Here Comes Everybody
I've been out and about lately talking to a number of people in my community about joining the theatre's board. It's a pretty small community and many potential candidates have already served on the board at some point in the last 25 years. Most of the folks I'm talking to know each other, and all are supportive of the theatre in one way or another.
I'm asking certain people because they would make great board members - they have great ideas, they're opinion leaders in the community, they have access to a variety of networks and resources, etc. My success rate in getting near-term commitments has been about 0%.
Then I got to thinking - these are pretty accessible people - I see them often and I like to talk to them. They're smart people, and they share their ideas with me about the theatre, the community, the economy, etc. So what's the difference between them and my actual board members? Well, they don't vote on the board - but then again, neither do I. And if I can influence the policies, directions and resources of the theatre as a non-voting particpant, why can't these community members-at-large?
Every one of the folks I am talking to has a stake in the theatre, and also have the ability to influence the discussion - even at the board level. They are peers with my board members - they contribute time and resources - they just don't sit at the table and vote. Granted, that can be a big deal from time to time, however, these folks are just as capable at effecting the direction of the theatre. So whether they join the board, I'll keep talking to them, keep them informed, keep soliciting their ideas and input as if they were board members.
Even if they don't appear on your letterhead, you can consider every community leader, opinion maker, or oracle of knowledge in your community who has a stake in your game a non-voting board member, so long as they care about what happens to your theatre.
I'm asking certain people because they would make great board members - they have great ideas, they're opinion leaders in the community, they have access to a variety of networks and resources, etc. My success rate in getting near-term commitments has been about 0%.
Then I got to thinking - these are pretty accessible people - I see them often and I like to talk to them. They're smart people, and they share their ideas with me about the theatre, the community, the economy, etc. So what's the difference between them and my actual board members? Well, they don't vote on the board - but then again, neither do I. And if I can influence the policies, directions and resources of the theatre as a non-voting particpant, why can't these community members-at-large?
Every one of the folks I am talking to has a stake in the theatre, and also have the ability to influence the discussion - even at the board level. They are peers with my board members - they contribute time and resources - they just don't sit at the table and vote. Granted, that can be a big deal from time to time, however, these folks are just as capable at effecting the direction of the theatre. So whether they join the board, I'll keep talking to them, keep them informed, keep soliciting their ideas and input as if they were board members.
Even if they don't appear on your letterhead, you can consider every community leader, opinion maker, or oracle of knowledge in your community who has a stake in your game a non-voting board member, so long as they care about what happens to your theatre.
Comments
Post a Comment