Structure Is Inevitable. Culture Is a Choice.
Why category-based divisions weaken boards, and how to overcome them.
In an ideal world, every board would consist of directors elected by a single constituency with a common understanding of their roles and shared commitment to the organization. In practice, however, many non-profit boards include directors who are nominated or appointed by external bodies or member categories. These might include major funders, government departments, regional chapters, or sector groups.
This diversity of appointment sources can be necessary and even beneficial, bringing a range of perspectives and deepening stakeholder engagement. But it also introduces risks: competing loyalties, uneven participation, and fractured board dynamics. The question is, how do you maintain a cohesive, high-functioning board culture when your directors fall into multiple categories?
Here’s how.
The Hidden Friction in Multi-Category Boards
Boards with directors from different appointment categories often face a unique set of challenges:
Divided loyalty: Directors may feel beholden to the group that nominated or appointed them, rather than to the organization they now govern.
Uneven engagement: Appointees from government bodies or funders may be less engaged, viewing the role as symbolic or peripheral.
Conflicting interests: Some nominating bodies may represent stakeholder groups with competing priorities.
Left unmanaged, these dynamics can degrade trust, inhibit decision-making, and reduce the board to a group of delegates rather than a unified leadership body.
One Standard: Fiduciary Responsibility
The cornerstone of good governance is this: all directors, no matter how they arrive at the table, owe their primary duty to the organization and all its members.
This should be stated clearly in on-boarding materials, reinforced through regular governance education, and modeled by the board chair. Directors are not there to act in the interests of a subgroup; they are fiduciaries who must act in the best interest of the entire organization. That concept must be made explicit, not assumed.
Confidentiality Is Everyone’s Job
One of the murkier areas for directors from nominating bodies is what they can and cannot share with their nominator. Directors who report back to a member group or funder may find themselves pressured to disclose sensitive board discussions.
To protect the board’s integrity:
Set clear expectations about confidentiality from day one.
Define what directors can reasonably share (e.g., public decisions) versus what must remain within the board.
Create a confidential process for directors to raise concerns if they feel external pressure or are unsure how to handle a request for information.
Consistency is key: confidentiality must apply equally to all directors, regardless of how they got there.
Equip the Board: Education, Policy, and Support
No one arrives on a board knowing everything. Directors need practical training and support to understand:
What real and perceived conflicts of interest look like.
How to navigate dual roles or complex stakeholder dynamics.
What governance best practices demand of them.
This is especially true for directors nominated for their experience or community knowledge rather than formal boardroom experience. Policy and process should support directors with on-boarding, mentorship, and clear documentation that builds confidence and clarity.
Engaging Appointing and Nominating Bodies, As Partners
One powerful but often overlooked strategy is to build a relationship with the nominating bodies themselves.
Remember: every group that nominates or appoints a director has an interest in the organization’s success. That shared stake can be the basis for positive engagement.
Boards and executive teams should:
Communicate with nominating bodies about the board’s needs and desired skills and experience in nominees or appointees, ideally using a transparent board composition plan. Ask for their feedback to support an effective process year after year.
Explain the legal and ethical responsibilities of directors, including that their fiduciary duty is to the organization, not to the body that appointed them.
Clarify confidentiality expectations and what appointees can reasonably report back.
Offer orientation materials or sessions for nominators, so they understand their ongoing role in governance effectiveness.
By aligning with these bodies, you create a network of support rather than a set of competing interests.
Culture Counts: Building Unity at the Board Table
A cohesive board culture doesn’t happen by accident, especially on a board with multiple director categories. It must be built intentionally. Key ingredients include:
Equal participation: All directors should have the same obligations regarding attendance, participation and engagement, and have the same voting rights, access to information, and ability to engage in board processes.
Respect across roles: Boards must not allow informal hierarchies to develop, especially those that devalue contributions from directors nominated by particular communities or groups.
A skilled, proactive chair: The board chair plays a crucial role in fostering inclusion, facilitating open dialogue, and resolving tension constructively.
Shared experiences: Board committee assignments, and occasional team-building sessions, board retreats, or strategy workshops can help directors connect beyond their categories.
Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires a shared commitment to mission and mutual respect.
Practical Safeguards for a Sustainable Culture
To ensure this culture lasts:
Use consistent and thoughtful on-boarding for all directors.
Implement regular board effectiveness evaluations that include questions on culture, participation, and clarity of roles.
These types of boards often need more time for deliberations due to the multiple perspectives, but board practices that support listening and broad contribution will help them make thorough, well-considered decisions.
Create a mentorship or buddy system for new directors, where the mentor comes from a different category as the new director.
Make sure there is adequate time devoted to good governance practices, not just operations, on the board agenda. Good governance and cohesive board culture serve all directors equally and underscore their fundamental responsibilities.
Conclusion: Structure Doesn’t Have to Define Culture
It is understandable, and sometimes necessary, for boards to include directors from various sources. That structure alone doesn’t determine a board’s effectiveness. What matters more is how the board chooses to operate: whether it enforces a shared standard, supports its members equitably, and invests in a culture of collaboration.
When done right, a multi-category board can reflect the richness of its stakeholder base without splintering into sub-interest groups. The board may come from different directions, but it must move as one.
The Non-Profit Board website is now easier to navigate with a Premium Content Library page. All premium articles are linked to a single page and divided into categories and series.