Founders and Other Gods

by Deborah Linnell

These are the no- ounders—you can’t live with ’em, you Organizations Grow” was first published in the can’t live without ’em; or sometimes you Harvard Business Review in July/August 1972 barriers type people die in the process of trying. What makes and later updated for republication in HBR in 1998. founders of nonprofit organizations some In his white paper “Passages: Changing whose righteous of our greatest leaders? And what also Organizations and Boards,”2 which describes Fmakes them the demon in many nonprofits’ most for-profit life cycles, Mathiasen helped many to passion often turbulent and dramatic chapters? Why are understand, for the first time, that the sometimes founders so often our greatest inspiration, while strange or seemingly self-destructive ways in catches others up so susceptible to an Icarus complex—some- which many nonprofit organizations, boards, and times even bringing down an entire organization staffs act are associated more with the phase of in their beliefs. They with them? development they are in than with any perverse- Founders—those people who are sparked ness on the part of a particular player during a take a cause, turn it with a fury and a zest about a cause, a mission, particular effort. What a relief this would have an idea, and who (unlike most of the population) been had most of the nonprofit world known into a mission, and have the energy and the wherewithal to do some- about it! Because, as with parenting, it’s impor- thing about it—are typically incredible people. tant to know the common phases of development build the people Not only do they see an injustice and feel so you can plan for them and not overreact. inspired to fight it, but they almost always think While the ways in which organizations support and basic they can win. These are the no-barriers type develop, and the forms they take, have changed people whose righteous passion often catches somewhat as we transitioned from the indus- nonprofit structure others up in their beliefs. They take a cause, turn trial to the knowledge era (see 1998 Greiner it into a mission, and build the people support article), the first few “evolutionary” phases and to hold the flame and basic nonprofit structure to hold the flame the “revolutionary” transition between them is of their passion. By nature, these are people with still pretty common. of their passion. strong mental models of what’s right and what’s The first phase of nonprofit development, wrong. But it is these strengths of character— according to Mathiasen, is characterized by the insight and vision, a sense of justice, a hopeful- organization’s intense focus on cause and ness, an ability to take risk, determined mission. An informal organizational structure purposefulness, and the ambition to succeed for tends to link the parties involved, and roles are mission’s sake—that can also be their downfall. largely interchangeable. There is a natural atten- In 1984, Karl Mathiasen1 built a description of tion to outcomes because the organization life cycles for nonprofits based on the work of measures its success by the results of its work. Larry E. Greiner. “Evolution and Revolution as It is in this stage where founders have flour-

8 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • SPRING 2004

ished, and organizations have flourished an abysmal waste of time in the face of the real because of them. (mission) work of the organization. This can The flexibility and informality of the first lead to all-out battles between the champions of stage are critical factors in organizations that mission and the champions of systems. Most organizations are young and under-resourced financially This is where the highly dramatized organi- because they allow people to bring the full force zational passion play finds its stage—and typi- cannot identify the of their personalities, passion, and creativity to cally there is quite a bit of sound and fury (think bear on the situation. Some small organizations MacBeth). How many wonderfully energetic fact that they are can stay in this phase for decades, retaining their visionaries have we seen forced out of their “management by relationship” style and attract- organizations as a result of this crisis? Con- making a life ing others to them through the strength of their versely, how many original founders have liter- unified beliefs and combined energy level. ally drowned their own organizational baby by passage. Often the As Mathiasen writes, “Founders are usually resisting the need for change or the call for a highly entrepreneurial and passionately com- change in the power structure? These battles passage is actually mitted to the organization’s goals. They attract can be bloody and brutal and, in the worst a few other highly committed people who jump cases, go on for a decade. held on the cusp of into long hours of work, rewarded not by status Part of the problem is that many organiza- or money but by satisfaction of advancing the tions do not understand that they are playing some other crisis. cause.” Organizational structure and manage- out a highly painful archetypal moment. After ment style are often driven by individual prefer- all, it feels so intensely personal to the situa- Staff, boards, ences and personality traits that complement tion. Most organizations cannot identify the the way the founder likes to work. Roles and fact that they are making a life passage. Often volunteers, the responsibilities between all of the committed the passage is actually held on the cusp of some players are loosely defined and often overlap other crisis. Staff, boards, volunteers, the founder—all will simply because that is the way things work best. founder—all will find one reason or another to Communication between staff is frequent and bring the issue to a head, and what happens is find one reason or fluid, and they often will talk about feeling like some of the cruelest “kicking to the curb” that “one big family.” people will ever experience. It is particularly another to bring the But for many organizations, success in a first galling, considering the level of personal effort stage will produce growth and investment, and founders have given over the years, that they issue to a head. these, in turn, eventually produce a natural often go out with a whimper as the door hits push/pull between attention to the cause and them in the backside. (No this has not hap- attention to the systems needed to manage a pened to me, yet!) But if a skilled outsider asks larger organization. In Mathiasen’s words, “As “the survivors” to tell the story a few years the organization grows, informal, sporadic later, it will have all the earmarks of a growth communication becomes inadequate. New stage in which the entire system did not have employees seem to be less fiercely dedicated the wisdom to see all the various roles being and motivated than those who were there from played out, often to the bitter end. The “system” the start.” Very often you will begin to hear did not have the system-awareness and the calls from newer staff about the lack of clear leader did not have the self-awareness to step and fair personnel practices, or complaints outside of the maelstrom and actually begin to from funders about grants being misspent or describe “a shift in process.” Understanding unauditable. Staff and board will begin to ask that growth and shifts are inevitable would help why problems show up repeatedly—why ques- ameliorate these times of crisis and allow for tions go unanswered and gaps remain unfilled shifts to occur in a safer, gentler way. in management. Think of it; each of us has a story of the fair- Founders do not always understand that haired founder who fell out of favor for : these questions are the start of an important and • calling his or her own shots for one too somewhat inevitable transition to a more many years; systems-focused stage. They may resist the ques- • not empowering the (fill in the blank) board, tioning due to disinterest or because they see all staff, constituents; such challenges as malicious or wrongheaded or • not putting in systems the board has

