And the magic number is… … … well, it depends! (accompanied by great sigh of disappointment) But seriously it does depend on several factors. However, before we get to that, what are the parameters we need to be working within?
Let’s start with legal upper and lower limits. Unfortunately in Aotearoa New Zealand most of the laws that you are likely to be incorporated under are not much help. Often is stated a lower limit of two and no upper limit! Then there is your own organisational trust deed, constitution etc which has the same power as the law within the statutes limits, so you have to operate within the number or range in your rules. But of course if you don’t like it, you can (by going through the proper processes) pretty readily change your constitution (or add a supplemental deed) with new limits. If starting out, or reviewing a constitution, I always recommend that you have a range rather than a specific number, for reasons that hopefully will become apparent below.
As an aside, and regardless of how many board members you have (because there may be an even number present at any given meeting), make sure you have clear provisions for dealing with a tied vote (eg: chair has first vote if a tie, chair has second and casting vote if a tie, the status quo remains, you toss a coin etc.) It’s always better to make the rules ahead of time - when you are in the middle of a controversy it’s much harder to get people to agree.
It’s always better to make the rules ahead of time - when you are in the middle of a controversy it’s much harder to get people to agree.
Well, if the regulators don’t help us (or hinder us) with much guidance, what do most others do? There is no comprehensive data in this country, but several separate pieces of limited research suggest that in New Zealand and Australia, there is an average of something like ten board members - which would be 30% smaller than the average for US nonprofit boards (Hough & Nowland-Foreman, 2018: 100).
Personally, I have seen boards struggle when numbers get extremely low. It seems that in most circumstances it’s hard to operate with just two or three board members - especially as at any time one person may be absent for good reasons. So, I generally expect to see a minimum of at least four or six, unless there is some specific reason not to. On the other hand I have seen largish boards operate perfectly well up to 15 or 20 while others seem to get too unwieldy at lower levels.
The reason “it depends” is not just a cop out. The organisational history, stage of development, the field you are operating in, stakeholder expectations (beneficiaries, peers and funders), and the way the organisation works, let alone the styles and preferences of key people involved, all effect what is best.
Essentially, smaller boards are better for working as a (often homogenous) team, both among the board, and with the manager. They tend to be more flexible and swifter in responding to a changing context. At their best, small boards help drive the organisation forward and can play a key role in strategy and direction-setting.
Usually larger boards are better for diverse representation and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. At their best they are more effective at holding an organisation to account and ensuring public regard and reputation, as well as strengthening communication to and input from, key interests.
The important thing if we do set up either sub-committees and/or advisory groups is to make sure their terms of reference are clear and agreed among all parties
Unfortunately, we usually want it all, which is why board size is one of the inherent tensions involved in non-profit governance (Cornforth, 1999). The secret is to carefully consider and canvas others familiar with the organisation and the environment. Then you can decide what is more important for the organisation right now at this stage in its development, and in the opportunities and challenges it faces. You may not get the same answer in five or 10 years time, which is why it’s wise to leave room for a range in your constitution. Do you mostly need wide representation, diverse perspectives and strong stakeholder links? Then go for a larger board. Do you mostly need a small tight, like-minded team to drive the organisation forward and quickly response to changing circumstances? Then go for a smaller board.
But this is still not enough. If we go for a large board we need some structural and system answers to how to counter-balance or compensate for the inherent weaknesses or gaps of large boards. Usually it is hard for them to develop ideas from a blank page, so it can be helpful to have a small executive do some pre-thinking and digestion of ideas before a meeting. Not to be de facto decision-makers, but to have board involvement in setting the questions, and perhaps when appropriate identifying possible options (including in more complex cases, some research and some preliminary thinking on the strengths and limitations of the various options).
Similarly, when we go for a smaller board, we need to compensate for restricted perspectives and links. Thus we need to identify other structures and processes of communicating and building trust and ownership with a wider range of stakeholders and interests, and of gathering more diverse perspectives into the decision-making processes. One way of doing this is to add supplementary structures off to the side, such as an advisory group of parents, a kaumatua group, a quarterly meeting of residents, a weekly house group that plans activities, etc. The important thing if we do set up either sub-committees and/or advisory groups is to make sure their terms of reference are clear and agreed among all parties; it never pays to fudge decision-making with advice-giving, with consultation or information-sharing!
The ideal size for your board? Well, I am afraid gentle reader, it depends!