Executive director departures
A mass departure of executive directors from their nonprofits is expected over the next five years, although at a slower pace than previously predicted, with executives citing frustration with their organizations' shaky finances, under-performing boards of directors, and the difficulty of balancing work and life, a new study says.
The study by the Meyer Foundation in Washington, D.C., and CompassPoint Nonprofit Services in San Francisco also finds nonprofits are not prepared for executive transition.
Sixty-seven percent of executives plan to leave their jobs within five years, down from 75 percent in in similar studies in 2006 and 2001, says the study, Daring to Lead 2011, which is based on an online survey in the fourth quarter of 2010 that generated responses from over 3,000 executive directors.
The smaller share of executives planning to leave suggests the recession temporarily may have slowed executive departures, the study says.
With one in six leaders age 60 or older, for example, 22 percent of that group said a loss in their retirement savings contributed to a transition delay.
Executive directors cite their boards as a big reason they plan to leave.
Forty-five percent of respondents said their boards had not reviewed their performance within the past year, for example, and only 18 percent said their performance review was useful.
Thirty-three percent of current executives followed a leader who was fired or forced to resign, "indicating the frequency of mis-hires and unclear expectations between boards and executives across the sector," the study says.
"New leaders were particularly challenged by establishing effective partnerships with their boards, describing disillusionment with what boards actually contribute with respect to strategy, resources, and personal support along executives' steep learning curves," the study says.
And satisfaction with board performance was lowest among leaders on the job between one and three years.
"It appears that many boards see executive transition as ending with the hire, when in fact leaders - nearly all of whom are in the role for the first time - need intentional support and development as they build efficacy in the executive role," the study says.
It also finds that only 17 percent of organizations surveyed have a documented succession plan, and just 33 percent of executives were very confident their boards will hire the right successor when they leave.
The troubled economy also is a big factor in departure plans by executive directors.
Eighty-four percent, for example, said the recession had had a negative impact on their organization, and one in five said the negative impact was significant.
Forty-six percent said their organizations had operating reserves of less than three months of expenses, with most experts suggesting nonprofits should have at least three months of reserves.
The study offers a series of recommendations to improve transition planning, understanding of financial sustainability, professional-development options and performance and composition of boards.
Comment on this article
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo- Professional Area: Management/leadership
Comments
So often, it seems, boards hire exactly what they've advertised for and are upset when they realize what they've gotten. Boards must remember that while they have the power to hire and fire an E.D. they must consider themselves equal partners/peers with the E.D. and trust that they fired the best person available and then allow them to do the job.
It definitely takes a stiff backbone and a strong sense of self to be an ED. I came into an organization with a dysfunctional board and had to do a lot of manipulating, posturing and politicking in order to turn things around. Those skills seem to be a necessary prerequisite, but new EDs are not always aware of that part of the job.
After 12 months of frustrating battles with a few board members, and seeking out the allies on the board, I was able to make a major coup. We got a new board chair who understood my frustrations and was willing to go to bat for me. The worst board member, who had been causing a lot of trouble and giving bad advice in closed board meetings, resigned after pressure was applied by the new board chair. We still have a few annoying members who do not want to change their ways or give any credit to me for a stellar first year (50% increase in individual donations in a mature, 90 year old nonprofit), but we have definitely turned a corner. We have 5 new board members who seem to be willing to support new initiatives and get board training.
I'm afraid that my success is rare, and that I was very fortunate that the right board members came at the right time, aside from anything I could have done on my own. I was advised to get out of the job by many, including my wife, but I'm glad I stayed and was able to see the turnaround. The bottom line is that it is not easy to make the board productive when it doesn't start out that way.
I know there are ED trainings out there. I haven't attended any yet, but I hope they teach some techniques for finessing difficult board members and working within the system to promote change. I will ask a lot more questions the next time I interview for a new ED job, and I will assume that many of the answers I'm given by board members will be either inaccurate or untruthful, and that I will have to verify the status of the org. and its board before accepting the job.
It definitely takes a stiff backbone and a strong sense of self to be an ED. I came into an organization with a dysfunctional board and had to do a lot of manipulating, posturing and politicking in order to turn things around. Those skills seem to be a necessary prerequisite, but new EDs are not always aware of that part of the job.
After 12 months of frustrating battles with a few board members, and seeking out the allies on the board, I was able to make a major coup. We got a new board chair who understood my frustrations and was willing to go to bat for me. The worst board member, who had been causing a lot of trouble and giving bad advice in closed board meetings, resigned after pressure was applied by the new board chair. We still have a few annoying members who do not want to change their ways or give any credit to me for a stellar first year (50% increase in individual donations in a mature, 90 year old nonprofit), but we have definitely turned a corner. We have 5 new board members who seem to be willing to support new initiatives and get board training.
I'm afraid that my success is rare, and that I was very fortunate that the right board members came at the right time, aside from anything I could have done on my own. I was advised to get out of the job by many, including my wife, but I'm glad I stayed and was able to see the turnaround. The bottom line is that it is not easy to make the board productive when it doesn't start out that way.
I know there are ED trainings out there. I haven't attended any yet, but I hope they teach some techniques for finessing difficult board members and working within the system to promote change. I will ask a lot more questions the next time I interview for a new ED job, and I will assume that many of the answers I'm given by board members will be either inaccurate or untruthful, and that I will have to verify the status of the org. and its board before accepting the job.
