University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

(USC Thesis Other)

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Nonprofit Study Evaluating Board Chair Onboarding Practices for
Effective Governance

Katharine Lauren Shilvock

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

March 2023

© Copyright by Katharine Lauren Shilvock 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Katharine Lauren Shilvock certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Helena Seli
Wayne Combs, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Nonprofit board chairs are vital organizational leaders whose effectiveness in their volunteer role
can influence achievement of the mission and vision throughout the community they serve.
Research has shown that to maximize their positive impact, a nonprofit board chair must
understand their governance responsibilities, and feel efficacious and supported by their
organization. Yet, when a member elevates to the position of board chair, they rarely receive
additional information specific to the crucial leadership role they are about to fill, a gap which
presents an area of potential opportunity for sector improvement. This study aimed to investigate
the assumption that board chair learning is an organic aspect of their volunteer service, while
demonstrating that motivated nonprofit board chairs reinvest knowledge independently gained to
strengthen their unique governance framework. With a triangulated, mixed method design, this
study gathered national quantitative survey responses while undertaking simultaneous qualitative
interviews of 20 active nonprofit board chairs around the United States. Results were gathered in
conjunction with a review of associated documents and artifacts linked to the study participants,
analyzed under the umbrella of Clark and Estes (2008) whose conceptual framework allowed for
a needs analysis of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational support of a nonprofit board
chair. This study identified notable areas in which a nonprofit can enhance the governing
effectiveness of their organizations, while discerning replicable methods of knowledge
acquisition and motivational themes exemplified by productive board chairs. Based on these
findings, recommendations are offered within this work for high-impact ways to address the
inadequacies often evident within the nonprofit board chair onboarding process.
v
Dedication
To my colleagues who connected me with study participants, encouraged me to enable change
within the nonprofit sector, and who let me enthusiastically talk about my research long after
they had reached capacity.

To my friends and relatives both near and far who somehow knew when to ask me how my
research was going, and always forgave long absences and brief, distracted connections.

To my family, who sacrificed so much to allow me to fulfill this goal. To my son Colin, who
dreams big and bold with enviable confidence, you inspire me to do the same. To my daughter
Eleanor, whose talents are equal only to her kindness, I can’t wait to see what you accomplish.
To my husband and most loyal supporter, Matthew, who effortlessly spoke my love language of
PowerPoints and spreadsheets these last three years, helping me over my hurdles no matter how
big or small. There is no aspect of this journey that I could have achieved without their love,
thank you.

To my mother, who would have gotten a kick out of telling every person she met that her
daughter was a “doctor.” I can picture her smile now.
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Wayne Combs, for his incredibly
positive attitude and his calm, supportive approach to the overwhelming task of completing this
research. And to my committee members, Dr. Courtney Malloy and Dr. Helena Seli, whose
insight and expertise lent an incredible depth of analysis to this study. Thank you all for your
time and contributions to my research.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Nonprofit Governance Context ........................................................................................... 2
Nonprofit Governance Goal ................................................................................................ 2
Description of Stakeholder Group ...................................................................................... 3
Related Literature................................................................................................................ 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................. 6
Methodological Framework ................................................................................................ 7
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 8
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................. 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
A Grounding in Divergence .............................................................................................. 10
Governance as a Framework ............................................................................................. 13
Governance as a Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................... 16
Governance as a Reflection of Culture ............................................................................. 28
A Framework of Trust ...................................................................................................... 31
Conflict and Consequences ............................................................................................... 34
viii
Board Chair Onboarding ................................................................................................... 38
Theoretical and Conceptual Approach .............................................................................. 50
Conceptual Road Map....................................................................................................... 60
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 66
Research Design................................................................................................................ 67
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 67
Survey Sample Criteria and Rationale .............................................................................. 68
Interview Sample Criteria and Rationale .......................................................................... 71
Instrumentation and Data Collection ................................................................................ 73
Survey ............................................................................................................................... 73
Interview ........................................................................................................................... 74
Document Review ............................................................................................................. 76
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 79
Validity, Reliability, and Ethical Considerations ............................................................. 80
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 81
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis .............................................................................................. 83
Quantitative Survey Participants....................................................................................... 84
Qualitative Interview Participants..................................................................................... 87
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences .............................................................. 89
Results and Findings for Motivational Influences .......................................................... 107
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences ....................................................... 120
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 133
ix
Chapter Five: Recommendations ................................................................................................ 138
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ......................................... 139
Knowledge Recommendations ....................................................................................... 139
Motivation Recommendations ........................................................................................ 146
Organization Recommendations ..................................................................................... 151
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 156
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 158
References ................................................................................................................................... 161
Appendix A: Survey Questions .................................................................................................. 181
Appendix B: Interview Questions ............................................................................................... 182
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 184

x
List of Tables
Table 1: KMO Influences of Board Chair Onboarding .................................................................60
Table 2: KMO Influences of Methodology ...................................................................................77
Table 3: Reported Survey Board Chair Length of Time on Board of Directors ............................85
Table 4: Reported Survey Board Chair Length of Time in Current Leadership Role ...................86
Table 5: Reported Survey of Board Chairs’ Professional Nonprofit Experience ..........................86
Table 6: Reported Interview Board Chair Length of Time on Board of Directors ........................87
Table 7: Reported Interview Board Chair Length of Time in Current Leadership Role ...............88
Table 8: Reported Board Chair Nonprofit Experience ..................................................................88
Table 9: Survey Board Chairs’ Understanding of Mission ............................................................95
Table 10: Reported Motivation for Continued Service for Board Chairs ....................................111
Table 11: Organization-Provided Governance Procedures to Board Chairs ...............................121
Table 12: Board Chair Onboarding and Organizational Support ................................................122
Table 13: Board Chair Suggestions for More Effective Organizational Onboarding .................124
Table 14: Reported Board Chair Organizational Knowledge ......................................................125
Table 15: Reported Board Chair Support from Executive Director ............................................128
Table 16: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................141
Table 17: Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations.....................................148
Table 18: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ....................................153
Appendix A: Survey Questions…………...………………………………………………….... 181
Appendix B: Interview Questions……………………………………………………………… 182
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Interaction of Conceptual Influences on Board Chair Onboarding ................................62
Figure 2: Reported Board Chair Role Ambiguity ..........................................................................94
Figure 3: Reported Comfort in Discussing Mission and Vision Within the Community ..............96
Figure 4: Reported Understanding Between Board and Staff Roles .............................................98
Figure 5: Reported Dyadic Working Relationship ......................................................................100
Figure 6: Reported Satisfaction with Board Chair Role ..............................................................115
Figure 7: Reported Board Chair Self-Efficacy of Task ...............................................................116
Figure 8: Reported Board Chair Self-Efficacy of Expression .....................................................117
Figure 9: Reported Strength of Board Recruitment Efforts .........................................................119
Figure 10: Reported Organization-Provided Governance Procedures.........................................122
Figure 11: Reported Board Chair Organizational Knowledge ....................................................126
Figure 12: Reported Board Chair Support from Executive Director ...........................................129
Figure 13: Revised Interaction of Conceptual Influences on Board Chair Onboarding ..............135

1

Chapter One: Introduction
The nonprofit sector within the United States plays an essential role in reinforcing the
collective bonds of society, with a volunteer governing board of directors serving as a vital link
between the organization and its community. Led by a nonprofit board chair whose influence
may enable an organization to successfully fulfill its mission and vision (Harrison et al., 2013;
Peter Jäger & Rheli, 2012; Zhang, 2013), research demonstrates that these board chairs often
lack the foundational understanding and introductory assistance to fulfill their most basic
governance responsibilities (Green & Griesinger, 1996; Herman & Renz, 2000). Although the
importance of role orientation to new board members has been established, (Bernstein et al.,
2015; Brown, 2005, 2007), this learning opportunity rarely extends beyond a solitary event when
they begin their service with little demarcation between governing member and governing leader
(BoardSource, 2021). The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational
factors that influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership
role.
Insufficient onboarding specific to the board chair role may result in a governance leader
who struggles to make informed decisions during tenure, exacerbated by a dearth of
organizational support and lack of clarity on the most effective use of their limited commitment
(LeRoux & Langer, 2016; Mason & Kim, 2020; Tydings et al., 2017). When a volunteer
transitions to the role of board chair, their learning is often assumed to be an organic aspect of
their service to date and is largely left to the motivated board chair to pursue knowledge gaps for
effective responsibility fulfillment independently (Freiwirth et al., 2017). Yet, with role
understanding shown to be a fundamental aspect of effective governance (Bernstein et al., 2015;
2

Green & Griesinger, 1996), board chair onboarding may present as an area of potential impact
from initial point of volunteer contact and throughout their term.
Nonprofit Governance Context
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role.
According to the most recent financial data, there are 1.54 million registered nonprofit
organizations within the United States classed under the 501©3 Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
code considered publicly supported charities (The Urban Institute, 2020). These mission-driven
organizations range in size and scope from social service groups to museums and homeless
shelters to inner city sports camps, with a common thread of enriching the communities in which
they operate. The United States nonprofit sector employs 24,000,000 people, and 77,000,000
Americans give their time annually volunteering to make a difference within their communities
(The Urban Institute, 2020; Salamon & Newhouse, 2019). Nonprofit boards bridge the gap
between staff and stakeholders and function as public stewards who hold the ultimate legal
responsibility for the organizations they serve (Herman & Renz, 2000). However, this governing
group exists without functional uniformity given the diversity of structure and mission, despite
the structural homogeneity of nonprofit volunteer boards whose members are 78% White, 87%
college educated, evenly divided regarding gender, and with 64% considered high-income
earners (BoardSource, 2021; Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019; Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021).
Nonprofit Governance Goal
The goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s
ability to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. This objective may be applicable to
nonprofits sector-wide who struggle to balance the transient nature of the board chair role with
3

the leadership weight it holds within the organization. Decreasing role ambiguity for these
volunteers while improving the learning environment for incoming board leaders who lack
sector-specific knowledge, in addition to providing opportunities for connection to the
organizational mission, may be invaluable to achieving internal onboarding goals (Bruni-Bossio
et al., 2016; Neustrom et al., 2012). Studies have shown that board member role comprehension
may have a great impact on organizational effectiveness and external mission fulfillment
(Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2005; Green & Griesinger, 1996). Despite purposeful
opportunities for learning about the inherent responsibilities and influences within the board
chair role being acknowledged as necessary to achieving such success, they are often not
provided by the organization (Bernstein et al., 2015). Through identifying the resources, interest,
and organizational support needed for effective orientation to the role, the goal of a board chair
effectively fulfilling their governance responsibilities may be realized. The results of
constructive board chair onboarding and subsequent goal attainment may impact the nonprofit’s
effectiveness by increasing community engagement, improving board recruitment processes, and
developing a stronger relationship with internal organizational leadership (Bernstein et al., 2015;
Brown & Guo, 2010; Van Pyvulde et al., 2018).
Description of Stakeholder Group
The stakeholder group most impacted by the identification of successful onboarding
practices that enable a board chair to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities are
nonprofit board chairs as the most senior representative of the governing board. The primary
duties of a nonprofit board of directors include long-range strategic planning, budget and
investment management, developing relationships with external stakeholders for funding
support, and hiring and supervising the executive director (Stone & Ostrower, 2007).
4

Functioning at its most basic as a work group with interdependent roles and responsibilities
(Cascio, 2004), a nonprofit board is led by an appointed chair whose focus is on leading the
board meetings and ensuring the organization remains aligned with its primary goals (Parker,
2007). A nonprofit board chair must balance a division of responsibility and leadership with the
nonprofit’s executive director, who plays a pivotal role within their organization through
executing the mission while ensuring operational success on a day-to-day basis and acting as the
primary point of communication for the board chair (Freiwirth et al., 2017; Mason & Kim, 2020;
Peter Jäger & Rehli, 2012). This dyadic relationship has the added challenge of an executive
director being the leader of the organization while being subordinate to their governing board
chair, which adds complexity to an already overburdened dynamic (Kenagy et al., 2013;
Neustrom et al., 2012).
Although a complete analysis of both executive directors as representatives of
organizational influences as well as board chairs would provide further insights, this study
focused on data collection exclusively from active board chairs within medium-sized nonprofit
organizations as the primary stakeholder. This study defined medium-sized organizations as
those with annual budgetary expenses greater than $500,000 but less than $15,000,000 (The
Urban Institute, 2020). This benchmark allowed focus on a subset of the nonprofit sector that
includes 30%—or one in every three—nonprofits, has a more sophisticated board and staffing
structure than the 67% of nonprofits with annual operating budgets under $500,000, but not the
governance professionalization often found in the largest 3% of public nonprofits within the
United States (Ostrower, 2008; The Urban Institute, 2020).
5

Related Literature
Much of the extant literature on the nonprofit sector is derived from governance
assessment theories and frameworks of analysis originating in the for-profit and public sectors
(Bernstein et al., 2016; Miller-Millesen, 2003; Stone & Ostrower, 2007). This has led to a
knowledge space overwhelmed with prescriptive and role-specific guidance on what a board
chair should do rather than identifying what they are not doing as informed by the unique needs
of nonprofit organizations (Brown & Guo, 2010; Cornforth, 2012). Yet, this may present as an
opportunity to approach these knowledge gaps for effective governance by examining the
nonprofit sector’s uniqueness while uncovering external factors that may influence this
insufficient understanding (Beck, 2014; Cornforth, 2012).
Numerous studies have illustrated the critical role a board chair plays within a nonprofit
organization in achieving an advantageous board culture (Harrison & Murray, 2012; Iecovich &
Bar-Mor, 2007; Stahl et al., 2014), and the impact their dyadic relationship with the executive
director has on organizational effectiveness (Neustrom et al., 2012; Van Puyvelde et al., 2018).
Although considered by some researchers to be a social construct and sacrosanct to each unique
organization (Herman & Renz, 1997; Mitchell, 2013; Willems, 2016), the concept of nonprofit
effectiveness as measured by mission-based metrics divergent from outside-sector financial
benchmarks has been shown to thrive when board chairs exhibit certain behaviors such as
leadership versatility, and struggles when they are absent (Harrison et al., 2013; Harrison &
Murray, 2012; Mathews, 2019). Studies have also shown that the knowledge attained through
primary sector work experience, in addition to the motivation behind volunteering for board
service, may greatly impact a nonprofit board’s effectiveness (Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019;
Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021).
6

Importance of the Study
This study was important because it sought to identify nonprofit sector performance gaps
that perpetuate systemic issues within the governance framework which may impact
organizational effectiveness. The chair of a nonprofit board of directors has the responsibility of
oversight and duty of care but often struggles to feel sustained and comprehending of their role,
as well as that of the executive director, and how they can truly be of service (Mason & Kim,
2020). The board chair’s failure to understand their governance duties and struggle to recognize
the uniqueness of sector work, in particular the relationship between themselves and the primary
representative of the organization they serve, has a demonstrated correlation to executive director
exhaustion and resignation (Olinske & Hellman, 2017; Stewart, 2016, 2017). Such discord may
lead to neglect in addressing the learning gaps a board chair might have in their understanding of
nonprofit work, which may negatively impact organizational effectiveness manifested in
decreased financial performance and stymied mission delivery, as well as diminished board
engagement which influences the very community the nonprofit strives to serve (Brown, 2005;
Brown & Guo, 2010; Green & Griesinger, 1996).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. Although a complete performance assessment
would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, this analysis focused solely on nonprofit
board chairs. The following research questions guided this work:
7

1. What knowledge do nonprofit board chairs need to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
2. What motivates a nonprofit board chair to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
3. How do organizational processes and procedures impact the nonprofit board chair’s
ability to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities?
Methodological Framework
This study employed a triangulated, mixed-method process of data gathering and
analysis. The stakeholder’s current performance in relationship to the organizational goal was
assessed through a quantitative ordinal survey of 12 Likert-scale questions, three write-in
demographic questions, and one open-ended experience question. This survey was completed by
32 board chair participants located throughout the United States who met the study criteria. In-
depth and descriptive qualitative interviews followed with 20 board chairs who expressed a
willingness to continue with the study and who fit the methodological criteria for participation.
This rich analysis was cross checked and supported by publicly available document and artifact
exploration that provided multiple points of research for this comprehensive study of board chair
onboarding.
This inquiry was conducted under the umbrella of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
theoretical framework. Developed to solve achievement problems in the workplace through goal
setting and subsequent performance gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008), this theoretical premise
requires human causes of performance issues be investigated to achieve goal attainment. This
framework allowed for a directed approach to solving ongoing operational issues by focusing on
8

three primary causes of performance gaps: the knowledge stakeholders possess, their motivation
for goal attainment, and the organizational barriers that stand in their way (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Definitions
Knowledge, motivational, and organizational (KMO) influences encompass the
theoretical framework developed by Clark and Estes (2008) that identifies organizational gaps by
looking at the KMO barriers to success.
Nonprofit board chair refers to an appointed volunteer responsible for leading the
governing board, ensuring mission alignment, and serving as the primary point of contact for
senior organizational leaders as well as community stakeholders.
Nonprofit executive director refers to a senior staff member of a nonprofit organization
responsible for budgeting, strategic planning, working with the governing board, and daily
operational management.
Nonprofit governance is the process of providing strategic leadership to a nonprofit
organization in the areas of policies, performance monitoring, and accountability to stakeholders.
Medium-sized nonprofit organizations are legal entities organized and operated for the
purposes of public and social benefits with expenses between $500,000 and $15,000,000.
Onboarding is the variable process of introducing the board chair to their governance role
through documents, meetings, mentorship, practical guides, group interaction, and additional
learning opportunities.
Organization of the Project
This study was organized into five chapters. This chapter provided the reader with key
concepts and terminology commonly found when discussing nonprofit board chair leadership
dynamics. An overview of the nonprofit sector, stakeholders most impacted by this study, as well
9

as introduction of purpose and the framework that guided this study, was provided. Chapter 2
provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Topics of the KMO
influences on a board chair are discussed, as well as the influences of behavior and culture on a
board chair’s onboarding. Chapter 3 details the KMO influences examined in this study as well
as the methodology detailing choice of participants, data collection, and analysis. Next, Chapter
4 describes and analyzes the data and results. Chapter 5 provides recommendations for practice
based on data and literature, as well as recommendations for the strategic application of findings
to encourage sector improvement.
10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter presents current research approaches to understanding nonprofit board
chairs’ capacities for effective governance fulfillment. The first two sections summarize the
functional differences between board service based on sectors and ground the study in the
framework of governance. The third section informs the concept of governance by analyzing
nonprofit board composition, roles and behavior, as well as board impact. With context
established, the fourth section focuses specifically on the board chair, their dyadic relationship
with their executive director as the primary representative of the nonprofit served, and shared
perceptions of success. The fifth section of this literature review facilitates understanding of
nonprofit board chair learning through analysis of the opportunities for change that exist if these
critical volunteers are to succeed. The sixth and final section focuses on the conceptual
framework that will guide this study informed by Clark and Estes (2008), and the social, cultural,
and cognitive influences that affect positive board chair onboarding and engagement.
A Grounding in Divergence
The board of a nonprofit organization strives to balance their responsibility for
governance oversight while acting as a conduit to the community (Ostrower & Stone, 2017), yet
research shows many volunteers remain unclear on primary differentiating factors for the sector
they serve. Recent comprehensive studies show that up to 83% of nonprofit board members have
no professional sector experience, with only 17% demonstrating familiarity with this different
management framework through primary employment (Tydings et al., 2017; Ward & Miller-
Stevens, 2021). Many of these board members struggle to grasp the subtleties of the work
undertaken such as the funding diversity of nonprofit revenue streams, which may contribute to
members not grasping the foundational variances between their professional backgrounds and
11

this service role. One such example is the intrinsic value placed in operational achievements that
are mission-based rather than financially beneficial, a vastly different business model to
assimilate for all but the 17% of board members with professional nonprofit sector experience
(Kenagy et al., 2013; Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021).
Epstein and McFarlan (2011) took a distinctive approach to the understanding of
nonprofit work by insisting that nonprofits are not businesses, which allowed a fundamental shift
in thinking for many governing boards. The authors identified five major differences between a
nonprofit and for-profit board, which are societal mission, nonfinancial performance against the
mission, financial metrics, governance, and the board chair/executive director relationship
(Epstein & McFarlan, 2011). This work stressed the importance of understanding the mission
rather than a numerical bottom line and the struggle that often brings. Later research by Stahl et
al. (2014) illustrated that there are no analogous data points in the nonprofit world for metrics
such as earnings per share and market capitalization. Their study of 333 board members
demonstrated the struggle to define the concept of profit and earnings within their nonprofits
(Stahl et al., 2014), data points that many volunteers would hope to ground themselves in for
effective governance (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Freiwirth, 2013).
Research shows board member compensation, or lack thereof, is also a key point of
divergence between sectors (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Zhu et al., 2016). Nonprofit board
members are volunteers who lead a team of paid staff whereas for-profit members are
compensated for their time and skills (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Zhang, 2013), perhaps
contributing to a more coequal dynamic from the start. Although focused on large nonprofits for
a more accurate between-sector comparison (Freiwirth, 2013), these studies attempted to reframe
what drives the decision-making process for governing boards and allows for the possibility that
12

being an expert in one field might not translate across sectors (Bowen, 1994; Epstein &
McFarlan, 2011).
Acknowledging these distinct operational, environmental, and sociocultural differences
between sectors may lead to unique governance approaches that help inform the learning
environments for those governing members new to nonprofit work. Lückerath-Rovers et al.
(2009) and their exploratory study of the variance between board members within nonprofit and
for-profit organizations illustrated that supervision varies based on sector. A qualitative analysis
of 392 surveys to directors, 244 from for-profit companies and 148 from nonprofit organizations,
showed that board member priorities around key governance tasks vary significantly (Lückerath-
Rovers et al., 2009). For example, 50% of nonprofit respondents stated they take part in the
strategic planning process compared to 61% within the for-profit sector, although nonprofit
respondents do indicate spending 3 hours per month less on their board tasks (Lückerath-Rovers
et al., 2009). Within this study, 69% of for-profit directors felt sector experience was vital for
board service compared to 62% of nonprofit directors who answered similarly (Lückerath-
Rovers et al., 2009). This may demonstrate the repetitive challenge of achieving the primary
objectives of nonprofit board governance when sector experience is not as highly valued
(Ostrower & Stone, 2017).
Continued research on the structure and finances of the organization in which the board
of directors operates highlights additional points of differentiation between sectors that impact
readiness to govern. Zhu et al. (2016), within their survey analysis of 373 organizations
consisting of 220 for-profit board members and 156 nonprofit members, demonstrated that
funding sources impact many aspects of governance including strategic planning and board
member engagement. Although for-profit entities derive revenue by charging premiums on the
13

goods or services they produce, nonprofits balance their budgets through a combination of
private contributions and public support with intrinsic and community good will as the reward
for donation (Hodge & Piccolo, 2005; Zhu et al., 2016). Therefore, the strategic governance
approach of nonprofit board members focuses on managing the assets of the community while a
for-profit shareholder’s interest is the primary concern for their private sector counterpart (Zhu et
al., 2016).
Additionally, analysis from a 2015 Stanford Business School report surveying 924 board
members shows both sectors struggle from the inability to measure nonfinancial performance
metrics even though 90% of all board members acknowledge their importance (Larcker et al.,
2015). However, 46% of nonprofit directors report a lack of understanding and confidence in
ways of measuring organizational success that go beyond traditional profit metrics (Larcker et
al., 2015). Although this is a shared deficit in organizational understanding between sectors,
mission-based measurements may be a critical knowledge gap for a nonprofit board to fulfill
their governance duties in the absence of a traditional profit-and-loss framework. An
organization’s understanding of financial management and how it serves the organizational
mission is an important part of their institutional framework, which determines who they serve
and how they govern (du Bois et al., 2007).
Governance as a Framework
Despite the size and scope of the nonprofit sector being the third largest employer in the
nation with nearly 24,000,000 professionals (The Urban Institute, 2020), the primary
organizational frameworks for understanding voluntary governance are often borrowed from the
private sector (Brown & Guo, 2010; Miller-Millesen, 2003; Ostrower & Stone, 2017), defined in
relation to other sectors (Dartington, 1998; Stone & Ostrower, 2007), or examined through the
14

lens of economics, sociology, or political science (Maier & Meyer, 2011). This misalignment in
functional and theoretical framing hampers the advancement of a nonprofit board and their
ability to contribute (Cornforth, 2012), particularly when the singularity of nonprofit mission
attainment is not fully understood, nor professionally experienced by those in volunteer
leadership roles (Ostrower & Stone, 2017).
Foundational Understanding
Much of the early empirical research on nonprofit board governance can be
conceptualized as bifurcated: one direction centering governance around the board, the second
direction centering governance around the executive director (Heimovics & Herman, 1990;
LeRoux & Langer, 2016). Said differently, on one path, the board is the dependent variable, on
the other, independent (du Bois et al., 2007). Although both directions allow the opportunity to
view nonprofit governance as the systems that promote direction and control of the organization
(Cornforth, 2004), for decades, the focus remained at the organizational level with an even more
narrow focus on the board itself. Nonprofit governance was defined as the ability of a board to
undertake such activities as overseeing organizational finances, upholding ethical and
accountability relationships, engaging the public with the mission and vision, and hiring and
supervising the executive director (Harris, 1989; Miller-Millesen, 2003; Stone & Ostrower,
2007). This previous research focused on what a governing board should do and failed to study
the consequences of what would happen if they did not fulfil their core tasks, let alone broaching
the internal and external influences that would have enabled success. Continuing to define
governance as a function but incorporating the concept of the board as a structure embedded
within its environment (Cornforth & Brown, 2014), may allow the opportunity to move beyond
15

an only operative perspective and consider the broader social context that boards exist within
(Renz & Anderson, 2014).
A Path Forward
Within the last decade, an increase in empirical assessments of board governance has
shown that the sector continues to defy operational generalizations (Beck, 2014; Cumberland et
al., 2015; Mason & Kim, 2020; Reid & Turbide, 2012). Within their gap analysis of governance
publications, Ostrower and Stone (2017) emphasized this uniqueness and the imperative of
considering operational contexts to better inform board governance. Their empirical review of
over 100 contributions to the field showed how important assessing the external environment is
to a study on governance no matter the primary research questions, that no two nonprofit boards
are the same, and that the literature would benefit from outside sector learning (Ostrower &
Stone, 2017; Stone & Ostrower, 2007). Although limited by their research focus on boards of
larger nonprofits within the United States, the authors provided a comprehensive analysis of the
sector and urged caution towards future research that narrows the lens of analysis yet again
(Ostrower & Stone, 2017).
An additional assessment of note is Cornforth (2012), who called attention to the need for
an approach to governance research that considers the changing context and multiple players
with which nonprofit boards operate. Continuing this work, Cornforth (2012) attempted to widen
the lens of study beyond what a board is doing and the consequences of their behavior through
analyzing articles published in three primary nonprofit journals between 2005–2010. Of the 27
articles examined, 50% focused narrowly on governance as a function, with additional research
limitations identified as a neglect of governance arrangements beyond unitary organizations and
a lack of acknowledgements of the changing environments within which boards operate
16

(Cornforth, 2012). However, there remains a positive trend towards incorporating the contextual
influencers of board governance (Beck, 2014; Reid, 2013) with a growth of much-needed
theoretical research, moving our understanding beyond the study of governance mechanisms,
antecedents, and consequences (Renz & Anderson, 2014).
Governance as a Unit of Analysis
As previously noted, the nonprofit sector resists operational generalizations due to the
range of services offered with no unifying system of measurement (Herman & Renz, 1997;
Mitchell, 2013; Willems, 2016). The benefit of this is the nearly 1.6 million existing nonprofits
within the United States, varying in size and scope, can fill diverse needs within our society other
industries cannot (The Urban Institute, 2020). The limitations present in this variance of services
is the persistent inability to codify procedures for success leadership and management (Bernstein
et al., 2016; Brown, 2005). However, using the nonprofit governing board as a unit of analysis to
uncover industry overviews, best practices, and gauges for organizational effectiveness may help
inform the conversation (Renz & Anderson, 2014).
Board Composition and Recruitment Hurdles
Significant early empirical research focused more on what the board was doing, rather
than who was doing it, with the importance of who fills the volunteer leadership seats on a
nonprofit board only recently coming into focus as a precursor for successful governance
(Ostrower & Stone, 2017). Although board members are sought for the professional skill they
may contribute (Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019), recruitment of directors may primarily happen
for their contacts in the business community, their connections to prominent donors, or to add a
distinguished name to the header of the nonprofit’s stationary (Kenagy et al., 2013). As nonprofit
boards are generally larger than for-profit ones to provide for a broader composition of support
17

(Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Larcker et al., 2015), there is great flexibility in the number of
directors a nonprofit can appoint as well as the background of directors (IRS, 2008; The Urban
Institute, 2020).
Demographically speaking, the composition of a nonprofit board fluctuates rarely in
comprehensive studies over time, and remains majority White, male, and those with higher
degrees and incomes (BoardSource, 2021; Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019; Ostrower & Stone,
2017). Most recent national demographic data affirmed boards remained 78% White, although a
reduction in majority of 6% from 2017 figures allowed an increase in minority representation to
21% of board membership (BoardSource, 2017, 2021). However, this representational gain is not
analyzed by types of nonprofits. A 2016 study of 2,300 board members broken out by industry
within the nonprofit sector showed that museums and performing arts organizations had 0% non-
White directors (Tydings et al., 2017). More diverse board composition has been shown to lead
to positive organizational improvements (Ostrower, 2008), and a more accurate representation of
the communities served.
Nonprofit boards have also made gains in terms of gender diversity with 53% of
members identifying as female compared to 47% male (BoardSource, 2021). However, studies
have shown that female board and executive director representation decreases by a statistically
significant amount (.23%) for every million dollars of organizational budget increase (Lee,
2014). Perhaps contributing to the inert nature of board demographics, 96% of new board
members join a board through referrals by current directors (BoardSource, 2021), an area of
growth to move beyond the cyclical recruitment process and create boards that reflect the
diversity of their myriad stakeholders.
18

This recruitment of new board members is a consistently expressed struggle for nonprofit
leaders, with most recent national data showing that 32% of board chairs and 52% of nonprofit
executive directors report a successful board member pipeline as a primary challenge
(BoardSource, 2021). Yet, effectively applying recruitment strategies may present as one of the
sector’s most significant opportunities for enacting genuine change as a part of a successful
board chair orientation process. Research shows that the longer an individual serves a nonprofit,
the more important those peer connections become to their continued motivation to volunteer
(Fang et al., 2021). Brown (2007), and their survey of 1,051 nonprofit executive directors and
board chairs, found the most significant connection between competent boards and, therefore,
effective organizations, was their recruitment practices. Although limited by a focus on a single
nonprofit industry, the identification of potential candidates year-round by the board had a
significant impact on the caliber of candidates approached and increased the boards’ own
perception of their competency (Brown, 2007).
Identifying new board members to serve beyond the networks of those who already hold
the seats is an opportunity for governance leaders. With 57% of board members over the age of
50 (BoardSource, 2021), and 77,000,000 Americans volunteering their time annually
programmatically (The Urban Institute, 2020), strong and committed board members may be
connected to the nonprofit’s mission beyond existing recruitment processes. Finding this correct
board balance and the right individuals to volunteer are a critical component of perceived
organizational success: when the board composition aligns with values and norms, executive
directors and board members report a greater positive impact on their organizations (Bernstein et
al., 2016; Mordaunt & Cornforth, 2004).
19

Who serves on a board has an impact beyond this demographic overview and can
influence the operational success and longevity of a nonprofit (de Andrés-Alonso et al., 2009).
Data shows that 83% of nonprofit board members hold a bachelor’s degree or higher (Ward &
Miller-Stevens, 2021), and Tschirhart et al. (2009) sought to understand the link between higher
education and board placement. Investigating the labor pools that nonprofit boards often draw
from, the authors surveyed 684 alumni from four postgraduate Master of Public Administration
and Master of Business Administration programs, with 34% of graduates showing service on
governing nonprofit boards (Tschirhart et al., 2009). Although including data on Master of
Nonprofit Administration degrees may have been a supportive contribution, this study showed
that not only do nonprofit boards seek individuals with higher degrees in business, but board
composition then remains influenced by such initial placements when personal and alumni
networks are the primary source for future board members (de Andrés-Alonso et al., 2009;
Tschirhart et al., 2009).
These degrees, both bachelors and postgraduate, are a form of human capital, the
individual skills one possesses which allow them to contribute productively to a governing board
(Walton et al., 2017). One might think of the linked concept of social capital as the norms and
networks an individual brings to the board to serve an organization’s mission (Bixler & Springer,
2018). Hillman and Dalziel (2003) proposed a hybrid conceptualization introduced as “board
capital” (p. 383), knowledge, experience, reputation, and their board members’ network of ties
within the community (Brown, 2007; Hillman & Dalziel, 2003). A deeper look at this concept
through the lens of knowledge and learning theories shows that greater synergy and efficacy of
learning on a nonprofit board can occur when there is a shared structure of vision and values
(Kalu & Remkus, 2010). In a 2012 analysis of 234 nonprofits, the social capital board members
20

brought to their role was measured against perceived organizational effectiveness (Fredette &
Bradshaw, 2012). The study found that board social capital correlates with a shared vision for the
organization, which allowed the board to better navigate challenging situations and governance
roadblocks (Fredette & Bradshaw, 2012).
Social capital is conceived as both structural in terms of how board members act upon the
construction of nonprofit governance, but also understood as a cognitive addition to how
directors interact with the shared understanding of norms and trust (Bixler & Springer, 2018).
One determination of this cognitive approach to social capital creation is the motivation behind a
nonprofit board member’s service and the influences of their individual background. Inglis and
Cleave (2006) surveyed 220 board members representing 50 organizations. Although limited by
a focus on organizations with a maximum budget of $500,000, example results showed the
greatest identified motivations for service were intrinsic, such as enhancement of self-worth by
helping others, and extrinsic, such as being perceived by others as working for a good cause
(Inglis & Cleave, 2006). Later research by Miller-Stevens and Ward (2019) expanded on the
motivational aspect of social capital by undertaking an expansive survey of 726 board members
examining 27 different dimensions of service with a focus on why the participants first joined a
nonprofit board. Interestingly, the research showed that directors initially join a board for more
intrinsically motivated reasons, but extrinsic motivations such as mission fulfillment and
ensuring organizational success take precedence as their term progresses (Miller-Stevens &
Ward, 2019). Incorporating these motivations into board member recruitment and retention
activities may help mitigate attrition and the ever-present worry of finding volunteers to serve
(Brown, 2007; Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019).
21

Continuing their 2019 study, Ward and Miller-Stevens dissected their data under the
auspices of a theoretical framework focused on public service motivation, which holds that
management within the nonprofit sector requires a unique set of personal values (Ward & Miller-
Stevens, 2021). Findings showed 83% of the 782 board members surveyed worked outside of the
nonprofit sector, and that those who worked within the private sector showed the least adherence
to the values and norms that guide nonprofit work (Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021). This finding
may be a contributing factor to the pressure some boards exert on their nonprofit organizations to
be run like the for-profit businesses they are so familiar with (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Ward
& Miller-Stevens, 2021). Within their sample, only 14% of board chair participants had
professional nonprofit experience, but those experienced nonprofit professionals in fact served
on an average of 4.77 other boards, which is a potentially interesting finding for future research
(Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021).
This notion that individuals from outside the nonprofit sector are needed for proper and
balanced board composition may be based more on social and cultural capital gains as opposed
to any distinct knowledge gaps they might fill (Inglis & Cleave, 2006; Miller-Stevens & Ward,
2019). Nonprofit board recruitment can be a perpetuating cycle, as seated members primarily use
their own networks to recruit new members (Bai, 2013). The social capital aspect of trust and
shared understanding of the mission they serve has been shown to be of utmost importance rather
than their professional skills (Van Puyvelde et al., 2018; Willems, 2016), for when this shared
motivation is absent, governance uncertainty often follows (Maurer, 2016). Although a board
with a diverse skill set can assist with administrative tasks (de Andrés-Alonso et al., 2009), this
is not the area of governance that is considered a board priority by internal leaders (LeRoux &
Langer, 2016). With one out of three nonprofit executive directors showing their boards do not
22

understand their most basic responsibilities and accountability tasks (BoardSource, 2021), the
following section seeks to illustrate the impact this role ambiguity has on the shared learning and
effectiveness of governing directors.
Board Roles and Behavior
The nonprofit sector’s long-standing attempt to understand governance challenges is by
inundating would-be learners with prescriptive guides on the roles and responsibilities of a
typical nonprofit board of directors (Freiwirth et al., 2017; Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018;
Miller-Millesen, 2003). This diversity of materials is most likely a result of having no
shareholders to report to compared to the for-profit sector, and no universal standard of
operations (O’Regan & Oster, 2005). Although not without benefit, these templets of highly
effective governing bodies continue to assume a universal model of nonprofit management and
board engagement, with simple divisions of labor often falling short of representing such a
complex relationship (Chait et al., 2005). Additionally, the guides often lack a viable connection
between suggestions for successful governance and what a board can undertake based on the
specific context it operates within (Cornforth, 2012; Reid & Turbide, 2012).
However, understanding the responsibilities a board can fill may help diminish the role
ambiguity many volunteers struggle with, leading to increased engagement and accompanying
effectiveness (Bernstein et al., 2015). As defined by Bruni-Bossio et al. (2016), role ambiguity is
when board members do not understand how to perform their roles effectively and ethically in
relation to each other and the context in which their nonprofit operates. BoardSource, an industry
leader in sector research, emphasized the significance of this problem in their 2017 report
showing 54% of 1,700 board member respondents struggled with understanding their job,
corroborated within their 2021 industry analysis when 53% of 689 executive directors surveyed
23

affirmed their boards needed to improve role understanding (BoardSource, 2017, 2021). This
may show that regardless of the nonprofit, the question of how board members can best
contribute invariably surfaces (Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016).
Investigating perspectives on successful role implementation from both executive
directors and board members may help address the causes of this role ambiguity. Brown and Guo
(2010) contributed to this understanding of board roles and responsibilities with their study of
nonprofit executives and what they described as the most important tasks their board could fill.
Approaching this question of board responsibilities from the perspective of internal leaders rather
than industry observers provided a perspective shift within the empirical literature identified as
necessary (Miller-Millesen, 2003; Zahra & Pearce, 1989). The results of semi structured
interviews with 121 nonprofit executive directors identified 13 different value-adding roles of a
board member, with the average executive director citing roughly three primary roles of their
board that would lend the most value (Brown & Guo, 2010). Although not controlled for unique
organizations with different demands on their resources, the top four most important roles of the
board identified are fund development, strategy and planning, financial oversight, and public
relations (Brown & Guo, 2010).
Consensus on the number and scope of board roles continues to vary, with Green and
Griesinger (1996) suggesting nine roles, whereas Brown (2007) identified only two: oversight
and service. LeRoux and Langer (2016) expanded slightly on Brown’s demarcation within their
study of nonprofit executive directors and their preferences for board involvement. They divided
board roles into categories of mission setting and oversight and administration and management.
Survey sampling of 241 nonprofit executive directors provided statistically significant evidence
that the internal leaders preferred board involvement on tasks related to mission and oversight
24

(LeRoux & Langer, 2016). The most current industry survey supports this finding, showing that
31% of nonprofit executive directors feel their boards do not understand the organizational
mission and 59% indicated they struggle with strategic oversight (BoardSource, 2021). Research
shows that executive directors benefit from increased board engagement with administration
when there are staffing shortages or specific help needed, but beyond that, more functional
oversight is preferred (Hodge & Piccolo, 2005; Inglis & Cleave, 2006; LeRoux & Langer, 2016).
These top roles a board member can play within a nonprofit as described by executive
directors emphasize the boundary spanning responsibilities that are inherent in a volunteer
leadership role within a highly diverse sector (Ostrower & Stone, 2007). Ranked in the bottom
third of Brown and Guo’s (2010) study was the response “provide guidance and expertise” with
only 19% of executive directors citing this as important for the board to contribute (Brown &
Guo, 2010, p. 540) which is a marked contrast to how board members commonly express they
can add value (Bowen, 1994; Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019). A similar conclusion for discussion
in this section revolves around a board’s tendency to micromanage administrative tasks when the
executive director would prefer they did not (LeRoux & Langer, 2016), starkly addressing the
gap between ideal and actual role performance within board centered governance (Hillman &
Dalziel, 2003).
A board member’s perception of their individual place within this theoretical governance
framework, as well as their ability to successfully perform their roles, is inherently influenced by
differences in judgement formed by diversity of experience (Green & Griesinger, 1996). Similar
to Miller-Millesen (2003) and their identification of three theoretical frameworks to explain
board roles, Cumberland et al. (2015) synthesized earlier empirical research on governance tasks
(Brown, 2007; Green & Griesinger, 1996; LeRoux & Langer, 2016) and divided those
25

responsibilities into four primary conceptual arenas: monitoring, supporting, partnering, and
representing (pp. 451–452). Linking these four roles to common theoretical understanding, 172
board members representing 55 nonprofit organizations responded to an online survey about
their perception of success within their governance duties (Cumberland et al., 2015). The
research showed board members perceive themselves as successful in their role when they excel
at supporting and monitoring their nonprofits (Cumberland et al., 2015). This finding is similar
to that of Brown (2007), who noted the positive relationship between how a board member views
themselves and their subsequent competencies. Miller-Millesen (2003) contended that this
engagement with monitoring behavior is more likely to take place when the organization is
stable. However, Cumberland et al. (2015) showed that stability only comes from a balance
between all four primary roles and the unique context in which the nonprofit operates.
Board Engagement
Providing a nonprofit with a list of best practices may not guarantee successful
implementation nor an improvement in governance (Herman & Renz, 2000), whereas a board
simply perceiving themselves as successful somehow increases board engagement (Bradshaw,
2009; Brown, 2007). Yet, studies have shown that even attending board meetings leads to a more
committed and engaged board (Preston & Brown, 2004), although only 28% of boards achieve
the recommended 90% attendance mark for meeting attendance (BoardSource, 2021). In fact,
Parker’s (2007) 2-year longitudinal study of nonprofit boards showed that regular attendance of
meetings fell between 69–77%, with Preston and Brown’s (2004) research showing only 34% of
their 267 board members surveyed attended all their board meetings (Preston & Brown, 2004).
Meeting attendance is highlighted within this review as a rudimentary form of governance
26

participation because it is the most basic way a board member can become engaged with their
role (Ostrower & Stone, 2006).
These meetings are an essential part of a board member’s comprehension of their
ongoing governance responsibilities, yet internal leadership teams may not provide them with
necessary meeting materials which might have an organizational impact on their knowledge and
motivation. Kenagy et al. (2013) felt proper information flow to the board was the responsibility
of the nonprofit executive director, with the most recent BoardSource (2021) survey showing
that 57% of boards receive information about upcoming meetings 1–2 days before they gather.
However, neither analysis accounted for the role of board chair as an information conduit prior to
meetings, nor considered that through the course of a 12-month period, only 47% of nonprofits
studied reviewed board roles and only 44% reviewed a strategic plan (Stewart, 2017). Existing
governance and strategic oversight materials are commonly stored in shared accessible areas, as
opposed to monthly meeting materials, which are usually the responsibility of the executive
director and board chair to produce (Larcker et al., 2015). However, with 42% of board members
indicating they gave less than 5 hours per month for their board tasks and only 29% attend
meetings prepared to discuss the agenda (BoardSource, 2017; Preston & Brown, 2004), it is
perhaps not a matter of access, but of motivation and understanding of importance.
Sharing a mental model of norms and values that encourage connections based on
progress towards a community vision may help overcome these motivational roadblocks and
increase engagement. Paraphrasing Taylor et al. (1996), a nonprofit board is comprised of high-
level people doing low-level tasks, but their self-image might prevent them from communicating
when something is unclear or they cannot comprehend the importance of a seemingly minor task
(Bowen, 1994; Taylor et al., 1996). Knowledge of the organization’s mission and helping them
27

achieve it is a fundamentally different approach to management for these leaders (Epstein &
McFarlan, 2011), and a necessary component of any board’s onboarding initiative. Studies show
that up to 25% of board members reported they do not have a deep knowledge of their
organization’s mission (Larcker et al., 2015), yet 98% of active board members say it is the most
important priority for board recruitment (BoardSource, 2021). Therefore, it is not only a matter
of ascribing to a shared vision, but of acknowledging the social influences, both internal and
external, that may influence a board’s commitment and understanding of their role.
A board can increase its engagement with the nonprofit it serves through identification
with the organization at every stage in the board members’ relationship (Fang et al., 2021), and
through an appreciation of the unique environmental context within which their nonprofit
operates (Miller-Millesen, 2003). Directors continually create meaning and value through shared
communication, dialogue, and understanding (Herman & Renz, 1997), and through the shared
perception of their competency to complete primary tasks (Brown, 2005). Engagement strategies
that focus on developing reciprocity amongst all members in relation to the community they
serve, such as working together on wordsmithing the organizational mission, helps develop a
shared understanding, with Maurer (2016) finding 100% of boards feeling more competent after
undertaking such a task.
Board membership and service to one’s community may be supported by the
establishment of a trusting relationship between those who serve and the nonprofits who need
their guidance and support. This commitment to governance is necessary to properly nurture the
stakeholders and services that impede board chair learning. Board members may strive to
understand not only the unique context in which their nonprofits exist but also the influences
they individually bring through their own cultural experience. Understanding these factors might
28

allow a board chair to achieve a purpose-driven culture that reflects both individual values and
norms as well as the cohesive serving body entrusted with mission fulfillment.
Governance as a Reflection of Culture
Ideally, a nonprofit board of directors can be considered a unit of organizational cultural.
One that is aware of its responsibilities and capable of operating as a group to provide oversight
and support to the nonprofit they serve. They also may reflect the most senior appointed leader
on the board and the way they embody the role. The significance of a board chair, their
knowledge and openness to new learning, motivations for continued service, leadership style,
and relationship with their executive director, may have a consequential impact on the
effectiveness of a governing board.
Leadership and the Board Chair Role
The board chair of a nonprofit organization is an appointed volunteer who is the leader of
the board. They motivate their fellow members and are a primary point of contact for all
stakeholders. They are responsible for facilitating board meetings, engaging their fellow board
members, and working closely and productively with their executive director (Wertheimer,
2008). Board chairs provide and enforce the expectations for board service, directly influencing
the manifestations of values and norms that not only guide the board but permeate throughout the
organization (Harrison & Murray, 2012). BoardSource (2021) and their review of 820 national
nonprofits showed that board chairs are 83% White and 53% female, with an average term length
of 2 years. Highlighted again as the most recent and significant industry reporting, BoardSource
(2021) also showed that 62% of board chairs were new in the role and 39% were the only ones
on their respective boards who volunteered to serve. A noteworthy statistic is that the same data
showed only 54% of executive directors felt these board chairs were prepared for their roles.
29

These results may demonstrate that a hesitancy to undertake such an important position in the
nonprofit sector exists and illustrates the gap in KMO support these volunteers face.
The board chair role is a functional conflict, tasked with providing oversight but also
working as a supportive equal to the governing board and executive director (Hiland, 2008). This
is complicated further by an executive director being subordinate to their board chair despite the
temporality of the chair’s role and their own senior position, while mitigating the chair’s
preexisting knowledge of what nonprofit work entails (Neustrom et al., 2012). Identified traits
such as collaborative leadership style and good interpersonal skills may influence a director’s
motivation to undertake the role and successfully guide the organization’s culture (Harrison &
Murray, 2012). Van Puyvelde et al. (2018) surveyed 443 nonprofit executive director and board
chair pairs within their study of boardroom interactions. The results showed that, besides conflict
resolution, building consensus, and reaching compromise, a board chair must be able to create a
culture of trust, encourage the discussion of strategic questions, and cultivate their relationship
with the executive director (Van Puyvelde et al., 2018, p. 1307). In Parker’s (2007) participant-
observer study of two nonprofits, similar conclusions centered how essential it is for this
individual to encourage their board colleagues to feel comfortable enough to use the skills for
which they were recruited and stressed the importance of boardroom culture established by the
chair.
Harrison and Murray (2012) and Harrison et al. (2013) undertook a multiyear, multiphase
study on nonprofit board chair leadership, which greatly influenced understanding of these key
issues. The first phase involved reaching out to nonprofit leaders around the world for their
perceptions on working relationships with their nonprofit board chairs (Harrison & Murray,
2012). Chairs who were the most effective shared similar behavioral traits, such as charisma and
30

an extroverted nature, whereas ineffective board chairs were either too involved or not involved
enough (Harrison & Murray, 2012). These traits match other research findings highlighted in this
review. The authors acknowledged that very few board chairs rated as exceptional leaders during
their quantitative analysis phase (19% of 563 surveyed), but that such skills are a knowledge gap
to fill with proper organizational support. Skills such as facilitating meetings, building board
unity, conflict resolution, and motivating others are gained through education and mentoring
opportunities provided to board chairs (Freiwirth, 2013; Harrison & Murray, 2012).
In the latter phase of their research, Harrison et al. (2013) shifted their approach from
interrogating their data for perceptions on board chair behavior towards a questioning of
perceptions around board chair effectiveness. The most impactful board chairs in this study were
relationship builders, both within the organization and throughout the community. Perceived as
having a positive impact through actions such as clarifying the role differentiation between a
governing board and management, helping the board become more efficient, and attracting high
caliber board members (Harrison et al., 2013). The perception of board chair effectiveness also
increased in alignment with the recorded frequency of interactions between them and all
stakeholders (Harrison et al., 2013), which may demonstrate the complex influence of
communication on a board chair’s successful leadership.
Additional contributions to understanding effective board chair leadership traits provide
further insight into how this role affects board and organizational culture. Stahl et al. (2014)
surveyed 123 board members asking them to provide feedback on their chair. Although limited
in scope by an exclusive focus on nonprofit hospitals, findings show that transformational
leadership exhibited by a board chair who deeply understands the organization’s mission and
vision can motivate others to perform similarly (Stahl et al., 2014). Further research by
31

Kakabadse (2010) of board chairs across multiple nonprofit industries found overarching traits
for successful leadership, which include developing board empathy, avoiding groupthink,
aligning objectives, living the organization’s values, and developing the board’s all-important
recruitment pipeline.
Fostering leadership traits in a board chair may also influence the dyadic relationship
between this volunteer and the executive director of the organization they serve. (Harrison et al.,
2013; Herman & Renz, 2000; Iecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007; Kakabadse, 2010). These leaders are
the most prominent and visible within any nonprofit and enact the greatest influence on all
stakeholders (Neustrom et al., 2012), with the character of their relationship either positive or
negative, having the power to directly impact the organization (Iecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007). Two
aspects of this dyadic partnership appear to influence whether this relationship is fruitful or
harmful to the organization: development of trust and a shared framework of understanding
between both parties, or the inverse, a struggle for power and authority with few points of joint
understanding.
A Framework of Trust
An executive director is an essential leader within a nonprofit organization, responsible
for ensuring the operational success of the mission and vision (Peter Jäger & Rehli, 2012). From
fund acquisition to program development, their knowledge and skills help guide the organization
and they are the most senior internal leader with a direct reporting relationship to the board
(Ostrower & Stone, 2017). Larcker et al. (2015) showed that executive directors are highly
skilled leaders, with 62% holding a master’s degree or higher and 86% having prior nonprofit
experience. Yet, board chairs appointed from outside the nonprofit sector may diminish the
credentials of nonprofit leaders who manage organizations geared toward community
32

improvement instead of financial returns, through ways such as micromanaging and lack of basic
governance task management (Kenagy et al., 2013; LeRoux & Langer, 2016). These professional
biases may undermine the urgency of building a respectful rapport between these two leaders,
who struggle against the temporality of a board chair’s tenure and time-constrained ability to
overcome the gap in understanding and communication (Parker, 2007; Peter Jäger & Rehli,
2012).
Board chair terms last 12–24 months depending on the organization’s bylaws (IRS,
2008), requiring a regular renegotiation of and adaptation to new dynamics of leadership
between this pair (Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016; Hiland, 2008). Board chairs new in their roles
are conscious of not infringing on the work of the executive director (Herman & Heimovics,
1990), yet there remains a necessity for quickly understanding each other to maintain governance
accountability for the nonprofit they jointly lead. Previously cited research has highlighted the
influence of sociocultural and organizational environments on the behaviors that influence
governance (Miller-Millesen, 2003), and the same exists for the contextual relationship between
board chairs and executive directors and how this dyadic pair constructs their shared
understanding.
The dynamic between executive directors and board chairs remains an underserved area
of research, but early findings on this pivotal relationship assumed the hero complex approach
(Chait et al., 2005; Stewart, 1991): board chairs would ascend to their role, establish control, and
solve all the nonprofit’s problems. Chait et al. (2005) offered a significant grounding work on
this topic by conceiving of the board chair role as complementing when there was a knowledge
gap, and directing, coaching, and controlling the executive director otherwise. Stewart (1991)
viewed the board chair as the controlling party who established the demarcation of roles,
33

whereas Kakabadse et al. (2006) found that board chairs expressed the need to form no personal
attachments to the internal management team and that conflict most arises when visions of the
organization differ. Hiland (2008) and Iecovich and Bar-Mor (2007) advanced the conversation
by shifting the focus away from roles and showing that there could be no effective working
relationship between these parties unless there was a connection based on trust. Sharing of facts,
ideas, knowledge, and feelings and adapting to the others’ leadership styles characterized the
respectful relationship dynamic of the 34 study participants (Hiland, 2008). These facets of
connection can work in synchrony to help develop the trust and support needed to influence the
success of the board chair-executive director relationship.
Belief in the reliability and aptitude of a governing partner may be essential to a
trustworthy connection between board chairs and executive directors (Harrison et al., 2013).
Although hampered by a small sample size of 10 board chair-executive director pairs who had
worked together for at least 6 months, Neustrom et al. (2012) asked what leads to either a
positive or negative relationship between this dyad. Their findings echo others (Heemskerk et al.,
2015; Hiland, 2008; Reid & Turbide, 2012) in that trust, communication, and respect were
critical to high functioning pairs and absent in conflict-heavy ones (Neustrom et al., 2012). The
authors showed that shared understanding of the mission outweighs shared understanding of
roles in high functioning partnerships, and may also offer a novel way of conceptualizing this
knowledge with the term “obligation” (Neustrom et al., 2012, p. 156). A possible way to phrase
the connection between these two governing partners who share a common commitment to the
multiple levels of stakeholders who rely on them and require a healthy leadership relationship for
their own success.
34

However, to internalize this obligation for successful leadership, the board chair-
executive director partnership might strive to understand that their roles remain fluid and
malleable to both internal and external influences (Bradshaw, 2009; Mordaunt & Cornforth,
2004; Reid & Turbide, 2012). Both leadership positions change through the perceptions of others
(Bernstein et al., 2016), whereas Schulz and Auld (2006) showed that a shared foundation of
trust between leaders was more impactful to internal stakeholders than the external community in
which they operate. Mathews (2019) and McAuley (2019) recently contributed to this discussion
by studying two samples of board chair-executive director partnerships within nonprofits sharing
similar missions and geographic areas of operation: Mathews community service and McAuley
performing arts. These studies emphasized that more congruent governing teams shared high
trust and understanding between themselves and internal organization members, as well as the
ability to adapt their leadership styles to one another in changing contextual circumstances
(Mathews, 2019; McAuley, 2019). Primary findings echo Schulz and Auld (2006) as well as
Reid and Turbide’s (2012) longitudinal study showing that no solitary type of governing
relationship endured through organizational change: they all had to change. The nonprofit sector
is constantly in flux as resources, staffing, and governance participation shift in response to
environmental changes (Ostrower & Stone, 2006). Conflict may be a consequence within the
dyadic relationship between governing leaders if they cannot shift their management and
communication styles within the changing context of the sector they serve.
Conflict and Consequences
Beginning the conversation on discord and disconnect between a board chair and an
executive director, research supports that both parties feel they understand their roles well
despite much data to the contrary. Studies such as Schulz and Auld (2006) and their sample of
35

118 leader pairs could find no significant difference in perception of role ambiguity. In fact,
BoardSource (2017, 2021) showed that over 80% of board chair and executive director pairs felt
both parties understood their primary roles and tasks. However, when only 61% of leader pairs
say they have a constructive partnership (BoardSource, 2017) and multiple studies show that role
ambiguity is a cause of strife (Brown, 2005; Mathews, 2019; McAuley, 2019), there may be
more than meets the eye.
Bernstein et al. (2016) investigated this perception of misalignment through the study of
474 board chair-executive director pairs. Findings showed a statistically significant difference for
nearly all responses between a board chair’s perception of their governance efforts and the views
of their executive director, with the board chair rating themselves more successful (Bernstein et
al., 2016). Bernstein et al. (2016) posed that the differential between perception of success in
nearly all operational areas might be due to a lack of organizational knowledge by the board
chair and their pride preventing them from asking the questions they must ask. This mirrors
Neustrom et al. (2012) and their finding that initial hesitancy by the board chairs interviewed to
speak about their dyadic relationship resulted in 95% of participants describing nothing negative
in their partnerships, which further probing soon uncovered was not the case (Neustrom et al.,
2012). This perhaps reflects the self-efficacy and motivation behind governance engagement or
the lack thereof, in that there is no place for ego in shared leadership, particularly in the nonprofit
sector when advancements are often the result of intangible programmatic success and razor-thin
margins (Stahl et al., 2014). The hesitancy to communicate openly and respectfully in service to
the nonprofit may result from the inconsistent relationship between this pair when supervisory
questions go unasked, and internal leaders gravitate towards defensiveness of their work.
36

