Tim --- You wrote your thoughtful message to me on March 25, but the next day we departed Cleveland for over two weeks, so I could not reply at that time to your comments relative to a posting I had made regarding “Tom” asking about his founder’s role leading to a paid Executive Director position as he plans to “start an NFP.”There is no direct link to an off-line reply to you now that we are home and back in business. As I stated before we left, I wanted to later read your good message and give my views in return. So, the open nature of this message is necessary here on PND Talk. I trust the other PND Talk folks will understand.
Tom, of course, was not looking for unreasonable personal gain wanting to start the group and keep his vision for it intact by becoming the ED. Understandably, he wanted that ED job to enable him to keep the mission he envisioned on its course as he sees it. Tom said, “..... I know exactly what I want this organization to achieve (of course as all founders do) and would like to steer it there before the position changes hands.”
Whether Tom can, in fact, “steer it there,” in the first place is the first question, and even so, that course might do little good when later as “the position (his ED) changes hands,” the mission direction could be dramatically changed as well. In such a public charity setting, there are no guarantees and certainly there are no entitlements.
I simply wanted Tom to know the realities of what a “public charity” entails under those circumstances. His board might or might not want him to be the ED, and if he was so appointed, the board could dismiss him as the ED if they chose to do so. It’s not that this would happen for certain, but it could happen, as Tom would, as the ED, be “serving at the pleasure of the board.” He needed to know that.
I told Tom at the time:
“When you form a non-profit organization, you become a public charity. You do not own it, and I know that’s not what you expected to do. But, sure you can be named by your Board of Trustees as the Executive Director on one day, but at their discretion, and with cause as they see it, they can fire you the next day.”
Tim --- you agreed in principle, though you cited instances where a few people in some non-profits “exert ownership,” and that’s OK, if “exerting” is in fact a sustained action in keeping with the mission statement and how that statement of purpose is carried out. But, even then, there is a down side, if the organization does not open up and be “public.”
Maybe we have more of a semantics issue here, but we do know that many founders of non-profits “exert” sole ownership because they are unable or unwilling to let others be involved in the governance of the organization. Founders who bring new ideas to the “table” develop a mission statement for their new organizations as the embodiment of their own vision and ideas, usually based upon a personal experience or passion.
Quite often the organization's clients/users, donors, volunteers and staff play largely a passive role, responding largely to the founder's passion.
Some time ago, a founder of a dance company told me, via a rather simple, but graphic, analogy, that she could not let anyone else “drive the organization’s bus” because she was afraid they would take into a ditch. Continuing on with that metaphor, I reminded her that the “bus” was simply getting too big for her to maneuver it by herself, and the road on which she was riding was only known by her, thus no surprise that she was not able to have others go along for the same ride. Exerting such ownership in this case proved to be fatal for the organization. Lots of good, successful, and working examples out there with the founder becoming the ED, I suppose, but far too many which do not work.
To succeed in today's nonprofit "marketplace," a new organization must be able to attract board members, other volunteers, audience, donors, and staff. And it does that through a shared vision and imparting "ownership" of the organization to others. A shared vision that speaks to and appeals to a diverse constituency is critically important to success of any nonprofit organization.
Tim --- Finally. I said “It is the responsibility of leadership to see to it that the organization always operates within the confines of its mission.”
You correctly pointed out that you “take a little less rigid position.” You should have made that observation, because I did not make clear that I was concerned about mission drift when the mission should be fixed and rigid, i.e., there being no reason for change. Of course, when and if changes should come about because either the environment changes or the needs of one or more of the constituents change, then the mission statement is revised.
Thanks for the helpful dialogue.
Tony Poderis
