The Evolution of Boards

As I travel around the country talking about the problems facing arts organizations during this recession, there is one topic that gets consistent and passionate attention: the role of the board.

Most board members I meet are scared and frustrated and most staff members believe their board members are not being as generous or as helpful as they should be during this crisis.

I believe there is a common mistaken notion that board members are responsible for generating the contributed revenue needed by an organization. While it is true that boards are responsible for approving fundraising plans and budgets, I do not think that it is realistic to ask a group of volunteers to take full responsibility for generating contributed funds. I have always felt it was my job, as a staff leader, to motivate my board to be helpful; but that ultimately the final responsibility lies with me.

How does one get board members to raise funds? I believe the best method is to get each board member to adopt a project. This can be a performance or educational program, a gala, or a marketing campaign. (Rarely does a board member embrace every program of an organization.) By allowing them to delve into a project, meet the artists, come to rehearsals, etc, they build an allegiance to that project. This, in turn, motivates them to get their friends and associates to invest in the program's success.

But this technique only works if the board members have the connections they need to be helpful and are willing to use them.

Many arts board members simply do not have connections necessary for helping the organization. These board members may have passion for the organization but cannot be helpful with fundraising. This is not typically a problem when an organization is young. But as it matures, the role of board members must change. Board members of young organizations frequently act as staff, doing the bookkeeping, the marketing and even sewing the costumes. As the organization matures, the nature of the board members must change as well. No longer does the board have to do the bookkeeping; but they must have access to funds needed to support the larger infrastructure.

This means that boards must mature and change as organizations do. This is the responsibility of the Nominating (or Governance) Committee, to evaluate what the board should 'look like' and how it must change over time.

At the same time, staff leaders must make sure the programming and institutional marketing are so strong that board members are excited about inviting their friends, and do not suffer from 'board embarrassment syndrome,' the fear that their friends and associates may not enjoy becoming involved.

When the board attends to its membership and the staff creates exciting programming and strong marketing campaigns, any arts organization can enjoy a steady and developing involvement of its board in its success.

 

Comments

[Margot Haliday Knight]

Not so much a "mistaken notion" that board members should raise money but more an issue of direction, nuance, and execution. Large cultural institutions should look more towards the model that universities provide when it comes to fundraising. Presidents are brought in as rainmakers and line-staff are completely empowered to call on university prospects, using the social, political and business contacts that various advisory boards to the university provide. But I agree with Mr. Kaiser's premise: in the end, the buck stops with the President--who should be given enough freedom from day-to-day operations to focus on public relations and resource development.

[Tom Cirillo]

I agree 100% with Michael's analysis of the board situation, in particular, the difference between organizationally young and mature boards. From my own experience guiding a board through this type of culture shift, one of the biggest challenges is keeping directors focused on recruiting new members -- particularly ones with connections and their own personal capacity for support. I also agree with the example Michael's sets: staff leaderships must accept the responsibility for revenue earning and not lay blame on directors when the going is tough -- alienating and making your key group of volunteer advocates feel inadequate is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

[Ellie De Leon]

I agree, you can't expect all funding to come from the board or through their spheres of influence. But some important dollars do come from them so it's tough for a director when board members forget their promises or go weak once they leave the board meeting. I like Michael Kaiser's idea of pairing board members up with projects (as long as they don't micromanage). Clear expectations of board members are important as well as a way to self-evaluate participation at least annually. Everyone needs to see the same goal.