I’m not a fan of this politically incorrect title, though it is illustrative of the need to create a well-balanced board with not only leadership but understanding. As we’ve acknowledged, nonprofits attract board members who want to make a difference.

It’s a good thing to have members with passion for your mission, but a side effect of highly motivated leaders is strong ideas with egos to match. Not necessarily bad, but if a member disregards board orientation efforts and materials and declares they have the solution, the challenge is in keeping everyone on task instead of retreading. The prudent leader will take the time to understand the entity’s history, why something was done or tabled, and other information or data which can illuminate next steps.

It is also tempting to become sequestered in an ivory tower. In smaller agencies where staff is minimal or nonexistent, this means little or no work might get done.

To overcome this obstacle, you need the three Ws in your board members: wisdom, wealth, and work. It is the rare person who brings multiple qualities in one neat package, but it’s essential to have all three in varying mixes. Visionaries might get to create the agenda, but vision without action is a daydream. Workers can get the job done, but action without vision is a nightmare. Wealth is an extension of work, in that financial resources help the organisation accomplish goals which would be otherwise impossible or extremely cumbersome.

Set clear expectations which welcome vision, but not to the exclusion of action. Effectively use those who are task-oriented but not capable of rising fully to the level of strategic leaders.

--
From "How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Nonprofit Hell"

Usually, when diversity is introduced as a necessary component of well-functioning boards, the reference is to token racial placements or public appeals to selected demographics the organisation serves. The value of reaching a significant or relevant contingent shouldn’t be ignored, but  presuming such a candidate will automatically address this need based on surface appearances or presumed similarities can backfire.

More important are board members who bring a wide range of valuable expertise to the board. Law, finance/accounting, business, entrepreneurial, process or organisational management, communications, fundraising, and compliance are just some examples of the critical skillsets which bring effective representation to nonprofit boards.

It is an unfortunate circumstance that we don’t always get to be choosy regarding who shows up for board service, especially in smaller organisations. Here it is best to extract the cream from the crop of applicants.