Skip to main content

How Large a Board? NYS Museums and Heritage Organizations Weigh In

For the last month, I’ve had a poll running on this blog asking folks to note the size of their nonprofit boards.  The overwhelming number of voters (80%) chose the 11-20 member category.  Ten percent have a board with ten or fewer members and 10% have a board with 21-35 members.

This mirrors the results for the 2006 annual reports submitted to the NYS Education Department by chartered museums and historical societies.

Of 801 institutions reporting boards of trustees, the average board size was 12.   Forty-one institutions reported board with more than 25 people, ranging from 26 members to a high of 63.

In prior years, the number is almost the same.  In 1998, the average size was 11.

Paul Stewart, who serves on the board of the Albany, NY-based Capital District Underground Railroad Workshop, wrote, “Some organizations seem to like small boards and some large boards. What is the difference in what they accomplish? What other dynamics are there?  …it is clear that having the minimum actually hampers what you can accomplish. I'd like to get a sense of what those with larger boards can do and the difficulties they encounter with larger groups of people. I know from my own experience that it causes quorum problems, you experience the drag of those who don't step to the plate, and when some board members promise to do things and don't follow through it can be very painful.”

It seems to me that the size of an organization’s board ought to reflect and support the organization’s mission and vision and be large enough to oversee or carry out the strategic plan.  A statewide or national nonprofit may very well have a far larger board than one serving a highly focused service or service area. 

For example, the Greater Hudson Heritage Network is a regional museum service organization whose board currently stands at 22, but has plans to grow it to 24.  “We like a board this size since we want regional representation as well as varied professional expertise and advocacy skills to reflect work in a varied, broad museum and history community,” write Director Tema Harnik.  “Small committees seem to function well, in lieu of a smaller board-- it's in committee work, discussion, and recommendation that I see the most participation and "individual accountability."  Trustees like to step up to the plate when they can offer their ideas, not just listen to reports at a Board meeting.”

Paul’s questions about size affecting effectiveness touch on basic issues of group dynamics and group structure – people coming together to get work done have great potential, but their effectiveness as a team requires active planning, management, and communication on the part of the board and staff leadership.  The larger the group, the more necessary these three ingredients become.

Graham Millar of the Tonawanda-Kenmore Historical Society and Museum sums it up best: “Our board is large enough to share tasks, small enough so that we don't have to beat the bushes for reluctant board members.” 

Photo: gavel by TalkLeft, flickr 


Popular posts from this blog

4 Nonprofit Resolutions for 2021

Even though 2020 will technically be in our rear view mirror soon, its ramifications will be with us for years to come. Make no mistake, there's a lot of work to do. So, here are my four really tough, but really important, resolutions designed to lay some solid groundwork for doing your best work in 2021. Aren't you glad there are only four? If you're interested in my resolutions from previous years, take a look here  and here .

4 Strategies to Pivot and Lead Through Disruption

Organizational Resiliency in This Crucible Moment

I am currently working with two colleagues from the cultural and heritage fields to think and write about organizational resiliency in times of upheaval and ambiguity. We believe resiliency in this crucible moment requires, first and foremost, nonprofit organizations activate equity and inclusion by embracing it as central to all their internal and external work. It begins when organizations commit the time to examine their own historical roots and practices as a critical step to ensure they “live” their most meaningful missions, visions, and values. Resiliency requires many organizations also renegotiate what it means to be valuable to their communities. The traditional idea of “value” has changed and is changing, and recognizing the extent to what our communities really value is key to being wanted, needed, and, thus relevant. All organizations must retool their financial mindsets, taking a hard look at their current financial realities and realigning the costs of doing business with