Executive Leadership Experience

New executives often step into leadership carrying significant organizational challenges without receiving an equally strong set of transition resources.

In 2025, nearly half of first-time executives entered organizations that lacked strategic direction, while 46.7% encountered low staff morale and 43.5% inherited significant staff underpayment. More than one-third also reported a disengaged board or an existing budget deficit.

The pathways into executive leadership vary by race. Board recruitment was the most common route for both BIPOC and White executives, reported by 27.6% and 23.0%, respectively. BIPOC executives were also more likely than White executives to report entering through an interim appointment, founding the organization, working with an executive recruiter, or serving on the organization’s board. White executives were more likely to report being promoted internally or applying without a prior connection to the organization. These differences show that there is no single route into nonprofit executive leadership – and raise important questions about who has access to established pathways, relationships, and opportunities.

Boards were the most common source of transition support, but only 57.3% of new executives reported receiving it. Other resources were considerably less common: approximately one-third received support from staff, peer executives, or the previous executive, while only about one in five received coaching or participated in a fellowship or leadership program. Just 12.2% received funding specifically for their transition, and 12.8% received none of the supports listed.

Across every racial group shown, executives reported more transition challenges than resources. The size of the gap varied, but the consistent imbalance points to a broader sector problem: organizations often ask new leaders to address longstanding strategic, financial, and workforce issues without providing a transition plan or sufficient support. Boards and funders can help close this gap by investing in structured onboarding, peer and coaching support, transition funding, and realistic shared expectations for new leaders.

Many executive leaders feel trusted by their boards – but they cannot always count on boards to be active partners in navigating organizational challenges.

Across survey years, executives report that boards are most consistent in expressing trust in and support for their leadership. Boards are less consistently involved in solving organizational problems and are least likely to actively support fundraising—an especially important gap at a time when nonprofit leaders face significant financial and operational pressures.

The average Board Support Score is 3.6 out of 5 in 2025, slightly below the 3.7 average across all survey years combined. The 2025 findings also show less consistent board trust, leadership support, problem-solving assistance, and fundraising engagement than the combined results. While these comparisons do not by themselves establish a trend, they raise important questions about whether boards are providing the partnership executives need.

The findings also point to differences by race and gender. In both the 2025 and all-years views, BIPOC women and gender-expansive executives report the lowest average level of board support among the groups shown. This pattern underscores that board effectiveness is also an equity issue. For boards and funders, supporting executive leadership means going beyond expressions of confidence: it requires sharing responsibility for governance, organizational problem-solving, and securing the resources nonprofits need to thrive.

Many executive leaders lack consistent access to the fundraising resources their organizations need—and BIPOC executives report less access to nearly every resource measured.

The overall Fundraising Resource Access Score is 3.0, but experiences differ across groups. White men report the highest average score at 3.2, while BIPOC women and gender-expansive executives report the lowest at 2.8. These differences point to unequal access to the relationships, infrastructure, and funding opportunities that help organizations succeed.

Foundation grants are the most widely accessible resource for both White and BIPOC executives, reaching approximately half of each group. Larger gaps appear elsewhere. For example, 49% of White executives report reliable access to individual donor funding, compared with 30% of BIPOC executives. White executives also report greater access to unrestricted funding, public or government funding, funding comparable to peer organizations, and fundraising training. Funding with limited reporting requirements is the only resource BIPOC executives report accessing more often than White executives.

Some resources are scarce across racial groups. Fewer than one in six executives report reliable access to adequate fundraising or development staff. This suggests that many leaders are expected to secure the resources their organizations need without sufficient internal capacity.

The 2019 snapshot of founding executives shows another challenge: starting a nonprofit often requires leaders to assemble resources from multiple – and sometimes personal – sources. About 41% used personal funds, 40% received start-up support from a foundation, and 35% received funding from individual donors. Far fewer received start-up funding from government agencies or parent organizations. Together, these findings raise important questions for philanthropy about who has access to the funding relationships and organizational infrastructure needed not only to lead nonprofits, but also to launch and sustain them.

Nonprofit executive leadership is becoming more racially diverse, but succession patterns show that access to leadership – and preparation for future transitions – remains uneven.

In 2025, White leaders made up 65.6% of executives’ immediate predecessors, compared with 49.5% of current executives. BIPOC leaders represented 31.2% of predecessors and 42.4% of current executives.

The pathways into leadership differ sharply for BIPOC and White executives. BIPOC executives were nearly as likely to follow a BIPOC predecessor as a White predecessor: 48.8% succeeded a BIPOC leader and 46.3% succeeded a White leader. By comparison, 83.3% of White executives followed another White leader, while 15.2% followed a BIPOC predecessor. These patterns suggest that greater diversity among current leaders has not displaced the strong continuity of White leadership in many organizations.

Among executives who were planning or completing a transition, 71% reported at least one action intended to center race equity. The most common actions included mentoring staff of color, recruiting or connecting with leaders of color, expanding networks in communities of color, and encouraging boards to consider leaders of color. Still, 27.6% said race equity was not factored into their transition plans.

More formal supports were considerably less common. Only 13.8% reported training their board on diversity, equity, and inclusion, and 11.4% connected their board with an executive recruiter focused on DEI. Together, the findings suggest that many leaders are taking steps toward more equitable succession, but organizations and boards need stronger, more consistent practices to ensure that equity is built into leadership transitions rather than left to individual executives.

Executive leaders are managing multiple pressures at once, with fundraising, compensation, and work-life balance emerging as the most widespread challenges.

The average Executive Leadership Burden Score is 3.4 out of 5, indicating that leaders experience the ten challenges measured somewhere between “sometimes” and “often,” on average.

More than three-quarters of executives—76.3%—say that raising enough money to meet their organization’s needs is often or always a challenge. Providing competitive salaries and benefits follows at 68.1%, while 64.0% frequently struggle to balance their work and personal lives. More than half report frequent challenges managing organizational growth or scaling, and approximately half frequently contend with the current political climate or difficulty recruiting qualified staff.

Executive leadership also involves substantial relational and emotional work. Many leaders report that staff frequently expect input into organizational direction and emotional support or nurturing. Staff concerns or challenges to decisions arise less consistently, while most executives say that a lack of staff accountability or support for leadership occurs rarely or never.

These findings should not be read as suggesting that staff participation, concerns, or support needs are inherently problematic. Instead, they show that executive leaders must navigate financial pressures, organizational demands, shared decision-making, and workplace relationships at the same time. Boards and funders can help by strengthening organizational infrastructure, supporting competitive compensation, and ensuring that responsibility for sustaining the organization does not rest solely with the executive.

A substantial share of nonprofit executives are considering a transition—and burnout is the most common reason they give for leaving.

In 2025, the percentage thinking about or planning a transition ranged from 28.5% among White women and gender-expansive executives to 43.5% among BIPOC women and gender-expansive executives. Among White men, another 3.7% reported that they had already transitioned.

Among executives planning or completing a transition, 56.1% identified burnout as a reason for leaving. More than one-third wanted less responsibility, while nearly one-quarter were considering retirement. Others were interested in consulting, leading another nonprofit, taking a different nonprofit role, or moving to another sector. These findings show that executive departures reflect a combination of exhaustion, changing life priorities, and interest in new ways of contributing.

Executives also want more support as they prepare to leave. Nearly two-thirds—63.3%—would like opportunities to share their knowledge, and 61.5% want access to a sabbatical. About half want a peer cohort of other transitioning executives, 47.7% want a fellowship to explore new ideas, and 40.4% want leadership coaching.

Leadership transitions are often treated as individual career decisions, but they have consequences for entire organizations. Boards and funders can help by addressing burnout before leaders reach the point of exit and by investing in sabbaticals, transition planning, knowledge transfer, coaching, and peer support. Stronger transition infrastructure can support departing executives while helping organizations preserve relationships, experience, and stability.