For nonprofit boards, the coming years look to be full of difficult questions. How do you maintain donor confidence when the economy feels shaky? Is it time to embrace artificial intelligence, and if so, how do you handle the fraud risks that come with it?
Amidst these high-level strategic concerns, one foundational question continues to challenge organizations: How big should your board be?
It sounds like a simple logistical detail, but the size of your governing body impacts everything from decision-making speed to fundraising reach. Understanding the trade-offs between small and large boards can help you design a sustainable structure equipped to handle whatever comes your way.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to governance. Both ends of the size spectrum come with distinct perks and significant drawbacks.
The Case for Smaller Boards
Smaller boards often facilitate easier communication and greater cohesiveness among members. Scheduling is less complicated, and meetings tend to be shorter and more focused. In fact, several studies have shown that collective decision-making is most effective when a group comprises five to eight people.
However, running lean has its risks. Boards on the smaller end of this range may lack the diverse experience needed for robust debate. Furthermore, with fewer hands on deck, individual members may feel overworked, leading to faster burnout.
The Case for Larger Boards
On the other hand, larger boards can spread the workload more evenly. This reduces the risk of burnout and increases sustainability. Perhaps most importantly, a larger board expands an organization’s reach and fundraising network. You gain access to a broader base of professional expertise—financial, legal, community outreach, and more.
But size introduces complexity. Large boards often struggle with engagement if members feel disconnected from the decision-making process or unclear about their specific roles. They also require significantly more administrative support to manage onboarding, communications, and logistics.
While state law generally sets a minimum number of directors for nonprofit organizations, the ceiling is up to you. Board size is essentially a governance choice that should be driven by strategy, not tradition.
When forming or resizing a board, consider these four factors:
If your board is too small relative to these factors, you risk burnout and oversight gaps. If it's too large, you risk disengagement and administrative bloat.
A Note on Tie-Breaking
There is a common belief that boards should always have an uneven number of members to avoid 50/50 votes. While there is a touch of wisdom in that, don't let it dictate your strategy. Your board chair can break a tie when appropriate. Moreover, a split vote often signals that an issue deserves deeper exploration rather than a rushed decision.
From a practical standpoint, growing a board is usually easier than shrinking one. Asking directors to step down can be uncomfortable, and reducing board size may require formal amendments to your bylaws.
Many nonprofits benefit from defining a range for board size—rather than a fixed number—in their governing documents. This approach sets clear expectations while allowing for flexibility as the organization evolves.
Ultimately, the "right" board size is simply the one that supports thoughtful decision-making, meaningful engagement, and long-term mission success.
At SD Mayer & Associates, we understand that nonprofit governance is about more than just compliance; it's about building a foundation for impact. If you need help assessing your organizational structure or navigating these governance decisions, we’re here to be your partner in success. Contact us today.