In a recent post, I offered a fairly one-sided argument for term limits for board leaders—especially chairs—as a best practice in nonprofit governance.
That post apparently struck a nerve, generating an unusually large number of comments. While most of the commenters agreed that term limits are desirable and often sorely needed, a few pointed out some of the drawbacks. In the interest of balance, I wanted to acknowledge them.
The most significant downside of term limits, especially if the term is only two years, is lack of continuity. Making important decisions about an organization’s mission and direction requires in-depth knowledge and an understanding of history and context. A nonprofit that changes its volunteer leaders every two years may risk becoming, in the words of one commenter, a “rudderless organization.”
We’re sorry. Something went wrong.
We are unable to fully display the content of this page.
The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from v144.philanthropy.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.
Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.
If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com