Why the Reticence to Diversify Boards?
The composition of nonprofit boards, or most any governing board for that matter, is important. The people chosen to be board members set and/or reflect the culture of the organization. Or do they? And is that the goal?
If I asked a bunch of random people if they thought that a board should reflect the organization as a whole (including staff, donors, volunteers, and beneficiaries), I believe that they would say “of course!”
And yet.
Reading a number of recent articles about board composition, I was struck by a quote cited in a recent BoardSource blog about racial inequity on nonprofit boards. Specifically, it referred to a statement referred to in a recent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) referring to a very compelling/concerning recent study by Echoing Green and Bridgespan. (All of the above are well worth reading, btw.) The quote suggested that funders, when confronted with questions about diversity and philanthropy, would likely say, “I’d like to fund solutions generated by communities of color, but they don’t have sufficient evidence of effectiveness or capacity to execute.”
I fear that sentiment of “I’d like to…but” is exactly what many board members would say when asked why everyone on their board of directors looks the same. The comment above suggests that every person of color is thrown into a big basket, where there’s a “they” who are all the same, and who all have the same ability (or lack thereof) to be effective or to execute. I’ve heard this said about women and young people, too.
I’m sure there are many more reasons that boards don’t include or value diversity. Some of those reasons are benign and a bit lame, and other reasons are distasteful and possibly racist, sexist, misogynist or worse.
Let’s just think practically. If you’re on a board where everyone looks just like you, think about how silly that is. Do you really want everyone to just agree on everything and then go home? Is doing so at all productive or fulfilling, and does it help even one bit to promote mission success? There are plenty of research studies that show that diversity — with its inherent range of perspectives — forges innovation, and, in turn, stability.
Not only are the vast majority of nonprofit boards not diverse ethnicity-wise, but they’re typically homogeneous in just about every other way as well. I was on the board of a nonprofit once that focused on issues relating to girls, and imagine my surprise when I found that most of the board members were men.
I was on another board that helped kids who had life-threatening illnesses, and I still can’t believe that of more than 25 board members, I was the only one who had a kid who had a life-threatening illness.
What’s up with that?
I think that there are several reasons for boards not being representative of the population they serve (or even representative of their staff and volunteers!). Here are a few:
Boards start off with a big donation or two — typically from older white guys (and sometimes women). The board is then constructed from friends of those original donors. Fair enough, but does that help the organization?
Boards start off with donations from a few folks as above, and the board is built out in a way that makes the original donors feel comfortable — and to ensure that everyone at the table agrees with them. (Are you noticing that beneficiaries and mission aren’t part of the discussion yet?)
In the pursuit to raise as much money as possible, new donors ask if their large gift can be a quid pro quo for a spot on the board. Who’s going to say no? (Yes, the ED should say no, but they report to the board. So goes it…)
Board members are asked to “give and/or get”. Since everyone on the board now is the same age (generally) and from a similar background, the discussion around someone younger or of a different background will become “can they really achieve the give/get”? (This one drives me completely crazy — has anyone looked at the age of the tech gazillionaires of the last decade or two?)
Board development is not a big focus for most boards. The volunteer pool of a given organization should always be looked at as a resource to build out boards, but that happens, well, almost never. Volunteers and Donors are often looked at as different species from one another.
If the board happens to realize that having a homogeneous group is a really bad idea, they still won’t move forward to fix it, as they don’t want to expend the resources needed to recruit (and train!) board members whose inclusion would make the board more diverse (and, by doing so, more appropriate/successful/innovative/etc.)
Stop asking why you haven’t raised more money and look internally for a moment. Is your board comprised of lots of people who look the same, are of a similar age, gender or background? Maybe consider that there are prospective donors out there who would like to support or join a board that includes someone who looks like or seems like them. Broadening your board is the first step in broadening your reach, and, in turn, increasing the size of your pie.
Creating and nurturing a diverse board does more than increase revenue and reach. It also will help you in just about every way you can think of. Differing opinions offer different solutions. Different perspectives foster an innovation mindset. It also affords your organization the ability to have your board members — your “ambassadors”, if you will — to bring your message to a much wider range of people.
The only down side, if you want to call it that, is that your board will no longer sit at a meeting, absently nod their heads in agreement at whatever is discussed and then go home, with the meeting accomplishing nothing other than maintaining the status quo.
We can and must do better. Our organizations, from top to bottom, are depending on us to do so.
Can't get enough? Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pinterest. And please feel free to share.
- Lisa