Working Without a Net

The job of executive director, particularly of the “typical” nonprofit — budget under $500,000, which is nearly  ¾ of all nonprofits;  to 6 employees;  a board of between 12 and 19 – is a constant balancing act with no safety net.  It is amazing that anyone wants this job at all!

While there are many elements to this balancing act, three seem central to job retention and, therefore, worth pointing out.  Any one of them handled improperly or poorly could mean the death knoll for an on-going pay check.

1)       the simple observation that an executive director has as many bosses as s/he has board members.  Not literally in the sense that each board member can direct an executive director as to what to do, or fire an executive director, or determine compensation.  All of those are things that can only be done by the collective board.  But bosses in that each does have a voice and role to play in directing the executive director, hiring and firing him/her, determining compensation, etc.  Thus, each board member is a portion of the “boss.”  The balancing act here is that an executive director’s boss, unlike most other people’s bosses, isn’t there seeing and hearing and interacting with her/him on a daily basis.  The challenge here is that 90% of what an executive director does is immediately apparent to her/his boss.

She and her boss don’t bump into one another in the kitchen or ladies’ room on a regular basis.  He and his boss don’t regularly ride the elevator together or just pop into one another’s offices to share a “you won’t  believe this” story.  No, an executive director has to intentionally seek out her/his boss and plan to have those moments that allow a boss and a direct report to get to know one another, to gain a better understanding of what makes the other tick, of learning to become comfortable with one another, etc.

Those intentional moments are called meetings and a good executive director will be having those moments with each and every board member at least twice a year.  Talk about a balancing act!  How do you balance these incredibly important meetings that are an investment in your future with the immediacy of a client crisis or an impending proposal due date or a threatening financial shortfall?  The imprudent executive director allows the urgency of the moment to win out, time after time after time, over the investment in the long haul.  An expert balancer knows better and, thus, knows how to do both:  attend to the imminent while nurturing the future.

2)       The second component of this tightrope act, and related to the first already discussed, is the relationship between the executive director and the board—a partnership of slight unequals.  In a strong, healthy nonprofit, the relationship between the executive director and her collective boss is a partnership, with each half working in tandem with the other to lead the organization and fulfill mission promises.   The very nature of a partnership, though, is a balancing act, as two entities share leadership responsibilities, knowing when to take the lead, when to cede the lead and follow and when it is best to move forward synchronously.  This partnership most obviously gets played out in the relationship of executive director and board president, where the dynamic is established as to who is in front, who behind and when.  This balancing is made all the more challenging because in a healthy nonprofit, an executive director should go through at least several board presidents during a 10 to 12-year career.  No sooner are things established with one then recalibration starts all over again with a new president.  Each new partnership is an opportunity to get it right—or get it wrong.  Failure to get it right, however, has dire consequences, such as a board that does not know how to do its job during an executive transition and allows an organization to be totally rudderless during this period or an executive director focused on control of “my” organization and who, without the checks and balances of the board, leads the organization into trouble.  Think embezzlement, low staff morale and high rates of staff turnover, less than best practices at serving clients, and more.

3)       The third balancing act is the tension between working in the organization versus working on the organization.  Surprisingly, this is the element of balancing that I hear about most frequently, though it is never presented as the push and pull of in versus on.  Instead, what I hear is the executive director lament about her/his inability to “get to” certain tasks.  (Ironically, one of those tasks is often meeting with individual board members!)

No surprise, most often, these tasks are those things most disliked by the executive director.  (not that I’m suggesting that executive directors are the only ones who put off what they least like).   It may be anything and everything related to development;  it may be conducting performance reviews;  it may be pushing the board to agree to strategic planning.  But generally, the thing being avoided is bigger picture stuff—the on stuff, pushed aside to do the “fun” stuff, or in stuff, of things needed in order to execute mission promises.  Doing all of one at the expense of the other is not good for the organization or the individual.  It is the on average equilibrium that ensures sustainability and well-being of both organization and individual.

Working always in the organization means that no one is looking at the big picture, the strategy, the projecting for the future; no one is keeping her/his eye on the prize and that is how organizations get tripped up.  Working always on the organization, without the grounding that comes from working in the organization, is equally hazardous.  It risks trying to move an organization in a direction that is beyond its own capacity, or down a road that distracts from its mission, or takes it out of its capability and comfort zone,  or towards a course not grounded in reality.

The individual doing all of one or the other is equally at risk as s/he ends up feeling guilty and anxious all of the time for the work not gotten to or must deal with the aftermath of work not touched, or burnout from wanting to convince her/himself that they’re  doing it all while guilt plays heavily knowing there is much that has been buried, pushed aside, ignored completely.