The Nonlinear Library EA - Advice for EA boards by Julia Wise
Nov 10, 2023
11:46
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Advice for EA boards, published by Julia Wise on November 10, 2023 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Context
As part of this project on reforms in EA, we've reviewed some changes that boards of organizations could make. Julia was the primary writer of this piece, with significant input from Ozzie.
This advice on nonprofit boards draws from multiple sources. We spoke with board members from small and larger organizations inside and outside EA. We got input from staff at EA organizations who regularly interact with their boards, such as staff tasked with board relations. Julia and Ozzie also have a history of being on boards at EA organizations.
Overall, there was no consensus on obvious reforms EA organizations should prioritize. But by taking advice from these varied sources, we aim to highlight considerations particularly relevant for EA boards.
We have also shared more organization-specific thoughts with staff and board members at some organizations.
Difficult choices we see
How much to innovate? When should EA boards follow standard best practices, and when should they be willing to try something significantly different?
Which sources do you trust on what "best practices" even are?
Skills vs. alignment. How should organizations weigh board members with strong professional skills, such as finance and law, with those who have more alignment with the organization's specific mission?
How much effort should be put into board recruitment? Most organizations spend less time on recruiting a board member than for hiring a staff position (which probably makes sense given the much larger number of hours a staff member will put in.) But the current default time put into this by EA organizations may be too low.
Some things we think (which many organizations probably already agree with)
Being a board member / trustee is an important role, and board members should be prepared to give it serious time.
"At least 2 hours a month" is one estimate that seems sensible for organizations after a certain stage (perhaps 5 FTE). In times of major transition or crisis for the organization, it may be a lot more.
It's best to have set terms for board membership so that each member is prompted to consider whether board service is still a good fit for them, and other board members are prompted to consider whether the person is still a good fit for the board. This doesn't mean their term definitely ends after a fixed time (they can be re-elected / reappointed), but people shouldn't stay on the board indefinitely by default.
It also makes it easier to ask someone to leave if they're no longer a solid fit or are checked out. Many organizations change or grow dramatically over time, so board members who are great at some stages might stop being best later on.
It's important to have good information sharing between staff and the board.
With senior staff, this could be by fairly frequent meetings or by other updates.
With junior staff who can provide a different view into the organization than senior staff, this could be interviews, office hours held by board members, or by attending staff events.
It's important to have a system for recusing board members who are conflicted. This is both for votes, and for discussions that should be held without staff present. For example, see Holden Karnofsky's suggestion about
closed sessions.
It's helpful to have staff capacity specifically designated for board coordination.
It's helpful to have one primary person own this area
The goal is to get the board information that will make them more effective at providing oversight
Boards should have directors & officer insurance.
Expertise on a board
Many people we talked to felt it was useful to have specific skills or professional experience on a board (e.g. finance expertise, legal expertise). The amount of expertise ...
Context
As part of this project on reforms in EA, we've reviewed some changes that boards of organizations could make. Julia was the primary writer of this piece, with significant input from Ozzie.
This advice on nonprofit boards draws from multiple sources. We spoke with board members from small and larger organizations inside and outside EA. We got input from staff at EA organizations who regularly interact with their boards, such as staff tasked with board relations. Julia and Ozzie also have a history of being on boards at EA organizations.
Overall, there was no consensus on obvious reforms EA organizations should prioritize. But by taking advice from these varied sources, we aim to highlight considerations particularly relevant for EA boards.
We have also shared more organization-specific thoughts with staff and board members at some organizations.
Difficult choices we see
How much to innovate? When should EA boards follow standard best practices, and when should they be willing to try something significantly different?
Which sources do you trust on what "best practices" even are?
Skills vs. alignment. How should organizations weigh board members with strong professional skills, such as finance and law, with those who have more alignment with the organization's specific mission?
How much effort should be put into board recruitment? Most organizations spend less time on recruiting a board member than for hiring a staff position (which probably makes sense given the much larger number of hours a staff member will put in.) But the current default time put into this by EA organizations may be too low.
Some things we think (which many organizations probably already agree with)
Being a board member / trustee is an important role, and board members should be prepared to give it serious time.
"At least 2 hours a month" is one estimate that seems sensible for organizations after a certain stage (perhaps 5 FTE). In times of major transition or crisis for the organization, it may be a lot more.
It's best to have set terms for board membership so that each member is prompted to consider whether board service is still a good fit for them, and other board members are prompted to consider whether the person is still a good fit for the board. This doesn't mean their term definitely ends after a fixed time (they can be re-elected / reappointed), but people shouldn't stay on the board indefinitely by default.
It also makes it easier to ask someone to leave if they're no longer a solid fit or are checked out. Many organizations change or grow dramatically over time, so board members who are great at some stages might stop being best later on.
It's important to have good information sharing between staff and the board.
With senior staff, this could be by fairly frequent meetings or by other updates.
With junior staff who can provide a different view into the organization than senior staff, this could be interviews, office hours held by board members, or by attending staff events.
It's important to have a system for recusing board members who are conflicted. This is both for votes, and for discussions that should be held without staff present. For example, see Holden Karnofsky's suggestion about
closed sessions.
It's helpful to have staff capacity specifically designated for board coordination.
It's helpful to have one primary person own this area
The goal is to get the board information that will make them more effective at providing oversight
Boards should have directors & officer insurance.
Expertise on a board
Many people we talked to felt it was useful to have specific skills or professional experience on a board (e.g. finance expertise, legal expertise). The amount of expertise ...