The Insightful Leader
Sent to subscribers on September 2, 2026
Good morning,
How hard could it be to find “the right person in the right place at the right time”?
Well, with our Outlook 365 down on Monday morning, it was hard for me to find the right expert in our organization—exceedingly hard.
This week, Kellogg faculty offer two examples that illustrate why staying connected with and finding the right people is so important. First, Allison Henry offers advice on recruiting new board members. Jillian Chown then dives into improved patient and clinician pairings in Brazilian hospitals.
Getting on the board
Nonprofit boards of directors often start on the wrong foot when recruiting new members. They depend on familiar networks or existing donors, overlooking the expertise they want or the broader perspectives they need.
Allison Henry, a clinical professor of management and organizations and director of the Golub Capital Board Fellows Program at Kellogg, suggests four ways nonprofits can improve their recruiting process.
First, define your board’s needs. Henry recommends mapping current members across key dimensions, like skills, professional background, age, and lived experience. That makes identifying gaps and diversifying easier.
Next, question easy choices. Boards will recruit people who have already expressed interest, particularly donors. Consider individual contributions across a number of factors, from fundraising to relationship-building.
Then, make room for new voices. When established boards are vetting younger candidates, the board members may focus on what the candidates lack rather than what they can contribute. For example, aspiring board members who are younger may not have as much wealth as more-established candidates. But they can still add value by “friend-raising,” bringing others into the organization.
“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.”
Lastly, be sure to 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.
Learn more at Kellogg Insight.
Matchmaking?
Assigning a given task to the right person can be incredibly difficult. But hospital systems in Brazil show that it’s worth the extra work and that making those ideal pairings can lead to better outcomes.
Jillian Chown, an associate professor of management and organizations at Kellogg, and her colleague used real-world data to show how creating a formal, specialized role can help address the challenge of task allocation. Chown based her research on real-world data gleaned from Brazilian hospitals.
The researchers focused on maternity wards where a new, specialized role—the obstetric nurse—led to major changes in how patients were assigned to healthcare providers. She found that this new role helped better match patients with providers based on levels of medical risk. Improved matching was, in turn, linked to better outcomes for mothers and newborns, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stays.
The findings suggest that simply having the right expertise on your team is not necessarily enough. “You have to pay attention to how that expertise is being used,” Chown says. “How do we make sure that tasks are being allocated to the right person in the right way?”
However, Chown acknowledges that not every organization will benefit from the creation of specialized roles. “You can’t just take an intervention, see that it works somewhere, and then decide it’s going to work for you, too,” says Chown. “You have to think about what features of the organization or the environment are actually required to support that positive outcome.”
Read more about the research at Kellogg Insight.
“AI can be fast, but it can also crank out a lot of low-quality work. That capacity makes it harder to weed out flawed or fraudulent results and to validate if advances are genuine.”
— Brian Uzzi and Julio M. Ottino, in American Scientist Magazine, on the potential dangers of mistaking AI’s machinery for scientific production with the science itself.
Have a great week!
Blake Goble, marketing manager
Kellogg Insight