Why Your Board Needs Term Limits
Is your board reluctant to enforce term limits?
If so, the board is in danger of becoming stale and set in its ways.
And when that happens, your entire organization may be at risk – sooner than you think.
This is a very, very dangerous place for any nonprofit in today’s wildly shifting environment.
Five Boards Gone Down the Wrong Path
Here are the stories of five boards gone wrong:
1. The Martyrs.
This board is full of hard-working martyrs. They kill themselves with work – doing things that staff could or should be doing.
Receive expert advice. Direct to your inbox. Subscribe
They complain:
“We work SO hard and we’re SO burned out. Woe to us.”
The irony is that this board worked very hard to enlist “diverse” members.
But when the highly valued new members saw this group’s attitude and what was expected, the new members fled.
DOWNSIDE:
Martyr boards are no fun. They drive new people away.
The worst thing is that this board will not be able to develop new leaders: a very serious problem for the future.
Find out how we can help you achieve your fundraising goals with world-class consulting and custom training.
2. The Social Club.
This board is really, really comfortable and “clubby.” Getting together for the board meetings is social time for a group of friends. They say:
“Implement term limits? Why on earth would we want to kick out one of our friends? That would be rude.”
DOWNSIDE:
Governance becomes a low priority, and any serious work about the organization’s future is at the bottom of the list.
Worst of all, no one wants to rock the boat. Difficult discussions never happen.
Would you want to join this group?
They may have fun but they don’t get anything done. Does this organization have a future?
3. The “Frozen in Time” Club.
This board is full of the same people for years. Their mantra is:
“We’ve always done it this way.”
New ideas? New ways to implement their mission?
Innovation? Close out a nonperforming program? Fire nonperforming staff?
Not a chance.
DOWNSIDE:
Jack Welch said it best: 
“If the rate of change on the OUTSIDE exceeds the rate of change on the INSIDE, the end is near.”
Who would want to hang out with this crowd?
Does this organization have a future?
4. “We Own This Organization” Club.
This happens when the sense of ownership becomes so deeply ingrained that people think they literally own the organization.
A few people call the shots, and that’s it.
Their opinion is all that matters, because they are so smart and have so much information. And they have all the power.
They start to feel entitled to the position.
DOWNSIDE:
They will drive out or ostracize any new members who will simply feel excluded.
The rest of the board is disengaged.
AND they are pushing out new board members with connections to community leaders and funders. They are cutting off potential fundraising opportunities.
Someone said to me last month:
“If we are ever going to get serious about raising money, we’ll HAVE to have term limits.”
5. The Lazies.
This group is so comfortable with itself that innovation and hard work go out the door.
This board does not want to be a working group. They are stale as last week’s bread.
Are they interested in a learning experience? Stimulating discussion? Strategy discussions? Nah.
DOWNSIDE:
Aesop said it best:
“When all is said and done, more is said than done.
Who would want to join this group? What’s the future for this nonprofit?
Term limits are absolutely essential to good, smart governance.
Rotating more community members through your governing body can only broaden your influence and connections your community’s leadership.
Welcome new board members, and you’ll get fresh thinking and innovation – that you need!
Which type of board have you encountered in your career? How did you overcome it?
Thanks for your comments!
Wow. This is so true. Some boards seem to be many of these at the same time. But getting those board members to even realize this is an issue seems to be difficult because they will get so personally offended, like someone thinks all the work they have been doing is not appreciated. The boards in these categories usually don’t see the downsides expressed in this article. They see their upsides, like it’s worked for ____ years this way (even if it hasn’t) so this article is for another board.
Hi Sandy – you’re exactly correct – board members view this as a personal affront. The human side of this is our real hurdle. Next week, I’ll talk about how to “promote” long serving board members to an Emeritus Board. I’m going to get some input from my favorite organizational development guru for that one!
This is so true, but I admit that as I read about the need for term limitations I substituted Congress for board members, which made the need even more meaningful.
I agree with Gail’s points. I attended the CFRE class at the AFP conference in Chicago last month and we had an in-depth conversation about this during our class. It was quite clear to me that my organization really needed to tackle this issue. I had been broaching it with my VP, but he kept putting me off. His biggest concern was that we would kick people off that we wanted and needed on the board. Through Gail’s article this past week, I have been able to convince him to develop an Emeritus board and implement term limits. Thanks to Gail for her expertise!
Hi Elizabeth – so glad my article helped your CEO see the light! Keep me posted on your progress.
Can you tell me more about Emeritus board?
Gail, thanks for your great posts! Do you recommend setting term limits for advisory boards that have no governance authority and are meant to provide programmatic and fundraising input, as well as to lend their names to the organization? My initial take is that as long as they are engaged and contributing to the organization, there’s no need to rotate them off. What do you think? I appreciate any insights you can share!