Your board should be one of your nonprofit’s greatest assets. Is it?
I have sat through more nonprofit board meetings than I can count.
Some have been energizing. People came prepared. They asked smart questions. They challenged assumptions. They offered expertise, opened doors, made introductions, volunteered, donated, and actually seemed excited to help the organization succeed.
And then there are the other ones.
You know the meetings I’m talking about. Someone is reading a report that everyone has already received. Half the room is checking email. One person has been on the board since the Carter administration. Nobody wants to talk about fundraising. And everyone breathes a sigh of relief when the meeting ends eleven minutes early.
Why are we doing this?
A board isn’t supposed to be a collection of impressive names on your website. It isn’t supposed to be a social club. And it certainly shouldn’t be an obligation that everyone tolerates four times a year.
Your board should be one of the most valuable resources your organization has.
If it isn’t, something needs to change.
One of the biggest mistakes nonprofits make is recruiting board members based primarily on what they have: Money. A recognizable name. A fancy title. Connections. Those things can certainly be useful. But they shouldn’t be the starting point.
In Philanthropy Revolution, I contrasted the all-too-common approach of, “You have the capacity to give. Please join our board.” with the one I’d much rather see: “You are passionate about our mission. Please join our board.”
That’s a pretty significant distinction.
Before you invite someone onto your board, ask why that person belongs there. What perspective do they bring? What expertise? What connection do they have to the mission? What can they contribute that the board doesn’t already have?
And, just as importantly, do they actually want to do the work?
Prestige without engagement isn’t particularly useful.
Let’s address the uncomfortable part: Yes, I think board members should support the organization financially when they have the capacity to do so. Nonprofits need money. Pretending otherwise is silly.
As I wrote in Philanthropy Revolution, the old idea of “give or get” has largely evolved into “give and get”: board members make their own contribution while also participating in fundraising. But that becomes complicated when organizations confuse someone’s financial capacity with their value as a board member.
A terrific lawyer who provides valuable expertise may not be able to make the same gift as a wealthy business owner. A younger board member might bring technological expertise, a completely different network, or insight into an audience your organization desperately needs to understand.
That’s not a problem.
In The Fundraiser’s Handbook, I cited research identifying four characteristics of an effective nonprofit board: experience in critical service areas, a focus on governance rather than day-to-day work, diversity in backgrounds and skills, and comfort raising resources—financial or otherwise.
Notice that last part.
Fundraising participation doesn’t have to mean handing every board member a prospect list and sending them into the wild to ask their friends for $25,000.
Someone can make introductions. Host a small gathering. Bring a potential supporter to an event. Connect staff with a company. Tell people enthusiastically about the mission. Share expertise that saves the organization money.
But doing absolutely nothing? That’s harder to defend.
As I’ve written before, if a board member won’t even make an email introduction or doesn’t see themselves as an ambassador for the organization, I question why they’re taking up a board seat.
I’ve been talking about board diversity for years, and I continue to be amazed by organizations whose idea of diversifying the board is finding someone who looks different from everyone currently sitting around the table.
That’s not the point.
A strong board should include different ages, professional backgrounds, economic experiences, identities, skills, networks, personalities, and ways of thinking.
Why? Because different people see different things.
If everyone on your board comes from the same generation, socioeconomic background, professional circle and social network, congratulations: you’ve created an echo chamber. And echo chambers aren’t particularly good at innovation.
This matters enormously as the donor population changes. If you’re trying to understand younger donors while nobody under 60 has meaningful input into your organization, perhaps we’ve identified part of the problem.
Your board should help you understand the world your nonprofit operates in now, not recreate the world in which it operated 25 years ago.
Here’s something ridiculously simple that organizations overlook: Board members are volunteers. Their time has value.
If you’ve recruited accomplished, knowledgeable people and then invited them to a two-hour meeting where they spend 90 minutes listening to information that could have been emailed to them, you are not engaging your board.
You’re boring them.
In my earlier article 12 Tips for Success, I suggested telling board members at the beginning of every meeting exactly what will be covered, what you’re trying to accomplish, and when the meeting will end. Then—and here’s the revolutionary part—end when you said you would.
Board meetings should give people opportunities to think, discuss, question and contribute.
Instead of:
“Everything is fine. The organization is doing great.”
I’d much rather hear:
“We’re facing some significant challenges. This is what’s going on, and here’s where we could use your expertise.”
Now you’ve given me something useful to do.
The time to tell someone what board membership involves is before they join the board.
Not six months later.
Create a clear document explaining attendance expectations, committee participation, terms, fundraising responsibilities, financial expectations, volunteer opportunities, confidentiality, governance responsibilities and anything else that matters to your organization.
If there’s a give/get—or give and get—requirement, spell it out.
If board members are expected to attend events, say so.
If terms are three years, tell them.
Nobody should discover the rules after joining.
And while we’re discussing terms: please have them.
Boards where the same people have occupied the same seats for 15 or 20 years aren’t necessarily benefiting from 20 years of wisdom. Sometimes they’re suffering from 20 years without fresh perspectives.
One of the themes running through nearly everything I write about fundraising is embarrassingly simple: People are people.
Donors are people. Fundraisers are people. Volunteers are people.
Board members are, too.
Find out why they joined. Ask what they’d like to contribute. Learn what expertise they’re excited to share. Check in occasionally about whether their experience is what they expected.
And thank them in the way they want to be thanked.
In my earlier article, I suggested that nonprofit leaders have regular private check-ins with board members to understand their level of fulfillment—or frustration—with their service.
Imagine that. Actually asking someone how things are going instead of waiting until they quietly stop attending meetings.
Good boards aren’t created by filling empty seats. They’re built intentionally.
Recruit people who care deeply about the mission. Be explicit about expectations. Create genuine diversity of perspective. Give members meaningful ways to contribute. Expect them to participate in the financial health of the organization in ways appropriate to their skills and resources. Give them honest information. Respect their time. And, occasionally, recognize when someone who was once right for the board isn’t right for its future.
That last one can be uncomfortable. Change usually is.
I’ve previously written about being yelled at in a board meeting by a longtime member who accused me of wanting to “change everything.” My response today is pretty much the same as it was then: Sometimes things need to change.
Your mission is too important to preserve an ineffective board simply because changing it would be awkward.
The goal isn’t to have a board. The goal is to have a group of committed people using their collective resources, experience, judgment, relationships, and passion to make your organization stronger.
There’s a very big difference.
And your donors can see it, too.
Every month, Philanthropy 451 Premium subscribers are invited to join Lisa LIVE on Zoom for a LIVE Power Hour: our interactive group coaching session where you can bring your real-world fundraising challenges, questions, and ideas and get direct feedback from Lisa and other experienced members of the Philanthropy 451 community.
Have a donor situation you’re not sure how to handle? A fundraising strategy that isn’t working? A question you’d love to ask a major donor? Bring it to Power Hour.
This isn’t another webinar where you sit and listen. It’s your opportunity to:
Ask Lisa your questions live and get her donor-perspective advice
Get feedback and ideas on challenges happening inside your organization
Learn from the questions and experiences of other nonprofit professionals
Join candid conversations about what’s actually working—and what needs to change—in fundraising today
Connect with a community of people who care about making philanthropy better
Ready to bring your questions to the next Power Hour?
Upgrade to Premium and join us →
And a huge thank you to everyone who already supports Philanthropy 451 as a Premium subscriber. Your support makes these conversations possible.
As always, these newsletters will remain free of charge—because saving giving starts with everyone.
Thank you for being part of the revolution!
—The Saving Giving Team
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.