Why Did You Quit?: Leadership Turnover In The Animal Advocacy Movement
Introduction
Strong leadership is important for any social movement. Great leaders empower everyone in their organization, create alignment around a common purpose, and streamline processes for greater results. Lack or loss of strong leadership is very costly, and can make or break an organization.
Faunalytics’ previous research has explored why animal advocates of all positions choose to leave their roles. The study’s results found that the most common contributing factor for leaving an animal advocacy organization was problems with leadership, which was cited by 39.7% of advocates. Meanwhile, research by Animal Advocacy Careers has consistently found that leadership roles are some of the hardest to fill.
We wanted to understand what these problems look like from a leader’s perspective. What makes it hard for leaders in the animal advocacy movement to do their jobs effectively, and why is it so hard to find and retain strong leaders? A better understanding of this issue may help us to strengthen our leadership, which is critical for increasing both leadership and general advocate retention.
To find an answer, we conducted an informal study researching why animal advocates in executive director roles choose to leave their positions, with an eye on developing proposals for increasing leadership retention in the animal advocacy movement.
The study had two parts: an online survey, which was followed by a few qualitative interviews. Sixteen former executive directors who had left their positions within the past five years participated in the survey, and six participated in subsequent interviews. All executive directors were from animal advocacy organizations.
Here is what we found.
Burnout And Lack Of Board Support Are Top Contributing Reasons For ED Turnover
The most cited factor contributing to the decision to leave an executive director (“ED”) role was burnout. 62.5% said that they were “burnt out or too tired to continue.” Burnout was followed by a perceived lack of making a difference (named by 43.8% of respondents) and lack of support from the board (37.5%). Other commonly cited contributing reasons (each at 31.3% of respondents) included interference of the job with other parts of one’s life, lack of fit in values or skills, harassment or discrimination from someone within the organization, low pay compared to other jobs, and a belief that one could have a bigger impact in a different role.
Founder EDs And Non-Founder EDs Leave For Very Different Reasons
Table 1: Responses to the question: “Why did you leave this role? Please select everything that had a substantial influence on your decision.”
(The chart only represents the reasons most frequently selected.)
These numbers are striking. 0% of founder EDs but 60% of non-founder EDs agreed with the statement “My board was not supportive enough.” 0% of founder EDs but 50% of non-founder EDs experienced harassment or discrimination from someone involved in the organization.
The differences between founder and non-founder EDs were further substantiated in another part of the study where we asked about the degree and kinds of support they received. We found that all founder EDs felt at least somewhat supported by their board, while 70% of non-founder EDs did not feel supported by their board. Furthermore, 100% of founder EDs but only 50% of non-founder EDs expressed agreement with the statement “Usually, this organization was a fair place to work.”
The problems with the board did not extend to other people in the organization. Virtually every respondent (94%) agreed at least somewhat that the people they worked with in the organization were friendly, and 81% agreed at least somewhat that the staff and volunteers were helpful in getting the job done.
What could explain these differences? Comments we received in the survey and through interviews offer some clues. Here are a few of the responses by non-founder EDs to the question “What, if anything, could the organization have done to retain you?”
- “Allowed me to bring more of my own leadership style to the organization”
- “Investment and belief in my vision for the org”
- “The board could have been oriented more on inquiry and solutions-based decision making and change, vs bias against staff and my responsibility to support them”
- “The board could have intervened and done the bare minimum to offset the deep founder’s syndrome the founder was experiencing.”
- “The organization should have promptly investigated and addressed the harassment from a volunteer”
- “Remove the harassing board member”
These responses suggest that non-founder EDs felt that they could not truly step into a leadership role (despite their title). In one case, lack of trust or “bias” seems to have played a role. In another case, “founder’s syndrome” was mentioned as the cause. “Founder syndrome” happens when the founder of an organization personally identifies with the organization and retains outsize influence over its operations. One interviewee described it as follows: “The founder would require us to pivot our strategy constantly and ask us to work on his personal, not mission-aligned projects during working hours. When I asked the board for a conversation about this, they refused to meet with me.” The problem is that this dynamic undermines the non-founding executive director’s ability to lead the organization.
The responses also suggest that boards did not sufficiently protect non-founder EDs against harassment (by a volunteer in one case and by a board member in another).
