TOP VIEW: Managing problematic board members is one of the biggest challenges for nonprofits. Veterans advise these organizations to attempt to head off problems by discussing their expectations with prospective members beforehand. Even the most proactive nonprofits can be sorely tested by conflict on the board; these situations often require a strong and diplomatic chairman who can mediate the issue or engineer an amicable divorce.

While some boards demand a specific amount of money from their board members, Seiler advises nonprofits simply to encourage prospective members to give as generously as they can; a mandated amount may be perceived as too high by some and too low by others. Another approach, he says, is to suggest that board members make the contribution one of the top three charitable gifts they make. Current board members should also inspire new appointees through their own generosity. "When they give themselves, that puts them in a position to be able to ask others to give," Seiler says. "An expectation of board membership is to give according to capacity."

Despite clear, upfront communications and best intentions, board members occasionally still fail to deliver. This dilemma sets up the chairman to play the heavy. "You hope that you have a chairman with some guts, who will take them to lunch and politely invite them to step down," says Martin Lehfeldt, president of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Council of Foundations.

A prestigious board enjoys more leeway in asking underperforming members to leave; the board chairman realizes there is an eager queue of people waiting for an opening. Smaller organizations struggling to find appropriate individuals, however, find that expulsions may not be an option. Many small and midsize charities recruit board members not simply for their pecuniary prowess– other attributes often take precedence. These organizations might engage an attorney for legal expertise or another individual for access to a robust list of contacts, notes Rusty Stahl, executive director of New York—based Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, which works with foundation staff and young benefactors to develop better giving practices. But all board members should be required to make some financial contribution, even if they give different amounts. Charities should make it clear that "we want you to give something significant on your scale," Stahl says. "The point is full participation."

Or the Highway
Rosenzweig always asks potential board members to relate their expectations. Yet even an open discussion of both parties’ goals may not always guarantee a positive outcome. When disputes arise, sometimes the only option a board member has is to leave. Last year, Peter B. Lewis, a longtime supporter of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and its former chairman, resigned from its board. He discussed his decision on a philanthropy panel hosted by Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy in New York last fall. He felt the Guggenheim should rethink its financial management and overall direction; the true turning point came when he organized a meeting of trustees to discuss his plans.

"That has been one of the most fascinating experiences of my philanthropic life," Lewis said. "I was in charge of the meeting, the pace of the meeting, I guided it, I made everybody talk–and I was overruled 29-to-1, just like that." He resigned shortly thereafter.

Although this proactive board member was unable to persuade his peers, few believe the Guggenheim had difficulty filling his vacancy. "Certain boards are sort of a social plumb to get on," Cullman notes. "You’re joining a club, so to speak, and it’s not uncommon for somebody who wants that to say, ‘What’s it going to cost me to get on the board?’" Today’s critical challenge for many boards, however, remains ferreting out whether that person can–and will–help foot the bill.

Elizabeth Harris is a staff writer for Worth.

Illustration by Ken Orvidas.