Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.
00006]
Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning

and Organizational Sustainability
A Preliminary Comparative Study in Australia, Brazil,
Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States
Joseph C. Santora
Ecole des Ponts Business School, France
James C. Sarros
Monash University, Australia
Gil Bozer
Sapir Academic College, Israel
Mark Esposito
Grenoble Ecole de Management, France; Harvard University, USA
Andrea Bassi
University of Bologna, Italy
The aim of this article is to compare the extent to which nonprofits have planned for
O Insiders- executive director succession in six different countries. The article compares the data
outsiders from the survey findings of six recently published articles that used the same ques-
O Multiple tionnaire in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States. The article
countries
focuses on succession planning and executive selection issues (formal versus infor-
O Nonprofits
mal planning and insider-outsider selection) and provides demographic compari-
O Organizational
sustainability sons of the respondents. Implications for managing sustainable organizations
O Selection
include the need to be attentive to strategic priorities so as to anticipate and deal
O Succession
with the expected and unexpected departures of incumbents. Limitations such as
planning convenience samples are noted as are recommendations for future research.
66 The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 4 October 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015
nonprofit executive succession planning and organizational sustainability
Dr Joseph C. Santora is the Director of doctoral programs, Ecole des Ponts Business School, u Ecole des Ponts Business School 77
Paris, France. He has taught in a several leading international business schools and has rue de Miromesnil 75008
been a dean at two business schools. His key research areas are leadership, executive Paris France
succession, nonprofits, and change.
2 33-06-41-79-12-85
! jcsantora1@gmail.com
Professor James C. Sarros is a supervisor of doctoral students, ISM, Paris, and was a u 5 Potter Street, Black Rock, Vic.
Professor of Management at Monash University, Australia. His key research areas are Australia 3193
executive leadership, succession planning, corporate culture and character, and strategic
planning. 2 0439343825
! james.sarros@bigpond.com
Dr Gil Bozer is a Lecturer in the Managing Human Resource Department, Sapir Academic u Flat 16, 23 Arlozorov Street
College, Israel. His key research interests focus on executive coaching, leadership Herzliya, Israel 4642712
development, and executive succession.
2 972-54-4553-123
! gilbotzer@gmail.com
Dr Mark Esposito is Professor of Business and Economics at Grenoble École de u 1770 Massachusetts Avenue, Office
Management, France, a member of the teaching faculty at the Harvard University Extension 220 Cambridge, Ma USA 02140
School, and Senior Associate at the University of Cambridge-CISL, UK.
! markesposito@fas.harvard.edu
Dr Andrea Bassi is Associate Professor in General Sociology, University of Bologna in Italy. u School of Economics, Management
His research interests include nonprofit organizations in the field of social and health and Statistics, Piazzale della
services, particularly the relationships between public administration and nonprofit Vittoria, 15 47121 Forlì, Italy
deliverers, as well as systems of measurement of the organizational performance and social
impact of nonprofit organizations. 2 0039 0543 37 46 24
! andrea.bassi7@unibo.it
The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship Vol. 20 No. 4 October 2015 © Greenleaf Publishing 2015 67
joseph c. santora et al.
Introduction
E
xecutive succession planning represents significant challenges
for most nonprofits (e.g. Bear & Fitzgibbon, 2004; Carman, Leland, &
Wilson, 2010; Coltoff, 2010; Dym, Egmont, & Watkins, 2011). As a body
of research, executive succession has been seriously neglected for many
reasons: time and finance constraints, lack of administration and coordination
abilities, and interests on the part of executive directors (EDs) and boards of
directors (Santora, Sarros, & Esposito, 2010). Accordingly, Peters and Wolfred
(2001, p. 32) recommend that “succession planning should shift from being a
taboo topic to a fact of life that makes things easier for an outgoing executive, a
board, and an organization”. Failing to plan for a successor can create organiza-
tional chaos. As Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32/33) contend, “those who don’t
plan [for succession] put their organizations at considerable risk for turbulent
transitions. Boards should expect that the executives will eventually move on,
and be prepared to manage those turnovers successfully.”
The aim of this paper is to compare the findings of recent nonprofit succes-
sion research (Bassi, 2013; Bozer & Kuna, 2013; Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa,
2013; Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2011; Santora et al., 2013) on six countries (Aus-
tralia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States) to determine the degree
to which they have planned for executive succession and whether internal or
external candidates have been selected as executive directors (often also referred
to as chief executive officers (CEOs)/presidents). The countries involved in this
study were chosen based on their representation of cultural values that were dif-
ferent from each other on some attributes, such as power distance and similar
to each other on others, such as individual collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 2001;
House et al., 2004). Generally, Western democracies (the United States and
Australia) and Israel form a discrete group with similar culture orientations,
while Russia, Brazil, and Italy form another less heterogeneous grouping. Spe-
cifically, Australia, Israel, and the United States are low power distance societies,
while Russia, Brazil, and Italy are high power distance societies (House, et al.,
2004). According to House et al., (2004, p. 166), “in high power distance socie-
ties, power holders are granted greater status, privileges, and material rewards
than those without power”. Power distance relates to decision-making styles of
bosses, the ability to influence, the opportunity to have independent thought
and express opinions, deference to authority, and the use of artifacts such as
titles, ranks, and status. Accordingly, succession practices in the Western-based
countries should theoretically be more transparent and externally focused than
those in the European/South American group.
This article provides a major contribution to the extant nonprofit literature
in the field by building on an important organizational issue: succession plan-
ning, organizational sustainability, and its attendant issues. It also fills a major
gap in the nonprofit literature by comparing executive succession issues in
multiple countries, thereby alleviating the largely American focus. Bassi (2013)
and Santora and Sarros (2013) have sought to address the imbalance between
research based in the United States and that of other countries by challenging
researchers to conduct comparative analyses on nonprofits delivering services
to constituents in countries other than the United States to determine the
degree of similarities and/or differences on executive succession issues. This
article also provides a theoretical contribution, as it broadens our understand-
ing of the myriad ways nonprofits encounter similar challenges in succession
planning and insider-outsider appointments, regardless of geographic location
in the world.
First, we provide a brief overview of succession planning in nonprofit organi-
zations, followed by a discussion of insider-outsider selection issue. Next, we
present the research methods. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the extant research
on nonprofit succession planning and provide an overall perspective on the
issue. Table 3 focuses on the six countries from which we sourced succession
data for this article and includes demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, and
educational levels) from respondents, and succession planning criteria (e.g.,
formal vs. informal planning; insider-outsider selection; and deputy director
appointments). We then compare and contrast the information provided in
Table 3. We note the limitations of the study and suggest recommendations for
future research.
Succession Planning in Nonprofits
The sustainability of an organization requires a succession of high performers

