What Nonprofit Executive Directors Wish Their Boards Knew: Insights on Board Management & Conflict
With deep appreciation to the 12 nonprofit leaders who generously & confidentially shared their experiences with us.
Summary
12 out of 12 nonprofit leaders agree that conflict skills are critically important.
In confidential interviews with 12 nonprofit leaders, 20 separate conflict stories were shared. Some of the conflicts were between board members and some between a board member and the nonprofit’s executive leader. Stories ranged from somewhat violent (throwing glasses of water at each other) to extremely avoidant (“The Board Chair just never responded to me.”). This report explores the conflicts, frustrations, and needs of nonprofit leaders, with suggestions for improving board relations.
Clear Takeaways
When board members, particularly executive committees, focus on working in partnership with staff leaders, the organization is more likely to thrive.
Leaders deserve expert training, facilitation, and dedicated time to understand and begin to use the skills of both conflict and consensus.
“Conflict knowledge” is one of the most important skills a leader can bring to an organization - whether in a staff or volunteer role.
Want to download a PDF of this content?
“Especially for nonprofit leaders, it is dangerous to assume that people who are not speaking up are 100% aligned to what has been spoken aloud.”
A few notes on language
“Nonprofit leaders”
The phrase “nonprofit leaders” or “leaders” refers to both paid staff leadership and volunteer board members. For the staff category, we’re referring to the highest levels of staff who directly interact with or manage the board – while some nonprofits use “Director” titles for this level, it’s equivalent to the corporate C-suite.
“Staff” includes all employees of an organization, not just leadership. For those unfamiliar with nonprofits, an ED = CEO (ED is short for Executive Director; some nonprofits do use the term CEO for the highest-level staff person).
“Board members” are consistently referred to as “board members.” “Board executive committees” refers to the board members who are responsible for board leadership; typically, this includes the Chair or President, Vice Chair or Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer.
“Consensus”
At least one interviewee eschewed consensus, saying it typically entailed people being silent about their opinions in order to defer to someone who seems to have (or have taken) authority. In our facilitation work at Chantilly Mediation and Facilitation, we understand that the danger is not consensus itself, but of finding consensus too soon. Sometimes people do silence their own opinions, appearing to agree with either the first or the loudest opinion.
In fact, consensus consists of three things:
· All views are heard
· All views are considered
· Everyone involved understands the chosen path
Notice that there is no ”agreement” listed above.
Anyone facilitating a conversation who jumps into assuming or proclaiming “consensus” or agreement, without first offering a genuine invitation for people to air dissenting opinions, is doing consensus wrong. Especially for nonprofit leaders, it is dangerous to assume that people who are not speaking up are 100% aligned to what has been spoken aloud.
About the Research
From November 2025 to January 2026, CM&F CEO Gina D’Andrea Weatherup interviewed 12 nonprofit leaders. One had recently ended multiple terms as Board Chair; the rest currently served as ED/CEO, of these, several also held positions on other boards. At least three shared experiences from former leadership positions as well; one spoke about her time being a staff leader at the department level.
All were asked to rate their own boards on conflict behavior (generally) and to rate how important conflict is as a skill for nonprofit leaders. The rest of the questions were entirely qualitative.
Every interviewee led an agency with paid staff; thus, the information shared focuses on nonprofits that are not 100% volunteer-run. At the same time, the sizes of these nonprofits – whether counting by staff numbers of annual budgets – varied widely, from under a $1 million to over $20 million in annual revenue.
Voices From the Field
“Interpersonal conflict can absolutely impact the organization as a whole. If everybody’s not clear on where we’re going and why we’re doing what we’re doing, and able to effectively communicate that, it definitely stifles the organization. It can look different, from raising money or communications to the public. I think interpersonal skills are hugely important to how the organization functions overall.”
~ Executive Director of a national advocacy group
“Understanding when conflict happens, how you respond, how you view conflict, whether you avoid or embrace it, how you distinguish between professional and personal conflict, the language you use, it all falls under self-awareness and that’s a 10 out of 10 [on important skills for nonprofit leaders].”
~ Marcus Braxton, COO, Greater Washington Community Foundation
“People struggle to be authentic. Authentic leadership is really challenging for a board role because it’s volunteer - it goes back to not owning the agency, and it impacts us every day, not every other month.”
~ Leah Fraley, CEO, United Community
Tips From the Field
On Financial Training, External Resources
“A lot of boards lack training and expertise to understand financial statements, recognize what matters…A consultant can be indispensable. CEOs and Boards should get executive coaching assistance as needed…Sometimes you need that outside voice to bring reality to a board or an ED.”
~ Shane Rock, CEO, Jewish Council for the Aging
On Understanding Fiduciary Responsibilities
“Board training for any and every board – so important – knowing the three duties and talking about what they mean…You could do that every year and it’s still important.”
~ Leah Fraser, United Community
On Check-ins, Support, & Partnership
“It’s important for the Board President and the executive team to regularly check in and ask how they can support the Executive Director so the relationship feels like a true partnership. From the ED’s perspective, that level of connection and support is always appreciated. As Board President, you should feel comfortable reaching out to your ED and the executive committee. Likewise, the ED should feel able to reach out to the executive committee—whether to vent, seek support, or problem-solve. That kind of open communication goes a long way in preventing and resolving conflict.”
