This article intellectually draws from material published in Stanford Social Innovation Review, and has been rephrased, edited, and adapted to fit the context of the nonprofit sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while preserving the literary rights of the original source.

Whether as a result of past successes or a sign of stagnation that has yet to be addressed, many nonprofits reach a point where they feel that the existing governance structure is no longer serving them properly.

On one hand, they struggle to attract and retain the right talents on their boards, while on the other hand, even when they include new members, they do not find that these individuals are leading them in the new directions that the stage requires. Therefore, a fundamental question arises: Is the problem the scarcity of suitable individuals, or is it in the way we have been searching for them from the start?

One deep-seated reason for this stagnation is that many boards rely on their own networks to identify and attract new members. Data has shown that the two most common methods for identifying candidates are the personal or professional networks of board members at 96%, and then the networks of the CEO or executive director at 88%, which means that the doors through which newcomers enter are, for the most part, the same doors that created the old composition.

These interwoven networks create, over time, a culture biased inward, therefore reproducing the status quo, repeating the same strategies and approaches, even when they become less suitable than before. They also burden a limited number of names that move between multiple boards. In an era where flexibility is a condition for survival, organizations trapped inside echo chambers will find it increasingly difficult to maintain their effectiveness and relevance. In the Saudi context, this meaning becomes even more important because the nonprofit sector is no longer a limited or simply structured sector but has become broader and more in need of boards that understand financing, governance, digital transformation, partnerships, reputation, and the diversity of the communities they serve.

From here emerges a different practice in attracting board members, namely 'the open search for board members,' which is a public and competitive process that resembles announcing a public leadership opportunity more than it is a personal recommendation made behind closed doors. When the opportunity is marketed in this way, it not only changes the candidate list but also reshapes the board's relationship with the organization itself, with the message it is supposed to carry, and with the communities it should represent.

This need has clearly emerged in various cases: some needed members who have time and expertise in areas like access equity, climate, and biodiversity, others outgrew their local origins and needed broader expertise and networks to help them transition to a new stage, and there are those who wanted their board to be more representative of their diverse audience.

Under this apparent variation, the problem was almost identical: the old networks were no longer sufficient for the new needs, and the results of several open search processes, supported since 2020, have shown strong early indicators in three directions: attracting new talents and resources, increasing engagement within the board, and improving strategic thinking.

Boards that Reproduce Themselves

In many nonprofits, boards and staff learn how to attract members from their predecessors without stopping for long to consider the logic governing this practice or the outcomes it produces. Thus, the habit continues not because it is the best, but because it is inherited, ending up, over time, cementing an old model of board membership that avoids risk, courtesy or prestige, and the perceived rarity.

Avoiding Risk

The fear of risk drives many governance decisions because some boards see that introducing people less familiar with the organization or its culture may slow progress, confuse the atmosphere, or lead to proposals that seem, in their view, far from reality. Some leaders also fear embarrassing donors or prominent community figures if they suggest themselves or their friends for board membership and then are not accepted.

Therefore, the decision often leans toward the known name, not toward the candidate who may bring something new. However, this reservation, although it seems like a concern for stability, may practically inhibit renewal because the board that fears new questions will largely remain imprisoned by old answers.

Courtesy

Board membership in well-funded organizations may be understood as a status symbol or a means to reward donors or a way to strengthen short-term relationships. However, this pattern often favors close gifts over building long-term relations, as well as putting pressure on a relatively small and interlinked funding community requiring a limited number of leaders to serve on more than one board, rendering them less able to serve deeply in any single organization.

Scarcity

A third problem is that some organizations operate from a perceived scarcity, searching for board members within a small group of already busy individuals, then promise them that the work will not be burdensome, and later wonder why they do not attend meetings regularly or why they come unprepared. In reality, board membership is a commitment that equates, in some dimensions, to a part-time job. Therefore, if the candidate is not prepared for this commitment, perhaps they should not join at all. However, many organizations hesitate to say this, or exclude those who do not meet expectations.

Breaking the Status Quo

If nonprofits want to build greater resilience in the face of complex and changing problems, from technological disruption to financial fluctuations, through pandemics and climate change, their boards need a broader perspective and wider skills. Simply put, if we want more effective nonprofits, we must open the doors of the boardroom wider.

