Speed Up the Board Recruitment Process!
Three easy ways to accelerate the nonprofit board recruitment process by pre-qualifying prospective candidates.
Imagine getting excited about volunteering for something, and then waiting six or seven months before you actually get to do it.
Can we accelerate the process by “pre-qualifying” candidates?
One of the most frustrating parts of board recruitment is the length of time — often months — between talking with a prospect and then bringing him onto the board… months during which the candidate usually becomes less interested.
For instance, a person might be tentatively asked in January, discussed by the governance/nominating committee in February, have her name brought to the board for discussion in March, officially interviewed/asked in April, elected by the board in May, and her first board meeting is in July! Some boards invite potential recruits to observe a board meeting before deciding whether to join, which adds even more time.
To accelerate this process, some boards invite candidates to the board meeting at which they will be voted on. The hitch, of course, is that it makes it very difficult for a board NOT to approve someone who is already in attendance (albeit asked to sit in the hall for a few minutes).
Instead, think about “pre-approving” some candidates. Often a few names arise of people who are already known well by several other people on the board: perhaps a community leader, a mayor, a long-term activist, and so forth. In such cases, the board can have a preliminary discussion about the candidate and provisionally approve him or her as a board member.
The full board then cedes to the governance committee the power to make a final decision on the candidate based on the outcome of the governance committee’s discussion with him or her. The committee members will interview the candidate, then quickly discuss among themselves how the interview went. If the committee members agree, the person can be immediately notified of his or her acceptance, and can attend the next board meeting.
The accelerated process:
- The governance or nominating committee brings a list of perhaps five prospects to the board. Of the group, there is immediate consensus that one of them would be terrific, and she is pre-approved: elected to the board pending confirmation by the governance committee and the board chair.
- The governance committee approaches the pre-approved candidate, and if committee members are still positive and she is interested, the committee reports by phone back to the board chair. Assuming there are no other problems, the committee goes back to the candidate and tells her she has been accepted. For the candidate, the gap between agreeing to join and being accepted is only a couple of weeks.
- The other four prospects are also approached, but the governance committee discusses each of them before deciding which to bring to the board. They may, for example, decide to pass on one of them, and bring the other three nominees to the full board for a vote.
Remember that most board candidates need to be investigated before being invited to join. Even just one bad board member can set back the board and the organization for years. But with life moving at Internet speed, let’s accelerate board recruitment — when we can — to keep pace.
See also:
You might also like:
- Innovative Leadership — Culture Doesn’t Have to Eat Strategy: Tending to Human Factors During Strategic Planning
- Insider Newsletters: An Easy Way to Keep Your Board in the Loop and Engaged
- Board Horror Stories: How to Reduce Board Resignations
- Five Years and Growing: How One Nonprofit Built a Sustainable, Collaborative Mission
- Measure What You Value: Designing a Values-based Performance Appraisal System
You made it to the end! Please share this article!
Let’s help other nonprofit leaders succeed! Consider sharing this article with your friends and colleagues via email or social media.
About the Author
Jan is a former editor of Blue Avocado, former executive director of CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, and has sat in on dozens of budget discussions as a board member of several nonprofits. With Jeanne Bell and Steve Zimmerman, she co-authored Nonprofit Sustainability: Making Strategic Decisions for Financial Viability, which looks at nonprofit business models.
Articles on Blue Avocado do not provide legal representation or legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for advice or legal counsel. Blue Avocado provides space for the nonprofit sector to express new ideas. The opinions and views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect or imply the opinions or views of Blue Avocado, its publisher, or affiliated organizations. Blue Avocado, its publisher, and affiliated organizations are not liable for website visitors’ use of the content on Blue Avocado nor for visitors’ decisions about using the Blue Avocado website.
I’m all for not dragging out a recruitment process, but I’m also a big advocate for the board and prospect to be familiar with each other before a decision is made. Hopefully the learning process will increase the prospect’s interest; if it doesn’t, then it’s just as well for the board to pass on that prospect.
Here are some ways to balance speed with thoroughness:
– Get prospects involved with the organization as a program volunteer or board committee volunteer…let everyone see each other in action.
– Move portions of your board/volunteer orientation into a “Volunteer Opportunities” meeting which allows prospective volunteers of all types to learn about the organization and its expectations for various volunteer roles. Expectations should be clear and comprehensive for each type of volunteer (be sure to include those testy issues for boards such as attendance and giving expectations). Follow-up with 1-on-1 conversations to get prospects’ thoughts about how they can see themselves contributing best to the organization.
– Have clear criteria for what the board is looking for – this will make it clearer whether you have the right candidate or not, so that there is less waffling and resultant time delays.
– Encourage prospects to attend Board and potential committee meetings. Assign “buddies” to meet with them a few minutes before and after the meeting to answer questions and to gauge their fit.
Bill Musick
Principal
Tower Hill Resources
Empowering nonprofits through board assesment, training and coaching
Honolulu, HI
BMusick@Tower-Hill.com
www.Tower-Hill.com
I’m all for not dragging out a recruitment process, but I’m also a big advocate for the board and prospect to be familiar with each other before a decision is made. Hopefully the learning process will increase the prospect’s interest; if it doesn’t, then it’s just as well for the board to pass on that prospect.
Here are some ways to balance speed with thoroughness:
– Get prospects involved with the organization as a program volunteer or board committee volunteer…let everyone see each other in action.
– Move portions of your board/volunteer orientation into a “Volunteer Opportunities” meeting which allows prospective volunteers of all types to learn about the organization and its expectations for various volunteer roles. Expectations should be clear and comprehensive for each type of volunteer (be sure to include those testy issues for boards such as attendance and giving expectations). Follow-up with 1-on-1 conversations to get prospects’ thoughts about how they can see themselves contributing best to the organization.
– Have clear criteria for what the board is looking for – this will make it clearer whether you have the right candidate or not, so that there is less waffling and resultant time delays.
– Encourage prospects to attend Board and potential committee meetings. Assign “buddies” to meet with them a few minutes before and after the meeting to answer questions and to gauge their fit.
Bill Musick
Principal
Tower Hill Resources
Empowering nonprofits through board assesment, training and coaching
Honolulu, HI
BMusick@Tower-Hill.com
www.Tower-Hill.com
My question is can a Board vote against a potential member simply because they do not “like” that person?
A board isn’t a courtroom. Each person makes up his or her own mind and doesn’t need to explain it. Hopefully there is enough history of cooperation on the board so that a person can explain his or her reasons for not liking someone and explore whether those are legitimate reasons. But if that spirit of cooperation isn’t already there, it won’t get started at this moment.