The contradiction of this dyadic relationship, with an executive director in the unique
position of leading their organization but being subordinate to their board chair who may not
have experience in their sector (Neustrom et al., 2012), often presents as a primary hurdle to this
dynamic. The resulting conflict, which may come from deeply held beliefs about the sector and
those professionals who work within as opposed to role misunderstandings (Hiland, 2008), might
be considered struggle for power. Although Heemskerk et al. (2015) showed that 58% of their
study boards had an observable conflict between governing leaders, their findings that this
struggle for dominance improved these working relationship goes unsupported in additional
literature. Parker (2007) found that executive directors on half of the boards within their
longitudinal study were in control of the board meetings and half “led from behind” through the
board chair, though neither scenario reduced conflict (p. 932). Zhang (2013) disagreed, finding
that conflict can only diminish, and board governance improve if the board chair exerts total
control over the management of the executive director.
Additional research on the struggle for power within this relationship sought to uncover
organizational as well as personal behaviors that might influence this dynamic. Iecovich and Bar-
Mor (2007), within their study of 66 leadership pairs, found that the nonprofit executive directors
were the more dominant party when the organization was more established, had a more
prominent base of support, and the board chair volunteered fewer hours of their time. The
inverse was also shown, with board chairs taking the more dominant role when they give more
hours to the work (Iecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007), which aligned with Otto’s (2002) comparative
study stressing the critical influence of this time commitment factor when looking at board chair
power. An additional finding from Iecovich and Bar-Mor (2007) is the correlation found between
lack of board chair education and experience and the need to dominate the executive director
37

within the shared governance dynamic. This may oppose implied understanding that the more
knowledgeable a board chair is, the more heavily they seek to influence the executive director,
possibly demonstrating a return to the hero complex posited earlier for those chairs who lack
learning opportunities (Chait et al., 2005; Iecovich & Bar-Mor, 2007). The study participants in
this data pool may lack self-efficacy as well as humility and may need to overcompensate in their
board chair role to assert power and control and to distract from their lack of experience.
Transforming the power and conflict dynamic between board chairs and executive
directors into a trusting and fluid leadership dynamic may not always occur. Peter Jäger and
Rehli (2012) and their investigation of cooperative power dynamics between this pair showed
that external organizational factors, such as changes in funding (Miller-Millesen, 2003), can
prove critical for governance. Despite a small sample size, they found that 25% of the time the
board chair’s direct conflict over dominance caused the executive director to resign and, even
more impactful, 75% of nonprofits studied experienced such governing stalemate in response to
contextual changes that both leaders departed (Peter Jäger & Rehli, 2012). The researchers noted
that all executive directors were experienced leaders and echoed many in the field with their
finding that much of the disconnect is preventable if the governing leaders had complementary
skills and/or could have adjusted the relationship to the changing context they found themselves
in (Peter Jäger & Rehli, 2012).
Additional work by Olinske and Hellman (2017) expanded on the consequences of this
relationship conflict by demonstrating a statistically significant connection between executive
director burnout and board chair interference. Stewart (2016, 2017) undertook a novel approach
to this lack of trust and obligation by studying both sides of the equation within 40 nonprofits
that experienced turnover. Primary findings include 16% of executive directors reporting they
38

left their role because of tension with their boards (Stewart, 2016), similar to the earlier work of
Issa and Herman (1986) showing 20% of nonprofit executive directors within their study
departed for similar reasons. In their complementary study the following year, Stewart (2017)
demonstrated the cyclical nature of leadership replacement acknowledged by Olinske and
Hellman (2017), finding only 44% of board chairs had hosted an onboarding or orientation with
their new executive directors.
The knowledge a board chair brings to their role and how they seek to invest within the
governance framework integrates with sociocultural and environmental influences that may be
difficult to disconnect from the power dynamic within their governing partnership. An alternate
path forward to successful dyadic balance might be to acknowledge how contexts and different
learning styles change based on the influences of board room peers, language used in meetings,
and expectations for service that alter with environmental stressors. Cornforth and Macmillan
(2016) argued it is not just proximity to information, expertise, and relationships that determine
influence within this governing relationship for both parties. Rather, it is the “will and skill”
(Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016, p. 965), or the motivation and knowledge, to use these sources of
power appropriately, shaping this alliance to one of shared obligation towards the nonprofit both
leaders serve.
Board Chair Onboarding
As postured, effective nonprofit governance is incredibly rare (Kenagy et al., 2013), and
many boards, as led by their board chair, do not fulfill their most basic governance and
management responsibilities (Herman & Renz, 2000). It is a sector where organizational
effectiveness is so varied and challenging to quantify as a social construction (Herman & Renz,
1997; Mitchell, 2013; Willems, 2016). Board chairs create their own understanding of nonprofit
39

management selectively and heavily influenced by their own experiences (Cornforth, 2012), and
impactful methods and means of learning remain elusive. However, interrogating the factors that
influence board chairs’ capacities for effectively fulfilling their governance responsibilities may
help organize the remaining literature and provide a grounding for further discussion of the
conceptual framework that guides this field study.
Understanding the Role of Board Chair
When governing leaders are absent a common understanding of the board chair role the
culture and purpose of the entire board may suffer (Heemskerk et al., 2015). Therefore,
acquisition of board chair knowledge is a critical factor in successful governance and a topic
investigated in Freiwirth et al.’s (2017) research. In their national study encompassing the
responses of 635 board chairs, the authors sought to understand how participants understood and
prepared for their roles, focusing uniquely on contextual learning impediments and influences.
The results enhanced the sector’s understanding of board chair learning, showing that 51% of
respondents did nothing to prepare for the critical board chair role. Of the 49% of respondents
who sought learning opportunities, only 56% were intentional with their self-education efforts
(Freiwirth et al., 2017), potentially illuminating why Larcker et al. (2015) and their survey of 924
directors showed that only 47% of board chairs understand their roles. With Freiwirth et al.’s
finding that 70% of incoming board chairs exclusively learn by observing the outgoing board
chair in meetings, the veracity of learning from models who might not be establishing the best
example of success because they themselves were lacking proper instruction may be critical to
improving board chair onboarding (Bandura, 1977).
This type of observational learning and knowledge acquisition that results from a group
determining and then perpetuating the meanings they create may either prove positive for the
40

organization and its governance leadership or negative. It is also highly individual and hard to
generalize when each board chair learns based on the unique relationship with and resources of
the nonprofit they serve (Beck, 2014; Herman & Renz, 2000). Beck (2014) found that providing
a board with appropriate knowledge, coupled with a trusting environment, allowed them to ask
the questions necessary to create a culture of respect as led by the board chair, and that peer
learning opportunities expanded. Bradshaw (2002) showed that creating an environment with
positive group thinking and knowledge sharing allows board chairs to tap into the experiences
and expertise their peers were recruited for, which might also sustain a culture ripe for
succession and future leadership planning (Freiwirth et al., 2017).
The reinforcement of learning is critical to growth and knowledge transfer (Bandura,
1977), yet only 34% of nonprofit boards currently engage in annual reviews of their efforts and
understanding (Brown, 2007). Harrison and Murray (2012) empirically showed that evaluations
are one of the few tools shown to increase board effectiveness. In fact, board chairs who
regularly lead and prioritize board evaluations cause the board chair and executive director to
independently rate their boards higher across all areas of function (BoardSource, 2021). Not only
taking advantage of learning opportunities but ensuring they become a part of the governance
culture and norms is critical to overcoming board chair engagement hurdles and ensuring that
governing leaders have a firm understanding of their roles (Cumberland et al., 2015). With only
42% of board chairs indicating that a primary duty was to manage and oversee board meetings, a
task reliably considered a defining characteristic of their role (Freiwirth et al., 2017), this
strategy of increased evaluation could have a significant impact.
To continually reinforce responsibility understanding and decrease role ambiguity,
ongoing opportunities for learning could be accessible to the board chair beyond the annual or
41

semiannual board chair review process, if utilized, while also connecting them to the mission of
the organization they serve. Bernstein et al. (2016) felt board chair learning should happen
fluidly, allowing the leader to develop an understanding of their roles and impact throughout the
course of their service. However, with limited time as well as limited tenure, learning
opportunities may be better served by steering away from being thought of as organic learning
experiences and become routine and ingrained with the cultural functions of the board (Bernstein
et al., 2016; Hough et al., 2013). Understanding that every board chair will bring their own
experiences when they begin their role, board orientation could be a significant stage of board
chair knowledge acquisition.
Board chairs might also build meaning and increase knowledge by acting on
opportunities to serve the mission within the community (Beck, 2014). With only 32% of
surveyed board chairs indicating that knowledge of the community served as an important aspect
of their board service despite data showing it as a most important recruitment characteristic
(BoardSource, 2021), this may present as an engaging learning opportunity. From events with
external stakeholders, to mingling with front-line staff members, learning results from social
interactions and the influence of our peers (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). In fact, BoardSource
(2021) showed that the biggest increase to a positive board effectiveness was spending at least
2.5 hours socially together per month, with BoardSource (2017) showing that the 68% of board
chairs who expressed a lack of teamwork did not engage in any board member social time. Small
connections such as ice breakers in the beginning of meetings, conversations at a break, or a
happy hour after governance work concludes, may influence the perception of teamwork. The
board chair is the model of positive board governance: they create the environment for
42

knowledge, and their motivation for service may be a significant predictor of their behavior in
the board room and normalization of engagement routines.
Fulfilling the Role of Board Chair
Uncovering the reasons for serving as a board chair can be an elusive process, as one’s
internal and external motivations for undertaking a task are both deeply personal and
subconscious (Bandura, 2000). However, examining this important aspect of board chair learning
by looking at how someone ascends to the role, their self-efficacy, as well as how they
understand the organizational mission, might provide insight into the learning gaps that exist for
more complete board chair engagement. Returning to Freiwirth et al.’s (2017) study of 635 board
chairs, a concerning statistic was that 16% of participating board chairs had been on the board
for less than 1 year before becoming board chair while 56% relayed their term was less than 3
years before becoming chair. With 82% of responding board chairs demonstrating one of the
most influential ways they learned about their role before taking it over was by serving as chair
of a board committee, positions that take time to develop during regular board term service, the
brevity of service prior to appointment remains a compelling finding (BoardSource, 2021;
Freiwirth et al., 2017).
With such limited exposure to the context in which the nonprofit they serve operates,
only half of surveyed board members relay their chair was ready for the role and created a
positive governing culture, whereas 47% of executive directors indicated likewise (BoardSource,
2021). However, similar research shows that 87% of board chairs feel well prepared, confident,
and competent in their roles (Freiwirth et al., 2017), while rating themselves significantly higher
than their executive directors do in all areas of governance (Bernstein et al., 2016). These studies
demonstrate how a means forward might be to match new board members directly with more
43

seasoned volunteers, mentoring them and nurturing future governance leaders so a direct path to
the board chair role is clear and understood and the endemic problem of few people willing to
step into the role may be averted. As previous service leading board committees has been of
great influence to surveyed board chairs, skills-based trainings on crafting agendas and
facilitating meetings is something to incorporate at the committee level to fill this motivational
divide for board chair service (Freiwirth et al., 2017).
The gap in understanding of one’s abilities and skills, or self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977),
might be tied back to expectations for the board chair role based on prior experience. Nonprofit
boards are typically larger than for-profit boards for greater boundary-spanning reasons,
avocational compared to for-profit boards of professional peers, and consist primarily of
individuals with outside sector experience (Brown, 2005; Ostrower & Stone, 2017; Reid, 2013;
Tydings et al, 2017). Many board chairs lack the foundational understanding to serve in the role
(Green & Griesinger, 1996), yet viewing themselves as the “savior” of the nonprofit can hamper
true understanding of their own motivation for service (Reid, 2013). Studies have shown that
expressed reasons for joining a board are primarily altruistic, such as to make a difference in the
community and give their time to help others (Inglis & Cleave, 2006; Miller-Stevens & Ward,
2019). Yet, additional research shows that recognition by peers within the community as well as
developing professional relationships ranks highly, with 32% of board members surveyed
indicating they hope their nonprofit board service opens opportunities to serve on a for-profit
board (Larcker et al., 2015; Smith, 1994). With a discrepancy between expressed motivations for
nonprofit board service, a way forward may be to reevaluate the placement of organizational
missions in board chair learning and build meaning through understanding community impact.
44

Being stimulated and excited by the mission of the nonprofit motivates board knowledge
acquisition (Chait et al., 2005), and with language as the basis of learning (Schreiber & Valle,
2013), a better understanding of how organizations create commitment may enhance board chair
onboarding. The importance of understanding the organization’s mission and nonprofit’s context
within the community served can be a source of motivation, unification, and the foundation on
which the chair crafts the culture that guides the governing board. Still, it remains frequently
cited as an area important to effective governance but lacking in actual embodiment on nonprofit
boards (BoardSource, 2021; Larcker et al., 2015).
Encouraging a shared sense of obligation (Neustrom et al., 2012) and commitment to the
nonprofit they are leading, may start with how the board chair interprets the very language of the
mission statement and how it resonates with their own personal motivations for service. Maurer
(2016) looked at the mission statements of 21 different nonprofits and found the word
“community” appeared 29 times, while an earlier study observed the meetings of seven boards
and showed that vocabulary mirroring the mission can successfully build commitment and
aspiration towards community goals (Daley et al., 1996). A related 6-month case study showed
that periodic mission reviews as led by the board chair heavily influenced the perception of
successful governance and showed that learning created through group work and communication
can be even more impactful when normalized into a routine (Beck, 2014). Although small
sample sizes, these studies demonstrate that dissection of the mission with a focus on language
understanding and creation can help support board chair motivation and learning.
An effectively oriented board chair might share in the mission of a nonprofit organization
by linking their motivation for service to supporting the work undertaken (Beck, 2014). They
may become a part of the narrative throughout the community by helping to represent their own
45

interaction with the organization’s goals as the context shifts and changes (Beck, 2014;
Bradshaw, 2002). Stories and the language used convey meaning, assist in knowledge
acquisition, and create the opportunity for the social phenomena of group learning (Reid, 2013;
Schunk & Usher, 2019). Listening to the story of the mission through group work, client
experiences, and fundraising pitches among others, may allow a board chair to better understand
the organization’s performance and discover the intersection between this vision and their own
personal identity (Beck, 2014; Hough et al., 2013). Perhaps clarifying not only their intrinsic
motivation for service but the active choice to continue their growth as an effective governing
leader regardless of the hurdles they face.
Supporting the Board Chair
Although effective board chair leadership may be heavily influenced by the knowledge
and motivation an individual brings to their role, the support they receive from their organization
and their executive director may also be of great importance to their effective fulfillment of
governance responsibilities. A board chair is not alone in this vital leadership role, and research
shows that most chairs do feel supported by the nonprofits they serve (BoardSource, 2017, 2021;
Freiwirth et al., 2017). Board chairs rarely receive all the information they need to succeed from
the organizations they serve, despite the board chair often thinking otherwise (Hough et al.,
2013). Bernstein et al. (2016) also identified this issue by displaying a statistically significant gap
between this information asymmetry and attributing it to board chair over confidence, whereas
Kenagy et al. (2013) found that a primary cause for this organizational disconnect is information
flow, or lack thereof, between these top governing leaders. Mason and Kim (2020) noted that
executive directors must devote more time to board training and education, with Larcker et al.
46

(2015) finding 51% of board chairs saying they would specifically like more financial
information from their executive directors.
Although asking the executive director for additional support proved effective for 58% of
board chairs and their learning (Freiwirth et al., 2017), this dependency on one individual may be
alleviated through standardizing onboarding specific to board chairs. Returning to Bernstein et
al.’s 2016 study of 474 board chair-executive director pairs, results demonstrated board chair
orientation was one of the most effective ways of learning about governance roles and
responsibilities, supporting Mason and Kim’s (2020) finding that board onboarding is essential
to effective leadership. Brown (2007) specifically investigated board development practices by
surveying 1,051 executive directors and board chairs and found board onboarding should provide
an introductory overview for the board chair role, whereas Wright and Millesen’s (2008) study
of 249 board members found that orientation of all board members significantly decreased role
ambiguity. Ongoing training as the chair grows in their role and the organizational needs change
around them is critical for leadership and knowledge acquisition (Brown, 2007; Harrison &
Murray, 2012), yet nonprofit organizations may fail to provide this minimum of support.
Converting the 51% of board chairs who report they did nothing to prepare for their role
and were given no materials or training (Freiwirth et al., 2017) to knowledgeable and effective
leaders who receive their information through normalized organizational sources must be a
continual process. Freiwirth et al.’s (2017) analysis of 635 board chairs showed that 42% of
chairs who chose to prepare for their role received all their information from Internet searches,
whereas 33% turned to books they had purchased themselves. Although BoardSource (2021)
demonstrated that 85% of nonprofits offer new board orientations, few data points exist on
board-chair-specific onboarding processes.
47

Instituting standardized education and coaching opportunities that persist beyond an
individual leader’s term length could prove effective in enabling consistency across multiple
board chairs. Team development skills, strategies to face conflict, and ability to motivate others
were identified as effective board chair governance characteristics throughout the longitudinal
research of Harrison et al. (2013; Harrison & Murray, 2012). Capacity-building training
activities that organizations can provide to their board chair also produce more competent leaders
(Brown, 2007). Board chairs in Freiwirth et al.’s (2017) study indicated having access to
resources when needed rather than sifting through the overwhelming amount of information
globally, the sourcing of which may be another way organizations can support their board chair’s
learning. Studies such as these have shown that there is an awareness of how the onboarding
process for a nonprofit board chair is deficit, yet impediments to application remain.
In addition to providing orientation and training through a standardized onboarding
process, an organization may better support their board chair through the recruitment and
retention of volunteers capable of future governance leadership. Competent board members are
an essential resource for a nonprofit (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003), yet recruitment and retention of
talented volunteers remains a primary challenge for the sector (Boardsource, 2021; Freiwirth et
al., 2017). Additionally, the struggle of transitioning high-level volunteers to a functioning work
group exists as another recruitment and retention opportunity for organizational support of their
board leader (Brown, 2007). Bernstein et al. (2015) found that improved board performance is
linked to these volunteers being included within the external governance process of board
member recruitment. Furthermore, the organization can also support a board chair’s effective
fulfillment of their governance responsibilities through establishment of internal recruitment and
retention benchmarks. Inglis and Dooley (2002) advocate for matching incoming board members
48

to those with longer service, while more recent work of Freirwirth et al. (2017) echoes the
possibility such mentorships hold for preparing future board chairs and acclimating them to the
role well before a transition occurs.
In addition to a sharper focus on board recruitment processes, an organization can support
the board chair’s capacity by formalizing internal committees: at present, only 52% of nonprofit
organizations have written charters for internal committees (Boardsource, 2021). This lack of
codification is represented in 33% of boards acknowledging the informality of their committee
structure and therefore their decision-making process (Larcker et al., 2015). Committees
consisting of board members responsible for identifying external board candidates and
positioning internal ones for leadership roles, may be a significant asset an organization can
provide to supporting their board chair role. Herman and Renz (2000) and their research on
especially successful nonprofits, found that executive directors as well as board members within
the 64 organizations studied felt that having a board member development committee improved
the effectiveness of the entire board. While Callen et al. (2003) associated no positive link
between increased organizational effectiveness and internal committee service, Ostrower (2008)
echoed prior research in demonstrating that internal board recruitment processes for future
governance leaders does result in stronger board engagement and effectiveness. Internal board
development committees with a focus on systemizing recruitment of new members as well as
matriculation of existing volunteers, may impact a board chair’s capacity for effective
governance fulfillment.
An additional means of organizational support towards a nonprofit board chair may be
through the standardization of board evaluations and self-assessments (Brown, 2007; Gazley &
Browers, 2013; Herman & Renz, 2000). Evaluations and assessments of active board members
49

and their competencies not only provides a benchmark for current performance but may also
allow a board chair to better identify areas of expertise that might be lacking to better inform
board recruitment (Ostrower, 2008). Boardsource (2017) within their national survey of 1,378
nonprofits showed that the 40% of boards who undertook a self-assessment within the last 2
years, were rated higher in board performance in areas ranging from following a strategic plan to
better understanding their roles and responsibilities.
The incorporation of a board evaluation process may provide volunteers an opportunity
for personal reflection as well as the tools for strengthening governance leadership, but an
organization providing guidance on the methods may be necessary for a volunteer board with
limited time and resources to demonstrate effectiveness (Liket & Maas, 2015). Governance
assessment tools abound both for academic as well as practical assessments of nonprofit boards
and board chair performance (Liket & Maas, 2015), and a nonprofit organization narrowing the
focus for a board chair to select the appropriate model could be an invaluable step towards
adaptation. Harrison and Murray (2015) provided access to a free online board assessment
survey tool to 1,446 board members across 122 nonprofits empirically linking utilization of the
tool to broader aspects organizational impact and growth. Gill et al. (2005) developed a self-
assessment checklist that strove to provide feedback on more day-to-day operational areas of
board performance, attempting to more directly link a board member’s behavior to
organizational outputs for more immediate implementation. Examples of efficacious assessment
instruments abound, yet a board chair’s capacity to discern the most competent system of
measurement given their limited time and tenure may exist as an impediment to implementation.
The assistance of the nonprofit they serve in identifying an assessment tool to best suit their
50

governance needs may be a necessary component to increasing a board chair’s capacity towards
the fulfillment of their governance responsibilities.
Theoretical and Conceptual Approach
A theoretical framework provides the structure of a study and a plausible explanation for
the behavior under investigation, whereas a conceptual framework is an analytical tool to show
relationships and organize the results of a study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Saunders, 2019). To uncover the root causes of these impediments to successful board
chair onboarding and engagement, Clark and Estes (2008) and their performance solution
framework will be used. This conceptual structure will serve as the foundation for a research
approach informed by two additional learning theories, sociocultural learning theory and social
cognitive theory, to help understand the internal and external influencers on the goals of
nonprofit board chairs.
Nonprofit organizations support their communities in a myriad of highly nuanced ways
that make universal benchmarks of organizational effectiveness and success challenging to
quantify (Willems, 2016). Regardless of organizational intention, this inconsistency plagues
many areas of the nonprofit sector, including successful board chair onboarding, which presents
as an endemic issue. Clark and Estes (2008) maintained that performance gaps cannot be
identified, and organizational change undertaken until the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences that exist are understood. They posited that all three factors must align
for a stakeholder to meet their goal and experience genuine results (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
following sections attempt to describe each of these areas within the theoretical framework,
providing insight into their interconnected nature and how they influence the goals of a nonprofit
board chair.
51

Knowledge Influences
A researcher must have the right people, the correct data gathered, and an accurate means
of interpretation to truly enact organizational change (Malloy, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008)
asserted that the starting point for an identification of organizational gaps is by finding out
whether stakeholders know how to achieve their expected goals. To this end, Krathwohl (2002)
and Rueda (2011) divided this necessary knowledge into four subsections that assist
stakeholders: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the
facts and details needed to accomplish the goal. Conceptual knowledge is how familiar the
stakeholder is with the domain in which they are operating. Procedural knowledge refers to
whether the stakeholder understands the steps necessary to attain their goal. Finally,
metacognitive knowledge is having the self-awareness to recognize when more information or
help is needed to achieve the performance goal (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Although all
facets of knowledge contribute to our understanding, for this study, factual, conceptual, and
metacognitive approaches were deemed most important when assessing the knowledge gaps to
successful nonprofit board chair onboarding.
Factual Knowledge
Studies ascertaining board chair factual knowledge have focused on understanding roles
and responsibilities (Brown, 2007; Brown & Guo, 2010), while demonstrating that effective
governance is reliant on a board chair possessing clarity of facts about their job (Bruni-Bossi et
al., 2016). The nonprofit sector is overburdened with guidebooks, job descriptions, and similar
rote products to engage a board chair with the most important aspects of their role, yet they place
the responsibility for education and knowledge acquisition on the volunteers. As many authors
within this review have shown, perhaps this overabundance of materials may prevent a board
52

from absorbing the most pertinent information. Clark and Estes (2008) made a distinction that
job aids, such as many prescriptive materials, are only effective when provided to individuals
already experienced with the subject. With the potential lack of ongoing factual training once a
board chair assumes position, research shows most chairs may not possess a foundational
grounding necessary to perform their roles (Harrison & Murray, 2012). Nevertheless, board
chairs are often unaware of this gap in their factual knowledge due to their dearth of experience
and understanding within the field (Hough et al., 2013).
Conceptual Knowledge
Insufficient conceptual knowledge may prevent a board chair from understanding what
aspects of their onboarding process are necessary to effectively undertake their leadership
responsibilities. With many board chairs approaching their governance role with professional
experience from other sectors (Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021), they may not know what
conceptual knowledge they are missing that should have been provided (Epstein & McFarlan,
2011). For example, their grasp of the mission and the important role it plays within the context
of nonprofit operationalization, and the board chair’s ability to articulate its significance to the
organization they govern, can affect everything from fundraising success to boardroom culture.
Cornforth and Macmillan (2016), with their longitudinal study of a single nonprofit organization
throughout different leadership cycles, demonstrated how the momentum shifted when a board
chair with conceptual knowledge of the sector took on the role, and the entire board thrived.
Their study also showed the opposite. When a board chair lacking in conceptual knowledge was
in charge, their tenure was plagued with conflict and lack of growth with a pronounced inability
to change (Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016), which may also demonstrate a lack of metacognitive
knowledge.
53

Metacognitive Knowledge
Metacognitive knowledge, as defined by Krathwohl (2002), is the ability to adjust one’s
performance and monitor progress to obtain a goal. A board chair with sufficient metacognitive
knowledge may be able to reflect on their actions and approach their tenure in this governance
role with more flexibility and awareness of organizational needs. Reflection is a vital aspect of
effective learning (Clark & Estes, 2008), and learners also strive to understand how to apply said
knowledge to achieve their goal (Krathwohl, 2002). The adjustment of their skills to changing
situations as well as changing leadership relationships, in particular to creating a trusting dyadic
relationship with their executive director, may be pivotal to a board chair’s engagement (Brown,
2007; Hiland, 2008). Studies have also shown evaluation of a board chair, coupled with ongoing
education, is even more effective for metacognitive knowledge enforcement (Mason & Kim,
2020).
Motivational Influences
Where knowledge instructs based on past experiences, motivation invigorates and
encourages achievement of goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008)
clarified three different motivational processes: active choice, persistence, and mental effort.
Active choice is not only the intention to undertake a task, but to pursue a work goal regardless
of desirability (Clark & Estes, 2008). A board chair has necessary tasks they must perform, even
if they feel the goals are beneath them and their prior experience (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011) or
they did not desire to become a governing leader in the first place. Persistence as a component of
motivated performance refers to the ability to focus on the most important goals at hand, not the
goals that are most attractive to a person (Clark & Estes, 2008). LeRoux and Langer (2016) and
their survey of 241 nonprofit executive directors demonstrated that, regardless of guidance, a
54

statistically significant gap persists between what a board chair should do and what motivates
their focus. Finally, Clark and Estes defined mental effort as accompanying choosing and
persisting at a goal, and how much investment one makes in attainment. Overconfidence factors
heavily into how much mental effort a board chair will instill within the tasks asked of the role
(Bowen, 1994) and how they may misjudge their abilities to complete a task when viewed as
beneath them, thereby investing less time and energy to successfully achieving the goals needed.
The combination of these three components of motivation, active choice, persistence, and
mental effort, may lead to increased board chair performance and goal achievement (Clark and
Estes, 2008). A board chair may strive to see the value in the roles and responsibilities required
of them despite limited volunteer hours spent, while not letting their overconfidence in their own
experiences cloud their understanding of sector differences. Given the scarcity of volunteers to
take on the board chair role, active choice and the desire to effectively govern despite a lack of
desire for the position, may provide additional insight into the motivation of those who
successfully persevere. Understanding the motivation of board chairs to approaching the
onboarding process and subsequent investment in the nonprofit they serve may also be enhanced
through analysis of task value and self-efficacy as components of this study’s conceptual
framework.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Expectancy-value theory maintains that motivation towards goal attainment can increase
by combining personal interest and control over tasks and objectives (Eccles, 2006; Schunk &
Usher, 2019). However, the individual must decide how greatly they value the completion of
these tasks, and then determine whether they can and desire to accomplish them (Eccles, 2006).
55