to fill key positions and to meet current or future talent needs (see Hills, 2008;
Howe, 2009; Rothwell, 2010). Succession planning is critical to the sustain-
ability of nonprofits. For example, Lynn (2001, p. 116) states that “the continued
vitality of an organization is linked to its ability to survive a leadership void”. She
offers a succession process model for “organizational continuity through time,
adaptive, and ongoing change in the development and deployment of leadership
talent” (p. 116). Price (2005, p. 1) supports this notion and suggests a “pipeline”
to “strengthen the organization’s capacity for long term sustainability”. Ahern
(2015 n.p.) believes that “sustainability for management development purposes
is a relatively new subject and needs to build up critical perspectives”. In a recent
article, Santora, Sarros, and Esposito (2014, p. 16) offer a typology of nonprofit
founders about succession issues that they suggest “may help educate other
founders (nonprofit) and their boards better understand the outcomes and
impact their decisions have on organizational sustainability” . In particular they
write that “some nonprofit founders may act selfishly” (p. 19) (see Florea, Che-
ung, & Herndon, 2013; Singh, 2008 for a discussion of selfish and altruistic acts
and succession) and select successors who do not have the best long-term interest
of their organization in mind and therefore jeopardize organizational sustain-
ability. From this perspective, when we speak of sustainable organizations in this
paper, we refer to those nonprofit companies that have stable succession plans in
place intended to perpetuate the culture and character of the existing organiza-
tion into the next and subsequent generations of owners and/or directors.
While both nonprofits and for-profits often plan for succession through their
boards of directors in consultation with incumbent CEOs and senior staff,
thereby keeping the succession process relatively impartial, there is a signifi-
cant difference between the ways the two types of organizations address suc-
cession issues. For-profits, for example, are guided by the bottom line in their
decision process, allowing them to keep their succession protocols relatively
strategic and focused. Similarly, formal succession planning was found to be
positively associated with higher financial performance, as it helps establish a
better fit between leaders and organizations, increase investors’ confidence, and
minimize disruption (Shen & Cannella, 2003; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2010), By
comparison, nonprofits are often dictated to by government agencies and public
pressure groups to appoint successors sympathetic to the operational principles
of the existing business. As a result, the process may be compromised, and
political interference may sometimes have a negative impact on the selection
process for a successor. In this article, we define succession planning in non-
profit organizations as “a deliberate and systematic effort by an organization to
ensure leadership continuity in key positions, retain and develop intellectual
and knowledge capital for the future, and encourage individual advancement”
(Rothwell, 2010, p. 6).
In Table 1, we provide findings from several nonprofit governance surveys on
succession planning from 2004 through 2014. These data suggest that succes-
sion planning has been seriously neglected in both small and large nonprofits.
For example, slightly more than 23% of the organizations listed in Table 1 have
planned for succession, while the majority of them (74%) have not. Based
on these data, it seems that nonprofits have overwhelmingly not planned for
executive succession and succession planning. Moreover, many nonprofits have
been rather reluctant to identify successors for a variety of reasons, including
the fear associated with the loss of the EDs’ power and authority (Sautter &
Broder Sumerson, 2011), a false sense of immortality (Santora & Sarros, 1995),
or denial. Rationalizations for not preparing for such an event include “not a
top priority,” “too small to require,” and “too small to create a succession plan”
(Nonprofit HR Solutions, 2013, p. 20).
Table 1 Nonprofit Succession Planning Surveys: 2004–2014
Sample Succession No Succession

Authors size (N) Planning (%) Planning (%)
Teegarden (2004) 130 25 75
Boland, Jensen, & Meyers 232 18* 62
(2005)
Bell, Moyers, & Wolfred 1,932 29 71
(2006)
Carman, Leland, & Wilson 110 23 77
(2010)
Sample Succession No Succession

