Ted Hull Consulting FYI

What About Term Limits For Board Members

August 9th, 2017

It is important that we have term limits for board members so we can get fresh blood.

We need term limits; otherwise how do we get rid of poor board members?

These are two very common reasons for setting term limits for a board. You can add to this list of supposedly good ideas. In the meantime, let’s look more closely at these two reasons.

First it should be noted that a board member who is limited to two terms has a rookie term and then just one term in which to make significant contributions (in particular if a term is only two years).. Terms limits can result in excellent board members being “forced” to step off the board. As they leave they take their experience and history with them. That acquired knowledge and experience should be capitalized on and carried forward as an ongoing contribution to good governance.  In all too many cases their seats are filled with less experienced, less effective and often less willing board members.

There is a need for new board members. They can bring a healthy naivety that raises questions which should be asked as well as additional perspectives that need- to be examined. In most cases, this will happen based on the natural attrition of incumbent board members who don’t let their names stand for re-election or appointment. If you have a board of nine members and each one stays for nine years (three 3-year terms), on average you will have a new board member every year.  In reality, not all board members are likely to be able to serve nine years, so there will be more new board members.  However, if many board members have been there for multiple years (we’ve seen 20 and 30) it would be wise to consider the need for fresh blood.

Long term board members have organizational history. They are aware of the context in which certain decisions were made. These board members aren’t tearing down fences, because they know why the fences were built in the first place. There is a team mentality that comes from working alongside other board members.

But how did we get rid of poor board members?

Good question.  Should a board have term limits which result in getting rid of both competent and underachieving board members? Why not keep the contributors and release those who are underperforming or aren’t providing sufficient value? Having term limits which allow a board to passively offload its problems sounds ominously like an organization which places a higher value on not hurting anyone’s feelings than providing excellence in governance.

One way to address this problem proactively is to have processes in place where board members are regularly being evaluated. Issues such as attendance and punctuality can be easily monitored.  Other more subjective matters can be considered. Are they prepared for meetings by having reviewed meeting materials, including monitoring reports, in advance? Do they actively participate in discussions in a way which adds value? Do they tacitly agree with almost everything, or on the other hand are they cantankerous? These ideas can be helpful, but they won’t always root out the problem board members. In those cases the board needs to have a process for suggesting that underperformers not let their name stand next time around. For all this to be meaningful requires the board have its mutually agreed upon expectations articulated in its Governance Process Polices.

In summary, whatever an organization decides to do relative to the setting of term limits, it needs to do in the best interests of the organization and more specifically in the best interests of excellence in governance.



Ted Hull Consulting FYI


What a Board Approves, It Owns
November 1st, 2017

Kinda Using Policy Governance
October 5th, 2017

Is Your Mission Worthwhile and How Would You Know?
September 21st, 2017

What About Term Limits For Board Members
August 9th, 2017

Why Bother Evaluating Your CEO?
June 25th, 2017

Wisely Investing My Time
May 19th, 2017

Is Policy Governance Too Big For a Small Charity?
March 26th, 2017

Why Bother With Board Education? Video
January 5th, 2017

Board Priorities and Policy Governance
December 15th, 2016

Fishtailing is for Losers
September 19th, 2016

Ditch Your Board Executive Committee
August 25th, 2016

Personal Trainers Can Be Overrated
August 12th, 2016

The Difference Between Cost and Worth
April 25th, 2016

Policy Governance and the CEO Evaluation
March 12th, 2016

Two Sides of the Value Coin
February 12th, 2016

FYI - But a Church Board is Different...so Can Carver's Policy Governance® Model Work?
October 12th, 2015

FYI - Policy Goverance Isn't the Silver Bullet for a Church Board
July 21st, 2015

FYI - The Difference Between Owners and Consumers
June 24th, 2015

FYI - A Board is Greater Than the Sum of its Parts
May 18th, 2015

FYI - Policy Governance - A Whole New Game
April 28th, 2015

FYI - The Ten Drawbacks to Policy Governance
March 10th, 2015

FYI - The Features of Policy Governance
February 18th, 2015

FYI - Five Key Words For Effective Governance
January 6th, 2015

  • What a Board Approves, It Owns
November 1st, 2017
Have you ever gotten a very good deal on something but with no idea what you would do with it? Many boards have that problem. They approve something but with little idea of why they are approving it or what they.....
Home
Services
Introductory Policy Governance® Workshop
Policy Governance® Implementation Workshops
Policy Governance® Coaching
Counselling
Evaluate Your Board Experience
Books by Ted Hull
Testimonials
About Ted
FYI
The Governance Coach
Contact Us
So Your Board Can Better Serve
204.898.6740

Ted Hull Consulting FYI

What About Term Limits For Board Members

August 9th, 2017

It is important that we have term limits for board members so we can get fresh blood.

We need term limits; otherwise how do we get rid of poor board members?

These are two very common reasons for setting term limits for a board. You can add to this list of supposedly good ideas. In the meantime, let’s look more closely at these two reasons.

First it should be noted that a board member who is limited to two terms has a rookie term and then just one term in which to make significant contributions (in particular if a term is only two years).. Terms limits can result in excellent board members being “forced” to step off the board. As they leave they take their experience and history with them. That acquired knowledge and experience should be capitalized on and carried forward as an ongoing contribution to good governance.  In all too many cases their seats are filled with less experienced, less effective and often less willing board members.

There is a need for new board members. They can bring a healthy naivety that raises questions which should be asked as well as additional perspectives that need- to be examined. In most cases, this will happen based on the natural attrition of incumbent board members who don’t let their names stand for re-election or appointment. If you have a board of nine members and each one stays for nine years (three 3-year terms), on average you will have a new board member every year.  In reality, not all board members are likely to be able to serve nine years, so there will be more new board members.  However, if many board members have been there for multiple years (we’ve seen 20 and 30) it would be wise to consider the need for fresh blood.

Long term board members have organizational history. They are aware of the context in which certain decisions were made. These board members aren’t tearing down fences, because they know why the fences were built in the first place. There is a team mentality that comes from working alongside other board members.

But how did we get rid of poor board members?

Good question.  Should a board have term limits which result in getting rid of both competent and underachieving board members? Why not keep the contributors and release those who are underperforming or aren’t providing sufficient value? Having term limits which allow a board to passively offload its problems sounds ominously like an organization which places a higher value on not hurting anyone’s feelings than providing excellence in governance.

One way to address this problem proactively is to have processes in place where board members are regularly being evaluated. Issues such as attendance and punctuality can be easily monitored.  Other more subjective matters can be considered. Are they prepared for meetings by having reviewed meeting materials, including monitoring reports, in advance? Do they actively participate in discussions in a way which adds value? Do they tacitly agree with almost everything, or on the other hand are they cantankerous? These ideas can be helpful, but they won’t always root out the problem board members. In those cases the board needs to have a process for suggesting that underperformers not let their name stand next time around. For all this to be meaningful requires the board have its mutually agreed upon expectations articulated in its Governance Process Polices.

In summary, whatever an organization decides to do relative to the setting of term limits, it needs to do in the best interests of the organization and more specifically in the best interests of excellence in governance.

Primary Contact
272-3336 Portage Avenue
Winnipeg Manitoba
R3K 2H9
204.898.6740
  • What a Board Approves, It Owns
November 1st, 2017
Have you ever gotten a very good deal on something but with no idea what you would do with it? Many boards have that problem. They approve something but with little idea of why they are approving it or what they will do with it once they have approved it. In this FYI we talk about how boards need to be careful of what they approve - and why......

Copyright Ted Hull Consulting All Rights Reserved | Developed and Hosted by M9 Corporation