~ Nanfi Nagenda Lubogo, Co-executive Director, Path CT
Conflict Stories
The 12 interviewees collectively described 20 separate conflict stories, ranging from somewhat violent (“people throwing water at each other”) to extremely avoidant. The list below captures the range of interactions and disagreements that nonprofit leaders brought up when asked about what conflicts they had experienced while leading their organization.
2 conflicts centered on gala fundraising events.
3 conflicts centered on values gaps, affected or intensified by the country’s current political climate.
4 were about supervision of the ED: 3 were explicitly described as being about the supervisory relationship, and 1 also touched on a board member who was a former direct supervisor of the ED.
4 appeared to be about the board’s duties: A Board Chair who did not respond to requests from the ED; Board members not showing up to meetings; Board members ignoring staff requests to use the Board software or sign an updated Conflict of Interest form.
1 was about how individual board members engaged in advocacy efforts aligned to the organization’s work while not representing the organization.
1 focused on board-level disagreements interrupting staff’s work.
5 of the 20 seemed to be primarily about interpersonal conflicts that may have centered on the ED’s or Board members’ lack of skill in handling direct conversations – this was a throughline on most of the conflicts.
However the issues manifested, every leader interviewed agreed that knowing how to deal with conflict is a necessary skill for leaders.
Want to download a PDF of this content?
Conflict Stories: Direct From Our Interviewees
Gala Dates
A founding board member insisted the organization’s gala – announced and deposit paid - be held on a different night due to a conflict on the board member’s calendar. While initially the board chairs encouraged the ED to stand firm on the date to the board member’s ire, ultimately the ED was directed to acquiesce and change the date rather than risk the financial support of the board member and further sour their relationship with the organization. The ED described a regrettable “disastrous conversation” with the board member and said the relationship was “irreparable,” despite having sent an apology letter. Even though the date was changed to accommodate the board member’s calendar, the relationship has remained strained.
Drama
Another board consisted largely of powerful, rich leaders from a single industry; the former ED of the organization described “people throwing water at each other” in board meetings, only to turn around and go enjoy a drink at a bar together afterward. These board members did not engage in meaningful conversations or display any supportive behavior toward the ED. Ultimately, the ED left the organization, and the board churned through at least six more CEOs in four years before closing its doors via a merger.
Another ED described a prior employment experience where “the ED and the Board had astonishing, long, loud disagreements.” This seemed to be a case of interpersonal issues – people just didn’t like each other. It ended when the ED was dismissed. The interviewee shared how “demoralizing” it was for staff at all levels. “No one feels safe [in that situation.]”
Supervision
An ED increased the organization’s revenue by 20% within one year, yet received a lackluster performance appraisal that required her to “delegate more.” When the ED tried to delegate to a board member, she was told that she was wrong to do so. Even in the board nominations process, this board focused on details like the font size on a resume, rather than the skills or money that a prospective board member might bring to the organization. This ED added, “Succession planning is a smart thing to do no matter what, but I’m moving in that direction because of how they treat me.”
One ED described two different situations in which Board Presidents simply decided they did not like them. In both cases, the Board Presidents convinced the full board to vote to end the ED’s employment. This person described staff being upset about his departure from one of the positions. He has held additional ED positions where the board is “great to work with.”
Avoidance
Another ED described a Board President who, in their one-year term, never met individually with the ED. The ED instead called on the immediate past president in order to find guidance and partnership on important organizational decisions. Years later, this ED continues to avoid directly engaging with the person, despite the fact that the former board member continues to engage with the organization. This ED also said “I wouldn’t call it a conflict.”
Values
Two EDs described conflicts that centered on organizational values. Both spoke about equity, and in both cases, the board member who opposed the ED voiced worries about losing donors. In both cases, the opposing board members left the board. Both interviewees described other board members as witnesses to the disagreement, and avoidant. In other words, board members witnessing the arguments simply preferred complete silence over entering into the discussion. These dynamics left staff leaders – specifically, the ED who is employed by these boards – to either stand alone or coax the full board into the difficult conversation they want to avoid.
External Pressures
“Eight of the 12 interviewees named external pressures from the current political environment as one of the most important challenges for nonprofit leaders today.”
Two-thirds of the interviewees specifically cited the political environment as a pressure point for their boards, stating that these external pressures make board responsibilities harder. While these comments were primarily about fundraising, grants, and communications, some interviewees mentioned changes in regulations affecting the organization’s mission.
One shared that most nonprofits are used to seeing the U.S. federal government as a resource, but it has become a hazard around which nonprofit leaders must navigate.
