Why It’s Time to Rethink the Give/Get Board Model

For decades, nonprofit leaders have treated 100% board giving as the gold standard of healthy governance. It’s the metric that tells others, "Our leaders are all-in."

Yet, there is a persistent gap between theory and reality. According to BoardSource’s Leading with Intent surveys, only 50% to 75% of nonprofits actually achieve universal board participation in any given year, even when they have formal policies expressing this expectation.

A Gilded Age Relic in a Modern World

The "Give/Get" model emerged during the Gilded Age, a time when board service was almost exclusively reserved for the wealthy elite. The expectations were simple: contribute a large sum yourself ("Give") or leverage your high-society network to solicit it ("Get").

While boardrooms today are becoming more diverse and representative of the communities they serve, the Give/Get model remains stuck in the 19^th century. Here is why it’s failing modern nonprofits:

• It’s Transactional, Not Relational: It treats board members like ATMs rather than strategic partners.
• It Limits the Pool of Potential Members: High financial barriers unintentionally exclude promising candidates from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds or younger generations.
• It has a "Ceiling" Effect: When you set a $5,000 minimum, that number often becomes a maximum. Members who could give $20,000 might stop at the required threshold.
• The Math Often Doesn't Add Up:

The Budget Reality Check: Imagine a nonprofit with a $3,000,000 budget and ten board members. Each is required to "Give/Get" $5,000.

• Even with 100% participation, you only raise $50,000—a mere 1.6% of the budget.
• In reality, if only half the board complies (a common trend), you’re left with $25,000.
• Is the administrative headache and potential exclusion worth such a small fraction of your revenue?

The Alternative: Personally Meaningful Giving

Forward-thinking organizations are moving toward relationship-centered approaches that prioritize equity and trust-based philanthropy. Instead of a "one-size-fits-all" number, they use a Personally Meaningful Giving model.

In this model, the emphasis shifts from a rigid dollar amount to a more broadly based commitment:

1. Individual Capacity: Each member is asked to give an amount that is personally significant to them and reflective of their capacity.
2. Top-Three Priority: Members agree to make the organization one of their top three philanthropic priorities.
3. Collective Goals: The board works toward a total goal together, encouraging those with more ability to give and do more while those with different financial resources and talents to contribute as best fits their circumstances.
4. Talent-Based Fundraising: Members support the fundraising program in ways that suit their influence—whether that’s making introductions, hosting events, or writing thank-you notes

The Bottom Line

We all want boards that are engaged, diverse, and truly invested in our missions and that feel good about their participation. By retiring the rigid Give/Get model, we move away from "buying a seat" toward achieving board satisfaction and organizational impact.