The Board Member Problem: Nonprofits Are Leaving One of Their Greatest Resources on the Table

The Board Member Problem: Nonprofits Are Leaving One of Their Greatest Resources on the Table

I have been on more boards than I can remember.

I have consulted with boards to help them become compliant with state and federal government requirements, and I have investigated boards and their members.

And this is the number one error I see:

Mismanaging and mistreating their board members.

Nonprofits often talk about how valuable their boards are. They describe board members as leaders, ambassadors, advocates, fundraisers, advisors, community representatives, and stewards of the organization’s mission.

Then they turn around and treat those same people like unpaid employees.

That isn’t good governance.

It’s bad management.

Your Board Is Not Your Free Labor Force

There is a fundamental difference between asking board members to fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities and expecting them to perform the work of a paid staff member.

Board members agree to serve because they believe in the mission. They bring experience, connections, credibility, knowledge, and often years of professional expertise to the table.

They volunteer their time because they believe their contribution matters.

But somewhere along the way, some nonprofits lose sight of what they’re asking for.

A board member attends meetings.

Then they’re asked to serve on committees.

Then they’re expected to recruit sponsors.

Then they’re asked to make phone calls.

Then they’re expected to attend events.

Then they’re asked to create marketing materials, manage social media, solicit donations, recruit volunteers, perform administrative work, solve staff problems, and fill operational gaps.

Before long, the board member who agreed to provide governance is doing the work of three employees.

And when that person finally says, “I don’t have the time to do all of this,” they’re sometimes treated as though they’re the problem.

They’re not.

The organization has confused governance with labor.

Board members absolutely have responsibilities. They have legal and fiduciary obligations, and many boards appropriately expect members to participate in fundraising, advocacy, committees, and other activities. But those expectations should be clearly defined and reasonable. The board’s primary role is governance, oversight, stewardship, and strategic direction, not simply filling every operational hole the organization has.

Volunteers Are Still People

The fact that someone volunteers doesn’t make their time worthless.

In fact, many nonprofit board members are professionals who charge substantial rates for the very expertise they’re giving away.

An attorney may provide legal insight.

An accountant may help with financial oversight.

A marketing professional may help shape the organization’s public image.

A business owner may bring years of leadership experience.

A community leader may open doors that would otherwise remain closed.

These aren’t commodities the organization is entitled to simply because someone agreed to serve.

And appreciation isn’t a substitute for respect.

A thank-you doesn’t fix an unreasonable workload.

A plaque doesn’t fix poor communication.

A dinner doesn’t fix months of being ignored, criticized, excluded, or taken for granted.

People don’t need to be paid to deserve to be treated well.

The Board Member Who Does Everything Is Not Always Your Best Board Member

Here’s another problem.

Some organizations reward the board member who will do everything.

That person becomes the one everyone calls.

Need someone to organize the event?

Call them.

Need a sponsor?

Call them.

Need someone to write the newsletter?

Call them.

Need someone to handle a difficult situation?

Call them.

Need someone to take over a staff responsibility?

Call them.

Eventually, that person becomes indispensable.

That should be a warning sign, not a success story.

A healthy organization shouldn’t depend on one or two board members carrying the entire operation on their backs.

If one person disappearing would cause the organization to struggle, the organization doesn’t have a strong board structure.

It has a dependency problem.

Don’t Punish People for Setting Boundaries

One of the quickest ways to lose good board members is to make them feel guilty for having boundaries.

Board members have families.

They have careers.

They have businesses.

They have other commitments.

They have lives.

They may also reach a point where they simply can’t continue doing unpaid operational work.

That doesn’t mean they stopped caring about the mission.

It means they’ve reached their limit.

A mature organization doesn’t respond to that with resentment.

It asks:

“What can we reasonably expect from this person, and what responsibilities need to be reassigned?”

That’s leadership.

Board Members Need to Know What They’re Actually Agreeing To

Many board problems begin before the person ever joins the board.

The organization doesn’t clearly explain what serving on the board actually involves.

Instead, the expectations develop after the person joins.

Suddenly there are committees.

Then fundraising requirements.

Then attendance requirements.

Then volunteer requirements.

Then event requirements.

Then expectations that were never discussed during recruitment.

