I regularly include articles from folks about recruiting new members and the value of nonprofit service. Until today I have not seen the likes of the following blog excerpt by a gentlemen who has declared his intention to release himself from all nonprofit board service.
The blog begins with the writer reviewing his "rule" to not serve on more than three boards at any one time. I have often thought that service on multiple boards at the same time to be a challenge - possibly one that brings with it prospective conflicts of interest (e.g. who to raise money for, meeting attendance). But this blogger admits that he has violated his rule and now serves on 8 boards and has a commitment for a 9th. Whew. Talk about competing interests.
But competing interests aren't the focus of his sharing. No, he has concluded for himself that he can have a greater impact lending his skills and experience as a non-board member. And, perhaps this is so and definitely worth everyone who serves as a board member's consideration.
I think however it's sad that these boards have failed to provide this individual with valuing board member opportunities. Yes, I believe the conclusion reached by this blogger is on the nonprofits. They have failed him. And that is a story to be understood. Where board members perceive they are just biding their time and making little of a difference AND they have given it their all, the nonprofit failed. Don't let this happen to you.
Ending My Service On Non-Profit Boards
I’ve decided to stop serving on non-profit boards.
I used to have a rule that I’d only serve on three non-profit boards at a time. I let this get out of control and found myself on eight non-profit boards with a commitment to join a ninth one.
During our Q4 vacation last month, Amy and I talked a lot about this. I realized that I wasn’t enjoying the non-profit board service, even though I deeply enjoy my personal engagement and support of the organizations I’m on the boards of.
There was an intellectual conflict here that Amy and I spent a lot of time discussing. Our philanthropic work is important to us. However, the actual board service part of it, while fulfilling to Amy, is not fulfilling to me.
It’s also very time-consuming. While most of the boards only meet four times a year, each board meeting is three hours long. If I include another two hours for reviewing materials in advance and travel, that’s 20 hours per year per board. For eight boards, that’s 160 hours/year. If I only worked 40 hours/week, that’s four weeks of work. While I work a lot more than 40 hours/week, the five hours per board meeting is probably low, especially if I physically travel to a board meeting.
My conclusion was that I could be just as impactful to the non-profits we support – and in some cases even more so – without being on the boards. Instead of consuming my time with board meetings, I’ll engage directly with the CEOs and Executive Directors of these non-profits in ways that are specifically helpful to them. I’m already doing this in many cases, so it’s not a direct re-allocation of time, but rather a huge time saving on my part, which allows me to more focused – and more enthusiastic – about the work I’m actually doing.
I’ve now talked with all the CEOs/EDs of the non-profit boards I used to serve on. They all understand my perspective and, in most cases, are supportive and excited about the change in my involvement. As my goal is not to withdraw from the things I’m involved in, but to increase my impact by shifting my focus and activities, the feedback was good positive reinforcement to me.