This study on nonprofit board chair onboarding and engagement utilized the expectancy-value
aspects of intrinsic value or interest, and attainment value or importance.
A foundational starting point may be found by revisiting Miller-Stevens and Ward (2019)
and their study of motivations for joining and serving on a board. Their sample of 726 board
members and chairs suggests that intrinsic reasons such as giving back to others and contributing
to their community are significant factors in why someone volunteers on a nonprofit board. Still,
this study showed that those reasons become more focused on the specific organization and their
goals as their service progresses while the focus on personal fulfillment recedes with more global
goals taking precedence. This transition to more universal goals shows that attainment value, or
the importance placed on goals as it relates to identity (Rueda, 2011), may be a significant factor
in increasing a board chair’s effectiveness and length of time volunteering. As shown in Miller-
Stevens and Ward’s (2019) research, a board chair shifts their goals for service away from the
personal and towards the organizational over time.
Self-Efficacy Theory
As with aspects of nonprofit effectiveness as cited within this review, belief in the
capacity to achieve a goal may bring the perception of success within reach. The application of
self-efficacy theory to the motivations behind a board chair’s onboarding and engagement might
improve understanding of these beliefs and how they affect top nonprofit leaders. Self-efficacy is
a foundational pillar to social cognitive theory. A learning theory first developed in the 1960s by
Albert Bandura (1925–2021), whose principals are that learning occurs in social environments
either actively by doing or through vicarious observation (Schunk & Usher, 2019). Social
cognitive theory emphasizes the relationship between a person, their behavior, and their
environment (Schunk & Usher, 2019), while self-efficacy theory refers to an individual’s beliefs
56

in their capabilities to execute and achieve certain tasks and goals (Bandura, 1977). Self-efficacy
involves personal cognitive judgements on one’s own performance influenced by experiences
with similar tasks, observations of others undertaking the task, verbal feedback (both positive
and negative), as well as one’s physical and emotional reactions (Bandura, 1977; Elliot et al.,
2018).
Clark and Estes (2008) emphasized that self-efficacy reflects one’s belief that they can
accomplish a task based on prior experience, and although learning is an internal process,
observing people you wish to emulate and the behavior they model is also responsible for
advancements in cognition and understanding of accepted group practices (Smith, 2002).
Referring to Freiwirth et al. (2017) and their finding that 70% of board chairs who prepared for
their role did so by observing the outgoing board chair, when the motivations and self-efficacy of
that volunteer are unknown, a cycle of overconfidence in goal attainment can be easily
transferred to subsequent generations of board chair leaders (Hough et al., 2013).
Examining the self-efficacy of a board chair may deepen understanding of the impact one
individual in a leadership role can have on the behavior of others throughout an organizational
learning environment, as well as what goals receive the most attention with a correlating
investment of mental effort. Understanding the influence that potential over-confidence from
success in other industries prior to board service has on a chair, may assist the onboarding
process in helping board volunteers begin their tenure with an openness to ego-free learning
(Epstein & McFarlan, 2011).
Organizational Influences
To influence the onboarding knowledge acquisition of a board chair and their continued
engagement with the role, the organization’s culture must also be examined (Rueda, 2011). We
57

can think of organizational culture as the product of joint learning experiences that create shared
assumptions about how to act and engage with one another (Schein, 2010). Culture is an
outcome of human interaction, a showcase for the correct way of accomplishing tasks and
investing time and effort, as well as the patterns of behavior and rituals that guide actions
(Costanza et al., 2016; Zak, 2017). Clark and Estes (2008) stated that an organization’s culture
can affect all attempts at performance improvement and derail even the most aligned plans for
change. For the purposes of this study, nonprofit board chair learning is informed by the cultural
model and cultural setting of a constructivist theoretical framework.
Cultural Model
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) defined a cultural model as a shared understanding of
how something works. There is nothing to see or touch, no relic or symbolic marker, but beliefs
and attitudes that inform how the organization operates which are influenced by its internal and
external contexts. Cultural models are the underlying assumptions that guide group behavior and,
although invisible, influence the organization’s members, who each learn because of their own
unique social and cultural experiences (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Kezar, 2001; Schein,
2010). Lev Vygotsky’s (1896–1934) sociocultural learning theory may allow an analysis of how
our personal understanding of culture affects our behavior towards those with a different lived
experience (Wegerif, 2008). Vygotsky maintained that cultural development is a cycle: as culture
influences an individual’s development, their behavior then creates the culture (Johnson &
Bradbury, 2015).
This constructivist approach allows for the concept that a board chair may begin a
volunteer relationship at a nonprofit with their own personal composition of understanding about
nonprofit leadership, created through the course of their own professional development, and by
58

which they make sense of the sector (Neustrom et al., 2012). Hough et al. (2013) examined such
assumptions in their study of five similar but distinct nonprofit organizations, where they
observed 66 meetings over the course of 14 months. In these meetings, board members and
chairs rarely expressed thoughts about the entire organization from a strategic governance lens,
which is a previously identified and prominent role of a nonprofit board (Ostrower & Stone,
2006). Instead, 95% of the time, the boards questioned and passed judgement on smaller pieces
of information presented rather than the whole, lending their own background and experiences to
their comments (Hough et al., 2013). The authors attributed this to how the board makes sense of
the unique nonprofit landscape (Hough et al., 2013): the board as a unit is attempting to construct
the cultural model that will guide their work by piecing together their own disparate experiences.
This study explores how the tools of sociocultural theory may allow for a deeper, solution-
oriented understanding of how best to create cultural models within the nonprofit sector by
examining the unifying influence of language and communication.
Cultural Setting
Culture is created within a setting specific to the organization’s environment when people
gather to build something of shared value to themselves (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Clark
and Estes (2008) showed that we can alter a cultural setting by changing the access to and
content of group knowledge. Returning to the sociocultural learning theory of Vygotsky, this
theory proposes that language is the basis of learning, which is actively created at the social and
cultural level (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). Therefore, the ways of processing and speaking about
our world may be a product of social interactions and a reflection of biases and assumptions,
even if unintended. Bradshaw (2002) summarized ethnographic governance research and found
that although language plays a primary role in creating a nonprofit’s reality, often the value and
59

meaning is lost over time and through leadership transitions. A finding highly relevant to this
study given the challenge of board chair tenure. Yet, from board members expressing
dissatisfaction over an executive director who had barely begun (Stewart, 2017), to nonprofit
executive directors sharing a lack of confidence in their short-tenured boards and a “get what you
pay for” approach (Heemskerk et al., 2015; Mason & Kim, 2020), the influence of language may
linger throughout the terms of multiple governing leaders (Bradshaw, 2002).
Another core concept of Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory is the zone of proximal
development, which seeks to identify the gap between what a learner can achieve on their own
and what they can accomplish with guided assistance (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). This approach
lends itself to a cooperative learning model, with implications for nonprofit board chairs,
executive directors, and the organization that supports them both, to discover what the gaps in
their understanding are and how best to overcome them (Ravenscroft et al., 1999). Board chairs,
even those who have served on the board for an extensive time, still need a clarified work
process, mentoring, and material resources to become a successful board chair no matter how
deep they perceive their organizational knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Despite the importance
of the board chair role, specialized training and onboarding are shown to be significantly lacking
throughout the sector with few data points to reflect on successful implementation (Freiwirth et
al., 2017; Harrison & Murray, 2012).
Table 1 summarizes the assumed KMO influences identified as most important for this
study on board chair onboarding and engagement.
60

Table 1
KMO Influences of Board Chair Onboarding
Global stakeholder goal
To identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to effectively fulfill
their governance responsibilities.
Influence Influence type
Board chairs will have an in-depth understanding of
their governance responsibilities.
Knowledge—factual
Board chairs will understand the significance of
organizational mission within their governance
role.
Knowledge—conceptual
Board chairs will adjust their leadership style to fit
within the governance framework and personal
limitations.
Knowledge—metacognitive
Board chairs will utilize individual interest to pursue
paramount governance responsibilities.
Motivation—intrinsic
Board chairs will have awareness of the intersection
between personal experience and governance
goals.
Motivation—attainment value
Board chairs will have the confidence to advance
their goals towards enriching the culture of
governance.
Motivation—self-efficacy
Nonprofit organizations will provide onboarding
procedures that enable deeper understanding of
the context in which the governance framework is
supported.
Organizational—cultural model
Nonprofit organizations will clarify onboarding
processes that allow stakeholders to jointly
contribute to a collaborative governance
framework.
Organizational—cultural setting

Conceptual Road Map
Clark and Estes (2008) have effectively shown that the successful interaction between
knowledge, motivation, and the organization is necessary for goal achievement. However, a
61

governing board does not operate in isolation (Miller-Millesen, 2003), and this framework alone
may not sufficiently account for the web of social and cultural constructs within which the
nonprofit sector exists. To achieve a more global perspective on the myriad of aspects that
influence board chair onboarding and engagement, a conceptual framework can focus more
closely on the foundational causes of board chair learning impediments. Approaching this
problem from a constructivism and interpretivist world view allows space for different lived
experiences and a deeper understanding of the multitude of socially constructed meanings that
inform how we live and interact (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Kang et al., 2017; Saunders, 2019).
To create a new understanding of the context in which nonprofit governance leaders
communicate, a focus on the cultural roots of language development using the constructivist
approach of Lev Vygotsky, and the perceptions of learning offered by Albert Bandura, may
allow for a diverse understanding of the meaning and success of nonprofit work, its descriptors,
as well as what forms of knowledge acquisition will help these leaders thrive. This inquiry may
provide insight to how board chairs lead from their preconceived notions of the nonprofit sector,
and how acknowledging their diverse realities might positively affect these relationships in the
future by interpreting the viewpoints of all (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Saunders, 2019).

Figure 1
Interaction of Conceptual Influences on Board Chair Onboarding

62
63

Conclusion
This review shared research that investigated challenges to successful nonprofit board
chair onboarding and engagement through an examination of academic and empirical literature,
complemented by industry-wide research. To investigate the topic of board chair onboarding,
this literature review sought to ground the reader in the variations of nonprofit governance and
board member service by highlighting functional differences between sectors (Epstein &
McFarlan, 2011; Lückerath-Rovers et al., 2009), as well as the challenges of measuring
nonfinancial performance for volunteers unaccustomed to such metrics (Kenagy et al., 2013;
Larcker et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2016). By highlighting the function of governance, the literature
sought to show the discrepancy in the sector between the theoretical study of what a governing
nonprofit board should be doing (Miller-Millesen, 2003; Stone & Ostrower, 2007) and the reality
of their governance actions (Cornforth, 2012).
To understand the environment within which board chairs operate, this review explored
the internal context of their service within the governance framework to highlight sector
standards of engagement. The research revealed that the understanding of rudimentary roles and
responsibilities often remains elusive despite the plethora of sector education materials (Brown,
2007; Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016), and there remains a significant disconnect between what
leadership staff feel board primary tasks should be and what tasks are undertaken (Brown &
Guo, 2010; LeRoux & Langer, 2016). Cyclical recruitment processes may result in stagnation of
comprehensive stakeholder representation as well as the ongoing challenge of ensuring a pipeline
of interested board prospects, with volunteer motivations for service and engagement
conceptualized in board capital (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003). Research by Miller-Stevens and
Ward (2019) and Ward and Miller-Stevens (2021) added to the work of Inglis and Cleave (2006)
64

while demonstrating how personal motivations for joining a board alter positively during service,
and how the sharing of mental models and common dialogue contributes to the perception of
success and reciprocity (Brown, 2005; Maurer, 2016). This review also sought to illustrate the
significant impact outside sector experience can have on the knowledge acquisition and
effectiveness of governing boards when volunteer members remain inflexible to the variations of
a new learning environment (Kenagy et al., 2013; Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021).
The literature addressed board chairs and their KMO relationships to inform endemic
obstacles to onboarding success as influenced by internal and external factors (Clark & Estes,
2008). Although organizational effectiveness was shown to be a social construction within the
highly divergent nonprofit sector (Herman & Renz, 1997; Mitchell, 2013; Willems, 2016), the
board chair has the potential to create a positive governance culture, which may be vital for real
and perceived board member success (Parker, 2007; Van Puyvelde et al., 2018). Harrison and
Murray (2012) and Harrison et al. (2013) and their multiyear study on board chair behavior and
effectiveness advanced understanding and spurred later research by Freiwirth et al. (2017) to
continue examining how board chairs learn about their roles as vital leaders. The functional
contradiction of the board chair role with a primary responsibility of overseeing a more
experienced nonprofit executive director despite the temporality of their service and lack of role
understanding (Bernstein et al., 2016; Hiland, 2008) can cause dyadic conflict that impacts
values and goal attainment for all stakeholders (Heemskerk et al., 2015; Peter Jäger & Rehli,
2012). A primary mitigating factor for conflict was shown to be the establishment of a trusting
relationship under a framework of shared goals (Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016; Reid & Turbide,
2012; Schulz & Auld, 2006), an obligation to effectively partner and steward the mission of the
nonprofit served (Neustrom et al., 2012).
65

Goal attainment can be elusive when understanding and commitment by the board chair
and supportive leaders is not present: however, an assessment of the literature within this review
demonstrated that many opportunities for successful board chair onboarding exist (Cumberland
et al., 2015; Mason & Kim, 2020; Reid, 2013). By providing this exploration of actual and
desired board chair support, the final theoretical section of this review was informed by
demonstrating what may be accomplished by altering the lens of analysis. Clark and Estes
(2008), and their organizational change model, maintained that performance gaps cannot be
identified until the KMO influences that exist are understood. Informing this theoretical
framework with a clarified application of social, cultural, and cognitive factors may propel this
study towards a solution-oriented inquiry of board chair learning.
66

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. This research sought understanding by
interrogating the under-examined process for onboarding specific to a board chair, and how the
interrelation between their knowledge and motivation interacts with the nonprofit they serve. The
board chair role within the nonprofit sector can influence an organization’s ability to fulfill its
mission and vision (Harrison et al., 2013; Peter Jäger & Rheli, 2012; Zhang, 2013), yet these
volunteers may struggle with a lack of nonprofit knowledge, ambiguity regarding their most
important tasks, and governance relationships constrained by the temporality of their terms
(LeRoux & Langer, 2016; Mason & Kim, 2020; Schulz & Auld, 2006).
This chapter begins by revisiting the research questions and participating stakeholders
and continues with an overview of sampling criteria and mixed-method data analysis processes
that were utilized. The following questions guided this study:
1. What knowledge do nonprofit board chairs need to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
2. What motivates a nonprofit board chair to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
3. How do organizational processes and procedures impact the nonprofit board chair’s
ability to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities?
67

Research Design
There are nearly 1.6 million nonprofit organizations within the United States, with each
appointing a board chair at the governance helm (The Urban Institute, 2020). As a complete
survey of these individuals was not possible for this study, sample participants from this
population were selected to represent the broader nonprofit community (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). This study used a triangulated mixed-method approach, combining qualitative or
expository language-based assessment with descriptive statistics garnered through a board chair
participant survey (Creswell et al., 2003; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This process of intermethod
data mixing was completed through a review of publicly available artifacts and information for
the nonprofits represented such as filed tax returns and board member listings, resulting in
multiple points of reference collected simultaneously to better understand board chairs’ learning
capacities (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The following sections provide additional information
on the researcher, nonprofit board chair participants, and sampling strategy used for this study.
The Researcher
The impetus for undertaking this study after 2 decades of personal and professional
leadership within the nonprofit sector was the desire to bridge the gap between the
acknowledgement of board chair onboarding as a critical problem and the struggle to provide
solutions worthy of investing scarce resources in a transient volunteer relationship. Although I
have greater experience as a defender of nonprofit executive directors, I acknowledge that both
parties struggle against assumptions made and biases held (Tuck & Yang, 2014). There is no
antagonist in the dyadic relationship between nonprofit executive directors and their board
chairs, just two active professionals who often struggle with a misalignment of intentions and
leadership styles. To surmount this obstacle and interrogate the causes of this engagement
68

disconnect shared by both governing leaders, I reflexively addressed and considered how their
lived experience would influence the research process. I identify as a female nonprofit leader in a
sector where that remains rare within experienced professional interactions (Gibelman, 2000;
Guidestar, 2021; Pynes, 2000). Twenty years of having professional credentials diminished
because of misconceptions around choosing to lead organizations that give back rather than take
(Morgan, 2018; Villaverde, 2008) is an intrinsic aspect of my scholarly approach. Yet,
acknowledging this record allowed for a deeper investigation of how the preconceived notions of
nonprofit work may impede attaining a shared sense of obligation between governance leaders
towards the nonprofit served (Neustrom et al., 2012).
As a nonprofit leader with direct sector experience and observations as both an internal
staff member and external volunteer board member, often an intermediary consultant between
both groups, I felt uniquely positioned to understand and attempt to contribute to the solutions
around the expectations of nonprofit board leadership. The ability to bring empathy and
understanding to participant groups shaped the axiology of this study (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Acting as a bridge-builder, appreciating the responsibilities and challenges of each role
after decades of personal experience with both sides of the governance framework, helped guide
the conversation towards the areas of greatest value and relevancy to this study (Saunders, 2019).
I engaged in frequent examination of my own judgements and beliefs throughout data collection
and analysis allowed for a far richer and exponentially more fulfilling research experience than I
could have ever expected.
Survey Sample Criteria and Rationale
Purposeful sampling is commonly used in research designs where the investigator seeks
to understand a particular phenomenon and specifically targets the population that will garner the
69

most informative answers to their questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patton (2002) described
this sampling approach as a means of learning about the issues most central to the purpose of the
study. Participants for this study were recruited using a combination of typical sampling, selected
because they were most reflective of stated criterion (Patton, 2002), and snowball sampling,
where personal and professional networks were used to build on the sample size (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
A link to the University of Southern California Qualtrics survey and the study’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) informed consent was sent via email to a purposeful sample of
12 known individuals. This initial distribution snowballed to an additional known sample size of
63 potential participants, bringing the total reported distribution to 75 known individuals.
Communication with existing personal and professional networks was heavily relied on to assist
and report on the distribution of survey and IRB information directly to board chairs, as personal
contact information for board chairs is not accessible in the public domain. A link to the survey
and information on the study was also posted on Boardsource.org, a national knowledge base for
nonprofit sector information, within a forum specifically for board chair discussion.
The following survey criterion were communicated to the anonymous survey participants
and used to better understand the challenges to nonprofit board chair onboarding and engage
with the target population most affected by this issue.
Criterion 1: Filing Classification
The nonprofits selected for this study were public charities, per the IRS tax code
definition 501©3 (IRS, 2021). This classification represents 70% of the nonprofit sector (The
Urban Institute, 2020), including public charities categorized by arts, culture, and humanities
organizations; education organizations; healthcare organizations; human services organizations;
70

and other organizations that accept charitable contributions (IRS, 2021; The Urban Institute,
2020).
Criterion 2: Budget Size
The nonprofit annual expense budgets for organizations within this study fell between
$500,000 and $15,000,000. Considered “medium-sized” nonprofits within the sector, this
budgetary bracket represents 30% of public charities (The Urban Institute, 2020). Although 67%
of nonprofit organizations fall below this criterion, these smaller organizations contribute less
than 2% of aggregate sector revenue annually and are governed by a less professional operational
framework (Ostrower, 2008; The Urban Institute, 2020). At the opposite end of the financial
spectrum comprising just 3% of registered public charities, nonprofits with budgets of beyond
$15,000,000 are not reflective of the current governance environment under investigation (The
Urban Institute, 2020). Medium-sized nonprofits were selected as a criterion for this study
because research shows that boards within this tier are often less engaged with their tasks and
have expressed the most challenge in recruiting new members (Ostrower, 2008), which
comprised two essential areas of focus for this study.
Criterion 3: Service Parameters
Board chair participants who meet Criteria 1 and 2 above needed to be currently
performing in the role at the time of survey participation as well. This third criterion was
appropriate because these individuals were current governance leaders for their nonprofit and
their experiences existed as more recent points of reflection. Although considered, no time limit
for current service in the role was established as organization bylaws may vary dramatically.
Within the initial purposeful sample, one known individual distributed the survey link
and IRB consent information for this study directly to nearly 30 nonprofit board chairs who
71

represent arts and cultural organizations. The remaining 45 potential participants (to whom I was
told the survey link and IRB consent information was sent) represent a broader range of public
charities. Subsequent interviews and document analysis showed that three of the survey
respondents who provided their contact information to take part in the interview process did not
fit the study criteria. Therefore, their survey responses were excluded from the data used for
reporting and analysis within this study. With 32 valid survey submissions out of a known
sample of 75 potential participants, the quantitative response rate for this mixed-method study
was a promising 43%.
Interview Sample Criteria and Rationale
Of the anonymous responses to the quantitative survey portion of this study, 24
participants provided their direct contact information to engage in a confidential conversation on
their experience as board chair. These volunteer board chairs were then contacted to engage in a
confidential interview within 1 day of survey submission. All interviews took place concurrently
with survey circulation and document review. Of the 24 nonprofit board chairs who provided
their contact information for a confidential interview, one participant did not respond for a
request to interview after multiple outreach attempts, and three participants who did not meet the
study criteria were relinquished, as previously mentioned. This study undertook 23 interviews
with 20 nonprofit board chairs, meeting the below criteria and rationale for selection.
Criterion 1: Filing Classification
Concurrent document analysis of organizational websites and fundraising campaign
materials of the 20 interview participants confirmed they were governing leaders of 501c3
nonprofit organizations that receive public support per IRS tax codes (IRS, 2021). The
72

participant sample breakdown by operational sector was 10% education (n = 2), 15% advocacy
(n = 3), 35% arts and culture (n = 7), and 40% community service (n = 8).
Criterion 2: Budget Size
Although many interpretations of what a “medium-sized” nonprofit is exist (Ostrower,
2008; The Urban Institute, 2020), this study defined this criterion as annual expense budgets
between $500,000 and $15,000,000. IRS tax return information was accessed for the most recent
fiscal year reported and made publicly available, with the sample’s average budget size being
$4.9 million. As the surveys from which these interview participants came were completely
anonymous and the sample collected was from outside immediate networks, the budget size of
the organizations they represented could not be determined until the conversation began and the
name of the nonprofit they each served became clear. Because of this synchronous analysis and
research, three interview participants and survey respondents were discarded, as previously
mentioned. Two of those three interview participants governed nonprofits with operational
budgets outside the medium-sized criteria described above: One board chair led an organization
with a budget of under $225,000 in annual operations, and one board chair led an organization
with a budget of $97,000,000 per the most recent IRS tax information. Although both interviews
provided qualitative discernment and I was grateful to the board chairs for engaging in dialogue,
the design of this study prevented the utilization of their interview transcripts for qualitative
analysis of the problem investigated.
Criterion 3: Service Parameters
The ultimate criterion for interview participant selection was that the candidate must
currently serve as board chair for a nonprofit organization that fits within the above-mentioned
criteria. A simultaneous review of information accessed through organizational websites
73

confirmed that the 20 nonprofit board chairs whose interviews were analyzed are active chairs on
governing boards with an average of 17 members. Through concurrent analysis, it was
determined that one interviewee from the initial sample of 23 conversations had recently stepped
down from their role as board chair. Although I remain appreciative of their time, this participant
did not meet the criteria of being a current board chair and therefore could not participate in this
study. With 20 criteria-matching interviews conducted out of n = 32 survey responses, the
interview response rate of 63% far exceeded expectations for response.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
All research starts with a question (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), but credible answers
may not be found without reliable data instrumentation and collection protocols (Salkind, 2014).
This study used two primary methods of data collection to interrogate the research questions:
anonymous quantitative surveys and confidential qualitative interviews. The below section
outlines the instrument rationale for direct data collection obtained through these means, as well
as indirect data collected through artifact review and document analysis.
Survey
Surveys are used when a researcher seeks to generalize an aspect of a population by
studying a sample that they hope reflects the whole (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Surveys
encourage self-disclosure by participants (Johnson & Christensen, 2014), as well as provide
another point of analysis within an embedded qualitative research study (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). The survey instrument created for this study on nonprofit board chair onboarding used a
combination of ordinal or ranked levels of response measurement and exploratory questions
(Salkind & Frey, 2020). This anonymous survey constructed within the University of Southern
California Qualtrics system comprised 12 Likert-scale questions, three write-in demographic
74

questions, and one open-ended experience question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The structure of
this quantitative survey instrument allowed for the targeted use of descriptive statistics to
characterize the collection of data informing the research question (Salkind & Frey, 2020).
Attempting to incorporate self-efficacy components to better inform the interview protocol
(Bandura, 2006), the survey comprised four closed-ended questions for each area of the KMO
challenges posited within this study’s research questions. The survey became active on July 25,
2022 and gathered responses for 6 weeks with the final participant response submitted on
September 2, 2022.
Interview
The interview protocol for this study was semi structured and although specific
information was sought, each interview was viewed as a unique opportunity to understand each
participant’s worldview and their individual experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
allowed for more flexible discussion with participants while providing the opportunity to explore
their responses unhampered, using vocabulary they are most familiar with (Burkholder et al.,
2019; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All interviews began by asking the participant if they had
questions regarding the study they were engaging in, and a confirmation of IRB informed
consent. The 20 criteria-matching interviews were conducted via Zoom (n = 17) or telephone (n
= 3) in July 2022 through September 2022, concurrently with survey circulation and document
analysis. All participants gave consent for a recording of the conversation via Zoom software as
well as interview transcription via Grain software for research accuracy purposes. Interviews
were kept targeted and on track in respect to the volunteer’s time, with the average length of
conversation being 36 minutes per interview excluding introductions. All interviews were
75

conducted in a private home office and the participants engaged in the conversation in equally
private locales, ranging from office spaces to their cars.
Fifteen questions were planned, five designated to each research question, with all
inquiries informed by Patton’s (2002) matrix of question options (p. 352). The initial questions
and responses engaged board chair participants with a more cursory assessment of the KMO
experiences they have faced surrounding board chair learning, with probes designed to provide
further insight into the sociocultural influences on their initial responses, incorporating
behaviors, opinions, and emotions (Patton, 2002). However, one question from the initial
protocol was not used. Question 8 (How do you describe the mission of this nonprofit?) was
discarded during the fieldwork after the second interview concluded. Through engaging in
reflexivity to seek reliability and validity, I found the question was not only answered
sufficiently throughout the engaging conversation with participants, but it was also phrased in
such a way that unintentionally caused anxiety to interview participants. A nonprofit mission was
experienced and therefore communicated in a particular fashion by each board chair who was
interviewed. These central tenets of purposeful operations are often communicated on the
nonprofit’s website and outreach materials with precise and highly emotive language. After the
first two participant interviews where the board chair became noticeably agitated when they
could not recall the specific wording of their nonprofit’s mission, it was apparent that the
question itself would not accurately gauge how they experience the shared organizational
culture. Additionally, it was written and received in a way that reflected a potential researcher
bias of impugning a nonprofit board chair’s knowledge and commitment to their role by testing
recall, which was not the intention of the line of questioning.
76

Document Review
Reviewing existing artifacts and documents as a component of a triangulated mixed-
method research design provided an opportunity for indirect data to focus another lens of
analysis on the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Document analysis was also used
to corroborate information provided during the board chair interviews to ensure that participants
met the methodology criteria. Financial documents accessed from the most recent fiscal year
allowed for the opportunity for confirmation of each participant’s presence as chair of the board,
review of the scale and scope of each nonprofit’s operations, as well as examine publicly
available cultural artifacts such as diversity, equity and inclusion statements and strategic
priorities. Donor listings were also assessed along with fundraising materials for the examination
of mission communication. Personal documents were not reviewed because of the content's
subjective nature (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Popular culture
documents such as organization websites, local and national affinity groups, and publicly
available marketing materials also reinforced the research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Table 2
presents a summary of the process by which the instruments and data collection methods
addressed the KMO influences that guided this research design.
77

Table 2
KMO Influences of Methodology
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Knowledge assessment
Board chairs will have an in-
depth understanding of
their governance
responsibilities.
Factual
Survey Question 2
Survey Question 13

Interview Question 4

Document review-affinity
and governance groups
Board chairs will understand
the significance of
organizational mission
within their governance
role.
Conceptual

Survey Question 1
Survey Question 3

Interview Question 8
Interview Question 9

Document review-publicly
available mission, vision, and
outreach information
Board chairs will adjust their
leadership style to fit
within the governance
framework and personal
limitations.
Metacognitive Survey Question 4

Interview Question 11

Document review-mentorship
and training opportunities
Motivational influence Motivation type Motivation assessment
Board chairs will utilize
individual interest to
pursue paramount
governance
responsibilities.
Intrinsic Survey Question 11
Survey Question 14

Interview Question 1
Interview Question 2
Interview Question 3

Document review—donor
lists

78

Board chairs will have
awareness of the
intersection between
personal experience and
governance goals.
Attainment value Survey Question 8

Interview Question 10
Interview Question 13
Interview Question 14

Document review-committee
structure
Board chairs will have the
confidence to advance their
goals towards enriching the
culture of governance.
Self-efficacy Survey Question 5
Survey Question 6
Survey Question 7

Interview Question 15

Document review—
organizational priorities
Organization influence Organization type Organization assessment
Nonprofit organizations will
provide onboarding
procedures that enable
deeper understanding of
the context in which the
governance framework is
supported.
Cultural model Survey Question 12
Survey Question 9

Interview Question 7
Interview Question 10
Interview Question 5

Nonprofit organizations will
clarify onboarding
processes that allow
stakeholders to jointly
contribute to a
collaborative governance
framework.
Cultural setting Survey Question 10

