Boards govern. Executive Directors run the day-to-day. Most people in nonprofit leadership can recite that definition, but it can be difficult to know exactly where one job ends and the other starts.

To simplify it, I like to use the analogy of planning a trip. Think of a big strategic decision your organization is weighing, like launching a new program or opening a second location. That’s the “destination.” The plan to get there has to come together, the money has to be there, and somebody has to decide whether it fits the mission and strategy in the first place.

The Board Decides Whether the Group Goes

The board makes one call before any other: are we going? They weigh whether the destination fits the mission and matches the strategic priorities they have set. That decision draws on input from the Executive Director, who has done the research and knows what the destination, and getting there, actually involves. The decision itself stays with the board.

The board also makes sure the trip is affordable. That means more than approving the budget number on a spreadsheet. It means confirming the money is there, helping raise it or opening doors to people who can if it’s not, and protecting the organization’s long-term financial health so one trip doesn’t put next year at risk.

The Executive Director Runs the Trip

The Executive Director figures out how the trip actually happens. The ED weighs flying against driving against taking a bus. They compare the hotel options, price the total, build the itinerary, and present the plan to the board for approval (to confirm it fits the budget and still aligns with the organization’s mission and strategy, NOT for approval of each individual choice the ED has made, like which hotel to use or where to stop for lunch).

Once the board signs off, the ED runs the trip: booking travel, managing the schedule, keeping the team informed, and handling the daily activities on the ground. When a real problem hits, like a canceled flight or a budget that suddenly goes higher than expected, the ED brings it back to the board. Here is the distinction that matters: WHETHER to approve more money, or to call the trip off completely, is the board’s decision. HOW to rebook the team inside the budget is the ED’s. One affects the destination. The other affects the route to get there. In that moment the board’s job is to offer counsel and make the call that is theirs to make, not to wave the ED off with “you figure it out.”

How the Analogy Maps to Real Governance

The trip example is meant to be a simple analogy to better illustrate the roles of the board versus the ED. Each piece lines up with a responsibility that nonprofit boards actually hold. In its Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards, BoardSource names these jobs plainly, and the trip analogy maps onto them almost one for one.

Deciding whether the group embarks on a trip to the destination is the board determining mission and ensuring effective planning. BoardSource frames the first responsibility of any board as setting and advocating for the mission, along with the duty to plan with intent. The “are we going” question is exactly that: does this trip serve why we exist, and have we thought it through?

Remember, some of the best governance questions start with "CAN we...," but they end with "SHOULD we?"

Making sure the trip is affordable is the board ensuring adequate financial resources and protecting the organization’s assets. BoardSource splits these into two responsibilities: securing the money and guarding it. Both duties surface the moment the board asks whether one trip puts the following year at risk. That is the board protecting the organization’s future, not just signing off on a number.

Providing guidance and counsel when the flight gets canceled is the board supporting the chief executive. BoardSource treats support of the ED as a core responsibility in its own right, along with honest evaluation. A board that offers steady counsel in a hard moment is doing its job. A board that goes quiet and leaves the ED to absorb the problem alone is not.

When Steering Becomes Driving

You may have heard that a board should “steer the ship.” But steering is driving. The board approves the destination and sets the budget, grounded in strategy and good information. The Executive Director plans the itinerary and drives the car, managing the trip from the ground.

Friction shows up when those roles blur. A board has crossed the line when it argues over which rental car company to use, insists on approving every dinner reservation, or rewrites an itinerary the ED already built. Those things are micromanagement, not governance. The two roles need each other. The relationship works best when each trusts the other to do their part.

The analogy is simple enough to use in a board meeting if arguments arise. If the question is whether the organization should go, and whether it can afford to, that belongs to the board. If the question is how to get there, that belongs to the Executive Director. A board that keeps its hands off the steering wheel gives its ED room to lead and keeps its own focus where it belongs: the destination, the oversight, and the health of the organization.

If you're working out where that line falls on your own board, I’m glad to connect. Let’s talk.