Authors size (N) Planning (%) Planning (%)
Froelich, McKee, & Rathge 106 18 82
(2011) (Charitable) (Charitable)
160 16 84
(Cooperatives) (Cooperatives)
X = 17** X = 83**
Cornelius, Moyers, & Bell 3,000 17 83
(2011)
Sautter & Broder Sumerson 21 24*** 76
(2011)
HR Council for the 231 25 72
Nonprofit Sector (2012)
Nonprofit HR Solutions 588 31 69
(2013)
Nonprofit HR (2014) 413 33*** 67
MEAN 23 74
*Not all percentages equal 100
**Average for both types of nonprofit organizations
***Numbers rounded
Nonprofit Insider/Outsider Selection
Insider-outsider succession is a sub-theme in the nonprofit succession litera-

ture. We define an insider as “an individual who is currently employed by the
organization and thus promoted into this position of ultimate authority” and
an outsider as “an individual who has not had any direct executive experience
with the organization” (Santora, Clemens, & Sarros, 1997, p. 109). Insider-
outsider literature has included selections and outcomes in single case stud-
ies (e.g., Elkin, Smith, & Zhang, 2012; Githens, 2009; Ito, 2007; Santora &
Sarros, 1995; Smith & Moschel, 1993), multiple case studies (e.g., Santora &
Sarros, 2001b), and studies with mixed sample sizes (see Table 2). Successors
are strongly dominated by outsiders at 57%; only about 38% of successors are
insiders, clearly giving the advantage to outsiders.
Creating a strategic leadership succession plan is one of the greatest chal-
lenges for small nonprofits, which are dependent on single leaders and cannot
develop prospective successors from within the organizations (Gilmore, 2003).
Therefore, most boards seek external candidates as successors because many
nonprofits do not have the necessary capacity-building skills to develop or
groom insiders. Many insiders have limited nonprofit leadership experience,
and many nonprofits are too small to support several inside contenders with suf-
ficient talent or ego to serve in the top position (Adams, 2010). Consistent with
Adams’ (2010) view, the majority of respondents (65%) in Peters and Wolfred’s
(2001) study were executive directors for the first time with another 20% having
been executive directors only once prior to their current appointment.
The literature supports the notion that board-ED relations are highly com-
plex and fragile. Board members are uncertain of their roles and those of their
executive directors (Harris, 1993). Various power patterns characterize board-
ED relations (Murray, Bradshaw, & Wolpin, 1992), and these relations vary at
different times in the same organization (Golensky, 1993). It is not surprising,
therefore, that the complexity of these relationships might negatively impact
the governance of nonprofits (Exworthy & Robinson, 2001). As Mole (2003, p.
152) states, “the problematic nature of board roles—whether over-involvement
in organization routine or under-involvement in critical decision-making—all
leave the chief executive vulnerable.”
Table 2 Insider/Outsider Selection: 2001–2014
Authors Sample Size (N) Outsiders (%) Insiders (%) Uncertain

Peters & Wolfred 1,072 64 36 _
(2001)
Santora & Sarros 12 100 0 _
(2001a)
Teegarden (2004) 130 79 21 _
Boland, Jensen, & 232 68 32 _
Meyers (2005)
Bell, Moyers, & 1,932 65.0* 35.0* _
Wolfred (2006)
{ Small
Large { 70.0
60.0 { 30.0
40.0
Santora, Caro, & 20 40 50 10
Sarros (2007)
Comini & Fischer 8 13** 87.5 _
(2009)
Froelich, McKee, & 106 11 46.0 42
Rathge (2011) (Charitable)/
160
16
Average: 14**
{ 48.0 36
Average: 47 Average: 39
(Cooperatives)
Average: 133
Viader & Espina 50 63 37 _
(2014)
MEAN 398** 57 38*** 25**
*Average of small and large nonprofits in the survey
**Rounded up
***Rounded down
Research Methods
We compared findings on succession planning and insider-outsider selection of

replacement nonprofit executive directors based on several recently published
journal articles (Bassi, 2013; Bozer & Kuna, 2013; Comini, et al., 2013; Santora,
et al., 2011; Santora, et al., 2013) that focused on nonprofits in Australia, Brazil,
Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States. Data findings in these six articles
were collected from the administration of the Global Survey of Executive Suc-
cession (GSES) in NPOs/NGOs (Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2009).
The GSES was designed to collect data from nonprofit executive directors
about succession planning and other governance practices. It is comprised of
12 sections, with 64 items ranging from demographic data to an open section
for written comments. In those instances where the GSES was administered to
nonprofit executives in non-English settings (where English was not considered
the primary language: Brazil, Israel, Italy, and Russia), researchers translated the
questionnaire into the primary language of each country, adhering to the back
translation guidelines (see Brislin, 1970) to ensure survey items and other unique
features of the survey were not lost in translation. The administration of the GSES
was conducted by researchers in these six countries at different points in time.
Data were triangulated and collected by researchers in each country as outlined
below, and included both online surveys and computer-assisted interviews. For
example, the Australian survey was distributed to nonprofits from Australian
websites and the Australian Bureau of Statistics database on nonprofits, and
the US survey was posted on Charity Channel, an American nonprofit website,
which asked users to complete the online survey and to return it electroni-
cally to a repository at an Australian university where two of the researchers
were employed. Comini, et al. (2013, p. 40) administered the Brazilian survey
online to “representatives of TSOs [third-sector organizations],” including “local
organizations that foster both social entrepreneurship in Brazil and network-
ing, contact with Brazilian social entrepreneurship researchers, and ‘personal
contacts’”. The Israeli online survey was distributed to nonprofit organizations
identified through the Guide Star Israel website (http://www.guidestar.org.il/),
which provides the most complete database available for all nonprofit organiza-
tions in Israel. Furthermore, the sample was extended by distributing the web-
based questionnaire to several email lists of nonprofit executive directors that
the researchers had acquired over time and by using their personal contact lists.
The Italian survey was administered to 200 nonprofit Italian CEOs through
computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) “using an ISTAT database”
and from associations “in the National Register of Italian Associations for Social
Advancement . . . by the Ministry of Welfare” (Bassi, 2013, p. 54). The Russian
survey, a convenience sample, was administered to 29 Russian executive direc-
tors based on a list of Russian nonprofit executive director contacts compiled
by one of the researchers in the study (Santora, et al. 2013).
The Russian sample size was the smallest (29), followed closely by the American
sample (31). There were slightly larger samples in the studies conducted in Australia
(51) and Israel (70) and a respectable sample for the study of Italian nonprofits (200).
Findings and Discussion
Table 3 provides data on nonprofit executives by country. It also includes mean

