Tag Archives: Boards

Why Board Diversity Matters for Museums (and When It Doesn’t)

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.
Continue reading →

HBR: Where Boards Fall Short

HBR 2014 JanBoards aren’t working. A mere 34 percent of the 772 board members of historic sites surveyed by Engaging Places in 2013 agreed that the boards on which they serve fully comprehended their museum’s strategies. Only 22 percent said their boards were completely aware of how their museums fulfilled their mission and just 16 percent claimed that the board had a strong understanding of the dynamics of the museum field. When it comes to strategy and planning, organizations emphasize the short-term at the expense of the long-term.

You’re probably not surprised by these results–but you may be surprised that this actually describes major corporations based on studies conducted by McKinsey and Company, a national consulting firm. Governance is not just a challenge for nonprofits but the business world as well.

So how can the situation improve? In “Where Boards Fall Short” in the January-February 2015 issue of the Harvard Business Review, Dominic Martin and Mark Wiseman claim that a fundamental issue is that boards don’t understand their “fiduciary duty,” which consists of two core components:

  • loyalty (placing the company’s interest ahead of one’s own)
  • prudence (applying proper care, skill, and diligence to business decisions).

“Loyalty and prudence” encourages boards to focus on the long-term to help the organization thrive for years into the future. Keeping in mind the big distant goal (otherwise called a vision) clarifies choices and directs board actions. From my observations of nonprofit boards, there’s often confusion about fiduciary responsibilities and rarely a vision (but usually a mission–but so vaguely worded to be nearly useless for making decisions). To help clarify fiduciary duty, it’s a good idea to explain it during recruitment and orientation (don’t assume they’ll support it) and consider an annual commitment agreement and planning retreat for both board and executive staff.

In addition to addressing fiduciary duty, Martin and Wiseman suggest four ways to improve board performance.  Here are their key ideas from their article along with my translation for the non-profit environment):

1. Select the right people. “Having a diversity of perspectives and proven experience building relevant businesses as well as the functional knowledge is critical. But if our surveys are any indication, too many directors are Continue reading →