When an organization resorts to an open search, it not only reaches new networks of talent but is also compelled to clarify roles, articulate standards, and review the structures, culture, and systems governing the board's work. Thus, the impact extends beyond recruitment, leading to a lasting change in the culture of the board itself.

New Talents and Resources

One of the clearest outcomes of this path is that 85% of survey participants agreed or strongly agreed that the open search connected their organizations to new communities and networks, and the same percentage felt that their boards now reflected a broader range of backgrounds and perspectives, with no participant recording objections to these descriptions. This is one of the clearest signs that open searches fulfill their fundamental promise.

Additionally, a recurring surprise appeared concerning the diversity and quality of applicants in nine out of fifteen supported searches, where the organizations collectively received 607 applications, with an average of 67 applicants per search and a median of 51. These numbers challenge many assumptions about who the candidate might be willing to dedicate their time and resources to serve on the board. In fact, some boards ended up including more members than they originally planned because the quality of candidates was higher than expected.

This path also dispels some common myths, including the idea that it's hard to reach candidates from underrepresented backgrounds, because when the door was opened wider, it became clear that the issue was not the absence of these candidates but that they had not been asked in the first place. There were also concerns that opening the door might force the organization to reject a large number of applicants, thereby damaging the relationship with them.

However, positive experiences with the non-selected were present, especially when communication was managed with respect and care, as 64% of participants reported that the open search introduced them to individuals who later engaged with the organization meaningfully in other ways.

Increased Engagement

In traditional recruitment, the organization approaches the candidate from a position of need, sometimes from a position of scarcity. However, when the candidate puts themselves forward for board membership, the relationship begins on a completely different ground because they implicitly say, "This is the right time for me to devote my time and expertise to serve this mission." As a result, in several experiences, the standards for participation and leadership within the board have risen, with 72% of participants reporting that the search process prompted the board to clarify or improve governance practices.

Furthermore, the impact of the open search may even manifest before new members join, as when the process becomes public, the board must come to a clear agreement on what it is looking for and why and then consistently convey this understanding publicly.

This does not happen to the same extent in traditional recruitment, which is managed quietly by a few individuals. Thus, the open search not only brings in more committed members but also pushes the existing board to elevate its professionalism.

Strategic Thinking

As the level of engagement rises, so does the quality of the strategic questions the board poses. This means that 84% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that the open search improved strategic thinking and engagement within the board, with 90% noting that the new members brought meaningful strategic insights that positively impacted the board's culture.

In several cases, the period following the search was accompanied by noticeable growth, with increases in revenues, especially in individual donations. One participant summarized the experience by saying the process “paid for itself three times” within a few months.

The reason for this is that newcomers from outside the narrow circle often arrive less constrained by internal assumptions, thus raising questions that have not been posed before or revisiting assumptions the board has stopped examining. This is the type of thinking that Saudi organizations also need as they move through a rapidly changing environment; a board that preserves continuity alone is not sufficient, but one that broadens the decision-making horizon is essential.

Elements of the Open Search for Board Members

This process can be summarized in five key elements: agreement on the need for change, a clearly articulated role description that emphasizes "adding to the culture" over mere "congruence with it," then opening the application through an organized competitive process, adopting a selection mechanism that mitigates bias, and finally integrating a cohort of new members through intentional and considered onboarding.

Agreement on the Need for Change

When board members and executive leadership agree that change is truly needed, the open search becomes a meaningful practical solution. However, this agreement alone is not enough; there must also be a clear roadmap that builds trust in an ongoing and public process.

Additionally, this process, as it spans months, may reveal the need to clarify the organization's purpose to its current network, and may prompt it to review some governance practices to support a more inclusive board culture. Therefore, consistent and transparent communication with stakeholders helps calm fears and convert hesitation into conviction.

A Role Description that Adds Rather than Mirrors

One of the most crucial ideas here is the distinction between "congruence with culture" and "adding to culture," where the former suggests alignment with existing standards while the latter focuses on the ability to expand the organization and its board over time. Therefore, the need to understand diversity comprehensively becomes a core issue, seen as diversity in skills, networks, leadership styles, personal approaches, and life experiences, not merely as a formal checkbox.

