September 26, 2002 | Read Time: 8 minutes
IN THE TRENCHES
By Marilyn Dickey
A lot of people would have been too daunted to try to fill the shoes of Elizabeth Fox as executive director of Iona Senior Services. When Ms. Fox decided to step down four years ago, many people considered her an icon. In her 16 years with Iona, she had led the Washington organization through a successful capital campaign and overseen the building of a new facility to house Iona’s offices and programs. During her tenure, the organization had become a model for other groups across the country that provide services to the elderly.
But Louise Myers, a top-level administrator at George Washington University, decided to take the challenge, and Ms. Fox worked to make her successor feel welcome. She selected background material for Ms. Myers to read, introduced her to clients, gave her information on donors, and made herself available to answer questions. She encouraged Ms. Myers not to feel bound to run the organization as she had done. Then Ms. Fox bowed out, allowing the new leader to put her own imprint on the organization.
Although she is no longer in a leadership role, Ms. Fox remains involved with her organization. “I am on something called the board of associates, which is for fund raising and credibility, so I provide continuity and a stamp of approval from the past to the present,” she says. However, she adds, “No one ever suggested that I would be on the board, and I wouldn’t have wanted to.”
Ms. Myers, who has sometimes asked her predecessor for advice since her departure, says Ms. Fox has been helpful but not hovering: “She was careful to exit and give me space, but stay a friend and stay in touch.”
That’s how it is supposed to happen when a new executive director is hired: The new and old leaders shake hands, then the incoming chief executive slips seamlessly into the position as his or her predecessor releases the reins. But all too often, the transition is a bumpy road that can disrupt staff members, trustees, donors, volunteers, and clients. If the new executive director fills the shoes of a highly popular leader, people affiliated with the organization may have trouble breaking those ties and transferring their loyalty to the incoming person. The departing leader may hang on too long or may stay on in another capacity, such as becoming a board member, cramping the new leader’s ability to run the organization as he or she sees fit. Things aren’t much better if the new boss takes over for someone who was unpopular or presided during troubled times.
Hanging On
When Iona’s leadership changed, the two executive directors overlapped for about a month. For Ms. Myers, “an ideal situation is an overlap, where the outgoing director really has some time to share with you to give you information about donors and traditions and programs and questions about budget debates and all that — the kind of stuff that is very hard to pick up from just opening a desk and reading what’s left in a file.”
But other executive directors and consultants disagree on how much overlap there should be between old and new leaders — or if there should be any overlap at all.
Carol Weisman, president of Board Builders, a fund-raising and governance consultant for nonprofit clients, in St. Louis, thinks the departing leader should just clear out. “The reason is that you wind up using all of this cloaked language: ‘The Clover Ball was really good’ — but it’s time to dump this puppy,” says Ms. Weisman, who is currently helping to write a book about executive-director transitions. “The idea of dumping the Clover Ball or somebody’s other signature event is like stomping on their children.”
As for helping the new executive director meet the organization’s donors, says Ms. Weisman, the outgoing leader’s presence may not always be needed. “Frankly, if there are decent records, you can go and meet donors and clients on your own,” she says. “Sometimes it helps to have the imprimatur of the former executive if it’s a much beloved person, but sometimes just a written introduction is fine.”
When Richard I. Goldbaum, who works as an interim executive director for organizations in transition and is Ms. Weisman’s co-author, left as the leader of an organization he had been with for 12 years, he thought his successor would need several months to learn the ropes and settle in, so he decided to stay on to help. “Within two weeks,” says Mr. Goldman, “I realized that was a major faux pas, and by the end of the first week, I said, ‘I’m a lame duck. I’ve got to get out of here.’”
Part of the decision about when to leave depends on the skill level of the incoming executive director, says Tim Wolfred, director of executive leadership services at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services, a consulting organization in San Francisco. “Is this someone who has been an executive director previously, knows the field, has formed themselves in that role, or is it somebody new to the job?” he asks. “That departing mentoring can be important to someone who’s coming to it green.”
Saying Goodbye
Giving the outgoing executive director a proper farewell can help the incoming leader, says Mr. Wolfred. In the case of the person leaving on good terms, which is normally the case, he says, “it’s important to have a going-away ritual, in which board and staff and community folks get to say, ‘Thank you, ‘ and ‘We appreciate what you’ve done.’” Rituals help the staff accept the end of that chapter in the life of the institution.
Being open with staff members about the fact that things will be different under the new leader and giving them a voice in the organization’s future can help, too, he adds: “Set them up to better embrace the next person. Tell them there are going to be differences. Let’s talk about how we want it to be different.”
New leaders, however, also need to be sensitive to a staff’s feelings for a popular predecessor, says Cassandra M. Flipper, executive director of Bread & Roses, in Corte Madera, Calif. Ms. Flipper took over her position two years ago after the group’s well-loved founder, Mimi Fariña, left abruptly because of illness and later died. The staff of the organization, which brings live entertainment to people who are isolated in institutions, was in shock over her sudden departure, says Ms. Flipper. So the organization brought in a grief counselor after Ms. Fariña left and during her illness, and held a retreat so people could work through their feelings of loss.
Ms. Flipper says she thinks it’s important to go through a grieving process even if the person is simply leaving for another job or retiring. “Losses have to be grieved,” she says, “including the loss of a beloved founder. You have to go through that before you can embrace the new order and help participate in shaping it.”
An Early Start
Ideally, the transition to a new executive director should begin as soon as the current leader decides to step down, says Tom Adams, a consultant in Silver Spring, Md., who specializes in nonprofit-leadership transitions. Before the departure is announced to the public, the outgoing leader should quietly start thinking about what he or she can do to strengthen the organization for the road ahead.
“It’s an education period,” Mr. Adams says. “In a senior management group, for instance, whether the people are going to be internal candidates or not, the executive director should make a conscious attempt to make sure information is shared about key funders, key government agencies, key constituents.” The outgoing leader should also share information about strategic-planning decisions and upcoming projects, Mr. Adams says.
Once the decision is announced, the board should take the lead in the transition, says Mr. Wolfred — not handling the day-to-day business, but seeing that the change is a smooth one. Ideally, he says, after a departure is announced, trustees’ power should increase as the lame-duck executive’s power decreases, until a new leader is on the job.
When a new executive is named, the board should form a short-term orientation committee of two or three board members to help connect the new person with key players, Mr. Wolfred says. That committee should outline the performance goals and a professional development plan, he says, discussing what the board sees as the person’s strengths and helping him or her get help where there are weaknesses.
Careful planning at the outset can prevent clashes later, says Nancy Axelrod, a management consultant for nonprofit clients in Washington, and author of Chief Executive Succession Planning: The Board’s Role in Securing Your Organization’s Future (BoardSource, 2002, $39 for BoardSource members, $52 for nonmembers). “These early months are an important time for board members and the new executive director to share their perceptions about how things are going, to celebrate what’s working well, and begin to work on problems before they fester,” says Ms. Axelrod. “What better time than the beginning of a new executive’s administration to begin to define mutual expectations?”
Be aware, she advises, that individuals outside the charity may be as interested in the new leader as are trustees and staff members. Establishing a regular communication system with those people can help the new executive director make a positive impression with them, Ms. Axelrod says. “A leadership transition is a time of great hope and great uncertainty on the part of staff members, direct-service volunteers, donors, and other stakeholders,” she says. “It’s important to keep the community apprised of what’s happening during those initial months.”
Got advice for making smooth transitions between leaders at a charity? Tell us about it in Job Market online forum.
