The Drawbacks of Board Term Limits

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.”

This point is well taken and is why I’d argue that two years is on the low end of desirable term limits for board officers.

This is particularly important for board chairs. In cases in which the chair’s term is one or two years, however, many organizations address the importance of continuity by creating a formal “chair-elect” or “immediate past chair” role that allows chairs who serve for a short period of time to prepare for their leadership role and to continue to have a voice after their term has ended.

The other problem with term limits is that they can be used as a crutch or an excuse not to address performance issues. Why have a difficult conversation about a board leader’s poor performance when he or she will be rotating out of the role in a year or two anyway? This is also a good point. By arguing for term limits, I was not suggesting them as a substitute for good board development practices, which include intervening in situations in which board members are not doing their jobs.

That said, it’s better to walk well with a crutch than to fall down and skin your knees because you don’t have one. The case of the nonperforming board chair, for example, is especially difficult. Who in the organization has the standing to manage an intervention with the board chair? Even if someone tries to do it, the potential for cuts and bruises is high.

Yes, term limits have some drawbacks. In an ideal world, in which every board had a strong governance committee, a regular board and board member performance-assessment process, and a candid and trusting relationship between the executive and the board, term limits might not be necessary. But since we don’t live in that world, term limits still look pretty good to me.