scores and executive comparative analyses by age, gender, and educational levels.
The table also provides comparative data on succession planning, formal and infor-
mal succession plans, insider-outsider selection, and deputy director selection.
Table 3 Demographic and Succession Criteria by Author and Country
Demographic Profile of Respondents

Authors/Country Categories
Mean
Age Gender (%) Education (%)
M F HS U PG
Santora, Sarros, & Cooper 53 45 55 NA 75 NA
(2011)/Australia
Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa NA 50 50 NA 13 27
(2013)/Brazil
Bozer & Kuna (2013)/Israel 46 53 47 4 23 73
Bassi (2013)/Italy NA 56* 44 40 56 4
Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & NA 52 48 NA 14 65

Esposito (2013)/Russia
Santora, Sarros, & Cooper 56 26 74 NA 87 NA
(2011)/United States
MEAN 47 53
Succession Planning Criteria
Formal (Written) vs. Informal
Succession Planning (%) Succession Planning
Yes No Formal Informal
Santora, Sarros, & Cooper 41 59 10 90
(2011)/Australia
Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa 32 68 26 74
(2013)/Brazil
Bozer & Kuna (2013)/Israel 16 84 7 93
Bassi (2013)/Italy 40 60 89 11
Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & 24 76 NA NA

Santora, Sarros, & Cooper 16 84 7 93
(2011)/United States
Selection Criteria
Insider-Outsider
Selection (%) Deputy Director as Successor (%)
Nonprofits Not
with Selected Selected
Deputy as as
Insider Outsider Directors Successor Successor
Santora, Sarros, & Cooper (2011)/ 24 76 41 33 67
Australia
Comini, Paolino & Feitosa (2013)/ 38 62 NA 67 33
Brazil
Bozer & Kuna (2013)/Israel 34 66 44 12 88
Bassi (2013)/Italy 90** 10 33 70 30
Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & 69 31*** 72 61 59

Santora, Sarros, & Cooper (2011)/ 36 64 29 22 78
United States
Note: The Italian study had samples from three types of organizations. The male-female distribution is
based on the average of those types of organizations.
*All numbers rounded-up
**Includes 90 respondents who select “myself” as a category
***Includes response “it does not matter”
Executive Directors (EDs)

