Resources

A termination may be necessary. A surprise should be rare.

It is Friday afternoon. For most of the staff, the week is winding down. For the executive director, it feels like the usual race to clear the desk before the weekend. Then an invitation arrives for a "quick check-in" with the board chair and the vice chair.

The executive walks into the conference room expecting a routine conversation about the upcoming retreat or a budget adjustment. Within minutes, the atmosphere shifts. There is no agenda on the table. The chairs are not leaning in; they are sitting back. The language is formal, scripted, and final.

The decision has already been made.

In this composite moment, drawn from patterns we have observed over decades of consulting, the executive is genuinely blindsided. Revenue is steady. Membership programs are running. The visible indicators of organizational health appear stable. Yet, the board has been losing confidence for months.

The question isn’t just about why the executive is being terminated. The deeper governance question is this,  If the board’s dissatisfaction has been hardening for half a year, why is the executive only learning about it on a Friday afternoon?

A termination may be necessary. A surprise should be rare.

Why the Decision Arrives as a Shock

When an executive is stunned by a termination, it is rarely because the board is malicious. More often, it is because the board is conflict-averse.

Board members are volunteers. They generally want to support the leader. When concerns arise, individual directors often hesitate to speak up, wondering if they are the only ones who feel that way. They wait for the "right time" to have a difficult conversation, but that time never seems to arrive. Instead of direct feedback, a quiet consensus begins to form in the background.

By the time board members finally speak, they may no longer be looking for a solution. They may be delivering a verdict. This silence is not a kindness; it is a governance failure that deprives the executive of the opportunity to course-correct and deprives the organization of a stable transition.

The Six Warning Signs Confidence Is Eroding

While a termination might feel sudden, the erosion of confidence usually leaves tracks. One warning sign may mean nothing; a sustained pattern accompanied by disappearing candor is different.

1. The Annual Evaluation Is Delayed, Diluted, or Disappears

The absence of an annual evaluation does not prove that a board is preparing to terminate an executive, but it removes one of the board’s most important opportunities for structured feedback. BoardSource identifies annual chief-executive assessment as a primary board responsibility. When that process is postponed indefinitely or reduced to a vague "you’re doing great" conversation with no written metrics, ambiguity takes over.

The lack of a written evaluation weakens the performance record. It makes it harder for a board to demonstrate that concerns were communicated fairly and harder for an executive to know where they truly stand.

2. The Chair-Executive Relationship Goes Quiet

The National Council of Nonprofits emphasizes that trust between board chairs and executives is built through regular, honest communication. When the chair, who previously checked in weekly, begins cancelling meetings or moving to purely formal, email-based communication, the "bridge" is being pulled up.

A single missed meeting is a schedule conflict. A sustained change in accessibility may reflect growing distance, avoidance, or an unwillingness to address a difficult issue directly.

3. Feedback Begins Arriving Sideways

In a healthy organization, performance feedback is coordinated through the chair or a designated committee. A major warning sign is when feedback begins arriving "sideways" through rumors, comments from individual directors outside the formal process, or even staff members who have been approached by board members with questions.

Vague references to "some concerns on the board" are not actionable. They are a sign that the board is talking about the executive rather than to the executive.

4. The Board’s Questions Change in Tone and Purpose

Boards have a legitimate responsibility to ask detailed financial and operational questions. Scrutiny is not a sign of distrust; it is a sign of diligence. The warning sign is a sustained, unexplained shift in the purpose of the questions.

When the board moves from strategic inquiries about the future to forensic requests for past emails, travel receipts, or minute operational details, they may no longer be seeking information to make better decisions. They may be reconstructing a case.

5. Individual Directors Begin Creating Side Channels

Healthy board interaction with staff is authorized and transparent. The problem arises when individual directors begin independently questioning staff members, investigating the executive’s daily schedule, or collecting complaints outside an established governance process.

These side channels undermine the executive’s authority and place staff in an impossible position. More importantly, they may signal that the board’s internal discipline and established communication processes are weakening.

6. The Decision-Making Circle Gets Smaller

Executive sessions and confidential deliberations are necessary parts of board work. However, a warning sign appears when a small "inner circle" of the board begins reaching conclusions and treating them as board decisions while excluding the executive, and sometimes the rest of the board, from discussions where they should appropriately participate. When the executive is only brought in after the conclusions are reached, the partnership is over.

What Should the Executive Do?

If you see several of these signs, do not respond with paranoia, defensiveness, or accusations. Instead, treat the situation as a leadership challenge requiring clarity.

Ask for a direct conversation. Schedule time with the chair and ask: "I want to make sure there is no daylight between what I believe success looks like and what the board believes success looks like. Where do you think we are aligned, and where are you concerned?"

Request a formal evaluation. If the board has skipped the annual review, ask for one. Ask the board to establish clear, documented performance measures.

Review your documentation. Review your employment agreement, the organization’s bylaws, the evaluation process, and any applicable transition provisions before the situation becomes a crisis. If the pattern is serious, seek appropriate professional advice.

Watch for the pattern. Do not overreact to one cancelled meeting or one sharp question. Look for the sustained shift in the relationship. If the candor has disappeared, you need to know why.

Before the Board Acts, It Should Ask

A board can reach a legitimate decision that a leadership change is necessary and still handle the process badly. Before making a termination decision, the board should ask:

• Were the executive’s expectations and priorities clear and documented?
• Were concerns communicated directly, early, and in writing?
• Was the executive evaluated against previously agreed-upon goals?
• Was there a reasonable opportunity to respond or improve?
• Has the board examined its own contribution to the deteriorating relationship?
• Is the underlying problem the individual leader, the leadership structure, unclear authority, board behavior, or some combination?
• Will the next executive inherit the same unresolved conditions?

There are, of course, exceptions. Progressive feedback or an opportunity to improve may not be appropriate in cases involving serious misconduct, fraud, harassment, safety concerns, a material breach of duty, or significant legal exposure. In those situations, the board should follow its bylaws, employment agreement, personnel policies, applicable law, and the advice of qualified counsel. For performance-based concerns, however, a clear and disciplined process helps protect both the organization and the integrity of the board’s decision.

The Governance Problem May Remain

Replacing the person without examining the system simply resets the clock on the same problem.

We often see boards rush into an executive search using a decade-old job description, hoping a "new visionary" will solve issues that are actually rooted in board dysfunction. They hire a "visionary" when the organization actually needs a stabilizer, or an "operator" when the deeper issue is a lack of strategic direction from the board itself.

As Bridgespan’s research on CEO onboarding suggests, clear performance expectations and ongoing reviews are essential for success. If the board does not clarify what it needs and how it will support the next leader, it risks repeating the same cycle.

Conclusion

A board may make the right decision to change executives and still handle the process badly. Good governance does not eliminate difficult decisions. It makes those decisions clearer, fairer, and less likely to arrive after months of silence and avoidance.

A termination may be necessary. A surprise should be rare.

Association Options works with boards and executives on governance assessment, board-executive relationships, leadership transition, and executive search.

By William D. Pawlucy, CAE, MPA, IOM, and Bob Harris, CAE

Continue the Conversation

For more practical guidance on governance, leadership, and organizational effectiveness, explore The Essential Handbook for Nonprofit Leaders by William D. Pawlucy, CAE, MPA, IOM, with a foreword by Bob Harris, CAE.

Purchase the Handbook