The one and the many of board service
How do nonprofit boards balance individual impulse with collective resolve?
The purpose of poetry is to remind us
how difficult it is to remain just one person,
for our house is open, there are no keys in the doors,
and invisible guests come in and out at will.
—Czeslaw Milosz, from “Ars Poetica?” (translated by the author)
One of the deeper challenges of serving on a nonprofit board is balancing the individual and the collective. Boards often draw passionate individuals with strong opinions, many with solid business, civic, or social credentials. These individuals have achieved success through unique skills and resources, and rising levels of agency and authority in their domains. And yet, board services calls them to think and act as a collective.
To make things harder, individualistic impulses can be reinforced by inequities in power and wealth among board members. A major donor or civic superstar can have a louder voice in board discussions, which tend to favor the HiPPO (highest-paid person’s opinion).
So how can a board foster robust and inclusive conversation among its members while also conveying a coherent and consistent voice? In part, that’s what the bylaws are for. This governing document establishes the rules by which the organization manages internal affairs – what processes and percentages constitute a valid board decision, as an example. Another support comes in “rules of order,” the deliberative protocols of the meetings, themselves (Robert’s Rules of Order, among other options).
But these scaffolds only work if the context and culture is aligned toward collective practice. And that’s a never-ending journey.
It can help to acknowledge and honor that no individual board member has authority to do anything, unless granted that authority by the board. The authority is held by the collective, not its members. Governance maven John Carver calls this the “one voice” principle, which asks boards to deliberate in many voices but govern in only one. According to Carver (2006), the board “speaks” only when it ratifies a decision according to its bylaws and rules of order. Everything else is chatter.
It can also help to be explicit about the many hats individual board members wear as part of their service, and ensure that each member is switching hats appropriately. The CompassPoint Board Model (Masaoka 2009) offers two primary responsibilities for board members: governance (as a collective) and support (as individuals). The trick is knowing and naming which role you’re in at the moment.
On one hand, the board, acting as the formal representative of the public, governs the organization’s affairs. At the same time, board members help support the organization by volunteering, raising money, and advising.
Both of these frameworks help navigate the confusion of individual board members making demands of the chief executive or staff, or the incoherence of board discussions that never get around to a formal vote. Both also require continual disipline and development, especially in a larger culture that valorizes individual over collective action.
From the ArtsManaged Field Guide
Function of the Week: Governance
Governance involves structuring, sustaining, and overseeing the organization's purposes, resources, and goals (often through boards or trustees).
Framework of the Week: Nonprofit Lifecycle
All nonprofit organizations have natural lifecycles, from a grassroots idea to peak vitality to a turnaround (or termination). A few different frameworks approach this reality and the strategy that lives around it.
Photo by Miguel Á. Padriñán on Pexels
Sources
Carver, John. 2006. Boards That Make a Difference: A New Design for Leadership in Nonprofit and Public Organizations. 3rd edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Masaoka, Jan. 2009. The Best of the Board Café: Hands-On Solutions for Nonprofit Boards. 2nd ed. edition. St. Paul: Fieldstone Alliance.