Age. The ages of the executive directors (EDs) who responded in the five studies
reveal that they are an aging population in most cases. Executives in Australia
and the United States were in their 50s (Australian mean age = 53; American
mean age = 56). Executives are slightly younger in Israel (mean age = 46).
Therefore, succession planning may be more critical in Australia and the United
States than in Israel, particularly if these executives follow the patterns of non-
profit executives in other surveys, i.e., leaving their positions in the next five
years (e.g., HR Council for the Nonprofit Sector, 2012; Tonn, 2011; Transition
Guides & McGladrey LLP, 2013).
In the Brazil study, Comini et al. (2013) found that 48% of the executives were
between the ages of 41 and 60, with 30% in the 41 to 50 age range and 18% in
the 51 to 60 age range. The Italian study (Bassi, 2013) and the Russian study
(Santora, et al., 2013) had more even age distributions, particularly for execu-
tives younger than 40. For example, Bassi (2013) reported that almost 25% of
the executives were younger than 40, approximately 29% were between 41 and
50, 29% were between 51 and 60, and 19% were 61 or older. The Russian study
revealed that 14% of executives were younger than 30, 28% were between 31 and
40, 38% were between 41 and 55, and 21% were 55 or older. Overall, these data
show that like the Australian, Israeli, and American samples, executive direc-
tors in Italy and Russia in particular were older and in the majority compared
to other EDs in their countries or from other countries.
Gender. Table 3 also provides data on the gender of participating executive
directors. Male executive directors in three countries (Israel, Italy, and Russia)
held a slight edge over female executive directors. In Brazil, gender distribution
for executive directors was evenly split 50-50. In Australia, female executive
directors outnumbered their male counterparts, 55% to 45%. Only the Ameri-
can findings were the outlier—nonprofit female executives held a commanding
advantage over male executives (74% to 26%). These findings closely resemble
Peters and Wolfred’s (2001) 62%-38% female edge, and Bell, Moyers, and
Wolfred’s (2006) two-to-one female-male margin in small nonprofits (however,
these researchers also found male executives (54%) commanded an edge over
females (46%) in larger nonprofits, those with $10m+ financial budgets). More
recently, The Nonprofit Governance Index 2012 (BoardSource, 2012) reported
similar findings from their 1,341 survey respondents with a 62% female and
38% male distribution. Two Canadian surveys, one in 2005 and one more
recently in 2012, found that females outnumbered males. For example, Boland,
Jensen, and Meyers’ (2005, p. 2) survey of Canadian nonprofits reported that
“women outnumbered men by 2 to 1”. On the other hand, the HR Council
for the Nonprofit Sector’s (2012) survey of 1,251 nonprofit Canadian executive
directors found that females (69%) significantly outnumbered males (31%).
Slightly opposite results were found in two American nonprofit studies; in one
study, males outnumbered females 67% to 33% (Santora & Sarros, 2001a), and
in another study, males held a 55% to 45% edge over females (Santora, Caro, &
Sarros, 2007). However, because these two studies had relatively small sample
sizes (12 and 20 respectively), the generalizability of these findings is limited.
Despite this, female executives tend to lead most nonprofit organizations as
revealed in the extant research base. On average for all country findings in the
current study, female executives held a 6% advantage over men (53% to 47%).
Our findings echo previous research indicating that female executives tend to
lead most nonprofit organizations. This overrepresentation of female leaders
may be encouraging for nonprofits, given the female leadership advantage and
the changes in leadership role (e.g., Eagly, 2007; Eagly & Carli, 2003; Schein,
2002). In conclusion, gender seems more balanced in the nonprofit sector
than in the private sector, where males overwhelming dominate with 95% of
the chief executive officer (CEO) positions in the Fortune 1000 rankings (see
Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000, 2014).
Education. Data on the educational levels of executive directors appear in
Table 3. Most nonprofit executives in these studies were well educated, and had
completed university and postgraduate education. For example, in Australia,
75% of the respondents reported having an undergraduate degree (no data
reported on postgraduate degrees); in Brazil 40% of the respondents reported
having undergraduate degrees and 27% reported having postgraduates. In
Italy, 56% of the respondents reported having 56% undergraduate degrees and
4% having postgraduate degrees; in the US, 87% of the respondents reported
having an undergraduate degree (no data reported on postgraduate degrees).

Finally, in Israel, 23% of the respondents reported having an undergraduate
degree, while 73% reported having postgraduate educations. The Israeli execu-
tive directors were the best educated (graduate degrees) in these studies.
Succession Planning Protocols
The self-reported data from executives on succession planning in Table 3 over-

whelmingly reveal that succession planning is not a core activity for them. Israel
and the United States had poor succession planning rates (both 16%), followed
by Russia (24%), Brazil (32%), Italy (40%), and Australia (41%). Similar to the
findings in Table 1, succession is not a major priority for the nonprofits in these
studies.
Table 3 also offers specific data about those countries with a succession plan.
Israeli and American nonprofits had formal plans, but in an extremely small
percentage of cases (both 7%). The Australian nonprofits were only slightly
better (10%), while 26% of the Brazilian nonprofits reported having formal
succession plans. The Russian study did not include data on this item. None of
these findings is encouraging for nonprofits. Only the Italian nonprofits had
formal succession plans in most cases (89%).
Insider-outsider selection in nonprofit settings is interesting. Respondents
from Australia (76%), Brazil (62%), Israel (66%), and the United States (64%)
reported that outsiders would be their most likely replacements, while those in
Italy (90%) and Russia (69%) reported that insiders would be preferable (see
Table 3). It may be that insider-outsider findings are population specific (see Car-
man, et al., 2010), and therefore, the overall results from various studies appear
inconclusive and at times inconsistent. Santora and Sarros (2001a) found there
was no room for insiders in smaller nonprofits, a view further maintained by
McClusky (2002, p. 552), who contends that nonprofits “have such a small staff
that there is little hope they have the depth to groom successor CSOs [chief staff
officers]” . Froelich, McKee, and Rathge (2011, p. 8) state that “looking internally
for successors is unlikely to yield sufficient numbers of qualified candidates in
nonprofit organizations”.
More specifically, the insider-outsider issue can be enhanced via the position
of deputy director (or second-in-command), that is, the number-two adminis-
trative position in the organization similar to the chief operating officer (COO)
position in for-profit companies. Often, the deputy director position is consid-
ered a route to the top and a logical succession choice (Santora, 2005). However,
the findings in Table 3 suggest that deputy directors are not necessarily, nor
automatically, guaranteed to succeed an incumbent executive director.
We found an even distribution between the countries with deputy directors
and succession. For example, fairly prominent (more than 60%) rates for move-
ment to executive director from deputy director were reported in Brazil (67%),
Italy (70%), and Russia (61%), while exceptionally low rates for deputy director
succession were found in Australia (33%), Israel (12%), and the United States
(22%). These results are supported by Dym et al. (2011, p. 254), who state that
“the second-in-command may not have a broad base of experience from work in
other organizations or settings and may not bring a fresh perspective to the job”.
Implications for Managing Sustainable Organizations
The findings of the nonprofit succession studies in this article have major sig-
nificance for nonprofit leaders. Our findings broaden our understanding of the
myriad ways nonprofits encounter similar challenges of succession planning
and insider-outsider appointments, regardless of global location. Although our
six samples are not necessarily representative of their countries, they provide
some evidence about succession issues that confront nonprofits in countries
other than the United States. The elements of succession planning identified
in this article (i.e., making succession planning a core organizational activity,
having a formal succession plan, internal ED recruitment, and the likelihood
of selecting the deputy ED as a successor) were identified as interconnected
underlying causes for the lack of leadership succession, and as a result, the
sustainability of organizations. The mutual influence each element has on the
others requires many adjustments to successfully “pass the baton” of ED succes-
sion. The importance of executive transitions has become even more urgent as
many of the large baby boomer generation is approaching or has now reached
retirement age (Cohn & Taylor, 2010). This demographic change is apparent in
most of the countries that participated in these surveys. More importantly, this
trend may lead to a severe leadership deficit in nonprofits, given our troubling
findings in all of the studied countries, which indicate that succession planning
and its attendant issues are not core activities for most nonprofits and most
nonprofits do not have a formal succession planning policy in place.
Most importantly, poor succession planning may have a negative impact on
the sustainability of nonprofit organizations, especially smaller ones, many
of which have a problematic existence. As we indicated previously, nonprofit
organizations that have stable succession plans in place help augment and
perpetuate the culture and character of those organizations into the next and
subsequent generations of founder and executive directors. As a result, it is
in the best interests of nonprofits to build a culture of robust and sustainable
succession practices at the earliest opportunity, and particularly during the
change over transition from old to new executive directors and board members.
Communicating nonprofit protocols and expectations, engaging all levels of
management and employees in the direction of the organization, and ensuring
the organization remains focused on its key imperative, are some of the ways
of building sustainable organizations (Adams & Duncan, 2013; Price, 2005).
Limitations
Our article has four limitations. First, we based our analyses on the data collec-
tion methods and analyses of the original findings of the authors and assumed
they were accurate and valid. Second, we acknowledge the limitation of the
convenience samples used in these studies and their potential non-representa-
tiveness of the larger population (see Zikmund et al., 2013). Third, small sam-
ple sizes in the Australian, Russian, and American studies and slightly larger
sample sizes in the Brazilian and Israeli studies may create generalizability
issues, and may not reflect broader and more divergent views of succession in
nonprofits. Fourth, we have excluded the for-profit literature on executive suc-
cession for two reasons: (a) recent growth in the nonprofit literature in this area
has created an appropriate literature base, and (b) for-profit research findings
may not be applicable to the nonprofit sector given the difference between the
two types of organizations.
Conclusion and Recommendations

