A group of managers, board members, funders and community members consider community participation central to strong management and governance.

A brief orientation to the Governance Futures research findings in the quest to discover alternate approaches to governance.

Concerned more about the right board practice for the pressing challenges it was facing, Albany Medical Center merged its CEO and chairman roles—and may be ready, as times change again, to divide them once more.

Afraid that the traditional downtown board would be good for fundraising but bad for its mission, Center Against Spouse Abuse tries both: Donors join a funding board, leaving the board of directors free to govern.

While many boards have comprehensive legal authority and little real influence over their organizations, a merged Women’s College Hospital found itself with reduced legal authority—yet was increasingly able to promote the organization’s original mission.

Turning the typical board recruiting tactic “We need you on our board, but promise it won’t take much time” on its head, Rosie’s Place only considers board members who have recently and consistently volunteered in daily programs and services.

Nominated for their many individual assets, board leadership teams often have everything but the ability to govern with a collective vision, a gap that the Cleveland Congregation of St. Joseph is trying to close with a new and intensive nominating process.

The story of American history is about the broadening of participation. . .The effective boards that I see are the ones that have understood this evolution, and have embraced participation.

With so many nonprofits having remarkably similar board-staff dynamics, why don’t we see more creativity in the way boards are organized and operated?

What encourages nonprofits to attempt innovation in governance in the first place?