I think it depends a lot on the org and their needs. In an EA context, I think it makes sense for junior boards to possibly take on a larger share of the board work, while taking a smaller share of the decision making. Then eventually they can move into more senior board positions when they have more experience.
My experience is with university young alumni boards, which do a few things differently than the main board:
The junior board is pretty large, and a big purpose is to bring in the successful early career alumni to cultivate them as future board members/donors.
Junior boards do a lot of committee/active work with students/departments. In part this is good because they are more relatable than big time CEOs in their 50s, and in part it keeps them engaged for point 1 above.
They have pretty much no decision making authority, other than their own internal board rules/membership. Though my experience is with college-level boards, where even the main board has no real power/authority.
My skepticism about “junior boards” in general is that they can often be implemented in a way that feels like donor recruitment/reward, or fundraising empowerment, outfits. I like the idea, but the trickiness is in an implementation that serves the desired purposes.
Where allowed under applicable law, I like the idea of farming out a decent slice of Board work to subcommittees consisting of a majority of Board members and a minority of others (which could be “junior board” types). That the subcommittee can exercise most of the Board’s powers (to the extent delegated) lets you expose junior-board people to realistic board-level work without duplication of work (which happens when their role is advisory only and has to be redone by the Board).
That’s fair. I’ll revise a bit—I think in the current EA landscape, boards should at least consider bringing on some board members that are more junior. Or we should find ways to allow junior professionals the chance to gain the experience necessary to be effective board members.
I think it depends a lot on the org and their needs. In an EA context, I think it makes sense for junior boards to possibly take on a larger share of the board work, while taking a smaller share of the decision making. Then eventually they can move into more senior board positions when they have more experience.
My experience is with university young alumni boards, which do a few things differently than the main board:
The junior board is pretty large, and a big purpose is to bring in the successful early career alumni to cultivate them as future board members/donors.
Junior boards do a lot of committee/active work with students/departments. In part this is good because they are more relatable than big time CEOs in their 50s, and in part it keeps them engaged for point 1 above.
They have pretty much no decision making authority, other than their own internal board rules/membership. Though my experience is with college-level boards, where even the main board has no real power/authority.
My skepticism about “junior boards” in general is that they can often be implemented in a way that feels like donor recruitment/reward, or fundraising empowerment, outfits. I like the idea, but the trickiness is in an implementation that serves the desired purposes.
Where allowed under applicable law, I like the idea of farming out a decent slice of Board work to subcommittees consisting of a majority of Board members and a minority of others (which could be “junior board” types). That the subcommittee can exercise most of the Board’s powers (to the extent delegated) lets you expose junior-board people to realistic board-level work without duplication of work (which happens when their role is advisory only and has to be redone by the Board).
That’s fair. I’ll revise a bit—I think in the current EA landscape, boards should at least consider bringing on some board members that are more junior. Or we should find ways to allow junior professionals the chance to gain the experience necessary to be effective board members.