10 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • SPRING 2004 requested or even formally voted on; themselves before the organization. The list goes • losing ground to an emerging (and often on: their egos are huge, they do not feel account- opposing) power group (typically a staff-led able to anyone but themselves; they cannot plan revolt of some type); in a strategic fashion and run their now million- • going too far out on a limb with a promise dollar organizations by the seat of their pants Good founder or bad that was unable to be fulfilled; like they did ten years ago when the budget was • not dotting all the “i’s” and crossing the “t’s” $200,000. They get bored easily and move onto founder, the on a major contract or a public event (detail is not the next entrepreneurial program adventure a founder-personality’s strength) and losing face without having completely stabilized the last collective nonprofit or embarrassing the organization; venture, often leaving staff with a great idea, but • blaming people around them when the no solid plan for implementation. They work story is this: chips were down or simply not allowing the eighty hours a week and don’t get why everyone “baby” to grow and walk on its own. else doesn’t have the same level of commitment. Eventually the Some cultivate chaos and disorder for a Founder madness finds its end in some of the couple of reasons: one it provides the illusion founder leaves. The crises mentioned above, but most typically it that they are needed to “solve issues, problems, starts with the staff circumventing the leader by and crises.” More cynically, I believe that some leaving is often going directly to board members to report “stuff” people operate out of chaos as a way of creating (that they originally suggest be kept “confiden- near total control; if there are no standards or disruptive for the tial”). The boards they are complaining to are systems or organizational norms for communi- often young, inexperienced, and used to follow- cation, leaders get to control and change the organization and ing the founder, but board members eventually rules as it suits them. The worst of founder-type look into the allegations and find that the personalities bully others under the guise of the emotionally charged organization needs stronger management at this mission/cause; political rightness or simply point in its growth. However, “creative founders thinking their way is the right way. The very for the people classically are neither interested in nor tem- worst drag their organizations down as their peramentally suited to provide this kind of leadership flame flickers into obscurity. Allowed involved; and the managerial direction,” says Mathiasen. By the to stay, they become more and more entrenched, same token, founders do not want to let go of the not allowing for innovation that they do not founder’s qualities “baby” they have toiled so hard to birth—some- understand and/or control. Many sadly become times over a period of many years. These strug- legends in their own minds based on some early- are lost to the gles between founder, board, and staff—with on success or achievement. They do not have the people taking all sorts of sides and playing many self-awareness to see how they only seek out organization as it major and supporting roles in the drama—often those (staff, board, friends) who support their go on for several years, until finally with pride internal story about themselves, and they tend moves on without and prejudice, the founder leaves. to turn away truth tellers or anyone who has a And while some founders are near saints different idea of how the organization might be. him or her. whom normal people feel quite a bit of sympathy On the other hand, we could not live without for as they limp away, other founders have left the best among our founders. Nearly every great terrible legacies, and there is good reason for cause was started by a visionary, risk-taking, them to go. I worked for a founder who pro- no-barriers, basically very courageous human ceeded to bankrupt his own community organ- being. But good founder or bad founder, the col- izing group rather than to adhere to some rules lective nonprofit story is this: Eventually the and systems, and to be accountable to those cit- founder leaves. The leaving is often disruptive izens in whose name the nonprofit did business. for the organization and emotionally charged for The bankruptcy also severely damaged several the people involved; and the founder’s qualities small businesses, and for several years his staff are lost to the organization as it moves on had been in one uprising after another over without him or her, closing the door on what issues that had much to do with the ethics of now gets told and passed down as one of the how the organization operated. organization’s old war stories. “Bad” founders could be summed up as the This has been an observable trend for many types who really, when all is said and done, put years (since people like Mathiasen first made us

