Earlier this year, I did a webinar on my House of Governance™, and Ed Rigsbee, CSP, CAE, the host of the webinar, asked me a very pointed question at the end regarding one of the domains: Culture, Candor & Accountability.

This domain highlights the norms, behaviors, and expectations that shape how leaders engage, disagree, make decisions, and hold each other accountable.

Ed noted that while culture on a board is crucial, the challenge is that board culture has the ability to change every year as new members roll on and off.

How do you manage culture when the characters in the play change from year to year?

I made the comment to Ed that it begins with membership recruitment.

He gave me the kind of look your dog gives you when they are a little confused.

“Membership recruitment?”

Over the last several weeks, something has really hit me now that I am in a consulting role.

I see article after article and post after post talking about the same governance challenges we have been discussing since I started my first CEO role more than 20 years ago.

Are boards micromanaging and getting into the weeds instead of being strategic?

Yes.

Is that a new issue?

No.

Do boards seem better prepared to govern than they did 20 years ago?

Not really.

And that has me wondering if we have been going about this whole idea of “fixing governance” the wrong way.

We continually try to fix the symptom instead of addressing the cause.

It is a little like waiting until someone has a major health event before talking seriously about diet, movement, medication, or lifestyle changes.

By then, you are not preventing the crisis.

You are reacting to it.

I think we often do the same thing with governance.

We wait until someone is on the board before we start talking seriously about governance expectations, roles, culture, candor, accountability, and strategic leadership.

But I believe it goes much deeper than the board.

Deeper than your committee structure.

Deeper than your committee chairs.

Deeper than your volunteer pipeline.

It goes all the way back to the culture you are creating when someone first joins your association.

What are new members being told about the role of volunteering?

Do they understand how important volunteers are to the organization?

Do they see volunteer service as a meaningful part of belonging, contributing, and shaping the future of the profession or industry?

When that member finally chooses to volunteer, whether on a small project or as a committee member, what is that experience like?

Do they walk away understanding their roles and responsibilities?

Is the interaction with staff clear, respectful, and productive?

Are staff members trained on how to manage volunteers and help them understand the difference between staff roles, volunteer roles, committee roles, and board roles?

And what about the member who has been on a committee for a while and begins to show signs of potential leadership?

Are staff and board members trained to recognize those individuals?

Are they encouraged to “soft sell” them on taking a greater leadership role?

Is the organization structured to equip a new committee chair to assume their role without it becoming a professional or personal burden?

Are committee chairs trained in meeting management, candor, accountability, and the measures of success for that committee in the larger work of the organization?

Now let’s say that committee chair eventually makes their way onto the board after a successful two- or three-year leadership journey.

What does that process look like?

From the initial identification of a new board member to the nomination and selection process, how is this managed?

And once that person is on the board, what does onboarding look like?

Do they have a mentor?

Do they get periodic one-on-one check-ins with the board president?

Do they have a safe place to ask questions before they are suddenly expected to govern at a high level?

Eventually, that person may become board chair.

Have they had a real chance to learn while serving as chair-elect?

Or was their entire year wasted in a role that, in many organizations, simply “serves in the absence of the chair”?

I could go on and on.

But you get my point.

Governance in an organization does not start when someone joins the board.

It starts the moment a new member decides this organization is for them.

That is when culture begins.

That is when expectations begin.

That is when belonging begins.

That is when leadership identity begins.

If we wait until someone is sitting around the board table to teach them what governance means, we should not be surprised when they bring years of unclear expectations, transactional engagement, committee habits, personal agendas, or operational thinking with them.

The boardroom is not where governance culture begins.

The boardroom is where governance culture shows up.

So maybe the better question is not, “How do we fix our board?”

Maybe the better question is:

“What kind of members are we forming long before they ever become board members?”

Are we treating every new member like a potential future board chair?

Or are we more concerned that they buy more stuff, attend more programs, open more emails, and renew one more year?

If we want better boards, we have to start earlier.

Much earlier.

Governance starts before the boardroom.