When a nonprofit board loses an executive director, there’s a common instinct: pull up the old job description, update a few lines, and start circulating it.
It makes sense. The job description already exists, and the board is anxious to get the search moving. But this approach skips one of the most important steps. Before you write a single word about what you want in a leader, you need to figure out what your organization actually needs right now.
A recent blog post by Dr. Eugene Fram got me thinking about this. He was writing about strategic planning and referenced Richard Rumelt’s work on the difference between ambition-based strategies and problem-solving strategies. But buried in his piece was an observation that stuck with me: some executive directors are wired for stability, and some are wired for growth. Neither one is wrong. But hiring the wrong one for where your organization is today can create frustration on both sides, and you may find yourself back in the search process sooner than you expected.
Two Leadership Styles: Stability and Growth
Most executive directors have a bit of both in them. The question is, which one is their default? When resources get tight, when the board pushes back, when things get uncomfortable, which way do they lean? Toward protecting what exists, or toward building something new?
The stability-focused executive thrives when the organization has strong foundations that need to be maintained and deepened. They are good at systems, financial discipline, and steady program delivery. Funders trust them because of their consistency and follow-through. They keep the trains running and they keep them running well.
The growth-focused executive thrives when there’s something to build: a new program to launch, a capital campaign to run, a community need that nobody else is addressing yet. They are energized by possibility and are comfortable with the uncertainty that comes with doing something for the first time.
Here’s the part that doesn’t get said enough: it is completely fine for an executive director to know which one they are. There are EDs who join organizations specifically for the building phase, the new program launch, the ramp-up. They’re at their best when there’s something to create. And when the day-to-day operations settle in, they need those entrepreneurial moments, even if it’s a project here and there that lets them do something new, to stay engaged. That’s not a weakness, that’s self-awareness. And a board that understands this about their leader is in a much stronger position than one that doesn’t.
Know Where Your Organization Is
So how does a board figure out which leadership style it needs? Start by taking an honest look at where your organization actually is, not where you wish it was.
Every nonprofit goes through a lifecycle. Organizations start up, grow, mature, and eventually either renew themselves or stagnate. BoardSource publishes a Lifecycle Assessment Tool that maps leadership capacity across each of these stages, and it’s a resource worth exploring if your board hasn’t thought about this before. Most boards I work with haven’t. The prevailing mindset tends to be “we’re here, we’ve always been here doing this, and we need to continue being here and doing this.” That’s understandable, but it’s not a strategy, and over time it can quietly turn into inertia.
If your programs are solid but your revenue has been flat for three years, the instinct might be to hire someone who will shake things up. But flat revenue can mean different things. If costs are rising while income stays the same, that’s a slow bleed that needs attention. If the organization has simply reached a steady state, it might need someone who can deepen what’s already working rather than someone who will chase new initiatives. The point is that the board needs to understand why the numbers look the way they do before deciding what kind of leader will fix them.
If your community’s needs have shifted and your programs haven’t kept up, you may need someone who’s comfortable rethinking the model. That’s not a critique of the outgoing ED. Organizations evolve, and sometimes the next chapter looks different from the last one.
Either way, the board has to understand what it’s looking at before it starts writing a job description.
The Board Has to Be Honest Too
This is where the search process can go sideways. The board identifies that the organization needs a growth-focused leader, and then it hires one without asking whether the board itself is ready for what that means.
I once watched a board work through a search with two very different finalists. One candidate would clearly keep the organization on a steady, stable path. The other would obviously want to push the organization in a more entrepreneurial direction. The board at that time, from what I could observe, was not ready for the entrepreneurial path. If they had chosen that candidate, it would have been a constant struggle. I could see a scenario where that person would have been unhappy and potentially gone within a year or two.
A growth-focused ED needs a board that can move at a reasonable pace. They need board members who are comfortable with calculated risk. If the board says they want innovation, but they flinch every time the ED proposes something new, that relationship is headed for trouble.
The reverse is true too. If the board is full of ambitious, high-energy members who want to see big moves, and they hire a stability-focused ED, frustration is inevitable. The board will wonder why nothing is changing. The ED will wonder why nothing they do is good enough.
The match between the executive’s leadership style and the board’s readiness matters as much as the match between the executive and the organization.
What Happens When It’s Wrong
When a stability-focused leader is running an organization that needs a turnaround, the decline is slow and can be easy to miss. Budgets stay balanced and monthly reports look fine, but underneath that, the programs start losing relevance. Attendance drops. The people you’re serving find other options. Your long-time donors keep giving out of loyalty, but new donors aren’t showing up. By the time the board notices, the damage has been building for a while, and the recovery won’t be quick.
When a growth-focused leader is running an organization that just needs steady hands, the damage is different but just as real. Staff burn out from constant change while donors get confused by shifting priorities. The board spends all its time reacting instead of governing. The organization had something good, and now it’s been disrupted for no clear reason.
Neither scenario is about a bad executive director. Both are about a mismatch between the leader and the moment.
A Note for Executive Directors
If you’re an ED and you’ve read this far, you’re probably already thinking about which style fits you better.
Knowing your default style doesn’t limit you. Rather, it helps you lead with clarity and helps you communicate with your board about what you do best and where you might need support. If you’re approaching a career transition, it helps you find the organization where you’ll do your best work.
There’s no shame in being a builder who gets restless during the maintenance phase, just like there’s no shame in being a steward who thrives on consistency. It’s about finding the right organization at the right moment.
Where to Start
If your board is heading into a leadership transition, resist the urge to jump straight to the job posting. Spend time understanding where your organization is in its lifecycle and what kind of leadership fits that moment. Talk about it as a board, and be honest about what you’re ready to support.
I put together a one-page reference guide that walks through the two leadership styles, the organizational signals that point toward each one, and the board readiness factors to consider. Download it here and bring it to your next board meeting.
And if your board wants help thinking through where your organization is in its lifecycle and what kind of leadership fits that moment, let’s talk.
Image by Md Sharif Hossain Tokder from Pixabay