Nonprofit board term limits: can't live without them. Ah, but I am amazed at the number of nonprofits I work with who either don't observe their by-law established term limits or don't have by-law term limits. The rationale usually focuses on how difficult it is to recruit new members and the loss of institutional memory or dedicated people. Of course, these issues can be structurally addressed but the resolves often appear too arduous.
I noted yesterday that SSIR has a new article titled Challenging Conventions with a focus on three particular issues. Today's is, as you can see, is board term limits. Their answer to the challenge: there are multiple options depending again, on the circumstances and institutional need. I suggest, sure, maybe. But I still would lean toward suggesting that term limits are a good thing, first.
Term limits: Do you really want to boot your most valuable directors?
It’s hard to argue with the benefit of term limits; they’re a built-in mechanism for the board to get fresh thinking, and potentially more relevant skill sets and perspectives as an organization’s needs evolve. They also help avoid tough conversations with board members whose value-add has diminished. Perhaps this is why 72 percent of nonprofit boards now have term limits.
But we’ve found there is far too little discussion of the drawbacks. It can lead to removing board members whose skills and perspectives may be just as, if not more, relevant to the organization’s next phase of growth, or whose years of experience on the board has put them at a distinct knowledge advantage over a new member (not to mention the considerable costs and uncertainties in finding new, high-caliber directors).
In our experience, there is a simple solution: term reviews. When a term expires, the board member and executive director, ideally with the board chair, should have a frank discussion about the projected value-add of continuing service to both the board member and organization. Value-add during the expiring term, evolving organizational needs, board fit, and the board member’s outside commitments should be among the factors to consider. We believe most boards, like ours, will find there is a solid nucleus of at least a few existing board members who are so experienced and so valuable to the next phase of growth that their ongoing involvement would be a boon for the organization and the functioning of the board.
For organizations that do stick with term limits, the executive director and board should at minimum be highly intentional about staying in close touch with the few separating board members whose skillsets and perspectives are particularly difficult to replace. These board members can function as ongoing advisors and may represent the organization’s best future board candidates.