There is a growing trend of having Millennials on nonprofit boards. In response to our Social Citizens paper, the Salvation Army [1] has created a board seat specifically for a young person. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that business schools, like the one at Columbia University, are placing their students as nonvoting board members at nonprofits. The win/win is that students get to see how boards and decision making works (or doesn’t work!), and boards get the input and advice of young, tech-savvy budding entrepreneurs.
But, at the risk of being heretical (which I freely and willingly gravitate towards!), I’ve been wondering if nonprofit boards (I won’t address corporate boards although I’m guessing this line of argument also holds true) aren’t an anachronism of 19th century bureaucratic thinking. Poke into any nonprofit scandal over the past fifteen years, and you’ll find a board that wasn’t asking the right questions of the staff — or worse, where the board and senior staff were one and the same thereby nullifying the whole questioning thing!
From my experience as a board member, it is very difficult to hop in and out of the operations of an organization and have a real feel for what’s going on — and that’s in organizations that are very open and transparent and well-run. Imagine what it would be like trying to figure out what’s going on within an organization that is trying to hide something!
I love the idea of Millennials on nonprofit boards to liven things up — but I’d much prefer that they reinvented the whole governance system instead!
Comments
I was hooked into your post by the title. Being just twenty years old myself, I think there is certainly a lot my generation can contribute to the sector. At the same time, though I don’t have a clue what a board should technically do.
What do you propose for this new model?
Giving millennials an opportunity to speak is great, listening to them is better, but what would make that engagement truly meaningful are real opportunities to impact the activities. Why not let them vote? Young people will be leaders if they are engaged as change agents rather than consumers. To respond to Daniel, I think consensus-based decision making offers some possibilities for new governance models. It encourages values driven discussions and empowers young leaders without sacrificing experienced ones.
I agree with Sharon that if young people are sitting at tables they ought to be given a voice and a vote. Overall, Daniel, I think that nonprofit boards have been modeled on corporate boards that focus almost entirely on financial performance. There have been efforts in the past decade to create scorecards or dashboards for organizations to use to gauge performance on measures beyond just financial metrics. Witness does a very good job of this. But, overall, it’s very difficult for me to see how board members episodically come into discussions about organizations using information gathered by staff (who have a great incentive to show their best face and sweep under the rug uncomfortable information) are supposed to really understand what is happening within an organization.
That’s a long-winded way of saying I’m open to suggestions!
I’m increasingly a fan of putting service receipents on the boards of nonprofits for a lot of the same reasons we talk about putting Millenials on the boards. They offer a different perspective and fresh ideas with the added bonus that they have at least some sense of how the organization is running, so they can ask tough questions. Or at least having an advisory board of some kind.
My experience to date suggests that any self-respecting Millenial or Gen Xer wouldn’t enjoy sitting on a nonprofit board with a bunch of rich Boomers. Decision-making is glacial and less-than-enlightening. The decisions you do make — assuming you’re “allowed” to vote — will have little real impact on the organization or its public service.
My recommendation is to EITHER skip the Board seat and get on the staff (or be a volunteer), OR start your own nonprofit to make a real difference yourself. Bring in the Boomers when you need their money, business expertise or connections, but don’t expect much leadership from the board itself. And in some cases, you’ll need to isolate the company from well-meaning but misguided attempts at direction/control from the board.
Further, you might be better off forming a traditional for-profit corporation, but operating it in service of a public good, at least in part. The reporting and governance requirements of nonprofits are quite heavy and blunt a good portion of the public service through wasted overhead.
That said, nonprofits do have access to unique fundraising dollars that can overwhelm the overhead costs. My recommendation is simply to consider your options and do what’s most likely to have a positive and real effect upon the community you’re serving.
Board work can be good, bad, or indifferent, but it’s all (supposed to be) focused on fundraising and/or governance, not direct public service.