Document Category: Opinion
One of the healthiest governance practices an organization can embrace is the disciplined pruning of its board through clear, consistent term limits and intentional off ramps for disengaged or unproductive members.
There is an addiction quietly damaging nonprofit organizations every single day.
It is not greed.
It is not ego.
It is not even burnout.
It is avoidance.
Avoidance is the hidden addiction of nonprofit leadership because it disguises itself as wisdom, patience, kindness, collaboration, discernment, and strategic caution. In reality, it is often fear wearing professional clothing.
And while most nonprofit leaders would never describe themselves as avoidant, the evidence frequently tells another story.
Avoidance shows up in delayed decisions.
Avoidance shows up in tolerated dysfunction.
Avoidance shows up in endless conversations without action.
Avoidance shows up in the unwillingness to confront underperformance, financial weakness, strategic drift, cultural toxicity, or changing realities.
The longer avoidance is tolerated, the more expensive it becomes.
Artificial intelligence is no longer experimental in the nonprofit sector.
It has moved from optional to operational. What began as curiosity is now embedded in back office systems, donor communications, grant writing, financial forecasting, and program analytics. AI tools are shaping messaging, automating workflows, and influencing decision making at every level of the organization.
The question is no longer whether to use AI.
The question is whether leaders will use it responsibly.
Philanthropic advisors are playing an increasingly influential role in the nonprofit ecosystem. For many donors and families, they provide real value. They bring structure to giving. They help clarify values. They conduct diligence. They introduce new ideas and organizations. At their best, they elevate strategy and increase impact. But as their influence grows, so do the risks. If we care about a healthy philanthropic marketplace, we must be honest about where advisory models can unintentionally distort it.
The era of trust-based philanthropy without evidence is ending. Funders and donors are asking sharper questions. What changed because of this investment? How efficiently are resources deployed? Who is accountable if outcomes fall short? How strong is the leadership team steering the work? These questions are not cynical. They are rational. Capital is becoming more disciplined. Expectations are rising. And the organizations that thrive will be those that embrace scrutiny rather than resist it.
The nonprofit sector has a complicated relationship with money. For profit companies can be valued in the trillions while exploiting labor, extracting resources, and concentrating wealth. Markets applaud their scale. Investors celebrate their dominance. Yet when a nonprofit builds a billion-dollar endowment to sustain its mission for generations, critics question whether it is too rich. When an organization accumulates reserves to weather volatility, it is accused of hoarding. When it invests strategically, it is told it should simply spend more. The stigma is real. And it is not going away. Rather than waiting for cultural attitudes to change, nonprofit leaders must change their posture toward enterprise.
Download below to access the full opinion piece.
Ambition is not the enemy of nonprofit leadership. In fact, ambition is often what fuels growth, innovation, and impact. The desire to expand services, reach more people, increase revenue, and elevate an organization’s profile can be healthy and even necessary. The nonprofit sector needs leaders who think boldly and act decisively. But ambition untethered from mission is dangerous, and when it begins to overtake purpose, the very reason the organization exists is put at risk.
Click Below to Download the Full Article
In too many nonprofit organizations, succession planning begins when a leader announces their departure. A chief executive shares their timeline, the board scrambles to form a search committee, and the organization enters a period of uncertainty marked by urgency rather than intention. This reactive approach is common. It is also a missed opportunity.
Succession planning is not an event. It is not a document pulled off the shelf during a leadership transition. It is a discipline that should be embedded into how nonprofit organizations think about leadership, talent, and long-term sustainability. When succession planning is treated as an evergreen and strategic process, organizations are better positioned to navigate change without disruption, protect institutional knowledge, and develop leaders who are deeply aligned with mission and culture.
At its core, succession planning is about readiness, not replacement.
Burnout in the nonprofit sector is real. It is not imagined, exaggerated, or a convenient excuse. Nonprofit leaders and staff routinely carry heavy emotional loads, manage chronic resource constraints, and operate in environments where the needs always outpace capacity. Lean staffing, ambitious missions, and rising expectations can create sustained pressure that wears people down over time. Ignoring burnout would be irresponsible.
For decades, many nonprofit organizations built their operating models around one primary source of revenue. For some, it was government funding. For others, it was individual major gifts, an annual signature event, or a single institutional funder. In stable economic periods, that approach could feel efficient and even prudent. In 2026, it will be reckless.
Delivering negative feedback is one of the most uncomfortable responsibilities of leadership. It is also one of the most essential.
In the nonprofit sector, where work is deeply personal and mission driven, feedback can feel especially fraught. A comment about communication style, professional appearance, effort, or focus can land not as guidance but as a judgment on character or commitment. And yet, avoiding these conversations does not make an organization kinder or healthier. It makes it weaker.
Nonprofit leaders are entrusted with stewarding mission, resources, and people in service of impact. That trust comes with an obligation to demand excellence. Not perfection, but excellence. The kind that ensures communities are served well, donors are respected, and staff are set up to succeed rather than quietly struggle.
Leaders today must build the modern water cooler on purpose. Not a single
fixture but a network of small practices that give people the sense of community
that once happened automatically. When done well, these new water coolers do
more than fill a void. They help employees rediscover the power of connectivity,
the comfort of a shared home, and the quiet joy of belonging to a team that
celebrates, includes, and cares for one another.
We must stop thinking of nonprofit health as a private concern. It is a public imperative. Policymakers need to understand that to invest in nonprofits is to invest in public well-being, economic stability, and the resilience of our social fabric. Eroding the tax code to disincentivize giving, underfunding grants, or attaching unreasonable restrictions to nonprofit activities may seem fiscally prudent on paper—but in reality, it simply shifts the burden and multiplies suffering.
DAFs Are Hoarding Billions. It’s Time to Mandate Charitable Action
Billions of charitable dollars are sitting idle—already donated, already deducted from taxable income, and yet nowhere near a nonprofit. At a time when food banks, shelters, clinics, and schools are stretched to their limits, a vast reservoir of philanthropic capital is accumulating in financial accounts—untethered from urgency and untouched by regulation.
