Nonprofit Boards Will Never Be the Same

A number of years ago, the board chair of a nonprofit run by a friend of mine suddenly left town. The CEO only found out via the newspaper. The CEO simply never heard from the chair again. The worst is, that that was a good thing. For many reasons, this was the CEO’s deus ex machina moment. 

So, good news, bad news. Good news, she could recruit a new board chair. Bad news, there was not a single person on the board who was leadership material. Moreover, the CEO was left to solve the problem herself with no assistance from her board. So she went outside of the board, and fortunately, a well respected and highly effective business and community leader listened to her story, believed in the organization and her leadership, and agreed to be the board chair.

The lesson is an important one. Build a board with a pipeline of excellent people who can lead. 

Over the past thirty years, our team has worked with scores of global, national, and regional nonprofits, helping them to build the best boards—boards that would envision and maximize the nonprofit’s greater potential—strategically and financially.

In our work with nonprofit boards, we also introduced board matrices and statements of expectations as early as 1990. Our concept of a matrix has always been very particular for each nonprofit; there is no template. Each matrix is designed based on the organization’s very particular mission, vision, and revenue model. Same with the role of the board and statement of expectations; specific to each organization according to its aspirations, strategically and financially.

In the past year, nonprofits have begun building their boards differently. The reason is quite straightforward: In the face of extreme strategic and fiscal challenges—challenges that require smart and nimble organizational pivots—boards must be exceptional. The board must work with the CEO to ensure that the organization is true to its mission, programmatically effective, and financially sustainable. Here are observations of how boards are functioning differently.

1. More thoughtful and thorough in choosing board members. Where once, a prospective new candidate met with the nominating chair, board chair, and the CEO, now, in most cases, a candidate will meet with each and every board member—sometimes in groups. This is important progress, from the perspective of the board as well as the candidate. This is how to ascertain the value that a candidate brings to the table, their level of commitment to serve, and their manner of interacting with a group of peers. I have seen this work in the nonprofit’s favor, where a candidate who was initially hesitant grew more and more enthusiastic once she met with all of the board members. In fact, she ultimately chose that board over others because she felt the energy and commitment among the board members.
2. No longer limiting themselves to a narrow, homogeneous slice of the community. Where once boards recruited only people who looked like themselves—usually older and white—boards are seeking out candidates from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Big progress.
3. Being deliberate about board size. Where organizations had simply added new directors, thereby allowing their boards to become ungainly in size, boards are becoming more strategic and vigilant about the number of board members. This often means setting term limits to rotate out long term directors. Most importantly, it means being purposeful in ensuring that each and every board member brings important value to the table—not in terms of where the organization was, but in terms of where the organization is going.

While these changes are positive, there are a few additional considerations.

1. Be opportunistic. When you build that board matrix, have the flexibility to recognize when a valuable candidate emerges who might not check the box in your matrix. That is, someone whom you had not imagined or anticipated who brings uniquely valuable experience, expertise, perspectives, and relationships that will help the organization to advance strategically and financially. She may not fit into your predetermined slot for a “Silicon Valley funder,” but she might instead bring treasure in ways you had not imagined.
2. Build a pipeline of leaders. Always value candidates who have the potential to become future board leaders. In fact, build the board with a number of people whom you can envision as committee chairs, officers, even eventually as the board chair. These are rare and valuable board members.
3. Protect the board culture. That does not mean having a group of people who always agree. Quite the opposite. A variety of different perspectives thoughtfully shared is essential for a board to be effective. It’s a matter of how people express themselves and their ability to work in a team.

This is a time of great opportunity for NGOs and nonprofits to be strategic and opportunistic in building boards that envision and advance organizations to promote access and equity with regard to education, healthcare, justice, the environment, and more. These organizations will have the greatest impact in building a better world for all people.

The Korngold Consulting team has trained and matched over a thousand business executives from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds to global, national, and regional nonprofit boards for over thirty years. Our firm's studies show the value of nonprofit board service to companies, their employees, nonprofits, and communities, particularly in advancing diversity, equity and inclusion; innovation; leadership development; and the SDGs.