Exploring Nonprofit Executive Turnover

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21225
• Date: 01 September 2016
• Author: Amanda J. Stewart
• Published date: 01 September 2016

43

N M  L, vol. 27, no. 1, Fall 2016 © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21225

Journal sponsored by the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

Exploring Nonprofi t Executive Turnover

Amanda J. Stewart

North Carolina State University

Projections of executive turnover loom over the three sectors with aging baby boomers filling

many executive-level positions, and research into causes, outcomes, and processes of turn-

over are timely inquiries. Yet, scholarly attention into nonprofit executive turnover has been

limited to date and has not sufficiently examined actual turnover events. To help address

this gap, forty nonprofit organizations that had recently experienced executive turnover

were selected from a national random sample, and the current executives participated in an

interview. This qualitative data was analyzed to identify factors and dynamics that define

nonprofit executive turnover. These findings both confirm practical knowledge and offer

new insights relevant to future research and practitioners alike.

Keywords: executive turnover , nonprofit leadership

EXECUTIVE POSITIONS ACROSS THE PUBLIC, private, and nonprofit sectors are occupied

by aging baby boomers, and labor forecasts predict significant turnover in coming years. For

the nonprofit sector, a 2011 survey found that 67 percent of executives were planning to leave

their position in the next five years (Cornelius, Moyers, and Bell 2011 ). Not surprisingly, con-

siderable scholarly attention has been devoted to executive turnover, but much of this empirical

research is from the public and for-profit sectors. Although professional literature does describe

an “aspirational portrait” of nonprofit executive turnover, empirical research has been limited

to date (Dym, Egmont, and Watkins 2011 ).

Executives hold extensive responsibility for the management and operations of an organiza-

tion, and executive turnover has implications for what Weber referred to as the “routiniza-

tion” of leadership (Helmich and Brown 1972 ). An executive transition is inevitable if an

organization is to survive, and the high-stakes nature of the position makes it the most

important turnover an organization will face (Grusky 1960 ). Executive turnover is not

confined to the transfer of authority from an outgoing executive to an incoming one, but

instead must be understood as a process—nestled among personal, organizational, and pro-

cess factors and complete with a “before,” “during,” and “after” (Kesner and Sebora 1994 ;

Lundberg 1986 ).

The field of executive turnover research has been described as lacking an “overarching frame-

work” that would tie together the various elements and present a “consistent model” for

theory building (Dyck et al. 2002 ; Kesner and Sebora 1994 ). More specifically, Dyck et al.

( 2002 , 145) critiqued that “we know very little about the actual succession process, including

Correspondence to: Amanda J. Stewart, North Carolina State University, 207A Caldwell Hall, Raleigh, NC 27695.

E-mail: ajstewa5@ncsu.edu.

Nonprofi t Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

44 STEWART

the role played by both successors and incumbents.” Nonprofit research on executive turn-

over has primarily described the scale or scope of anticipated turnover (Cornelius et al. 2011 ;

Kunreuther 2005 ; Masaoka 2007 ; Tierney 2006 ), and the few empirical studies are limited

to case studies or small samples (for examples, see Balser and Carmin 2009 ; McKee and

Driscoll 2008 ; Smith, Carson, and Alexander 1984 ).

To help address this research gap, the current study explored nonprofit executive turnover

using qualitative data collected from a random sample of forty nonprofits that had recently

experienced turnover. The current executives of these organizations participated in semi-

structured interviews, and, though limited in their role to the “during” and “after” of turn-

over, offered their insights into nonprofit executive turnover. These interviews highlight

differences among organizational capacity, the role of the board in managing executive turn-

over, and procedural elements such as the transition climate, as well as the “taking charge”

process of the new executive. These findings have considerable theoretical and practical rel-

evance because they detail actual events of nonprofit executive turnover and help inform a

research agenda.

Literature Review

Turnover events have some common elements, such as the outgoing executive ’ s departure and

the selection and arrival of a new executive. The variation is found among the contextual fac-

tors that define these reasons for leaving, how the turnover proceeds, and what difference the

executive change makes in the life of the organization. The study of outcomes, or outputs, of

turnover has distinguished among personal, organizational, or process factors (Giambatista,

Rowe, and Riaz 2005 ). No two turnover events proceed the same way, and personal and orga-

nizational factors have bearing on the outcomes of turnover, as do the elements of the process

itself. In this article, I review existing executive turnover research along with considerations

unique to the nonprofit sector. Given that this study engaged the current executives of non-

profits that have experienced turnover, this review focuses on what happens after the triggering

event, and, in doing so, helps inform the analysis of the interview data.

Personal Characteristics

Projections of executive turnover for the nonprofit sector forecast a “leadership deficit,” as

expected vacancies outpace the “bench strength” of the sector (Tierney 2006 ). Recoined in

a recent article as the “leadership development deficit,” the sector was critiqued for insuf-

ficiently grooming heirs to the executive office (Landles-Cobb, Kramer, and Smith Milway

2015 ). Interpreting this leadership—or leadership development—deficit through the lens of

prior research on executive turnover leads to expectations about the relationship between the

person who fills the executive office and the process of turnover and associated outcomes.

Prior research has found that an executive ’ s skills and background, such as education level,

experience in the executive office, and even experience with executive transitions, are posi-

tively related to turnover outcomes (Cannella and Rowe 1995 ; Hashemi 1983 ; Pfeffer and

Davis-Blake 1986 ). Further, research has documented that seamless transitions, when an heir

apparent is in line to succeed, also relate positively to organizational performance post-turn-

over (Zhang and Rajagopalan 2004 ). A significant volume of research has also attempted to

distinguish outcomes dependent on the origin, either external or internal to the organization,