We sought to fill a gap in the nonprofit literature by determining the degree to
which nonprofit organizations in multiple countries plan for succession and
who they select as successors to replace departing executive directors. Our com-
parative analyses were based on five recent articles on nonprofits in Australia,
Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States. Researchers administered the
GSES with slight modifications depending on peculiarities unique to the coun-
try and/or the organizations (e.g., legal by-laws). Surveys were translated from
the original English survey to each country’s primary language (e.g., Hebrew,
Italian, Portuguese, and Russian). Findings across each survey indicate that
most nonprofits do not plan for a successor; furthermore, the organizations
in these surveys prefer to select and appoint outsiders, even excluding internal
deputy directors, similar to the findings of Carman et al. (2010), i.e., where small
nonprofits cannot and do not always promote internally.
We continue to advocate the need to expand research on succession planning
in nonprofits in other countries. France and Greece might be logical places to
start as they offer additional insights into succession in European nonprofits.
The findings from such studies might provide significant and rich insights
about Western views on this subject. It may be very appealing for researchers to
collect data from nonprofits in developing and emerging non-Western countries
(e.g., those in Africa and Asia). Moving forward, we believe additional research
on nonprofit succession issues at the board level merits further consideration.
Some interesting work has been conducted recently in this area in Australia (see
Cornish, 2013), Brazil (see Comini et al., 2011), and Israel (see Iceovich, 2005).
Conducting comparative analyses between countries to determine similarities
and differences among nonprofit boards that influence their actions on suc-
cession issues at the board level would, indeed, enhance our understanding
about the ways in which nonprofit boards of directors in countries other than
the United States work.
Finally, there is certainly a compelling need for nonprofit organizations to

