My book When in Doubt, Ask for More catalogues 214 of the top lessons I’ve learned about nonprofit leadership and self-care. As I have mentioned previously, since its publication in March 2020 I have continued to have new insights on these two related topics. At some point, they could end up in a sequel to When in Doubt.
One of those new insights relates to how nonprofit CEOs can fall into the trap of neglecting the internal needs of the organizations they lead by spending the bulk of their time being its public face. It’s not that I have only learned this recently, but rather that I’ve finally synthesized my point of view about why this happens and what can be done about it.
Some background: Nonprofits and their leaders sometimes suddenly experience rapid growth and increased visibility. For Grameen Foundation, we enjoyed this kind of hockey stick-like trajectory in 2003-2004. Our budget grew from $4 million to $11.7 million during this 24 month period. Suddenly, we were flush with cash. As its leader, I was in demand as a speaker more than ever before. The media was coming after us rather than the other way around.
This sounds great, right? In fact, it was what we had always dreamed of achieving. But as I wrote about in my leadership memoir Changing the World Without Losing Your Mind, rapid progress in a mission-driven organization frequently turns out to be a surprisingly double-edged sword. The chapter about the challenges of such a period was ironically titled “Coping With Success.” I slowly realized that growth and acclaim solve one set of problems but are often replaced with another.
A Common Temptation of the Successful Nonprofit Leader
I have observed numerous nonprofit executives being faced with proliferating opportunities, and I have experienced this myself as well. Invitations pour in to give speeches, join high-level industry working groups, and advise billionaire donors as well as philanthropic opinion-makers – which in turn leads to more resources and influence in a self-reinforcing cycle that can last for at least a few years. These external roles sometimes advance the organization’s mission, but they are almost always enjoyable and boost the leader’s ego.
At the same time as these external options are growing, inside the organization things have a tendency to become increasingly messy. People jostle for influence and resources. Turf battles seem to come out of nowhere. Mid-level staff demand raises, additional administrative support, new laptops, and above all, attention. Internal critics say that you as the leader are not doing enough to take advantage of all the new opportunities. Implementations of new systems and technologies get bogged down, leading people to point fingers (including at the CEO).
Faced with a dynamic like this, many leaders’ tendency is to engage more and more in the relatively pleasant external work and withdraw from the comparatively taxing and unpleasant internal activities. In small doses, this reorientation can be consistent with a leader’s commitment to both impact and self-care. But taken to extremes, as I have seen far too often, it leads to an organization becoming increasingly rudderless.
Many CEOs feel entitled to focus on this relatively glamourous external work, since they helped build the organization to the successful point it is now enjoying. To some extent, they are right. However, the bias toward prioritizing external work reinforces itself with each passing quarter. The neglect of internal issues makes those situations even more unpleasant to deal with. The CEO is harder and harder to pin down for meetings and decisions, resulting in thorny internal issues festering and getting kicked down the road.
The Allure of a Quick Fix
What happens next? Typically, at some point the board gets wind of the situation, usually when an employee or ex-employee complains directly to one of the directors. Most often, the governing body is understandably reluctant to criticize or rein in their high-flying leader. Indeed, they have been enjoying being associated with an organization that appears to be increasingly successful. Instead, the board is likely to suggest spending some of the organization’s newfound resources on hiring a chief operating officer (COO) to better manage the internal issues.
This usually fails. Once the COO is hired and begins to make hard decisions to resolve long-simmering internal issues, the leader starts to feel marginalized as the organization’s “figurehead.” Perhaps sensing this, the staff go around the COO when he or she does not solve problems in ways they like (which is inevitable). Like clockwork, the CEO undermines the COO, and the COO predictably starts looking for other employment.
Once this stage is reached, another COO is usually recruited and experiences a similar fate. A decision is then made to leave the role unfilled. If you think this is unusual, simply check how many mid-sized nonprofits survived for many years without a COO, then had a few of them, and later eliminated the position.
Occasionally, the COO role is not exactly cut but rather downgraded to chief of staff, which is usually filled by an internal candidate. Yet nothing fundamentally changes. To the outside world, the organization is thriving, but those inside the nonprofit’s walls know that the situation is much more complex, and may feel adrift or even dire.
How can the situation be turned around at this point? Sadly, there are few, if any, easy answers. Many approaches that I have seen fail to get at the heart of the problem. For example, some CEOs placate the staff by giving them raises, increased benefits and more autonomy. These steps buy the leader some time, but they also raise costs and create a degree of chaos. This type of response often means that staff are favored over other stakeholders – such as donors, board members, and volunteers – who compete for the leader’s and the organization’s attention.
