The Rising Need for More Powerful “Number Two’s”
I’ve always been interested in the people who are second-in-command at a nonprofit or association. The influence, responsibilities, and visibility of that slot varies widely from organization to organization and from field to field. People are often hard-pressed to even name the number-two at an organization, if there is indeed one, and they seem to operate in the shadow of the CEO rather than stand and be recognized in their own light.
But number-two’s are rapidly becoming the number one concern of top leaders who are exhausted, distracted from “the important things,” and feeling the brunt of a tough fundraising climate and a sometimes tougher board culture. Many leaders are complaining that they don’t get to use their strengths—which often include vision, strategic alliance-making, and environmental scanning—to a full degree because they’re burdened by internal oversight responsibilities, human resource challenges, and the constant quest for fresh revenues.
As a result, some are starting to re-examine and/or introduce the role of a chief operating officer (COO). They’re smart to do so, according to Leslie Crutchfield, co-author of Forces for Good (John Wiley & Sons, 2008) and a Monday morning speaker at this annual meeting. Her research leads her to confirm that the number-two position has evolved into much greater significance in the past decade, something many corporations have already concluded and acted upon.
“There are more than 1.5 million operating nonprofits in the country [U.S.], and 80% of them operate on less than half a million dollars a year,” Crutchfield said in a pre-meeting interview. “They’re focused locally, and they don’t necessarily have the staff. [But as they grow] beyond a one- or two-person shop, we’re encouraging leaders to say, ‘Okay, how can I share those responsibilities so that I can have the external, sharing leader and the internal, more systems-focused leader?
“It’s important, because it frees up the top person to do more of what he or she can do best, which is bring in more resources and partners,” she continued. “But it’s hard, too, because you have to invest in it.”
Crutchfield sits on three nonprofit boards, one with a staff of five and an executive director who is already seeking a COO. “Looking five years in the future, the executive director realizes that if he has a strong partner internally, then he’s free to look externally. Think about building that capacity earlier than you normally would,” Crutchfield advised.
She also balked at the term “number two,” saying, “That is the wrong way to phrase it. It’s your complement. That person must be as strong on internal operations management as you need to be externally. That’s especially true with these emerging visionary entrepreneurial founders and leaders--they’re just not going to be strong in this area.”
This “complement” cannot be a “glorified executive assistant” or just another senior vice president, she warned. “The number-two has to be empowered to make decisions. You’re entrusting into that person a lot of authority,” possibly even the future of the organization if he or she succeeds you, although that’s not a given.
As the sector experiences ever-shorter tenures of top nonprofit leaders due to dissatisfaction and burnout, perhaps one remedy is to seek more and stronger “complements” to help carry the heavy burden of organizational leadership and maintenance. Please share your own stories and experiences with number-two’s to start a discussion.
| | Permalink |
Comments
I remember Leslie emphasizing this when I saw her speak a couple months ago. At the time I thought it was a good idea but unrelated to her research--a non sequitur for associations because the leadership dynamics seem very different in charities, and because the insight wasn't derived from or borne out well by her case studies. (Because everyone in the other presentation was from large charities, there was quite a bit of grilling!)
Many charities with sharp growth rates seem to suffer from "founders' syndrome" with a strong number one and an (often intentionally) weak board. It would be interesting to see some real OD research into the impacts of having a strong Chief of Staff or COO position within the association. Subjectively it seems when a GR person is fast-tracked into that head 'statesman' role, the need is even stronger for someone with great leadership and management skills who stays in the office most days to provide the necessary oversight, support, involvement in decisions that staff need ...
Posted by: Kevin Whorton | August 19, 2008 10:17 AM