Nonprofit Executive Directors Are Burning Out Trying to Do Everyone Else’s Job.

A few weeks ago, I had a controversial take and posted it on LinkedIn.

The exact words – Nonprofit Executive Directors should not be running around trying to fix a board.
And my LinkedIn garnered over 100 reactions, conversations and sentiments agreeing that Nonprofit Ed’s should not be responsible for fixing disengaged boards.

And yet, somewhere along the way, the sector normalized exactly that. Scroll through nonprofit leadership advice online and you will constantly see conversations around:

“How to engage your board.”
“How to motivate board members.”
“How to get your board to fundraise.”
“How to make them more active.”

At first glance, this sounds reasonable. After all, the relationship between an Executive Director and a board should absolutely be collaborative. But many nonprofits have quietly crossed the line between collaboration and over compensation. Too often, Executive Directors are expected to compensate for weak governance structures instead of being supported by them.

And that expectation is costing leaders their health, their effectiveness, and sometimes their careers.
And we need to talk about that (as loudly as we can)

The “Superhero ED” Problem

The nonprofit sector has unintentionally glorified the idea of the “superhuman” Executive Director.

The ED who:

leads programs,
● manages staff,
● raises funds,
● oversees operations,
● builds partnerships,
● handles crises,
● reports to the board,
● protects organizational culture,
● and somehow still finds time to coach disengaged board members into doing the jobs they already signed up for.

That is not sustainable leadership. That is organizational overload. And like someone on my LinkedIn commented, ‘’sounds like babysitting to me.’’ (I agree)
According to BoardSource’s Leading With Intent research, many nonprofit leaders report significant governance gaps within their boards, including concerns around accountability, community representation, and role clarity. In one finding, 49% of chief executives said they did not believe they had the right board members to establish trust with the communities they serve.

That statistic matters because weak governance does not stay in the boardroom.
It spills into operations.
It spills into fundraising.
It spills into staff morale.
And eventually, it spills into Executive Director burnout.

---

One of the most damaging cultures in nonprofits is performative board membership. People join boards because they care about the mission, want the prestige, or enjoy being associated with impact. But governance is not symbolic work.

---

Burnout Is Not Just About Workload

We often talk about burnout in nonprofits as if it is simply the result of “working too hard.” But burnout is also sometimes structural.

A recent sector analysis compiling data from CEP, BoardSource, and other nonprofit leadership studies found that 95% of nonprofit leaders cited burnout as a major concern. The same research identified “volunteer board dynamics” and “single-ED dependency” as recurring structural drivers of burnout. That language is important.

Single-ED dependency. Many nonprofits have unintentionally built systems where the Executive Director becomes the organizational shock absorber:
● carrying fundraising alone,
● compensating for inactive governance,
● mediating dysfunction,
● educating board members,
● filling operational gaps,
● and quietly preventing collapse behind the scenes.

At some point, leadership stops becoming strategic and starts becoming survival. I understand this differently today than I did a few years ago. Before becoming an Executive Director, I spent years working as a fundraising consultant. From the outside, it was easy to identify governance challenges and offer recommendations.

Then I became an Executive Director. And suddenly I understood something I had never fully appreciated before.
The work itself is heavy enough. Leading programs is heavy. Managing people is heavy. Raising money is heavy.

What surprised me most was the invisible labor.
The follow-up emails.
The unanswered messages.
The constant effort to keep everyone moving in the same direction.

There have been moments when I wished someone had told me earlier that leadership is not just about carrying responsibility. It is also about recognizing which responsibilities were never meant to be yours in the first place. (that metaphor about not knowing the shoes hurt till you wear em – true)

A Board Seat Is Not an Honorary Badge

One of the most damaging cultures in nonprofits is performative board membership. People join boards because they care about the mission, want the prestige, or enjoy being associated with impact. But governance is not symbolic work.

It is actual work.

A board member has fiduciary responsibilities. Strategic responsibilities. Fundraising responsibilities. Oversight responsibilities.
And yet many Executive Directors privately describe spending enormous emotional energy trying to “wake up” inactive boards.

In online nonprofit communities, it is increasingly common to see Executive Directors describe boards that barely participate in fundraising, fail to respond consistently, avoid governance responsibilities, or leave the ED carrying nearly the entire
organization alone. One Executive Director described their board contributing only $2,000 toward a $2 million organizational budget while the ED carried the burden of sustaining the organization financially.

I have seen far worse stories but I am not one to name names.
That is not a healthy governance structure.
That is dependency disguised as leadership.

The Sector Needs to Normalize Governance Support

Here is the part many organizations resist hearing: Not every board problem is an Executive Director problem.
Sometimes the organization needs:
● governance consultants,
● fundraising advisors,
● board development specialists,
● leadership coaches,
● or entirely new recruitment structures.

We routinely hire experts for communications, compliance, grant writing, finance, HR, and branding. So why do we assume Executive Directors should also become unpaid board trainers and governance repair specialists?

Board development is specialized work.

And in healthy organizations, responsibility is shared. For Executive Directors who are struggling with governance challenges, there are organizations specifically designed to help. Resources such as BoardSource, the National Council of Nonprofits, state nonprofit associations, and governance consultants can provide board training, governance assessments, fundraising
support, and leadership coaching. Executive Directors should not feel they have to solve these challenges in isolation.

And of course, the importance of community cannot be over stated. I wish I had found community like The Nonprofit Hive way earlier. The gift of being able to find peer support but with more experienced nonprofiteers who are not interested in gatekeeping is exactly what this sector needs.

Small Nonprofits Face a Different Reality

Of course, there is nuance here. Smaller nonprofits often cannot afford governance consultants or leadership advisors. Many are operating with tiny teams, limited funding, and overextended staff.

In those environments, Executive Directors often have no choice but to wear multiple hats.
I understand that reality deeply.
But even if smaller organizations cannot immediately outsource governance support, we still need to stop romanticizing exhaustion as leadership excellence. An over-functioning Executive Director may keep an organization alive temporarily, but over time, that model becomes dangerous for both the leader and the mission.

We Need Better Expectations of Boards

The nonprofit sector cannot keep talking about sustainability while quietly building organizations that depend on one exhausted person holding everything together. I wish someone had told me sooner that a board’s role is not to watch the mission
happen.
It is to help steward it.

For a long time, I assumed that if a board was disengaged, it was my responsibility to work harder, communicate better, send more reminders, create more opportunities, and somehow inspire participation. What I have learned is that while Executive Directors can support board development, they cannot manufacture commitment where none exists.

And if someone joins a board only to become invisible, unavailable, or uninvolved, we should stop treating that as normal.
Enough of the LinkedIn tips and tricks. Being a board member is not a medal.
It is a responsibility.
It is accountability.
It is work.
And organizations deserve boards that understand the difference.

Lastly and perhaps even more important: conversations like these should not be controversial at all. I have learned that speaking about and challenging norms can often be perceived as attacks. But they shouldn’t. They should be viewed as calls for stronger governance, healthier leadership structures, and more sustainable nonprofits.

I’ve put off writing this piece for the longest time because I just couldn’t find the time. But if you read this to the end – thank you. If you are a Nonprofit ED and this makes you feel seen – hugs, flowers and love.
Our sector could do with more wins.
And an Executive Director who does not need to babysit board members is such an impactful win.

---