14May
When a nonprofit founder decides not to move forward

Not long ago, I read on a social media platform about a nonprofit candidate who would become the CEO of an organization where the founder would remain. I’ve written about this in the past, but this particular situation caught my interest because of what the board allowed to happen. I thought it was interesting and a recipe for trouble.

Situation

The candidate to become the new executive would succeed the founding executive, who would take up a paid part-time position within the charity. There were a couple of red flags that I saw in the post.

  • The board told the candidate that he would have authority, but was not allowed to let the founder go if he did not work. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like authority to me if you’re not allowed to fire someone if the fit isn’t right.
  • The founder’s part-time paid role had yet to be determined. That seemed like a major issue in the works due to lack of clarity. I was wondering, who would create the job description for the new role of founder? Would the new executive have any authority over him, or would it just be responsibility without power?
  • The candidate was told that although he could delegate responsibilities to the founder, once the position was created, the board was unsure if the founder would execute. Well, there are a lot of problems with that fact. So, it seemed like the board was telling the candidate that while he was responsible for the proper management of the organization in regards to the (paid) position of the founder, all bets were off.
  • Finally, the board informed the candidate that they expected him to be a leader and figure out how to work effectively with the founder. That is really fascinating! In effect, the board creates a situation where the founder is paid to play a role within the organization, and not do the work, if they so choose, but all the onus is on the new executive to “make it work.” “.

If you were reading that post like I did, what would you have advised the candidate?

I’ll tell you what I would say.

TO RUN!

Go as fast as you can, as far as you can.

same old

I have written in the past about Founder Syndrome, which is when power (implicit or explicit) revolves around the founder and his cult of personality and influence. As I have noted in the past, “The environment becomes dysfunctional when the board fails to fulfill its governance responsibility and staff are not allowed to object or debate. Ideas and initiatives stall if the founder does not support them. Essentially, the founder he becomes the ruler of his fiefdom, and the interest of the organization becomes secondary.”

However, what I want to tell you here is that the situation described above is a recipe for trouble, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Confusion

When the founder stays inside the organization, the successor’s job becomes infinitely more difficult because he or she is navigating a political landmine, and that’s not fair to the organization. In the scenario that the founder and executive now become part-time employees, the chances of alliances by some board members and staff who are still loyal to the founder increase exponentially. And, all he creates is confusion, and frankly, a problem for the organization that is not conducive to good governance and functioning of the nonprofit.

If you’re a nonprofit board member and the time has come to move on to a new leader, do the organization a favor by not letting the founder remain on staff. Consider giving the founder an emeritus role on the board, but don’t create a situation that depletes the collective energy of the organization because of the political toxicity that could develop. And, if you’re a founder, if I can do it, you can do it. When the time comes when you need to step aside, do it. It doesn’t mean you can’t create something else or discover other ways to do what you love. Take your energy and what you have learned and channel it positively.