SPRING 2004 • WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 11 Some Founders Can Remain:

ip Tiernan is a founder’s founder. In the last 30 years Kip spent the first eight years primarily fundraising, she has founded Rosie’s Place and the Boston Food speaking to countless church and social clubs and college Bank, and co-founded the Poor People’s United groups. She requested funding, clothing, volunteers, and Fund, Healthcare for the Homeless, the Women’s food. She also worked five to six eight-hour shifts per week, Fund,K and Community Works. At age 77, Kip still works at the talking with and listening to the women who came to Rosie’s Poor People’s United Fund, but calls Rosie’s Place her Place—a classic founder, working endless hours to make “home”—the one place she will never leave. Kip was origi- the ship sail. nally in corporate public relations and advertising, and anti- Kip is most publicly identified with Rosie’s Place, but she war work in the 1960s gave her a window on how to use her has never been its director or even a paid staff member. marketing skills for social causes. She has never looked back. She was its founder, newsletter and marketing coordinator, In the early 1970s, Kip observed women passing them- shift volunteer, and continuous big-vision thinker; and today selves off as men in order to find shelter in Boston. It was the her “formal”role is on the board of directors. But she never Catholic Workers movement and Dorothy Day in New York wanted to manage the organization. Kip says she feels City who influenced her to simply “be there”for homeless lucky—for her life, for the partners who have helped people. Respect, listening, and building a community of and supported her, for the women of Rosie’s Place who have mutuality became mantras as she went on to found Rosie’s both taught her and provided her truest community. Place in an abandoned supermarket in 1974. She also took This feeling of being a part of a community versus “owning another lesson from Dorothy Day—do not take money from an organization,”as she puts it, most directly reflects Kip’s “the man.”As a result, a critical philosophical principle self-awareness and ability to share leadership, characteristics of Rosie’s Place, to this day, is to refuse all city, state, and that have been key to the organization’s openness to her government funding. ongoing involvement. The early years at Rosie’s Place were similar to those at What is remarkable in this story is that Rosie’s Place has many progressive, sheltering organizations of the 1970s. It been flexible enough to allow for change, which has was volunteer-led with no paid staff during its first four included different organizational structures as well as con- years. People made do with what they had: an abandoned siderable growth (from an all-volunteer staff to a 50-plus supermarket as a first home (sheltering women anyway, paid staff with 1000 volunteers—a $3.1 million-dollar oper- whether zoning allowed it or not) with few program policies ation)—and yet still maintain its relationship with its con- except for a highly evolved mission and ethos around how ceptual and spiritual founder. It’s not for every group, but it to work with homeless women. has worked at Rosie’s Place.

12 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • SPRING 2004 Kip Tiernan and Rosie’s Place

There were several classic bumps along the way in the • Let go of detail. Even if Kip sees things she would do early years (people leaving over fundamental arguments differently (which she admits to, even 30 years later), she about whether or not to take government funding, and later lets go of the small stuff and encourages staff members to on about the organizational structure itself). Kip doesn’t find their way. maintain she was an angel through these times, but she was • Staying true to the big stuff. A founder who finds a way able to persevere to the other side of the struggle and to to remain, while letting an organization grow, can gift the work with and accept changes when they came, and when organization with the presence of a living, founding ethos. In they were appropriate. She is a self-described opinionated, Kip’s case, she’ll let go of the details but she shines the light big-picture thinker, but one who also credits many, many on those founding principles that she put in place 30 years people with the success of Rosie’s Place, and who recognizes ago: respect for homeless women, support of women to be the importance of giving management authority to several who they are, the importance of volunteerism, and the excellent executive directors—particularly the current importance of not relying on funding that will negatively director, Sue Marsh and her predecessor, Julie Brandlen. affect the mission. Kip calls this the “articulation of things that The lesson we can learn from Kip is to know where our shouldn’t change.” strengths lie—but to remain humble in our need for others to make something whole. It also helps to be able to identify The balance of knowing your strengths and weaknesses the strengths that others need to bring to the table. Open- and having enough perspective to let go of the small stuff, ness to others attracts good people with complementary while being a standard bearer for the critical organizational strengths. Finally, you have to have the sense to not micro- principles, is a good lesson for those founders hoping to manage those who are willing to partner with you, particu- remain affiliated with organizations they care about. By the larly in the areas where they bring expertise. When asked why same token, organizations need to be flexible and create she thinks she’s lasted, Kip said: roles for their special visionaries or keepers of the flame. The • There is no such thing as a lone leader. You cannot do it board and staff of Rosie’s Place have figured this out along by yourself; nor should you feel ownership over what you do the way. as much as you should relish being a part of the community created by the interdependence of things. • Her perspective is not static: “What worked 30 years ago, doesn’t necessarily work today.”

