How Adding a Critical Reviewer Can Benefit Nonprofit Boards

How Adding a Critical Reviewer Can Benefit Nonprofit Boards

In nonprofit associations, organizational culture is influenced by how boards interpret the mission and how staff implement their decisions. Over time, these interpretations can become stagnant, leading to a mindset of “That’s how we’ve always done it.” An Associations Now article by Mark Athitakis cites the MIT Sloan Management Review’s proposal of introducing a “critical reviewer” to challenge assumptions, encourage diverse perspectives, and ensure that ideas are rigorously evaluated.

While the idea may initially sound like adding a professional contrarian to the mix, research suggests that organizations benefit from having a structured voice pushing back against complacency. A critical reviewer can improve meeting effectiveness, productivity, and participation by ensuring that discussions remain thoughtful and strategic rather than routine or reactionary. However, the role must be carefully managed to avoid becoming an impediment to progress.

A key consideration from the article is that critical thinking should not be outsourced to a single individual. Everyone should feel empowered to question assumptions and explore alternatives. However, designating a rotating critical reviewer can ensure that these conversations happen consistently and constructively. This approach has the added benefit of giving newer board members a structured opportunity to engage more deeply and demonstrate leadership.

Association leaders should be mindful that the critical reviewer role is not an excuse for micromanagement, personal agendas, or unproductive criticism. When implemented thoughtfully, it can enhance board effectiveness by fostering a culture of strategic inquiry, keeping discussions forward-looking, dynamic, and aligned with the organization’s mission.