Former EDs Wanted To Spend More Time Networking And Developing And Implementing The Organization’s Strategic Plan
What could explain the high rate of burnout? To answer this question, we looked at how former executive directors spent their time as well as their satisfaction with pay and benefits and their connections with other leaders in the movement.
Our study revealed that how former executive directors spent their working hours differs greatly between organizations. For example, some spent 0% on programmatic work, while others spent 50% or even 60% of their time on programmatic work.
However, regardless of how exactly they allocated their time, most former executive directors described their tasks as very diverse. 87.5% of former EDs allotted at least some time to at least 6 of the 7 work categories we covered in the survey (such as fundraising, HR, operations, or strategic planning).
Table 2: Here is how, on average, EDs distributed their time between different work categories:
E.g., EDs reported, on average, spending 15% of their time on fundraising.
This finding was further confirmed through qualitative interviews. Interview participants told us that being the executive director is like “having three jobs” (development, operations, and HR), and that as the ED you need to know “how to do every job in the organization” and you need to “constantly pivot and switch between tasks.”
Having three jobs at once is demanding. Regarding the kinds of support they received, more than half (56%) of former executive directors did not agree that they received sufficient support for their professional development or enough training to do their job well, and 50% did not agree that they received enough resources to do their job well.
Regarding time management preferences, 69% of respondents would have liked to spend more time on networking with other leaders, and 69% would have liked to spend more time on developing and implementing the organization’s strategic plan. 56% would have liked to spend less time on operations, and 37.5% would have liked to spend less time on HR or working with the board of directors. There were no consistent trends with regard to fundraising or programs: some former executive directors would have liked to spend more time on these categories, while others would have liked to spend less time.
Satisfaction With Pay And Benefits Ranks Low
When asked about their compensation packages, 44% were “somewhat” or “very” dissatisfied with the rate of pay. This number increased to 62.5% when the respondents were asked to compare the rate of pay to that of similar jobs (inside or outside of animal advocacy).
This result is not surprising. A previous Faunalytics study found that median executive director salaries were generally lower than EDs of social advocacy and environmental organizations. In particular, executive directors of farmed animal advocacy organizations with revenue below $1 million make $20,000 to $25,000 less than EDs of social advocacy and environmental organizations with similar revenue.
The comparatively low executive director pay may also stand in the way of matching people with the roles best suited for them. One former executive director told us that they did not enjoy the constant pivoting between tasks required of executive directors, and did not seek out alternative roles (as operations personnel, say) because the pay for alternative roles is too low. This former executive director no longer works in the movement.
More Than 1/3 Of Respondents Did Not Feel Well-Connected
With more leadership cohorts and peer support networks emerging in the animal protection movement, we wanted to understand whether being connected to other leaders factored into former EDs’ experiences. 31% of respondents said that they felt very well-connected with other leaders in the animal advocacy movement. 37.5% said that they did not feel very well-connected. Yet regardless of how well-connected they felt, a majority (56.3%) still wished to grow their network.
Figure 2: When You Were In That Former Executive Director (Or Equivalent) Role, How Well-Connected Did You Feel With Other Leaders In The Animal Advocacy Movement?
Feelings After Leaving
Perhaps predictably, given these results, founder EDs and non-founder EDs answered the question “How did you feel about your organization when you left your executive director (or equivalent) role?” very differently:
Figure 3: How Did You Feel About Your Organization When You Left Your Executive Director (Or Equivalent) Role?
- Mostly positive: My departure was accompanied by strong positive feelings, like pride about past accomplishments and excitement for the future of the organization.
- Mostly negative: My departure was accompanied by strong negative feelings, like disappointment or resentment.
- Equal: It was an equal mix of positive and negative feelings.
Non-founder EDs were more than twice as likely to report mostly negative feelings after their departure.
Recommendations
The main finding of this study is that founder EDs most commonly leave their roles because of burnout, while non-founder EDs most commonly leave their roles because they lack board support. Below we share recommendations for how to protect our executive directors against burnout and increase board support.
For Executive Directors
- Do what you can to understand burnout and protect yourself. Think of it as “putting your oxygen mask on first before helping others.” The book Burnout. The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle by Emily and Amelia Nagoski may offer helpful ideas.
- Educate yourself about “managing up” and think proactively and constructively about how to manage your board. Organizational workshops and consulting through Scarlet Spark or leadership consulting through Reveal Impact may offer support and helpful ideas.
