Note: This guest post from Christal M. Cherry of The Board Pro is part of an ongoing series on rethinking nonprofit boards. Thanks, Christal!

More than sixty-four million people in the US serve on nonprofit boards. They make life-changing decisions that impact all of us.

Does the current board model yield the best results? As society evolves, do our notions about good governance need to also change? 

Many nonprofit leaders aim to disrupt and transform outdated systems that have used “best practices” to avoid change and resist innovation. Even BoardSource, a mainstream nonprofit think tank and board resource hub, has developed a new approach called Purpose-Driven Leadership. 

Seeking new board models

As a nonprofit consultant and board griot, I am always seeking to advance my knowledge and expertise about board service. In this vein, I have been huddling with Dr. Renee Rubin Ross and Andy Robinson to explore how to do board work differently. 

We seek to uncover nontraditional and liberatory practices within nonprofit boards. Among the questions we’re considering:

• Why can’t board structure and organization be more fluid?
• Can staff serve on boards, too? If so, how?
• How can boards address inequity and create polices that imbue justice and belonging within board culture?
• How can we create social change beyond the traditional 501(c)(3) model?

Another question: Can couples share a board seat? 

Here’s an interesting story. One of my clients, Project Chimps, has embraced a nontraditional board structure. This amazing nonprofit, which operates a chimpanzee sanctuary in Georgia, invites couples to serve by sharing a board seat. The logistics are simple: one board vote per family.

During recent interviews with members of two board couples, here’s what I learned.

Couple #1 is new to the board and early in their careers and parenting. They’re having a blast on the board. The wife shared, “Our kids think we are so cool for doing this. We are setting a good example for them. It has become a thing for our family. The kids are fascinated by the chimps and have learned more about them through our experience.”

Couple #2 has served on the board for years. Their kids are mature teens and young adults. Both have extremely hectic schedules with lots of travel. The husband told me, “I could not serve on this board by myself, and neither could my wife. This structure allows us to participate and engage and we rarely miss a meeting.” 

I have so many questions!

What are the advantages?

“I think it helps with board attendance and engagement,” says the husband in Couple #2. “We each serve on a different committee. She’s interested in board development; I’m on the fundraising committee. We give without hesitation every year.” Laughing, he adds, “Our kids – who most of the time think we are pretty lame – agree that serving on the board together is cool.” 

Do you think this experience has helped your relationship with your partner?

“Absolutely,” says the wife of Couple #1. “We can both speak freely when we attend meetings. It gives us something to talk about at the dinner table. I may read the latest newsletter and tell my spouse about new programs or upcoming events. When it’s time to vote, don’t always agree but we compromise and come up with one decision … just like marriage.”

Do you recommend that other nonprofits consider this structure?

Both couples agree: this is a great idea. “If you let people serve in ways that are convenient for them,” says one, “they will participate. In addition to increased involvement, you’ll get more diversity of thought and an eagerness to put the best interests of the organization first.”

The development director weighs in

I asked Director of Development Kristina Johns about the staff’s experience with this model. “The husband-and-wife team board member structure works wonderfully for our organization,” she said. “We have three couples who serve. They are extremely engaged and are loyal donors.

“Now we’re considering a shared board seat with two non-married people. We’re not quite there yet, but we’ve had interest from people with very busy schedules. We are trying to meet people where they are. It will be a win-win situation,” she adds, “once we figure it out.”

Implications for diversity

As they work to diversify their board, this model also has implications for their DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging) strategy.  

“Part of the issue” says Johns, “is geography. We’re in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Georgia, which is predominantly white, conservative, and remote.” My recommendation: having a national board will open a larger, more diverse pool of potential board members – and allowing those people to split the position with their partners will make it easier for them to say yes.

Try something new!

As a board consultant who encourages my clients to be agile, I am proud of Project Chimps for trying something new. They’ve adapted their structure to allow their board members to engage in ways that make sense for them. 

What about you? Would this model work for your organization?