I’ve been pondering this column for well over two years now, wondering how to write it with compassion but also firmly, and wondering if I’m seeing the situation clearly enough to justify the conversation. My question: Has the recession created an unhealthy longevity in the tenure of upper-level leaders in some organizations?
More specifically, are nonprofit leaders and the heads of family organizations taking too long to move on? And if so, are they blocking the advancement of promising staff members?
Since the recession began, I’ve been meeting with a surprising number of professionals who would like to stay in their current organizations, but who cannot move up. They are second- or third-in-command in nonprofits and family operations whose leaders are not stepping aside, sometimes years past a traditional retirement age.
Already I can imagine the emails heading my way: How dare I suggest that executives be put out on an ice floe at a certain age, as if they had nothing more to contribute?
But that’s exactly my point. These leaders likely have tons more to contribute, but some seem to be clinging to stable positions that they know well rather than launching themselves into new challenges.
I’m discovering through my clients’ eyes that there is a difference between knowing a job well and doing it well. And when those distinctions blur, bad things happen.
This is especially true in a nonprofit organization. Having served on nonprofit boards, I am aware that there is a delicate balance between an organization’s board, the director the board is charged with overseeing, and the leadership team the director must oversee. All of these parts must function well to fulfill the nonprofit’s mission while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
So what happens when the director loses his or her edge or starts settling into the role as an entitlement? If the board has been chosen by the director or is otherwise “weak,” the people acting as the director’s supervisor may be unable or unwilling to see the situation clearly. And if the organization’s next level of leadership is competent but loyal, they may absorb more of the director’s tasks without anyone acknowledging that.
Again, it’s not as if the director is incapable of leading; just that he or she has seemingly decided not to. In some cases, I’m hearing stories of directors who have not only stopped innovating but who seem to be blocking anyone else from doing so. I understand that I’m getting a biased report from the aggrieved underlings, but their stories still point to some level of malfeasance — however unintentional.
I think that the recession created a double-whammy for ready-to-resign directors. First, like everyone else, they experienced losses to their portfolios, making it more difficult to envision retirement. And second, for those who would have sought other positions, the difficult market made job change seem like an unlikely proposition.
Taking a more altruistic spin, some directors undoubtedly felt that leaving their organizations during uncertain economic times would cause more difficulties than it would resolve.
Assuming I’m reading the situation accurately, it’s worth pondering the high cost of over-long tenures in key leadership roles:
- Exceptional talent leaving nonprofits prematurely, decimating any hope of logical secession planning.
- Adult children left on standby for decades while being expected to eventually lead their family-owned companies.
- Missed opportunities for growth under leadership that is not driven to improve processes or find new sources of funding.
- Unfulfilled potential for directors who find themselves increasingly cut off from their own professional goals and the goals they once held for their organizations.
Now that the job market is loosening up, it’s an easy bet that more of the second-level leadership will seek better opportunities, leaving inattentive directors and boards on a shaky foundation.
About the Author
