News & Views

by Randall Quan - Board development is a regular topic among CRE clients. Nonprofits are always looking for that perfect mix of folks who care deeply about their missions, take their oversight responsibilities seriously, attend meetings, and add value to their organizations’ overall effort. Oh, and groups would love for their Board members to fundraise—both to write large checks themselves and to get their friends and colleagues to write large checks.

I was recently asked about board member matching services by a client. The reviews I've heard from CRE’s clients who have used various services—such as United Way of New York City’s and NYCService’s new initiative, BoardServeNYC—have been a mixed bag. On the positive side, nonprofits said they found great board members; individuals who were quick to understand the mission and to commit and contribute to the organization. On the down side, some lamented that past an initial “honeymoon” period, board members from matching services disappeared or simply didn’t fit in. However, regardless of matching service, ultimately, it all comes down to the organization itself. Board matching services can put you in touch with potential individuals that could add value to the organization but it is incumbent on the organization to have clearly defined expectations of board members, strong leadership, and purposeful work. Think about this as advertising for a job—it can help you get resumes but you still have to review the cover letters and resumes, and interview the prospective candidate (perhaps several times).

Sometimes I feel that organizations view these services as shortcuts or substitutes for the more important (and certainly more intensive) work of managing, supporting, and leading boards of directors. This may seem an appealing prospect but, in reality, is not a productive practice. If we believe that the main purpose of these services is to reduce our work, then we miss the real value they offer: to enable our work to be much more effective.

I strongly believe that nonprofits should take as much—and sometimes more—care in bringing on new Board members as they do when hiring staff because these individuals are the ones who have ultimate legal responsibility for the organization. I would want a prospective new Board member to come to a few Board meetings before we elect him or her to the Board—I want to know that he or she understands the organization and its work culture, and is committed to carrying out the responsibilities as a Board member. Perhaps, I'd ask the prospect to serve as a volunteer on a Board committee (if the organization has active Board committees) first, so that Board members get a chance to interact with this person. I'd make sure that a couple of Board members have a formal interview with the prospect (in addition to an interview with the Executive Director). And I'd lay out very explicitly what we're expecting from the prospect and make sure that he/she can commit to them. This whole process is used to ensure that the prospect understands and is committed to the mission, the other Board members, and the work. And, that the prospect understands and commits to whatever fundraising expectations there are of her or him. All this takes time and so I want the nonprofit to understand that the priority is more about finding the right person rather than filling a vacant seat.

At the end of the day, a Board matching service could be great at finding prospects and making the introductions. But, success will really (and always) depend on the organization.