In my prior blog, I listed some of the main options facing a struggling charity. Let’s turn now to who might lead the consideration of such major changes, and what the decision-making process might involve.

Leadership Options

All the analysis below assumes the internal individuals involved are skilled, competent and dedicated to the mission. And I am very much generalizing. Your situation will be unique so please adapt these ideas and comments to what’s relevant to your charity.

Is it the Executive Director/CEO?

Pros

• Best overview knowledge of the organization and its ecosystem (partners, funders, referral sources, board and staff strengths)
• Existing decision authority
• Liaison to the Board
• Trusted
• Known and respected in the community being served

Cons

• May be overly concerned with personal status and financial security
• May be very defensive about how the situation got so bad
• May not be open to new approaches
• May be burnt-out, exhausted, overworked, focussed on fundraising

Recommendation:

Likely the best person to at least convene a task force. If the Cons apply, may not be the right person to continue leading the task force.

Board Chair/Board Members

Pros

• Existing leadership role
• Must make the decision of what to take to membership for approval
• Not concerned with financial security
• Some directors may have time to dedicate to this urgent situation

Cons

• May not know the programs, services, clients or ecosystem well enough
• May be overly concerned with personal status
• May be very defensive about how the situation got so bad
• May not be open to new approaches
• May be focussed on urgent fundraising appeals
• May be too concerned with legal and finance, and not enough with compassion and empathy

Recommendation:

Depends on skills, experience and personalities. More likely if there are only a few staff members and no senior management team.

Senior Corporate Staff

Pros

• Good knowledge, collectively at least, of legal, financial, HR and other such issues relevant to restructuring
• Likely more time and energy than the Exec. Director

Cons

• May not know the programs, services, clients or ecosystem well enough
• May be overly concerned with financial security (likeliest to lose their jobs in a merger or acquisition)
• May be too concerned with logistics and not enough with compassion and empathy

Recommendation:

Unlikely as leader unless they also have experience in client services/program delivery. Need to be included.

Senior Program Staff

Pros

• Best knowledge of the programs, services, clients or ecosystem as a whole
• Best able to research alternatives for clients and program staff
• Good chance of retaining their jobs after restructuring
• Likely more time and energy than the Exec. Director

Cons

• May not know the legal, financial, HR and other such issues relevant to restructuring well enough
• May be preoccupied with ensuring that clients and staff have transition options

Recommendation:

Strong potential for Task Force leadership.

Staff/Union Leadership

Pros

• Best understanding of client needs and concerns
• Often have the most compassion and empathy
• Good chance they will have jobs after transition

Cons

• May not have full understanding of the overall situation
• Likely worried about money since probably living pay cheque to pay cheque
• May put staff retention ahead of client needs

Recommendation:

Need a strong voice.

Professional Interim Executive

Pros

• Able to fill in quickly if Exec Director role is vacant or ED needs a break, without giving up another job as applicants for the permanent role might
• No personal stake in the outcome or emotional attachment
• Usually experienced in leading multiple NFP organizations
• Many have formal training in NFP Interim Leadership
• Accustomed to learning quickly about an organization and accomplishing goals within short time frames
• Serve on contract so no issues with long-term commitments, severance, pensions, etc. (note: professional interims do NOT seek the permanent role)

Cons

• Can be hard to find; most executive search firms have not built databases of trained, experienced interims
• Internal resistance to giving leadership role to outsider

Recommendation:

Excellent solution if current Exec. Director is not right for the role.

Consultant

Pros

• May have experience with multiple NFP restructurings
• No personal stake in the outcome or emotional attachment
• No long term commitment

Cons

• Normally only give recommendations, not leadership or decision authority
• Internal and external resistance to consultant as leader

Recommendation:

Very useful in supporting roles such as facilitator and convenor.

Overall Recommendation

I think you’ll have guessed by now that I think a team is needed to bring different skills and knowledge to this critical, time-sensitive work. And that who leads the team is less important than coming up with a good recommendation. Why not pull a team together and let them choose who chairs? Or perhaps a rotating chair?

As much as possible, the members of the team need to be able to put aside their personal status and financial concerns and focus on what’s best for the community and beneficiaries. Egotists not welcome.

It’s much easier to form such a team in an organization with a history of treating staff and volunteers with dignity and respect.

Who Decides?

In Canada at least, major changes like a merger, being acquired or a wind-up requires member approval. If the only members are the board members, that’s easy. With many active members, don’t surprise them! Letting them know that such a change is being considered well before the special general meeting might also result in new funding or other solutions.

Ending or transferring a program would not normally go to the membership. Whether it goes to the Board or is left to the Executive Director might depend on whether the change is consistent with the board-approved strategic plan or not, and how big the impact will be. A wise Executive Director will consult the board on any major change even if a formal approval is unnecessary.