What to Do When a Board Member Applies for a Staff Position
Greater Governance | How boards can uphold ethics, transparency, and integrity when board members wish to pursue staff roles.
A few years ago, while I was leading the search for a senior staff role, I came across a resume that made me stop short. The name belonged to one of my board members. Their interest made sense, of course. They cared deeply about the organization and had the skills to match to role… but it instantly shifted the hiring process into more complicated terrain.
It wasn’t the first time I encountered this, and I doubt it will be the last. Board members are often passionate, mission-driven folk, so it’s not unusual for them to feel drawn to a hands-on staff role when one opens up and the details align with their skillset.
But good intentions don’t erase structural realities.
A board member entering the applicant pool changes the dynamics immediately. It introduce a conflict-of-interest and power imbalance difficult to navigate by all parties. And yet, moments like this can be an opportunity for a board to demonstrate strong, transparent governance: by following clear processes, naming the tensions, and centering fairness.
Golden Rule 1: Resign First, Apply Second
The first golden rule is simple: a board member must step down before they apply or interview for a staff position.
(And if you’re reading this because that ship has already sailed, well, the next best step is immediate resignation before the process moves any further.)
I recognize that board members in this situation have the best of intentions. They’re inspired by the mission and excited about by chance to serve more directly. However, this might drive a hesitation to step off the board before knowing the outcome… an understandable worry about losing their connection to the organization if the job doesn’t work out.
Unfortunately, remaining on the board while pursuing a staff role creates an unavoidable conflict of interest and compromises the integrity of the hiring process. A board member holds a level of authority over the Executive Director and organizational direction; a staff applicant should not. Even a temporary ‘sabbatical’ is not sufficient.
So why must resignation happen, and happen early? (ideally before application?)
It prevents uncomfortable power dynamics. As long as the individual sits on the board, the ED is being asked to consider someone who technically supervises them. This creates inherent pressure. Even if the board member has “good intentions,” and recuses themselves during the timeframe, the imbalance can not be minimized.
It frees the ED to make the best decision for the organization. The ED must be able to assess candidates without fear of disappointing or angering a board member who oversees their performance review, or fear of future retaliation.
It protects the integrity of the hiring process from perceptions of favoritism. If the board member is hired while still on the board, staff may view the process as rigged or influenced, even if fully fair.
It prevents future retaliation concerns. If the candidate is not hired and remains on the board, every future decision involving the Executive’s performance, or criticism of the organization, risks being interpreted as retaliation, even if unrelated.
Give the Exec Space During the Process
Now that the board member has resigned, the next recommendation is about board behavior during the hiring process. Remember: the Executive (not the board) is typically responsible for hiring staff.
As tempting as it may be to vouch for a former colleague or share enthusiasm about their candidacy, the board must give the Executive full space to make a decision without pressure or influence, explicit or implied. Even well-intentioned comments can distort the process. The most supportive thing a board can do here is stay in its lane and let the Executive manage the hire as they would any other.
For the Board, this means :
No informal discussions about the candidate’s prospects.
No “suggestions,” “hints”, or signals to the ED about preferred outcomes.
No attempts to evaluate the candidate outside the formal hiring process.
Full support of the ED’s ultimate decision, whichever way it goes.
Even well-meaning involvement can distort the process. Maintaining these boundaries preserves fairness, protects the executive’s authority, and ensures the hiring decision truly reflects the organization’s needs.
If the Board Member Is Hired…
So let’s say the process runs its course, everyone stays in their lane… and the Executive genuinely believes this (now) ex-board member is the right fit.
Cool! That’s exactly how it should work. An open, fair process with the Executive making the call.
But once this former board member becomes a member of staff, boards need to expect a few transition challenges that wouldn’t necessarily be encountered with another candidate. Moving from a governance role into an operational one is a big shift of authority, of expectations, and of communication norms.
Remember, this is more than a title change. It’s a complete reset of relationships. The new employee has to step into a role where they no longer hold governance authority or a certain level of confidence, and the board has to interact with them as they would any other staff member. Old dynamics can creep back in if you’re not intentional.
On the one hand, the new employee (ex board member) must:
Understand that they now report to the ED, not the board.
Respect the staff chain of command and not bypass the ED to communicate with board members directly about operations.
Let go of privileged access to board-level information, and possible participation strategy-level discussions.
Accept that their relationship with members of the board will have to shift.
Meanwhile, the board must:
Reinforce appropriate boundaries and redirect communications back to the ED.
Avoid informal “check-ins” that could blur supervision lines.
Ensure the former board member isn’t offered special status or influence due to their history.
Without clear expectations, the new hire may unintentionally blend their old governance role with their new operational one, creating frustration for the ED, and confusion for both staff and board members.
If the Board Member Is Not Hired
Sometimes the process runs its course and the decision is that this former board member isn’t the right fit for the role. Bummer. On paper, everyone can understand: it was a fair process, the decision was made, and life must go on. But, in reality, this is a tender and difficult moment.
Even when someone puts on a good face and says all the right things, it’s hard not to feel disappointed, rejected, or embarrassed. Emotions are unpredictable here, and that’s exactly why you need to tread carefully.
This is the second golden rule: Do not invite them back to the board. (Wow, I know, sounds a bit harsh, right? But stay with me:) Building in at least a year before considering them for board service again gives everyone space to reset, avoids awkward power dynamics, and prevents the boardroom from becoming the place where an unsuccessful job application has a voice.
Though this may feel like a harsh outcome, allowing a former board member to return can quickly devolve into something far more damaging for both your board and your executive. Even when everyone insists there are “no hard feelings,” the board must prioritize the best interests of the organization and its leader.
So, in brief, I recommend a cooling-off period of at least 12 months because…
It prevents the uncomfortable dynamic of a rejected applicant resuming some authority over the Executive.
It protects staff from perceiving tension or distrust at the governance level.
It avoids undermining the Executive’s authority. Bringing someone back too soon risks second-guessing or revisiting the hiring decision.
It lets emotions settle. Even candidates who seem gracious at first may later experience disappointment or resentment.
This isn’t personal. It’s a governance safeguard designed to maintain trust and avoid avoidable tension.
Don’t get caught by surprise!
Tour organization can establish a clear, written policy in advance so that when the this situation inevitably arrives, you can avoid confusion, protect your leadership, and ensure consistent, fair treatment for everyone involved.
When writing a policy, you should consider having:
Requirement to resign from the board before applying for a job
A clear statement that the board plays no role in the downline hiring process
A minimum cooling-off period (12+ months) if the candidate is not hired
Onboarding expectations for any board member hired as staff
Boundaries around communication between board and staff
The added upside of proactive planning is that having these types of policies in place from the start can depersonalize the situation and lead to an easier transition or acceptance of a negative outcome.
Final Thoughts
No transition is easy… but it can be navigated thoughtfully, and without compromising ethical governance and integrity.
A few simple protections (such as requiring the board member to resign, drawing lines around board involvement, and requiring a cooling off period) help safeguard the process, shield the executive from undue pressure, and set the organization up for long term health.
And, even though I write about the importance of challenging the concept of ‘best practices’, these are guardrails I would confidently recommend to any board.