Can Directors Serve On Two Boards At The Same Time?

Being asked to serve on a nonprofit’s board of directors is enormously gratifying.

This is true for a variety of reasons.

First, it just feels good.

But there’s more.

And now for the big finish.

Serving on a nonprofit’s board is enormously gratifying because it affords you the life-changing opportunity to put your time, talent, and treasure to their highest and best use in the service others.

What a privilege, indeed.

So what could be better than serving on a board?

Serving on two boards!

But in the immortal words of one of the greatest cartoon characters ever conceived of by Hanna Barbera (and yes, we are talking about Quickdraw McGraw!), “Hold on thar Baba Looey!”

Is serving on two boards really better than serving on one? (And better yet, can it even be done?)

I think the answer is going to surprise you.

Let’s dive in.

First, Serving on Two+ Boards Is NORMAL Practice

When it comes to board service in America, it’s important that we let the data do the talking.

And on this topic, the data doesn’t just talk—IT SCREAMS!

Check this out.

A recent study conducted by Russell Reynolds (a global leader in executive search and leadership advisory services) found that 74% of directors serve on multiple boards at the same time!

Astonishingly, this study also uncovered that, among those who serve on other boards, the average number is FOUR.

F-O-U-R!

But let’s dig even deeper.

The data also tell us that the typical nonprofit board member will contribute somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 120 hours per year per board—roughly 5 to 10 hours per month per board—and this includes meetings, fundraising, and events.

But here’s the really interesting thing.

Researchers who study high-performing boards routinely tell us, time and again, that, in order for nonprofit organizations to be great, their directors need to individually contribute somewhere in the neighborhood of 240 hours per year per board—or twice the amount the of time they are currently putting in now!

So, what are we to make of this? (Better yet, what would Quickdraw McGraw have to say about this?)

Three words.

Ooooh, that smarts!

The Math Just Doesn’t Add Up

Ok, so what do we know so far?

First, 75% of directors serve on multiple boards.

Second, the average number of boards they sit on is four.

Third, the time required to be a great director is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 hours per month per board—and the majority of directors are currently giving about half of this.

Now, let’s do the math.

Without even having to reach for your vintage Texas Instruments TI-59 calculator, you know that the numbers just don’t add up.

Think about it.

In the nonprofit board world, the most valuable resource we have is time.

Said differently, in my 45 years of leading organizations, I’ve NEVER met an Executive Director or CEO (worth their salt!) that doesn’t want more time from their directors.

And not just a little more time—but a LOT more time.

With this in mind, as a nonprofit leader whose goal is to achieve extraordinary impact, you’d be wise to ask yourself this question, “How in the world can someone successfully serve on multiple boards at the same time?”

In my experience, the answer is pretty straightforward, “They can’t.”

The Pitfalls of Overboarding

From where I sit, serving on multiple boards at the same time (aka, overboarding) is a problem.

And I’m not the only one who feels this way.

In fact, the researchers who make their living studying nonprofit boards have found that overboarding comes with a variety of risks, not least of which include:

Time and Commitment Deficit: As mentioned earlier, directors who are overextended often cannot dedicate the adequate time necessary to properly prepare for meetings, oversee management, or handle unexpected crises.

This, in turn, leads to seriously reduced effectiveness—both for the director and nonprofit.

Said differently, while it might seem impressive that someone is simultaneously serving on four boards, bringing them on yours just isn’t a great idea.

But there’s more.

Conflicts of Interest: Serving on competing nonprofit boards or organizations with opposing interests can trigger ethical conflicts.

For example, I’ve seen boards that have completely imploded when one director (who was serving on multiple boards) shared sensitive organizational information with another nonprofit.

The two organizations (and CEO’s) remain adversaries to this day.

Reputational and Legal Risks: If a director fails to perform their duties due to overcommitment, its important to understand that they risk serious reputational repercussions.

For example, imagine that you have a very important board meeting scheduled—and you need every single director to be present. Now imagine that one of your directors (who also sits on another nonprofit board) has a competing meeting—and they choose to attend that particular meeting.

Tell me that’s not going to cause hard feelings.

Absenteeism: Last but not least, overboarded members are notoriously likely to have poor attendance records for meetings.

And while poor attendance by an overextended director is a problem in and of itself, it’s also a thorny issue for the board at-large.

Here’s how.

When a director misses meetings because of overboarding, they don’t have the opportunity to bond with those directors who show up. As the rest of the board’s relationships blossom, the board moves forward by leaps and bounds. And then when your overextended director decides to grace you with their presence, all the hard-earned mojo magically evaporates.

Both you and I know that great directors (those who are committed to the organization!) have very little tolerance for this.

Extraordinary Impact

Just because a director can serve on multiple boards at the same time doesn’t mean that they should.

In fact, in all my years, I just never warmed up to the idea of the having directors with multiple allegiances.

To me, I knew the kind of dedication, input, and insight that I wanted from each director who became a part of the organization.

What’s more, I knew the kind of group I wanted to create—high-energy, super-smart, and fully-present.

And to be fully-present, I knew in my heart-of-hearts that each needed to be at the table passionately interacting with their fellow directors.

For me, looking back, it was absolutely the right decision.

Did it mean that maybe I missed out on some pretty extraordinary talent?

Probably.

But if I had to choose to between commitment and contingent, I’m choosing commitment every single time.

What say you?