Kailash Satyarthi is one very awesome (in the true sense of the word) gentleman. Ghandi-esq in word and deed, Mr. Satyarthi has been at the forefront of the movement to right the wrongs of child labor and trafficking.
I was reading an interview with Mr. Satyarthi in the Wall Street Journal and noted in the preface of the article that Mr. Satyarthi started his anti-child labor organization some 31 years ago after a career as an electrical engineer. It was the 31 years ago that caught my attention thinking this was a pretty long time to be a Board Chair or an Exec and that that was worthy of a blog. Hence, today's conversation.
Now I went to do some checking and cannot actually say that Mr. Satyarthi has been either the chair or exec of the organization he founded. In fact, I did learn that Mr. Satyarthi has gone on to found other efforts, related, and equally as global as his first organization. In reality, I could not determine how Mr. Sayarthi actually generates personal income despite the fact that he is a very real and positively powerful presence on the world stage around the issues of child labor and trafficking.
But let's put aside these facts for a moment to ponder: does a nonprofit always benefit from a founder's presence for 31 years? One answer is "Sure! As long as there is a need and the organization is on path, then the founder should stay in charge."
Maybe. And maybe the right answer is that it all depends on the person. Some individuals can be seated for a really long time and continue to have a positive impact and others can not. Maybe then a specific set of parameters defining a so-called best practice about how long someone should stay on the job, particularly a founder, is unnecessary.
What is necessary, minimally, is a board that knows when it's time for the exec or board chair to go and has the voice (it always has the authority) to take action. Does this then make term limits a silly idea (be it exec or board)?
Your thoughts are welcome.