Interview Question 12
Interview Question 6

Document review—website
marketing and events

79

Data Analysis
This mixed-method study attempted to derive meaning from both quantitative and
qualitative data collected in unison (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Throughout the analysis process,
alignment between all data sources was maintained through the consistent referencing of the
overarching conceptual framework and study questions, which helped ground the data in the
research objectives. The following section elaborates on the data analysis process undertaken for
this study on nonprofit board chairs and their effective fulfillment of governance responsibilities.
Quantitative data were analyzed using the Qualtrics software system, with the descriptive
results showcasing the frequency and percent distribution of the board chair responses to ordinal,
Likert-scale questions; demographic questions; and one open-ended question regarding nonprofit
professional experience (Salkind & Frey, 2020). Mean or average response, as well as standard
deviation or how dispersed responses are from the mean, were calculations used to analyze two
demographic questions on length of board service and length of tenure as board chair (Salkind &
Frey, 2020). Frequencies for the descriptive sample also provided an opportunity to gauge
overall trends and larger themes within the data (Salkind & Frey, 2020), and Chapter 4 presents
all relevant quantitative data in visual and narrative form.
In a study comprising 20 thick, rich interviews, the majority of time was allocated to
ensuring the most valid and reliable assessment strategies to uphold the research objectives.
Once a participant’s interview was complete, a Microsoft Word document of the transcript would
be immediately downloaded via Grain software, saving the information to a secure hard drive.
Next, the Zoom recorded interview would be reviewed while following the transcript, ensuring
participant confidentiality, and correcting areas of imprecise transcription while engaging in
reflection on the board chair responses in relation to the primary research objectives. To protect
80

participants’ confidentiality, the cloud-based interview recording was then deleted. On average, 4
hours of consideration and familiarization were spent with each interview prior to coding. The
initial step in the coding process was to focus on the data produced by the generous interviews
with as impartial a mind as possible. Often called open coding (Gibbs, 2018), this coding
strategy allowed another opportunity to put aside preconceived notions of a board chair’s
experience and focus on the illustrative answers they provided to the interview protocol.
The transcripts were next reviewed using axial coding (Gibbs, 2018), refining the codes
further, aggregating them, and attempting to connect them into themes and subthemes. At this
stage, patterns or concepts were looked for that continued to repeat across all 20 participants’
transcripts. This resulted in data being organized into larger ideas beyond the themes uncovered
through the analytic coding process, which provided insight into the research questions that
guided this study. This fluid process of moving back and forth between open and axial codes,
while working under the conceptual framework and research questions that guided this study,
resulted in a code book that was continually refined and deliberated on throughout the data
analysis process. All transcripts used throughout this analytical process were loaded, coded, and
scrutinized within Dedoose, a cloud-based qualitative analysis software, which proved to be
invaluable for managing such a large data set.
Validity, Reliability, and Ethical Considerations
Research shows that consensus on defining as well as measuring the trustworthiness of a
qualitative study remains elusive within the field (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). However, there are methods for ensuring validity and reliability, which were used
for this study. Data was triangulated for this study using a quantitative survey instrument,
qualitative interview, as well as document review (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Throughout
81

the fieldwork, I engaged in critical self-reflection on world view and positionality as a strategy
for promoting validity of the results obtained and a better understanding of the lens through
which the study was conducted (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Osanloo & Grant, 2016). This
reflexivity enabled the clarification of biases for the reader, and encouraged the understanding of
how sociocultural factors inform data collection and analysis. Verbatim transcript recording was
another method to ensure internal validity. This strategy helped ensure that the findings received
from interviewees accurately reflected their views absent of researcher bias and
misunderstanding (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, a description of the research process was
diligently recorded, enhancing credibility and ease of replication should the findings prove
transferrable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethical considerations were inseparable from interaction with the data at all stages of
research (Glesne, 2016). Throughout this study, an accurate and detailed audit trail of processes
and procedures was maintained for transparency of the process. No data or information were
shared that put the participants’ anonymity at risk, and participants’ confidentiality was always
maintained. Recorded Zoom video interviews were deleted after second viewing, and
transcriptions of the anonymized surveys were downloaded directly to a hard drive and erased
from the cloud. All electronic files, including interview recordings and artifacts, were stored on a
password-protected computer kept only in a protected home office. Though no ethical breach
occurred, should one become known, all participants and their associated organizations will be
made promptly aware.
Limitations
Acknowledging the limitations present in the research design of this study on nonprofit
board chair onboarding may enhance credibility and replication should additional research be
82

undertaken (Glesne, 2016; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The identified limitations to this study are
as follows:
 A large part of the sampling for this study relied on personal and professional
contacts as the survey expanded nationally beyond a known network. I trusted that the
anonymous survey respondents would be presented with an accurate study overview
and selection criteria prior to participation.
 This study relied on the anonymous survey respondents and subsequent confidential
interview participants to answer the questions truthfully about their experience as a
nonprofit board chair.
 As I had limited direct access to nonprofit board chair contact information, the
distribution count of n = 75 is an estimate based on known connections and reported
network distributions. I could not obtain a count of additional forwarded survey links
and views of requests for study participants.
 The interview participants’ respective nonprofit organizations skew heavily towards
community service (n = 8 or 40%), which is my primary nonprofit network, and arts
and culture (n = 7 or 35%), which received targeted distribution directly to nonprofit
board chairs with this specialization.
 This study only collected both qualitative and quantitative data from nonprofit board
chairs, therefore providing insight into only one interpretation of the onboarding
process.
83

Chapter Four: Results and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. This research sought understanding by
interrogating the under-examined process for onboarding specific to a board chair, and how the
interrelation between their knowledge and motivation interacts with the nonprofit they serve.
Using a mixed-method research design, this study was guided by Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis and influenced by social cognitive theory and sociocultural learning theory. The
following section summarizes the participants who engaged in both the quantitative and
qualitative portions of the study and then presents the most pertinent results and findings as they
relate to the following research questions that grounded this endeavor:
1. What knowledge do nonprofit board chairs need to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
2. What motivates a nonprofit board chair to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities?
3. How do organizational processes and procedures impact the nonprofit board chair’s
ability to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities?
The investigation of these questions was approached through a mixed-method study
comprising a 16-question anonymous survey distributed broadly to nonprofit board chairs
throughout the United States, which garnered 32 valid responses out of a known distribution to
75 network connections. This ordinal survey took between 5–10 minutes to complete and
resulted in 20 criteria-matching interviews, where each focused discussion lasted 36 minutes on
84

average. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected concurrently for a 7-week period
during July 2022 and September 2022, with verification of data points simultaneously
corroborated through triangulated document analysis. The quantitative survey was designed to
provide an understanding of current board chair thoughts on their ability to effectively govern
and the qualitative protocol was designed to illuminate the steps taken and support received to
become governing leaders.
Quantitative Survey Participants
Volunteer nonprofit board chairs took part in the quantitative survey instrument
distributed nationally to a known network of 75 reported contacts with a response rate of 43% or
n = 32. Independent of the survey questions, participants were able to provide their contact
information for inclusion in the qualitative interview process. The initial number of survey
responses received was n = 35, but with subsequent document analysis and information provided
during the interview process, it was determined that three respondents did not fit the study
criteria and their survey data were removed from the final data pool.
The 32 valid quantitative participants provided a cursory overview of the research
questions that guided this study, with the survey instrument being designed to garner a current
snapshot of the board chairs’ progression towards their goals, as well as capture participants for
in-depth interviews. The resulting sample showed that, on average, the board chair respondents
reported 6.7 years serving on their current board of directors and 2.3 years on average of serving
in the board chair role. Given that 88% of nonprofits set term limits, with most restricting
membership to two consecutive 3-year terms with executive committee membership terms, and a
more restricted 2-year limit on average (BoardSource, 2021), the survey sample provides an
accurate representation of the population (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; see Table 3 and 4).
85

Recent national board research shows that 83% of nonprofit board members have no
professional sector experience, whereas 17% indicate some work experience in the sector
(Tydings et al., 2017; Ward & Miller-Stevens, 2021). The quantitative sample for this study
varies slightly from this national data, with Table 5 showing that 78% of board chair respondents
showed they had no professional experience in the nonprofit field, and 22% indicating they had
sector experience ranging from work as a fundraising professional to being a nonprofit executive
director themselves.

Table 3
Reported Survey Board Chair Length of Time on Board of Directors
Years of service n Min Max M
Nonprofit board of directors 32 1 20 6.7

86

Table 4
Reported Survey Board Chair Length of Time in Current Leadership Role
Years of service n Min Max M
Nonprofit board chair 32 <1 12 2.3

Note. Four board chair participants indicated they were at the start of their term as chair and had
less than 1 year of service in the role.

Table 5
Reported Survey of Board Chairs’ Professional Nonprofit Experience
Nonprofit work experience Frequency Percent
No professional nonprofit experience 25 78
Professional experience 7 22

87

Qualitative Interview Participants
Through the course of 20 thick, rich interviews undertaken in combination with the
above-cited quantitative survey results, a sample picture of the nonprofit board chairs who
engaged in the qualitative interview portion of this mixed-method study on their onboarding
experience came into focus. The subset of n = 20 valid interview participants mirrored
quantitative sample results in terms of number of years on the board of directors, with Table 6
and 7 demonstrating an average length of 6.5 years of board service, and 2.5 years in their board
chair role. One participant was interviewed on their last day of service as board chair for their
organization, and another interview participant was on Day 18 of their first term as board chair
when interviewed.
Although studies show that nonprofit board members highly value colleagues who have
sector experience, which may contribute to more effective board governance (Lückerath-Rovers
et al., 2009; Ostrower & Stone, 2017), the interview sample population for this mixed-method
study was not reflective of national trends. As Table 8 shows, only one individual interviewed
had professional nonprofit experience with 95% of their colleagues showing that although they
may have volunteered and served on other boards, they had never worked for a nonprofit.

Table 6
Reported Interview Board Chair Length of Time on Board of Directors
Years of service n Min Max M
Nonprofit board of directors 20 1 20 6.6

88

Table 7
Reported Interview Board Chair Length of Time in Current Leadership Role
Years of service n Min Max M
Nonprofit board chair role 20 <1 12 2.5

Note. Four board chair participants were at the start of their term and had less than 1 year of
service in the role.

Table 8
Reported Board Chair Nonprofit Experience
Nonprofit work experience Frequency Percent
No experience 19 95
Professional experience 1 5

89

When quantitative survey participants volunteered to take part in the qualitative portion
of the study, document analysis was then used to further investigate the organizations served to
ensure their accordance within the research design. Although interview participant
confidentiality was always maintained, additional demographic data points were collected
specific to the interview participants who were not captured as part of the quantitative survey.
Document analysis both pre and post interview showed that the average budget size of the
nonprofits governed was $4.9 million across all 20 interview participants. The average board size
for this qualitative sample was 17 members, and the most represented subsections of the
nonprofit sector were community service with 40% (n = 8 board chairs interviewed) on account
of my background and network, and arts and culture with 35% (n = 7 board chairs interviewed)
due to effective snowball sampling within this subsection.
The mixed-method results for this study of nonprofit board chair onboarding practices for
effective governance are shared thematically through the lens of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework as influenced by the concepts of sociocultural learning theory and social
cognitive theory. In attempting to present the narrative of the results in the most influential way,
all points of data that address each concern are reported on simultaneously to better inform and
analyze each research question. This chapter concludes with an overarching discussion of the
results and findings.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
Research Question 1: What Knowledge Do Nonprofit Board Chairs Need to Effectively
Fulfill Their Governance Responsibilities?
The starting point for any assessment of organizational gaps is to find out whether the
stakeholders possess the knowledge to achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). For nonprofit
90

board chairs, the conceptual knowledge of the sector and governance as a framework for
effective leadership must work with factual knowledge around their roles and responsibilities
(Brown, 2007; Bruni-Bossi et al., 2016; Clark & Estes, 2008). However, the goal of effective
governance might not be attained without metacognitive skills to adjust one’s performance while
reflecting on limitations and monitoring progress towards objectives (Krathwohl, 2002). Results
for knowledge influences uncovered within this study are grouped into the three sections
previously highlighted within the KMO methodology: factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge.
Factual Knowledge
Previous studies on board chairs’ factual knowledge, whether they have the facts and
details needed to accomplish their tasks (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011), focused on whether
board chairs have the materials necessary to understand their roles and responsibilities (Brown,
2007; Bruni-Bossi et al., 2016). Clark and Estes (2008) asserted that such materials and job aids
are only effective when an individual is familiar with the subject and able to gain the factual
knowledge needed to accomplish their goals. However, a persistent gap in the literature remains
around board chair’s readiness within the process and what tools are most useful to ensure
effective governance. As one interviewee expressed, “Without just picking up an interest in a
couple of things and going out and doing it myself, I didn’t even know where to turn.” To
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities, the 20 board chairs interviewed within this
study expressed needing specific organizational knowledge as well as more global knowledge on
the board chair role to achieve an in-depth understanding of their governance responsibilities.
Specific Organizational Knowledge
91

Multiple board chair interviewees expressed they would have found a handbook or best
practices extremely helpful for learning about governance within their organizations, with one
participant stating, “Having a very clear framework for the chairman role, I think would be job
number one, right? Again, roles and responsibilities. What are you responsible for? Who do you
go to when you have questions?” An additional interview participant found great understanding
of their governance responsibilities by appreciating the studying the responsibilities of current
staff, sharing they sought, “understanding of how the people in those jobs, what they’re up
against, what is the culture of the organization.” Knowledge gained of specific organizational
history as well as current operational context was also cited by interviewees within this study as
being crucial to their understanding of the board chair role. Board chairs interviewed within this
study also found current and historical governance documents particularly illustrative. As shared
by an interviewee, “I found our specific duties that are outlined in the bylaws that the chair has to
follow really helpful,” while one board chair interviewee who mentioned knowledge of “historic
artifacts of board decisions and board work” provided an in-depth understanding of specific
governance responsibilities. To another a, “good SWOT analysis of what the board chair would
be walking into, both inside and outside stressors,” was valuable to their knowledge of the role.
Research has shown that the knowledge to manage the finances and investments of a
nonprofit is a critical aspect of effective board chair governance (Stone & Ostrower, 2007). As
demonstrated within this study, operational diversity within the nonprofit sector in addition to
basic accounting differences in managing an organization skewed towards nonfinancial metrics,
is an endemic challenge (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; Stahl et al., 2014). One chair interviewed
expressed that, “It was tough to learn about our finances … an area I needed to work really hard
at” while another continued, “It’s still counting beans, it’s still finance, but you have different
92

rules and regulations at [nonprofit] … and just the spiderweb of governmental and other agencies
that provide funding is very complex.” A grounding in financial management for their nonprofit,
as well as operational and cultural specifics previously mentioned, may also be needed to guide
their peers in comprehension of their own responsibilities as board members. As one interviewee
shared within their process for passing this factual knowledge onto their fellow volunteers,
I take [board members] over their roles under current laws, the duty of obedience and
loyalty and all the [bylaws] stuff. And I take them through a history of the organization. I
take them through the financials to make sure that they understand that just because you
can read a P&L statement it doesn’t mean you don’t need help reading ours. You know,
you’ve got to understand the nuances of the organization and we have a few around our
P&L to make sure that they understand what they are, the vernacular we use.
Furthermore, the possession of specific, factual knowledge of governance within their own
organization, may allow board chairs to advance the knowledge and culture of the unique
organization they lead.
General Responsibility Knowledge
Nonprofit board chairs interviewed for this study also needed a general understanding of
the board chair role to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. Of the 20 board chairs
interviewed for this research, four (25%) expressed undertaking sweeping information initiatives
to discern the more global factual knowledge they needed to effectively govern, with one
interviewee sharing that, “I’m looking for opportunities to learn what it means to be a board
president. So, any resources that I can access, I’m accessing.” One board chair elaborated that, “I
have read everything possible about being a board chair,” whereas another interviewee
contributed, “When I found out I would have to be board chair, I went ahead and read everything
93

I could get my hands on.” Ranging from how to develop board meeting agendas to the role of a
board chair in strategic planning, study participants found general knowledge of the board chair
role helpful in laying the groundwork for the position when organizational support and prior
experience was lacking.
Participants within this study cited the internet proved helpful for helping board chairs
discern what factual knowledge they needed to effectively fulfill their responsibilities, with one
participant stating, “I’ve done a lot of research by looking at sites such as BoardSource to really
understand what does it mean to be a board chair participating in things like strategic planning,”
whereas another shared, “I didn’t know where to turn, you know? And so … one website I found
helped quite a bit.” In fact, one participant made accessing board governance information online
a part of board culture, sharing that they found an interesting site where they,
Put out snippets of steps every now and then, sometimes a video, some trainings, and
some other stuff. I’ve … said to some of my board members, go out there and look at
this, they do everything from fundraising for boards to accounting to leadership, to all
kind of little things. So it’s a very interesting website that I get stuff from.
When specifically asked during the quantitative survey portion of this study whether the 32
anonymous respondents understood their tasks as board chair, none expressed role ambiguity as
to what their most important tasks were at the time of survey completion. As Error! Reference
source not found. shows, 34% (n = 11) shared they understood their role extremely well, 63%
(n = 20) felt they understood their role as board chair very well, and 3% (n = 1) shared they
understood their role moderately well.
94

Figure 2
Reported Board Chair Role Ambiguity

Conceptual Knowledge
Conceptual understanding of the nonprofit sector and the board chair role itself is a
subsection of knowledge necessary for goal achievement (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Within the context of nonprofit governance, and for this mixed-method study, conceptual
understanding of how an organization’s mission guides operations and a board chair’s role
within this framework was an important conversational starting point.
Understanding of Nonprofit Mission
Results from the qualitative portion of this study demonstrated board chair participants
understand the mission of their organizations. Survey Question 1 showed that 75% (n = 24) of
respondents specified they feel extremely comfortable talking about the mission and vision
34%
63%
3%
Extremely well Very well Moderately well
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I u n d e r s t a n d my r o l e a s b o a r d c h a i r
95

within the community, whereas 25% (n = 8) of board chair survey participants expressed they
were somewhat comfortable with discussing their mission. Table 9 and
show that no survey respondents expressed neutrality or a lack of comfort with this
critical piece of conceptual knowledge.

Table 9
Survey Board Chairs’ Understanding of Mission
Comfort in talking about mission Frequency Percent
Extremely comfortable 24 75
Somewhat comfortable 8 25

96

Figure 3
Reported Comfort in Discussing Mission and Vision Within the Community

Through the course of interview conversations with nonprofit board chairs, many
answered a similar question on their conceptual knowledge of mission and vision
operationalization in a divergent way. Fourteen interview participants out of 20 (70%) mentioned
they did not understand their organization’s mission as well as they thought when they took over
the board chair role. One board chair shared, “Yes, each meeting, each passing day, I’ve learned
more and more about the agency.” Another continued, “As board chair, I do feel like I
understand the organization better … for better or worse.” One participant expressed, “Yes, once
I started as board chair, I understood the mission better but not in a good way … like layers of an
onion.” One interviewee shared that previous governance leaders “sold me a false bill of goods,
which I duly accepted, not really understanding the full scope of the mission and
75%
25%
Extremely comfortable Somewhat comfortable
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I a m c o mf o r t a b l e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e m i s s i o n a n d v i s i o n o f t h i s
n o n p r o f i t i n t h e c o mmu n i t y
97

responsibilities.” Of note, 80% board chairs within this study shared their understanding of
organizational mission increased significantly once they began their role of governing leader.
A nonprofit’s mission statement and how it resonates with the board chair’s
understanding of importance within the organization they serve may also impact the board
chair’s fulfillment of governance responsibilities. One board chair began every meeting with a
strategy borrowed from their prior board work, termed an “essence story,” which elevated a real-
time aspect of their mission for discussion and reflection amongst all members. The interviewee
explained that prior to instituting this grounding in a shared commitment, the board was unclear
about their goals: “I mean, it was amazing the number of people I’ve talked to on the board that
really didn’t understand the basic function of what we do.” Another board chair discussed the
process of reworking the organization’s mission and vision statement by sharing that, “We spent
last year just refining and rewording … so that was a fun project, even though it dragged on for a
long time, but it turned out well.” A multi-year investment as relayed by the interviewee which
resulted in a deeper connection among board members.
Understanding of Governance Framework
Conceptual knowledge and grounding in the board chair role and how it relates to
nonprofit staff roles may be crucial for the understanding of designated responsibilities and the
factual knowledge required for success. A board chair’s comprehension of their place within the
governance framework, as opposed to internal staff, may positively affect everything from
organizational growth to a thriving board culture (Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016). Quantitative
survey information showed that 94% (n = 30) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with
knowing the difference between internal and external roles, whereas Figure shows that 6% (n =
98

2) of participants expressed a more neutral understanding. No respondents expressed that they
did not understand the difference between board members and staff members.

Figure 4
Reported Understanding Between Board and Staff Roles

63%
31%
6%
Extremely well Very well Moderately well
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I u n d e r s t a n d t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s t a f f r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d
b o a r d me mb e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
99

Metacognitive Knowledge
Knowing how to perform the role of board chair is a conspicuous starting point for the
analysis of capacity for effective governance. However, a nonprofit board chair must also
possess the self-awareness and ability to reflect on their knowledge and limitations to achieve
their goals, in addition to acknowledging what they might be missing (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002). For nonprofit board chairs, metacognitive knowledge may also contribute to
their ability to use and adjust their management style to guide a diverse body of volunteers and
effectively lead with their governing partner.
Leadership Adaptability
Nearly half of the board chairs who took part in the interview portion of this mixed-
method study used mentorship of past board chairs as a tool to assist them in reflecting upon and
adjusting to their role as governance leaders. This can go beyond a simple vote of confidence
during their election process. One board chair who shared how invaluable mentorship was
through their transition to the role expressed, “It wasn’t a one-off either. He [former board chair]
and I actually had reoccurring meetings throughout my first year as board chair.” They continued
that the mentorship process allowed them to reflect through engaging with someone who, “had a
really deep, like historical knowledge of the functioning of the board and the role of the board
chair.” One interviewee leveraged their reflection through the mentorship process to create a
“past president’s council … and I would like for them to serve as an internal advisory group for
me. We’ve not yet met, but I have gotten consent from all of them to take part in that group.”
Moreover, document analysis also showed that 70% of the nonprofits who reported a fruitful and
informative connection to the immediate past board president also name prior board chairs on
their public roster listings. This may act to possibly codify the position, imbuing it with more
100

weight and importance to assist with onboarding the new board chair, which the data show is an
area of impact.
Reflection and self-awareness may also influence how a board chair adjusts their own
leadership style to that of their governing partner, the executive director of the nonprofit they
serve. Quantitative survey results showed that the 32 anonymous board chair respondents largely
feel that they understand how to work effectively with their executive director. As Figure 5
shows, 85% (n = 27) felt they work extremely well or very well with their executive director,
whereas 15% (n = 5) were less positive, showing that they feel they work moderately to slightly
well with their executive director.

Figure 5
Reported Dyadic Working Relationship

38%
47%
13%
3%
Extremely well Very well Moderately well Slightly well
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Responses
I u n d e r s t a n d h o w t o w o r k e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h t h e e x e c u t i v e
d i r e c t o r o f m y n o n p r o f i t
101

Although the ability to work well within a governing dyad may reflect multiple points of
knowledge, motivation, and understanding of the role, a board chair’s reflexive awareness of
their own leadership style may be a critical component of success. Adapting to the working
relationship and sharing facts, knowledge, and support has shown to characterize trusting and
respectful governing partnerships (Hiland, 2008), with many board chairs interviewed for this
study expressing their metacognitive adaptation to this critical working relationship. One board
chair shared that, “I understand where board chairs can overstep, and I know [executive director]
will text or call as needed.” Another interviewee shared, “I consider myself a resource to help
when [executive director] needs.” Another interviewee expressed, “I have strong feelings on the
executive director being able to run the organization and the board suggesting policy and not
micro-managing the day-to-day.” When speaking specifically of the leadership adaptations
required of this partnership, one board chair shared that,
They [executive director] have had so many different kinds of leaders in my role and,
that’s a hard thing. They have had to adjust to each different person along the way and I
think for them, it’s been more of a challenge than for me. … I think they haven’t always
felt that way with other board presidents or even boards for that matter.
Board chairs within this study utilized the tool of reflection to not only determine areas of
personal growth and understanding of their governance role, but also to recognize what might
prevent them from effective fulfillment of their duties.
Limitations
Time was an oft-mentioned point of reflection on leadership and learning limitations,
with some chairs expressing that they “have multiple commitments” and are “working
professional with a busy life.” Some expressed that “they just don’t have enough time to do the
102

job,” and that a challenge was “working with board members who are a lot of times very busy.”
Multiple board members also expressed that they held off on the board chair role until their
schedules allowed, desiring to “do a good job and have the time to fulfill the commitment,” as
one board chair shared. Many participants also undertook the board chair role because they
identified as professionally retired and possessing time to serve. Comments from these
interviews included, “Candidly, it was a matter of bandwidth and time becoming an empty
nester,” whereas another shared, “I am a retired old fart so I am able to jump on any call.” One
board chair mulled over the time commitment needed and shared,
I have the time, I’m retired, and this is my passion and when I think of a lot of the things
I have done, I wonder how a board chair who isn’t retired can actually put this much time
into it? I need this as much as the organization needs someone to do this but, you know,
in general board chairs are going to be very busy with their own jobs. I feel like it would
be an amazing commitment for someone else to do it.
Acknowledging the time limitations and demands of the board chair role may encourage self-
regulation to improve learning and may also lead board chairs to know when to ask for support
and seek outside help to perform their role more effectively.
This awareness was also evidenced by multiple board chairs interviewed stating that they
“brought on consultant(s),” to assist in areas that they did not have the time or skills to undertake
themselves but recognized were necessary: from internal Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
and Threats analyses to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion trainings and staff search firms. This
runs contrary to previously cited literature within this study, espousing the influence of board
chair ego and lack of desire to understand sector nuances of governance effectiveness (Epstein &
McFarlan, 2011; Reid, 2013). In fact, one board chair interviewed stated, “I have no ego issues,”
103

with another adding, “I’m here to serve and if I’m not the right person, then I’m not the right
person.” Yet another chair shared, “One of the first things I said when I was approached about
the possibility of becoming board president was that this is not in my wheelhouse at all.” Of
note, many board chairs within this study echoed these expressions of personal boundary
knowledge and self-awareness of limitations.
Additional Knowledge Findings
Through the course of this mixed-methods study, additional insight was gleaned into the
ways in which board chairs acquire the necessary knowledge to effectively fulfill their
governance responsibilities. Although the information points presented within this section do not
align with the interrogation into what knowledge board chairs need to effectively govern,
ancillary data on how study participants learned about the board chair role was collected which
may provide additional insight into the goals of this study.
Learning Through Observation
Nearly half of board chairs interviewed determined what knowledge was needed to best
perform their role by accessing how their predecessors operate within their specific cultural
setting. Presiding over board committee meetings is a primary responsibility and area of
knowledge required of a board chair, and multiple interviewees shared observation assisted them
in obtaining a detailed understanding of this duty in particular. One board member shared, “I
would just be paying attention and watching what was going on [during board meetings] with the
thought that maybe I would be asked to do that.” Another continued, “So, observing, that was
helpful. I was sitting on all the committee meetings and watching everything as vice chair so that
was useful.” Through their predecessors in situ, interviewees were able ascertain “in what ways
role expectations are different from just leading meetings,” as one board chair shared, while
104

another found that understanding how the more visible duties of the board chair at their specific
organization differed from experience on previous boards, to be very helpful.
For the six board chairs interviewed within this study who stated that they had more of a
planned transition to the board chair role, observation was a means of introduction to the factual
knowledge needed for their role. However, this research demonstrated that many nonprofit board
chairs did not have the luxury of determining what knowledge they needed to govern within their
specific cultural context from their outgoing board chair. Participant experiences shared such as
“the current chair at the time just basically said, I’m going to quit” and, “two other board
members resigned at the meeting and said, you be the board chair” may not be conducive to
thoughtful observation of the role one hopes to take over in the hopes of gaining governance
knowledge.
Learning Through Connection
Within this study, 20% of interview participants better understood their governance
responsibilities within their specific organizations by accessing individuals previously affiliated
with their own nonprofit such as prior board chairs. This provided an opportunity to, as one
interviewee stated, “not only approach the role, but also how to interact with my executive
director.” Another study participant shared, “we have some honorary life trustees who are on the
board, some are active and some are not.” They continued, “I went to them asking their opinion
… what does a board chair here do and not do?” One board chair interviewed found that the most
important aspects of appreciating the specific institutional knowledge needed for their board
chair role came from the understanding the motivation of the entire governance network,
So, I think that journey, in terms of understanding and internalizing the motivations of
other board members, past board members, emeritus board members, as well as current
105

board members, really helps. I think, just the ongoing process of board meetings and
everything else, I think that context is an important element of building a foundation [of
knowledge] for that chair role.
Results from this study also show internal staff members are another way that board chairs were
able to determine what knowledge was needed for an in-depth understanding of their governance
duties. One interviewee explained, “I went to the artistic director and executive director of the
company and asked what is my baseline? What is my role in this?” Another board chair shared
that, “It’s helped me tremendously that I live close to the nonprofit and I could interact with the
leadership and full-time staff.” A similar participant echoed this sentiment stating they gained
specific knowledge of their organization through their connection with staff, elaborating that,
“I’ve become very good friends with the team, we have 30 full-time staff and I probably know
all of them.” One interview participant shared that learning about expectations directly from staff
members assisted with factual knowledge acquisition for their role.
Board chairs interviewed shared their understanding of governance also came from
serving on previous nonprofit boards. One board chair expressed, “Seeing how other boards
work, I saw the value in good governance which then became an interest of mine.” Another
shared that, “I was on a [different nonprofit] board, one of the better boards in existence and
incredibly functional … it was a real joy because everybody gets it, they understand the
governance aspect.” Another voice added, “I’ve been lucky that I’ve been on at least one really
great board and I have a really good sense of how a good board operates and what things you
need to put into place. So that was great.” Moreover, appreciating and promoting the lived
experience of a nonprofit board chair, from motivated inquiry to application of prior board
service, may help illustrate what knowledge gaps might exist for more effective governance.
106

