Jonathan Poisner Strategic Consulting

Often times Executive Director transitions are abrupt, taking place within a 1-2 month period when an E.D. moves onto another professional opportunity.  Rarely, they are even more abrupt after a tragedy or the Executive Director being fired.

However, in many instances an Executive Director is able to give significant advance notice to their board, often as much as 6-12 months.

In those instances, the organization has an chance to make the most of the transition so that it serves as an opportunity as much as a threat.

Below, I list 10 major steps an organization should consider to manage the transition, particularly in the 6 months immediately prior to it.

1. Make sure that the organization has a current strategic plan. In the absence of a complete strategic plan, the organization should hold a facilitated meeting to ensure the board is aligned with the remaining senior staff regarding the purpose of the organization and major programs for the next 1-2 years.

1. The Executive Director should consciously “transfer” personal relationships with major donors and institutional funders to others within the organization. Depending on the situation this could involve board members or other senior staff.   This could be accomplished by holding meetings (e.g. lunches, coffees, or more formal) with the donors one-by-one or by hosting small gatherings with multiple donors.

1. Communicate early and clearly with allied organizations and funders in advance regarding the transition. In those communications, identify the specific steps the organization will be taking to ensure a successful transition.

1. In public communications, such as newsletters, press releases, the website, etc., tell success stories about other staff and have other staff serve as spokespeople.  The more constituents come to know staff beyond the Executive Director, the less noticeable their absence will be.

1. Have the Executive Director write down organizational stories. These stories could involve the founding of the organization if they were involved in it.  It should definitely involve stories that demonstrate the organization’s success and/or impact.  Depending on the E.D., this may be best done by having someone “interview” the Executive Director and write up the stories as they are told, as opposed to having the E.D. sit at a computer and write.

1. Create an E.D. “Job Manual” that identifies the systems used by the Executive Director. This should cover all the major administrative and fundraising activities of the organization where the E.D. is involved, identifying what major activities need to be conducted weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annually.  This might also cover major “program” activities if the E.D. plays a substantial role, again broken down by weekly, monthly, quarterly, and annually.

1. The outgoing E.D. should talk to other senior staff about their own timelines for professional development and discuss if/how to motivate them to stay on with the organization at least at least 6-12 months after the E.D. transition. This conversation should also be an early flag of whether the senior staff intend to apply for the Executive Director position.

1. As soon as feasible, the E.D. and the board’s Finance or Executive Committee should develop a cash flow analysis of where the organization will be financially as of the date the new E.D. should start.  If at all feasible, additional funds should be raised or spending should be curtailed so as to maximize the amount of unrestricted reserve available at the time of transition.  If cash flow is going to be tight, the board should be asked to increase their personal giving in the short run in order to help.

1. If the outgoing E.D. has relationships where it would make sense, use the transition as a message around which to raise extra funds.  Examples of tactics that have been successfully used include an event that “roasts” the outgoing E.D. and the creation of a “Legacy” fund by which donors can make a gift in honor of the outgoing E.D.

1. The board and Executive Director should identify a “Plan B” should the hiring process for a new Executive Director not succeed in finding someone appropriate who says yes. Boards should be enthusiastic about new Executive Directors and  organizations are almost always better off not hiring someone who they believe will be mediocre.   The Plan B could involve an outsider brought on as an Interim E.D. or the temporary assignment of one of the other staff as Interim E.D.

Do you have additional suggestions for steps an organization should take when planning for an Executive Director transition?

If so, please comment below.

Download/View a Printer-Friendly Version

I recently came across a study published in Harvard Business Review that crystallized some of my own thinking about how to motivate leadership.

The article outlines the results of a study of 10,000 graduates of Westpoint (the U.S. Army officer training college) through their graduation and well into their careers.  The graduates were asked questions to determine what motivates their leadership.  In general, leadership motivations were classified as intrinsic (internal) or extrinsic (instrumental).  An example of an intrinsic motivation is “improving people’s lives.”  An example of an extrinsic motivation is “more pay” or greater status from a position of more stature.  Many people demonstrated evidence of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

I was not surprised that those who were intrinsically motivated had proven over time to be more successful leaders than those extrinsically motivated.  I previously posted a great video on this precise subject.

What surprised me about the study was that those who were both intrinsically and extrinsically motivated also proved inferior in leadership success compared to those whose sole motivations are intrinsic.

In the words of the study author:

“Adding external motives didn’t make leaders perform better — additional motivations reduced the selection to top leadership by more than 20%.  Thus, external motivations, even atop strong internal motivations, were leadership poison.”

Personally, I’ve always been wary of organizations that consider using bonuses or other similar rewards as a means of improving employee performance.  This is especially true in cause-related organizations.  It creates a perverse incentive that can change how employees perceive their role.

Anecdotally, I’ve seen an organization go awry in this way.  A few years back, an organization I knew hired an Executive Director who insisted that the pay for his role be increased to match what they had been receiving at the job they were vacating, even though this higher pay would be dramatically more than the organization’s traditional pay scale.  In their words, they didn’t want to be taking a step backwards in pay.  It didn’t surprise me that the E.D. in question flamed out in 18 months.   They were more motivated by extrinsic factors (pay) than intrinsic (the desire to best fulfill the organization’s mission).

What implications does that have for nonprofits?  For those doing hiring, if a candidate says or does something suggesting their personal motivation is extrinsic, I suggest you think long and hard before going down that road.  Focus on candidates where the flame is burning on the inside to accomplish the mission.  Skills can be trained.  The fire inside cannot.

Download/View a Printer-Friendly PDF Version

One of the trickier challenges facing a nonprofit Executive Director with supervisory responsibilities is leaning to let things go “wrong.”

If you are to empower your staff to have areas of responsibilities and for them to flex their own leadership, they must be allowed to make mistakes. That means giving them authority to make some decisions without prior authorization.

After the decision with which you disagree, usually that means just accepting it and moving on. Sometimes, the situation may be repeated, so you’ll want to discuss the decision and find out what the staff person being supervised was thinking. This should be done by asking questions designed to understand their thinking rather than starting with: “that was a mistake.”

Even if they come to you for advice, sometimes the right answer is: “here’s my initial instinct, but I haven’t thought about it much and its your area of responsibility, so the call is yours.”

The benefit of this approach isn’t just that it gives junior staff a positive work environment in which they’ll develop more leadership skills. And it isn’t just that highly competent staff are less likely to leave your organization if they are given responsibility.

The benefit of this approach is also about how much time the Executive Director can put into their other duties.  If the Executive Director is weighing in on matters that are really the province of someone else on staff, that means the Executive Director is taking time away from their core responsibilities.  Every minute debating some minor potential “mistake” is a minute taken away from fundraising and other core Executive Director job duties.

Of course, sometimes you do need to intervene — on mistakes that would be serious. And serious is a subjective term.

But all in all, I’ve experienced more examples of Executive Directors who over-manage to ensure everything is perfect than the opposite problem of just letting everything slide.   Bottom line: Executive Directors need to learn to let things go “wrong.”

A recent Huffington Post blog article focused on the importance of the nonprofit sector investing in professional development. As a whole, the sector has a poor track record in training its employees on effective leadership.  That needs to change.

What I particularly liked about this blog post is it didn’t stop there. Rather, it included some practical tips for how nonprofit employees can take some steps on their own to improve their leaderhip/management skills.

I won’t repeat their recommendations — best for you to read it for yourself.