Unrealistic expectations for volunteer nonprofit board members may contribute to unhealthy situations where potentially helpful board members are discouraged from joining boards or continuing to serve. And too much emphasis on giving at high levels — and growing demands on fundraising — may contribute to some boards being entirely, or primarily, populated with donors who have little expertise – or time – to effectively govern the institution.
For potential or current nonprofit board members who are looking for guidance on how to be more effective, there are hundreds of articles outlining the myriad roles and responsibilities of directors.
There are the three legal duties of directors: the duty of care (operating in good faith and in the best interest of the organization), the duty of loyalty (avoiding conflicts of interest), and the duty of obedience (honoring the mission of the organization), and scores of other governance and fiduciary obligations that various experts and consultants have advocated.
The National Center for Nonprofit Boards lists the following ten responsibilities of nonprofit boards:
- Determine the organization’s mission and purpose.
- Select the executive director.
- Support the executive director and review his or her performance.
- Ensure effective organizational planning.
- Ensure adequate resources.
- Manage resources effectively.
- Determine and monitor the organization’s programs and services.
- Enhance the organization’s public image.
- Serve as a court of appeal when necessary.
- Assess its own performance.
Some nonprofit experts focus more on the fundraising and advocacy responsibilities of nonprofit boards, and others focus on best practices for governance of these boards. For example, Neon One, a technology company for nonprofits, advises that boards need to ensure that they are: having regular board meetings and communication; documenting decisions and maintaining records; establishing committees and assigning responsibilities; conducting performance evaluations; providing ongoing education and development of its members; and ensuring diversity, inclusively and representation.
For the average volunteer nonprofit board member, it’s enough to make one’s head spin. Yet, thousands of individuals willingly serve on nonprofit boards for various reasons: a passion for the cause, prestige, networking, and giving back to their communities are some of those.
Given the important roles and responsibilities of nonprofit boards, the pressures that are exerted on them, and the failure of some boards to meet those challenges, some community leaders have advocated for their demise in favor of a different approach.
“Yes, there are some good boards, and plenty of great board members,” writes Vu Le, the former executive of the nonprofit RVC Seattle, for the website Nonprofit AF. “But the structure is archaic, weird, glaringly white, and full of corporate people who know little about nonprofits and often have less lived experience and who are often too busy to bother learning (but who still insist in being in charge!).” Le advocates for a “minimally viable board” that fulfills the absolute minimum legal requirements and does little else, combined with a second, less formal but larger, more expansive, more inclusive “integrity board” that reflects the community and its values.
Michael Bobbitt, the executive director of Mass Cultural Council, argues in American Theatre magazine that nonprofit theater boards are “unrepresentative, out of touch, and more often oppressive than supportive.” He provides a long list of possible corrections ranging from eradicating Robert’s Rules of Order, to letting staff and community members vet and evaluate board members, to eliminating financial obligations for board members, which he argues gives board members an “inflated sense of power.”
Some nonprofit experts maintain that despite their faults, nonprofit boards are essential, and their demise would certainly mean the end of the nonprofit sector as we know it.
Anne Wallestad, former president and CEO of Board Source, a nonprofit organization that provides training for board members, lists the following three reason for this conclusion:
- First, organizations would struggle to earn and keep the public’s trust. While nonprofits currently are trusted by the public more than government, corporations, and the media, that trust is fragile, and it relies on the idea that there is a group with shared accountability watching over the organization and its practices.
- Second, organizations need strong leadership to succeed. Without a board, ineffective leaders could remain in place indefinitely, leading to a growing number of organizations being poorly led as well as a slow decrease in reputation.
- Third, surviving a CEO transition would be the exception rather than the rule. Without a board, there would be no solid mechanism for finding an organization’s next leader, which would create a whole host of dysfunctions, including employees hiring their bosses, CEO’s appointing heirs to their leadership, or executives just walking off to leave the organization to fend for itself.
Amy Eisenstein, the CEO and co-founder of Capital Campaign Pro, a fundraising firm, suggests the following as six realistic expectations of board members:
- Make a personal contribution.
- Share networks and open doors.
- Be a good advocate.
- Invite others to contribute.
- Say thank you.
- Actively participate in all meetings.
Having more realistic expectations might help diversify and simplify board participation, contribute to more engaged board members, and advance more stable and better functioning nonprofit institutions. That’s not to say that nonprofits don’t need donors (they do!), but having diverse and engaged boards might contribute to a healthier nonprofit sector and the continued trust of the public that nonprofits are created to serve.