SPRING 2004 • WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 13 aware of it). “Founderitis” has become a word to forward to a new style of connectedness, cross- describe any leader in the throes of any part of ing boundaries and reaching constituents in an what is described above. But founderitis isn’t effort to achieve our missions, regardless of the just about individuals or their individual fancy institutions we build. “Founderitis” organizations. The founderitis phenomenon also Nonprofit founders and second-stage man- has to do with the maturity and life stage of the agers are only human, as are the boards and isn’t just about nonprofit field as a whole. While nonprofits or staffs that surround them. They are also terribly “charities” have existed for many years, the first under-resourced and doing more with less than individuals or wave of the modern, cause-related nonprofit (not any other sector (business or government). In focused on higher education, the arts and some organizations the story of how the founder their individual culture, or health and sciences) began in the went away is the source of the group’s deepest 1960s. This wave has been characterized by lit- collective pain. In others, the revolt against the organizations. erally millions of start-ups of cause-related “my way or the highway” second-stage manager organizations. You might call this the “founder without a heart is the most painful story. It is The founderitis stage” of the nonprofit sector, as we know time we stopped pitting the two “eras” within the it today. nonprofit against each other and find more holis- phenomenon also For some years now we have been in reaction tic responses to the positive tension that arises to the individual nonprofit founder/leaders, and within all organizations as a result of growth and has to do with the have built an industry around pushing the non- change. In fact, there is so much growth and profit sector into sound management practice— change happening so rapidly—and so much maturity and life or its second stage. We have turned our backs on more accountability demanded of both the first- our flaky founders (but at least they have and second-stage types—that we are, as a stage of the passion!) only to embrace, too fully, “manage- sector, already rewriting how founders will ment” and second-stage managers who excel at found and how organizations will grow. nonprofit field administrative systems development as the be- Hence, there can be a different story—with all end-all to the effective nonprofit organization. new descriptions of organizational growth that as a whole. The industry supporting nonprofits (nonprofit tell how people found organizations. We can support centers, foundation- and United Way- learn from the thirty to forty years of “founderi- sponsored management assistance programs, tis” methods, and the twenty years of excessive management consultants, university nonprofit emphasis on “the right management” and the centers) have played their part in helping the right tool; we can identify the best and worst of nonprofits to see the “error” of their first both extremes—and chart a middle course. stage/founder ways, and they have ground in In order to do this people must conspire pos- second-stage lessons ad nauseum for the last 20 itively to push the sector to: years. It has gotten to the point that the “fix” for Help leaders, boards of directors, and sound second-stage management has created a line staff understand that shifts will occur bit of a beast—an era in which second-stage and that different phases in an organization call management is the zenith for thousands of for different kinds of leaders, flexible governance organizations, and where outsiders, including models, and different types of skills and compe- some foundations, benchmark a group on how tencies among staff. If the people in the system well it fundraises or markets or manages (con- are given the heads up that the whole system will strains) its staff versus how well it is meeting its constantly shift and change, they can become overall mission. generators of the change (story writers) versus The entire sector—nonprofit, philanthropist, reactors to the change (characters in the story). and capacity builder—have contributed (as we Undo the stiff boundaries and sacred co-shaped this second stage of development cows defined by the second stage of orga- together) to the era of “institution building” and nizational development. Do all founders or “right management.” The intellectual and capital past executive directors really have to “com- investment in the second stage has been so pletely” leave an organization in order to allow forceful, it is hard to imagine the level of lever- the next leader/ executive director to flourish? age and shift that will be required to drive the In some immature organizations with founders sector both backwards to its creative roots and who lack self-awareness, this is called for; but

