Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning and Organizational Sustainability: A Preliminary Comparative Study in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States

Abstract

IntroductionExecutive planning represents significant challenges for most nonprofits (e.g. Bear & Fitzgibbon, 2004; Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010; Coltoff, 2010; Dym, Egmont, & Watkins, 2011). As a body of research, executive has been seriously neglected for many reasons: time and finance constraints, lack of administration and coordination abilities, and interests on the part of executive directors (EDs) and boards of directors (Santora, Sarros, & Esposito, 2010). Accordingly, Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32) recommend that succession planning should shift from being a taboo topic to a fact of life that makes things easier for an outgoing executive, a board, and an organization. Failing to plan for a successor can create organizational chaos. As Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32/33) contend, who don't plan [for succession] put their organizations at considerable risk for turbulent transitions. Boards should expect that the executives will eventually move on, and be prepared to manage those turnovers successfully.The aim of this paper is to compare the findings of recent nonprofit research (Bassi, 2013; Bozer & Kuna, 2013; Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa, 2013; Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2011; Santora et al., 2013) on six countries (Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States) to determine the degree to which they have planned for executive and whether internal or external candidates have been selected as executive directors (often also referred to as chief executive officers (CEOs)/presidents). The countries involved this study were chosen based on their representation of cultural values that were different from each other on some attributes, such as power distance and similar to each other on others, such as individual collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al., 2004). Generally, Western democracies (the United States and Australia) and Israel form a discrete group with similar culture orientations, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy form another less heterogeneous grouping. Specifically, Australia, Israel, and the United States are low power distance societies, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy are high power distance societies (House, et al., 2004). According to House et al., (2004, p. 166), in high power distance societies, power holders are granted greater status, privileges, and material rewards than those without power. Power distance relates to decision-making styles of bosses, the ability to influence, the opportunity to have independent thought and express opinions, deference to authority, and the use of artifacts such as titles, ranks, and status. Accordingly, practices the Western-based countries should theoretically be more transparent and externally focused than those the European/South American group.This article provides a major contribution to the extant nonprofit literature the field by building on an important organizational issue: planning, organizational sustainability, and its attendant issues. It also fills a major gap the nonprofit literature by comparing executive issues multiple countries, thereby alleviating the largely American focus. Bassi (2013) and Santora and Sarros (2013) have sought to address the imbalance between research based the United States and that of other countries by challenging researchers to conduct comparative analyses on nonprofits delivering services to constituents countries other than the United States to determine the degree of similarities and/or differences on executive issues. This article also provides a theoretical contribution, as it broadens our understanding of the myriad ways nonprofits encounter similar challenges planning and insider-outsider appointments, regardless of geographic location the world.First, we provide a brief overview of planning nonprofit organizations, followed by a discussion of insider-outsider selection issue. …