There are many different approaches to board selection and geographic representation is just one of them. We believe that a board should be a balanced board. Using the many different measures of diversity appropriate for the organization, the goal is to balance competencies, geography, interests and specialties, gender, and so on. Many organizations find success in building a list of the measures of diversity that apply to that organization. A list may include things like gender, ethnicity, gender preference, geography, specialty area, size of company/practice, first or second career practitioner and anything else that an organization deems an important aspect of diversity.
When board selection is based entirely on geography, especially when the board members are selected by the geographic component, you have the issue of who the individual represents. Are they representatives “of” or “for”(see video below)? We all know that once seated on the board the individual is obligated to act in the best interest of the association. But the geographic unit that sent that person to the board may express or imply an expectation to vote on issues “our way” (hint: this is the way the US House of Representatives more or less works). It is entirely possible to have geographic units represented on the board as long as they are representatives of that unit – agreeing to put forth the positions, concerns and issues of that unit, but voting in the best interest of the entire organization.
Read more on balanced boards.
Representative Governance Model from Tecker International on Vimeo.
Read Similar Blog Posts
About the Author
