Most nonprofit boards don’t loosen or abandon term limits because they’ve done a careful risk analysis.

They do it because change feels risky.

Recruitment is hard. Transitions are uncomfortable. Long-serving board members feel familiar, dependable, and safe. When someone has “always been there,” the idea of losing them can feel destabilizing—especially in moments of uncertainty.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: what feels like stability can quietly become one of the greatest governance risks an organization faces.

Comfort Is Not the Same as Safety

Over the years, I’ve heard every version of the same justification:

• “We don’t know who else to get.”

• “She has too much institutional knowledge to lose.”

• “He’s been our treasurer forever—what would we do without him?”

These statements are usually offered in good faith. They’re not about ego or control. They’re about fear—fear of disruption, fear of loss, fear of getting it wrong.

But concentrating knowledge, authority, and continuity in a small group of long-tenured individuals doesn’t reduce risk. It concentrates it.

When boards rely on specific people rather than durable systems, they create fragility disguised as stability.

The Moment That Made My Head Explode

Once, I was invited to speak to a board and was included on an email chain with all board members copied. In the middle of the thread, someone replied:

“I haven’t been on the board in two years.”

The board chair responded with a laugh and said, essentially, “Oh! Just come back.”

Everyone moved on.

That moment stuck with me—not because it was malicious, but because it was casual. Governance authority had quietly drifted away from structure and into familiarity. No process. No review. No acknowledgment of risk.

That’s not governance. That’s improvisation.

And it’s far more common than many boards want to admit.

Why Term Limits Exist in the First Place

Term limits aren’t about punishment or mistrust. They exist to manage predictable risks:

• Over-concentration of authority

• Stagnation and disengagement

• Resistance to new ideas

• Weak succession planning

They force boards to do the uncomfortable work of recruitment, evaluation, and transition before those risks become crises.

Importantly, term limits are not meant to replace judgment. They are meant to create the conditions for it.

What Research and Practice Tell Us About Tenure

There’s no magic number that applies to every board. But governance research and practice consistently show patterns worth paying attention to.

Board members often need time to learn the organization and find their footing. After that, there’s typically a period of peak contribution. Beyond that, very long tenure increases the likelihood of disengagement, complacency, or entrenchment—even among well-intentioned, capable people.

What many boards label as “experience” is sometimes just familiarity with how things have always been done.

This is why I tend to favor three, two-year terms—six years total.

Shorter terms allow boards to course-correct more quickly if a member isn’t a strong strategic fit. Life changes. Capacity changes. Expectations change. Two-year terms acknowledge that reality without drama.

Six years is long enough for meaningful contribution and leadership, but short enough to reduce the risk that governance becomes personalized instead of institutional.

And critically: renewal should never be automatic.

The Role of Review (Not Rubber Stamps)

Every board member eligible for renewal should be reviewed by the governance committee—not as a formality, but as a real assessment of fit against the organization’s current strategic priorities.

The question shouldn’t be: “Do we like this person?”

It should be: “Does the board, as currently constituted, still match what the organization needs next?”

That’s how term limits become a risk-management tool rather than a blunt instrument.

When Policy and Reality Collide

Of course, governance isn’t binary. There are moments when rigid adherence to a policy—any policy—can surface a different kind of risk.

Multi-year advocacy efforts. Major capital campaigns. Founder transitions. Organizational inflection points.

In those moments, the right question isn’t “Should we make an exception?”
It’s “What structure best protects the mission right now without weakening our governance norms?”

Sometimes that answer is a formal advisory role. Sometimes it’s a time-limited transition. Sometimes it’s staying the course with term limits and strengthening succession instead.

What matters is that the decision is intentional, structured, and documented—not casual, reactive, or driven by discomfort.

The Real Lesson

Boards don’t usually increase risk by enforcing term limits.

They increase risk by abandoning them casually—without analysis, without guardrails, and without systems strong enough to survive change.

Good governance doesn’t avoid transition.
It manages it.

And the strongest boards aren’t the ones that keep the same people forever.
They’re the ones that build institutions capable of evolving beyond any one person.