On Our Minds
Hiring an Executive Director is the most important responsibility a nonprofit board holds. It’s also one of the moments when boards are most acutely aware of the gap between governance and day-to-day reality.
That’s where questions about staff engagement tend to surface.
Boards ask, often with real urgency: How should we involve staff in an executive search? Should employees have a voice? And if so, which employees, at what point in the process, and in what way?
Asking people to help choose their future boss introduces real complexity. Searches require confidentiality. Staff participation can create expectations boards may not be able—or should not—meet. And while staff perspectives matter deeply, boards remain legally and fiduciarily responsible for the decision.
There is no single right approach. But there are more and less thoughtful ways to design a process that respects staff voice, manages risk, and reflects the realities boards are navigating. Here are some things to consider:
What boards are really trying to accomplish
In practice, boards are trying to solve a few specific problems:
- Building buy-in for the hire. When staff embrace a new executive director, organizations move forward faster. When they don’t, the consequences can be immediate and destabilizing.
- Accessing expertise the board doesn’t have. Staff bring functional expertise, institutional knowledge, and context that can help boards ask better questions and avoid blind spots.
- Getting a real culture check. Engaging staff—particularly trusted culture carriers—can surface how candidates are likely to be received.
Being clear about these goals upfront makes it easier to choose an approach to staff engagement that fits the organization.
The shape staff engagement can take
Engagement tends to vary across two key dimensions: how and when.
Organizations have options for how to gather staff input, depending on their culture and needs:
- Listening tours or surveys early in the process
- Structured feedback at defined points
- A staff delegate participating in search committee discussions (sometimes voting, often not)
- Informal consultation with trusted staff leaders
They also have as many options for the timing of engagement:
- Early input, before candidates are identified
- Mid-process feedback as candidates advance
- Final-stage meetings with a single finalist
- No direct engagement at all, in rare and context-specific cases
The right approach depends on:
- What the board is trying to learn
- How much confidentiality is required, and
- How staff involvement typically shows up in the organization’s culture
Tradeoffs for each approach
Every approach to staff engagement makes some things easier—and others harder. There are no free options. Consider the impact of:
- Over-involvement. When too many people have a voice, the process can become unwieldy, and disappointment can deepen if the outcome doesn’t go everyone’s way.
- Under-involvement. Limiting staff engagement too much can leave boards without critical insight, increasing the risk of a hire that struggles to gain traction.
- Unclear expectations. When staff feel their input is determinative—and it isn’t—frustration and resentment can follow.
At its core, this is a risk-management exercise. Boards are trying to design a process that gathers meaningful input without undermining the decision itself.
Our best practices for effective staff engagement
Regardless of the specific structure a board chooses, staff engagement works best under a few conditions:
- Emphasis on early listening. We believe wholeheartedly in conducting the listening tour upfront. Gathering staff input before there are any people to react to helps surface deeper needs and expectations.
- Having a trusted staff voice. When possible, having a single, deeply respected staff member as part of the committee is a great way to honor staff perspectives. Even without a formal vote, that person can add meaningfully to the search process.
- Clarity about roles and influence. Staff engagement works better when boards are explicit about how input will be used. Saying “we really value your perspective as the board makes its decision” helps reinforce that staff voice informs the process without determining the outcome.
- Thoughtful ongoing communication. Regular status updates help staff feel informed, even when every detail can’t be shared. Plus staff are more likely to accept outcomes when they understand how decisions were made.
- Alignment with how the organization already operates. Approaches that reflect an organization’s existing decision-making culture tend to land better than those that introduce entirely new norms in a high-stakes moment.
While these conditions don’t eliminate complexity, they support staff engagement that’s generative, not disruptive.
Impact of internal candidates
Internal candidates don’t change the goal of staff engagement, but they do require deeper thought about the process. In those circumstances, consider:
- Concerns about confidentiality. With internal candidates in the pool, broad staff involvement might need to be delayed until there is a single finalist—or avoided altogether.
- Constraints on participation. When deciding on an approach to engagement, boards need to think carefully about reporting relationships, existing internal dynamics, and potential long-term impacts for staff that will continue at the organization.
- Moving them out of the pool. Making clear decisions about internal candidates’ viability as early as is reasonable allows them to disengage from the interview process and, when appropriate, reengage as constructive internal stakeholders.
Final thoughts
Staff engagement is one of the most consequential design choices boards make during an executive search. When done thoughtfully, it can build buy-in, surface insight the board wouldn’t otherwise have, and help set a new leader up for success. But without a clear, nuanced approach it can introduce unnecessary risk and tension.
What matters most isn’t necessarily the specific structure a board chooses, but how intentionally that choice is made given the organization’s culture, the dynamics at play, and the very real people involved.
Executive searches are deeply human processes, shaped by relationships that extend well beyond the hire itself. Engaging staff the right way (for your organization) is an essential part of hiring successfully.
______________
On-Ramps is a search and consulting firm that serves mission-driven organizations in the social sector. We are deeply committed to helping create diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Together with our clients, we thoughtfully consider and address these topics throughout every step in our process.
Want to talk about right-sizing staff engagement? Reach out to Michelle Kedem at info@on-ramps.com.
