Membership in a nonprofit Board of Trustees is always considered an honor, being a form of recognition for one’s exemplary standing in a field of expertise that the NGO wants to leverage. Some of the most desirable qualities in candidates are quality connections, financial smarts, governance know-how, and legal-political acumen. Occasionally, the capacity to donate can become a consideration if the intention is a “giving Board”, but this is rarely a main criterium of selection for a “working Board”.
Having been chosen, Board members are expected to perform their overseer and strategic leadership functions capably, even away from the body’s regular meetings. NGOs being perennially understaffed, a working Board is the most ideal set up compared to a giving one. Their leadership in different Board committees, which may also include senior staff officers, ensures they have organic involvement in program development and fundraising.
This is why it is crucial to select the right mix of people in building or replenishing a Board team. Do you need someone who is merely skilled, well-known and has wealthy friends, or you need members to have the heart for social justice as well? Do you need them to have familiarity with sectors you serve, or is it enough they can potentially make more money for your organization? Nonprofit leaders need to settle these issues prior to casting their net for Trustees.
Some NGOs are inclined towards recruiting mostly corporate executives for their Boards, with the intention of bolstering their fundraising profiles. This is a questionable approach, given that CSR donations hardly gets past 10% of any nonprofit’s annual income. Corporate leaders are also some of the busiest people around, with very little time to participate in activities designed for a working Board. Prioritizing fundraising over program development in Board interventions also distorts an NGO’s mission perspective, wherein the latter is treated as a secondary area of concern.
A proper balance in Board selection should place more weight on program development. For all its practical importance in NGO survivability, fundraising will always remain an enabling component for program delivery, which is key to achieving a nonprofit’s core mission. This means majority of the members should have backgrounds related to social justice and human rights, and have the capacity to guide program development and implementation astutely. A minority of corporates may then be added to ensure fundraising matters are given appropriate attention and effort. Such a balance also ensures that corporates do not hijack a nonprofit’s core mission and turn it into a shell for CSR’s market-oriented posturing.
One of the most common failings of an NGO Board is becoming a rubber-stump to the CEO/Executive Director. This is a logical result of filling the Board with inappropriate people, especially those who know very little about how NGOs operate, are not very familiar with social justice and lack profound empathy for marginalized and vulnerable sectors. The CEO then controls the discussions on program development, while expecting the Board to merely approve proposed resolutions related to these and to help find ways to get more funding. A Board that does not know what it is doing and is satisfied with “supporting the CEO” eventually ends up rubber-stamping instead of exercising genuine strategic governance. With their power to hire and fire non-profit leaders and to make mission-critical decisions, NGO Board members need to be selected carefully and based on the organization’s core mission and values. Pandering to the corporate sector is certainly the wrong way to go about it, but even more so, choosing Trustees that do not have the right background can result in a crippled, rubber-stamping Board. In a worst-case scenario, such a powerful body can become an unwitting tool for toxic machinations by an unscrupulous and manipulative CEO/Executive Director.