THE average size of association boards here in the Philippines is 15, which is in the middle of the size range—10 or less (small) and 35 (large)—of boards elsewhere.
American journalist Joe Rominiecki, in an article in 2013 in Associations Now magazine, wrote about the debate on the “right size” for an association board. He cited the following factors:
For small boards
Science.
It is not within human nature to make effective and efficient decisions in groups larger than six or seven people.
Sociological research supports this claim, and the typical structure of large boards is the purest evidence of their ineffectiveness. The majority of large association boards form a smaller executive committee that carries the load in making decisions. This is the “real” board. Everyone else simply rubber-stamps its decisions, remaining disengaged from leadership duties and unaccountable for fulfilling their responsibility to plan for the future. Psychologists call this behavior “social loafing,” which is hardly what association members expect from their leaders.
Speed.
The current business environment for associations demands agility. Boards that move slowly will not be able to navigate change in the 21st century.
Leadership development.
A small board ensures that leadership talent can be found and properly developed within your pool of volunteers.
Administrative capacity.
The work that association staff puts into preparing for board meetings is highly demanding. A small board requires less care (and “feeding”) and gives the executive more time for execution.
For big boards
No shortcuts.
Focusing on board size is an attempt to take the easy way out. Effective leadership depends on “who,” not “how many.”
There are three things that matter most to a proficient governance system: its authority (decision-making power); its process (how it goes about making decisions); and, its capacity (composition, time allotted for meeting and access to information).
These factors are equally important for boards both small and large, and they are the elements that must form the basis of any governance overhaul.
Participatory democracy is a core tenet of association governance, which requires that the many and diverse voices of an association’s membership be heard and valued. Diversity in board composition is vital.
As a board gets smaller, it becomes increasingly difficult to represent the full diversity of perspectives, ideas, backgrounds and member types necessary to ensure sound decision-making.
Concentration of power.
Without enough people to drive robust discussions, a small group turns to micromanagement. With power concentrated in just a few, members of a small board will run the association the same way they run their businesses and view staff as direct reports rather than partners.
An oligarchy is no way to lead an association. A larger board, however, spreads power more widely and evenly, and reduces the potential influence of a rogue member with an agenda.
Every association has its own needs, so there is likely a “no one-size-fits-all” answer. But any discussion about governance structure should weigh the pros and cons of various board sizes.
The contributor, Octavio “Bobby” Peralta, is concurrently the secretary-general of the Association of Development Financing Institutions in Asia and the Pacific, founder and CEO of the Philippine Council of Associations and Association Executives, and president of the Asia-Pacific Federation of Association Organizations. The purpose of PCAAE—the “association of associations”—is to advance the association management profession, and to make associations well-governed and sustainable. PCAAE enjoys the support of Adfiap, the Tourism Promotions Board and the Philippine International Convention Center. E-mail: obp@adfiap.org