Survey Says, Few Potential Nonprofit Leaders Want the Top Job
Last week the Chronicle of Philanthropy ran a story that highlighted the results of a survey implemented with 6,000 potential nonprofit leaders. The headline? When asked if they wanted to fill the top position at the organization they currently work for as a career goal, only one third responded yes. In addition, the key findings included the following:
- Potential leaders find the traditional duties of an executive director unappealing
- Nonprofit salaries and concerns about lifelong earning potential are major barriers to executive leadership
- Thirty-two percent of respondents reported that it would be at least six years before they felt ready to take on the executive role citing the need to develop specific skills, but only 4 percent reported receiving the training necessary to become their organization's next leader
When survey results such as those above are combined with the data revealed by a previous survey, which found that in the next five years 75% of executive directors are planning to leave their jobs, a very frightening picture emerges. With this many leadership positions opening in the next few years and few potential leaders interested in the job, who will take the reigns? What could this potential leadership gap mean for the communities served by those organizations?
I certainly don't have all the answers, and I'd love to hear what others think about this issue, specifically: What can the current executive leadership do to help encourage potential nonprofit leaders to take on these roles? What must change to make these jobs more desirable?
Thank you Karsten and Steve
Thank you Karsten and Steve for raising such insightful and compelling arguments. I completely agree on the one hand that there is still a great deal of interest on the part of young professionals in beginning a career in the nonprofit sector, and that in some parts of the sector there is a great deal of energy and innovation, making those jobs more desirable. However, as someone who has worked in both small and large nonprofits, I have also seen first hand the pressure placed on Executive Directors charged with everything from engaging board members and managing staff, to purchasing snacks and toilet paper for the youth they serve, and all for very meager compensation.
I think the suggestion of merging nonprofit organizations in an effort better train staff, reduce competition for funding, and "share the burden" on Executive Directors is an interesting approach, but I think would need to be tempered with an eye on the advantages of smaller organizations. My main concerns with this strategy are whether larger, more regional organizations would be able to retain as authentic a connection with the communities served and be as nimble and able to respond to new needs as they develop. (for example, the ability to take risks such as adopting new program models or reaching out to new populations). Also, mergers are just plain difficult on a lot of levels, and unless all parties believe it is in their best interest to do so, such arrangements can unravel. I agree, however, that the intense competition for resources (which also plays into having the funds necessary to support staff training and provide reasonable compensation) , needs to be addressed some how. Perhaps another approach would be provide more incentives for organizations to apply for funding together, collaborate on initaitves AND work together to address this issue of training the next generation of nonprofit leadership.
I do not find this issue at
I do not find this issue at all surprising. In my mind, the Executive Director (ED) position is often a very unattractive job, with an inordinate amount of stress; so why would many people aspire to it? I believe the primary source of the problem is the structure of the non-profit sector itself.
The sector has so many small agencies. This data is a bit old but my guess is that it is still fairly accurate. Almost 75% of all 501C (3) organizations have budgets under $500,000 and almost 95% have budgets under $5 Million. In addition, the number of non-profits has been growing at over 5% every year because of the formation of new agencies.
With this structure, it is not surprising that Executive Directors have an extremely stressful, unattractive job for at least two reasons:
1. Funding is a major challenge because there are so many non-profits looking for contributions. First, there are the many existing non-profits. Then there are the ever increasing number of small, new non-profits. And on top of that, many existing non-profits continually increase the number of programs they offer. Since all are looking for funding, the already competitive field is becoming increasingly more so. Furthermore, with annual cost increases, EDs need to raise more cash each year than the year before. Added up, this means that most EDs must spend yet even more time on fund raising. All too frequently, their agency is living hand to mouth as there is no endowment and little reserves. The pressure is substantial. The fears of not being able to meet payroll or having to lay-off staff are among the most stressful issues any leader can face and many EDs have this stress on an all too frequent basis.
In an effort to obtain funding, EDs often have to create new programs to satisfy particular donor requirements. The result is a further increase in their management burden and, over time, an increase in the ongoing funding needs for these new programs as the initial funders lose interest. It becomes a vicious cycle.
