The Nonprofit Career Ladder: Exploring Career Paths as Leadership Development for Future Nonprofit Executives

Abstract

Pending leadership transitions in the nonprofit sector present a timely need to understand the career path to the executive position, but very few studies on nonprofit career paths have been conducted. A systematic study would help make sense of the existing leadership pipeline to the executive office and offer promising insights that contribute to theory building in the sector. This study investigates the career paths of a national random sample of nonprofit executives serving health and human service nonprofit organizations. Primary and secondary data were collected and analyzed on the experience, education, and credentials these executives hold. The analysis evaluates variations among career characteristics, as well as applies career typologies from within and beyond the nonprofit sector. Respondents also provided qualitative descriptions of their path to executive office, which are insightful about influencing factors that are beyond a resume’s depiction of credentials. The findings are rich in descriptive value and are discussed in light of their utility for nonprofit boards charged with executive selection responsibilities. Finally, the findings are also applied to formulate propositions for future research about how individual career movement may be shaping the nonprofit sector.

Keywords

nonprofit executives career paths leadership development

Once considered the voluntary sector, the nonprofit sector is now staffed by paid professionals holding specialized expertise, advanced degrees, and diverse backgrounds. This diffusion of a professional class has been compelled by isomorphic pressures from the public and for-profit sectors to be more businesslike given accountability pressures and scarce resources and has potentially shifted the sector from its value-driven nature to more of an instrumental logic (Frumkin, 2009; Salamon, 2003/2012; Suarez, 2010; Wilensky, 1964). Alongside this trend of professionalization are concerns that nonprofits are ill-prepared for a mass exodus of baby boomers from the workforce and from the executive position more specifically. Given the role that nonprofits play in their communities and an increasing reliance on nonprofits to deliver government services, this leadership crisis could have far-reaching implications not only for the organizations but also for the communities they serve (Tierney, 2006).

Nonprofit boards are responsible for hiring and supervising executives, and as part of an executive appointment, boards are challenged to identify the right mix of experience, education, and commitment to organizational mission that meets their leadership needs. Who fills the top position of a nonprofit is a statement of board preferences, and looking across nonprofits at the profile of their executives is telling about the personal and professional background of nonprofit executives deemed appropriate for the position. Identifying these characteristics deemed promotable, and the paths of promotion is also critical to cultivating leadership development opportunities that could help fill the sector’s “leadership deficit” (Tierney, 2006). Beyond the resume listing of qualifications, the career paths that led the executive to the top paid position—whether it be based on intentional decisions or happenstance opportunities—explain the nonprofit leadership pipeline. Although for-profit and public executive career paths have been empirically examined, similar inquiry about nonprofit executive careers has been limited to examining professional backgrounds or demographic characteristics without looking holistically at factors that contribute to an individual’s career development (e.g., see Norris-Tirrell, Rinella, & Pham, 2018; Suarez, 2010).

Career paths have been studied to understand patterns of movement and promotion, and how these patterns influence the socialization of professionals (Abbott, 1988; Smith & Martinez-Moyano, 2015). Patterns also inform typologies that can be used to predict and explain career movement, such as preferred degrees and prior experience that prepares professionals for leadership (Gates et al., 2004). Therefore, the study of nonprofit career paths is ripe both to fill the literature lacuna and to identify ideal characteristics of a nonprofit executive. This research study seeks to fill this gap by identifying defining characteristics of nonprofit executive careers, identifying primary paths to the executive position, and identifying influential factors that shaped these paths.

This study utilizes a unique panel dataset of nonprofit executive careers, inclusive of career experiences, educational backgrounds, and other means of career socialization. The longitudinal data assign annually education or employment for each nonprofit executive, and in doing so, yields a career path for executives beginning with higher education degrees and ending with the most recent year available. We then apply typologies from previous research to make sense of these career paths, and in doing so, identify common patterns that explain the nonprofit career ladder. Finally, we used a survey among these executives to understand influential factors shaping their career paths, and by inviting the executives to explain their career paths qualitatively, our study also explains individual’s intentions in making career moves. The findings extend what we know about nonprofit executives and their careers, and are useful for framing propositions that future research can apply to investigate how the leadership pipeline influences the landscape of the nonprofit sector.

