Organizations often struggle with this dilemma: How does one balance the need for continuity and experience on a Board with the need for renewal?

Clearly, it is not healthy to have all Board positions turn over at the same time. Such a reality means that experience and knowledge are lost and that mistakes may be made by the new Board due to lack of depth and continuity. It also means that the Board relies excessively on senior staff for guidance.

Conversely, having the exact same members serving on the Board, term after term may mean that decision-making becomes predictable and stale. The capacity to examine new ideas and fresh approaches may then be limited.

Some organizations attempt to address the above dilemma by imposing term limits on their directors and officers. For example, the Bylaws may stipulate that an individual may serve for no more than three consecutive terms in the same position, and must then be away from the same position for an established period (usually a year or two) before he or she can serve on it again.

Do term limits work? Sometimes they do and other times they do not. If an ineffective individual is very attached to a position of power, a term limit may force him or her out and make room for a new and possibly more effective member. This is especially true if people are too shy or afraid to give direct feedback to an ineffective member, suggesting that it may be time for him or her to make room for others to serve as leaders.

On the other hand, term limits (entrenched in bylaws or legislation) can force a capable and effective individual out of office when he or she is at peak performance and when the organization desperately needs him or her. In such cases, term limits have a damaging impact on the organization.

So what options might you consider?

As a first option, try informal methods of ensuring the right balance between continuity and renewal. Have a measured and deliberate nominations process that seeks out new entries to the Board while keeping experienced individuals with the right skills and attitudes on the ballot. Your choice of nominees should be driven by the needs of the organization and not by a desire to be popular or avoid offending some people. You should not hesitate to state publicly and openly the rationale for choosing the slate of nominees. If you establish trust with the voters, they will likely embrace your proposed slate of nominees.

As a second option, suppose you have no term limits and have an ineffective individual on your Board, who - through name recognition - manages to garner the necessary votes to get elected again and again. In this case, you may need to consider the following questions: Might someone find the backbone to give feedback to this person that the organization may need him or her to move on? Or is it possible that the electors keep on voting for this person as a protest vote, because they do not trust the Board and want to make sure that there is someone on it to keep it accountable? (in which case the Board needs to take steps to enhance its relationship with the community).

As a third option, if you absolutely must have term limits (assuming your legislation does not preclude them), see if you can make them flexible. For example: "No individual may serve in the same position for more than three consecutive terms, except that this restriction may be waived by a two-thirds vote of the electors." (or a two-thirds vote of the Board).