The Meaning and Chellenges of Diversity

In a conversation the other day with a board member of a client organization, we were discussing this board member’s disquietude with the seeming lack of commitment to the charity’s cause of a fellow board member. That got me to thinking of how different boards are today from 50 or 100 years ago.

A hundred years ago, the boards of charities were largely the wealthy elite who came together to found and operate charities that were avenues for the expression of creative intent to make society better. These boards tended to be rather more homogeneous than boards are today, and the networks of association of the board members were very much the same from person to person. Founding a charity, being on a board, was one way to express one’s higher social position and find avenues for using one’s wealth that brought about social goods that benefited the society.

Even fifty years ago, we could find boards made up of the educated and social elite members of society. If you were wealthy or highly educated, there was a commonality in producing public goods that gave personal satisfaction, expressed philanthropic intent, brought about certain social reforms and provided additional social networks.

Then came the emphasis on management, and hiring professional managers. That gave way to emphasis on performance and outcomes. Increased diversity of funding sources meant boards now had a variety of people representing individual, corporate and foundation donors as well as professionals in the charity’s field of service. Generally, however, commitment to the cause was still a common network thread among board members.

Today, the board scene is very different, as we experiment with and learn to understand the power and importance of “diversity.” I don’t know how it is where you live, but around the southeast Michigan area, that word has, for the past dozen years or so, meant “racial diversity” because we have a rather severe racial disjunct or divide in this neck of the woods. That’s a historical holdover from the mid-20th-century rapid rise of the automotive manufacturers. If someone, AFP for example, has a program on the need for and the strengths of diversity, nobody goes but African Americans because everybody knows that “diversity” means having to deal with “those people” again.

We'll continue this item tomorrow.