Five Arguments for Longevity in Nonprofit Leadership

WilbergProfile

Two extremes in local nonprofit leadership: recently hired LISC Executive Director Laura Bray resigned after only four months on the job and Lupe Martinez marks 40 years as Executive Director of UMOS.

Ms. Bray’s experience is unusual in Milwaukee. Generally, leaders of nonprofit organizations tend to have significantly longer tenure and some, like UMOS, have directors, who, if they aren’t founders, certainly seem like they are.

So one wonders: is longevity in nonprofit leadership a good thing or a bad thing? Here are five arguments in favor of executive directors staying with it over the long haul.

Number 1: Successful nonprofits flourish in a web of relationships with constituents, funders, elected officials, media, government bureaucrats and other organizations. Those relationships aren’t between organizations. They are between people. A long term executive director has hundreds of these relationships – major and minor – critical and casual – that are impossible to replicate.

Number 2: An executive transition takes a huge bite out of an organization’s productivity. First, there is the executive search. This is something that consumes enormous staff and board time and energy. Then there is the learning curve. Even the sharpest new exec will need months to be working at full capacity. This could extend to a couple of years depending on the quality of staff already on board.

Number 3: The old adage that funders fund people, not organizations is absolutely true.  Fundamentally, a funding source (public or private) needs to trust that their funding will be used wisely and effectively. At the end of the day, funders need to look good, need to be able to demonstrate impact. They do that on an objective level with grant proposals and evaluation results and on a gut level using their belief in and trust of the executive leadership. Lose the executive leadership and there will be a lot of rebuilding to do with funders.

Number 4: Organizations headed by stable executive leadership tend to take on the ‘personality’ of the executive. So ways of approaching problems, discussing solutions, representing the organization to the public are patterned after the exec’s modus operandi. An organization’s internal management style can be completely thrown in the air with a change in executive leadership. Yes, sometimes this needs to be done. But often, it’s a completely¬†unintended consequence of a leadership change.

Number 5: It only takes a few executive leadership changes for people to regard and organization as ‘unstable’ or ‘shaky.’ Especially in Milwaukee, where leadership tends to stay in place, executive tenures of two or three years get people talking about an organization’s ‘revolving door.’ Maybe it seems unreasonable but it’s true. And the perception of instability is not helpful for community standing, funding or board development.

These are just some of the things to consider in the discussion of executive leadership longevity. Next week, I’ll present some alternative arguments: why (and when) changing executive leadership is a smart thing.

 


Print pagePDF pageEmail page