ANN ARBOR, Mich. - "Destructive behavior by an executive thatharms an organization, possibly destroying it." That's how JohnTropman, professor at the University of Michigan School of SocialWork and adjunct professor in the U of M Business School, definesflameout. He warns boards of nonprofits, including credit unions,they aren't immune from the threat posed by executive misconductsuch as inappropriate use of agency resources, embezzlement orsexual misbehavior. People immediately recall Enron, Tyco and otherbusinesses when they think of such shenanigans. But Tropman citesexamples from the non-profit sector such as Frank Hudson, CEO ofCatholic Charities in San Francisco. Hudson was forced to resignwhen it was discovered he spent almost $73,000 of the charity'smoney on personal expenses such as cosmetic surgery. Tropmanbelieves the issue is serious enough among nonprofits that he haswritten a paper, "Flameout/Calamity in the Nonprofit Sector,"scheduled for a special issue of the journal Administration inSocial Work this summer. "You can't change human nature," Tropmandeclares. "The fact people are in the nonprofit business, thehelping business or the religious business is not any kind ofprotection. It's sad that it may lead boards to be less vigilant."I think the kinds of things we're talking about - stealing,various kinds of acting out, substance abuse, abuse of power - areall things any of us might be guilty of. Every time I mention this,the people I'm talking with know of an instance or two, whetherit's a minister in a local church, the head of a United Way, or acocaine addict running a children's facility." Tropman, who teachesnonprofit management in the School of Social Work and for-profitmanagement and executive leadership in the Business School, hasbeen interested in the issues of who gets into executive positions,who leaves and under what conditions. "There were people who losttheir jobs in ways that harmed the organization," Tropman says."That became very costly. I've worked with some of thoseorganizations and the damage is hard to repair. Even worse, somenot only took down their organizations and their families but eventhe entire sector." Before this happens, he notes, there areusually warning signs that are overlooked. These may include sexualliaisons, substance abuse problems, or the Missing in Actionexecutive who is always traveling. Then somebody gets sued, perhapsfor sexual harassment, and it turns out that wasn't the only case."A lot of the focus is on the CEO himself or herself," Tropmanpoints out. "But one does have to ask the question, what are theboards doing during all of this? The people this (flameout) happensto are frequently very talented. They're not bozos, but they have abig blind spot. They're actually doing a lot right. Thereforeboards hesitate to say, `Yea, the guy's fantastic, but he drinkstoo much.'" The board's attitude is the executive is doing so muchfor the agency, they need to cut him or her a little slack. Yes,people have seen the male CEO constantly hugging the female vicepresident, but he's just the kind of guy who touches and hugspeople. Even when concerns arise, "Do you really want to talk to meabout what I'm doing in a limited way?," Tropman asks. "A problemis not all bad behaviors lead to really destructive results. Thereare probably a lot of people who drink too much. It's a problem butit's not causing the organization to collapse. "However, executivebehavior is part of the total executive package. What I do as dean,if I were dean of the school, affects the organization with which Iwork. Therefore added diligence is required." Unfortunately, hecontinues, as people move up in their careers and acquire morepower, subordinates and many others are less willing to be honestwith them. The information top executives get is increasinglyskewed. Sometimes what Tropman calls "the sidekick hypothesis"comes into play. A trusted associate, perhaps a partner or spouse,declares, "John, you're being a total jerk. Knock it off." Can theboard serve as the sidekick? "Not really," Tropman answers. "Therehas to be a close personal relationship, like Robert Kennedy andJohn Kennedy. There could be a member of the board who could dothat, but that creates its own problems, because that person has anoticeably closer relationship to the executive than anyone else."Tropman suggests one answer is a coaching system, similar to theapproach psychologists use. Therapists have a lot of opportunity toact out as they deal with vulnerable people sharing intimatedetails. Professional therapists have someone to whom they go toexamine their cases and conduct. Tropman urges boards to think verycarefully about how they review the CEO's behavior, and considerwhether they need some outside help. He notes there's a wholeindustry of executive coaches. A website for the Coaches TrainingInstitute, www.thecoaches.com, offers information about executivecoaching. [email protected]