Over the years, I've watched some non-profit Executive Directors succumb to a troubling transformation. These staff leaders, brought on by their boards to handle daily operations, gradually begin seizing powers beyond their role. They sidestep board oversight, rule like founders or owners, and let their actual responsibilities - running the organization's day-to-day affairs - fall by the wayside.
Then it gets worse. They start twisting the organization's mission to match their personal agenda. They start becoming the face of the organization.
Maybe they're worried about job security. So they launch new programs that make them look essential, even if these programs don't serve the organization's mission. Or they kill successful initiatives because they didn't come up with them.
Sometimes it's about control. The board wants to focus on youth education, but the director prefers adult services. Instead of having an honest conversation, they quietly redirect resources. They change program goals. They hire staff who share their vision, not the organization's.
This mission drift isn't subtle. A homeless shelter suddenly spends more time on conferences than housing. A literacy program morphs into a job training center. The original mission gets buried under the director's personal crusade.
Meanwhile, two bigger problems grow.
First, they're neglecting their main job. Reports don't get filed. Staff don't get supervised. Projects fall behind. The basic work that keeps a non-profit running just doesn't get done. It's like a restaurant chef who spends all day planning the next location while today's food burns in the kitchen.
Second, they're stepping into territory that isn't theirs. The board exists for a reason. They handle strategic decisions. They oversee the big picture. When an executive director tries to take over these roles, they're not just overstepping - they're undermining the organization's structure.
The staff sees this. They notice when their boss is more interested in playing politics than supporting their work. They see tasks piling up while the director sits in meetings they weren't invited to or holds press conferences. Morale drops.
The board sees it too. They hired an executive director to manage operations, not to do their job. When the director tries to take control, it creates tension. Trust breaks down.
This isn't about ambition. It's about responsibility. An executive director has a crucial role: making sure the organization runs smoothly day to day. When they try to grab more power instead of doing that job well, everyone suffers.
Want to lead? Great. Apply for leadership positions. Get board experience. Move to another organization. But don't sabotage your current role by trying to be something you're not.
The best executive directors focus on excelling at their actual job. They support their staff. They implement the board's vision. They make the organization work better - not try to take it over.
And if you fundamentally disagree with the organization's direction? Be honest about it. Have that conversation with the board. Either find a way to work together or move on. Don't hijack the mission. The community you serve deserves better than that.
Great article! Although I agree that there are many instances of EDs that run organizations that can become self-serving most do not, and thankfully most remain accountable to their board and/or the original mission of the organization. Ultimately, financial supporters of this type of non-profit will see the drifting away from the original purpose and vote by moving their dondation dollars elsewhere.
Generally, I agee but some boards are not responsible. I recently encountered a board that didn't think they needed officers an directors and liability insurance, obviously against recommendations.
Excellent & well-put … & one of the primary reasons we withdrew from Rotary ☹️