{"id":17665,"date":"2021-09-15T11:30:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-15T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/?post_type=article&p=17665"},"modified":"2025-05-08T00:07:57","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T18:37:57","slug":"four-ways-to-deal-with-board-members-who-dont-have-the-time","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/idronline.org\/kn-in\/article\/board-governance\/four-ways-to-deal-with-board-members-who-dont-have-the-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Four ways to deal with board members who ‘don’t have the time’"},"content":{"rendered":"

A common complaint among nonprofits is that a few board members don’t contribute at all or claim not to have the time. Many only show up for board meetings, and sometimes even that is a challenge. It’s the rare nonprofit that will have a fully engaged and functional board where every member pulls their weight. <\/p>

I have often wondered what the reasons for this malaise might be and, more importantly, what can be done about it. <\/p>

1. Changing expectations<\/h3>

As organisations and founders\/CEOs evolve, expectations from their boards begin to change too. An organisation that has historically ‘allowed’ a certain type of response from its board members will find it difficult to adapt if there is a sudden change in the desired output. When a board member has never been ‘pushed’ to deliver on their role they are unlikely to better their performance. Expectations are determined by the actions taken, or not taken, on each side. Growing organisations will necessarily have varying demands from their boards, and a group that came together to support the founder initially may not be best suited to deliver in the long run. <\/p>

\"What<\/a><\/div>

2. Joining a board for the wrong reasons<\/h3>

Sometimes, board members join or stay on purely due to a personal relationship with or as a favour to the founder or another board member. In these cases, it is unlikely that they will be eager and able to contribute and participate after a while. Other reasons for a decline in interest may include not anticipating the extent of work that needs to be done, misalignment with personal motivations, and lack of competence. <\/p>

3. Not letting go at the right time<\/h3>

Relationships with board members may extend beyond the professional realm which could make it awkward to confront non-performance. When this happens, an inactive board member stays on, with neither side taking the initiative to let go of the other. This is unfair on the rest of the board as some members have to compensate for others and take on additional responsibilities. Over time, such members might also feel burdened and reduce their participation.<\/p>

\"A<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>
As organisations and founders\/CEOs evolve, expectations from their boards begin to change too. | Picture courtesy: Flickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Strategies to deal with non-contributing board members<\/h3>

1. Initiate a board plan<\/h3>

This essentially means getting the board to agree on a board plan—a set of expected actions from board members that will help the executive deliver on the organisation’s strategic plan. This takes the individuals out of the discussion and focusses on the role that the board as a whole can play, alongside specific roles that individual members can take up. This is a good opportunity to ‘weed out’ board members who cannot participate in the plan.<\/p>

2. Create a rotation policy<\/h3>

A rotation policy is a mechanism that allows for the board and the founder\/CEO to replace board members at a mutually agreed upon frequency. This is done for two reasons:<\/p>