Do You Have a Board That Doesn’t Give? Shrink Before You Start Adding New People.
If your board doesn’t give, your first instinct is usually the wrong one.
You start thinking: We need new blood. We need more connectors. We need more “fundraisers.” We need to expand the board.
But if the culture you already have is one where giving is optional, adding seats doesn’t fix the problem. It scales the problem.
So here’s the counterintuitive move I recommend, especially for organizations that are past the scrappy startup phase and trying to become serious, sustainable institutions:
Shrink the board before you rebuild it.
A Board Is Not a Dinner Party
A board is not a dinner party. It’s not a list of prestigious names. It’s not a “community of supporters.” It’s the legal governing body of the organization, and it has one job above all others: protect and advance the mission by ensuring the organization stays healthy.
And here’s a hard truth: if the people who are most responsible for the organization aren’t willing to invest in it, sophisticated funders notice. They always notice.
They may not say it out loud, but they are thinking: If your own board won’t back you, why should I?
That’s why board giving isn’t mainly about dollars. It’s about ownership.
In my Medium piece “Dear Nonprofit Boards: Giving Isn’t Optional, and Diversity Isn’t an Excuse,” I made the case that a maturing organization needs a board that sees itself as a strategic partner to staff (through the CEO) and an active partner in fundraising. The key phrase there is “active partner.” Not “warm body.” Not “casual advisor.” Not “cheerleader who loves the mission.”
An active partner behaves like an owner.
Why “Add More People” Usually Backfires
When a board has a giving problem, it’s rarely because the organization can’t find generous people. It’s because the board has allowed a norm to set in where:
Expectations are vague (“give what you can”)
Discomfort is mistaken for inclusivity
Accountability gets framed as impolite
Vague language is a culture killer. “Give what you can” is too open to interpretation, and it produces wildly uneven engagement. One person stretches to give $250. Another gives $25,000. Everyone claims they’re meeting the standard. No one is aligned.
Then leadership starts recruiting more trustees to compensate. More seats. More committees. More meetings. More “board development.”
And the result is predictable: you end up with a larger board that is harder to manage, slower to act, and still not giving.
Worse, you create a governance body where the givers quietly carry the organization, and the non-givers quietly decide they’re off the hook.
That’s why shrinking works. It forces clarity.
Shrinking Isn’t Punishment. It’s a Reset.
Let’s say you have a 24-person board. Eight trustees make meaningful gifts and help fundraise. The other 16 are friendly, well-intentioned, and mostly passive.
You don’t have a 24-person governing board.
You have an 8-person board with 16 passengers.
So shrink. Move the passengers into roles that honor them but stop pretending they’re governing.
Those off-ramps (and potential on-ramps) might look like:
An advisory council
An ambassadors network
A committee pipeline
A volunteer leadership corps
There are many ways to keep people close without handing them fiduciary responsibility.
The point is not to exile anyone. The point is to restore the definition of “board member” to what it actually means.
The Standard: Participation Is Table Stakes. Ownership Is the Goal.
A lot of organizations celebrate “100% board giving” like it’s the finish line.
It’s not. It’s the starting line.
If your board gives $25 each, you can claim 100% participation and still be signaling to funders that the board is not financially invested in the organization’s success.
That’s why I push boards toward language like “a personally significant gift” or “make this one of your top three philanthropic priorities.” It respects different capacity while still demanding real commitment.
But if you want to create an adult culture quickly, numbers help.
In that same Medium piece, I offered a benchmark: the board should collectively contribute around 10% of the annual operating budget. I borrowed the logic from the corporate world, where a 10% shareholder is considered to have real influence and must disclose ownership publicly. At 10%, you’re not just along for the ride. You have power. That’s what nonprofit boards should feel like: not advisers, but owners.
For a $1.5M organization, that’s $150K. For a $10M organization, that’s $1M. That may sound high until you structure it correctly.
The Framework That Protects Both Accountability and Diversity
The board giving conversation often gets hijacked by a false tradeoff: either you have giving expectations, or you have diversity.
That’s nonsense. It’s also patronizing.
In the article, I proposed a structure I like because it balances power and inclusion:
One-third of the board (senior leaders, committee chairs, higher-capacity trustees) covers two-thirds of the board giving goal.
Two-thirds of the board (emerging leaders, younger professionals, those earlier in their giving journey) covers one-third of the goal.
This does two important things at once.
First, it makes the wealthiest members a minority, which reduces the risk that one person’s checkbook drives the agenda.
Second, it still creates a strong giving culture where everyone has skin in the game.
This structure respects different means without eliminating the expectation of ownership.
Because board service demands time, attention, judgment, courage, and accountability. And as I wrote, if someone cannot make a meaningful financial commitment, they may also lack the time or capacity to serve effectively. That’s not a moral statement. It’s simply an operational reality.
How to Implement This Without Creating a War
1. Put it in writing.
Not a whispered expectation. Not a “wink-wink” tradition. Put it in the board member agreement.
Example language:
“Each trustee will make an annual personally significant gift.”
“Each trustee will prioritize this organization among their top philanthropic commitments.”
“Each trustee will participate in fundraising in a way that fits their strengths: giving, getting, or opening doors.”
2. Give people a dignified off-ramp.
Most boards avoid this because they’re afraid it will feel awkward. In reality, avoiding it is what creates the awkwardness.
Script: “Board service has evolved as the organization has grown. We’re resetting expectations around giving and fundraising. If this isn’t the right season for you to meet those expectations, we’d love to keep you close through an advisory or ambassador role.”
That’s it. Respectful. Adult. Clear.
3. Shrink to the committed core. Then recruit into the culture.
Once the standard is real, recruiting becomes easier, not harder. Serious candidates are attracted to serious boards.
You stop pitching board service like an honor and start pitching it like leadership.
4. Measure what matters.
Make a scorecard and share the scorecard with your board at each meeting. Everyone wants to be part of a winning team:
Board participation rate
Dollars committed
Number of donor conversations initiated
Number of warm introductions made
Number of stewardship touches completed
When board members see the work, they start behaving like owners.
The Point of Shrinking Is Momentum
A smaller board that gives and acts is more powerful than a larger board that debates and delays.
If your board doesn’t give, your problem isn’t fundraising. It’s governance.
Shrink, reset expectations, rebuild intentionally, and you’ll be shocked how quickly the organization’s credibility rises with staff, funders, and the community.