Two CEOs, One Nonprofit?
I had been warned about the high turnover of professional fundraising personnel since I embarked on this journey some 33 years ago. Except for new programs, fundraising gimmickry and technology, things really haven't changed much in the Nonprofit Sector since then, and may have even gotten worse!
I will let you read the article for yourself. However, after reading this if you don't believe that the way the hierarchy of nonprofits are structured is at least partially to blame, then consider yourself part of the problem.
For the most part, nonprofits CEOs/Executive Directors are chosen by the organizations' Board of Directors, who had been chosen in-part by the former CEO and current directors on the Board. Considering that most nonprofit CEOs are former programs and services people, and not those who have much experience in fundraising, the Development Director and his/her team can often feel under-represented and under-supported on a day-to-day basis, and at Board and Committee meetings. The biases of the CEO and the Board can make it very difficult for the fundraising team to get what they need from the CEO, Board and programs in order to attract new corporate, foundation and individual donors, as well as grow the giving of current supporters.
If the structure of nonprofit governance and leadership is changed, and we rid organizations of the one CEO/Executive Director model, making it Co-CEO roles-- one a Programs and Services CEO, and the other the Advancement CEO, then both Advancement and Programs will be more equally represented. The organizations' CFO would report to both CEOs, with agreement from both CEOs required on budgets and expenditures. New Board member recommendation and selection would be in-part a dual effort of both CEOs and the Board as well. In this way, the disagreements and negotiations between fundraising and programs would be handled on equal footing between only two people, and not one team vs. another with a single CEO who is biased in favor of one side. Boards can hold both CEOs accountable to "work things out" and come to an agreement on critical decisions, so the organization can move forward, avoiding stagnation and improving impact. With improved impact comes growing opportunities for fundraising. It's more of a "win - win" than it would be under the old model.
The new model for nonprofit leadership structure would also help to prevent fraud and abuse from nonprofits. How many of you have been asked to do something dishonest by your nonprofit CEO? How many of you have been abused by your Executive Director? There have been several well publicized cases of fraud and abuse over the last few years. An abusive, criminal leader relies on his/her stand-alone authority and power to protect them from any challenge from direct reports. I have lost jobs standing up to fraud and abuse from former bosses.
Now, suppose there are two CEOs/Executive Directors leading an organization, both having equal power and authority, and directly reporting to the Board of Directors. One of the CEOs notices irregular and potentially dangerous activity of the other CEO. Without fear of reprimand or termination, the CEO meets with his/her counterpart to discuss the other's activity and if necessary give correction and warning, thereby potentially thwarting any further dangerous activity.
What's that you ask? "K.D., our salaries already make up a large portion of our budget. How can we afford to pay two CEOs?"
My answer is that YOU CAN... and you will actually have less to report in payroll costs in doing this. Why? Because you have eliminated the positions of Program Director and Development Director. Those responsibilities now fall into the laps of the CEOs -- AND because each CEO has more limited responsibilities (One of them focused on programs, the other on advancement), their salaries can be adjusted accordingly.
We are all familiar with the quotation most often credited to Albert Einstein, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Am I insane, or does something need to change with the way nonprofits are led?