Help! A husband and wife are teaming up to take over our small board.

Here's the story: 

"As Chair of a new charity board in a small community, I’m facing a dilemma. We have four directors currently, and plan to grow to six or eight. Now, the wife of one of our directors wants to join the board alongside her husband. We previously agreed he’d step down if she applied, but now he refuses. Both are pushing to serve together, while the other directors are drafting a policy to prevent multiple family members on the board. This is going to cause tension and possibly divide our community! Any advice is appreciated!"

And here's my take:

I really can’t think of any benefits to having a married couple on your board - but I can think of a few reasons why you would want to avoid it: 

• it may compromise the independence that individual directors require to fulfill their role effectively, 
• it might reduce the diversity of experience and opinion on your board, 
• and it could come with material and reputational risks (funders may frown on the practice, it could lead to perceived conflict of interests, and people may assume that the organization is an agent of that particular family).

Obviously, having a robust policy and procedure around board recruitment and nominations is important to avoid these kinds of patronage appointments. And a policy that requires all directors to be arms length from one another is a good practice. But none of this infrastructure has been built in this new organization (or in many well established nonprofits either!), so we have to navigate this issue using other avenues. 

Don't let influential people hold your board hostage!

There is a fear that if you upset this couple, it may cause some kind of community division and, presumably, harm your organization's reputation. What are the actual risks here? Use a risk analysis lens to articulate what could actually happen if this couple is displeased with the outcome of this situation. How could you manage those risks? 

In my experience, the blowback from an unhappy individual (or even an influential couple!) is not as severe as we tend to think it could be. And the risk of giving in to them may very well outweigh the potential for some (likely short lived) ripples in the community: your organization will be held hostage by these people for as long as they decide to stay involved. 

Bust out your best conflict management skills.

I’m assuming that you have already had a direct conversation with the married couple about why they should let go of their plan to serve on the board together. But if not, don’t underestimate the value of some good conflict management skills here. 

If there’s room for a compromise, you may want to offer the wife an alternative leadership role outside of the board (or create one for her). This could help reinforce the message that the issue is a policy concern, and isn’t about these individuals themselves. 

Err on the side of transparency.

A clear, direct conversation may provide the chance for this couple to do the right thing, and help you avoid dealing with a bigger problem. 

But this is one conversation only, and then it’s an issue that requires open discussion at the board table; because you don’t want to fall into the trap of navigating important governance issues through 'whispers' and 'back channels'. 

Make sure this is an item for discussion on the next board agenda. Whether you’re passing the policy that is in the works, or you are just voting on the matter specifically, it’s important that the issue is dealt with in a fair, transparent manner. 

This requires solid leadership from the chair, and a willingness to engage in the discomfort of conflict and disagreement. Secrecy and exclusion are not the way to go here - every board director has a right to be informed of, and participate in, all board meetings. 

If all else fails . . .

If the interpersonal aspects of this dynamic are too challenging for people to navigate comfortably, it might be time to bring in a neutral third party for some mediation, if everyone involved is willing to engage in that process. 

And I don’t know what your governance structure looks like, but if all else fails, your board may have the opportunity to vote down the wife’s nomination, or even remove the husband from the board (or at the very least board directors can voice their opinion at your next membership meeting). But no-one really wants to get to that point, and in truth, I think this is something that can be resolved at the board table.

Big takeaways:

• Don’t let influential individuals hold your organization hostage.
• Good policy infrastructure is important for board recruitment and nominations.
• Conflict management skills and transparency are vital tools for dealing with board drama.