone.

The Good News

The structure has real flaws. But the structure isn’t destiny. Organizations that navigate governance well tend to share a few common traits. They invest in board education. They provide meaningful onboarding. They define roles clearly. They actively manage the transition from working board to governing board. They foster open communication between board and staff. And they cultivate a culture of humility, curiosity, and continuous learning. There’s a saying that goes, “Culture eats structure for breakfast.” Bylaws matter. Policies matter. Committee structures matter. But none of them matter as much as the culture in which they operate. A board built on trust, curiosity, humility, and mutual respect can succeed despite imperfect structures. A board lacking those qualities can struggle even with impeccable governance documents. Ultimately, the difference between a board that helps an organization thrive and one that unintentionally holds it back often comes down to a simple question: Are the people involved more committed to the mission than they are to their own authority? When the answer is yes, remarkable things can happen. 

The nonprofit sector has become increasingly willing to have honest conversations about governance in recent years, and that’s encouraging. The challenges are real. The tensions are real. But so are the opportunities for improvement. The structure may be imperfect by design. Fortunately, it’s still run by people. And people, given the right tools, the right mindset, and a willingness to learn, are capable of doing far better than the design itself might predict.

A (Very Practical) Guide to Major Acting Techniques

Or: Why There Are So Many Ways to Teach Someone to Pretend Professionally?
 
If you’ve ever sat in a rehearsal and thought: “I know my lines. I know where I’m supposed to stand. Why does this scene still feel flat?”  Well, welcome to the world of acting technique. Over the last hundred years, a lot of very smart (and occasionally very opinionated) theater people have tried to answer one simple question: How do actors become believable onstage? The result is a collection of techniques, methods, systems, schools, philosophies, and occasional theatrical holy wars. The good news? You don’t have to pick one and swear lifelong loyalty. Most actors borrow from several approaches. Most directors do too. Understanding the major techniques simply gives you more tools to pull from when you’re stuck. Think of them less as competing religions and more like different items in a toolbox. Sometimes you need a hammer. Sometimes you need a screwdriver. Sometimes you need to stop overthinking and just listen to your scene partner. Let’s start with the person almost everyone traces back to.
 
The Stanislavski System (1900s)
Konstantin Stanislavski • Moscow Art Theatre, Russia
If acting techniques had a family tree, Stanislavski would be the trunk. Before him, actors often relied on grand gestures, dramatic poses, and stock emotions. Stanislavski wanted something different: truth. His big question was: “What would I do if I were this person in this situation?” That idea changed acting forever. He encouraged actors to understand a character’s circumstances, identify what they want, and pursue it honestly. Much of modern acting—whether it realizes it or not—is built on his foundation.
Why community theatre actors should care: If you’ve ever asked, “What does my character want in this scene?” congratulations—you’ve already been using Stanislavski.
Key concepts: Objectives • Given Circumstances • Emotional Memory • The Magic If
 
The Method (1930s–50s)
Lee Strasberg • Group Theatre & The Actors Studio
If Stanislavski planted the seed, Strasberg turned the volume up. A lot. Strasberg believed actors could access truthful emotions by drawing on their own experiences and memories. The goal was authenticity, but the approach could get pretty intense. This is the version of acting most people think of when they hear stories about actors staying in character for six months, refusing to answer to their real name, or making everyone around them slightly uncomfortable. To be fair, the Method produced some extraordinary performers. It also produced a fair amount of debate. But for the record, community theatre generally does not (and should not!) require emotionally scarring yourself for authenticity!
Why community theatre actors should care: The useful takeaway isn’t reliving your childhood trauma. It’s understanding that personal connection can deepen a performance.
Key concepts: Affective Memory • Sense Memory • Substitution • Relaxation
  
Stella Adler Technique (1930s–60s)
Stella Adler • Stella Adler Studio of Acting
Adler studied with Stanislavski and came home with a message that basically amounted to, “Please stop digging around in your emotional baggage.” Instead, she championed imagination. Her belief was simple: actors don’t need to have personally experienced everything their characters experience. They need the ability to imagine those experiences vividly and truthfully. She also expected actors to understand the world of the play—its history, culture, relationships, and circumstances.
Why community theatre actors should care: This is incredibly liberating. You don’t need to have lost a kingdom, fought a war, or been stranded on a desert island to play someone who has.
Key concepts: Imagination • Script Analysis • Given Circumstances • Action
 
Meisner Technique (1940s–70s)
Sanford Meisner • Neighborhood Playhouse
Half the battle of acting is getting out of your own head and Meisner basically built an entire technique around that idea. Meisner looked around and decided actors were spending way too much time thinking about themselves. His solution? Pay attention to the other person. His famous definition of acting is: “Living truthfully under imaginary circumstances.” The hallmark of Meisner training is the Repetition Exercise, which teaches actors to truly listen and respond in the moment rather than planning their next line while pretending to listen.
Why community theatre actors should care: Honestly, this may be the single most useful skill in any rehearsal room. A surprising number of acting problems disappear when actors stop worrying about themselves and start listening.
Key concepts: Listening • Repetition • Instinct • Moment-to-Moment Response
 