That’s unfair to the organization and unfair to the board member.

Before someone joins a board, they should understand:

• What the board is responsible for

• What individual board members are responsible for

• How often meetings occur

• What committees require

• What fundraising expectations exist

• What attendance is expected

• What volunteer work is optional

• What work belongs to paid staff

• How conflicts are handled

• How board members are evaluated

• How someone can resign

Clarity prevents resentment.

Your Board Shouldn’t Be Afraid of You

I’ve seen organizations where board members become afraid to question leadership.

That’s dangerous.

A board isn’t supposed to be a collection of people who nod their heads.

A board has a responsibility to ask questions, challenge assumptions, examine finances, identify risks, and make decisions in the best interest of the organization.

A healthy board can disagree without becoming enemies.

A board member should be able to say, “I don’t agree with this decision,” without worrying that they’ll be punished, excluded, publicly criticized, or quietly pushed out.

If disagreement is treated as disloyalty, you’ve stopped building a board and started building an audience.

Those are two very different things.

Communication Is Not Optional. It Is Governance.

One of the most damaging problems I see on nonprofit boards is poor communication.

And I’m not talking about sending more emails.

I’m talking about giving the right people the right information before decisions are made.

A board can’t govern what it doesn’t know about.

Board members shouldn’t have to discover important decisions after they’ve already been made.

They shouldn’t learn about changes through social media, another organization, a staff member, or a casual conversation.

If something materially affects the organization, its finances, its reputation, its members, its policies, or its operations, the appropriate people need to know.

The president needs to communicate with the board.

Committees need to communicate with the board.

Staff needs to communicate through the proper leadership structure.

And board members need access to the information necessary to fulfill their responsibilities.

Silence isn’t neutral when people are making decisions based on information they don’t have.

Communication is part of governance.

It isn’t a courtesy.

It isn’t optional.

And it certainly isn’t something that should happen only when leadership wants the board to approve something.

Micromanagement Is Not Leadership

There’s another side to this problem.

Some boards don’t just fail to communicate.

They micromanage.

A president starts making decisions that belong to the board.

A committee begins acting as though it has authority that was never delegated to it.

An individual board member starts directing staff.

People make commitments on behalf of the organization without proper approval.

Someone changes a policy, makes a financial commitment, speaks for the organization, removes information, publishes information, or takes some other significant action without first determining whether they actually have the authority to do it.

Then everyone is surprised when conflict follows.

This is where a nonprofit needs to understand something very basic:

Being on the board doesn’t automatically mean an individual board member has authority to act independently for the organization.

The board generally exercises its governing authority collectively. Individual authority comes from the organization’s governing documents, bylaws, applicable law, policies, or authority properly delegated by the board.

That distinction matters.

A board member can have enormous influence without having unilateral authority.

Those are not the same thing.

The President Is Not the Board

This is an important distinction that gets lost in some organizations.

The president or chair is a leader of the board.

That doesn’t automatically make the president the sole decision-maker for the organization.

The exact authority of a president depends on the organization’s governing documents, bylaws, applicable law, and authority delegated by the board.

But where a matter belongs to the full board, the president cannot simply decide that the board doesn’t need to be involved because it’s more convenient.

The president leads the board. The president does not replace the board.

That’s a critical difference.

The same principle applies to every other officer.

Being the treasurer doesn’t mean the treasurer owns the organization’s finances.

Being the secretary doesn’t mean the secretary controls the organization’s records however they choose.

Being a committee chair doesn’t mean the chair owns the subject matter assigned to that committee.

Titles come with responsibilities.

They don’t automatically come with unlimited authority.

Committees Don’t Get to Invent Authority

Committees can be incredibly useful.

They allow boards to divide work, examine issues in greater detail, make recommendations, and move projects forward.

But a committee’s authority has to come from somewhere.

The board should know what a committee is authorized to do and what it must bring back to the full board.

Committee charters and governing documents should make those boundaries clear.

If a committee has authority to make a particular decision, then it should make that decision within the limits of that authority.

If the committee only has authority to investigate, develop recommendations, or present options, then it should do that.

It shouldn’t quietly transform a recommendation into a decision.

It shouldn’t commit the organization to something the committee doesn’t have authority to commit it to.

