This can leave boards stuck without the expertise and broader perspectives they really need.
“Boards tend to hire people who have the same background as themselves,” he says Alison Henryclinical professor of management and organizations and its director Golub Capital Board Fellows Program at the Kellogg School of Management.
The issue is not just who boards hire, but how they do it. A better approach starts with addressing what the board needs, not how it can attract the prospects it has already identified.
Henry describes ways nonprofits can improve the process of recruiting and selecting board members.
Determine what your board needs
Councils often recruit from their existing networks. This makes it easier to fill positions—but also narrows the scope of the boards by favoring people within those networks.
“People have relatively insular or homogenous networks. So if you’re trying to find a new skill set or a new type of identity to bring to your board, differentiation is a challenge,” says Henry.
This challenge goes beyond just age, gender, race or background. It can also lead to skill and experience gaps on the board, which can make an organization less able to fulfill its mission.
The first step in diversifying your board is to assess where the gaps are. Henry recommends mapping current board members to key dimensions by creating a simple spreadsheet that includes factors such as skills, professional background, age and lived experience. This allows a board to better identify its strengths and weaknesses.
But identifying these gaps is only part of the job. Boards must also anticipate how they can address the future of the organization.
“What’s coming for the organization strategically that the board will need to navigate?” Henry asks.
It’s tempting to skip this step because it takes time. Board members are volunteers and are often busy with their lives, careers and supporting the organization through fundraising, strategy advice and other responsibilities. But the extra legwork is worth it.
“Strategic recruiting requires board members to take the time to do a skills and perspective assessment,” says Henry. “Then they can go out and have conversations about filling the necessary roles.”
Ask yourself the easy choice
Because volunteers who fill nonprofit board positions are expected to raise money for the organization, boards can tend to hire people who have already expressed interest, particularly donors, rather than people who might contribute to the role in other ways.
“It’s often the low-hanging fruit,” says Henry. “If a donor says they want to be on the board, it’s tempting to go with that option.”
This can leave boards filling positions out of convenience rather than in response to the needs of the organization. It also reflects a narrow view of giving—one that focuses on what an individual can donate.
To be clear, fundraising is a critical responsibility of nonprofit boards, especially in the current funding environment. But the fundraising aspect leaves nonprofits with a dilemma: do a quick check or invest in building relationships over time. Fundraising isn’t just about what donors give directly. He points to younger board members who may give less cash themselves, but can fill tables at events and expand the organization’s network.
For example, an organization may have an annual expectation of $10,000 for board members. While it may be preferable for board members to give $5,000 and raise $5,000 from their networks, some board members may be tempted to give $10,000 because it’s easier to just write a check than ask for donations.
But if a board member who gives $10,000 of his own money annually leaves the board without recruiting other funders, then the organization has not acquired additional donor relationships to cultivate in the future. That cash contribution may be less valuable than the willingness to build more, long-term donor relationships, Henry says.
“If board members are willing to raise money and bring their friends, I would argue that’s often more valuable,” says Henry. “It’s a long-term game.”
Make room for new voices
When established boards screen new candidates, they may focus their analysis of younger candidates on what they lack rather than what they can contribute.
“The concern I hear most often is that younger candidates don’t have enough money or enough experience,” says Henry. “On the money front, I recommend that you redefine this requirement.”
Newer board members may not have as much wealth as more established candidates. But they can still add value by making friends, bringing others into the organization. In practice, these candidates can open up new channels of engagement that boards might otherwise miss.
Most younger candidates are also digital natives whose particular experience likely fills gaps in existing boards that may be older and less tech-savvy.
“Boards can empower these younger members to fundraise, engage young people and help figure out how to activate social media, WhatsApp and other communication channels that older board members aren’t using. All organizations will benefit from bringing in the younger crowd and activating the next generation of philanthropists,” says Henry.
With that said, it is not enough to bring young people to the board table. Creating an inclusive environment for them—and all board members—helps ensure the full value of their voices can be heard.
Overcoming this hesitancy is a two-way street: longer-serving board members should solicit new hires, and these new recruits should find the confidence to contribute from the start.
“A lot of first-time board members have impostor syndrome. They feel too young and too inexperienced to be part of the conversation,” says Henry. “So they might sit back and watch the first meeting, but then they’re pigeonholed as the quiet observer.”
Promote your lead
Boards often only start looking for candidates when a position opens up. A better approach, Henry says, is to build a pipeline and keep prospects engaged over time.
“If there is an annual board nomination cycle, making that clear to candidates in progress—and being clear about the criteria to consider—helps foster a healthy relationship with those prospects,” says Henry.
Boards can prioritize candidates based on the needs of the organization and keep those relationships warm, even when a position is not available. Setting clear expectations about timing and responsibilities helps reduce friction in the process and avoids the potential for disappointment for both the candidates and the board members who have introduced them to the organization.
“If a board member has a friend or colleague who wants to join and the governance committee says ‘not yet’ without giving them a reason or a timeline, that board member can be disappointed,” says Henry.
Organizations should also create opportunities to get to know candidates—and for those candidates to gain a better understanding of the organization’s culture and their role as board members—prior to appointment.
“Candidates can join board committees or volunteer at events. These are opportunities for them to experience the board culture and for board members to get to know the candidate and see how genuine their interest is,” says Henry. “It’s like dating before you get married.”
These arrangements benefit both organizations and candidates. They also reduce the risk of bringing in someone unprepared for the role, as board service has no formal requirements.
“It’s a really big responsibility, and if people don’t understand what they’re taking on—or they’re doing it just to build a resume—they can get the organization in trouble,” says Henry.