Practical Aesthetics (1980s–90s)
David Mamet & William H. Macy • Atlantic Theater Company
Practical Aesthetics asks a refreshingly simple question, “What am I trying to do to the other person?” Rather than chasing emotions, actors focus on actions. Maybe you’re trying to reassure. Persuade. Seduce. Challenge. Comfort. Intimidate. Choose the action. Play it fully. Let the emotions take care of themselves. It’s one of the most straightforward and accessible approaches around.
Why community theatre actors should care: When an actor says, “I don’t know how I’m supposed to feel here,” this technique offers a wonderfully practical answer, “Don’t worry about the feeling. What are you trying to accomplish?”
Key concepts: Objective • Obstacle • Action • As-If
 
So… Which One Is Right?
They all are.  And they aren’t. The truth is that most actors mix techniques constantly. You might use Adler’s imagination to build a character, Meisner’s listening during rehearsal, and Practical Aesthetics to figure out what you’re doing in a difficult scene. Nobody is coming around checking your acting-technique membership card. The goal isn’t loyalty to a system. The goal is a believable performance.
 
What Works Especially Well in Community Theatre?
If I could hand every community theatre actor just three tools, they’d probably be these:
1.) Listen. Really listen. Not “wait for your turn to talk” listen. Not “remember your next
      line” listen. Listen to what your scene partner is actually doing right now.
2.) Figure out what your character wants. Every scene gets easier when you know your
       objective.
3.) Use your imagination. You don’t need to have lived every experience your character
      has lived. That’s what acting is for.
 
The Bottom Line
Every acting technique on this list is trying to solve the same problem: How do we stop pretending to act and start behaving truthfully? The methods disagree. Sometimes passionately. But they’re all chasing the same thing: presence, connection, and authenticity. And when an audience forgets they’re watching a performance and simply believes? That’s the magic every one of these techniques is after.
 
Before I leave you today, here are a few more styles to look into (and this list is by no means complete!):
Brecht / Epic Theatre: Wanted audiences to think as much as feel. Actors intentionally remind viewers they’re watching a play.
Michael Chekhov: Uses imagination, physicality, and “psychological gestures” to unlock character.
Viewpoints: A movement-based approach focused on space, tempo, shape, and ensemble awareness.
Lecoq: Physical theatre, masks, play, and movement. Hugely influential in devised work and clowning.
Grotowski: Minimal sets. Minimal props. Maximum actor commitment.
Viola Spolin: The grandmother of modern improv. Her theatre games became the foundation for much of today’s improvisation training.
 

The Casting Question EVERYONE Overthinks

Since we've spent some time talking about auditions and casting, I think it's worth discussing one question that creates an enormous amount of anxiety for actors, "Will you accept any role?" Most community theater audition forms ask two related questions. First, they ask which role or roles you are interested in. Then they ask whether you would be willing to accept any role offered. That simple question often sends actors into a spiral of second-guessing.

If I only list one or two roles, will that hurt my chances of being cast?

If I say I'm willing to accept any role, will the director assume I'm happy in the ensemble and overlook me for a lead?

They're both fair questions. Unfortunately, there isn't a universal answer. As a director, what I value most is honesty.

At Hamilton Players, our audition forms ask actors to list their preferred roles in order of interest and then separately ask whether they would accept other roles if their first choices aren't available. That gives directors valuable information. We know what an actor hopes for, but we also know whether they would still like to participate if they aren't cast in their preferred role. The reason this matters is that casting is far more complicated than many actors realize. Directors aren't simply assigning individual roles. They're building an entire cast. Every casting decision affects several others. We consider vocal compatibility, acting chemistry, physical characteristics, scheduling conflicts, experience levels, and the overall balance of the production.

Sometimes changing a single actor changes everything. A performer who looks perfect for one role may only work if a particular actor is cast opposite them. A vocal pairing that sounds wonderful in one configuration may fall apart in another. Losing one cast member can trigger a chain reaction of changes throughout the entire show. That's why directors appreciate knowing up front what actors are truly willing to accept. Of course, actors have good reasons for being selective. Some are interested in a specific challenge. Some only have time for a larger role if they're going to make the commitment. Others may simply not enjoy ensemble work. Those are all legitimate considerations.

Let's look at a simplified example.

Imagine three actors audition for a show with three available roles. Actor A is the strongest singer. Actor B will only accept the lead role. Actor C would prefer the lead but is willing to accept a supporting role. If all three actors are needed, Actor B's willingness to accept only the lead may actually work in their favor. The director may decide to cast Actor B as the lead and place Actors A and C in supporting roles. But what if there are only two roles available? Now the calculation changes. Actor A might receive the lead, Actor C might receive the supporting role, and Actor B may not be cast at all. The same answer on the audition form can help in one situation and hurt in another. That’s why I always hesitate when actors ask for a formula that will maximize their chances of being cast. There isn't one.