Learning Through Community
Discerning what general knowledge of board chair responsibilities were most critical was
also found by 35% of interviewees through community interactions, with one interviewee
stating, “I needed a guide on how to do it, and more people to talk to about their own experience
as board chair to learn.” Affinity organizations, online chat groups and listservs as well as local
resource groups, may provide opportunities to discuss responsibilities of the role with peers who
find themselves in the similar position of seeking knowledge around the governance role they
will assume. One chair interviewed stated they, “took advantage of specific professional groups
and development opportunities that really helped as well as joining [education listserv] which is
quite active and covers such a range of topics.” Time management of meetings, both general
board as well as executive committee, was also a frequently mentioned area of knowledge sought
by board chairs within this study, with interviewees citing these points of community knowledge
sharing as excellent resources for ideas on this topic.
Multiple board chairs who govern arts and culture nonprofits referenced their
participation in a specialized affinity group for the arts as being incredibly impactful for their
development as board chair and factual knowledge of the governance role. One chair stated,
“And so I joined [arts affinity group] and they have lots of resources that you can access and
videos you can watch, PowerPoint presentations, all kinds of governance stuff on their website,”
while another continued that their understanding of governance was improved through
conference attendance as “a helpful perspective broadening.” Another chair who utilized this
same learning technique through connection shared that when they became board chair they,
“started participating in [arts affinity group] zoom meetings for board chairs, they do fabulous
things for trustees.” The board chair continued, “It’s kind of an orientation program for us and I
107

found that extremely helpful, and that’s pretty much how I learned!” Of note, multiple board
chairs expressed utilizing a combination of the above external means of knowledge acquisition
when seeking knowledge to serve as an effective governing leader.
Results and Findings for Motivational Influences
Research Question 2: What Motivates a Nonprofit Board Chair to Effectively Fulfill Their
Governance Responsibilities?
A nonprofit board chair may possess all the knowledge needed to govern their
organization, but if they lack motivation, it will not invigorate them to achieve their goals (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). To again quote Cornforth and Macmillan (2016), they must have
the “will and skill” to be effectively governing leaders (p. 965). Discovering a board chair’s
motivation to volunteer their time and to understand their motivations for continued service may
be a highly personal process with many aspects of goal attainment subconscious to the board
chair themselves (Bandura, 2000). The results of this mixed-method study on board chair
onboarding practices for effective governance elaborated on three motivational influences
previously outlined that address the question of what motivates a nonprofit board chair to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities: intrinsic motivation, attainment value, and
self-efficacy.
Intrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic motivation is when an individual strives to achieve a goal because of its inherent
satisfaction, as opposed to extrinsic motivation, wherein one pursues an aim for external rewards
or accolades (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Additionally, utilizing interest as a foundation of learning
may increase motivation towards the attainment of effective governance within the board chair
role (Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
108

Motivation to Begin
Studies highlighted within this review have shown that some board members begin their
volunteer service seeking recognition of peers or desiring to develop professional relationships
(Larcker et al., 2015; Smith, 1994). Throughout the interview process, one-quarter of participants
shared that a prominent reason they became involved with their organizations was to strengthen
professional ties and augment social capital. One participant joined the board of their
organization just 7 days after moving to their new company, on the advice of their supervisor to
get involved in the community. Another interviewee seconded this experience: “My first CEO
required me to get involved with community organizations, and it just became ingrained within
my professional life.” One participant expressed that, “I had done a little bit of [volunteer] work
in my former location and found it a great way, selfishly, to network and become part of the
community.” Previously discussed recruitment hurdles were present in participants’ statements,
with one board chair sharing that they were approached to join through a business contact: “My
client was actually the executive director of the nonprofit … and she suggested that I join.”
While another board chair shared that they were at a networking event when approached by the
executive director and told they would be a great fit for their nonprofit board.
However, excitement about the mission of the nonprofit served and a desire to use their
personal or professional skills as a reason for joining was the primary motivation for service for
the remaining 16 out of 20 board chairs interviewed. Often the mission touched their own lives.
Two board chairs interviewed shared they became board members to improve the schools their
children attended, with one sharing that they were prompted to become more involved because
they were, “particularly concerned about where the school was heading.” Another interviewee
stated they first joined their nonprofit to ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or
109

questioning, intersex, and asexual (commonly referred to as LGBTQIA+) visibility for youth,
which they found lacking during their formative years, feeling that serving on the board was “an
opportunity to be visible for younger folks who are trying to feel like there’s a place for them in
the world.” Echoing these sentiments, another interviewee described becoming involved with
their organization because they and many of their colleagues had experienced gendered
discrimination within their field. Yet another board chair shared they first got involved with their
nonprofit when their mother lost her eyesight, sharing, “So I got very interested in visual
impairment … and got involved with [nonprofit] because I really wanted understanding.” This
impetus to strengthen communities through board service was also evidenced by study
participants through expressed desire to use their professional talents.
Many interviewees stated they joined the board because of the skills they bring, from
finance to auditing and fundraising networks, and how they felt they would be an operational
asset. Others were interested in giving back to their communities through personal and
professional traits that they expressed could add to the effectiveness of an organization they
wanted to support. Some board chairs are strategic thinkers; one chair stated that, “I do have this
kind of optimistic vision for what is possible,” whereas another shared that they joined the board
to “help align and identify different resources” for the organization. Board chairs interviewed
also expressed that what they regarded as strong personal traits were a part of their interest to
join: “I’m not shy about giving voice, both in writing and in speech, talking about what is, for
me, the important ethical grounding of the arts in our community.” Of note, 80% of board chair
interview participants shared that their experience leading teams of people was a primary
professional skill they felt contributed to the nonprofits they serve.

110

Motivation to Pursue
Research has shown that most nonprofit board chairs ascend to their role either
unexpectedly through attrition, or because they are the only board member willing to take on the
mantle of governance leadership (BoardSource, 2021; Freiwirth et al., 2017). This qualitative
study sample mirrored the larger population with 80% of board chairs interviewed expressing
reluctance to take on the role. As expressed by one board chair interviewed, “I took on the role
out of necessity.” Another interviewee expressed, “We had the president, the executive chairman
and the board chair all moving out of town.” One participant added, “the chair at the time just
basically said they were going to quit at the end of the year.” This interviewee continued, “I
don’t know how to say no, and these jobs fall into my lap sometimes.” For many of the board
chair participants, their hesitancy went beyond mere reluctance to take on more responsibility.
One board chair commented that, “I begrudgingly accepted when no one else volunteered.”
Another continued, “It was pure dumb luck. I didn’t want it and I didn’t raise my hand.” Another
board chair echoed this sentiment: “Nobody was doing it and I said fine, I will, but I didn’t want
it.” Regardless of the initial motivations for joining a nonprofit board of directors expressed
above, research has shown that, over time, a more global desire to assist the organization in
fulfilling its mission (Miller-Stevens & Ward, 2019) overtakes these intrinsic elements.
111

Table 10
Reported Motivation for Continued Service for Board Chairs
Greatest motivation for continued service Frequency Percent
Strengthening ties with stakeholders 15 48
Helping to guide the organization 10 32
Enabling positive change in the community served 4 13
Helping to grow organization 2 6

Note. One survey respondent indicated it was a question they wished to discuss during the
interview process, but I was never able to connect to engage further. Therefore, n = 31 for this
question analysis.

Attempting to discern more information on how personal motivation to serve becomes
more globally focused for ongoing persistence, the open-ended survey responses within this
study asking board chair participants to share what aspect of volunteering they have enjoyed
most since becoming board chair. As shown in Table 10 organized by theme and frequency of
response, motivations for continued service align closely with organizational goals as expressed
by board chair respondents. Connecting with stakeholders such as staff, board members, and the
community served was the most frequently mentioned aspect of service by survey participants,
with 48% (n = 15) stating it was where they derived the most enjoyment. Regarding the task of
helping to guide the organization through difficult times, 32% (n = 10) cited strategic planning
and financial hiccups, whereas 6% (n = 2) specifically mentioned being a part of growing the
organization was the most motivating factor for them. Giving back to the community, positively
improving the lives of others through the work of the organization they serve, was cited by 13%
(n = 4) of participants.
112

Attainment Value
A second important element of board chair motivation identified throughout this study is
individual pursuit of the task even if the goal is beneath preexisting skills and interest, as well as
personal means of contributing to the nonprofit. When analyzing results from this mixed-method
study on board chair onboarding, results show that board chairs’ abilities to identify ways in
which their own skills help overcome organizational problems were critical for motivational
success.
Application of Experience
Expectancy-value theory is an aspect of motivation towards goal achievement that
combines interest with the value one places on attainment (Eccles, 2006; Schunk & Usher,
2019). The results of this mixed-method study showed that expectancy-value theory motivated
many nonprofit board chairs towards the effective fulfillment of governance responsibilities
when they could apply their own personal experiences to the organization’s needs. Seventy-five
percent of board chairs interviewed for the qualitative portion of this study demonstrated not
only in words but with body language, such as increasingly excited gestures and facial
expressions, that their motivation to succeed as board chair may derive from their perceived
ability to contribute to solving an organizational problem or strengthening an area of operations.
Nonprofit board chairs within the interview sample were also motivated to successfully
fulfill their governance responsibilities by accessing their own lived experiences and professional
accomplishments to help make sense of the tasks awaiting them. Although Table 8 showed that
only one interview participant had prior professional experience within the sector, many
interviewees expressed a reliance on their past professional experiences to inform their
preparation for nonprofit governance. One chair said, “My background in business really got me
113

ready,” whereas a second expressed that, “My work running all hospitals within a 125-mile
radius and putting together a governing board for them all” was effective preparation. Tapping
into experiences to inform one’s present is an inevitable aspect of learning and preparation
towards goal accomplishment (Clark & Estes, 2008), as one participant shared: “I suppose I’m
lucky in that I led organizations of 60, 70, 80 people … so that gave me some experience in
providing leadership before I took over this role.” Another participant expressed what assisted
them in preparing for their board chair role: “I worked in corporate America for my whole career
and did learning and leadership development and corporate training which helped.” Moreover,
this expressed utilization of past experiences may allow for a more rapid transition to the board
chair role.
Governance Improvements
Every board chair interviewed identified a governance issue that they were working on to
strengthen their organization. A specific area where this motivation was expressed pertained to
issues with bylaws and policies that were identified as impacting effective governance in
addition to succession planning for future leaders. One board chair was filling a gap left by their
predecessor by “looking at some of the things in our bylaws that we’re not adhering to and
adjusting those.” One interviewee expressed a point of personal motivation, stating, “our bylaws
say a board chair can only serve for one year, and I’m trying to change that.” Another chair
echoed this sentiment: “It’s a little absurd to have a one-year term in our bylaws … you simply
don’t have enough time to do the job.” This rapidity of tenure also manifested in participants’
desire to ensure their board chair successor, with seven out of 20 interviewees sharing they are
currently working on establishing a more formal plan for board chair ascension to ensure
continuity of governance.
114

All board chairs expressed a motivation to use their skills to improve the onboarding
process for future board leaders and/or improve aspects of the governance framework. Their
personal experience of transitioning to the board chair role and lack of onboarding support
spurred them to improve the process for their successors. One board chair shared, “I’ve put
together, partly because of my training background … an online digital guidebook that the board
now has access to,” whereas another interviewee stated that their background and interest made
them, “feel very comfortable with creating board orientations and I understand what can be
helpful to include in them, which I believe should also include a separate orientation for
incoming [board] officers.” One board chair approaching the end of their term was actively
working on this area and stated, “I want to set up whoever’s going to step into my role here very
shortly for success, and so having a very clear framework for the chairman role I think would be
job number one, right?” Within this study, 100% of board chairs interviewed shared ways in
which they reinvested their skills and knowledge to improve their nonprofit’s governance
framework.
The board chairs who participated in this study also used their personal experiences and
interest to feel motivated despite reluctance initially expressed regarding the board chair role. As
the quantitative survey information represented in Figure 6 shows, anonymous survey
participants overwhelmingly agreed that serving in the role has been a good use of their time.
Eighteen anonymous survey respondents (56%) strongly agreed with the statement, whereas 13
respondents (41%) somewhat agreed with one respondent, signaling a neutral response. No
survey participants expressed disagreement.
115

Figure 6
Reported Satisfaction with Board Chair Role

Self-Efficacy
A board chair’s confidence and belief in their ability to fulfill their governance
responsibilities, or self-efficacy, may play an influential part in the success they achieve as a
leader. The quantitative survey instrument results show that the board chair respondents
expressed a significant amount of confidence in their abilities and their leadership. As Figure 7
shows, when asked about their level of confidence in knowing their most important tasks, 53%
of respondents (n = 17) expressed extreme confidence, whereas 47% (n = 15) were somewhat
confident in knowing expectations. Figure 8 shows board chair survey respondents were also
confident when voicing their thoughts and opinions during board meetings, with 88% (n = 24)
indicating extreme confidence and 13% (n = 4) feeling somewhat confident in their leadership.
56%
41%
3%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
B e i n g b o a r d c h a i r h a s b e e n a g o o d u s e o f my t i me
116

Figure 7
Reported Board Chair Self-Efficacy of Task

53%
47%
Extremely confident Somewhat confident
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I f e e l c o n f i d e n t i n k n o w i n g w h a t my mo s t i mp o r t a n t t a s k s a r e
117

Figure 8
Reported Board Chair Self-Efficacy of Expression

Qualitative results for this study also show how this personal certainty helps support the
self-efficacy of board chairs interviewed, driving motivation to focus on establishing a sense of
shared obligation to create a stronger board culture. Many board chairs interviewed cited
grounding in the mission during meetings they lead as a means of maintaining motivation. One
interviewee shared, “it does help keep everyone kind of centered and focused and reminding
them of what our core principles are and what we’re trying to do.” Another board chair
interviewed found motivation to encourage board engagement and expressed confidence in their
abilities to accomplish their governance goals:
I’m respectful, but if you’re on the board, I can push because I feel that if you don’t want
to be engaged, you shouldn’t be on the board. I will be connecting with you because I
88%
13%
Extremely confident Somewhat confident
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I f e e l c o n f i d e n t v o i c i n g my t h o u g h t s a n d o p i n i o n s i n t h e
b o a r d r o o m
118

want to get to know you. I don’t want to just ask you to do things, I want us to be a part
of a community. So that’s a real kind of persistent drive to engage people, which comes
from a fairness ethic.
Multiple interviewees also shared that their motivation and confidence allowed for the
advancement of board culture through unifying members to speak with one voice, as one unit,
aligned with the common goals of mission and vision fulfillment.
Results from the quantitative as well as qualitative portions of this mixed-method study
also show self-efficacy in identifying as well as tackling the near-universal governance problem
of recruiting new board members. Anonymous survey participants strongly agreed that they had
a robust pipeline of new board members at 9% (n = 3), as frequently as they strongly disagreed
with the statement at an equivalent 9% (n = 3) response rate. As Figure 9 shows, the response
with the greatest frequency was that survey respondents somewhat disagreed with having a
strong pipeline of new board recruits at 38% (n = 12). As national studies support (BoardSource,
2021; Larcker et al., 2015), strengthening a nonprofit board of directors through an active
pipeline of new recruits remains a universal challenge within the sector and is reflected within
this research.
119

Figure 9
Reported Strength of Board Recruitment Efforts

However, within the interview portion of this research, board chair participants expressed
that their confidence with their tasks, organizational directives, and values allowed for greater
clarity and success with expanding the board recruitment pipeline. Those interviewees who
experienced success in this task explained,
Once I understood and I could internalize [the organizational mission and vision] it made
it very easy to sit there and talk about it, and made it very easy to think about who else
we might want to get involved, or to speak to other people who might know other people.
This confidence in the ability to fulfill governance responsibilities and conceptual knowledge of
what drives the organization assisted with filling board vacancies for interviewees within this
study. One chair shared, “I was helping to do recruiting and getting new people on … which has
been pretty successful.” Another chair stated they recruited for an open committee role whose
9%
28%
16%
38%
9%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
I f e e l t h a t w e a l w a y s h a v e a s t r o n g p i p e l i n e o f n e w b o a r d
me mb e r s
120

replacement was “even more qualified than the one we used to have.” Other board chairs
interviewed continued that their knowledge of roles and tasks afforded them the confidence to
not only identify when a gap in skills on their board existed to inform board recruitment, but also
to search for new voices that may help advance board culture: “I think one of the weaknesses of
boards is that you tend to recruit from your own network and, you know, the circle is too small.”
Another interviewee shared success in recruiting: “Three current board members came from
outside our circle, specifically through event attendance.” Furthermore, although study
participants demonstrated motivation to pursue their responsibilities, the majority of board chairs
expressed their effective board governance may remain contingent upon the support of the
organization they serve.
Results and Findings for Organizational Influences
Research Question 3: How Do Organizational Processes and Procedures Impact the
Nonprofit Board Chair’s Ability to Effectively Fulfill Their Governance Responsibilities?
Board chairs who took part in this mixed-method study expressed desire to obtain and
apply their knowledge for successful fulfillment of their roles. However, results from this study
show that successful board chair onboarding must also involve the organization they are serving.
Analysis of data illustrating how organizational procedures and processes impact their board
chair’s ability to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities is grouped into two themes
for discussion in alignment with identified influences: procedures within the cultural model and
processes within the cultural setting.
Procedures Within the Cultural Model
The organizational culture that the board chair operates within is a constructed
understanding of how the nonprofit works, a model formed from underlying assumptions that
121

guide the influences and behaviors of all the organization’s members (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes (2008) define procedures within the organizational
framework as a way to inform individuals how they should do something, while acknowledging
that organizational culture may affect all attempts at change and improvement.
Materials and Resources
Nonprofit board chair participants who completed the anonymous quantitative survey
contributed a range of answers to whether their organization provided learning opportunities
when they became board chair. Roughly even between the agreement that their organizations
provided them with board chair onboarding procedures at 44% (n = 14) and reflecting that their
organizations did not provide them with any support at 50% (n = 16), Table 11 and Figure 10
elaborate on the overall lack of organizational support received as expressed by board chair
survey respondents.

Table 11
Organization-Provided Governance Procedures to Board Chairs
Organization-assisted learning Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 5 16
Somewhat agree 9 28
Neither agree nor disagree 2 6
Somewhat disagree 5 16
Strongly disagree 11 34

122

Figure 10
Reported Organization-Provided Governance Procedures

However, upon further probing during the qualitative portion of this study, board chair
respondents answered more uniformly in the negative: they did not receive any additional
information or support from their organizations when they assumed the board chair role. In fact,
only two board chairs interviewed felt they were given any resources or support once they began
their role, and only three expressed that someone onboarded them in any way (see Table 12).

Table 12
Board Chair Onboarding and Organizational Support
Organizational support Yes No
n % n %
Onboarded for chair role 3 15 17 85
Received organizational support 2 10 18 90

16%
28%
6%
16%
34%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
M y o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o v i d e d m e r o l e - s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g
o p p o r t u n i t i e s w h e n I b e c a me b o a r d c h a i r
123

This indication of a gap within the governance framework between what a board chair
needs to govern effectively and what the organization provides them was present in the data. In
fact, two of the three board chairs who stated they were partially onboarded shared their
lackluster experiences: “Throwing booklets or attachments at someone and saying, ‘here’s your
orientation, go for it’ is not conducive to really bringing someone in, in a positive way and
building them up or well equipping them for their new role.” Another board chair echoed this by
sharing,
I think it is not sufficient to have reams of paper shoved at you. I think having a formal
orientation where you walk through those expectations, I had to ask for that. It wasn’t
really brought to me it was just expected that I would somehow know it.
One board chair shared a similar experience expressing that the outgoing board chair, “sent over
materials a couple days in advance of my taking over and then told me in his email that there was
no need for me to review them.” Another interviewee expressed that although they worked
closely with the outgoing chair, “nobody gave me instructions.” Moreover, when asked during
the interview process what tools or resources the board chairs interviewed would have found
helpful during the onboarding process, board chairs shared their responses in Table 13 below.
124

Table 13
Board Chair Suggestions for More Effective Organizational Onboarding
Onboarding suggestions Frequency Percent Examples provided
Responsibility road map 8 40 Roles and responsibilities
overview
Roadmap to attain strategic goals
Best practices for a dyadic
partnership
Community learning 7 35 People to share experiences with
Ways to connect with other board
chairs
Conferences for similar nonprofits
Mentorship and leadership
training
5 25 Someone from whom to seek
counsel
Past board presidents to connect
with
Joint leadership coaching

Cultural Context of Board Service
Many of the board chairs interviewed for this study shared impediments to effective governance
that a lack of organizational procedures may induce. When their role within the governance
framework was unclear, results from this research show that board chairs struggled to contain
this discord from reaching their fellow volunteers. One board chair interviewed shared, “I was
honestly quite frustrated and not feeling like the board was something I wanted to be a part of at
all.” Another interviewee shared dissatisfaction with their organization not understanding their
role as governing members, “And we [the board] continually get brought into some of the day-
to-day, which creates friction quite honestly.” One participant expressed, “I’ve already really
tried to put [the board] to work, to bring tensions down to a simmer. In some cases its working
and in some cases not.” A board chair may be knowledgeable and motivated for their role, but if
their organizational culture is not one of clear procedures with open streams of communication
and transparency, results show that challenges may ensue. As Table 14 and
125

Figure 11 show, 53% (n = 17) of quantitative board chair survey respondents strongly
agree that they know where to go and who to ask for further information to better inform their
role.

Table 14
Reported Board Chair Organizational Knowledge
Board chair knows organizational resources Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 17 53
Somewhat agree 10 31
Neither agree nor disagree 3 9
Somewhat disagree 2 6

126

Figure 11
Reported Board Chair Organizational Knowledge

Qualitative interview results lent further insight into ways an organization may impact a
board chair’s effectiveness, and although the Covid-19 pandemic appeared frequently as an
organizational obstacle, interviewees focused more on preexisting issues within the governance
framework. Internal turnover of the executive director was often cited, either through retirement,
“we had a very long-term executive director who had retired,” shared one interviewee, or
through a planned departure or otherwise, as shared by another: “It was just this past April that
the CEO and CFO left, peers for twelve years. It was a huge loss for the organization.” Other
board chairs interviewed cited breakdowns in communication between internal staff and board
members as a primary hurdle towards effective governance, sharing “the contact with the board
and the communication, the one-on-one communication with the staff just fell apart.” Another
interviewee stated communication affects levels of trust in that,
53%
31%
9%
6%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat disagree
Percent
Board Chair Survey Response
I k n o w w h e r e t o g o a n d w h o t o a s k w i t h i n my
o r g a n i z a t i o n i f I n e e d f u r t h e r i n f o r ma t i o n t o b e t t e r
u n d e r s t a n d my d u t i e s
127

We’re second-guessing decisions that are being made which results in, I think, animosity
is not the right word, but there’s like this distrust somewhat because we as a board have
been very skeptical of the decision-making process of the current executive.
As culture influences a board chair’s development, their behavior also creates the organization’s
culture (Johnson & Bradbury, 2015). One board chair interviewed shared the following:
Our prior chair was incredible, she got so much done. I’m forever grateful for what she
accomplished but it was a one man show and she pissed huge numbers of people off. And
she was as abrasive as can be and board members were spinning in and out left and right.
And for the most part, staff felt completely disconnected.
Another interviewee stated their board chair predecessor “was combative, you know, almost like
a scolding approach” towards staff and internal leaders. Many board chairs interviewed cited a
focus on rebuilding these internal relationships to strengthen their organizations with a focus on
procedures of communication and connection, particularly with the most senior leader of the
nonprofit and representative of organizational influences within this study: the executive
director.
Processes Within the Cultural Setting
A cultural setting is created when people gather to build something of shared value
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), which can be altered by changing the access to and content of
group knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Clark and Estes (2008) describe organizational
processes as a means of telling teams and individuals how to combine their separate work
procedures into a singular productive unit (p.104). This work acknowledges that multiple leaders
within nonprofit organizations may be significant to the board chair’s ability to effectively fulfill
their governance responsibilities. Within the conceptual framework that guided this study,
128

organizational influences are led by the executive director while encompassing other
organizational representatives as well. An executive director within a nonprofit setting is often
the governance link between the board chair and the nonprofit they support. They have their own
work procedures and enforce the processes of the cultural setting, while striving to coordinate
with those of their governing partner. As demonstrated throughout this study, this dyadic
relationship is significant to the effective fulfillment of board chairs’ responsibilities, while
shared understanding of processes within the governance framework may be critical to the
success of organizational mission.
Collaborative Onboarding
Three-quarters of anonymous board chairs who took part in the quantitative portion of
this study felt that their executive director supports them in their role, which is higher than
the broader population (BoardSource, 2017, 2021). As
Table 15 and Figure 12 show, 75% (n = 24) of participants strongly agreed that their
executive director supports them, whereas only 3% (n = 1) of the board chairs somewhat
disagreed. No respondents indicated that they did not at all feel supported by their governing
partner.

Table 15
Reported Board Chair Support from Executive Director
Board chair feels supported by ED Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 24 75
Somewhat agree 4 13
Neither agree nor disagree 3 9
Somewhat disagree 1 3

129

Note. ED = executive director.
Figure 12
Reported Board Chair Support from Executive Director

Qualitative results garnered through 20 thick, rich interviews elaborate more fully on the
nuances of this dyad and how collaboration to jointly construct the governing framework can be
achieved. Ten out of 20 board chairs interviewed described their relationship with their executive
director using positive language such as “great,” or “really strong.” They described investing
time into the relationship to govern more effectively. One board chair shared, “we spent the time
and energy to build the relationship between us.” Another interviewee stated,
I think we have a good working relationship and there’s a good give and take. And so my
strengths are maybe things that are less strengths for her. When she needs a pep talk she
definitely comes to me and when the board needs a pep talk, I go to her.
75%
13%
9%
3%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor
disagree
Somewhat disagree
Percentage
Board Chair Survey Response
M y e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r s u p p o r t s me i n m y r o l e a s b o a r d c h a i r
130

Others expressed that work is required, with one board chair sharing, “You get back what you
put in. Sometimes you have to reach out harder if the natural chemistry isn’t there.” One board
chair shared, “If I’m being frank about our relationship, it has not been easy for a number of
reasons.” Another elaborated,
It has been a work in progress. We clearly like each other and appreciate each other. I
think, frankly, we both suffer a little bit from the syndrome of walking into a room with
strangers and each of us saying, “I’m the smartest son of a gun here in this room.”
In conclusion, the remaining half of board chair interviewees chose more negative language with
terms such as “difficult” or “fractured” when discussing their governing partner.
Language and Trust
A foundational component of support within these governing partnerships, as expressed
throughout the qualitative interviews, is communication. All 20 board chairs interviewed stated
they meet frequently with their executive director, with most respondents meeting on a weekly
basis. Some were intentional: “We meet every week for one hour” or “we communicate weekly
with a long, in person debrief after each board meeting.” Another participant shared that, “We
have a weekly zoom catch-up where we just talk about things that are on our plates and what we
think we need to address … we established that right at the beginning when I came in as [board]
chair.” Others shared that their meetings were more informal: “We talk probably two to three
times a month where we ended up exchanging emails and having conversations,” with one board
chair echoing, “We keep in touch a lot … let’s say I have a question or they have a question, the
lines of communication are always open.” Of note, for the 20 board chairs interviewed within
this study, a governing partnership fed by frequent communication with their executive director
was mentioned as contributing to feeling supported by their organizations.
131

Previously identified literature supports the influence of organizational and sociocultural
environments on the development of the relationship between board chairs and executive
directors (Miller-Millesen, 2003). Yet, there may be no effective partnership between these two
leaders without a shared language and the development of a trusting connection. Board chairs
within this study shared their appreciation for the development of a respectful way of
communicating with their executive director. One board chair stated,
We have disagreements, but we have them in such ways that like, we’re thoughtful about
the words we’re saying and the potential impact they have on others. And so it’s always
done in a very tactful and respectful way, and we ultimately have gotten to the very
important decisions we needed to make together.
Language factored into a positive dyadic relationship for another board chair who shared, “We
can disagree with each other in a very professional way, without feeling like we’re hiding
anything.” Other board chairs interviewed stressed that their relationship allowed them the
freedom to develop a shared dialogue. One interviewee said, “We have, I would consider, a very
open and honest relationship. I kind of tell him not to take things personally, but I’m going to
share them with you, and here’s where we’re at.” Another board chair acknowledged that
working with their executive director at the committee level prior to their ascension to the board
chair role proved invaluable once they became chair:
We forged more of a close working relationship, we got to have some tough discussions
as well because of the responsibility for that particular committee … and I think we had
those discussions in a very fruitful, very collegial way. So I believe that we have a good
relationship.
132

However, the ability to speak with such honesty may require a foundation of trust between all
parties.
The results from this mixed-method study show that this mention of trust, either its
presence or dearth, appeared frequently throughout the qualitative interviews. As expressed by
an interviewee, “If you take your board chair responsibility seriously, there's a lot of trust you're
giving, I trust you. You're running a good shop. I'm trusting that your staff is solid you don't have
a toxic environment that I can't see.” One board chair expressed a metacognitive awareness of
their place within the governing framework and their limited tenure: “How do I take down your
[executive director] barrier? I’m here to serve. I’m technically your boss, but I’m a volunteer
boss, so how do I help you be successful?” Another chair acknowledged the other half of the
question by stating, “and how do you give me a comfort level to where I understand that you are
the right person and things are going well?” Another chair continued this line of thinking by
sharing that they, “have always trusted her [executive director] judgement. … I’m not sure how
much she has always trusted mine. And that doesn’t surprise me because I just came into the
role.” Yet, interweaving processes and jointly constructing an understanding of a trusting
governance relationship may require investment.
Some board chairs interviewed shared that it took time to develop this foundation of trust
between them and the executive director: “It took six to eight months to get there. And I think
now she trusts me, she knows that I’m invested in supporting her and philosophically we’re on
the same page which I think is a big deal.” Another board chair interviewed agreed that time was
necessary:
133

I’ve really sensed over the last year an increasing comfort with him sharing like, his
frustrations and his worries and his fears. And, as I’ve seen him doing more of that, I’ve
sensed that’s bringing us closer in that the sense of trust between us is growing.
Moreover, 35% of board chair participants mentioned the importance of trust multiple times
within their individual interviews.
Summary
This chapter presented the results of this mixed-method study on the KMO influences
that affect nonprofit board chairs’ abilities to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities.
The discussion centered on the research questions created within a gap analysis conceptual
framework, aligned through supporting literature, as well as expressed influences on nonprofit
board chair onboarding. Quantitative as well as qualitative findings show the distinct position
that nonprofit board chairs maintain within the governance framework, while outlining
approaches to increased effectiveness to better inform the sector.
The research design for this study intentionally provided a snapshot into the current role
understanding and confidence a board chair demonstrates to fulfill their governance
responsibilities while retracing the process of individual growth into the role through the
interview protocol. This allowed for the opportunity to discover aspects of what a successful
board chair onboarding process might look like, and how the combination of knowledge and
motivation drives understanding of governance within the organizational model. Researcher
reflexivity throughout the data collection and analysis process, coupled with the most engaged
board chairs self-selecting to take part in this study, yielded findings that proved long-held
assumptions invalid while showcasing the explicit need within the sector for board chair
onboarding resources.
134

The findings yielded near-universal hesitancy to undertake the board chair role, as well as
a decided lack of organizational support in helping these volunteers become familiar with the
role’s expectations. However, an important finding presented was the motivation of board chairs
interviewed to seek knowledge of the role independent from what their organizations provided.
The board chairs within this study persevered in striving to obtain knowledge to inform their
leadership role. A dearth of organizational support, as demonstrated by study participants, also
motivated all interviewees to create processes they viewed as lacking in their own onboarding
experience for future board chairs. Occurring at the nexus of where these volunteers felt their
skills and knowledge most aligned with the organization’s needs, all participating board chairs
sought to attain their goals regardless of the universal disinclination to serve in the role. From
bylaw adjustments to codifying succession planning and the awareness to engage outside help
when their skills could not fill a gap, motivation displayed to improve the governance process
beyond their own terms was apparent.
This significant finding prompted a revision of how the conceptual influences this study
focused on interact (see Figure 13). This model acknowledges the positive cyclical nature of
board chair onboarding, reflecting that board chairs who possess the necessary knowledge and
motivation to effectively govern may invest back into the organization they serve to improve
mission operationalization and strengthen governance onboarding for future leaders. Coupled
with support of the organization, this model demonstrates that investment in onboarding a
governing leader may contribute to lasting improvements within the governance framework,
regardless of the transitory relationship any one individual has with the board chair role.

