Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council

I belong to the Canadian Society of Association Executives (CSAE) and am on the “Leadership Team” for the Manitoba sector. This provides me with the opportunity to meet and discuss issues with executive directors and other board executive members representing organizations large and small; not-for-profits and for profits; local, national and international, representing a vast array of sectors and interests. Often a topic of discussion is board operation including board size. More than occasionally I encounter raised eyebrows when I make the comment that our organization has a bylaw that allows for a minimum of eight members and maximum of 18 (decided on an annual basis) and that we currently are operating with 17 directors. However, when I articulate the advantages of a large board, given the mandate that has been established for/by the organization, they soon have a better appreciation of the effectiveness of such a board model.

There is growing discussion about “breaking down barriers” and “operating across portfolios” in the private as well as public boardrooms. So far there is little progress beyond the discussion stage. I equate it to an addiction recovery program. The first step is recognizing and acknowledging the problem, and the next step is addressing the problem. I bring forward our board model as a starting point. Where else can you find a board with such cross sector representation coming together around a common goal of potentially funding projects to address innovation and adaptation that often has domino effects across many sectors, and being able to reach an understanding and agreement to support (or decline) a project based on the “good of the whole?” Rather than isolating sectors into like-minded boards, MRAC brings them together, has the discussion with a 360⁰ view, reaches a decision (not always unanimous) and then moves forward supporting it as a board decision.

To put it in a context that everyone can relate to, it’s like having a large family or a small family. Large families have a wide and diverse representation of personalities, interests and lifestyles represented around their dinner tables with lots of engaging discussion. Small families have discussion, but often with limited diversity represented in the context of the discussion. Don’t be mistaken, there are lots of large boards (and large families) that are dysfunctional. However, that doesn’t mean they’re not a valuable resource. It’s a symptom of the need to (re)visit the governance structure and make adjustments. There are also cases where a small board is the best route. It’s highly dependent on the organization’s mandate and goals/guidelines. 

There are instances where bigger is definitely not better – government bureaucracy is a prime example. However, there are times and circumstances when a large, well-managed board is a true asset and these should be celebrated and profiled as a functional model for the future. A large board is like a large family – it just takes some work, and a lot of understanding and communication to keep it functional.

~ By Ted Eastley, MRAC Executive Director