ISO guidance re job move and founder / founder's sydrome

December 30, 2019 3:33 AM

I have expertise in a particular field and am contemplating two job offers in the nonprofit world. One of the two offers is probably a better cultural fit for me, also possibly a better career move with an important organization in my field, but I am anxious about the founder (and founder's syndrome). I would be taking the founder's position (a boomer) who has had the job for decades. The founder does not want to fully retire but wants to work part-time. The founder has strong views and can be challenging. I am friends with founder who respects me but founder does not have much self-awareness. Is there any way to navigate this with rules and boundaries? Or is this impossible? In search of guidance, articles, studies, suggestions.
posted by anonymous to Work & Money (10 answers total)

No advice, but I think you're right to be concerned (unless you want to be following exactly in their footsteps). I've seen successful Executive Director transitions where the ED takes a big step back (attends zero events, etc.) for several years while the new person gets established. I'm under the impression that this is the right way to do things.
posted by salvia at 3:45 AM on December 30, 2019

You are right to be concerned. Across my field, also a nonprofit field, we're dealing with the effects of Boomers who won't let go - who want to stay on and consult, who are delaying retirement, etc. It's creating a toxic dynamic in the field that's limiting forward progress. It's never a good idea to have a former ED stay on, and especially not in what they'd probably treat as a co-ED role. Even with a less challenging personality, it's not a healthy organizational structure. I would avoid it, unless there is a tactful and quiet way you could speak to the board about your interest in taking this position, but not if this arrangement is anticipated.
posted by Miko at 4:58 AM on December 30, 2019

Yeah, I know someone who built a non profit from the ground up and tried to step back from a CEO to a chief technologist position, and that lasted for barely a year because he couldn’t let go of the wheel. He made the smart choice to retire to a different city at least partly to get out of the way.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:13 AM on December 30, 2019

To sum up: this will likely lead to one of you leaving under duress within a pretty short time, especially if the founder lacks self awareness.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:16 AM on December 30, 2019

I’ve been in a very similar situation to you except that I was already working there. Founder was already a difficult person but loved and respected me when I was their support person. Once I stepped into their role, they reacted extremely badly to having to share the limelight and credit and made my life very difficult, at work and outside of work. I left. Founder felt the same way about my replacement. And the one who came after that. In the end, after two years and a lot of acrimony, founder went into full retirement. I was asked if I was interested in returning but by then I had moved on to greener and totally unexpected new pastures. My point is, you could wait it out if you think they’re going to be too hard to work with. Do something else for a while. Going part time will eventually lead to full retirement. If you ask around, I suspect there will be people quite willing to talk to you about their experiences with founder and that might help you decide.
posted by stellathon at 5:42 AM on December 30, 2019

You say you will be taking the founder's position. Will you be the Executive Director or something similar, reporting directly to the Board? If so, then the important step would be to have clear conversations with the Board members. What direction do they see you taking the organization? How do they understand your role versus the "part time" role of the non-departing founder? Will the non-departing founder report to you, or will they bypass you and report directly to the Board?

You should have the confidence of the Board, and be confident that they will support you if disagreements with the non-departing founder come up. Alternatively, you should be prepared to leave the organization or move into a subordinate role if the founder decides that they're really not ready to let go yet.
posted by Winnie the Proust at 6:39 AM on December 30, 2019

^ And while that's great advice and I'd do your utmost to follow it if you move ahead, it's going to be hard, given that he built the board and that one of his important duties for quite a while has been to sway / respond to its politics. Having been a board member, I can easily imagine a board thinking they would support you but then being swayed by him due to a combination of personal connections, him knowing all about their priorities and ways of thinking, and him maybe having something of a point.

I think the only way it works is if you're willing to devote yourself to managing his ego and opinion of the work and especially of any changes you want to undertake. But making board relationships a big priority would probably also be a smart move.
posted by salvia at 7:45 AM on December 30, 2019

If you decide to do this the only way to succeed (in both senses of the word) is to think of yourself as assistant-ED regardless of your actual title and defer to/consult with the founder on all decisions, even very minor ones. You have to be willing to put your own ego completely aside.

After a while (3-6 months if you're lucky) the founder will see you as an extension of the founder's ego rather than as a threat, will get tired of being consulted, and will be willing to let go. The goal is to gradually ease into authority with the founder's cooperation rather than demanding it right away.

In other words use judo, not karate.
posted by mono blanco at 9:45 AM on December 30, 2019

Oh yeah, I did this and ended up being very sorry. Part of how it ended in such disaster was that the board either didn’t realize Founder worked for them instead of the other way around, or didn’t care enough to protest when she “fired” them after they pushed back on her having fired me on the eve of our supposed transition.
posted by lakeroon at 3:25 PM on December 30, 2019

I worked at a non profit during one of these partial transitions to friend of the founder. Many of the full time staff left, either unhappy with the founder or unhappy with the replacement or the process. Including me, and I even liked the replacement fine, but my job search was well underway by that time. Most of the actual talent soon exited the org, and the remaining work load was impossible, hiring difficult and much of the office systems were poorly documented.

The transition also failed to keep all of our funders happy and ultimately 2/5 of the org was eliminated.

I would assume an org that hasn’t had any change in leadership will struggle with being forced into any transition, even a partial one like this. People who don’t like your decisions will seek out a second hearing with the founder. That will be all sorts of problems. The founder will also still be the face of the org to the public and it’s funders.

Whatever equilibrium at this org will be upturned by this power shift - whatever you choose my advice is that you shouldn’t take it personally -they won’t know you and many of the problems you will inherit will have been festering for a long time.
posted by zenon at 6:55 PM on December 30, 2019