Executive Director

The future

One of the benefits of being slightly sick and home-bound is that it provides an opportunity to catch up on journals and newsletters. Additionally, there is ample time for Internet research and really delving into topics of interest. So, last week thanks to laryngitis and a head cold, I was able to immerse myself in topics ranging from executive succession planning, to generational leadership differences, to broader issues confronting the nonprofit sector as a whole. I also registered for two webinars on the above topics. So while I had to bow out of facilitating two focus groups, the week was by and large productive thanks to the wonders of technology.

I had done some previous research regarding executive succession planning and was familiar with the statistics from the Daring to Lead 2006 publication, which found that 75% of the more than 1900 executives polled were planning to leave their organization within 5 years. Whenever I present a Building Better Boards workshop, I touch on this study and recommend that boards start to put together a succession plan; but I have not worked with any organization on such a plan. A request to do so just prior to my self imposed seclusion was the impetus for several hours of research. I have now compiled a pretty thorough list of resources, checklists, etc. on this topic and will be included that list in a future blog.

One of the pluses and minuses of Internet research is that often it is like going down a long hallway and each door leads to another door and another door. One of these doors did not include information on how to successfully navigate an executive transition so the organization emerges stronger and more focused, but rather recommended a broader view than attention to the leadership pipeline and replacement process.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation Generational Monograph Series entitled NEXT SHIFT – Beyond the Nonprofit Leadership Crisis. highlights many of the statistics surrounding the impending crisis and the need to identify and attract new leaders, but it takes it a step further. It suggests that the nonprofit sector itself is in crisis and the emphasis on leadership transition reinforces rather than challenges the prevailing issues facing nonprofit organizations. This monograph was the result of interviews, focus groups and meetings with current and emerging nonprofit leaders in their 20s, 30s and early 40s. And guess what? They rejected the idea of taking over nonprofit leadership. “They did not identify the executive director/CEO job with excitement, challenge, creativity, and innovation. The message younger leaders are receiving is that heading a nonprofit is a thankless job requiring great sacrifice with few visible rewards. Rather than feeling they could effect larger change if they took on more leadership, they seemed to believe that these top positions actually offer fewer opportunities to have an impact on the issues the organization was meant to address.”

As a former executive director and often interim director, and someone who works with many executive directors, I have seen and experienced first hand the “sacrifice” part. As to the “few visible rewards” there is no denying that either. So why did I ,and why do many of my contemporaries serve in these positions? I always felt it was part of being involved with something greater than myself, something for the common good and there was satisfaction in that. Seeing an abused woman and her children safe or watching a teen mom get a high school diploma, or securing a foundation grant to ensure that programs like these would continue were the moments, the events that made it seem worthwhile. But was it something else? I remember after being hired as executive of the YWCA driving by the beautiful but slightly shabby four story building and thinking – OMG – I’m responsible for everything that goes on or doesn’t in that building. It was a challenge I wanted and enjoyed. After eight years, I knew it was time to move on and have more control of my life and time and less stress. And this was before wide-scale budget cuts, increased expectations for transparency and accountability, the downward economic slide and increased client needs and expectations.

Younger leaders want more of a work/life balance and that is a good thing, but it means we have to think differently about the structure of our organizations and our expectations of executive directors. “Younger leaders are more interested in co-directorships, flattened hierarchies(pushing down responsibility and authority),networked organizations, and participatory approaches.”

As an interim director where I help with the transition from the old to the new (usually for a four to six month period), I often do not see agency staff and board at their best. These short but intense assignments are challenging and reinforce the myriad responsibilities, stresses and sometimes seemingly insurmountable obstacles that executive directors face every day.

In conversations with current executive directors they talk about being at their desks at 7 am to get “their” work done before other staff arrive and the phones and meetings start. They also talk about the ongoing challenges they face every day. They would probably echo the call for a different structure. What do you think?

The next few blogs will be focused on succession planning and executive transition management.