2. Because of the small size of the vast majority of agencies, Executive Directors have to do almost everything, they have little senior management to help carry the load. And because of financial constraints, staff levels are low relative to the amount of work that needs to be done. Thus, staff members typically can not help out much either. So much rests on the ED’s shoulders.
And, if all of that were not enough, non-profits have more stakeholders to satisfy than for-profit companies, which places further demands on the ED’s time and creates yet more stress in trying to address competing and conflicting demands.
There is another challenge to creating the next generation of EDs, in addition to the questionable attractiveness of the ED position. In contrast to the people who join for profit companies primarily because they want to “move up the ladder” for ever greater title, responsibility and money, many people who choose to work in the non-profit sector, come because they want to do the work; they want to make a difference. Title, responsibility and money are not primary goals; they are not necessarily interested in becoming an ED. Furthermore, the small size of most non-profit agencies means that most of the staff is engaged in doing the work, they are not managers. Therefore, training is principally devoted to the kind of work being performed as opposed to training in business, management and leadership. There is no time, no money and, in many cases, no interest in being trained in the skills needed to become an ED.
One solution to this problem would be to change the structure of the sector by having agencies merge so there are fewer, but larger agencies. It would allow for:
- a development department which can create and implement programs for better, more consistent fund raising
- a senior management team to spread the burden
- better training and advancement opportunities for staff members in the business aspects of the agency
There are probably other solutions but, at a minimum, I believe they all must take into consideration the structure of the sector to be effective.
Great subject, Elena.
Great subject, Elena. Executive transition has become a cottage industry in nonprofit consulting circles. One group in particular, Bridgestar(www.bridgestar.org), a nonprofit spinoff of the strategic consulting firm Bain & Company (www.bain.com) , has been devoting itself to looking at bulding bridges between the nonprofit and for-profit worlds to bring new talent into the field. While most of the discussion in this thread has been about encouraging younger people to enter the field and move up in it, Bridgestar puts emphasis on bringing in experienced leaders from the for-profit sector. Refreshingly, they do this without falling into the if-only-nonprofits-emulated-business-everything-would-be-swell fallacy. They host a web site(https://www.bridgestar.org/Resources/Toolkits/Recruiting/Default.aspx) devoted to recruiting nonprofit leaders.
Contrast this survey's
Contrast this survey's finding to the high degree of interest in social entrepreneurship among college and graduate students, the popularity of Teach for America and the increasing influence of its alumni in public education, the attention given to the idea of 'Encore Careers' in the nonprofit and public sector, the growing field of corporate volunteerism, and... I could go on.
From the perspective of this 'emerging practitioner,' this is a GREAT time to be in the nonprofit sector, with increasing interest in effectiveness; an acknowledgment of the importance of bridging private sector resources, talent, and experience into the sector; and the blossoming of all kinds of new social enterprises, nonprofit consultancies, philanthropic support organizations, industry associations, etc.
Am I overly optimistic in thinking that the social sector is figuring out that it has to pay more competitively? Am I too cynical in thinking that the survey results might reflect an outdated way of thinking about 'training'--that the people in today's organizations who push themselves and learn on the job are the ones developing the leadership skills? Or am I too deeply involved in a part of the sector that is currently booming (national growth funding for a small number of social entrepreneur-led organizations) and working to advance many of these developments, to see the forest for the trees--and that the rest of the nonprofit sector really will face huge shortages of qualified staff and leadership?
One more thing: Mass
One more thing: Mass nonprofit just wrote about this study. Here's the link: http://www.massnonprofit.org/news.php?artid=963&catid=13
The first finding,
The first finding, "Potential leaders find the traditional duties of an executive director unappealing," is interesting. The article seemed torn between whether this aversion is unique to this age-of-the-internet unacustomed-to-hierarchy generation or whether this is just a tension that every leadership transition experiences-- a desire to change/innovate the standard approach. I'm not sure myself. I do wonder where the talent is going and what effect this will have over the coming decade.
Post new comment