Hiring a new executive director is a major step for any nonprofit. However, transitioning them into the new role isn’t always as seamless as you’d hope. While financial reports and branding guidelines can help with onboarding, they don’t capture the full scope of the organization. From unwritten expectations to decisions made under previous leadership, it’s these details that can make or break the onboarding process.
The Information That Never Makes It Into the Onboarding Folder
Most nonprofits have a general idea of what an incoming executive should know before fully stepping into their position. Financial statements show where money’s coming from and how it’s being allocated. Strategic plans identify organizational goals, while their job description establishes who’s responsible for what.
But these documents only describe how the organization should function, not how it actually performs.
Consider a nonprofit where the development director has worked for 15 years. During that time, they’ve created and fostered close relationships with major donors, which helped the organization during difficult fundraising periods. They become the star player of the team, gaining major influence on how the organization functions.
Boards should arrange conversations with people who know the organization’s internal dynamics before a new hire starts making major decisions. This might include longtime employees, committee chairs, or even the outgoing employee, if possible. Go beyond polite introductions. Discuss how decisions are typically made, any complex internal dynamics to be aware of, and if any informal practices differ from written policies. Documenting these insights can also help preserve institutional knowledge for future transitions.
Why Previous Leadership Decisions Still Matter
Every executive will inherit decisions made by someone else. Some might be successful, making their position easier. Other times, it might be a problem that employees are still struggling with.
For instance, a nonprofit might have purchased an expensive donor management system several years ago. The rollout went poorly, employees received limited training, and the organization eventually returned to its previous process. However, a recently hired executive will only see the choice to stick with outdated software and try to reinstate the newer, unsuccessful system.
A lack of organizational context is a recurring executive onboarding challenge, especially when they’re expected to make decisions while still becoming familiar with the workplace. Board members and senior staff can help counteract this by openly discussing previous strategies and the choices surrounding them. That includes explaining why certain programs were discontinued, which initiatives encountered resistance, and whether unresolved disagreements remain.
Sometimes, these conversations may be uncomfortable. A board member might have to explain why they supported an unsuccessful expansion. An employee may go into depth on how previous leadership ignored warnings about staffing or funding. Nonetheless, these perspectives are still worth hearing.
The Board Needs to Explain How Much Authority the Executive Actually Has
A board can agree that it wants a confident and independent executive director, but not discuss what independence looks like in their organization. This can cause an issue if a new executive approves a major change that the board expected to have some say in.
To avoid these disagreements, boards need to clarify decision-making responsibilities during onboarding. Does the executive need approval before filling a vacant position? Can they move money between budget categories? Written nonprofit policies and procedures provide a great starting point, while regular nonprofit board reports help establish expectations for communicating matters that require the board’s input.
Performance expectations should follow the same format as well. If a new executive is hired to address a specific challenge (staff turnover, weak fundraising, etc.), the board should establish realistic priorities for the first 90 days. Distinguishing between improvements that can happen quickly and problems that require more planning and resources allows for better communication between the two bodies.
The First 90 Days Are Often More Complicated Than Expected
The first month of a new executive’s tenure can easily disappear into meetings and paperwork. Meanwhile, the organization’s regular obligations haven’t stopped. A grant report may be due, or a major donor could be waiting for an update about a program that’s fallen behind schedule. These responsibilities need attention, even while the executive is still learning the ropes.
During the first 30 days, the priority should be identifying what requires immediate attention and how to address it. Reviewing financial commitments and any upcoming deadlines is a good starting point. This is also when executives should be having conversations to better understand the organization’s operations and history.
The next two months should be intended for turning those observations into action. During days 31-60, the executive can start by addressing more manageable issues such as clarifying an approval process or fixing a communication gap between departments. Days 61-90 should involve working with the board and senior staff on longer-term priorities and developing a more realistic timeline after developing a better understanding of the organization.
A successful leadership transition requires more than paperwork and a few polite introductions. Boards need to be transparent about their organization’s history and clarify their expectations. Addressing these onboarding gaps early on provides executives with a stronger foundation for their role. For more information, take a look at the infographic below.
