Museums are facing a period of transformation—shifting visitor expectations, financial uncertainty, and growing pressure to be more inclusive and socially responsible. But who is making the decisions that shape how museums navigate these challenges?

A museum’s board of directors plays a crucial role in setting strategy, securing funding, and guiding institutional priorities. While board diversity has become a major talking point, research suggests that simply adding diverse voices isn’t enough. The type of diversity, how it’s measured, and how boards function together all influence effectiveness.

Three recent studies offer key insights into how board diversity affects decision-making, resilience, and institutional success. Together, they provide a roadmap for museums looking to build stronger boards.

Insight #1: Measuring Board Diversity Matters but Not All Diversity Is the Same

Behlau and colleagues provide a systematic review of how board diversity is measured and highlight a key problem: diversity is often discussed in broad terms without precise definitions. They categorize board diversity into three dimensions:

1. Structural diversity, which includes factors like board size, term limits, and leadership roles.
2. Demographic diversity, which includes observable characteristics like gender, age, and ethnicity.
3. Cognitive diversity, which includes unobservable attributes like expertise, education, values, and skills.

Their analysis of 61 scholarly articles warns that many organizations report diversity statistics in ways that look good on paper but lack real impact—a tactic otherwise known as “window-dressing.” Without a clear framework for measuring diversity, museums may believe they are making progress while failing to ensure that diversity leads to meaningful change.

Takeaway for museums: Instead of focusing solely on demographic diversity, museums should assess their board’s expertise and structural composition. Does the board include members with deep knowledge of finance, law, museum operations, and philanthropy? A truly diverse board isn’t just representative—it has the right mix of skills to support the institution’s mission.

Insight #2: Diversity Can Improve Social Responsibility but Only if It’s Strategic

Cormier and colleagues explore how board diversity influences corporate social responsibility—a concept that resonates with museums as they seek to balance ethical stewardship, public trust, and financial sustainability. Based on a review of 239 Canadian firms, their findings reveal an important distinction.

Social responsibility efforts, such as community engagement and inclusion, benefit from both demographic and cognitive diversity. Environmental responsibility, such as sustainability initiatives, is more strongly influenced by cognitive diversity.

A surprising finding is that board diversity often reflects a museum’s existing priorities rather than driving change. Museums that already prioritize social responsibility and inclusion tend to attract diverse boards, rather than diversity itself shaping institutional behavior.

Takeaway for museums: Do not assume that board diversity automatically leads to inclusive decision-making. Instead, ensure that the board has the expertise and commitment to advance key initiatives. If a museum is prioritizing sustainability, recruiting members with relevant environmental knowledge will strengthen these efforts. If community engagement is a focus, board members with strong ties to local organizations should be included.

Insight #3: Diversity Helps in a Crisis but Only if the Board Is Well-Prepared

Zhang and colleagues examine how board composition influenced crisis resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on a mixed-respondent survey of 307 CEOs and board members at for-profit companies with 100 or more employees. Their findings highlight a key tension: cognitive diversity, or varied expertise and perspectives, can lead to innovation but also slow down decision-making if not well-managed. Board expertise is more important than diversity alone when responding to crises. Boards that had a mix of finance, operations, and risk management expertise were more effective at crisis planning.

Boards that were actively involved in crisis planning and creative problem-solving before a crisis emerged were more successful in guiding their institutions through uncertainty. However, boards with too much diversity and no clear leadership struggled with slow decision-making, leading to missed opportunities.

Takeaway for museums: Diversity is not enough—museums need to ensure their boards are actively engaged in crisis planning. Scenario-planning sessions where board members discuss potential disruptions and strategize responses should be a regular practice. Diversity should be complemented by expertise in governance, risk management, and strategic decision-making.

How These Insights Complement Each Other

These three studies collectively offer a roadmap for building stronger, more effective museum boards:

• Measuring diversity correctly requires using a broad framework that includes structural, demographic, and cognitive diversity (Behlau et al.).
• Aligning board diversity with institutional goals ensures that diversity complements museum priorities rather than being treated as an abstract goal (Cormier et al.).
• Ensuring boards are prepared for crises means that cognitive diversity must be paired with strategic planning and expertise to be effective in high-pressure situations (Zhang et al.).

For museum professionals, building an effective board requires moving beyond surface-level diversity to intentional, strategic composition that strengthens decision-making and long-term resilience. While the studies we examined focus on for-profit businesses, they overlook a key distinction in nonprofit governance: a deep commitment to the museum’s mission, vision, and values. Too often, museums and museum associations select board members based primarily on demographics and professional expertise, without considering their actual support for the institution. A board stacked with accomplished individuals means little if they lack a genuine interest in the museum’s work or active engagement as members and advocates. Ensuring that board members are not only diverse and skilled but also invested in the museum’s success is essential for long-term sustainability.

Next Steps: How Committed, Diverse, and Prepared is Your Museum’s Board?

Take a moment to reflect on your institution’s leadership:

• Does board diversity extend beyond demographics to include expertise, governance experience, and—most importantly—a genuine commitment to the museum’s mission?
• Are board members active supporters of the institution, not just in name, but through engagement, advocacy, and participation?
• Does the board’s composition align with the museum’s strategic priorities and long-term sustainability goals?
• Has the board engaged in scenario planning for crises, ensuring it can make quick, informed decisions that protect the museum’s future?

A strong board is more than a collection of impressive résumés—it is a dedicated group of individuals who believe in and actively support the museum’s mission. How well does your board measure up?

Citations

Behlau, Hendrik, Janice Wobst, and Rainer Lueg. “Measuring Board Diversity: A Systematic Literature Review of Data Sources, Constructs, Pitfalls, and Suggestions for Future Research.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 31, no. 2 (2024): 977–992. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2620.

Cormier, Denis, Luania Gutierrez, and Michel Magnan. “The Link Between CSR Performance and CSR Disclosure Quality: Does Board Diversity Matter?” Journal of Management and Governance 28, no. 1 (2024): 237–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09661-6.

Zhang, Pingying, Dongyuan Wang, Nada Kakabadse, and Tobias Huning. “Building Resilience in a Crisis Through Boards – Exploring the Mediating Effect of Board Behavior.” Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 33, no. 1 (2025): e70027. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.70027.