Myths of Board Size

Boards become ineffective when there is a mismatch between the role they play, the process they use, and their capacity to use the process well. Size is only one variable related to capacity and is meaningful as a predictor of performance only in relation to the other two variables.

Some Executives are losing their jobs and fracturing their associations by pursuing smaller boards in the belief that they will be better, or at least more convenient to work with. Instead they end up in battles over the distribution of power.

The preference for a smaller board tends to be a prejudice born of frustration with poor alignment. The assumption is that a smaller board will be more competent and that a larger board will be more political. It’s kind of like class size. If you teach 15 kids the same way you teach 30 kids, the smaller size won’t make much of a difference in learning.

We find that the notion of balanced boards composed on the basis of skill sets to be more productive than the old debates over size and/or competency based vs. constituency based.

The representative governance model of associations is designed to provide the opportunity to balance the political and corporate dimensions of governance in a participative enterprise.

In associations, the “representative governance model” does create the opportunity for balance between the political and corporate responsibilities of Board members. It is true that elections make board composition more difficult than where the board itself fills vacancies. And, the absence of a nominating committee can also pose a challenge to sensible selection. But, significant process improvements are still possible.

Our experience is that the vetting of candidates on appropriate criteria is what will make the biggest difference in Board talent. We find that a three dimensional vetting works well in achieving a “balanced board”:  

1. Board Member Skill Sets – Key Attributes
2. Special Skills Or Expertise Germane To Key Strategic Initiatives
3. Generational, Geographic, Gender, Cultural, Industry, Ethnic, or Specialty Related Experience

In this approach, candidates who do not qualify on key attributes are not further considered for a Board seat. The attributes are:

1. The ability to think strategically and analytically and to effectively communicate thoughts and the reasons for them.
2. Possession of earned respect of other key stakeholder group members.
3. The ability to work well with others as a member of a collaborative group with group decision-making authority and an understanding of the fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, and obedience.
4. A demonstrated understanding of the differences between “oversight” and “supervision.”
5. An earned reputation for emotional maturity, personal integrity, and honesty.
6. A demonstrated familiarity with the body of knowledge related to both the process for which the group is responsible as well as the substantive content of the subject area within which decisions and choices will have to be made.

We think that Board composition has achieved status as the key issue now that an appropriate perspective on Board size has been achieved. There are ways to make this approach work even where board members are elected – whether at large by the membership or by particular constituencies like chapters or sections.