Another referenced “Maslow’s hierarchy in the boardroom.” For many years, this ED worked with board members who had the understanding and capacity to provide the necessary strategic oversight expected of Boards. This changed, she said, after the Trump Administration took over the federal government in 2025 and began ending long-standing grants and threatening legal action via executive orders. She said Board members used to dedicate time, energy, and money to, for example, supporting the arts. The same leaders still support the arts theoretically, but are now worried about their children’s safety. In broader terms, board members’ mental bandwidth is far less than it used to be, and that impacts their ability to provide governance. One concrete result is fewer board members showing up to meetings.
Two interviewees spoke about a social media post as the catalyst of a conflict, and in both cases, board members left the organization as a result of the conflict. The first such story centered on a board member’s social media posts, which other board members felt were too incendiary and were directly connected to the organization’s mission. Unfortunately, this conflict ended with raised voices and a door slam as the Board member who authored the post left the Board. The second such story (one of the equity stories referenced earlier) was one in which the ED had participated a Black Lives Matter online event. A Board member felt this was inappropriate and might hurt the organization’s potential to recruit new donors. This conflict also ended with the departure of the Board member, though in this case it was the ED who made the social media post who remained in place. She even received thank-yous from some of the other Board members, though they had chosen not to speak up during the conversation.
Managing the Board, Managing Conflicts
Across every interview, the concept of managing the board emerged as a core responsibility to be shared between the ED/CEO and the Board Executive Committee – and in most cases, the Board Chair/President specifically.
“Managing the Board,” based on these interviews, includes:
Deciding what, how much, and how to communicate with the Board.
Scheduling meetings and setting agendas with the Board Chair/President.
Enlisting committee leaders to run their own meetings.
Having a documented process for recruitment, nominations, and elections.
Having term limits for Board members.
Setting specific and clear fundraising responsibilities and tasks for all board members.
Obtaining training for the Board regarding its three legal duties, understanding the organization’s finances, and maintaining a strategic focus on governance rather than programmatic work.
Multiple interviewees talked about either external coaches or an association management training as essential resources for understanding how to manage a board. None of the interviewees had relied on any external resources when it came to board conflicts.
One interviewee shared that setting up board meetings “is such a drag;” then added, imagine “if the board were like a big think tank of advisors” you could call on whenever you needed. Moving the volunteer board toward behaving like a strategic, governance-oriented think tank of advisors is the work of managing the board.
Unfortunately, when conflicts occur, managing the conflict becomes part of managing the board. How does one manage conflict? It requires getting everyone to the table to discuss it – preferably without throwing water or slamming doors.
“None of the interviewees had relied on external resources to manage conflicts: No mediators, no coaches, no consultants, no lawyers had been brought in. ”
Only one interviewee described a situation of getting the full board to discuss a specific conflict in a productive manner. Another interviewee talked about observing her CEO, multiple times over many years, have one-on-one conversations with board members who were experiencing conflict, and hinted that these private conversations seemed to resolve the issues.
What Successful Nonprofit Leadership Looks Like in 2026
Four core areas underlie success for nonprofit leaders.
(1) Process Over Personality
The organization has a defined, documented process for handling various forms of conflict - not just HR-required processes for the staff the ED oversees, but also documented expectations for board members and a process for handling board-level disagreements.
(2) Role Requirements Are Understood & Respected
Board members not only understand their role as providing strategic oversight and fiduciary guidance, they respect their lane and the separate operational lanes of the staff. Board members do not approach staff outside of the ED/C-level without the ED’s/CEO’s knowledge – at least not on anything related to organizational oversight.
Note: It is certainly possible that board members may participate in programs, run into staff outside of organization events, or otherwise offer resources. These don’t necessarily have to be conflicts of interest; the circumstances matter.
(3) Transparency & Partnership
All leaders are open, honest, and operate in good faith. They approach their working relationship as one in which trust, curiosity, and partnership are paramount - not egos.
(4) Resources
The nonprofit - or the board members themselves - have the resources to support all of the above, including paying trainers, coaches, and mediators as needed. External resources are used as needed, rather than in extraordinary circumstances.
As one interviewee stated, “Sometimes you need that outside voice to bring reality to a board or an ED.”
What To Do Now
What specific steps should staff leaders and Board Executive Committees take to ensure success for the organization?
Every board member receives an annual training on their strategic oversight role, their fiduciary responsibilities to the organization, and how they can use specific skills to support the organization and those it serves. When the organization does not have the funds for this, the board itself raises money for their own training – not staff.
Board term limits exist and are honored.
There is a defined process for bringing in new board members based on skills that will help the organization achieve its mission, with an emphasis on oversight and strategic skills rather than programmatic experience.
In fundraising, every board member has a role that fits their comfort level - whether it’s hosting an event, making introductions, thanking donors, or asking for money. These roles are explained in the nominations process, so that a board in need of people with large networks is not bringing on a person whose skill is to make direct asks.
The nominations committee should seek specific skill sets to create highly effective and diverse boards, rather than just focus on existing networks or urgently filling seats without regard to skills.
Both the Board Chair - or possibly full executive committee - and the ED have access to external resources as needed, including mediators, coaches, and trainers.
“12 out of 12 nonprofit leaders agree that conflict skills are critically important.”
If you’re now thinking you need a resource to help manage your board, schedule a complementary meeting today to explore how we can help:
