It seems at least once a week I hear from a Board member or not-for-profit staff member that one or more segments of their membership are seeking additional representation at the Board table. To set the stage for this discussion, let's say the organization in question has Board members elected by various geographic constituencies, i.e. one or more Board members from each state, province or region.
The arguments presented by the constituencies essentially are: we have more members now, so we should have more representation at the Board level.
This point of view is flawed. When interviewing someone for a job, the first question one asks certainly isn't, "Where do you live? In the east end, south end or north end of the city"? Clearly, your recruitment criteria for employees always starts with an assessment of the skills and competencies a candidate possesses, and a comparison of same to the competencies you have identified as required for success in the job.
Shouldn't that same rationale apply to your search for Board members? Shouldn't the primary consideration be the governance competencies the Board needs and who (regardless of where they are located) can bring those competencies to the Board table?
Individuals elected by constituencies often find themselves between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, those who elected them expect them to advocate in their particular interest. At the same time they have a legal obligation to serve the organization as a whole with loyalty and care - they must serve and vote in the interest of the entire organization, not just the constituency that elected them to the Board. It's a tough chair to sit in.
In response to the above, more and more not-for-profit organizations are examining their bylaws and proposing changes to their membership. Many are providing for the election of Directors-at-Large, to ensure that at least some Board members are serving and acting consistently with the interests of all members of the organization. That's a good start.
When faced with the representational argument, there is a need to turn discussion away from "where" Board members come from, to the more important discussion about the need to find Board members who have the governance competencies needed to succeed at their job. That, in my view, is the most critical recruitment consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
My, my how far we have come in just a short fifty years. “Competence” and/or competencies were the same/major arguments made away back when, during the civil rights days, to keep members of the black and/or minority community from serving on various community boards. “They lack experience, they don’t understand the process, or the organizations governance is too complex or complicated, etc.” All legitimate arguments then as now.
ReplyDeleteWhen the discussion of board “representation” comes up the first question is, “Why,” because there just may be a very good reason for a “representation” requirement. In organizations that are broad based, community wide representation is often quite common and by the way desired/needed. It also may be a part of an organizations by laws, which is also very common or it simply has been an institutional tradition. The “why” must first be addressed and examined first because very often there is a very good reason for representation requirements. Then and only then, after this discussion of representation is completed can the next discussion begin and that then is the rather obvious matter of “competence.” Believe it or not “representation competence” is quite common. Representation and competence are really not mutually exclusive. It sometimes just requires a little more work.