Quitting the Board

Maybe you should quit. 

Have you served on a board for 6 consecutive years? More? Forgive me, but maybe you should consider stepping down. Most nonprofits I have served — as an employee, board member, or consultant — have at least one or two individuals who brought value to the organization years ago but who are now on the board more through inertia than as a reflection of the individual’s enthusiasm for the mission or ability to meet the organization’s needs. With paid positions, there are usually performance evaluation processes in place that allow for individual development and continued growth in a position, as well as a process to terminate an individual’s engagement (i.e. fire or call for retirement or terminate a position) when they are no longer helping advance the work of the organization. With a volunteer board member, who is often recruited due to a personal relationship with someone engaged with the organization, there are rarely such mechanisms in place and a lot of organic disincentives (desire to maintain a relationship, etc.) to making needed change.

All of the organizations I have worked with have had set board terms, but very, very few have required a break from board service. While the end of a term might seem like the built-in point for reconsidering continuation of service, I have witnessed more organizations than not for whom the reelection of board members at the end of their terms is all but guaranteed. At the end of their term, many board members don’t want to offend the organization by bowing out of consideration for re-election and fellow board members are even more hesitant to not offer a re-election of term or actually remove a board member unless they’ve done something outstandingly egregious. Board terms become meaningless when re-election is all but guaranteed.

The alternative is a process of clearly defined, memorialized, board member expectations that are the basis for eligibility for re-election along with a limitation on consecutive terms. Organization needs vary, but I find two to three-year terms with a limitation of only two consecutive terms before a period of ineligibility equivalent to a term, balances the need for stability with the need for change. Term limits help ensure all parties – the board member who has served out their terms and the board as whole -- are actively opting into the relationship and provides the opportunity for the organization to benefit from more community perspectives while providing leadership opportunities to more individuals.

That doesn’t mean people have to be cut off from an organization after six years. Individuals certainly can still donate and can remain engaged through volunteering in other ways. The hiatus may indeed increase a former board member’s understanding of the organization if they use the time off the board to pitch in in other ways.

All organizations are at risk of growing stale once they hit maturity. It is a natural part of the organizational life cycle. An infusion of new leaders can be just what an organization needs to remain responsive to the community. Individuals committed to the mission of the organization they are on the board of should actively guard against the organization they care about going stale by seeking bylaw amendments that ensure healthy board turnover through term limits. And board members who have served their respective organizations for six or more years without the benefit of term limits should voluntarily step down. Because these individuals are presumably committed to the mission of the organization rather than status on the board, they should choose to continue to make their financial contributions to the organization.

So to all you wonderful folks giving of your time and expertise to guide organizations striving for social impact, thank you for your service! And now, consider taking a break.