Minimizing the board
A nonprofit board needs at least three people. What if that were enough?
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, from Airman’s Odyssey
It’s a common assumption that mature nonprofit arts organizations will necessarily have large and lumbering governing boards. As they grow in scope, scale, and complexity (the reasoning goes), organizations need more resources, political reach, and oversight. And that requires more hands on the wheel.
Many of the useful frameworks for nonprofit lifecycles (like Mathiasen’s) identify rising board size and complexity as a feature of successful evolution, not a flaw. And yet, big boards are notoriously challenging to wrangle. Every additional board member may bring new perspectives, connections, and resources. But each also brings coordinating costs.
Which is why it’s worth flipping the script on the “how big should my board be” question, and ask instead: “how small can my board be?” In a previous Field Note, I recommended “minimal viable process.” So, what is a minimum viable board?
In most states, the regulatory minimum for a tax-exempt governing board is three. If we were to follow the premise that “everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler,”1 almost every nonprofit arts board would have three members unless they absolutely needed more.
Why might a board need more than three people?
If it carries a large administrative or policy burden – multiple committees to coordinate or evaluate board-level work.
If funders, regulatory bodies (like the IRS), or other stakeholders expect or require a bigger board.
If redundancy was essential to ensuring board quorum – that is, sufficient board members present at each meeting to allow a vote.
If the organization required diverse representation beyond what a small board can provide.
However, many of these needs above could be navigated without growing the board.
The administrative burden could be reduced by focusing the board on the essentials of governance – basic oversight, fiduciary responsibilities, and legal compliance.
Funders, regulators, and other stakeholders could be convinced that the smaller board actually aligns the organization more directly with constituents.
Redundancy could be made less necessary if the board met less frequently.
And diverse representation could be assured by pushing the decision-making away from the board and into the communities being served.
The essential role of a governing board is to define success for the organization, and to create the conditions in which that success can be achieved. It’s possible that the best step a board can take in that charge is to get smaller and get (responsibly) out of the way.
From the ArtsManaged Field Guide
Function of the Week: Governance
purposes, resources, and goals (often through boards or trustees).
Framework of the Week: Three Stages of Nonprofit Boards
Karl Mathiasen III described three archetypes of governing boards in the nonprofit world – Organizing/Founding, Governing, and Institutional – as well as the bumpy paths between them.
Photo by Sandie Clarke on Unsplash
Sources
Le, Vu. “The Default Nonprofit Board Model Is Archaic and Toxic; Let’s Try Some New Models.” Nonprofit AF (blog), July 6, 2020.
Thorn, George. “Volunteer Leadership: Myth, Method, and New Approaches.” In Arts Boards: Myths, Perspectives, and New Approaches, 29–59. The Workpapers 2. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, 1992.
Often attributed to Albert Einstein, but actually written by composer Roger Sessions in the New York Times, January 8, 1950, paraphrasing what he learned from Einstein.