NFP tech experts urge orgs to scale up cybersafety
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
Good cybersecurity must be the foundation of not-for-profits’ efforts to adopt artificial…
Posted on 10 Apr 2024
By Adele Stowe-Lindner, general manager, Institute of Community Directors Australia
Time and time again, we read news accounts of boards that did not have their eyes on the ball and were eventually held to account.
However, what of situations in which the board is too deeply involved and could be accused of interference? Walking the line between oversight and interference is difficult, and the board will be blamed either way if it gets it wrong.

It's all too easy for board members to interfere without intending to do so. For volunteers and staff members, approaching a board member to vent frustrations or chat about challenges is as easy as standing next to them in the coffee queue at the local footy match or running into them at the hardware store or bakery.
One of the key questions board members can ask themselves to remind them to “swim in their lane” is this: What expectation are we instilling in the volunteer or staff member regarding the likelihood that we will act upon their information?
An incidental encounter like this can be useful in provoking us to consider why the volunteer or staff member is mentioning their grievance to us in this way.
Does the organisation have an adequate complaints policy?
Does the policy make clear how volunteers and staff can give feedback to the organisation or board?
Does the organisation have a strong communications practice, such that if managers hear about problems they communicate them upwards, and they come to the board?
Does the organisation have a psychologically safe culture, such that volunteers and staff feel comfortable sharing their concerns with managers, rather than going to the board?
The board is responsible for ensuring that the organisation is sustainable into the future, which requires concern for the health of the whole organisation, not the navigation of each individual qualm.
When a board member passes information to the organisational leadership, they can do so from a position of trust ("I told the complainant they should share this with their manager") or from a position of undermining ("I told the complainant I would fix this problem for them").
Strategic oversight requires strong trust that the culture and direction set by the board will be navigated and implemented appropriately on the operational level.
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
Good cybersecurity must be the foundation of not-for-profits’ efforts to adopt artificial…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
A few years ago, I sat on a small community board that was still held together by email threads and…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
“Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door”, the old saw goes.…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
The nation's digital inclusion advocate is pushing for more equity in the rollout of AI in light of…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
Not-for-profit leaders should be conducting regular “fire drills” that replicate AI-powered…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
Boards that leave cybersecurity to the one director with IT expertise are leaving their…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
Community Directors has a warehouse-style office filled with artworks, and if I glance up towards…
Posted on 15 Oct 2026
As the manager of a palliative care service, Stephanie Kirkman Meikle has learnt that the prospect…
Posted on 14 Oct 2026
A special guest with her finger on the pulse of one of the biggest issues facing Australia –…
Posted on 17 Sep 2026
Australia’s biggest gathering of philanthropists, which drew more than 1200 delegates to Brisbane…
Posted on 17 Sep 2026
Experts in Australian philanthropy say there are stark differences between philanthropic money and…
Posted on 17 Sep 2026
One of Australia’s foremost fundraising observers says Australian not-for-profits must get the…