Time to Sunset Big Association Boards?
Generally, I have taken the position that association boards should be smaller. When I say smaller, I think in the range of 7 to 10 members at the most. I know that some associations out there have really big boards, ranging anywhere from 30 to several hundred. The associations that have 30 or more will give you a lot of reasons why they have so many board members: we have a large membership; we need representation from around the world; our bylaws say we need this many board members; we allow past chairs of the board to stay on indefinitely; and maybe you will hear “that’s the way we’ve always done it.”
For all the reasons you hear of why there are big boards at associations, there is really one (in my opinion) that is driving this: it’s the system we have in place and we have no idea where to start in changing it. It’s not the best reason, but I think it is accurate. As someone who works with boards and is dedicated to the nonprofit management profession, I have many concerns about our future existence. Having a big board is not a good way to move into a future where things are happening faster than ever and our continued existence is in doubt.
Boards are in constant flux when it comes to their composition because their membership changes annually – or it should. While I would love to see boards taking action on the future of the association, we spend most of our time onboarding them, getting them up to speed on current activities, and explaining to them their duties, role, and limits of authority. You might be thinking, “well, Cecilia, all those items would fall under onboarding.” I agree with you but the problem is that our onboarding is inconsistent and needs to be reinforced. Boards consist of volunteers, not association professionals. Their attention is not on the association 100% and we seem to have the same conversations repeatedly in order to keep information fresh in their minds. And, we all know that the interpersonal dynamics of boards are not always good and can become a distraction.
We also need to change the mindset of boards so that they understand they are not in charge of managing the organization. Emphasis needs to be put on Oversight, Insight, and Foresight as the main responsibilities of the board. With this in mind, I have come to the conclusion that boards should be as small as possible. The IRS only requires 3 board members and they do not tell you what to do with them or how to integrate them into the organization. A board is required for oversight, not because the IRS has any expectations for board job descriptions. Basically, from the IRS perspective, the board will be held accountable if they don’t fill their responsibility of oversight. Over the decades, we have built an expansive board system on top of a requirement that is minimalist.
It is difficult in any situation to step outside it and really look at it differently. Why? Because we are in the middle of it and we have to work within the system we are trying to improve. But what if we took apart our assumptions and realized that boards not only can be small but SHOULD be small? What if we created other options for thought leadership or deep thinking in associations that do not require the commitment of serving on a board for 1 to 3 years? What if we used think tanks in our associations to help guide strategy development? This approach would open the door to bringing in expertise from everywhere – without tying people down with a lot of responsibilities that come with a formal position.
What if we created industry standards that promoted the decision-making aspect of board work as a contributory exercise between board members and the senior staff, and this contributory exercise actually gave more weight to the professionals rather than the volunteers? This would recognize the insight of boards and the experience of staff.
The uncomfortable reality is that nonprofit organizations waste a lot of resources managing board members. It is one of the factors that contributes to the notoriously slow decision-making activities at nonprofits. There is no consensus on how to better educate boards or how to motivate them to focus on their real responsibilities. Since we can’t build consensus there, maybe we should look at creating industry standards that respect the dedication of boards as volunteer leaders and respect the experience of association management professionals that should make up their staff. We need to change the relationship matrix of boards and professional staff to respect the knowledge and experience of the people who have chosen this profession.
Board membership does not confer expertise. It recognizes commitment to the profession or industry it serves. Thus, a bigger board is not necessarily a better board. All the knowledge and experience do not need to reside with board members, nor should it. A smaller focused board that reaches out for the expertise it needs can be more impactful than the way we are doing things now. As the Japanese say, “less is more.”