Figure 23
Revised Interaction of Conceptual Influences on Board Chair Onboarding

135
136

The importance of the organizational mission at both the cultural and individual levels
was another thread interwoven throughout all data influences. This research shows that nearly all
interview participants found a greater depth of organizational comprehension when they became
chair, with only positive results garnered from deepening this understanding of what drives their
nonprofit. The majority of board chairs interviewed for this study were also volunteers within
their nonprofits prior to joining their board who expressed a deeper understanding of mission and
vision as a result. Additionally, board chairs who took part in this study often cited the benefits
of engaging fellow members around the core concepts of the nonprofit’s mission, which helped
to deepen camaraderie and engagement while allowing many to overcome the tumult of previous
board and leadership dynamics. Results from this study showed that this agitation may permeate
all stakeholders when the organization cannot provide the needed support for the board chair
role. The creation of a shared, respectful language also appeared to create more favorable
relationships within the dyadic governing partnership between the board chair and nonprofit’s
executive director. Open lines of communication and frequent touch points allowed governing
leaders to develop a sense of trust in their partner, although it was often hard won and hampered
by the frustrations of term limitations.
Time was a concluding theme that demonstrated board chairs’ self-awareness and
motivations throughout this research, including the time to serve, time to undertake the role with
all its inherent challenges, and time to educate themselves on their governance responsibilities.
The demonstrated lack of organizational support led board chair participants to seek independent
answers to questions that their nonprofits could have provided, requiring these volunteers to
adjust their own schedules to fill gaps within their governance frameworks. These board chairs
volunteer their time to the nonprofit in question, with many expressing they devoted even more
137

time upon assumption of the board chair role to correctly engage with their organizations when
onboarding was not provided.
Within the closing chapter that follows, suggestions and recommendations for
strengthening the onboarding process for these board chairs are presented. The potential
solutions presented are drawn from the data as influenced by the gap analysis framework that
grounded this study. One objective is that the solutions presented may provide a more supportive
and knowledgeable growth environment for board chairs to use their intrinsic motivation to
serve, while assisting organizations in selecting and supporting the most influential governing
leaders who possess the elements for success.
138

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. The previous chapter presented both
quantitative and qualitative results investigating the KMO influences on the research questions
that framed this study on nonprofit board chair onboarding practices for effective governance. As
demonstrated through a comprehensive literature review and outline of the conceptual
framework that guided this research, the role of a nonprofit board chair is a critical one within
the cultural setting of any nonprofit. Results from this mixed-method assessment, as outlined
within Chapter 4, also showed that the largest gap identified originates from a lack of
organizational support, requiring active board chairs to independently acquire the knowledge and
possess the motivation to effectively perform their roles. The near-universal hesitancy to assume
this governing leadership role, as expressed by the board chair interview participants, remains a
primary contributor to why closing this gap in board chair onboarding is of crucial importance to
governance evolution within the sector.
This chapter identifies recommendations for practice and implementation based on
validated data and analysis regarding the expressed influences on the KMO framework within
this study. Influences on the conceptual model and results are reiterated, with recommendations
synthesized for more practical fulfillment. In keeping with the guiding framework, this chapter
presents recommendations grouped by KMO themes, with both qualitative and quantitative
support results presented. This chapter concludes with suggestions for future investigations
around this important topic of nonprofit board chair onboarding.
139

Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Although this study invalidated multiple methodological assumptions through the
analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data, the nullification proved more powerful for
upending researcher biases and providing working solutions. The findings indicate that board
chair participants claim to possess the appropriate factual and conceptual knowledge to
successfully perform their roles, as well as a metacognitive awareness of their abilities and the
needs of the organization, which linked closely to expressions of motivation for service.
Contrary to much of the research outlined within Chapter 2, it is the organization that proved
most lacking in support of the global stakeholder goal for nonprofit board chairs to effectively
fulfill their governance responsibilities. Board chairs who participated within this study
independently sought out knowledge opportunities and possessed the motivation to fill gaps
within their own experiences being onboarded for the role, with study participants then enriching
their organizational settings with the tools and resources their successors will need for more
effective performance. Identifying best practices from study participants as outlined in the
following recommendations may show that a formula exists for improving nonprofit board
chairs’ capacities and effective role fulfillment sector wide.
Knowledge Recommendations
Within this study, knowledge influences were broken into three types based on
Krathwohl’s (2002) definition of factual or knowledge of roles, conceptual or sector and mission
understanding, and metacognitive or knowledge of personal abilities. Table 16 reviews the
knowledge influence, type, and study data and makes a recommendation to close the operational
gap. The amalgamation of these influences allowed the opportunity to make two knowledge
recommendations for implementation: organizations should formalize the role of immediate past
140

president for knowledge continuity and transition, and previous volunteer experience should
supplant professional skills to ensure closer ties to the organizational mission.

Table 16
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge influence Knowledge type Study findings Recommendation
Board chairs will have an in-
depth understanding of their
governance responsibilities
Factual All board chairs
independently educated
themselves on the role
beyond materials
provided by organization
Organizations should provide board
chairs with job aids specific to
their nonprofits and global best
practices for governance, with
outgoing board chair providing
necessary scaffolding with
sufficient overlap, and
community connections (Denler
et al., 2014; Mayer, 2010).
Board chairs will understand
the significance of
organizational mission
within their governance role
Conceptual Sector comprehension
proved inconsequential,
connection to the mission
of greater importance to
effective board chair
governance
Organizations should recruit board
leaders from an active pool of
organizational volunteers and/or
those who have previously
served on boards. Organizations
should demonstrate through
frequent points of reinforcement
how their specific nonprofit
conceptualizes mission (Scott &
Palincsar, 2013).

141

Board chairs will adjust their
leadership style to fit within
the governance framework
and personal limitations
Metacognitive Survey responses indicate
strong knowledge of staff
roles; interviewees
acknowledged
outsourcing when needed
and restrictions of
personal time
Organization should encourage
regular board chair self-
evaluations, mentorship of
incoming board chair that
encourages learning with the
zone of proximal development,
and self-regulation around
personal limitations (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler et al., 2014;
Scott & Palincsar, 2013).

142
143

Recommendation 1: Formalize the Role of Immediate Past Board Chair for Accountability,
Mentorship, and Continuity of Responsibility Knowledge
The role of a nonprofit board chair is temporary and restricted, limited by the term length
and changing organizational staffing, as well as the time these leaders can devote to this
volunteer work. Establishing a constant within this framework, a baton that can be passed from
one chair to the next, requires more than the often-cited books and manuals that, although helpful
and repeatedly mentioned within this study, are not the preferred learning style for all. Nine out
of 20 board chairs interviewed had the support of the immediate past chair, which they relayed as
helpful to their learning and continuity, whereas nearly all remaining interviewees expressed
formalizing this relationship as a primary way they could feel more supported in their leadership
transition and subsequent service. Public acknowledgement of the individual who previously
held the position of board chair, such as listing on letterhead and marketing materials, codifying
the responsibility and knowledge they acquired during their leadership, may lead to greater
accountability as well as accessibility of information for the incoming board chair. Although it
may appear a simple alteration, it may dispel the transitory nature of the board chair role,
imbuing it with more permanence and formalizing the necessity of knowledge transfer.
Setting the expectation of continued involvement and even term overlap between board
chairs may also take the burden off the organization to lead the onboarding process, transferring
that accountability to the outgoing board chair. As shown in Chapter 4, all 20 board chairs
interviewed acknowledged they directly or indirectly strove to improve the onboarding process
for their successors, creating a smoother transition from board member to governing chair for
future leaders. These volunteers created systems and filled the governance knowledge gap,
recognizing its importance. This study showed that 80% of interview participants did not desire
144

to take on the leadership position, which echoes national statistics, but perhaps knowing that
there was an individual who held the role before you and would see to the transfer of pertinent
knowledge would be the support needed to raise a hand and accept the position of board chair
more confidently. Repeating the experience of one board chair cited in Chapter 4, they were
welcomed by the outgoing board chair who, “basically handed me a folder with everything:
documents pertaining to our head of school survey, historical documents going back ten years
containing copy of speeches. I’m not going to go on and on but you get the gist.” This is a
testament to the power of the immediate past chair as an information conduit through multiple
appointed leaders.
Recommendation 2: Focus on Context-Specific Volunteer Experience in Addition to the
Professional Aptitude and Community Connections of Prospective Board Chairs Who
Have the Time to Serve, Helping to Ensure Stronger Knowledge of Mission
Operationalization
The 16 out of 20 board chairs who volunteered within the nonprofit they serve prior to
taking on a board leadership role expressed a deeper appreciation for the importance of mission
within the organization. Many of these individuals also expressed ways this volunteer experience
spurred them to engage their fellow board members towards a shared construction of the vision
and values of the nonprofit they help govern. Participants described structuring board meetings
to hear success stories of operations in action and engaging all members on building a common
language to describe the nonprofit’s mission (Maurer, 2016). Therefore, drawing from active
volunteers for future board leadership roles may provide a more enriching means of recruitment.
Individuals who are active volunteers within nonprofits are already engaged, more familiar with
145

the nuances of their organizations, and more invested in ensuring success because they have
already been a part of creating results.
Data from this study indicates that 80% of participants did not want the role of board
chair, yet they all demonstrated the interest and motivation required to gain knowledge of the job
and pursue success despite an initial desire to do otherwise. I cannot help but acknowledge the
synchrony with 80% of study participants also volunteering for their organizations prior to board
service, a possible signal of the value previous organizational knowledge through volunteer work
might lend to the motivation to fulfill governance responsibilities. This finding also illustrates
that the different lived experiences of the board chair participants and socially constructed
impressions of the nonprofit sector were less significant than anticipated, aligning with the work
of Miller-Stevens and Ward (2019). Perhaps starting with active organizational volunteers may
provide more effective and engaged board leaders through a deeper connection to the mission.
Multiple researchers highlighted within this study have stated that board members are
sought for their professional skills, connections to prominent donors and community members,
or the impact of their own name on the board roster (Kenagy et al., 2013; Miller-Stevens &
Ward, 2019). But why are potential board members not sought for their preexisting connection to
and knowledge of the operationalization of the mission and vision within the community? The
initial reaction from leaders within the sector might be hesitancy over the “loss” of what a well-
connected board chair might mean to the nonprofit’s fundraising bottom line. Yet, this study
showed that 75% of survey respondents were extremely comfortable talking about the mission
within the community, and 48% of survey respondents shared that strengthening ties with
stakeholders was their most enjoyable aspect of the role, inferring that perhaps a gap in
contributed revenue might not be as extreme as assumed. Knowledge of the mission gained
146

through direct volunteer work may be just as if not more important as more routine recruitment
requirements such as professional experience and personal connections.
Although an organization may have identified the ideal candidate for the board chair role
in regards to skills and interest, they may fail to acknowledge the importance of the volunteer’s
time commitment to achieve strategic goals. For the 20 board chairs interviewed during the
qualitative portion of this study, roughly half of them shared that they were currently
professionally retired, with many more expressing they had great flexibility in their working
lives which allowed for deeper commitment to the role. For those who were working consuming
jobs, had busy family lives, or other pulls on their time, they expressed a struggle to maintain
motivation and feel efficacious with their time. Scant research has quantified the personal
volunteer time needed outside of board meetings to effectively perform the role of board chair;
multiple board chairs within this study referred to their governance duties as full time work. Yet,
despite great operational diversity within the sector, agreement exists that effectively providing
organizational oversight while supporting a governing board and executive director requires a
significant time commitment from a board chair (Hiland, 2008; Wertheimer, 2008). When
organizations fail to openly discuss the board chair volunteer requirements and prospective
volunteer leaders allow their service motivation to cloud their actual ability to commit the time,
there may exist little hope for effective governance within the limited tenure of a prospective
board chair.
Motivation Recommendations
Previous research highlighted within this study focused on the expressed hesitancy and
lack of preparation that board chairs experienced prior to commencing their role (BoardSource,
2021; Freiwirth et al., 2017). This study sought to fill a gap within the literature by striving to
147

determine the KMO needs of nonprofit board chairs to successfully fulfill their governance
duties. Yet, the power of board chair motivation within the conceptual framework that guided
this study and how inseparable it proved to be from the pursuit of knowledge and learning was
not anticipated.
Three types of motivation were central to the investigation of the influences on successful
nonprofit board chair onboarding: interest to pursue a goal regardless of desirability (Clark &
Estes, 2008), attainment value or how an individual aligns their personal and professional goals
(Eccles, 2006), and self-efficacy, which is one’s belief in their capacity to achieve a goal
(Schunk & Usher, 2019). Table 17 shows the results of these motivational influences on board
chair onboarding, from which the following recommendations were derived: demystify the board
chair role to encourage prospective leaders to better understand the intersection of personal
interest and experience with the organization’s needs, in addition to providing continued
encouragement and goal-setting that align with governance priorities.
148

Table 17
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Motivational influence Motivation
type
Study findings Recommendation
Board chairs will utilize
individual interest to
pursue paramount
governance
responsibilities.
Intrinsic All board chairs
interviewed
demonstrated
commitment to
the role,
regardless of
impetus for
service and
despite the
majority not
desiring to take it
on.
Organizations should
provide options and
choices to build upon
prior knowledge for
effective governance
engagement, and
clearly articulate the
relevance of
responsibilities to
impact of the board
chair (Schraw &
Lehman, 2009).
Board chairs will have
awareness of the
intersection between
personal experience
and governance goals.
Attainment
value
All board chairs
interviewed
expressed where
they feel they
can add the
greatest value,
and how they are
actively working
to improve the
governance
framework.
Organizations should
strive to present board
chairs with information
on the role that is
accurate, relevant,
useful to them, and
based on the
governance needs of
the nonprofit to
encourage successful
attainment (Pintrich,
2003; Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000).
Board chairs will have
the confidence to
advance their goals
towards enriching the
culture of
governance.
Self-efficacy Board chairs
surveyed
expressed
confidence in
most visible
aspects of the
position and
support from
their executive
director.
Organizations should
emphasize that the
board chairs are adept
and capable of
leadership, while
setting concrete goals
that allow successes to
be felt (Pajares, 2006).

149

Recommendation 3: Demystify the Board Chair Role Within the Governance Framework
to Better Represent the Overlap of Organizational Needs and Personal Qualifications of the
Prospective Volunteer
Comprehensive national research as well as validation within this study have established
that there is great hesitancy to take on the board chair role. The question is, why? Could it be the
personal time required to successfully fulfill governance duties, lack of clarity around roles and
responsibilities and the importance therein, or insufficient understanding of the true state of the
nonprofit they are asked to lead? Perhaps all three. Within this study, 70% of interview
participants said they did not fully understand the operationalization of the mission prior to
becoming board chair, while 80% reported they understood the mission better as board chair. As
reported in Chapter 4, one interviewee shared that previous governance leaders “sold me a false
bill of goods, which I duly accepted, not really understanding the full mission and
responsibilities” when they were approached for the board chair role. I have personally been
approached to take on the role of board chair, and only through lived experience was able to ask
the questions necessary to discern the true state of the nonprofit, which was quite different from
what was presented. I declined the role, regardless of their motivation to serve, not because of
the challenges that awaited, but because of the lack of honesty in discussing all aspects of the
mission.
Clarifying the obstacles, time commitment, and how the skills and motivation of the
prospective board chair align with the needs of the organization is an impactful aspect of
onboarding that is currently lacking. As shown, 75% of interview participants whose interests led
them to join their nonprofit’s board did so to use their skills for assisting in solving an
organizational problem or strengthening an area of operations. This mixed-method study also
150

demonstrates that board chair participants possess the intrinsic motivation, individual interest,
and self-efficacy to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities regardless of desirability.
Their appreciation for and excitement around the mission may have inspired knowledge
acquisition and the motivation to succeed in their governance duties (Chait et al., 2005). This
diverges from previous research that highlighted a lack of foundational understanding as well as
the outsized role of ego, which hamper one’s effective service as board chair (Green &
Griesinger, 1996; Reid, 2013). The nonprofit board chairs within this study desired information,
wanted opportunities to learn and, when not provided by the organization they serve, were
motivated to acquire the knowledge independently. As shown in Chapter 4, multiple board chairs
suggested their ascension to the role may have been helped by a Strength, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats analysis for clarity of operations, as well as assistance with a “road
map” for goal achievement. The gap exists on the part of the organization to present such
information, which helps simplify their needs and align these opportunities with the skills and
personal dedication of the effective board chair. Perhaps this recommendation may contribute to
illuminating a more valid appraisal of the role for prospective governing chairs and inspire more
leaders to freely step forward with the understanding of how their contribution will make an
impact.
Recommendation 4: Provide a Nonprofit Board Chair With Continued Evaluation,
Encouragement, and Assistance in Setting Concrete Goals That Align With Governance
Priorities
The process of acclimating a nonprofit board chair to their role should not be considered
a solitary event if personal motivation towards service is to be maintained: continued
encouragement with tangible successes toward goal accomplishment must be known and felt to
151

the volunteer. Even the perception of success has been shown to increase board effectiveness
(Bradshaw, 2009; Brown, 2007), while additional research demonstrates that only 54% of
executive directors felt their board chairs were prepared to take on the role even though their
governing chairs rate their level of readiness significantly higher (Bernstein et al., 2016;
BoardSource, 2021). This gap may be closed by organizations not only assisting nonprofit board
chairs to craft the goals of their tenure from the outset, but also providing ongoing assessment as
they grown into their role and the organizational needs change (Brown, 2007; Harrison &
Murray, 2012). Executive director encouragement and assistance in setting positive expectations
for success is critical, as well as an organization instituting regular evaluations of board chair
performance (Liket & Maas, 2015).
Rudimentary self-assessments of progress towards goals may provide volunteer board
chairs the opportunity to demonstrate effectiveness, gain confidence, and encourage growth
when coupled with balanced feedback from the organization (Borgogni et al., 2011). Self-
evaluation can maintain efficacious behavior towards goal attainment (Denler et al., 2014), while
allowing the board chair to reflect on the application of their experiences and skills towards
governance progress. Practical evaluations, free examples of which are easily accessed online,
when undertaken in conjunction with governing partners, may provide the timely feedback
needed to maintain board chair motivation towards goal accomplishment despite their limited
tenure in the role.
Organization Recommendations
This study validated the lack of organizational support provided to nonprofit board chairs
when they assume their role as governing leaders, as well as the great need for a formalized
onboarding process specific to board chairs within the sector. As repeatedly mentioned
152

throughout this research, a handful of studies have demonstrated that there is a need to better
understand the deficiencies in the onboarding of a nonprofit board chair while presenting
solutions for advancement (Bernstein et al., 2016; Freiwirth et al., 2017; Mason & Kim, 2020).
Yet, the sector has failed to comprehend the importance of investment in the board chair role
despite efforts to showcase the need for more specific training (Brown, 2007; Harrison &
Murray, 2012). Perhaps it is the limited term length of the chair role, the hesitancy of most
volunteers to assume the responsibility, or a failure to truly understand what the role entails and
how the organization and individual might align. Within a sector plagued by resource limitations,
many scholars and practitioners may struggle to justify investment in a transient volunteer
relationship with no known metric to gauge success. I hope that the importance of facilitating a
board member’s transition to the chair role is clarified through the narrative of this study on
nonprofit board chair onboarding for effective governance.
For the purposes of this study, the cultural model within the nonprofit sector is the
underlying assumptions and lived experiences that create a shared understanding between all
members (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001; Schein, 2010). Cyclical in nature, culture influences an
individual and the individual’s actions and understanding then create the culture (Johnson &
Bradbury, 2015). The cultural setting within this study focused on the dyadic relationship created
between the executive director as the representative of organizational influences and the board
chair, and how it is constructed at the social and cultural levels (Schreiber & Valle, 2013). Table
18 provides a summary of the organizational influences that guided this mixed-method study and
informed the following recommendations: provide learning opportunities specific to the board
chair role—allowing for better organizational investment—and institute cooperative learning
within the dyadic partnership.
153

Table 18
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization influence Organization
type
Study findings Recommendation
Nonprofit organizations
will provide
onboarding procedures
that enable deeper
understanding of the
context in which the
governance framework
is supported.
Cultural model All board chairs
interviewed
expressed a
desire for
guidance,
information, and
organizational
support when
they took over
the board chair
role.
Organizations must
provide board chairs
with necessary
resources to ensure
governance goals upon
assumption of role, as
well as present
incoming board chairs
with peer and
community support
networks to augment
shared experience
(Schein, 2010; Waters
et al., 2003)
Nonprofit organizations
will clarify onboarding
processes that allow
stakeholders to jointly
contribute to a
collaborative
governance
framework.
Cultural setting Most board chairs
surveyed
expressed
understanding of
information flow
within their
nonprofits, with
all meeting
regularly with
their dyadic
leader to
encourage trust
and
collaboration.
Onboarding should
identify cooperative
opportunities for
learning between
dyadic partners, and
recognition of the
different types of
communication and
understanding that can
exist within the
governance framework
(Denning, 2005; Lewis,
2011).

154

Recommendation 5: Provide Learning Opportunities and Resources Specific to the Board
Chair When the Volunteer Assumes the Role, Freeing Time for These Leaders to Invest
Within the Cultural Framework and Expand Their Capacity for Governance Effectiveness
The nonprofit board chairs who gave their time and insight to participate in this mixed-
method study sought learning opportunities independent of the organizations they serve because
they were motivated to succeed in the role. Additionally, all board chair participants within this
study shared they were working on aspects of the onboarding process that were not present when
they assumed the role and/or striving to enhance the culture of their organizations in some way.
Their learning about the board chair role was not an organic aspect of their board service:
interview participants understood this significance and sought to bridge this learning gap for
their successors. This was not a question within the interview protocol, yet all board chairs found
the time to share a gap they have experienced within the governance framework and cultural
improvements they were striving towards. Given that these board chairs who participated in the
qualitative interview process also took the space within their limited schedules to seek
knowledge on their role that was not provided by their organizations, this may be an incredible
opportunity.
Were a board chair to begin their role onboarded, mentored, and sustained throughout
their term, their knowledge and motivation may be utilized more effectively to invest in goal
attainment targeted to organization improvements and mission delivery. As this study has shown,
all interview participants reinvested back into their governance framework: from improving
onboarding for their successors, to elevating the importance of mission with their peers and
instituting shared learning opportunities. Their specific and global governance knowledge does
not vanish upon their departure, thereby justifying investment in the board chair’s onboarding.
155

