Egos Undermine Mission

Minnesota is home to over 37,000 nonprofits who work tirelessly on behalf of Minnesotans and beyond. Yet in my 30 years' experience working in and with nonprofits.

Mission Trumps Business, is the second of the insights resulting from my confidential interviews with 20 nonprofit professionals and board members. What I heard aligns with my observations over 30 years. While not research based, the insights are noteworthy and shed light on Three Pervasive Nonprofit Mindsets that have plagued the sector for decades.

Many of the professionals and board members I interviewed said, "Healthy conflict cultures are essential to success." Yet healthy conflict cultures aren't possible when ego is at the forefront. When board members, executives, employees, and yes, founders, over identify with the organization's mission and purpose, they feel so connected and passionate that they tend to view the organization as if it were their own. The unintended consequence of such passion can cause territorial issues, overidentification and decisions in a way that works best for them vs. the long-term best interest of the organization. One ego player can single-handedly prevent an organization from having safe, candid and risk-taking conversations. It is not uncommon for nonprofits to hire executive directors or other leadership positions solely because they are known to be passionate about this mission, regardless of other skillsets.

“Coaching has moved beyond executives into executive teams. Give your team a coach. CEO’s have to let go of their ego to allow this to happen. ” — Board Chair

Places one can look to for examples of ego trumping organization include:

·       Lack of term limits for the board of directors

·       Founders who stay too long or have little to know oversight by the board

·       Boards or Executive Directors who don’t attend to board training on governance-allows board & ED to operate without oversight

·       ED’s allowed to hand-pick board members who have a pre-allegiance to the ED causing a reluctance to question or challenge the executive

·       Difference of opinion not allowed

• Absence of performance review for executive director

One board member shared, "The ED's blind spots enabled him to lie to the board to protect himself. Employees reported inappropriate behavior and tried to get HR help themselves without success because the ED interfered. Without proper governance, ED oversight and boundaries between longtime board members and the ED, it was difficult to pinpoint and the staff suffered.”

“I believe you shouldn’t try to cut costs on your ED or CEO. In the nonprofit world, the ED wears so many hats. That is the most important hire. Regardless of size. Make decisions based on right talent set vs. heart decisions. ” — Board Member