Paul Castro has spent 33 years—his entire career, since law school—at Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles. When he arrived he planned to finish a short-term project there and then move on.
Instead, he says, he fell in love with the organization’s mission.
Now, after spending the last 13 years at the group’s helm, the 61-year-old is ready to plan an exit that benefits both him and the charity.
And yet, even with all the stars in alignment—the organization is stable with a healthy balance sheet, a solid succession plan is in place, and he has a personal plan for his life in retirement—Mr. Castro has not told his board exactly when he wants to retire.
“I’m sure they are wondering when I’m going to bring it up, but I am not quite ready to start that conversation,” he says.
He would like to talk more openly with his board about his plans and his concerns without being forced into a lame-duck role or a quicker-than-desired departure, he says..
“I do wish we could say ‘Let’s map out the next two or three years’ without me needing to formally announce,” he says. “But there is no precedent, no safe harbor, to have that kind of conversation between CEO and board.”
Financial Concerns
And yet, it should be an easy conversation for Mr. Castro to have. “Coming from an institution that has been around for 160 years, there is not so much the worry that my group won’t be able to go on without me,” he says.
His personal finances aren’t slowing down his retirement plans, either. He has a pension plan that leaves him with what he calls a “comfortable financial base” for the rest of his life.
Such security is unknown to most of the 40 people included in a new study commissioned by two nonprofits, Civic Ventures and the Building Movement Project. More than three in four of the participants told researchers that they were worried about their financial well-being after they leave their organizations.
“I feel fortunate,” Mr. Castro says. “I recognize my colleagues at smaller or newer organizations might be facing much more dire circumstances with regard to retirement.”
And he even knows what he’ll do with his spare time after he retires: He’ll seek a part-time job in academe, combining teaching with research on nonprofit governance, a topic that has long interested him. He also wants to continue service on multiple nonprofit boards, as well as travel and play more golf and tennis with his wife.
Lame-Duck Fears
So far, though, he’s holding back. Before he formally announces his retirement date, Mr. Castro says, he wants to have two elements in place: a competitive internal candidate to succeed him and a clear sense of what his own next steps are.
And, he says, he doesn’t know what ripple effects might follow his announcement. His group’s succession plan deals with organizational issues during a leadership transition, he says, but such documents can’t be expected to allay feelings of anxiety or insecurity that the group’s longtime leader, its staff, and its board may experience.
Mr. Castro says he has watched other boards “panic and overreact” after a longtime leader acknowledged an intent to eventually step down, leading to bad feelings on both sides.
Many senior leaders like him, he says, worry that as soon as they begin to speak about leaving, the board will start second-guessing their decisions. That is an understandable reaction, he says, but “leaving should not be a dirty topic.”
It is time, Mr. Castro says, for a shift in how nonprofits approach change at the top. Ultimately, he believes, the end of a leadership career should be as anticipated and celebrated as its launch—“not just a plaque and a handshake, but a positive point on the career continuum.”