14 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • SPRING 2004 can we be a bit more situational for those more have to know how to manage change at multiple mature organizations and leaders, so that the levels and create a shared understanding of both qualities of the founder are not entirely lost to current reality within the organization and a pre- the organization? Who are our role models for ferred future reality as defined by many stake- Some founders— the new roles that founders can play in organi- holders, not just one leader. zations when they let go of day-to-day control? For those organizations that swing radically particularly those (See sidebar to this story on Kip Tiernan). away from the informality of the founder stage Support personal growth in leaders. to the excesses of the second stage, they too who are self-aware No one human being can know him- or herself need to blend emerging leadership theory into completely, but with founders who tend to have the old “control and compliance” management and challenged to large egos tied up in the success and failure of style. Organizations will simply not survive (or their organization, it is even harder to let them will be in continuous staff turnover and dimin- grow personally— know their weaknesses or to offer constructive ishing returns on mission) with leaders who criticism. There is enough literature now on the dictate to paid employees what their jobs are and will make the pitfalls of founderitis for seasoned board how to do them from a top-down perspective. members, consultants, and even foundation staff People who choose to work or volunteer in transition from to start talking directly to founders about the the many domains within the nonprofit sector classic patterns that might emerge, and about typically do so with a passion to make a change the essential and ways in which others have managed them. in the lives of other people and in our society. Help founders and leaders to harness Organizational systems should harness the gift still-needed role their strengths and identify and build of the founder and each subsequent leader’s support around their deficits. Give them energy by facilitating them to their own (and the of start-up/founder, guidance as to what signs to look for as an indi- organization’s) highest expectation. Expecta- cation that the organization is beginning to move tions need to be evolving and raised up as the risk-taking “holder into another stage of development. Ask them whole field of nonprofits also learns, reflects and honestly if they have the wherewithal to become grows. We have enough lessons now to know, at of the whole”to the a truly “situational” leader, able to emphasize least for this time in the sector’s history, what sound management practices over vision and those expectations should be. The best leaders role of “facilitative program, for a period of time, in order to steer now and the leaders of the future will be facili- the organization to another level of needed tative by nature. sharer”of vision and strength and capacity. Some founders—particularly those who are Tell the truth about “bad” founders, and self-aware and challenged to grow personally— the whole. move them out quickly—not over several will make the transition from the essential and years and not through a histrionic, damaging still-needed role of start-up/founder, risk-taking process of hand-wringing, accusation, and “holder of the whole” to the role of “facilitative blaming. This story (like the bad office gossip) sharer” of vision and the whole. For those who simply should not be given countenance cannot or do not want to make the transition, the anymore by the broader nonprofit system. This nonprofit sector system needs to describe and means the difficult work of getting the people in articulate, coach, and teach (wherever and the organization to change from dwelling on the however it can) that change will happen—and more negative (and albeit more fun) founderitis that it presents an opportunity. We need to move stories to collectively building a book of positive away from transition as crisis and go forward to stories on how to navigate leadership challenges, a time of both predicting transition that is about growth, and change in first-stage organizations. to occur and leveraging it to the organization’s There is emerging literature on what consti- best advantage toward fulfilling its mission. Our tutes effective nonprofit organizations. Themes best founders and leaders will understand how that run through this literature include the ability to build, maintain and transition, both person- to remain focused on mission, focused on clients ally and organizationally, and these will be core (customers), and the ability to adapt in the “infor- leadership competencies. mation age,” or a time of continuous change. The story of a founder’s passage may still be These are competencies for which many dramatic in the future; but let’s make it less founders are naturally suited. But they will also hurtful to the individuals involved, and to the

16 REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG • SPRING 2004 organization. In fact, founderitis is a disease we About the Author can work together to cure. The story of the founder should be of the challenge well met; and Deborah Linnell has worked in the nonprofit sector for 23 years as staff person, executive when the need for change emerges, there should Our best founders be understanding, resulting in a more inten- director, board member, and as a consultant and evaluator for nonprofits and philanthropic organ- tional, thankful, and where possible, celebratory and leaders will transition of some of the sector’s greatest con- izations. She is currently the Director of the tributors—our founding leaders. Mission Effectiveness Program at Third Sector New England. understand how to Endnotes Let’s Talk build, maintain and 1. Karl Mathiasen of the Management Assistant Group, Washington, D.C / www.managementas- Let’s move this topic forward! Any ideas or transition, both sistance.org/ 202-238-7587. arguments you’d like to share with the authors and editors? Contact us at: feed- 2. Management Assistance Group, Washington, personally and [email protected]. D.C., 1984. organizationally, and these will be core leadership competencies.

SPRING 2004 • WWW.NONPROFITQUARTERLY.ORG REPRINTED FROM THE NONPROFIT QUARTERLY 17