It’s not what you think. Take you to your leader.
The third most important responsibility for a nonprofit board member is to choose the executive director. That said, everything about the relationship between the executive director and the board of directors must change in this Pre-Post-Pandemic Era.
First of all, a key change must take place. We’ve discussed this at length in previous articles, but it’s worth mentioning and explaining again.
In 2023, it makes no sense to employ an artistic director who acts as the “face” of the company.
An artistic director does not prove your company’s worth as a charity, only as an arts producer. Your community does not need an arts producer as much as it needs the benefits that can come from a well-run charity, even if that charity happens to produce art.
No one cares about Shakespeare, Mahler, or The Nutcracker when so much of your community’s residents are living (barely) on the streets, in tent cities, or in their cars. Because nonprofit arts organizations do not actually create art, the basis for their existence has to fall in line with section 501(C)(3), which compels all exempt companies to do very specific things. None of those things include the production of art.
An artistic officer—on the same level and pay scale as a development, marketing, education, and finance officer—is all that is required, and allows the executive director to push the art toward the mission and not the mission toward the art, which has become the sad default to so many failing companies.
In the process of choosing your executive director (not “President,” not “CEO,” and not, as Gilbert and Sullivan put it, “First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Back Stairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one”), a fundamental change in relationship has to take place.
It’s time to radically adjust leadership. In a successful nonprofit arts organization in today’s normal, the board’s duties are monitored by the executive director, not the chairman of the board. So when a board chooses an executive director, they are hiring their boss, not their employee.
In the current iteration of nonprofit arts organizations, there are usually two leaders at the top of the staff portion of the organizational chart. At least one is an artistic director, a second is a managing director. It’s in the titles themselves: an artistic director directs the artistry and a managing director directs the management.
At more than one insecure organization, an artist (or worse, the previous artistic director) serves as a third executive leader. Usually, this is to make sure that the artists win any internal battles 2-1. Two leaders are ungainly and require a great deal of energy to pull off. Three leaders expose organizational weakness, especially in nonprofit terms.
Awkwardness arises when one leader reports to the board but not the other(s). There are still some organizations with structures that indicate that the artistic director reports to the board (because, frankly, talking about art is more pleasant than talking about deficits or renovations). This is a good way to overlay an unsettling side-taking and foment mistrust all around.
The change proposed here is one that appears obvious to other parts of the sector: namely, the programming lead would not be the leader of the organization. Instead, the leader of the mission (the real boss of the organization) would have clear power of vetting programming, data gathering, and gauging the efficacy of results while managing board members’ ability to use their tools, connections, and education to raise money and further the mission.
The check on the executive director, might be a board and staff “vote of confidence” that would either confirm the executive director is acting appropriately and effectively or suggest that the executive director’s departure might be the best action for the future of the company. Whatever the mechanism, there must be a check on each level of the company (board, staff members, etc.). However, because the executive director is responsible for the stability and growth of the company (with help from the board members, a huge percentage of whom only work for the company a maximum of 3 hours a month), board members are in no position to dictate operations or responsibilities. The executive director (who should also be an ex-officio member of the board), provided that s/he is doing the job for which s/he was hired in the first place, is the only person suited to serve in that capacity.
To insure that the board—you—are hiring the best person for the job as the leader of your company, it is recommended that you remove some of the obstacles in hiring that offer the company more protections than the leader. The biggest bugaboo, for example, is the “employment at will” clause.
The United States is the only major industrial power that maintains a general employment-at-will rule. If a leader with purpose is going to take a chance on engaging the skills it requires to make your organization work, that leader can’t be held hostage to discharge for no reason. If you want to have a 90-day probationary period, that might be acceptable; but then again, that 90-day period may cause a hugely talented potential leader to balk. The negotiation is up to you.
Finally, the contract for the person you hire must be for at least one year and completely guaranteed. In other words, assuming there is no probationary period issue and the leader is serving ethically and in good faith (regardless of your personal opinion), the entire year’s salary must be guaranteed as long as the termination was not wrongful. Each new contract should be negotiated no less than 4 months ahead of the expiration date so that the leader can make plans for the future.
This protects both sides. You’re protected because, as long as the contract is exclusive, the leader cannot take a new job without your permission, without that leader owing you for the balance due. And, of course, the leader is protected from you finding someone shinier, because then, you would owe the leader the balance, regardless of everything.
In 2023, when there is no such thing as 40-year loyalty (and why would there be?) in employment circles—on either side of the table—hiring your boss is the best way to ensure that the charitable mission of your company is worthy of the best people available. That person is far likelier to lead you to success, a better community, and the solution of the issues plaguing your community than you are (at 3 hours a month) or an artist that believes that his/her vision is more important than the community itself.
Based in Kirkland, Washington, Alan Harrison is a writer and speaker specializing in nonprofit organizations, strategy, the arts, and life politics. His columns appear regularly in major publications. Contact him directly at alan@501c3.guru.
If you’re feeling generous or inspired, just click on the coffee cup above. You don’t have to, of course, but if you can afford it and find some value here, please provide the desperate need for caffeine.
Alan is always looking for good opportunities to write and consult for nonprofits that need a hand. And, of course, that elusive Perfect Opportunity™.
I’m not sure why I keep reading Alan’s articles when they seem to get me so agitated, though I’m starting to suspect it’s not so much that I disagree with what he’s writing, as it’s that I just don’t like the way he’s writing it.