For six years at the National Auctioneers Association, I sat in nearly every board meeting as a member of the senior staff.
We were there to hear the background discussion, answer questions when asked, and be better equipped to understand the “why” behind decisions that would ultimately affect staff direction and work. We were there to support our executive director – help her carry what we heard back and translate it into operations accurately.
It was one of the most significant professional developments of my career, and it happened because one incredibly insightful executive director believed her directors should understand in full color how a boardroom operates.
Staff who understand board dynamics don’t just execute better. They anticipate better. They prepare leadership better. They manage up better. They build the organizational infrastructure that boards actually need rather than the infrastructure that staff would find convenient.
What You Learn That You Can’t Learn Any Other Way
Reading board minutes teaches you what the board decided. Asking some clarifying questions from the minutes shows you’re at least curious. Sitting in the room teaches you how it decided — the hesitations, the competing priorities, the moments where language and message delivery mattered, the dynamics between directors that shaped what was possible before any formal vote.
Those dynamics are not in the minutes.
They’re not in the debrief.
They exist only in the room.
And once you’ve absorbed them over years, they change how you operate as a staff leader in ways that are hard to fully articulate short of calling it some sort of a professional coming-of-age. But, what you also notice is that the change in your dynamic is immediately visible to those operating through the same lens.
You learn that boards need information in a specific shape — not the shape that makes the most sense to staff, but the shape that maps to how volunteer leaders need to think about organizational risk, fiduciary responsibility, and their accountability to members. Delivering information in the wrong shape, however accurate, produces confusion and erodes confidence in ways that are slow to repair.
You learn that the conversation before the formal agenda item is often more important than the discussion of the item itself. By the time something reaches a formal vote, the real deliberation has usually already happened — in hallways, in committee calls, in one-on-one conversations between directors with different views. Staff who don’t understand this spend enormous energy preparing formal presentations for rooms where the outcome was largely determined before the meeting started.
They didn’t play the more important game within the game because they didn’t know it existed.
That game is crucially important because you learn that when information doesn’t arrive in proper shape, boards drift. And when staff carry unshaped decisions back into operations as a confident directive, it can produce months of work in the wrong direction. The discipline of listening carefully, asking clarifying questions when needed, and translating board intent into operational terms without distortion is a specific skill — and it only develops with practice.
What It Produces Over Time
What six years in board meetings produces, if you’re paying attention, is a dual fluency. You learn to think like staff — operationally, departmentally, with an eye toward execution — and you learn to think like a board member — organizationally, strategically, with an eye toward mission and accountability. Most association professionals are fluent in one. The ones who’ve spent significant time in boardrooms become fluent in both.
That dual fluency is what makes the transition from senior staff to executive director possible rather than just aspirational. An ED who genuinely understands how boards think can serve one without constantly translating across a conceptual divide. An ED who learned about boards only from briefings and minutes spends the first years of executive leadership in a catching-up process that costs the organization real momentum.
The Design Choice Behind the Access
My executive director who built that expectation into how her senior team operated made a deliberate choice about staff development. She believed that directors who heard board conversations directly — not filtered through a debrief — would make better decisions in their own departments, be better partners to the board when the board needed them, and be better prepared to lead organizations of their own.
She was right, and I’ll forever be in gratitude for her belief in her staff and her foresight in seeing what such a system meant for us and for the association.
And the choice she made is one worth replicating — because the organizations with senior staff who understand how boards think are measurably more functional than the ones where that understanding is siloed at the top.
Staff who understand board dynamics don’t just execute better. They anticipate better. They prepare leadership better. They manage up better. They build the organizational infrastructure that boards actually need rather than the infrastructure that staff would find convenient.
That’s a different level of contribution — and it starts with being in the boardroom.
Kitchen's Ink 
Leave a comment