Diversity on not-for-profit boards mustn’t be window dressing
Changing how boards work must go along with changing how they look
Last week, Statistics Canada published the results of a crowd-sourced survey on diversity at not-for-profit and charity boards. The results were disheartening: Among participating board members, 14 per cent identified as being immigrants to Canada, 12 per cent identified as belonging to a visible minority group, and three per cent identified as First Nations, Métis or Inuit. Even though these numbers put Canada’s NFP sector ahead of its counterparts in other sectors, there is clearly a long way to go before most governing boards can claim to represent the populations they serve.
Important as this report is, it is just as important to look beyond the numbers: Is diversity truly changing the perspectives and the effectiveness of NFP boards, or are diversity initiatives essentially a numbers game? This month, we co-authored a paper for the David & Sharon Johnston Centre for Corporate Governance Innovation, “Not-for-profit diversity & inclusion: Is it essentially window dressing?”
We reached out to an outstanding group of Canadian NFP leaders, representing a diversity of cultures, experiences and perspectives. Our thoughtful participants included members of the Black, Indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC)
communities. We probed for examples of board diversity that led to meaningful change. We asked if they had witnessed shifts in board culture. And we asked for their advice.
Our survey participants all believed strongly in the value of board diversity, but many were hard-pressed to point to specific examples of changes in how a board conducted business. One survey participant told us, “New board members changed what the board looked like, but not how the board worked … for the most part, new board members adapted to the culture of the board.”
We heard from members of BIPOC communities who had experienced board recruitment interviews where the board in question appeared to be quite focused on increasing their diversity numbers, but had not
given much thought to the different skills and perspectives that individuals from those communities might contribute.
We heard too that a one-sizefits-all approach to onboarding new members is a lost opportunity; usually, it’s insensitive to the differences in culture, skills and life experience of new board members.
Many acknowledged that, while diversity is a priority, it remains a work in progress. Mostly, we heard thoughtful advice on how we could all be doing a better job. We concluded that board diversity is unlikely to be effective, unless there is a parallel commitment to inclusion.
Board inclusion starts with a belief that everyone has something unique to contribute. Sharing diverse perspectives, in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, may not come naturally to a group not used to it. The board chair and the CEO have critically important roles to play in creating the space for this change to occur.
Indeed, we heard that the chair’s role is critical. One rarely encounters chairs in this sector who oppose diversity and inclusion initiatives.
It is more common to hear of chairs who are verbally supportive, but are not sure of how to lead on these issues. With many competing priorities, diversity simply takes a lower profile. But for this work to succeed, we learned that the tone must be set at the top, with vision and determination.
For board candidates and new board members, it is valuable to spend the interview time getting a deep understanding of how one will be expected to contribute.
And as a new board member, it is essential to be proactive in learning about the organization and the role of the board, rather than waiting for a workshop on the subject.
The traditional approaches for onboarding new members need to be reimagined. In addition to the typical onboarding workshops, we heard that the most inclusive onboarding practices look to curate personal goals and engagement approaches for each member.
We heard from one board made up of representatives of Indigenous and settler communities, where onboarding is as much about building social connections as it is about the organization’s strategic plan.
Ultimately, we observed that sound diversity and inclusion practice mirrors good governance. Any leaders who argue that diversity and merit are mutually exclusive are explicitly ignoring a pipeline full of diverse senior-level talent, as well as signalling their disdain for the science that proves diversity improves decisions. As organizations seek to improve their recruitment methods, onboarding customs, leadership approaches and meeting protocols to strengthen diversity and inclusion, their broader governance policies and practices are inevitably strengthened.
At the end of the day, the board diversity numbers remain important.
The recent Statistics Canada study, which highlights that there is much work to do, is a step in the right direction. And to truly make a difference, the strengthening of inclusion — and all aspects of sound governance practice — will lead to stronger, more effective organizations in the NFP sector. Board diversity need not be window-dressing unless we allow it to be. is the manager of