And it shouldn’t present a decision to the full board as though the board has already approved it.

Committees generally operate under authority delegated by the board, and the board needs to define the scope of that delegation.

A committee isn’t a kingdom.

It’s a tool of the board.

When Decisions Require Board Approval, Get Board Approval

This sounds obvious.

Yet this is one of the places where nonprofits get themselves into trouble.

If a decision belongs to the full board, the full board needs the opportunity to consider it and vote on it.

Not after the decision has already been implemented.

Not after money has already been spent.

Not after a commitment has already been made.

Not after someone has been told, “This is what we’re doing.”

And certainly not with the board being asked to rubber-stamp a decision that has already become difficult to reverse.

The proper sequence is simple:

Identify the issue. Determine who has authority. Provide the necessary information. Discuss the matter. Allow questions. Then make the decision through the proper process.

That’s governance.

Don’t Confuse Efficiency With Skipping the Process

I know what some leaders will say:

“We had to act quickly.”

Sometimes that’s true.

There are legitimate situations where an officer, executive, or committee has authority to act without waiting for a full board meeting.

But “we wanted to get it done” isn’t the same thing as having authority.

Efficiency doesn’t give someone powers they don’t have.

If an organization wants its president or committees to have more authority, then the organization should formally establish that authority through the proper process.

Otherwise, leaders need to stay within the authority they’ve actually been given.

The fastest way isn’t always the right way.

In nonprofit governance, a decision made quickly by the wrong person can create far more work than a decision made properly in the first place.

Don’t Use “That’s How We’ve Always Done It”

This sentence has probably caused more governance problems than people realize.

“We’ve always done it this way.”

That isn’t an explanation of authority.

It isn’t a substitute for a bylaw.

It isn’t a board resolution.

It isn’t a committee charter.

And it isn’t permission.

If the organization has been operating outside its governing structure for years, that doesn’t make the practice correct.

It means the organization has a problem that needs to be addressed.

Good governance sometimes requires someone to stop the train and ask whether it’s actually on the right track.

That’s uncomfortable.

It’s also necessary.

Communication Protects Everyone

Good communication doesn’t just protect the organization.

It protects the president.

It protects committee chairs.

It protects staff.

And it protects individual board members.

When responsibilities and authority are clearly communicated, people know where the lines are.

When they aren’t, people start stepping over lines they didn’t know existed.

Then the organization spends its energy arguing about personalities when the real problem is structure.

“Why did you do that?”

“I thought I had authority.”

“Why didn’t you tell the board?”

“I thought everyone knew.”

“Why did the committee make that decision?”

“We’ve always handled it this way.”

Those aren’t necessarily personality problems.

They’re often governance problems.

The Board Should Never Be the Last to Know

A board member should never feel like they’re being kept around for appearances while decisions are actually being made somewhere else.

If the board is legally and organizationally responsible for the nonprofit, it needs meaningful access to the information required to exercise that responsibility.

You can’t hold people accountable for decisions when you don’t give them a genuine opportunity to participate in making those decisions.

And you can’t expect board members to take responsibility for an organization while simultaneously excluding them from important conversations.

That’s not a functioning board.

That’s a group of people carrying a title.

Don’t Confuse Oversight With Micromanagement

There is an important distinction here.

A board should ask questions.

It should review finances.

It should examine risks.

It should evaluate performance.

It should make sure policies are followed.

It should hold leadership accountable.

That’s oversight.

But oversight becomes micromanagement when board members start trying to run every operational detail themselves.

The board’s job isn’t to tell every employee how to do their job.

Its job is to make sure the organization is being run properly.

That difference matters.

Good boards provide oversight, insight, and accountability without trying to become the staff. The National Council of Nonprofits describes the board’s role as providing governance and oversight rather than managing day-to-day operations.

The Cost of Mismanaging Your Board

Organizations sometimes think replacing a board member is easy.

It’s not.

You may lose institutional knowledge.

You may lose community relationships.

You may lose professional expertise.

You may lose donors.

You may lose credibility.

You may lose someone who has spent years advocating for your organization.

And perhaps most importantly, you may create a reputation among potential future board members.

People talk.

A former board member who feels respected will usually speak differently about an organization than one who feels exploited.

