You Know What They Say About The Size of Your Board?
In recent months, we've seen two high profile examples of what happens when an organization's board is too big. First, the Red Cross basically begged Congress to make them kick some members off their 50-something member board, arguing that the conditions that created such a large board were no longer "relevant." Then, the NAACP actually forced out their leader because he was more interested in making the group "effective" than doing what the board "wanted." The NAACP has 64 board members, and now, no president.
Spare me the nonsense about a large board bringing more voices to the table. You're going to tell me that the 64th board member has a perspective that none of the previous 63 did? What is he, a martian?
Organizations allow their boards to swell to this kind of size for two reasons: 1) to reward their friends and funders with plum leadership roles; and 2) to spur current donors to escalate their giving, as board membership creates longterm brand loyalty. A common vision and effective leadership are sacrificed in the name of patronage and potential dollars. But enough is enough. Any experienced board consultant will acknowledge that a board of more than 25 members is counterproductive and unwieldy.
So, who's next? If the Red Cross will publicly admit that the size of their board hurts their ability to serve the public (and they did) and we can all agree that one of the things that made the NAACP board and its CEO be fundamentally at odds was that the CEO was hearing different things from different members, due to the sheer number of board members, what other non-profits have boards of directors of similar size to these two groups?
Human Rights Campaign has 41 members. A couple of local United Ways (Allegheny County and Los Angeles) have more than 50 members. Ducks Unlimited has 54, as does Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City. ALSAC (St. Jude's Children Hospital) and the San Francisco Zoo have 59. I thought our run-away winner would be the ACLU, which consists of an astounding 83 members and, not coincidentally, has been involved in a public fight to try and figure out how to muzzle them. But our champion turns out to be the Daughters of the American Revolution, which has an 84 member board (and a Charity Navigator 1-star efficiency rating).
In the case of ALSAC, I would argue that a board of this size may not be the impediment that it is to groups more focused on operations. ALSAC basically raises money for St. Jude's, so they're just there as fundraisers, and not proposing major organizational policy changes. So a big old board may not be a huge problem, as everyone knows their role. But to be fair, I'm including them here.
Some of these groups are more effective than others. But I think it's fair to say that none of them are considered particularly "focused." Several have a reputation for being relatively rudderless and guilty of trying to be all things to all people. And that will happen when your "leadership" consists of more than 50 different personalities, each with their own agenda, and each with an equal vote.
Spare me the nonsense about a large board bringing more voices to the table. You're going to tell me that the 64th board member has a perspective that none of the previous 63 did? What is he, a martian?
Organizations allow their boards to swell to this kind of size for two reasons: 1) to reward their friends and funders with plum leadership roles; and 2) to spur current donors to escalate their giving, as board membership creates longterm brand loyalty. A common vision and effective leadership are sacrificed in the name of patronage and potential dollars. But enough is enough. Any experienced board consultant will acknowledge that a board of more than 25 members is counterproductive and unwieldy.
So, who's next? If the Red Cross will publicly admit that the size of their board hurts their ability to serve the public (and they did) and we can all agree that one of the things that made the NAACP board and its CEO be fundamentally at odds was that the CEO was hearing different things from different members, due to the sheer number of board members, what other non-profits have boards of directors of similar size to these two groups?
Human Rights Campaign has 41 members. A couple of local United Ways (Allegheny County and Los Angeles) have more than 50 members. Ducks Unlimited has 54, as does Big Brothers Big Sisters of New York City. ALSAC (St. Jude's Children Hospital) and the San Francisco Zoo have 59. I thought our run-away winner would be the ACLU, which consists of an astounding 83 members and, not coincidentally, has been involved in a public fight to try and figure out how to muzzle them. But our champion turns out to be the Daughters of the American Revolution, which has an 84 member board (and a Charity Navigator 1-star efficiency rating).
In the case of ALSAC, I would argue that a board of this size may not be the impediment that it is to groups more focused on operations. ALSAC basically raises money for St. Jude's, so they're just there as fundraisers, and not proposing major organizational policy changes. So a big old board may not be a huge problem, as everyone knows their role. But to be fair, I'm including them here.
Some of these groups are more effective than others. But I think it's fair to say that none of them are considered particularly "focused." Several have a reputation for being relatively rudderless and guilty of trying to be all things to all people. And that will happen when your "leadership" consists of more than 50 different personalities, each with their own agenda, and each with an equal vote.
Labels: ACLU, ALSAC, Daughters of American Revolution, Ducks Unlimited, NAACP, Red Cross
posted by Trent Stamp at 10:13 AM
7 Comments:
Is it fair to call it 'begging?' I thought the Red Cross had to go through Congress, because it had a federal charter.
The YMCA of Metro Chicago has 75 members on the Board of Managers. And 10 more Trustees. And yup, it's sadly inefficient (and CN doesn't rate it highly). I worked there and one of my friends also worked there about a year before I did. Effective? Not at all. Too many high level people are connected and "protected." There's a lot of "Peter Principle" at work. They have high paying jobs and consulting gigs, as centers are closed and programs are understaffed. The Y is toxic to creativity and to folks who don't play the political games.
Do you differentiate between an Executive Board and an Executive Committee?
The BSA ( Boy Scouts of America) the Executive Committee is normally made up of Past Presidents and current operational Vice Presidents. ( about 15-18 people all volunteers)
This body meets once a month and handles the “Day To Day” decisions. Then about 5 times a year the entire board meets and ratifies the decisions of the committee. This allows a large board but does not bog the management down with 55 different points of view.
Trent is right on the $$. Large boards (unless they are really fundraisers) can strangle an organization. ExComms greater than 5 and boards greater than 15 tend to be ineffective. Yet, good people are needed on Committees of the board and they can contribute time & talent without wasting their time on a large board. Thanks for a good column.
OH, and boards should not handle day-to-day stuff but focus on long range strategic direction (imo)
I'm surprised that Trent does not realize that organizations are really run by their Executive Committees who make all the important decisions. I've worked for several non-profit organizations with large boards and not one of them leaves the big decisions to the full board. Board members sometime complain that they are merely a rubber stamp for Executive Committee decisions; other Board members are happy to have the Executive Committee do the research, have the arguments, make the decisions. The size of the Board has less to do with actual governance, although they are legally responsible for the organization, and more about ways to increase support for the organization both by Board members making contributions themselves and soliciting their friends. An organization with a small board has more difficulty raising the support it needs. In my experience--and I've worked for major organizations in New York--Board size does not make a difference in how effective an organization is. What makes a difference is the top leadership on the Board--chairman, president, etc.--and the executive director.
I am looking for companies to donate some supplies and equipment to put my home back together in New Orleans, LA like AC/Heat Unit, Cabinets, Hot Water Heater, Flooring, Sheetrock, etc. I am a single Mom and I am trying to get my home together and with no insurance monies it is hard. So if you know of anyone who can help please contact me, Cynthia Roussel, (504)427-5007 or 10717 Curran Blvd, New Orleans, LA 70127.
You see, size does matter!
Matt
Post a Comment
<< Home