When a Nonprofit Founder Decides Not to Go Forward

Not long ago, I read on a social media platform about a non-profit candidate who would become the CEO of an organization where the founder would remain. I have 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 hold a part-time paid 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 he was not allowed to let the founder go if he did not work. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound authoritative 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 a lack of clarity. I was wondering, who would create the job description for the new founder role? Would the new executive have any authority over him, or would he simply 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 host of problems with that fact. So it seemed the board was telling the candidate that while he was responsible for the proper management of the organization as far as the founder’s (paid) position was concerned, 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 he wants to, but all the onus is on the new executive to “make it happen.” work”.

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

I’ll tell you what I would say.

RUN!

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

same old

I have written in the past about the Founder Syndrome, which is when power (implicit or explicit) revolves around the founder and his cult of personality and influence. As I’ve 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 get bogged down if the founder doesn’t support them. Essentially, the founder he becomes the ruler of his fiefdom, and the interest of the organization becomes secondary.

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

Confusion

When the founder stays within the organization, the successor’s job becomes infinitely more difficult because he or she navigates a political mine, 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 and staff members who are still loyal to the founder increase exponentially. And, all he creates is confusion, and quite 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—don’t let the founder stay on staff. Consider giving the founder an emeritus role on the board, but don’t create a situation that drains 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 that you need to step back, 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.