Boards that Encourage Innovation
With an upcoming Taproot board meeting, the recent release of our Board Recruitment Service Grant, and our participation in the San Francisco board matching event referenced in my last post, this week we have been thinking a lot about board service.
As a result, an article that referenced a board made up mainly of lawyers caught my attention. My experience is largely in working with social entrepreneurs. To most social entrepreneurs, a board of lawyers feels like an innovation death warrant.
Instead, social entrepreneurs tend to design boards they believe will support their own entrepreneurial drive. These boards tend to come in one of five flavors-
1) The Passive Board- The goal is to have a board that doesn't get in your way. It is small and populated by friends.
2) The Succession Board- The goal is to ensure the organization will continue after you leave. This board tries to help the organization 'grow up' as fast as possible and put systems in place.
3) The Capital Board- The goal here is to raise $500k+ per year in unrestricted funds to pay for innovation and growth.
4) The Mentor Board- The goal is to support you as an inexperienced entrepreneur by partnering with veterans who can play a very active role in the leadership of the organization.
5) The Credibility Board- The goal is to show foundations and others that you are legit by populating the board with experts in the field.
Are these the best five models? How can social entrepreneurs create better boards?
---
As mentioned last week- for my thoughts on the future of nonprofit board service, check out my keynote address from the recent BoardSource Leadership Forum. You can also check out BoardSource for additional tools and events.
I'd like a board with a combination of all of the above, please, EXCEPT the first one. A passive board is no better than no board at all - who wants dead wood hanging around? A soc. ent. who just wants yeasayers is not much of a soc. ent. at all, in my opinion. An active and involved board is an asset.
Other folks to recruit: strategic thinkers, peeps with financial expertise, workhorses, people from your partner nonprofit agencies, government agencies, and corporations... No one kind of person should populate an entire board - diversity is not just about color, it's about diversity of thought!
Aaron, this is a great service you're starting for Taproot as I'm beginning to learn that many nonprofits are in desparate need of figuring out their boards and how to best use them.
I'd seriously watch out for a "passive board". I also feel like while a "credibility board" might help an organization initially, their value comes in how they raise capital, mentor, or set up the board for succession. So the truly valuable boards are the #2,3,4 on your list.