Give, get or get-off is a traditional expectation imposed by fundraising advisors to basically describe the expectation of board members.
A couple of days ago the Wall Street Journal had a review of some celebrity charity events held in the New York Long Island Hamptons. Needless to say these star-studded events raise money, big money, and do so because each celebrity makes the commitment to do so for the charity with which they are affiliated. Good for these charities! But does celebrity status or wealth justly serve as the only value or contribution to be expected of board members?
What about the many more nonprofits (the 98%) who don't have board members who have or have access to wealth? Do these board members have no value? Is their contribution of wisdom and commitment not enough (another paradigm: wisdom, wealth and work)? Must board members be givers or "getters" to justify their existence as a nonprofit board member?
I propose the answer is "no"! Harder to achieve sustainability, possibly. Impossible, no. I''d welcome hearing from both sides now.