Some people worry that only being willing to accept a lead role makes them look like a diva. To be fair, I've heard directors express exactly that opinion. I've also worked with directors who believe everyone in community theater should be willing to accept any role because participation is fundamentally about being part of a team. Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. I'd rather know what an actor genuinely wants than have them accept a role they don't really want and spend the entire rehearsal process wishing they were somewhere else. Strong productions are built by enthusiastic casts, not reluctant ones.

So, what is the best answer to the "Will you accept any role?" question? The truthful one. If you're only interested in certain roles, say so. If you're happy to participate in any capacity, say that. What matters most isn't which box you check. What matters is that directors can trust your answer. If you say you'll accept any role, then be prepared to do exactly that. If you know you would decline certain roles, it's better to be honest from the beginning. In the long run, directors can work with almost any preference. What they struggle with is uncertainty. An actor who is honest about their limitations may occasionally be perceived as a diva. An actor who says one thing and does another is often perceived as unreliable. And when difficult casting decisions have to be made, reliability usually wins.

 

Part 3 of 3: Casting a Show

 Last week, we stepped into the director’s role and explored what it means to shape a production from the ground up. As we continue our look behind the scenes at how a show, and ultimately a full season, comes together, there is one critical step that brings everything into focus: casting. It’s where ideas meet reality, and where some of the most complex and consequential decisions are made. Casting a show is one of the most important responsibilities a director has. Those decisions can shape and sometimes define the success of a production. From the outside, casting can seem straightforward: choose the best actor, singer, or dancer for each role. In reality, things are rarely that simple. So, join me for a seat behind the casting table, as I unpack what goes on when casting a show.

Before auditions are even announced, the director is already at work. They study the script closely, analyzing each character; not just based on the playwright’s description, but on what the script reveals. What do the characters say about themselves? What do others say about them? Are there specific skills required, like playing an instrument, dancing en pointe, or whistling? Are there behavioral or content considerations, such as stage intimacy, language, or special costumes? Then there are practical considerations. Every stage and every set comes with its own limitations. A role might require fitting into a confined space, navigating stairs or platforms, or working within sightline restrictions. In a perfect world, everything would be flexible, but in community theater, time and budget often mean working within fixed constraints.

At this stage, directors may also consult licensing contracts and music staff to determine whether certain roles can be cast across traditional gender lines. In many community theaters, including ours, more women than men attend auditions. Understanding what is legally and musically possible helps expand casting options while staying within guidelines.

Then auditions begin, and with them, a whole new layer of complexity. Actors bring their own restrictions. Some may only accept specific roles. Others may have scheduling conflicts that limit their availability for rehearsals. Some may have personal boundaries around language, physical contact, or costuming. All of these factors matter, because the goal isn’t just to cast individuals, it’s to build an entire ensemble that works together. And that is where the puzzle really takes shape. Casting isn’t about finding the “best” person for each role in isolation. It’s about finding the combination of people who create the strongest overall production. Sometimes that means making unexpected choices. A strong performer might be cast in a smaller role to balance the show. A role might go to someone who blends more naturally with the rest of the cast, even if another performer is a stronger singer, actor, or dancer. There are also questions of balance and compatibility. Do the actors look believable as a family or romantic pair? Do their skill sets complement each other? What happens if one performer is exceptionally strong in an area where their scene partner is still developing? And sometimes, there simply aren’t enough people to fill the cast. In those cases, directors may need to recruit additional performers. That can introduce its own challenges, especially if a late addition ultimately fits a key role. It is not always an easy or comfortable decision, but the director’s responsibility remains the same: to create the strongest show possible.

There are also logistical realities. Not every audition happens in the same room. Some actors may submit video auditions or schedule alternate times due to unavoidable conflicts. What you see at auditions may not be the full picture. And then there’s experience and intuition. In a small theater community, directors often work with many of the same performers over time. While every effort is made to approach casting fairly, experience does play a role. Reliability, preparedness, and past rehearsal habits can factor into decisions - especially when time is limited. When all else is equal, practical considerations like availability or even existing costume resources can influence the final choice.

And yes, directors are human. Like all people, they bring their own perspectives and instincts to the process. Casting is both a craft and an art, and it involves interpretation, judgment, and sometimes difficult trade-offs. That doesn’t mean every decision is perfect. But it does mean that those decisions are made thoughtfully, with the goal of serving the show as a whole.

If you ever find yourself disappointed by a casting outcome, one of the most productive steps you can take is to ask for feedback. Most directors are happy to talk with you about your audition and offer insight into what worked well and what could be strengthened. While they may not be able to discuss other actors, they can absolutely support your growth as a performer. So, the next time you see a cast list, know that it was not created casually or lightly. Behind it is a complex process, shaped by artistic vision, practical constraints, and a deep commitment to bringing the best possible production to life. And more often than not, there is far more to it than meets the eye.