Succession or Chaos

Although nonprofit leadership transitions are universal, leaders tend to overlook planning for changes. Managing transitions is a challenge in the best of times, and without a structured plan, experiencing an unexpected changeover can be daunting. Even worse, in the case of a retiring founder, lack of planning exposes a nonprofit to unnecessary strain between a governing board, a new executive director, and a founder.

Organizations struggle with founder transitions partly because of an emotional component we do not experience in most leadership transitions. We compound emotions when we are quick to dismiss a founder's hard work and sacrifice. Instead, we should acknowledge the vital role nonprofit founders play in our community. Nonprofit founders are instrumental in identifying unattended issues. They invest countless hours creating nonprofits essential to solving those problems. Driven by mission, founders take on most of the work of a startup organization. They successfully build solid nonprofits. Often, they burn out, and eventually, founders retire; sometimes, an organization asks a founder to move on. The trouble in keeping a founder engaged is that a founder might believe their way is the only way to achieve results because they have succeeded in doing things their way for many years. A founder might think that a successor will reform what they created or that what they made will crumble without them. Psychology takes over, and boards are ill-equipped to manage emotions. Despite the pitfalls, founder succession is not hopeless. Governing boards can sidestep a mare's nest with careful planning.

Many consultants posit that a successful transition dictates that a founder must completely step away during a leadership change. The theory is that the founder should pass the baton authentically and publicly and avoid running behind a successor with the rod glued to each other's hands. For this reason, many industry advisors suggest that founders must make clean exits and gracefully disappear from an organization. I can't entirely agree that a complete break is always appropriate. My advice is mixed. A deliberate approach includes careful conversations about relationships, institutional knowledge, ego, emotions, and intentions.

Certain situations justify keeping a founder engaged. There are times when a founder in a still-young organization can provide much-needed support by cultivating, stewarding, and building relationships under the direction of his successor. A new executive director may benefit from a founder's mentorship or expertise in a unique industry. Nonetheless, the governance team must draw clear lines and curtail micromanaging even in these scenarios. Suppose that a founder serves on the board of directors. In that case, the governing board must ensure that the founder/former executive director has ceded her responsibilities and authority to the successor. The board must refuse to accept micromanaging; any oversight can be troublesome. For example, there is a difference between "checking up" and "checking in." These are subtle but insidious shades of expression. If a founder feels compelled to ensure the executive director or others are "doing it right," the underlying purpose is to micromanage. The worse words to come out of a founder's mouth are: "That's not how we do things here." Leaders govern best when they focus on results. But, when founders concentrate on doing something a certain way, they micromanage.

These nuances are important. While healthy "checking in" involves monitoring success by supporting people in reaching successful outcomes, "checking up" leads to an unsound focus on operations and excessive control. If a founder serves on the board of directors, the focus should be on policy, long-term strategy, and outcomes. Bottom line: If an executive director perceives your actions as checking up, the results are lower trust, dismal productivity, stalled innovation, and, ultimately, high turnover. Conversely, anticipating and planning for a transition can help an organization flourish.

The board of directors plays a vital role in good succession planning and setting expectations by articulating strong job descriptions for the executive director and founder. A founder might even consider taking a sabbatical to give the new executive director time to adjust and allow staff and directors an opportunity to build trust between themselves and the executive director. Another way for a board to facilitate a successful transition is to create annual goals for the executive director, such as increasing revenues, building corporate partners, or improving specific outcomes. Focusing on goals and results makes a founder less likely to micromanage and creates distance between a successor and a founder. Once the board and new executive director establish goals, the board of directors can evaluate whether the executive director is doing his job well.

In conclusion, sometimes, a nonprofit needs an engaged founder following a leadership change. A copy-and-paste succession plan is not advisable because no two transitions are identical. Inevitably, there will be conflicts and growing pains. In some cases, founders stunt a nonprofit's growth. In others, a founder can educate and train a successor. Still, difficult transitions are not fatal to the organization's success if the board recognizes and acknowledges the tensions, creates support and offers mentoring. Under all circumstances, there must be a clear ceding of responsibilities and authority. The worst thing that can happen is for a founder to surrender responsibility but keep absolute control. The board of directors needs to play the watchdog role here; their loyalty is to the organization, not the founder. Careful succession planning eliminates chaos.