Organizations should seek to provide materials and training that build competence and capacity
as highlighted throughout this review, while also recognizing that marking a board member
transition to board chair with a distinct transfer of knowledge may be essential to their effective
fulfillment of governance responsibilities.
Recommendation 6: Institute Cooperative Learning Opportunities Grounded in the Shared
Understanding of a Nonprofit’s Culture, Emphasizing Trust Development and Connection
Within the Dyadic Partnership
A nonprofit board chair establishes the culture in which the governing board operates
(Parker, 2007), whereas research has shown that the most ineffective board chairs are either too
involved or not involved enough in setting the tone for their tenure (Harrison & Murray, 2012).
However, being a governing leader is not a solitary existence. The dyadic relationship and shared
understanding created between a nonprofit board chair and their executive director as
representative of organizational influences is of paramount importance (Chait et al., 2005;
Cornforth & Macmillan, 2016). Highly functioning governing dyads have been shown to share a
significant level of trust and understanding, as well as great adaptability within the changing
context of nonprofit operations and the specific cultural setting of their organization (Mathews,
2019; McAuley, 2019).
Yet, there is a gap in the research as to how this pair can quickly acclimate to each other
given the limited time and tenure of their respective roles. Although all board chair interview
participants within this study met frequently with their executive directors, which is a key
component to building a trusting relationship, a few interviewees offered more salient ways in
which they initially connected with their internal leader as reported in Chapter 4. Combining
these data points while establishing continuity for the next governing dyad may be a path
156

forward for creating a trusting connection between incoming board chairs and executive
directors. Kicking off a new governing relationship with a social dinner out and calendaring an
annual conference or joint professional development class are two suggestions that may be
transferrable to the sector at large.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. This research sought understanding by
interrogating the under-examined process for onboarding specific to a board chair, and how the
interrelation between their knowledge and motivation interacts with the nonprofit they serve.
Guided by three research questions that resulted in six recommendations for stakeholder
improvement, and although limited in scope and scale and focused on only board chair
stakeholders, gaps presented within this research may prove beneficial for future investigation.
As identified throughout this study, board chair recruitment is an area of great need
throughout the sector. Researchers may have significant opportunities in attempting to
understand the root of disinclination to take on the board chair role. This study echoed national
findings on the expressed hesitancy to assume the responsibilities of a governing leader, but it
remains unclear why the board chair role is specifically viewed as such a burden. Directly
investigating this question might assist organizations in clarifying board chair requirements to fill
the role more easily, while providing insight into the motivation exemplified by participants of
this study. Exploring the potential of preexisting volunteers for service on their boards of
directors, and whether these individuals who are already invested in the mission
157

operationalization of the nonprofit may become governing leaders or exist as more impactful
chairs while continuing to grow the organization, is another research opportunity. Additional
research may also choose to study nonprofits who have a codified role of immediate past chair
and/or board chair mentorship opportunities for incoming chairs to discern if this relationship
improves the onboarding process for more effective governance.
This study validated the lack of nonprofit board chair onboarding but only with chairs
who have served organizations within a certain budget size. Future research may choose to
expand outside of those parameters, exploring whether small or large nonprofits approach the
board chair role differently: one extreme is resource-rich, the other is resource-poor, which might
provide insight into atypical ways of knowledge assimilation to benefit the entire sector. A
frequently mentioned area of need for the 20 nonprofit board chairs who participated in the
qualitative portion of this study were points of connection within their communities that would
assist them in becoming effective governing leaders. Interrogating the workings of established
affiliate groups both nationally and locally may provide overarching learning opportunities as
well as peers to connect with for incoming board chairs.
The governing relationship between a nonprofit board chair and their executive director,
and the development of a shared commitment towards the mission and vision, presents as a
concluding area of potential research. This study focused heavily on this governing dynamic
while setting the context for this study because of personal biases and lived experiences, which
have been reflexively analyzed throughout this process, having witnessed only one effective
partnership in decades of nonprofit sector leadership. This current study was limited in that data
were only collected from one-half of the pair in the governing relationship between a nonprofit
board chair and their executive director. Future research would benefit from questioning the
158

executive director as well as to their perspectives around the onboarding process of nonprofit
board chairs. Continuing research on the impact a supportive executive director who recognizes
the importance of the board chair role has on their governing partner, and how that is felt through
the entire organization, may contribute greatly to implementation. Additionally, future research
on centralizing the mission to quickly build a trusting partnership, may illuminate findings that
were beyond the means of this study. Although research highlighted within this study touches on
the reasons for joining and serving a nonprofit board, there is a gap in the sector for discerning
what motivates a volunteer to pursue their governance goals once they begin their role as board
chair. The active choice and persistence in advancing the governance framework during their
tenure, regardless of whether the position was desired, was a significant finding within this study
that bears further assessment to identify possible contributing factors to such motivated
engagement.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational factors that
influence the ability of a nonprofit board chair to effectively assume their leadership role. The
goal of this study was to identify practices that will support a nonprofit board chair’s ability to
effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. This research sought understanding by
interrogating the under-examined process for onboarding specific to a board chair, and how the
interrelation between their knowledge and motivation interacts with the nonprofit they serve.
Guided by Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework and influenced by sociocultural
learning theory and social cognitive theory, the study sought to identify successful nonprofit
onboarding practices that enable board chairs to effectively fulfill their governance
responsibilities. Introducing the subject through a comprehensive literature review, this mixed-
159

method study acquired data from a nationally distributed anonymous survey, leading to
confidential interviews with 20 active board chairs. Based on the findings, KMO gaps were
assessed, and recommendations were made to improve the process of nonprofit board chair
onboarding sector wide.
This study validated the assumption that organizations do not provide onboarding support
to board chairs when they begin the role of governing leader, which remains an
underacknowledged omission for many nonprofits. However, the most significant finding from
this study was the motivation exhibited by the board chair participants to independently pursue
the means of acquiring this knowledge to effectively fulfill their governance responsibilities. The
board chair participants within this study exhibited a strong connection to the mission of the
organization they served and a productive approach to the role of board chair despite a near
universal disinclination to take it on. Their commitment to the role regardless of the
responsibility introduction was evidenced in board chairs reinvesting their acquired knowledge
of their role and responsibilities back into their nonprofit’s culture to strengthen the governance
framework and benefit their successors.
The nonprofit sector is plagued with resource deprivation even in fruitful times, which is
the nature of striving to achieve a break-even budget at the close of every financial year.
Justifying investment in the transient volunteer position of board chair will continue to prove
difficult for many organizations, particularly when the relationship between dyadic partners can
be fractured. Yet, this study has shown that when board chairs are successfully supported and
onboarded, they move beyond merely reinforcing the cultural setting of the nonprofit they serve,
and towards advancing it. This is important because continued investment within the governance
framework by means of the board chair role could translate to attaining goals such as increased
160

fundraising revenue through a shared obligation for service and the betterment of time-
consuming processes that impact the organization’s bottom line.
Within this study, six recommendations were presented for immediate implementation by
nonprofit organizations to best fill the KMO gaps identified within this study. These suggestions
for achieving the goal of successfully onboarding a board chair to effectively fulfill their
governance responsibilities are not onerous. They should not create additional burden for already
overtaxed nonprofit leaders; rather, these recommendations should present as opportunities to
advance a joint commitment to the mission and vision of organizations who elect to invest in this
significant potential of board chair leadership.
161

References
Bai, G. (2013). How do board size and occupational background of directors influence social
performance in for-profit and non-profit organizations? Evidence from California
hospitals. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-
012-1578-X
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5(1), 307–337.
https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanduraGuide2006.pdf
Beck, D. B. (2014). Learning to be, learning about: A socio-cultural learning approach to board
practice. In C. Cornforth & W. A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative
perspectives and approaches (pp. 103–122). Routledge.
Bernstein, R. S., Buse, K., & Bilimoria, D. (2016). Revisiting agency and stewardship theories:
Perspectives from nonprofit board chairs and CEOs. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 26(4), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21199
Bernstein, R. S., Buse, K., & Slatten, L. A. (2015). Nonprofit board performance: Board
members' understanding their roles and responsibilities. American Journal of
Management, 15(1), 24–35. http://www.na-
businesspress.com/AJM/BernsteinR_Web15_1_.pdf
Bixler, R. P., & Springer, D. W. (2018). Nonprofit social capital as an indicator of a healthy
nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2018-0017
162

BoardSource. (2017). Leading with intent: 2017 national index of nonprofit board practices.
https://leadingwithintent.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LWI-2017.pdf
BoardSource. (2021). Leading with intent: 2021 national index of nonprofit board practices.
https://boardsource.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-Leading-with-Intent-
Report.pdf
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed., pp. 82–112). Allyn and
Bacon.
Bowen, W. G. (1994). When a business leader joins a nonprofit board. Harvard Business
Review, 72(5), 38. https://hbr.org/1994/09/when-a-business-leader-joins-a-nonprofit-
board
Bradshaw, P. (2002). Reframing board-staff relations: Exploring the governance function using a
storytelling metaphor. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(4), 471–484.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12409
Bradshaw, P. (2009). A contingency approach to nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management
& Leadership, 20(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.241
Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance
in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.71
Brown, W. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications
for performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(3), 301–317.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.151
163

Brown, W. A., & Guo, C. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009334588
Bruni-Bossio, V., Story, D., & Garcea, J. (2016). Board governance in the nonprofit sector:
Role-performance relationships of directors. The Innovation Journal, 21(1), 1–22.
http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/2016_21_1_3_bruni-bossio_story_role-
performance.pdf
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Chapter 10:
Interviewing essentials for new researchers. In Research design and methods: An applied
guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 147–159). Sage.
Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and
organizational efficiency: The case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257462
Cascio, W. (2004). Board governance: A social systems perspective. The Academy of
Management Executive, 18(1), 97–100. https://doi.org/10.5465/AME.2004.12689560
Chait, R., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2005). Governance as leadership reframing the work of
nonprofit boards. John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, W., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox
perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1), 11–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2004.00241.x
164

Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and
suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116–
1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011427959
Cornforth, C., & Brown, W. A. (2014). Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and
approaches. Routledge.
Cornforth, C., & Macmillan, R. (2016). Evolution in board chair–CEO relationships: A
negotiated order perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(5), 949–970.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015622705
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31(3), 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed
methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
Cumberland, D. M., Kerrick, S. A., D’Mello, J., & Petrosko, J. M. (2015). Nonprofit board
balance and perceived performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(4), 449–
462. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21135
Daley, J. M., Netting, F. E., & Angulo, J. (1996). Languages, ideologies, and cultures in
nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(3), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130060303
165

Dartington, T. (1998). From altruism to action: Primary task and the not-for-profit organization.
Human Relations, 51(12), 1477–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679805101204
de Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra-Palenzuela, V., & Romero-Merino, M. E. (2009). Determinants of
nonprofit board size and composition: The case of Spanish foundations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 784–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008320501
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Conceptualizations of intrinsic motivation and self-
determination. In Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (pp. 11–
40). Springer.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473–490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Education.com.
Retrieved June 1, 2022, from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/socialcognitive-theory/
Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative. John Wiley & Sons.
du Bois, C., Caers, R., Jegers, M., de Cooman, R., de Gieter, S., & Pepermans, R. (2007). The
non-profit board: A concise review of the empirical literature. Zeitschrift Für Öffentliche
Und Gemeinwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, 30(1), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.5771/0344-
9777-2007-1-78
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Education.com. Retrieved May 9, 2022,
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation
(2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
166

Epstein, M. J., & McFarlan, F. W. (2011). Nonprofit vs. for-profit boards: Critical differences.
Strategic Finance, 92(9), 28–35.
Fang, D., Fombelle, P. W., & Bolton, R. N. (2021). Member retention and donations in nonprofit
service organizations: The balance between peer and organizational identification.
Journal of Service Research, 24(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520933676
Fredette, C., & Bradshaw, P. (2012). Social capital and nonprofit governance effectiveness.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21037
Freiwirth, J. (2013). Joining a nonprofit board: What you need to know. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 208–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012441777
Freiwirth, J., Burns, M., Gifford, G., Hiland, M., & Beck, D. (2017). Voices of board chairs: A
national study on the perspectives of nonprofit board chairs–how they prepare for and
perceive their role in relation to the board, community, and CEO. Journal of Nonprofit
Education and Leadership, 7(4), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.18666/jnel-2017-v7-i4-8641
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gazley, B., & Browers, A. (2013). What do high-performing boards look like. ASAE
Foundation.
Gazley, B., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2018). What drives good governance? A structural equation
model of nonprofit board performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2),
262–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017746019
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
167

Gibelman, M. (2000). The nonprofit sector and gender discrimination. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 10(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.10303
Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Reissing, E. (2005). The governance self‐assessment checklist: An
instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
15(3), 271–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.69
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in
nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4),
381–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130060407
GuideStar. (2021). 2020 nonprofit compensation report.
https://learn.guidestar.org/hubfs/2020%20Compensation%20Report/2020-comp-report-
sample.pdf
Harris, M. (1989). The governing body role: Problems and perceptions in implementation.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(4), 317–333.
https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408901800404
Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit
organization boards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 22(4), 411–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21038
Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2015). The effect of an online self-assessment tool on nonprofit
board performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1129–1151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014557361
168

Harrison, Y. D., Murray, V., & Cornforth, C. (2013). Perceptions of board chair leadership
effectiveness in nonprofit and voluntary sector organizations. Voluntas (Manchester,
England), 24(3), 688–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9274-0
Heemskerk, K., Heemskerk, E. M., & Wats, M. (2015). Behavioral determinants of nonprofit
board performance: The case of supervisory boards in Dutch secondary education.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(4), 417–430.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21137
Heimovics, R. D., & Herman, R. D. (1990). Responsibility for critical events in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19(1), 59–72.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089976409001900107
Herman, R. D., & Heimovics, R. D. (1990). An investigation of leadership skill differences in
chief executives of nonprofit organizations. The American Review of Public
Administration, 20(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/027507409002000204
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. (1997). Social construction of nonprofit effectiveness. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185–206.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective
local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–
160. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740022064605
Hiland, M. (2008). The board chair-executive director relationship: Dynamics that create value
for nonprofit organizations. Journal for Nonprofit Management, 12(1), 13–22.
Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating
agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28(3),
383–396. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196729
169

Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and
financial vulnerability in nonprofit organizations: A test of resource dependence.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.99
Hough, A., McGregor-Lowndes, M., & Ryan, C. (2013). Board monitoring and judgement as
processes of sensemaking. In C. Cornforth & W. A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance:
Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 158–176). Routledge.
Iecovich, E., & Bar-Mor, H. (2007). Relationships between chairpersons and CEOs in nonprofit
organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31(4), 21–40.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n04_04
Inglis, S., & Cleave, S. (2006). A scale to assess board member motivations in nonprofit
organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(1), 83–101.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.132
Inglis, S., & Dooley, S. D. (2002). Working with a comprehensive nominating process. Journal
of Volunteer Administration, 21(1), 40–46.
Internal Revenue Service. (2008). Good governance practices.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irstege/governance_practices.pdf
Internal Revenue Service. (2021). SOI tax stats. https://www.irs.gov/statistics/soi-tax-stats-
charities-and-other-tax-exempt-organizations-statistics
Issa, J., & Herman, R. (1986). Turnover among nonprofit chief executives: An initial
investigation of self-reported causes and consequences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 15(3), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/089976408601500307
170

Johnson, M., & Bradbury, T. N. (2015). Contributions of social learning theory to the promotion
of healthy relationships: Asset or liability? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7(1), 13–
27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12057
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Chapter 9: Methods of data collection. In B.
Johnson & L. Christensen (Eds.), Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches (5th ed., pp. 223–246). Sage.
Kakabadse, A. (2010). Leading the board: The six disciplines of world class chairmen. Strategic
Direction (Bradford, England), 26(8). https://doi.org/10.1108/sd.2010.05626hae.001
Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Barratt, R. (2006). Chairman and chief executive officer
(CEO): That sacred and secret relationship. Journal of Management Development, 25(2),
134–150.
Kalu, K. N., & Remkus, B. W. (2010). The evolution of social capital and civic engagement
between nonprofit networks and county representatives. Social Science Computer
Review, 28(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309337452
Kang, M., Lessard, D., Heston, L., & Nordmarken, S. (2017). Introduction to women, gender,
sexuality studies. UMass Amherst.
https://press.rebus.community/introwgss/chapter/social-constructionism/
Kenagy, R. T., Fox, M. A., & Vollrath, D. (2013). Enhancing nonprofit governance through
better information flow to directors. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice,
V(1), 33–43.
Kezar, A. (2001). Theories and models of organizational change. Understanding and facilitating
organizational change in the 21st century: Recent research and conceptualizations.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 25–58.
171

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Larcker, D. F., Donatiello, N. E., Meehan, B., & Tayan, B. (2015). Survey on board of directors
of nonprofit organizations. Stanford GSB, Rock Center for Corporate Governance,
BoardSource and GuideStar. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-
research/publications/2015-survey-board-directorsnonprofit-organizations
Lee, Y. (2014). The feminine sector: Explaining the overrepresentation of women in the
nonprofit sector in the USA. International Journal of Social Economics, 41(7), 556–572.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-01-2013-0011
LeRoux, K., & Langer, J. (2016). What nonprofit executives want and what they get from board
members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(2), 147–164.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21234
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication.
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444340372
Liket, K. C., & Maas, K. (2015). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Analysis of best
practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 268–296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013510064
Lückerath-Rovers, M., Quadackers, L., & de Bos, A. (2009). Non-executive directors in the
profit and non-profit sector: A different approach towards governance? Management
Online Review.
Maier, F., & Meyer, M. (2011). Managerialism and beyond: Discourses of civil society
organization and their governance implications. Voluntas (Manchester, England), 22(4),
731–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9202-8
172

Malloy, C. (2011). Moving beyond data: Practitioner-led inquiry fosters change. Phi Delta
Kappa International, 6(4), 1–20.
Mason, D. P., & Kim, M. (2020). A board coaching framework for effective nonprofit
governance: Staff support, board knowledge, and board effectiveness. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 44(5), 452–468.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2020.1805081
Mathews, M. A. (2019). Betwixt and between the board chair and executive director dyadic
leadership role perceptions within nonprofit organizations. Journal of Nonprofit
Education and Leadership, 9(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.18666/jnel-2019-v9-i3-8895
Maurer, L. L. (2016). Board member perceptions of small nonprofit organization effectiveness.
Journal of Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences, 10(1), 18–30.
https://doi.org/10.5590/JSBHS.2016.10.1.03
Mayer, R. (2010). Applying the science of learning to medical education. Medical
Education, 44(6), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03624.x
McAuley, C. (2019). Relationships matter–Ideas for transforming the nonprofit boardroom.
Performance Improvement, 58(4), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21848
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miller-Millesen, J. L. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A
theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521–547.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257463
173

Miller-Stevens, K., & Ward, K. D. (2019). Nonprofit board members’ reasons to join and
continue serving on a volunteer board of directors. Journal of Nonprofit and Public
Sector Marketing, 31(1), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2018.1526734
Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011434589
Mordaunt, J., & Cornforth, C. (2004). The role of boards in the failure and turnaround of non-
profit organizations. Public Money & Management, 24(4), 227–234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00424.x
Morgan, K. (2018). Describing the emperor’s new clothes: Three myths of education (in-)
equality. In A. Diller, B. Houston, K. P. Morgan, & M. Ayim (Eds.), The gender question
in education (pp. 105–122). Routledge.
Neustrom, S. E., Carlin, V., Kimmelman, P., & Mool, S. (2012). The dyadic relationship
between an executive director and board chair during turbulent times. Journal of
Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 2(3), 148–171.
O’Regan, K., & Oster, S. M. (2005). Does the structure and composition of the board matter?
The case of nonprofit organizations. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,
21(1), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewi009
Olinske, J., & Hellman, C. (2017). Leadership in the human service nonprofit organization: The
influence of the board of directors on executive director well-being and burnout. Human
Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(2), 95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1222976
174

Osanloo, A., & Grant, C. (2016). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 7.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Ostrower, F. (2008). Boards of midsize nonprofits: Their needs and challenges. Urban Institute
National Survey on Nonprofit Governance.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31681/411659-Boards-of-Midsize-
Nonprofits-Their-Needs-and-Challenges.PDF
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2006). Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects.
In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd
ed., pp. 612–628). Yale University Press.
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2017). Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects.
In G. Sonnevi (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. Yale University Press.
https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300153439
Otto, S. (2002). Not so very different: A comparison of the roles of chairs of governing bodies
and managers in different sectors. In C. Cornforth (Ed.), The governance of public and
non-profit organizations (pp. 145–161). Routledge.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5, 339–367.
Parker, L. (2007). Internal governance in the nonprofit boardroom: A participant observer study.
Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 923–934.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00607.x
175

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In M. Q. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative
research and evaluation methods (3rd ed., pp. 339–380). Sage.
Peter Jäger, U., & Rehli, F. (2012). Cooperative power relations between nonprofit board chairs
and executive directors. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23(2), 219–236.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21061
Pintrich, P. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board
members. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(2), 221–238.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.63
Pynes, J. (2000). Are women underrepresented as leaders of nonprofit organizations? Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 20(2), 35–49.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X0002000204
Ravenscroft, S., Buckless, F. A., & Hassall, T. (1999). Cooperative learning–A literature guide.
Accounting Education, 8(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/096392899330991
Reid, W. (2013). Beneath the surface and around the table. Exploring group dynamics in boards.
In C. Cornforth & W. A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives
and approaches (pp. 123–141). Routledge.
Reid, W., & Turbide, J. (2012). Board/staff relationships in a growth crisis: Implications for
nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 82–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011398296
176

Renz, D. O., & Anderson, F. O. (2014). Nonprofit governance: A review of the field. In C.
Cornforth & W. A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and
approaches (pp. 17–46). Routledge.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Salamon, L., & Newhouse, C. (2019). The 2019 nonprofit employment report. Economic Data
Bulletin-Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies, 47, 1–20.
https://philanthropydelaware.org/resources/Documents/The%202019%20Nonprofit%20E
mployment%20Report%20-%20Nonprofit%20Economic%20Data%20Bulletin%20-%20
John%20Hopkins%20Center%20for%20Civil%20Society%20Studies%20_1.8.2019.pdf
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Just the truth: An introduction to understanding reliability and validity. In
N. J. Salkind & B. B. Frey (Eds.), Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics
(5th ed., pp. 105–128). Sage.
Salkind, N.J., & Frey, B.B. (2020). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (7
th
ed.).
American Psychological Association.
Saunders, M. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development.
In M. Saunders, P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill (Eds.), Research methods for business students
(8th ed., pp. 160–204). Pearson Education India.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schraw, G. & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Education.com. Retrieved June 1, 2022, from
www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
177

Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small
group classroom: Teaching people about groups. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395–411.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1046496413488422
Schulz, J., & Auld, C. (2006). Perceptions of role ambiguity by chairpersons and executive
directors in Queensland sporting organisations. Sport Management Review, 9(2), 183–
201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(06)70025-0
Schunk, U., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In M. Ryan (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. https://www.dr-
hatfield.com/theorists/resources/sociocultural_theory.pdf
Smith, D. (2002). The theory heard round the world. Monitor on Psychology, 33, 30–32.
Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A
literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F089976409402300305
Stahl, A., Covrig, D., & Newman, I. (2014). Understanding board leadership: Adventist hospital
board chair behaviors and effectiveness and organizational outcomes. The Journal of
Applied Christian Leadership, 8(2), 49–66.
Stewart, A. J. (2016). Exploring nonprofit executive turnover. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 27(1), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21225
Stewart, A. J. (2017). Exploring board perspectives on non-profit executive turnover. Voluntary
Sector Review, 8(2), 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080517X14942368265346
178

Stewart, R. (1991). Chairmen and chief executives: An exploration of their relationship. Journal
of Management Studies, 28(5), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.1991.tb00766.x
Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on
nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006296049
Taylor, B. E., Chair, R. P., & Holland, T. P. (1996). The new work of the nonprofit board: Is
your board adding value or simply wasting its members’ time? Harvard Business Review,
74(5), 36. https://hbr.org/1996/09/the-new-work-of-the-nonprofit-board
The Urban Institute. (2020). The nonprofit sector in brief 2019.
https://nccs.urban.org/publication/nonprofit-sector-brief-2019#number
Tschirhart, M., Reed, K. K., Freeman, S. J., & Anker, A. L. (2009). Who serves? Predicting
placement of management graduates on nonprofit, government, and business boards.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 1076–1085.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764008327244
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223–247). Sage.
Tydings, M., Archer, K., Ferreria, L., Hechinger, J., Nash, L., Hayes, G., Von Heymann, M., &
Dessaint, C. (2017). Who sits at the boardroom table? A look inside nonprofit boards.
Russell Reynolds Associate Publishing.
https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/insights/reports-surveys/who-sits-at-the-boardroom-
table-a-look-inside-nonprofit-boards
179

Van Puyvelde, S., Brown, W. A., Walker, V., & Tenuta, R. (2018). Board effectiveness in
nonprofit organizations: Do interactions in the boardroom matter? Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(6), 1296–1310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018762318
Villaverde, L. (2008). Feminist theories and education: Primer (Vol. 22). Peter Lang.
Walton, M. A., Clerkin, R. M., Christensen, R. K., Paarlberg, L. E., Nesbit, R., & Tschirhart, M.
(2017). Means, motive and opportunity: Exploring board volunteering. Personnel
Review, 46(1), 115–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2015-0012
Ward, K. D., & Miller-Stevens, K. (2021). Public service motivation among nonprofit board
members and the influence of primary sector of employment. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 50(2), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020952161
Waters, T., Marzano, R., J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning.
Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in
research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920701532228
Wertheimer, M. R. (2008). The board chair handbook. BoardSource.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Willems, J. (2016). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership
teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 45(3), 568–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015601244
180

Wright, B. E., & Millesen, J. L. (2008). Nonprofit board role ambiguity: Investigating its
prevalence, antecedents, and consequences. American Review of Public Administration,
38(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074007309151
Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1989). Boards of directors and corporate financial performance: A
review and integrative model. Journal of Management, 15(2), 291–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500208
Zak, P. J. (2017). The trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies.
AMACOM.
Zhang, P. (2013). Power and trust in board-CEO relationships. Journal of Management and
Governance, 17(3), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-011-9188-z
Zhu, H., Wang, P., & Bart, C. (2016). Board processes, board strategic involvement, and
organizational performance in for-profit and non-profit organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 136(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2512-1

181

Appendix A: Survey Questions
Survey question Type
Level of
measurement Concept measured
1. I am comfortable talking about the mission
and vision of this nonprofit in the community
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Knowledge
2. I understand my role as board chair Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Knowledge
3. I understand the difference between staff
responsibilities and board member
responsibilities
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Knowledge
4. I understand how to work effectively with my
executive director
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Knowledge
5. I feel comfortable leading board meetings Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Motivation
6. I feel confident in knowing what my most
important tasks are
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Motivation
7. I feel confident voicing my thoughts and
opinions in the board room
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Motivation
8. Being board chair has been a good use of my
time
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Motivation
9. We always have a strong pipeline of new
board members
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Organization
10. My executive director supports me in my role
as board chair
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Organization
11. My organization provided me specific
learning opportunities when I became board
chair
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Organization
12. I know where to go and who to ask within my
organization if I need further information to
better inform my role
Closed-
Likert
Ordinal Organization
13. What nonprofit sector experience did you
have prior to joining this board?
Open – K/M/O
14. What aspect of volunteer service have you
enjoyed the most since becoming board chair?
Open – K/M/O
15. How many years have you served on the
board of this nonprofit?
Open – K/M/O
16. How many years have you served as board
chair of this nonprofit?
Open – K/M/O
182

Appendix B: Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Q type (Patton)
1. Why did you first get
involved with this
nonprofit?
Tell me more about that Motivation (Q2) Background
2. Why were you
approached to join the
board?
Walk me through the
experience. Did you
receive any initial
onboarding training?
Motivation (Q2) Background
3. Why did you become
board chair?
Were you given any specific
onboarding when you
took over? Did you ask
for any?
Motivation (Q2) Experience/behavior
4. How did you prepare
for your role as board
chair?
Walk me through the
experience
Knowledge (Q1) Experience/behavior
5. What resources or
support were you given
once you began in the
role?
Who provided this? Was it
one-time or ongoing?
Organization
(Q3)
Experience/behavior
6. If someone mentored
you, what did it look
like? If not, how could
it have helped?
Can you tell me more about
how it felt?
Organization
(Q3)
Experience/behavior/
feeling
7. How are you given
information before
board meetings?
Do you ask for more
information or
clarification when
needed?
Organization
(Q3)
Experience/behavior
8. How do you describe
the mission of this
nonprofit?
I’m hearing you say __. Is
that correct?
Knowledge (Q1) Experience/behavior
9. Are there any mission-
delivery areas that are
unclear?
Can you tell me more about
that?
Knowledge (Q1) Feeling
10. Do you understand
the organization and
your role better as
board chair?
What makes you feel this
way? How has your
hourly volunteer
commitment changed?
Knowledge (Q1) Experience/behavior
11. How would you
describe your
relationship with your
executive director?
Can you tell me what you
mean by that?
Organization
(Q3)
Opinion
183

Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Q type (Patton)
12. How often, if at all,
do you communicate with
them?
How do you connect? Organization
(Q3)
Feeling
13. What is the strongest
trait/skill you bring as
board chair?
Was there a need for this
skill at the time you joined
the board?
Motivation (Q2) Opinion
14. How are you using
these skills since
becoming board chair?
Can you give me an example
of that? Has the board
undertaken a self-assessment
since you have served?
Motivation (Q2) Experience/behavior
15. As board chair, what
tools or learning
opportunities could help
you feel more effective in
your role?
What makes you feel this
way? What could make it a
better experience for you?
Knowledge (Q1) Opinion

184

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
Study Title:
A Nonprofit Study Evaluating Board Chair Onboarding Practices for Effective
Governance
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Katharine Shilvock, MNA
FACULTY ADVISOR: Wayne Combs, MBA, Ed.D.

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to understand how the onboarding and engagement of nonprofit
board chairs helps or hinders their time volunteering in this important role. With limited hours to
devote to their governance responsibilities as well as short term lengths, uncovering ways to
quickly connect board chairs to their most important tasks could impact the effectiveness of the
nonprofit they serve. We hope to learn what resources and support could improve board chair
capacity for fulfilling their governance responsibilities. You are invited as a possible participant
because you are currently serving as the board chair of a nonprofit organization that fits criteria
of this study.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to complete a brief 5-10 minute online survey about
your current experience as a nonprofit board chair, with the option to provide your contact
information to participate in a secondary interview. This secondary interview, should you choose
to participate, will consist of a thirty-minute recorded and transcribed discussion with the
investigator about your experiences as board chair which will be kept strictly confidential.
CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used at any point. All data will be stored on a password protected computer
within the investigator’s home for no less than five years, and all direct identifiers will be
destroyed at the completion of this study. Should you participate in the interview process, the
conversation transcript may be accessed only by you and the investigator.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Katharine Shilvock at
shilvock@usc.edu or 415-748-8185, or Wayne Combs at wcombs@usc.edu or 206-794-0097.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Promoting well-being amid a global pandemic: evaluating the impact on nonprofit employees

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training for effective California school boards

PDF

Staff engagement within an academic shared governance model for nursing education: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Recruiting African American male teachers to K-12 public school education: an evaluation study

PDF

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

PDF

African American college completion at Hillside College: an evaluation study

PDF

Equity-focused school boards: supporting K-12 suburban districts

PDF

Creating "excellent" learning experiences: a gap analysis of a university extension program

PDF

Evaluating technical support provided in online education for students with disabilities

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness

PDF

The impact of the Masters in governance training program on California school board governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Shilvock, Katharine Lauren (author)

Core Title A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 03/24/2023

Defense Date 02/07/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag effective governance,governance,nonprofit,nonprofit board chair,nonprofit board member,nonprofit executive director,nonprofit governance,nonprofit sector,OAI-PMH Harvest,onboarding

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Combs, Wayne (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email kate@kateshilvock.com,shilvock@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113077816

Unique identifier UC113077816

Identifier etd-ShilvockKa-11519.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ShilvockKa-11519

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Shilvock, Katharine Lauren

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230424-usctheses-batch-1011a (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu