BoardSource’s 2023 Leading with Intent report found that more than a third of nonprofit organizations have not formally defined what their board’s composition should look like. They’ve never sat down and identified the mix of expertise, perspectives, connections, and qualities their board actually needs.
That number surprised me the first time I saw it, but it probably shouldn’t have. In my experience working with nonprofit boards, most of them weren’t designed. They were assembled. Seats opened up over the years, someone knew someone, the person said yes, and the board was filled with whoever was available and willing. Nobody made a bad decision. They just didn’t make a particularly deliberate one, either.
The difference between an assembled board and a built board matters more than most organizations realize. And the process that separates the two is the one that almost everybody skips.
Why Most Boards End Up Assembled
An assembled board happens gradually. It’s the product of dozens of small, reasonable decisions that were never connected to a larger plan.
Board members finish a term, get renominated without much discussion, and serve again. Some boards don’t have term limits at all. Among those that do, plenty don’t require a gap between terms, so the same people rotate back in without anyone genuinely reconsidering whether the board’s composition still fits the organization’s direction. According to BoardSource, 26% of boards have no limit on consecutive terms.
The governance committee, where one exists, often springs into action only when there’s a vacancy. More than one in four boards don’t even have a governance or nominating committee, which means there’s no one whose job it is to think about composition proactively.
Even when a governance committee is active, there are conversations that feel too uncomfortable to start. A long-tenured, well-liked board member may not be what the organization needs for where it’s heading. The skills and connections that made them a great fit ten years ago may not be what the board needs for the next three. But telling someone that their seat could be better used for someone with a different skillset is a conversation most boards would rather not have.
The result: boards that look the same year after year, even as the organization and its environment evolve around them. When boards haven’t defined what they need, every search for new members can feel harder than it should.
Assembled or Built: Two Approaches to Board Composition
Think about it like furniture. An assembled board is like flat-pack IKEA furniture. The pieces showed up and you made it work with what was in the box. A built board is custom carpentry. You started with a vision, found the right materials, and built something specific to the purpose.
Many boards are closer to the flat-pack version. That doesn’t mean they’re bad boards. It means they were put together reactively rather than with a design in mind.
The shift from assembled to built is a three-phased approach, each phase built around a question. The order you ask them in matters. Starting with what the mission needs forces a conversation anchored in where the organization is going rather than where it’s been. If, instead, you start by looking at who’s already on your board, you’ll naturally gravitate toward filling gaps with people who look like the members you already have.
Phase 1: What does our mission need?
Before anyone looks at the current board roster, the governance committee should think about what the organization’s strategic priorities are for the next two to three years, what expertise and perspectives would support those priorities, what phase the organization is in, and whether the board’s relationship with the community matches the mission.
BoardSource data shows that 42% of executives say their board’s composition does not reflect the demographics of their community. When the people governing an organization don’t reflect the people it serves, the board can miss perspectives that are directly relevant to the mission. It can also send an unintended signal to the community about who the organization is really for.
The organizational phase question is one that often gets overlooked entirely. A startup organization needs board members who will roll up their sleeves and do hands-on work alongside limited staff. A mature organization needs people focused on fundraising, community relationships, and long-range planning. A stagnant organization, one where the same people have been around the table for years and the energy has gone flat, needs members who bring renewal and fresh thinking. Each phase demands different qualities from the people who govern. (I wrote about this same idea in the context of hiring a new executive director. The principle applies to boards just as much as it applies to staff leadership.)
Phase 2: What do we have?
With the mission’s needs defined, the governance committee can take an honest look at the current board. This goes beyond listing credentials. It means assessing professional expertise, community connections, demographic representation, engagement levels, and the cultural qualities that determine whether the board actually functions as a team.
On that last point, the nonprofit governance field has long used the “3 Ws” to describe what boards need from their members: Work (willingness to roll up their sleeves), Wealth (access to financial resources, whether personal giving or donor networks), and Wisdom (asking the right questions, providing sound judgment, and seeing around corners). Those are the tangible contributions.
But the strongest boards also have what I refer to as the ACE Qualities: three types of people who shape how the board functions together. Ambassadors carry the organization’s story into the community, telling people why the work matters and helping open doors to new opportunities. Connectors strengthen internal relationships, bridge disagreement, and help the group arrive at decisions everyone can support. Energizers make the board a place people actually want to show up to, bringing enthusiasm that sustains morale through difficult seasons.
Most boards can point to members who represent the 3 Ws. Far fewer have thought about whether they have Ambassadors, Connectors, and Energizers. The data backs this up: BoardSource research shows that 81% of executives say they have the right people for organizational oversight, but only 30% say the same about fundraising, and only 30% about influencing policy decisions. Boards are stocked for internal governance but thin on external engagement.
Phase 3: Where are the gaps?
This is where the first two phases come together. The governance committee compares what the mission needs against what the board currently has and identifies the most significant gaps. Which two or three are most urgent for the next recruitment cycle? Can some be addressed through advisory councils, task forces, or committee appointments rather than adding full board seats? Are there current members whose terms are ending who the governance committee should genuinely reconsider rather than automatically renominate?
The Questions That Some Boards Never Ask
A thorough board review goes further than matching skills and demographics to a grid. There are harder questions that separate boards who govern effectively from boards that just meet regularly:
- Are we recruiting for the organization we were, the organization we are now, or the organization we’re becoming?
- Do we have the right balance of continuity and fresh perspective?
- Is anyone on this board here out of obligation or tradition rather than genuine alignment with where the organization is headed?
- Could someone who has been a strong contributor in the past actually be an even stronger contributor in a different role, like an advisory council or a task force?
- Beyond demographics and credentials, does this board have diversity of deliberation styles, or does everyone tend to think about problems the same way?
A board full of people who approach decisions from the same angle will reach comfortable conclusions. That doesn’t mean they’ll reach the best ones.
What to Do with What You Find
A board review is only useful if it drives action. Once the gaps are identified, they should shape the next recruitment cycle. The governance committee now knows specifically what to look for instead of asking “who do we know?”
Research across multiple BoardSource Leading with Intent surveys suggests that organizations who define their desired composition and compare it to their current board report a more focused, effective recruitment process than organizations who don’t. The work of defining what you need makes the search less difficult and overwhelming, not more.
A board composition review should happen annually, well before nominations are due. Give your governance committee enough time to actually act on what the review reveals, including cultivating relationships with potential candidates rather than scrambling to fill seats at the last minute. Organizations and communities change, some slowly and some drastically. The qualities a board needed three years ago may not be the qualities it needs for the next three. Revisiting composition with fresh eyes keeps the board evolving alongside the organization it serves.
If you want to start intentionally building your board, I created a free guide called Assembled or Built?: A Guide for Planning an Intentional Board. It walks your governance committee through a structured three-phase process to assess what your mission needs, what you currently have, and where the real gaps are, so your next recruitment conversation can be strategic instead of reactive. Download it here and bring it to your next governance committee meeting or board retreat.
And if you’d like help facilitating this conversation with your board, let’s talk.