The ED Job Is Impossible!

We might sound like a broken record, we’ve written about this many times, but the narrative hasn’t changed. Then we came across this brilliant article from the Rooted in Vibrant Communities organization located in Seattle. The title, The Executive Director Job is Impossible! 

We agree - the demands of the job are overwhelming. But what is the alternative? Most small nonprofits can’t afford a Deputy Director or Chief Operating Officer. What about a co-leadership model though? It seems radical! How would it work if there were Co-Executive Directors/Co-CEOs, with one focused on the day-to-day operations, and the other focusing on strategy, networking, outreach, and fundraising? Why not split this job into two? Or maybe more? In a purpose-driven organization, this could work well. If the board and staff share a clear vision and purpose, the “how” of getting there is less important. Some nonprofit organizations have tried this, and we’re curious, does it work? We’d like to know.

Initial assessment reveals potential advantages and drawbacks:

Potential Benefits:

Dividing executive responsibilities among multiple leaders could enhance organizational performance. By capitalizing on each individual's strengths, the organization might thrive. For instance, an outgoing personality could handle networking and fundraising, while a more reserved individual could focus on staff management and operations. This division of labor seems advantageous.

Potential Challenges:

The philanthropic sector may hesitate to support a multi-leader structure. Securing funding for multiple executive salaries through grant applications could prove problematic. Moreover, the success of such an arrangement hinges critically on the compatibility of the leaders' personalities and values.

There are many more, but that’s what comes to mind first. There’s a lot of interest in this topic of co-leadership. Last year the Nonprofit Quarterly published an online article highlighting insights gained from entities that adopted shared leadership structures. NPQ attributed the recent increase in shared leadership experimentation, especially within justice organizations, to a broader reassessment of how organizational infrastructure aligns with organizational values.

One of the lessons NPQ learned from its data collection was that according to the seven co-led organizations, the transition to co-CEOs requires board champions. “While co-leadership is typically initiated by staff, a supportive board and effective board leadership who can steward this type of significant, values-based transition are essential.” Managing the dynamics of co-CEOs is an even greater responsibility than managing a single CEO. Having board members who understand the dynamics and can offer support to the co-leaders equitably seems integral to the success of this leadership structure. 

What do you think about co-leadership? Is the Executive Director role too much for one person? We would love to hear what you think!