The trends forecast many moons ago around a nonprofit leadership that was ready to retire comes to fruition (noting that the economy and other factors seriously delayed this reality) the topic of succession planning has become a more regular topic.
In a recent Wall Street Journal article the topic of succession planning is introduced specifically for family foundations. I offer that much of what is written hear is pertinent to the many factual and symbolic founders of nonprofits. Here's some of my takeaways noting that I have substitued senior staff and/or board members in some places as I believe succession planning is a topic pertinent to a nonprofit's paid and volunteer leadership.
There are lots of reasons why a family doesn't properly plan. Among them: The founder doesn't want to contemplate surrendering control, there is worry about creating conflict, or there isn't another (senior staffer or volunteer leader) interested in assuming the responsibility.
Whatever the cause, the result can be a mess. A family can find itself under pressure to make hasty pick among candidates who haven't had a chance to become familiar with the organization's workings and mission.
Successful nonprofits anticipate this kind of problem and lay out a succession plan that enables them to vet and train potential successors. Training is a central activity to preparing prospective successors.
Prospective successors need to make an explicit, genuine commitment to the nonprofit's mission, and that is easier to establish if the goals have been clearly set down in writing and maybe even on video. If the mission is somewhat flexible and allows a new leadership to set some new priorities, it can help ensure a successor's enthusiasm.
Creating clear job descriptions for a director and for board members will help to minimize the conflict that can arise when there are multiple parties competing for a position. It can help make a fair playing field.
If no suitable internal successors are identified , some decisions need to be made: Is it time to bring in a professional from the outside? Or should the board consider alternatives like a merger with a like or similar nonprofit or even going out of business?
If there are potential internal or external candidates, but the founder still hates the idea of relinquishing control, one solution is to craft a senior-adviser role in the succession plan. (We have seen this with Geoffrey Canada taking on the role of CEO and leaving the number two as President.) That way the founder can stay involved, and new talent has a path for gaining experience and taking charge. BUT, the leadership needs to give the next generation a chance to lead," he says.