- Seek out formal and informal networking opportunities with other nonprofit leaders. Consider attending conferences such as the Animal and Vegan Advocacy Summit, where you can meet and network with other leaders.
- One interviewee told us that, even though they had connections to other leaders, they did not feel like they could be open about their difficulties and doubts. When socializing with other leaders, help to create the kind of environment that allows people to form genuine connections. Show up authentically, with integrity and respect confidentiality.
- Accept that your job will likely involve more administrative work (HR and operations) and less room for strategic thinking than you prefer. As your organization grows, prioritize adding operations support to enable you to dedicate more time to strategy.
- The animal advocacy movement has added many capacity-building resources over the last few years, such as back office resources offered by Logistically or legal advice offered by Animal Defense Partnership. Making good use of these resources can lessen the weight on your shoulders.
For Nonprofit Boards
- For many nonprofits (though perhaps not all), it makes sense when hiring a new executive director to look for a generalist, with experience in many different areas of nonprofit management. One former executive director shared an ED search rubric with us with 21 entries, from fundraising through audit to people management experience. For smaller organizations in particular, a generalist might feel better equipped to wear the many hats required of the position.
- When hiring a new executive director, make sure that the expectations for the role are clear. Depending on your organization, make sure candidates know that the reality of the job likely involves more administrative work (HR and operations) and less opportunity for strategic thinking than many candidates prefer.
- Integrate your executive director in strategic planning and implementation processes as much as possible and allow them to take the lead.
- Educate the members of your board about the role and responsibility of the board. The Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Animal Defense Partnership offer helpful resources for board education.
- Create role descriptions for board members, limiting their role to oversight and making sure that the executive director has sufficient agency to execute the organization’s mission. Make sure board members understand the right level of oversight, as oversight that’s too tight can be crippling.
- 50% of non-founder EDs that participated in the study reported harassment or discrimination. Board members should ensure that anti-harassment and non-discrimination policies are taken seriously within their organization. When instances of harassment, bullying, and/or discrimination are observed or reported, make sure they are addressed swiftly.
- The study found striking differences between founder EDs and non-founder EDs. A possible explanation for these differences is that, when the founder is not the ED, he or she is on the board and retains too much power in that role, undermining the non-founder ED (Founder’s syndrome). Build in checks and balances to limit how much power the founder of the organization holds. For example, limit the number of proposals the founder can bring to the board annually, or require an endorsement from the executive director before considering a new proposal from the founder.
For Founders
- If you’re on the board of the organization you have founded, it is particularly important to be aware of the relationship you have with the ED. Serve as a resource to the ED but be thoughtful to not overstep.
- If you observe that your opinion has more power and authority than that of the ED or other board members, consider stepping away from the board and adopting a more limited advisory role.
For Funders
- Fund competitive salaries for executive and non-executive positions, which will help to retain leadership and enable people to accept the roles best suited to them.
- Fund capacity-building organizations and resources, which help lessen the burden on executive directors.
- Fund networking events and resources. For example, the conference LEAD for Farmed Animals (which was last convened in 2023) was named by survey participants as a helpful resource.
- Consider developing and/or funding a leadership development program that would allow aspiring executive directors to gain experience in the many different areas of expertise required by the role.
For Future Research
- The study revealed fascinating differences between founder EDs and non-founder EDs. It would be interesting to further investigate why non-founder EDs experience much lower rates of board support and much higher rates of harassment and discrimination.
- The study also revealed that many non-founder EDs feel insufficiently supported by their board. Further research on what makes an effective board could help to understand these difficulties better.
Behind The Project
Research Team
The project’s lead researcher was Faunalytics volunteer Dr. Vera Flocke. Dr. Jo Anderson and Dr. Andie Thompkins reviewed and oversaw the work.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to everyone who participated in the study and for their openness to sharing their story. We would also like to thank Brooke Haggerty for providing valuable input to this research throughout the process. Alyssa Greene-Crow and Monica Chen provided very helpful comments as well. Lastly, thanks to our funders for their generous support of our work.
Let us know what you think!
We conduct research to help advocates like you, so we really value your input on what we’re doing well and how we can do better. Take the brief (less than 2min) survey below to let us know how satisfied you were with this report.
