When Building Nonprofit Boards, Look Beyond Your Network

That can leave boards stuck lacking the expertise and broader perspectives they actually need.  

“Boards tend to recruit people who have the same backgrounds as themselves,” says Allison Henry, a clinical professor of management and organizations and director of the Golub Capital Board Fellows Program at the Kellogg School of Management. 

The issue is not just whom boards recruit, but how they do it. A better approach starts with addressing what the board needs, not how it can land the prospects it’s already identified. 

Henry outlines ways nonprofits can improve their process for recruiting and selecting board members. 

Define what your board needs 

Boards often recruit from their existing networks. That makes it easier to fill seats—but it also limits the breadth of boards by favoring people within those networks. 

“Humans have relatively insular or homogeneous networks. So if you’re trying to find a new skill set or a new type of identity to bring onto your board, diversifying is a challenge,” Henry says. 

This challenge goes beyond just age, gender, race, or background. It can also lead to skill and experience gaps in the board, which may make an organization less capable of fulfilling its mission.  

The first step in diversifying the board is assessing where the gaps are. Henry recommends mapping current board members across key dimensions by creating a simple spreadsheet that includes factors such as skills, professional background, age, and lived experience. This allows a board to better recognize its strengths and its gaps. 

But identifying those gaps is only part of the task. Boards also need to anticipate how they can address the organization’s future.  

“What’s coming up for the organization strategically that the board will have to navigate?” Henry asks. 

It is tempting to skip this step because it takes time. Board members are volunteers and are often busy with life, career, and supporting the organization through fundraising, advising on strategy, and other responsibilities. But the extra legwork is worth it. 

“Strategic recruitment requires board members to invest the time to do a skills and perspective assessment,” Henry says. “Then they can go out and have conversations about filling the needed roles.”  

Question the easy choice 

Because the volunteers who fill nonprofit board seats are expected to fundraise for the organization, boards can be inclined to recruit people who have already expressed interest, particularly donors, rather than people who may contribute to the role in other ways. 

“Often it’s about the low-hanging fruit,” Henry says. “If a donor says they want to be a board member, it’s tempting to just jump at that choice.” 

That can leave boards filling seats out of convenience, rather than in response to the organization’s needs. It also reflects a narrow view of contribution—one that’s focused on what someone is able to donate individually.  

To be clear, fundraising is a critical responsibility of nonprofit boards, especially in the current funding environment. But the fundraising aspect leaves nonprofits with a quandary: take a quick check, or invest in building relationships over time. Fundraising is not only about what donors give directly. She points to younger board members who may give less cash themselves but can fill tables at events and expand the organization’s network. 

For example, an organization may have an annual $10,000 give/get expectation for board members. While it may prefer that its board members give $5,000 and raise $5,000 from their networks, some board members may be tempted to give $10,000 because it is easier to just write a check than to solicit donations.  

But if a board member who gives $10,000 of their own money annually leaves the board without recruiting other funders, then the organization has gained no additional donor relationships to cultivate going forward. That cash contribution may be less valuable than the willingness to bring in more, long-term donor relationships, Henry says. 

“If board members are willing to fundraise and bring in their friends, I would argue that’s often more valuable,” Henry says. “It’s a longer-term play.”  

Make room for new voices 

When established boards are vetting new candidates, they may focus their analysis of younger candidates on what they lack rather than what they can contribute. 

“The concern I hear most often is that younger candidates don’t have enough money or enough experience,” Henry says. “On the money front, I recommend reframing that requirement.”  

Younger board members may not have as much wealth as more-established candidates. But they can still add value by friend-raising, bringing others into the organization. In practice, these candidates can open new channels of engagement that boards might otherwise miss.  

Most younger candidates are also digital natives whose particular experience likely fills gaps on existing boards that may lean older and less tech-savvy.  

“Boards can empower these younger members to fundraise, engage young people, and help figure out how to activate social media, WhatsApp, and other communication channels that older board members don’t use. All organizations will benefit from bringing in the younger crowd and activating the next generation of philanthropists,” says Henry. 

With that said, getting young people at the board table is not enough. Creating an inclusive environment for them—and all board members—helps ensure the full value of their voices can be heard.  

Overcoming this hesitation is a two-way street: longer-serving board members should be solicitous of new recruits, and those recruits must find the confidence to contribute from the outset. 

“A lot of first-time board members have imposter syndrome. They feel too young and too inexperienced to participate in the conversation,” says Henry. “So they may sit back and watch the first meeting, but then they’re pigeonholed as the quiet observer.” 

Foster your candidate pipeline 

Boards often start looking for candidates only when a seat opens. A better approach, Henry says, is to build a pipeline and keep candidates engaged over time. 

“If there’s an annual cycle of board nominations, making that clear to candidates in the pipeline—and being clear about the criteria for consideration—helps cultivate a healthy relationship with those prospects,” says Henry. 

Boards can prioritize candidates based on what the organization needs and keep those relationships warm, even when no seat is available. Setting clear expectations around timing and responsibilities helps reduce friction in the process—and avoids the possibility of frustration for both candidates and the board members who have introduced them to the organization.  

“If a board member has a friend or colleague who wants to join and the governance committee says ‘not yet’ without giving them a reason or timetable, that board member can get frustrated,” Henry says.  

Organizations should also create opportunities to get to know candidates—and have those candidates gain a better understanding of the organization’s culture and their role as board members—before making the appointment. 

“Prospects can join board committees or volunteer at events. These are chances for them to experience the board culture and for board members to get familiar with the candidate and see how sincere their interest is,” Henry says. “It’s like dating before you get married.” 

These arrangements benefit both organizations and candidates. They also reduce the risk of bringing in someone who is not prepared for the role, since board service has no formal prerequisites. 

“It’s a really big responsibility, and if people don’t understand what they’re taking on—or they’re doing it just to build a résumé—they can get the organization into trouble,” says Henry.