The start of 2022 seems to be heralding bittersweet announcements from nonprofit chief executives about their intentions to pass the baton to new leaders. Several high-profile national organizations — including BoardSource, Independent Sector, and the National Immigration Forum — have announced executive transitions in recent months.
This is likely just the beginning. In a study our organization, the Building Movement Project, released today, we found that roughly half of the more than 1,100 leaders we surveyed were considering departing from their jobs or actively taking steps to leave. And that was from a survey we conducted just ahead of the pandemic and racial reckoning that took a big toll on nonprofits, especially on nonprofits led by people of color.
The major takeaway from the study is also likely to have grown even more urgent in the time since we gathered data: The racial gap in nonprofit leadership is particularly pronounced in times of transition. The large number of departures planned in the years to come could allow the nonprofit world to finally usher in a far more diverse leadership cadre, since many leaders stepping aside will likely be white. But the transformation will only occur if nonprofits and grant makers change their approaches to the CEO transition process.
Our study, “Trading Glass Ceilings for Glass Cliffs,” revealed that leaders of color who replace outgoing white executives are less likely to think the board trusts them, and feel that their leadership is less supported by their staffs. Compounding those internal challenges, when leaders of color take over the top role, they are more likely than white leaders to report that grants to the organization were withdrawn.
The challenges facing Black, Indigenous, and other people of color who have white predecessors were highlighted in another report we released last fall in partnership with the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation.
In “Making (Or Taking) Space: Initial Themes on Nonprofit Transitions From White to BIPOC Leaders,” we found that even when nonprofit boards took deliberate action to recruit a new leader of color, the incoming leaders often inherited organizational tensions related to race equity that had overheated under previous (white) leadership. This means that leaders of color aren’t just navigating their new responsibilities in leading their organizations’ programs, partnerships, staffs, and boards; they are also expected to do the work of a race-equity consultant.
To be sure, historical precedent should caution us against overstating the pace and scale of changes in executive leadership. The last time the nonprofit world panicked about executive transitions was in the mid-2000s when research warned about an impending “leadership deficit” as baby boomers expressed concern that Generation X would not step into their shoes. It is unclear whether the economic crisis of 2008 dissuaded leaders from retiring or if the prognosticators were just wrong.
Still, our findings suggest that this time an exodus is likely — and nonprofits and grant makers need to take race equity in succession planning far more seriously than they have to date.
What we learned from our study of nonprofits is concerning: While leaders of color were taking steps to position a person of color as their successor, few white leaders seemed to factor race equity into their transition plans. One white leader wrote about being “hopeful that the board will actively work to create a pool of diverse candidates.”
Unfortunately, that wishful thinking was echoed by the data showing that only a quarter of white leaders who were preparing for their transitions reported that they were actively mentoring staff members of color (23 percent) or encouraging their board to consider candidates of color (26 percent).
We know transitions can be a difficult time for organizations, but foundations can ease that process by providing financial and other support. Among our recommendations:
Provide money so leaders of color can get support from their peers.
Some foundations and organizations that work to improve nonprofit management gather leaders or aspiring leaders to receive advice and coaching from people who have already faced leadership challenges. When such groups are well facilitated and well funded — especially when financial support goes to the leaders participating in the program, not just the consultants who design and run the peer groups — they can provide emotional support that can lessen the psychological burdens for leaders of color taking on executive positions.
Don’t wait and see.
When an organization is going through an executive transition, foundations should increase their funding, not cut it. But too many grant makers hold out, saying they want to see how the transitions go. That hurts all new leaders, but especially leaders of color. If a grantee is going through a leadership transition, provide the organization with funding to support the transition and general support dollars to meet the increased needs that may come from other grant makers cutting or withdrawing funding because they trusted only the outgoing leader.
Set organizations up to embrace new leaders of color.
It is clear from the data and stories that too many leaders of color feel set up to fail, and the backlash against their change efforts are especially harsh when following a white leader. Preventing this “glass cliff” from threatening the success of future leaders requires investing in organizational transformation with current leaders. Some grant makers have focused on putting pressure on grantees to diversify their staffs and boards. Other foundations have invested in building the number of race-equity professionals so that more nonprofit organizations have resources to turn to for support. For the past three years, our organization has been developing and testing a race-equity assessment to help nonprofits move toward being more equitable workplaces. These efforts and others are helping organizations address racial inequities under white leadership, instead of leaving that job for new leaders of color.
Our study reaffirms a pattern we have witnessed for years: Leaders of color often find the opportunity to lead in identity-based organizations. But that doesn’t mean their path there is any easier than at other organizations.
Almost half (46 percent) of leaders of color running identity-based organizations said that they often or always felt challenged by a lack of relationships with grant makers and big donors — another reminder of the reality and legacy of philanthropic redlining.
Beyond the perennial funding concerns, leaders of color at identity-based organizations were more likely than other chief executives to report that their pay was inadequate (49 percent), that they were frustrated with the stress of being called on to represent people who shared their race or ethnic identity (50 percent), and that their workloads were too demanding (84 percent).
In the current political moment of increased polarization and outright attacks on marginalized people, identity-based organizations are even more critical to the nonprofit ecosystem and deserve funding that meets the need for transformation across the country.
We must stop asking leaders of color to clear so many hurdles to thrive in leadership roles at any nonprofit, no matter their mission. A white leader in Boston acknowledged the bias that her successor would face when she told us: “There’s two parts to winning [in an executive transition]. There’s getting your colleague of color into that position, but then the hardest thing is making sure that she has the support to succeed.”
All of us — grant makers, nonprofit leaders, board members, and others — should ensure that this next wave of executive transitions doesn’t just push more leaders of color over the proverbial glass cliff. Let’s make 2022 the year when we change our approaches and support leaders so they can advance the changes society needs as we recover from the upheaval of Covid and so many other challenges.
This column is based on the report “Trading Glass Ceilings for Glass Cliffs,” just released from the Building Movement Project.