Your former board members are part of your organization’s story whether you want them to be or not.

Your Board Is a Resource. Stop Treating It Like an Obstacle.

Here’s what I wish more nonprofit leaders understood:

Your board isn’t something you have to work around.

Your board is one of the resources you were given to help govern and strengthen the organization.

Use it.

Ask for expertise.

Ask for ideas.

Ask for connections.

Ask for strategic thinking.

Ask for honest feedback.

Let board members disagree.

Let them question decisions.

Let them bring concerns forward without fearing retaliation.

Give them meaningful work that matches their skills and the organization’s needs.

And when they give you their time, respect the fact that time has value.

Don’t waste it with unnecessary meetings.

Don’t bury important information in endless emails.

Don’t make them chase answers.

Don’t ask them to approve things they weren’t given enough information to evaluate.

And don’t ask them to perform a full-time job because you don’t have the resources to hire someone.

The Question Every Nonprofit Should Ask

Before asking your board members to do more, ask a different question:

“Are we using our board effectively, or are we using our board members?”

There is a difference.

A strong board provides oversight, wisdom, connections, accountability, leadership, and strategic direction.

A healthy nonprofit gives its board the information, authority, support, and respect necessary to perform those functions.

It doesn’t treat board members like free employees.

It doesn’t keep them in the dark.

It doesn’t bypass them when their authority is required.

It doesn’t allow officers or committees to operate beyond the authority they’ve been given.

And it doesn’t punish people for asking reasonable questions.

Respect the Structure You Created

Many nonprofits spend enormous amounts of time writing bylaws, policies, committee descriptions, officer responsibilities, and governance procedures.

Then, when something important happens, they ignore the very structure they created.

You don’t get to follow the rules when they’re convenient and disregard them when they’re inconvenient.

If the bylaws say the board must approve something, get board approval.

If a committee has limited authority, respect those limits.

If the president has specific authority, operate within it.

If the board has reserved authority, bring the matter to the board.

And if the existing structure doesn’t work, change it properly.

Don’t quietly rewrite your organization’s governance by simply behaving as though the rules don’t exist.

That creates confusion, resentment, and eventually distrust.

Treat People Like People

At the end of the day, good nonprofit governance isn’t just about bylaws, policies, minutes, votes, and organizational charts.

It’s about people.

The people sitting around that board table are giving you something you can’t manufacture.

Their time.

Their knowledge.

Their reputation.

Their relationships.

Their credibility.

Their experience.

Their energy.

And often, their heart.

That doesn’t mean board members should be free from accountability.

They shouldn’t.

Board members have responsibilities, and organizations have every right to expect them to fulfill those responsibilities.

But accountability works both ways.

If you want committed board members, give them a clear job.

If you want good decisions, give them good information.

If you want people to respect authority, respect the authority structure yourself.

If you want honest feedback, create an environment where people can give it.

If you want volunteers to stay, stop treating their willingness to serve as an unlimited supply of free labor.

And if you want your board to function as a board, let it govern.

The Bottom Line

A nonprofit doesn’t become healthy simply because it has a board.

It becomes healthy when the board understands its role, leadership respects its authority, committees understand their limits, members receive the information they need, and everyone understands the difference between governance, management, and volunteer service.

The strongest boards aren’t the ones where everyone agrees.

They’re the ones where people can disagree respectfully, ask difficult questions, challenge decisions, communicate openly, and still sit down at the same table afterward.

That’s what trust looks like.

And trust is not built by demanding obedience.

It’s built by creating a structure where people know what is expected of them, know who has authority, know that their voice matters, and know they will be treated with respect.

So before your nonprofit asks its board members to give more, stop and ask yourself a harder question:

Have we given them a board worth serving on?

Because if your best board members keep walking away, don’t automatically assume you have a volunteer problem.

You may have a leadership problem.

Contacts

+1 972-494-3232 Corp Office
dcr@isgu.com

License A-08230 The State of Texas regulating Private Investigators

A Division of The DCR Enterprises

© 2000 Investigative Solutions Group, Unlimited

Investigative Solutions Group
Your Eye on the World!

Board Member or Member:
Fraternal Order of Investigators
Association of Christian Investigators