Term Limits for Nonprofit Boards
In response to a recent blog, I was asked the following question: What is your opinion on term limits for board members and officers? Opinions are one thing of which I have no shortage. So, be careful what you ask!
The debate on term limits has been waging for decades, if not centuries. So, there is no “settled” answer to this question. But my own answer is very firm: term limits—both for board members and officers—are a must. My reasons underlying this answer are simple, and take into account the arguments put forth by those on the side of no term limits.
1. If you are doing all the work you are supposed to be doing as a hard working board member—in other words, if you are truly assuming the full array of your board member responsibilities—you get tired. And after six or nine years of service, and two or three consecutive terms of two or three year terms seems to be the norm, you should be a very tired board member in need of a vacation. But unless we give board members permission to take that vacation, the hard working ones won’t, despite recognizing their own fatigue. (Guilt is a powerful emotion.)
2. Boards need new blood, energy and, perhaps most important, perspective and ideas if they want their organizations to flourish. Which means boards need new board members.
3. What an organization needs on its board in terms of expertise, connections, demographics, and intrinsic qualities is not static. The needs of an infant organization are very different from those of a mature one; what it needs during a growth spurt may not be what it needs during a period of stability. This requires that board members rotate off and new ones come on.
4. Just because a board member rotates off the board after serving one to the maximum number of terms allowed does not mean that you are throwing that board member away, saying good-bye and good riddance. Quite the contrary. Smart organizations have ways to keep those good, hard working board members engaged once their term limit is up. Folks can continue to serve on committees; they can be put on some kind of auxiliary board, such as a Friends Board or Advisory Board; they can become special ambassadors or mentors to future board leaders, and so much more. If people are committed enough to your mission to have served as a board member, they are committed enough to execute other roles that will support that mission. By changing roles within the organization we provide former board members the opportunity to gain a different perspective on the organization so that should they return to board service down the road they have a broader understanding.
5. Institutional memory should never reside in the memory of one or even several board members. Possessing the institutional memory is the worst reason for keeping someone on a board, as frequently that is all that person is able or willing to bring to the table. Institutional history should be documented and in a format that is easily shared with others. Do not mistake important institutional memories—times lines, milestones in an organization’s history, key leaders, etc—with the minutia that generally gets titled institutional memory. The kind of Institutional memory that too often resides in peoples’ minds is more often than not used to hold organization’s back, not propel them forward.
6. Boards must avoid the pitfall of dismissing ideas with “We’ve tried that before.” Trying something 10 years before is not the same as trying it today, when neither the organization nor the environment in which it is operating should be the same. Boards populated by individuals who have that institutional memory to remember what was tried—or dismissed without trying—10, 15, 40 years ago—hold organizations back.
7. All of what has been said above applies equally to board officers. They get tired, leaders need to be innovative, aware, calculated risk takers, etc. I’ve seen too many board presidents who have been in office for too long kill the enthusiasm of boards, hold organizations back, squash new ideas. Being a good board leader, particularly the president, requires hard work. Burn out can come quickly to a board president with vision, who wishes to accomplish things, who wants to move the board and the organization forward. What an organization needs in its key leadership positions varies depending upon its strategic priorities. A very different kind of board president is needed as an organization launches into a capital or endowment campaign than when the organization is recuperating from such a campaign.
So keep sending those questions and I’ll keep expounding in my responses.
Nonprofit University » Term Limits for Nonprofit Boards…
What is your opinion on term limits for board members and officers?
Laura Otten, director of The Nonprofit Center at La Salle University, says: “The debate on term limits has been waging for decades, if not centuries. So, there is no “settled” …
Change and growth are both spurred on by infusions of new or additional things, whether ideas, energy, or other needed resources. Term limits, hard as they might be to implement, are a good thing. What seems just as hard is developing a dignified and useful narrative and pathway that past members can absorb and follow in a way that takes advantage of their experience and talents but does not challenge the leadership and direction of the current members.
Very interesting! I am currently in the planning stages for 2010 and had proposed a term limits option. As a result the 20 year treasurer resigned effective immediately. Good Bad or indifferent, it was a shock and needless to say his mouth hasnt stopped flapping. Thanks to this I now have some “arguments” to justify the proposal.
A non-profit board on which I serve is struggling with governance changes and the length of time the President should serve. Right now the organization has a President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary as officers, plus other board members, and is considering switching to electing a president-elect for one year, who then becomes president for three years [the current term for President], and then follows as past-president for two years. How common is this type of leadership structure in non-profits today? Thanks for any feedback you can share.
Laura Otten’s Response: It is not uncommon–say around 50%, perhaps a little less–for boards to elect a “president-elect” who serves one year in that position and then ascends to the presidency. Three year terms for the presidency, however, is uncommon, particularly if it follows a year as president-elect. And when an organization identifies a real role for the “past president” that is a term of service of only one year. The proposed terms your board is currently looking at puts someone in a position of “power” and influence for seven years! That is a long, long time.
This whole structure, however, regardless of the length of the terms, is fraught, and I’d suggest that boards be very, very clear as to why they are selecting this route. The purpose of a “president elect” position (whether it is called that or it is called “vice president” and that person automatically ascends to president) is to train the individual to be board president so that s/he can hit the ground running. Great idea, don’t get me wrong. But if life changes over the course of that training year, two things may happen: one, the individual elected to president elect may no longer be able, for a variety of reasons, to step up to the presidency. (So, you absolutely need a contingency plan.) Or, more importantly, the individual may be able to step up, but the situation of the organization has changed and the skills that the president elect is bringing to the table may not be the ones the organization really needs now. And when you add to this picture that, with your proposed term limits, the person would be a president with the wrong skill set for three years, the organization has been done a huge disservice. And we know that boards are notoriously bad at removing officers or board members who are no performing well. Finally, the whole idea that a past president is hanging around with some official role (other than just “regular ole board member) can be potentially very damaging. If the individual turned out to be a bad president, why would we want him/her being able to continue to exert extra influence by having the honorific position of past president? (And there is a difference between being a past president and granting that position official status and power.) It becomes much more difficult for a new president, filled with ideas and energy that may not be in sync with the past president, to establish her/his own style, own dynamic, etc., when the past president is hovering there in an official capacity. Finally, in your particular, proposed structure–a president elect, president and past president all having official roles/responsibilities for seven years–you are creating a dynasty, not a responsive, skilled-based leadership structure.
Boards need to give this serious thought not just to who they bring on to the boards and for how long, but who they put in leadership positions and for how long.