consider the consequences of not planning for executive succession or to devise
an appropriate strategy to improve the selection and appointment process to
replace departing nonprofit executives. Perhaps nonprofits, wherever their
location in the world, should strongly heed Gothard and Austin’s (2013) and
Gilmore’s (2012) advice that nonprofit governing bodies should connect suc-
cession to strategy to allow an organization, its staff, and its constituents an
equal share in the benefits of a coordinated strategy. Achieving this coordina-
tion would not only ensure seamless succession outcomes, but also enhance
the sustainability of organizations by perpetuating and improving the cultures
of those organizations.
References
Adams, T. (2010). The Nonprofit Leadership Transition and Development Guide: Proven Paths
for Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Adams, T. & Duncan, J. (2013). Executive succession and deepening your bench. Nonprofit
making the difference. Paper presented at the Statewide Conference, North Carolina.
Ahern, G. M. (2015). Imagining what underlies corporate sustainability. Journal of Manage-
ment Development, 34(4), 494-504.
Bassi, A. (2013). Executive succession in Italian nonprofits: A survey. International Journal of
Leadership, 5(3), 51-72.
Bear, A. B. & Fitzgibbon, M. A. (2004). Leadership in a not-for-profit world: A mixed toolbox.
In R. R. Sims & S. A. Quatro (Eds.), Leadership: Succeeding in the Private, Public and Non-
for-Profit Sectors. 87-104. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe
Bell, J., Moyers, R., & Wolfred, T. (2006). Daring to Lead 2006: A National Study of Nonprofit
Executive Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Compass Point Nonprofit Services.
BoardSource. (2012). Nonprofit Governance Index 2012. Washington, DC: Author.
Boland, P. T., Jensen, C., & Meyers, B. (2005). Addressing the leadership challenge. Nonprofit
executives directors’ views on tenure and transition in Alberta. Calgary. Alberta, Canada:
Calgary Center for Non-Profit Management and Peter T. Boland & Associates Inc.
Bozer, G. & Kuna, S. (2013). Israeli perspective on nonprofit executive succession planning.
International Journal of Leadership 5(3), 10-27.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
Carman, J. G., Leland, S. M., & Wilson, A. J. (2010). Crisis in leadership or failure to plan?
Insights from Charlotte, North Carolina. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1),
93-111.
Cohn, D. V. & Taylor, P. (2010). Baby Boomers Approach 65—Glumly. Washington, DC: Pew
Research Center.
Coltoff, P. (2010). At the Crossroads: Not-for-Profit Leadership Strategies for Executives and
Boards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Comini, G. M. & Fisher, R. M. (2009), When Cinderella gazes at herself in the mirror: The
succession issue in NGOs. International Journal of Leadership, 1(2), 4-26.
Comini, G., Paolino, M., & Feitosa, M. (2013). Mapping succession planning in nonprofit
organizations in Brazil. International Journal of Leadership, 5(3), 28-51.
Comini, G., Vieira, L., Moreira, S., & Feri de Sá, S. H. (2011). Brazilian civic society boards:
Their roles and challenges in the succession process. International Journal of Leadership,
3(2), 71-86.
Cornelius, M., Moyers, R., & Bell, J. (2011). Daring to lead: A national study of executive
director leadership. San Francisco, CA: Compass Point Nonprofit Services and the Meyer
Foundation.
Cornish, M. (2013). Exploring social networks of non-executive directors in Australian third
sector organizations. Third Sector Review, 19(1), 51-73.
Dym, B., Egmont, S., & Watkins, L. (2011). Managing Leadership Transition for Nonprofits:
Passing the Torch to Sustain Organizational Excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Eagly, A. H. (2007). Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: Resolving the contradic-
tions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(1), 1-12.
Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the
evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 807-834.
Elkin, G., Smith, K., & Zhang, H. (2012). Succession planning in the third sector in New
Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 37(3), 34-49.
Exworthy, M. & Robinson, R. (2001). Two at the top: Relations between chairs and chief
executives in the NHS. Health Services Management Research, 14(2), 82-91.
Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in
organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 393-408.
Froelich, K., McKee, G., & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession planning in nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(1), 3–20.
Gilmore, T. N. (2003). Making a Leadership Change: How Organizations and Leaders can Handle
Leadership Transitions Successfully. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.
Gilmore, T. N. (2012). The importance of linking leadership succession, strategy, and govern-
ance. The Nonprofit Quarterly, Fall, 51-56.
Githens, R. P. (2009). Leadership and power in fostering a collaborative community in a non-
profit professional organization. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22(5), 413-429.
Golensky, M. (1993). The board–executive relationship in nonprofit organizations: Partner-
ship or power struggle. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 4(2), 177-191.
Gothard, S. & Austin, M. J. (2013). Leadership succession planning: Implications for non-
profit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 37(3), 272-285.
Harris, M. (1993). Exploring the role of boards using total activities analysis. Nonprofit Man-
agement and Leadership, 3(3), 269-282.
Hills, A. (2008). Succession planning—or smart talent management? Industrial and Com-
mercial Training, 41(1), 3-8.
Hofstede, G. H. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, Lead-
ership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Howe, W. (2009). Interview with Dr William Rothwell. International Journal of Leadership,
1(2), 54-63
HR Council for the Nonprofit Sector. (2012). Driving change: A national study of Canadian
nonprofit executive leaders. Ottawa, Ontario.
Iceovich, E. (2005). The profile of board membership in Israeli voluntary organizations.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 16(2), 161-180.
Ito, L. A. (2007). Seeds for succession: A personal case study on leadership development
and succession planning. AAPI Nexus: Asian Americans & Pacific Islanders Policy, Practice
and Community, 5(1), 1-11.
Lynn, D. B. (2001). Succession management strategies in public sector organizations. Public