Those of us who have been "raised" professionally in the nonprofit sector are ready , willing and able to assume executive director leadership responsibility. We are often overlooked by boards who are looking for subject matter experts as opposed to nonprofit executives- most of the time, those are two different people.
I encourage those ED's who have passed their prime to move on. The sector appreciates what you have contributed but the world has changed and continues to change quickly, if you are not willing to continue to develop and bring your organization with you with relevant, important adjustments to business, please move on.
I just stepped down as an ED for a higher education foundation after 4 years. The balance of working with the institutional leadership and unrealistic expectations for "stellar" fundraising results by the board was overwhelming. Intereference in daily operations, actual "targeting" development officers results and as submitted above the "cloak-and-dagger" relationships with some board members and board member infighting made this a plot for a "how not to" book. Be careful what you wish for in your career - you may not want it. Boards need firmer education and realization there is a fine line between governance, oversight, advice and counsel and outright meddling. I am in the "over 60" group and after working over 25 years in an upward motion in my career I would never be an ED again.
I got advice before taking my current (and 1st) ED job from someone who had just been fired as an ED. She said that whatever the hiring committee said is the major challenge for the organization is almost always wrong and that I’d need to spend the first 60-90 days trying to discover what the real major challenge is and that will set the tone for what you have to do going forward…almost 6 years later I know she was so right!
A solid relationship between the board and ED is critical. An organization with board issues, including lack of leadership, courage, and clear vision, is one to stay far away from if you desire to be effective.
The headlines of this article are a bit deceiving since it looks like the percentage of Executive Directors who said they would bolt has dropped from 75% to 67%. The study's researchers seem to think EDs are holding on through this recession and then will leave. Perhaps. If that is true (looking at age, job satisfaction, communication with the board to rate the burnout of the ED) then a logical strategy would be to have boards and nonprofits create a 5-10 year strategic, financial and business plan which would 1) identify the successor to the ED (even if no change is anticipated) 2) id fundraising and financial management strategies 3) id what is needed to create a learning organization 4) inventory and begin to obtain the knowledge that is needed for the board and staff.
As an independent consultant I sell these products and I will tell you that while they are needed, they are not wanted--they aren't being purchased. These days more intensity is put to hiring grant writers than to creating leadership strategies that move the organization forward on its mission. So, while EDs are ready to bolt (as hypothesized) independent consultants who can help are the canaries in the coal mines--- are pretty much gone.
Getting nonprofits to address these issues ahead of time, by investing time and dollars is tricky in this recession. It is key to future success.
Not to mention numerous instances when boards make sub-optimal ED choices and senior staff start to leave in droves.
One child welfare agency I worked with selected an outsider ED over a well-qualified internal candidate. Within a year the VP who had applied for the job was gone, along with several other senior staff who hated the new ED's "My way or the highway" attitude.
I've seen other instances where the new ED apparently interviewed well but didn't have the change management skills or desire to keep existing staff, often taking the organization into significant decline.
In my experience, the combination of a nonprofit organization with a brand new ED and a trustee board is a flawed model. Our city has seen similar hires of out-of-towners in ED positions who wowed unknowledgeable search committees with their PowerPoints and spin. So many staff have left, taking with them their deep, corporate knowledge of our community's organizations and donors.
The board so wants the ED to succeed they drag their feet and downplay staff complaints. By the time the ED is fired, so much damage has been done.
As a younger association executive, I'd be happy to jump in to any of these opportunities. Perhaps it is because I'm not yet burned out of fuel or because of the education I have focused on with respect to engaging board members. In any case, I know I could make an impact for the right cause.
Bring it on! Where do you need me?
My experience as an executive director was that board members have no idea what a director really does or needs, do not listen to reports of problems and possibilities, take little responsibility as a rule, and flip to blaming an executive director for everything. Nothing I did could encourage my board members to become more educated or take more active roles (or even attend meetings and events). A toxic element also was the drastic changes year to year as presidents changed and then dictated what the non-profit was going to be and I was going to do.
I was flabbergasted when I read right after taking the job that something like 67 per cent of EDs said they would not take an ED job ever again. A couple of years later, it made absolute sense!
Amen!
I agree. I was the first full-time executive director of a nonprofit organization and it became clear after a couple of months that the board had no idea what to do with me, other than to micromanage and ask me to do the most mundane of tasks. After six months of cloak-and-dagger relationships with some members of the board, I resigned.
I very much agree with this comment. Continual board education and motivating/asking/begging members to reach out, fundraising, staff management, grant writing and relationship building can burn an ED out within two years - if not sooner. Boards have to understand that no one person can do it all. I would never do this again.
I am a seasoned nonprofit executive and take some pride in doing valuable work. I am afraid that the era of attracting talent idividuals to the non profit sector may be about over. I hear more and more people saying "never again" and have many associates who if looking for another position would steer away from the industry. Boards need to selected professional and talented staff and treat them accordingly. Boards have responsibilities and they cannot abdicate those fiduciary, fundraising and strategic palnning to staff.
Board members need traiing as much as EDs. They may never have served on a board and have misconceptions. An ED can only do so much without the support of a chair (on the same page).
Post new comment