Many organizations loudly declare their commitment to board diversity, yet struggle to achieve meaningful representation. While there are many factors that shape who end up in the boardroom, one of the most flexible (and fixable) is the architecture of how boards operate themselves: I’m talking meeting schedules, procedural rules, financial expectations, communication norms, and so on.
When governance structures are built on assumptions of unlimited time, financial flexibility, and familiarity with traditional corporate culture, we inadvertently create a system that favors a very narrow demographic… one that excludes working professionals, caregivers, younger candidates, and individuals from underrepresented communities.
This week we look at the impact of these design decisions, and alternatives to the norm that can contribute to increased inclusion and accessibility.
Breaking Down The Barriers
When considering the barriers that prevent participation, there are both the visible obstacles we might recognize but underestimate, and invisible norms that we fail to realize are exclusionary.
(1) Fundraising requirements
By requiring someone to write a big check or find a friend who can (the ‘give or get’ tradition), boards filter out those who lack access to excess wealth and wealthy circles. This prioritization of someone’s bank account over their qualifications leads to the board working in a socioeconomic bubble, fraught with misjudgments about community behaviors and trends, more homogeneous in its thinking, and at heightened risk to public reputation.
Eliminate or reimagine “give or get” requirements. While 100% board giving is still the target expectation by funders in the sector, this doesn’t have to be a universal expectations. Instead, adopt a policy of people ‘giving a gift that is meaningful to them, whether $50 or $50,000’.
Value the full spectrum of philanthropic participation. I love the triple-T of giving: Treasure ($), Time, and Talent. Board members who raise their hands for extra committee work, mentor staff, make introductions to skills-based volunteers, or offer professional expertise pro-bono are investing as much as someone writing a check; Money isn’t the only form of commitment, and the more the board encourages and welcomes Time & Talent, the more likely you will be able to support economic diversity.
(2) Compensation
Board service requires both money and time, which favors people who can afford to volunteer significant hours and a cushion to absorb ancillary costs of participation (such as travel, parking, childcare, accommodation, etc). While it is currently the norm in the nonprofit sector for service to be unpaid, it isn’t actually illegal. The IRS simply requires that compensation be ‘reasonable’.*
Consider an honorarium for participation, particularly for nonprofit boards seeking perspectives from communities that cannot afford to volunteer significant unpaid time.
Allocate budget to cover fringe costs, which could include things like travel expenses, child or eldercare during meeting hours, a stipend for internet, etc.
Document the rationale and be transparent about it. Put the decision in writing, update your conflict of interest practices, and be transparent with stakeholders. You might even find there is a funder interested in funding the initiative!
(3) Recruitment Practices
If a board prioritizes C-suite titles and traditional corporate pedigree, they are likely to undervalue or outright overlook nontraditional backgrounds and people who bring expertise in other forms such as lived experience and community ties.
Create a skills matrix focused on specific competencies and lived experience tied to your immediate strategic needs. This type of benchmark tool keeps the focus on filling skill and experience gaps.
Advertise board positions on diverse platforms, including professional forums for women, communities of color, and younger professionals. An open call will more likely draw a diverse group than a friends-of-friends, word of mouth approach.
Use blind-review practices in early stage interview process, concealing personal details that trigger assumptions, to reduce unconscious bias.
Score candidates against a structured rubric. Avoid gut-feel deliberation and ‘vibes’ as this tends to reward polish and familiarity over substance.
(4) Meeting Scheduling
It might seem silly to explicitly call out how meetings are scheduled, but this is a painfully obvious (and easily fixable) operating practice that excludes people. Daytime meetings disproportionally impact working professionals who will find it harder to take time away from employment. Meanwhile, a 3pm Tuesday meeting will likely disproportionately impact parents during the school year. Finally excessive meeting frequency can be too much of a demand and drain your talent. In all cases, the way you approach scheduling could end up limiting your pool to retirees, independently wealthy individuals, or those with highly flexible schedules. Unfortunately there isn’t a ‘one time to rule them all’ that I can recommend, but I can suggest:
Survey directors annually on their scheduling preferences. Don’t assume what’s worked for the tenured board will work for your newbies.
Create an annual calendar and release the quarter before the new board year. This should factor in not just board meetings, but committees, special events, and other expected points of participation. The further out someone can plan, the easier it is to attend.
Check length & cadence. Depending on when during the day and how often your board meets, this might be 90 minutes on a monthly basis or several hours on a quarterly one. Similarly, committees shouldn’t meet for more than an hour, monthly. Rule of thumb? The longer your meetings run, the less frequent you should be meeting.
Tread carefully before defaulting to hybrid meetings. I don’t believe this serves the best interests of the board, or individual board members, and should be an approach only used sparingly.
(5) Meeting Procedures & Format
Board meetings tend to run on formality, with a fixed agenda, common way of speaking, and procedural rules (E.g. Roberts Rules of Order). That formality ultimately ends up rewarding dominant and more tenured voices, and leaves more introverted or newer ones without a way in.
Remove formality where you can. Build unstructured conversation time into agendas, allowing relationship-building and the emergence of ideas that formal structures can suppress.
Provide discussion or reflection questions in advance of board meetings, allowing people to prepare their thoughts vs. having to react in the moment.
Use explicit invitations to participate. Have the Board Chair or presenter go around the room, explicitly inviting each director to contribute. Further, use open ended questions such as ‘what are we missing’ or ‘who haven’t we heard from yet?’
(6) Board Packet
Dense, jargon-heavy board materials can exclude members less familiar with financial terminology or institutional lingo. Long, wordy reports often go unread due to restraints on time. If you want people to feel like informed, equal participants in the room, the materials have to be readable by everyone in it.
Provide executive summaries on main points of discussion, with decision points clearly flagged. this makes essential information accessible without requiring hours of preparation.
Use accessible formatting: clear fonts, alt-text for images, screen reader compatibility, and plain language wherever possible.
Include glossaries or context notes for newer directors or those less specialized in particular domains.
Send materials well in advance (5 days) and, when there are particularly important or complex decisions to be made, offer phone calls to ensure information is fully understood
(7) Cultural Practices
In my upcoming book, there is an entire chapter dedicated to identifying and fixing the most common dysfunctions boards face. I’m talking about bullying, dominating, micromanaging, rigid rule enforcement, and the over-personalization of disagreements. Left unchecked, these behaviors breakdown the psychological safety, trust, and respect a board needs to function and sustain diversity.
Define rules of engagement collaboratively as an entire board, and create a written set of working agreements. This should include how disagreements get raised, how interruptions get handled, and other group norms. Use some retreat time every year or two to revisit these group agreements.
Use anonymous polling and voting tools to gather honest input from directors who may hesitate to voice dissent openly. A short pulse-check survey after each board meeting with a question like ‘did you feel heard today’ can surface issues before they become big problems.
Address underperformance or misbehavior directly. Hold people accountable to the same standard.
💡Question: What things have your board done to improve accessibility and inclusion?
A final word
Boards that can access the full intelligence of diverse perspectives make better decisions, catch more blind spots, and are more likely to remain relevant as the world around them changes. Building towards this requires examining the normative operating practices that boards have adopted over a century+ of practice by a much narrower population. You’ll have to retool these practices if you want your board to look different.
*Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. Do not take this column as legal advice. Every state is different, and there may be laws and legal rulings in some states that make the issue of board compensation more complicated locally.