The more accurately and professionally the role is defined, the closer the appropriate candidate becomes.

A Transparent and Competitive Application Process

Here the critical difference between open search and traditional recruiting emerges: opening the door, through an organized process, to anyone who believes in their capability to serve its mission. The success of this step depends on leveraging extended networks and weak ties, so that the board, management, partners, stakeholders, and all connected to the organization become ambassadors for the opportunity. As a result, when this happens, access to board membership is no longer limited to those who are already familiar with the path.

Moreover, the fear that high-caliber talent will refuse to enter into a formal application process does not always hold true. In many cases, the openness itself has served as a draw because those who have a real commitment to values of equity and openness may be attracted to an organization that has chosen a public and fair path. This approach does not just serve recruitment but also strengthens the identity and brand of the organization, as it announces to people who they are, what they value, and their vision for the future.

Selection that Mitigates Bias

After collecting applications, the process moves to the interviews and selection stage, highlighting the need for standard evaluation criteria and clear sorting tools so that the open process does not end up as a personal decision cloaked in institutional language. These criteria extend beyond technical competencies to include how the candidate's experience and perspective may add to the board culture and the organization’s mission. Simultaneously, it becomes essential to view the new cohort's composition as an integrated unit, rather than evaluating each individual separately.

Intentionally Onboarding a New Cohort

The onboarding stage is a crucial part of the process's success, where introducing three or more members simultaneously helps change the dynamics of the board and creates an environment where newcomers can learn from each other. This phase also requires intentional onboarding and connecting new members with mentors from within the board who can convey institutional knowledge and explain the work dynamics and expectations.

Additionally, the high energy that new members bring needs time investment and real effort to transform into lasting impact.

Progress, Not Perfection

With all the opportunities open searches present, they are not without challenges and are not a magic solution but a promising path whose best practices are still evolving over time. Some of these challenges may diminish with accumulated experience, while others may remain part of the process itself.

A Significant Time Investment

The first challenge is time, particularly because the relationship with applicants, whether selected or not, requires communication, updates, messages, and follow-up opportunities that can extend over months or years. Consequently, some organizations have felt overwhelmed by the volume of relationship management this type of search imposes, making early consideration of distributing this burden between the board and staff essential.

Variable Representation Outcomes

Furthermore, simply opening the door does not automatically guarantee broader representation unless the process was initially designed with this intention. Organizations that succeeded in attracting candidates from underrepresented groups made intentional decisions to elevate this goal and were clear about the type of diversity they wanted and its direct connection to serving the mission. However, joining spaces that already suffer from underrepresentation can remain a decision that carries professional and personal risks for some candidates, making the path one of endurance rather than swift results.

Expect Some Attrition

The third challenge is that the size of the selected cohorts may lead to some attrition, especially in larger cohorts. Some of this can be attributed to differing communication styles or ambiguity around expectations initially, with reports that some organizations wished they had conducted broader reference checks. Therefore, it is recommended that membership expectations be extremely clear from the first description of the role: how many meetings and committees are required, what is the board’s culture in terms of responsiveness and availability, and whether there are expectations related to donations or fundraising. The clearer these points are early on, the easier it becomes to reduce surprises later.

A New Path Forward

There is a simple yet profound central idea: if nonprofits are working for the public good, it is natural that the path to their board be closer to the public rather than closed. The status quo, as described by the authors, does not produce the needed diversity, and it places organizations in front of a networking problem, as most do not maintain the broad connections necessary to operate effectively. This, ultimately, limits the potential of the whole sector.

From here begins the journey toward a more effective, interconnected, and inclusive board with a conscious decision to accept change and purposefully seek new voices. The open search for board members offers a practical path to this goal, as it enables the organization to build a board that not only reflects the communities it serves but is also more prepared to face the complexities of our times.

In the Saudi case, it may not be required for every organization to implement the full model all at once, but at least, it is necessary to stop assuming that the easiest way is always the best way for the future, because the board built on real need rather than courtesy, on addition rather than similarity, and on organized openness rather than inherited closure, is the most capable of providing the institution with longevity and deeper impact.

This article intellectually draws from material published in Stanford Social Innovation Review, and has been rephrased, edited, and adapted to suit the Saudi context, while preserving the literary and intellectual rights of the original source.