Personnel Administration, 21(2), 114-132.
McClusky, J. E. (2002). Re-thinking nonprofit organization governance: Implications for
management and leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 539-559.
Mole, V. (2003). What are chief executives’ expectations and experiences of their board? In
C. J. Cornforth (Ed.), The Governance of Public and Non-profit Organizations: What Do
Boards Do? 150-163. London: Routledge.
Murray, V., Bradshaw, P., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Power in and around nonprofit boards: A
neglected dimension of governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 3(2), 165-182.
Nonprofit HR. (2014). 2014 Nonprofit employment practices survey. Washington, DC: Non-
profit HR. www.nonprofithr.com
Nonprofit HR Solutions. (2013). Nonprofit employment trends survey. Washington, DC:
Nonprofit HR Solutions.
Peters, J. & Wolfred, T. (2001). Daring to lead: Nonprofit executive directors and their work
experience (August). San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services.
Price, M. L. (2005). Succession planning and sustainability in nonprofit organizations.
Executive Transitions Initiative. Donors Forum Newsletter, Fall. Retrieved from www.lead
ingtransitions.com/pdfs/ETInwsltr2.doc
Rothwell, W. J. (2010). Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Build-
ing Talent from Within (4th ed.). New York, NY: Amacom.
Santora, J. C. (2005). Seconds-in-command as logical heir apparents. Nonprofit World, 23(2),
27-29.
Santora, J. C., Caro, M. E., & Sarros, J. C. (2007). Succession in nonprofit organizations: An
insider/outsider perspective. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 72(4), 26-31.
Santora, J. C., Clemens, R. A., & Sarros, J. C. (1997). Views from the top: Foundation CEOs
look at leadership succession. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(2),
108-115.
Santora, J. C. & Sarros, J. C. (1995). Mortality and leadership succession: A case study. Leader-
ship & Organization Development Journal, 16(7), 29-32.
Santora, J. C. & Sarros, J. C. (2001a). CEO succession in nonprofit community-based
organizations: Is there room for insiders at the top? Career Development International,
6(2), 107-110.
Santora, J. C. & Sarros, J. C. (2001b). CEO tenure in nonprofit community-based organiza-
tions: A multiple case study. Career Development International, 6(1), 56-60.
Santora, J. C. & Sarros, J. C. (2013). Introduction to the special issue on succession planning
in nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Leadership, 5(3), 3-9.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., & Cooper, B. K. (2009). The Global Survey of Executive Succession
(GSES) in NPOs/NGOs. Trenton, NJ.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., & Cooper, B. K. (2011). Australian and US perspectives of nonprofit
executive succession planning. The Business Review, Cambridge, 18(2), 16-22.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., & Esposito, M. (2010). Small to mid-sized nonprofit leadership
development initiatives: Organizational lessons learned. Development and Learning in
Organizations, 24(6), 17-19.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., & Esposito, M. (2014). Nonprofit founders and succession: How
to ensure an effective leadership handover. Development & Learning in Organizations
28(1), 16-19.
Santora, J. C., Sarros, J. C., Kalugina, A., & Esposito, M. (2013). Insider/outsider succession
in Russian nonprofit organizations: Views from the field. The Journal of American Business
Review, Cambridge, 2(1), 254-260.
Sautter, J. C. & Broder Sumerson, J. (2011). A look at succession planning in nonprofit
organizations. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention,
Washington, DC.
Schein, V. E. (2002). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in manage-

ment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675-688.
Shen, W. & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Will succession planning increase shareholder wealth?
Evidence from investor reactions to relay CEO successions. Strategic Management Journal,
24(2), 191-198.
Singh, J. (2008). Impostors masquerading as leaders: Can the contagion be contained?
Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 733-745.
Smith, M. O. & Moschel, M. (1993). The winds of change: Leadership transition in a Jewish
family agency. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 70(1), 43-50.
Teegarden, P. H. (2004). Nonprofit Executive leadership and Transition Survey 2004. Silver
Springs, MD: Managance Consulting
Tonn, R. (2011, April 8, 2011). Springs nonprofits looking for leaders of tomorrow, The
Colorado Springs Business Journal. Retrieved from http://csbj.com/2011/04/08/
springs-nonprofits-looking-for-leaders-of-tomorrow/
Transition Guides & McGladrey LLP (2013). The national nonprofit sustainability and suc-
cession survey report. Silver Spring, MD.
Viader, A. M. & Espina, M. I. (2014). Are not-for-profits learning from for-profit organiza-
tions? A look into governance. Corporate Governance, 14, 1-14.
Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. (2014). Retrieved 19.08.2014, from http://www.catalyst.
org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000
Zhang, Y. & Rajagopalan, N. (2010). CEO succession planning: Finally at the center stage of
the boardroom. Business Horizons, 53(5), 455-462.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2013). Business Research Methods
(9 ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOI: [10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.oc.

Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning

Succession Planning in Nonprofits

The sustainability of an organization requires a succession of high performers

Table 1 Nonprofit Succession Planning Surveys: 2004–2014

Sample Succession No Succession

Sample Succession No Succession

Nonprofit Insider/Outsider Selection

Insider-outsider succession is a sub-theme in the nonprofit succession litera-

Table 2 Insider/Outsider Selection: 2001–2014

Authors Sample Size (N) Outsiders (%) Insiders (%) Uncertain

We compared findings on succession planning and insider-outsider selection of

Findings and Discussion

Table 3 provides data on nonprofit executives by country. It also includes mean

Table 3 Demographic and Succession Criteria by Author and Country

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Bassi (2013)/Italy NA 56* 44 40 56 4

Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & NA 52 48 NA 14 65

Succession Planning Criteria

Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & 24 76 NA NA

Bassi (2013)/Italy 90** 10 33 70 30

Santora, Sarros, Kalugina, & 69 31*** 72 61 59

Executive Directors (EDs)

having an undergraduate degree (no data reported on postgraduate degrees).

Succession Planning Protocols

The self-reported data from executives on succession planning in Table 3 over-

Implications for Managing Sustainable Organizations

Conclusion and Recommendations

Finally, there is certainly a compelling need for nonprofit organizations to

Lynn, D. B. (2001). Succession management strategies in public sector organizations. Public

Schein, V. E. (2002). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in manage-

You might also like