Thanks to Natalie Walrond for this thoughtful and well-constructed article and to Stanford Social Innovation Review for publishing.
I’ll admit to first being skeptical about the applicability of the terms colonization & decolonization in the context of nonprofit board culture, simply because, serving on numerous boards, there are many power dynamics and hierarchies on boards that don’t stem from a colonization or decolonization construct. Hats off to Edgar Villanueva and his excellent book, "Decolonizing Wealth", as it thrust this phrase into the philanthropic lexicon, and it has been a dominant and reoccurring theme in philanthropic discussions—for good reason.
After a few read-throughs, I’ll concur that looking at board culture through the lens of colonization is a useful frame that could increase effectiveness and create the space for intentional conversations about board culture—where it is currently and how it should evolve as the organization evolves. Thinking about how culture permeates all interactions, both internal and externally, how board decisions and decision making is perceived by others can facilitate more intentional, responsive, and open interactions among the board and stakeholders.
Thank you so much to Natalie A. Walrond and SSIR for this article. I welcome the suggestions and appreciate the case studies—especially 5 and 8.
One concern came up for me though, in response to this statement, from early in the article.
Waldron wrote:
"Ultimately, the board works with leadership to navigate the landscape of their field by identifying growth opportunities, improving programming, mitigating risk, and achieving sustainability."
As I read that sentence, I had a sinking feeling of "Oh, no…" that I share here in case others felt it too. Please note that this "oh no!" feeling arose not because I think there was any issue with what Waldron was suggesting (the ideal version of this actually sounds lovely to me), but rather because I felt the looming potential for that sentence to be misheard as an invitation for board members to engage in the kind of meddling that can cause tremendous headaches for staff (and disrupt an organizations ability to follow through on its commitments).
As an ED, a board member, and a student of the nonprofit sector, I am increasingly cautious about scenarios that invite board members to take on responsibilities for innovations. I know, INNOVATION is often wonderful and this is the SSInnovationR, after all, but innovative ideas arriving at the wrong time or from Board members who do not understand the organization as well as staff can significantly gum up the gears—especially for small organizations working hard to stick to their commitments on a tight margin.
Since I loved so many things about this article, I ended up adding some notes to this sentence so it could better align with my own understanding of the whole article. This version is absolutely more clunky but I share it here in hopes that it can support ongoing work to dismantle harmful patterns in the nonprofit sector. Feedback and edits welcome! And thank you again to Natalie A. Walrond for this article and the opportunity to think about –and recommit myself to action in response to—the need for decolonizing nonprofit boards.
"Ultimately, the board of a nonprofit can SUPPORT its leadership as the leadership—in keeping with the organization’s commitments* and in healthy collaboration with other staff and partners—navigates the landscape of the field by identifying growth opportunities, improving programming, mitigating risk, and achieving sustainability."
* Using "Commitments" here as a hopefully less condescending/paternalistic alternative to "Mission" in acknowledgement of the deeply colonial roots of "Mission." (Very interested in links to any articles about the term “Mission” that others may know of.)
COMMENTS
BY eloise burke
ON June 2, 2021 11:51 PM
excellent article. lots of food for thought. many thanks.
BY SETH SCHALET
ON June 3, 2021 10:06 PM
Thanks to Natalie Walrond for this thoughtful and well-constructed article and to Stanford Social Innovation Review for publishing.
I’ll admit to first being skeptical about the applicability of the terms colonization & decolonization in the context of nonprofit board culture, simply because, serving on numerous boards, there are many power dynamics and hierarchies on boards that don’t stem from a colonization or decolonization construct. Hats off to Edgar Villanueva and his excellent book, "Decolonizing Wealth", as it thrust this phrase into the philanthropic lexicon, and it has been a dominant and reoccurring theme in philanthropic discussions—for good reason.
After a few read-throughs, I’ll concur that looking at board culture through the lens of colonization is a useful frame that could increase effectiveness and create the space for intentional conversations about board culture—where it is currently and how it should evolve as the organization evolves. Thinking about how culture permeates all interactions, both internal and externally, how board decisions and decision making is perceived by others can facilitate more intentional, responsive, and open interactions among the board and stakeholders.
BY Regan Brooks
ON February 17, 2022 12:52 PM
Thank you so much to Natalie A. Walrond and SSIR for this article. I welcome the suggestions and appreciate the case studies—especially 5 and 8.
One concern came up for me though, in response to this statement, from early in the article.
Waldron wrote:
"Ultimately, the board works with leadership to navigate the landscape of their field by identifying growth opportunities, improving programming, mitigating risk, and achieving sustainability."
As I read that sentence, I had a sinking feeling of "Oh, no…" that I share here in case others felt it too. Please note that this "oh no!" feeling arose not because I think there was any issue with what Waldron was suggesting (the ideal version of this actually sounds lovely to me), but rather because I felt the looming potential for that sentence to be misheard as an invitation for board members to engage in the kind of meddling that can cause tremendous headaches for staff (and disrupt an organizations ability to follow through on its commitments).
As an ED, a board member, and a student of the nonprofit sector, I am increasingly cautious about scenarios that invite board members to take on responsibilities for innovations. I know, INNOVATION is often wonderful and this is the SSInnovationR, after all, but innovative ideas arriving at the wrong time or from Board members who do not understand the organization as well as staff can significantly gum up the gears—especially for small organizations working hard to stick to their commitments on a tight margin.
Since I loved so many things about this article, I ended up adding some notes to this sentence so it could better align with my own understanding of the whole article. This version is absolutely more clunky but I share it here in hopes that it can support ongoing work to dismantle harmful patterns in the nonprofit sector. Feedback and edits welcome! And thank you again to Natalie A. Walrond for this article and the opportunity to think about –and recommit myself to action in response to—the need for decolonizing nonprofit boards.
"Ultimately, the board of a nonprofit can SUPPORT its leadership as the leadership—in keeping with the organization’s commitments* and in healthy collaboration with other staff and partners—navigates the landscape of the field by identifying growth opportunities, improving programming, mitigating risk, and achieving sustainability."
* Using "Commitments" here as a hopefully less condescending/paternalistic alternative to "Mission" in acknowledgement of the deeply colonial roots of "Mission." (Very interested in links to any articles about the term “Mission” that others may know of.)
Also: As I read this I kept thinking about Vu Le’s wonderful blog post from July 2020. Thank you to Vu Le for that gem! If you are interested in this subject and haven’t read this yet… https://nonprofitaf.com/2020/07/the-default-nonprofit-board-model-is-archaic-and-toxic-lets-try-some-new-models/