Are there stakeholders your nonprofit should reconsider inviting to serve on your nonprofit board? Absolutely. Let’s outline who may not be the right fit — and why not everyone who is willing should serve as a nonprofit board member.
Nonprofit boards face a major challenge: finding people willing to serve. Too often, board members don’t believe they have access to “prime” prospects. And many prospects view board service as a commitment that may personally bring more pain than gain. Statements like “too much time,” “too many matters I don’t understand” or simply “too much work” are common. While those reasons may be true in some cases, board service has also proven to provide great satisfaction for members and positive outcomes for the nonprofit.
However, while boards work to identify and recruit candidates, they must also develop and apply clear nonprofit board member selection criteria for who should — and should not — serve. This raises a practical question for governance committees: When should you pass on a willing candidate? For instance, what about those who serve as volunteers?
What Strong Nonprofit Board Members Share
At a minimum, effective nonprofit board members tend to share a few core traits. These traits should be tailored to your organization, but a few examples include:
- A passion for the nonprofit’s mission and constituents.
- A clear understanding of the nonprofit’s theory of change — who you serve, the problem you address and how your work creates results.
- No conflicts of interest to maintain a nonprofit-first perspective.
- The ability to work collaboratively as part of a team.
- Relevant knowledge, experience or expertise aligned with current board needs.
Tools and templates can help boards assess these attributes, but they are only a starting point. It is critical that your governance committee — not the executives — develops criteria that reflect your organization’s specific needs and community.
Who Boards Should Think Twice About
Equally important is recognizing who may not be a good fit for nonprofit board service, even if they are willing and generous with their time. Here are five caution areas.
1. Limited Understanding of Mission
Having an understanding of — or at least interest in — the mission, constituents and theory of change is nonnegotiable. Without these basics, board members cannot fully participate in governance. Note that a stated interest is not enough. Seek evidence in how a prospect already engages with your cause.
2. Misaligned orRedundant Expertise
Boards often seek professionals such as lawyers or accountants, and these skills can be helpful. Still, technical expertise alone is not sufficient. Understanding your beneficiaries and operating environment is often more valuable. Specialized expertise can be engaged through ad hoc committees, advisory groups or task forces without requiring board service. Those roles can also help you vet potential board candidates.
3. Poor Collaboration or Communication Skills
Board service is inherently team‑based. Individuals who cannot work constructively with others can disrupt governance, relationships and decision‑making. Past behavior — in work or prior board roles — is often the best indicator. When resumes, references or prior board experiences suggest difficulty playing well with others, the governance committee should be willing to say “no.”
4. Serving on Multiple Boards Simultaneously
This may be controversial, but divided commitments can undermine the fiduciary duty of loyalty. That duty asks members to prioritize the interests of the nonprofit over personal or competing interests. Serving on multiple boards can create competing demands on time, treasure and talent. In my view, this exclusion does not reduce the pool of candidates, but focused service does allow board members to give their full energy to one organization.
5. Serving as aVolunteer and Board Member at the Same Time
This is a common practice in early‑stage nonprofits, where founders and early supporters both govern and do the work. In infancy and adolescence, boards are often populated with a founder and friends who volunteer to perform essential tasks — from bookkeeping to managing programs to managing staff. Their passion and commitment are invaluable, and their experience can deeply inform governance decisions.
However, wearing both hats simultaneously can create role confusion. It can be difficult to discern whether an individual is acting as a manager or a governor when planning, policy, and evaluation decisions are made. This confusion can blur accountability, especially between the board and the executive, and can lead to conflicts over expectations. Prior volunteer experience can be extremely valuable on the board. But continuing to serve in day‑to‑day staff‑like volunteer roles while also holding board authority often complicates governance rather than strengthening it.
What This Means for Governance Committees
Even in a tight recruitment environment, governance committees should be disciplined about both selection and exclusion criteria for nonprofit board members. Filling a seat should never outweigh building an effective board.
Recruitment challenges are real, but clearly defined criteria — applied consistently — lead to stronger nonprofit board members and healthier governance. When governance committees take the time to identify both who belongs on the board and who does not, they position the organization for more effective oversight and better outcomes.
The preceding content was provided by a contributor unaffiliated with NonProfit PRO. The views expressed within may not directly reflect the thoughts or opinions of the staff of NonProfit PRO.
