Blue Avocado recently re-ran a piece by Matt Lynch called “How to Persuade a New Generation to Join Your Nonprofit's Board.” His argument is (and I'm paraphrasing here) stop leading your recruitment conversations with the ask (time, treasure, talent) and start leading with what the candidate gets out of board service. He talks about the pleasure principle, and he lists five pleasures: subject matter expertise, learning, networking, friendship, and the satisfaction of serving.

Leading With Benefits Is the Right Instinct

Lynch is right about this part. When you open a recruitment conversation by listing everything you need from someone, you're leading with what it's going to cost them. That's a losing pitch for any candidate, and especially for a younger one who's never served on a board and has no comparison of what the role requires.

Where My Thinking Differs

I think the article stops one layer too early. Lynch lists some of the candidate's potential objections: not enough time and a dislike of meetings. His advice is to steer the conversation away from those fears and toward the positives. But what if those fears are accurate?

If your board meetings really are ninety minutes of report read-outs, or if the role really is showing up, voting yes, and writing a check, then a better sales pitch doesn't solve your problem. It often just fills the seat with someone who likely won't stay.

The Sector Has Already Run This Experiment

We don't have to wonder what happens when perks-based recruiting works, because the nonprofit sector has been running the experiment for years. They're called young professionals boards, and they're recruited on almost exactly the appeal Lynch describes: networking, social events, and proximity to a particular cause and to cool people.

Cause Strategy Partners surveyed dozens of nonprofits with established young professionals boards back in 2023. It's a small, informal sample, but the findings are telling: more than half (54%) of the boards surveyed named long-term engagement as a significant challenge, and only 17% considered professional skills the most valuable asset a young board member brings. Those results reveal that many organizations are recruiting young talent but then handing them administrative tasks like event planning.

The early-career professionals in that same study said they want to bring their full professional expertise to causes they care about, and they see board service as a chance to grow at a critical point in their careers. When the role asks for little of that expertise, they leave. The recruitment worked, but the role didn't keep them engaged and energized.

A 2026 report from the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona, Southern Arizona Young Professionals in Philanthropy, found the same pattern from the other direction. In a regional study consisting of 110 survey respondents plus interviews and focus groups, the findings echo the national picture: younger generations are highly motivated to engage with nonprofits, and what drives them is meaningful, measurable impact. The report's conclusion: the next generation seeks strategic roles, not administrative or event-related tasks.

Fun Is a Byproduct

And I think Lynch's own story proves the point. In his article, he describes being talked into running for president of his church group as a high school senior. He won, and then “...planned projects, met people, ran meetings, created events, and worked hard on teams.”

Notice what made that year fun. He was aligned with the group and he was handed real responsibility. Enjoying the work itself and “having fun” was a byproduct.

I've been in a similar situation. The board I enjoyed most in my own service was one where my capacity building background had a specific use. Because I was working at a foundation at the time, I could also bring a small amount of funding to help the organization survey its clients and then help implement the changes those surveys surfaced. That board seat had a reason for me to be in it, and the fulfillment followed because it was a good use of my professional skills.

Alignment and Responsibility Come From How You Build the Board

Alignment and real responsibility are both things that a selection process should bring to the surface. An assembled board forms the way most boards form: a seat opens, someone knows someone, that person says yes, and the vacancy gets filled by a competent person who was never chosen for a strategic reason. Lynch's article is advice for making that “someone says yes” moment happen more often. But a better pitch only makes an assembled board assemble faster.

A built board starts from the other end. It asks what the mission needs over the next two to three years, names the gaps between that and the current roster, and recruits toward those gaps, changing the recruitment conversation completely. Instead of “here are five pleasures of board service,” it becomes “we are recruiting you for a specific reason: here is the challenge we are facing, and here is where we think your skills and expertise fit.”

You could argue that this pitch breaks the rule I agreed with at the top, since it still opens with something the organization needs. And it's true that a built board runs on time, treasure, and talent like every other board, because part of building a board is determining exactly which treasures and talents the mission needs next. The difference is that the ask arrives with a purpose attached. The generic version is a question about capacity: how many hours can you give to meetings, how much money can you donate or help raise, and which of your connections can you bring along. Almost anyone could answer it, which is why candidates hear it as a cost.

The built version pairs the ask with a reason, because the organization has already thought about who this candidate is and what their time and talents would accomplish. For a generation that says it wants meaningful, measurable impact, seeing where their skills will be put to work is the benefit. That kind of pitch avoids the five pleasures that Lynch mentions, but it's flattering to the person you're trying to recruit because it's actually true. It also helps the potential board member decide if they feel aligned with the organization's mission, and if board service would be enjoyable over the next few years.

The Question Every Candidate Is Asking

Every candidate you recruit, whatever their age, is silently asking one thing: will this be a productive use of my time? Lynch's answer is to promise them it will be, that board service can be genuinely entertaining. My answer is that a board should be measuring this, so that when a candidate asks, you can respond with confidence.

The last question on the board meeting evaluation template in our Board Meeting Toolkit is exactly that: “This meeting was a productive use of our time.”

A board that measures that, meeting after meeting, and adjusts when the answer is no, has a strong recruitment pitch. You get to sit across from a candidate and say: our members tell us, every month, that this is worth their time, and when they don't, we change something. And if your board can't honestly say that yet, the evaluation will show you what to fix before your next recruitment cycle.

To be clear, I agree with Lynch on the big point: board service can be one of the most rewarding commitments a young professional takes on, and organizations should be making that case to candidates. Where my approach differs is in the sequence. Strengthen the board experience first, so that when you sit down with a candidate, you can offer a role worth their time and the evidence to back it up.

The Board Meeting Toolkit, including the meeting evaluation template, is a free download at ebersmith.com/boardmeetings.

And if your governance committee wants help moving from assembled to built, let's talk.

Photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash