This article comes from the spring 2013 issue of the Nonprofit Quarterly, “Nonprofits & Taxes: It’s Your Agenda.” It was first published online on April 22, 2013.
Dear Nonprofit Ethicist,
Many staff and board members have left the organization on whose board I sit; they have left because of a highly dysfunctional executive director who does not want to be managed by anyone, “spins” information to her own ends, and uses every Sun Tzu tactic to extinguish efforts to make changes.
For the majority of her time as ED, the board has been in interpersonal strife or organizational crisis; there is high board turnover as a result. Since the board has so many people who are new to boards as well as to the organization, this ED basically runs the agency and controls the board. She does this in two ways: (1) by dictating to the inexperienced board members what their roles are and what they are not; and (2) by positioning herself as more oppressed than her board and staff. The underlying strategy here is to be able to, on any level, empower herself by making the other person appear ignorant. From this strategic home base, she can at any time begin delegitimizing anyone she perceives to be a threat—and this she does. There have been several “ugly” confrontations involving staff and board members being pushed out by her passive-aggressive tactics and masterful manipulation; the reasons for these ugly endings remain unclear—except in my case (I have since become a subject of these attacks).
This organization was once a world leader in its field; it was supported by government and used to consult on issues by media, academia, government, and others. Today the government that created the organization has little interest in it, and representatives no longer have time to attend its events. The only media that this organization gets is an occasional op ed (it is no longer contacted to give comments on events); instead of acting as consultants on governmental policy development, representatives now attend only as members of the public giving depositions. Politically and in the media, the agency has become basically irrelevant. Most people in the community don’t know of the organization, although in its own small circle it is valued and continues to provide the same services it has for many years, which is essentially public education. This ED has effectively crippled innovation and leadership, and in doing so frittered away the wellness of the organization. Those who have attempted to do basic things (such as position the board to truly understand operations as they relate to the strategic priorities or move toward stating organizational objectives to focus the work of the organization) are targeted on a personal level and ultimately pushed out. Since people want to protect the integrity of the organization, nobody speaks of this dysfunction. How can this be addressed without compromising the reputation of the organization? In our case, it seems to be a toss-up: try from the inside and risk having your reputation ruined, or accede to this person’s reign of control and warlike conflict that is bringing the agency closer each year to complete irrelevance. Can this situation be reversed?
No Fun in Dysfunction
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
Dear No Fun,
The executive director may or may not have been responsible for the organization’s decline, but abusive behavior and board subservience make it less likely that the situation will be reversed. If you want to try to turn things around, you will need to invest a lot of time in explaining the situation to new board members before the executive director can get to them. When you have one or two staunch allies to take your side and second your motions, announce to the board that the Emperor has no clothes—and keep it up. Still, this may not work. In Hans Christian Andersen’s story, the emperor suspected the truth of the matter but continued with his parade.
Dear Nonprofit Ethicist,
As the director of a small nonprofit, I recently received a request to write a letter of support for a grant being sought by a large organization with a reputation for chasing grant money and not being responsive to the needs of the community once they get it. I declined to write the letter and politely told them why. Word quickly spread throughout the community, and I am being told that I am the first to reject writing a support letter of request for any agency in our area. If I had provided the letter, I would have been supporting conduct that I do not find ethical; however, it sure would have been easier than the drama this has stirred up. I would make the same decision again, but I wonder what your thoughts are on this.
Odd Man Out
Dear Odd Man Out,
If you had misgivings about the organization’s responsiveness to the community, then you were right to decline, but perhaps you could have handled your relations with the aggrieved organization more tactfully. There is a difference between honesty and candor: honesty is essential; candor is optional. Less candor might have served you better.
