The "Who's Next" Theory

A lot of the organizations I coach are small to midsized arts groups.  They often are having serious challenges building a Board of Directors.  I always start the conversation about a Board by asking them . . .

"What type of people do you want on your Board?"

Sometimes this questions stops them dead in their tracks.

This is a bad sign.

Other times they start mentioning the names of all the heavy hitters in their town, civic leaders, CEO's etc.

My next question is always . . .

"Why would any of those people want to join your Board?"

You can imagine how well that question goes over. 

I can remember one person who said that even asking that question was an insult because it implied that their art was less worthy then others.

I understand that sort of reaction, but I think it misses the point a bit.  There is a ton of good, worthy, quality art out there.  Really, there is.

Having good art is the starting point, not the end point, particularly when it comes to attracting Board members.

Those "high powered" Board members many arts organizations crave are probably already taken by other nonprofit orgs and it is normally incredibly difficult to get them to leave groups they are already supporting to join yours.

(Note:  This doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask these folks to donate money to your group . . . just that you shouldn't necessarily count on them joining your Board.)

So if you can't get those folks, who can you get to join the Board?

Enter the "Who's Next" theory.  Let me use an example to explain it . .

------------------------

Your arts org wants to put a lawyer on the Board.  You go to the website of the biggest firm in your town and start researching.

Your search immediately takes you to the big time lawyers in the firm, the equity partners.

Stop searching.  Re-think your strategy.  Instead of looking at the top of the food chain ask yourself this one question:

"Who's next?"

Don't worry about who the current top dogs at the firm are.  Look around and take a guess about who the NEXT top dogs at the firm are.

Those are the people you want.

So you start looking at the other lawyers.  You read some bios and you see a target:

She's maybe 35 years old, her bio lists interest in arts (maybe she played cello in college).  Her body of work at the firm suggests that she may be upwardly mobile . . .

And even better, her bio lists that she is only on one nonprofit Board.  Which means she could have room for another.

There's your Board prospect.

Here's the beauty of this approach.  It allows both the organization and the Board to grow together.

You're just hitting your growth cycle . . . and so are they.

5 years from now your arts group is much stronger.

And that lower level associate is now on track to become that equity partner that you couldn't reach 5 years ago. 

So next time you are looking for Board members, remember the Who's Next theory.

Comments

[Director]

Great idea, but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

What if you're wrong? What if Miss Artsy Lawyer doesn't advance like you thought she would? Does that have a negative impact on your growth?

I'm gonna ask another question, because I've never had to deal with Board politics and such and I'm a little bit curious.

Besides the money aspect, why is it better to have the Senior Partner of a law firm on your board than, say, a mid-level lawyer? Is it connections or influence? Or is there another purpose?

[Adam]

What if you're wrong? What if Miss Artsy Lawyer doesn't advance like you thought she would? Does that have a negative impact on your growth?

> It could. But you are taking that risk no matter who you put on a Board.

I can think of at least 15 Board's off the top of my head that put some big time CEO on their Board and then the CEO was fired, or moved to a different location, etc.

My theory is based on the idea that Miss Artsy Lawyer has a lot more room for growth then the big wig at the top of the food chain, but you are right, there is a risk either way you go.
--------------

Besides the money aspect, why is it better to have the Senior Partner of a law firm on your board than, say, a mid-level lawyer? Is it connections or influence? Or is there another purpose?

> It really depends on where you are as an organization.

I think 70 to 80% of the groups out there would be better served by the mid-level lawyer because that person is going to have some level of money but also have the time and energy to devote to the Board.

[Chris Casquilho]

Great idea! I reposted it, and I even gave you credit - for now...

[Jim Carroll]

I have always been presented with Give, Get or Get Off as a board mantra.

Being all powerful and having a large checkbook isn't necessarily what is needed.

For smaller organizations, worker bees with time to devote to group is as important as raising funds. A careful mix has to be created as the bills still need to be paid. Attention also has to be given to preventing a 2nd class citizen that is treated poorly by those who can give money and come to expect the worker to get the job done.

Recruiting up-and-coming people makes a lot of sense.

Another thought is to look outside the box. The accountant on the board may be more interested in program development that being treasurer. Sometimes _not_ doing your daily job after-hours is the motivation for being a member.