Ultimately, the CEO has three choices: (1) reorient their efforts to focus significantly more on internal issues (which by that point they are probably out of practice at), (2) agree to be almost entirely externally focused and truly delegate to a COO type without ever succumbing to the temptation to undermine them, or (3) leave the organization entirely.
Let me be clear. I believe that mission-driven CEOs should embrace their external roles and invest in coalitions for the good of their movement as well as their organization’s mission. But when that becomes a refuge from dealing with internal issues, a line is crossed, and a very challenging dynamic is set in motion. It is far better to consistently maintain a strong focus on internal issues, as messy and unpleasant as they often are.
Getting out of the Trap: What the Board, Staff and Leader Can Do
What can be done to turn such a situation around? A board of directors or trustees often plays a critical role. They should avoid the temptation to simply throw money at the problem by insisting on hiring a COO, though modestly expanding the job scopes (and compensation) of some senior staff or putting aside some additional professional development funds for the CEO may be worth considering. Most importantly, they should use the CEO’s annual performance appraisal process to better understand how the incumbent approaches their job and why they find internal problems so frustrating and their external roles comparatively so fulfilling. Informed empathy becomes the foundation of finding a solution that works for the CEO and the organization.
Then, the board (or more likely, a subset of them) can identify the internal issues that need attention and discuss how best to deal with them with the CEO. A tentative action plan for dealing with them should be customized in a way that balances the needs of the organization and the preferences of the leader and then agreed upon. This will certainly be an iterative process that should be revisited and refined every 2-3 months until the internal issues are better under control and the leader has recalibrated his or her priorities. Furthermore, the ideas outlined below about how a CEO can reengage in the internal workings of the organization they lead can be suggested by the board for inclusion in the action plan.
A point person on the board might need to be appointed to quietly oversee this process in a way that does not undermine or demoralize the CEO and ensures that it does not get bogged down in some other way.
The employees of a successful but rudderless nonprofit also have a role to play in improving things. More than anything, they should try to look at the organization through the eyes of their leader who probably finds their external roles to be mostly gratifying, and their internal roles to be much less so.
Staff can, for example, provide supportive and empathetic comments about their leader’s efforts to solve internal issues (even if they are only partly successful), praise the leader’s external engagements (while at the same time urging them to apply their talents to internal matters more consistently), and in general attempt to make the CEO’s internal work more satisfying and less like playing out a series of no-win scenarios. Even a single thoughtful comment from a junior employee can brighten the spirits of a leader and motivate them to redouble their efforts to solve nagging internal issues.
But the most important actor in an effort to turn around such a dynamic is the CEO. Here are some of the techniques I learned that helped ensure that I kept touch with and appropriately engaged in what was going on inside organizations I led:
1. I almost never worked from home when I wasn’t travelling, so I could be as accessible as possible to staff when I wasn’t on the road.
2. When in the office, I would regularly eat in the common area so any staff member could approach me with ideas, concerns, or celebrations they wanted to share. Sometimes no one joined me, though oftentimes people did. As a result, I learned more about their experience of the organization, and became known as more accessible and interested among my staff.
3. I held regular “CEO Coffees” where 4-6 employees could have an off-the-record conversation with me about whatever was on their minds. These can be done in-person, virtually, or in a hybrid manner.
4. I committed to returning phone calls and emails from any employee in the organization within 2 business days, and nearly always did so. For smaller organizations, this might translate into having an open door policy most of the time and not rushing through drop-in visits or reacting defensively when unpleasant issues are surfaced. Hearing from staff what is on their minds keeps a leader grounded in what is actually on their minds, and getting back to the quickly ensures that employees actually consult with (rather than bypass) the titular head of the organization they work for.
5. I scheduled weekly 1x1 meetings with my direct reports (in person whenever possible), monthly “skip level” meetings with those reporting to my direct reports, and quarterly meetings with virtually everyone else.
6. During my latter years at Grameen Foundation, I published by professional development plan for all staff to see (and also to comment on while in draft form). I was sure to include goals for better managing and supporting internal stakeholders and projects.
A nonprofit organization’s growth, success, and acclaim are clearly desirable. But they can also be a trap for a leader who gets too intoxicated by them and resentful of the internal problems they can exacerbate or create. Becoming overly engaged in external work is no substitute for a holistic approach to self-care.
Avoiding this trap, and getting yourself out of it once you fall in – as I most certainly did during one stage of my career – is arduous but necessary work if one wants to continue leading a mission-driven organization. It can also be highly rewarding once accomplished.