The Board's Role in Sustainability Starts Before the First Ask

After years of working with boards of directors of civil society organizations across Latin America, I have observed a pattern that repeats itself over and over. When an organization brings on new board members, it spends a great deal of time discussing the mission, programs, impact, and strategic challenges. But there is one topic that almost never comes up from the start: financial sustainability.

Curiously — and to the surprise of many — it is not avoided because it is unimportant. It is avoided precisely because it is important. 

The conversation that gets postponed

Many organizations are so eager to bring valuable people onto their boards that they defer certain conversations. Talking about fundraising, opening doors, or the board's responsibility for institutional sustainability can feel uncomfortable. There is an unspoken fear that the candidate will lose interest — or even decide not to join — if the topic is raised too early. 

So, we assume fundraising will be learned through osmosis, in parallel with the growing enthusiasm that comes as the board member settles in, and the importance of getting involved in resource development will be understood in time. As if after a few meetings — after hearing about the mission and becoming familiar with the organization — the person would simply come to understand their role in sustainability on their own. As if passion for the cause automatically translates into commitment to resource mobilization.

The problem is that this often does not happen. There is no direct connection between falling in love with a cause and understanding one's role within the board.

That is why, before questioning a board member's level of commitment, it is worth asking whether the organization was clear about what it expected of them.

From the board member's perspective, their contribution is already significant. They give their time, attend meetings, bring experience, offer judgment, and lend their reputation to the organization. In many cases they feel — rightly so — that they are already making an important contribution. So, when a conversation about fundraising arises, the reaction tends to be one of surprise rather than resistance.

The organization, for its part, is also caught off guard. It assumed the expectation was obvious — a natural part of the role, something that would eventually be understood. And that is where the gap appears. If we had to give it a name, it would be an expectations gap.

Fundraising is not learned through osmosis. And neither is governance.

While this expectations gap is not unique to Latin American nonprofits, I have been struck by how organizations in the United States seem much more likely to start the conversation about fundraising during the board recruitment process. 

That’s not to say that the problem disappears, or all U.S. board members are actively engaged in fundraising, however, expectations related to sustainability are typically put on the table with greater clarity from the outset. In some organizations this is formalized through policies known as ‘give or get’, where board members are expected to contribute personally or help mobilize equivalent resources. Regardless of whether one agrees with that approach, what matters is that the conversation takes place.

In Latin America, I have observed that many struggle to address these conversations effectively. We find it far more comfortable to talk about the cause than about the resources that sustain it. It is easier to discuss programs, impact, and growth than how all of that will be financed over the long term.

We often continue to think of financing as an operational task when, in reality, sustainability is a governance responsibility. Boards are not responsible for running campaigns, managing donor databases, or drafting funding proposals — that is the responsibility of the operational team. But they are responsible for ensuring that the organization has the resources it needs to fulfill its mission.
That is why, when we talk about sustainability, we are not talking solely about fundraising. We are talking about governance and the culture that the board builds around its responsibilities.

This does not mean that all board members must contribute in the same way. Sustainability can take many forms: making a personal contribution, opening doors, bringing in contacts, representing the organization in different spaces, acting as ambassadors for the cause, helping to build strategic alliances, or supporting decisions that strengthen institutional capacity over the long term. What matters is not that everyone does the same thing, but that everyone understands that sustainability is part of the board's shared responsibility as a whole.

The paradox of recruitment

The paradox is that many organizations recruit board members precisely for the qualities they later find it difficult to ask them to use. They seek people with strategic vision, experience, networks, financial knowledge, access to particular sectors, or the capacity to influence. Yet during the recruitment process, they rarely explain clearly how they expect those assets to contribute to the organization's sustainability.

The consequences appear later. The organization needs to approach a company, explore a partnership, or open a strategic conversation. A perfectly legitimate response then emerges: "I joined this board in a personal capacity, not as a representative of my company."

There are also less visible dynamics at play. For some people, opening a door is not an inconsequential act. Introducing a potential ally, donor, or contact can activate dynamics of reciprocity that are part of many professional and philanthropic circles. "If I connect someone to this cause and they decide to support it, they may tomorrow ask me to support theirs." This is not necessarily a financial matter. It is about how people manage their relationships, their reputation, and the implicit commitments they perceive behind every introduction.

What stands out is the institution's surprise — it assumed that the ability to connect people and open doors was part of the value the person brought as an asset. The board member is equally surprised, having never understood that this expectation existed. Neither party acted in bad faith. They were simply operating from different assumptions.

This is where the pattern tends to show up most clearly in Latin America, where, unlike in the United States, these expectations are rarely spelled out at the recruitment stage. 

Sustainability is not only a fundraising issue. It is a shared governance responsibility.

For these conversations to take place, however, the executive director and the board chair need to be aligned on the role the board plays in institutional sustainability. And that does not always happen in practice.

In some organizations, the executive director tries to raise the issue and encourage more active board participation in resource development. They may encounter resistance within the leadership itself. Talking about sustainability means acknowledging needs, asking for collaboration, and accepting that the organization's growth does not depend solely on the executive team — it also depends on the board's support.

For some leaders, opening that conversation can feel like an admission of vulnerability. As if engaging the board more actively implies acknowledging that management alone is not enough.

As a result, the expectation of board members' contribution to fundraising ends up in a gray area during early conversations. The executive director assumes the chair will raise it. The chair expects the executive director to bring it up. And the incoming board member moves through the entire onboarding process without anyone ever making it clear what the actual expectations are regarding their role in the organization's sustainability.

This can also play out during board meetings, when the executive director tries to make a collective call to action — mentioning the organization's needs — and the board chair tries to move quickly past that agenda item to avoid making anyone "uncomfortable."

The conversation that should happen first

This is why the conversation about sustainability should not begin when a financial need arises. It should begin much earlier — during prospecting and recruitment itself.

The organization should be able to explain clearly what it expects of those who serve on the board, not only in terms of attendance at meetings or participation in committees, but also in relation to institutional sustainability.

That means talking about the mission, but also about the challenges. About the programs, but also about the risks. About the vision for the future, but also about the budget, the funding sources, and the tensions the organization faces today.

Before accepting a place on a board, it is worth asking: What does this organization expect of me in terms of sustainability? Is there an expectation of financial contribution? Is there an expectation to open doors or cultivate relationships? How does this board understand its responsibility for the institution's resources?

Because expectations do not align by chance. They are built through conversation.

And even then, the initial conversation is not enough. Just as we do not expect someone to understand an organization's strategy in a single meeting, we should not assume they will automatically understand their role in institutional sustainability from day one.
The strongest boards invest time in onboarding, training, and ongoing support. They help their members understand the organization, its funding model, the risks it faces, and the responsibilities that come with the role they have taken on.

Organizations do not need perfect boards. They need conscious ones. And that consciousness begins when sustainability stops being an implicit assumption and becomes an explicit part of every member's commitment.