Many nonprofit organizations owe their beginning to a founder with great vision. The founder goes on to assemble other people who share in his or her vision, and the world is better for their contribution. The board learns its roles and responsibilities as stewards and the founder eventually eases back to allow new leadership to take the organization to the next step.

In some cases, founders are certain the organization cannot survive without their direct control. “No one cares as much or can do it as well as me” may be their motto. The board of directors does not understand its role and sees the organization as the founder’s. Indeed, the founder may well determine who sits on the board.

Founders are not the only person who creates and builds the organization. My first boss in the nonprofit sector, while an executive director, was effectively the founder. He was hired immediately after World War II and built a modern, high-performing association over many decades. His name and legacy were synonymous with the organization. When he retired, the association was losing the person to whom it could rightly attribute its success.

Unlike my first boss who embraced retirement and ably passed the torch to the next generation of staff leadership, some founders can’t and won’t let go. The organization is seen as their “baby” and, just like the parent who wants to control every aspect of their children’s lives, the point comes when their obsession with control is unhealthy and harmful. Not many people want a parent acting the same way toward a child of 30 as they did toward a child of three.

Where founders falter

Although they don’t often recognize it themselves, founders falter because they can’t accept that (1) there are other ways to do things and (2) there are others who can do things, albeit differently. As the result, they may need help from the board of directors and from others they trust (especially a mentor).

Some years ago, a client of mine faced a challenging task in replacing the person who, as executive director, was also seen as the builder of the organization. At annual meetings, the executive director did most of the talking and while on occasion some directors grumbled, for the most part they deferred to the executive director. After many decades (and past the age of 70), the executive director was ready to retire. The board struck the search committee, the founder played a large role in directing the process, and eventually the organization hired an executive with many years of nonprofit experience. But the outgoing executive director never did let go. Months after retiring she showed up at major events and she was welcomed. She held meetings with her former staff over lunch and they attended. She was openly critical of her successor, encouraging staff to complain to the board about their new boss: after all, her methods were different. Soon the organization was leaderless. The new executive director was gone, the founder was resented, and the board was under fire from members. How could this have been handled better?

While it may be tempting to issue the rallying cry “lead, follow, or get out of the way” to a founder who won’t let go the reins of control, boards often want — especially when the founder is a volunteer — to leave well enough alone. The implications of replacing the founder often may include losing the energy and knowledge of the person who has kept the organization moving forward. Directors may, understandably, not want to force the issue because they fear the organization will falter and/or volunteers will have to give a lot more time to fill a leadership void.

Smoothing the path to new leadership

There are insights for organization leaders in approaching the challenge of transitioning from a founder to new leadership.

1. Boards and staff must acknowledge the need (and hold each other accountable) for regular, structured training on the role of directors. Boards need to understand they are responsible for the organization, not the founder. There are significant legal implications for directors who don’t fulfill their duties. Volunteers on boards should demand training as part of the quid pro quo for serving. Through this training, boards will learn (and therefore follow) better practices including the need for a strategic plan, the need to have the right resources to achieve goals, the need to manage risk, the need for policies (e.g. term limits for directors), etc.

2. Boards and staff also need to hold each other accountable for developing and monitoring a succession plan. Founders need to understand that one day they won’t be around and everyone will be better served if the transition to new leadership is a smooth and gradual one. This is easier said than realized. Therefore, it is appropriate in the beginning to have a leader on the board (the chair or a vice-president, perhaps) have a periodic discussion with the founder. This discussion is also part of a board’s responsibility: choosing its executive director and organizational continuity. The questions need not be threatening: How can we start preparing now for the day when you are no longer here? You have invested so much in this organization, what can we do now to ensure the legacy grows after we have all moved on?

3. If you are a founder, when it’s time to go, leave gracefully. If you see the organization as your own, if you are hard on the ideas others put forward, if you tend to micromanage others, then you need to be honest with yourself and talk to someone you trust about what you can do to ensure the organization survives. Recognize through your own research that as organizations evolve, professional management does not mean the organization will lack passionate management.

4. If you are on a board with a departing founder/executive director, do not allow for a long transition period between the outgoing and incoming staff leader. One month is sufficient. However, this is not the same as hiring an heir apparent or choosing an internal succession candidate to be groomed, over time, to be the new leader. This can be a very successful strategy as the founder can gradually ease back over a period of time, perhaps even several years, as the successor learns the role. The transition should be carefully monitored by the board for signs that the founder (if the executive director) is unwilling to let go.

5. Let the new executive director determine how best to use the departing founder, but also make it clear to the incoming executive director whether the organization has values it wants upheld, for example, a respect for the past. Boards sometimes make promises to departing founders/staff that they can stay on as a consultant to the new executive director. Resist doing this — let the new executive director know s/he will be supported if it will be helpful to retain the services of the outgoing founder, but don’t make it a job requirement.

Founders are to be celebrated because without them organizations would not be born and society would not benefit from their work. The tragedy is when organizations cannot survive the transition from founder to new leadership. A successful transition is an investment that requires commitment from founders, directors, and all associated with the record of past accomplishment and the desire to see the organization continue its excellent work well into the future.

Content is © Jack Shand and is reprinted with permission.

Jack Shand, CMC, CAE, is president of Leader Quest, a management consulting firm providing expert advice to not-for-profit organizations since 1997. Leader Quest specializes in executive search/staff recruitment, strategic planning, governance, and organizational reviews. Jack can be reached at 905-842-3845 and 1-877-929-4473, or jack-at-leaderquest-dot-com.

Photos (from top) via iStock.com. All photos used with permission.