Until next time,
Pat

Source
Kunreuther,Frances and Patrick A. Covington, NEXT SHIFT: Beyond the Nonprofit Leadership Crisis
(Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007).

The Troublesome Executive Director

I have waxed poetic in terms of disruptive board members calling them “mavericks”and been taken to task for the label, and for pointing out behaviors which I consider disruptive but that others believe are appropriate. If you remember my initial post, it was about board members who overstep their authority, cause executive directors to lose sleep and in general are problematic. In the non-profit sector these disruptive board members are not alone in wrecking havoc – some executive directors have been known to be troublesome as well.

While most of the executive directors I know are capable, hard-working, people-oriented, mission-driven individuals, every now and then you bump up against one who is self-aggrandizing, tyrannical or simply inept. Executive directors who excel in their positions are expert tightrope walkers with an uncanny ability to balance volunteer and staff needs, attract donors and keep the organization and its programs mission driven. It takes a unique skill set to do this well and I tip my hat to the million plus men and women who perform this delicate dance on a daily basis.

While the board sets values and vision, the executive director is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the organization. Earlier posts have outlined the characteristics and capabilities necessary to be an effective director(See – In Pursuit of the Executive Director – Part One) so I won’t repeat them here because this post is about the lack of those characteristics. I would point out, however, that some boards hire the wrong person to begin with and this is the beginning of tension, trouble and turmoil.

A fairly common symptom of an ineffective E.D. is high staff and board turnover – almost a revolving door effect because at both levels individuals are unable or unwilling to work with this person. When assessing this for your organization remember it is not just a numbers thing as people leave for a variety of reasons – a better opportunity, a move, family responsibilities – that have nothing to do with the executive director. Exit interviews with departing board members would be one source for identifying problems at the board level.

Another symptom that there is trouble in paradise is if the executive director consistently withholds information from the board or makes decisions that rightfully belong to the board, or brushes aside questions posed by board members. The board should never be blindsided by the executive’s actions or commitments he or she has made for the organization.

Other indicators of a dysfunctional executive include declining funding, low staff morale, an absence of systems and procedures and a lack of timely information and financial reports. Troublesome executives often insert themselves into situations where they do not belong or take credit for the good works of others. They have been known to micro-manage or at the other extreme to offer little in the way of staff supervision.

One way to ensure that this doesn’t happen, or to bring it to light sooner if it is happening, is through yearly performance goals and an annual performance evaluation. Many boards are lax in terms of communicating their expectations to the director, and don’t always get around to the annual performance evaluation. Then when the rumblings start, the evaluation becomes a high priority. Don’t wait until there’s a problem – ensure that goals are set yearly and the director is accountable for meeting them.

I can think of one director that was adored by her board, did and said all the right things to the board, but was a tyrant when it came to dealing with staff. It took a long time for this particular board to understand the damage that was going on behind their backs. Since the executive works for the board and the rest of the staff work for the executive it can be difficult for board members to really understand the executive/staff dynamics. Typically all of the board’s information comes from the executive and if he or she is the culprit you are not going to hear it from them. Some organizations bring in an outside HR firm to assess the organization’s work environment through confidential staff interviews. The outside firm reports to the board and the results can not be shaded by the director.

Unfortunately, inept executives can remain in place for a long time. If the agency’s cause is especially worthy, some funders may hold the organization to a lower standard and let them “skate” as it were on required reporting. When faced with the issues identified above, boards are reluctant to take action as the prospect of open conflict with the executive director is dismaying. It may take months or even years, but eventually a board member or group of board members will say – “This isn’t right and we have to take action to remedy the situation.“ Recognizing the problem is the first step in solving it and there will be further posts on possible strategies once the board decides to act.

This post, and everything written in this blog, is not intended as legal advice. I am merely expressing my thoughts and opinions and offering suggestions on how to avoid the problems in the first place.

Until next time,
Pat

The future

The Troublesome Executive Director

Patricia A. Smith

Latest Post

Organizational Effectiveness and Capacity Self Evaluation

Categories