The Study of Career Paths

This study focuses on the career paths of nonprofit executives. Career paths are defined as the “evolving sequence of work activities and positions that individuals experience over time” (El-Sabaa, 2001, p. 2). In practical terms, career paths are comprised of a set of milestones or steps that employees assume for the purpose of developing professional competencies and mastering greater responsibilities (Croteau & Wolk, 2010). Johns (1996) conceived of careers as multifaceted and including movement over time, interactions of individual and organizational factors, and providing an occupational identity. Ibarra (1999, p. 764) added, “In assuming new roles, people must not only acquire new skills but also adopt the social norms and rules that govern how they should conduct themselves.” Thus, career paths are more than listings on resumes or credentials highlighted on a LinkedIn profile, as they also influence a professional’s behavior and modus operandi.

Theory building about career paths has attempted to make sense of individualized sequences with interactions between position types and organizational types, such as a management position in a public organization followed by an executive position in a for-profit entity. Accordingly, theory building about career paths is a multidisciplinary field rich in discussion about how to make sense of seemingly disparate paths across public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Broadly accepted among this literature is a typology devised by Driver (1980), which includes a description of career paths as steady state (a long-held position), linear (positions of increasing responsibility), spiral (new choices that extend but require different skills and responsibility), and transitory (continuous change; Onyx & Maclean, 1996). Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, and Larson (1996) proposed “career pandemonium” as an updated framework to explain how more recent employment trends of downsizings and layoffs, the flattening of organizational hierarchies as middle management layers disappeared, and generational changing workforce values affect career development. These trends create an environment that favors spiral and transitory careers over steady state or linear career paths, and prompted Brousseau et al. (1996) to argue that organizations should adopt practices and cultures that are sufficiently pluralistic to respect all career motivations. Exploring how careers might differ in the nonprofit sector, Onyx and Maclean (1996) applied Driver’s (1980) typology among Australian third-sector employees and found that career movements most often reflected the spiral type which prompted the authors to recommend reward systems that would leverage this career motivation.

Driver’s typology, both explicitly and implicitly, has been applied to explicate factors influencing career paths, and while an exhaustive review of this research field is beyond this study, themes that are relevant to this study are highlighted here. Several studies from the public sector have examined how intentional career development initiatives, such as training programs, can cultivate and explain career paths that lead to leadership positions (e.g., see Watson & Hassett, 2004; Wooten, 1993). Other studies have examined how career paths may vary based on personal or professional characteristics such as employee age, leadership qualities, and for-profit experience (e.g., see Bozeman & Ponomariov, 2009; Jordan & Schraeder, 2003; Ng & Gossett, 2013). In addition, career paths and typologies have been applied to investigate issues of representation and inclusivity in public and nonprofit organizations, and differences have been found with females having more opportunities for promotion in public than nonprofit organizations (Bowling, Kelleher, Jones, & Wright, 2006; Damman, Heyse, & Mills, 2014).

Furthermore, although sector boundaries have been blurred, previous research has distinguished factors, including worker motivations, for selecting positions and careers in the public, for-profit, or nonprofit sectors or some combination of these sectors. It follows then that a study of careers must differentiate among sectors. Although all sectors require a level of business acumen, the public and nonprofit sectors share values of “public service motivation,” but worker self-sorting between sectors prompts considerations that all career paths are not created equally. Mirvis (1992) and Mirvis and Hackett (1983) described the “nonmonetary orientation” of nonprofit workers, and others have followed in identifying worker characteristics that help explain sector sorting (e.g., see Dur & Zoutenbier, 2014; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Rawls, Ullrich, & Nelson, 1975). Reflecting these sector distinctions, Suarez (2010) along with a team of researchers interviewed 200 nonprofit executives in the San Francisco Bay area to document their career backgrounds, found a prevalence of nonprofit experience over a managerial expertise, and suggested a typology of nonprofit careers defined by nonprofit sector and management experience. The nonprofit “lifer” has career-long experience in the nonprofit sector and low management experience, the “substantive expert” is a disciplinary expert, the “social entrepreneur” has both high nonprofit and management experience, and the “professional administrator” has a strong business background but not defined by a sector (Suarez, 2010). Norris-Tirrell et al. (2018) revisited this nonprofit career typology among a broad sample of nonprofit executives using secondary Internet data, and their findings stress the importance in a nonprofit executive’s career of nonprofit sector experience, previous experience in the executive role, and internal promotions. Collectively, this research reminds that career paths reflect sector selections, and it is insufficient to solely focus on the hard facts of position, organization, and timing that comprise a resume, as underlying factors, such as motivations, also contribute to shaping careers (Tschirhart, Reed, Freeman, & Anker, 2008).

Changing Nonprofit Landscape

The study of career paths contributes to both theory building and practice, and several trends in the nonprofit sector further justify the timeliness of this research study. As the size, scope, and reach of the sector grows, nonprofit leaders face performance, efficiency, and evaluation pressures (Maier, Meyer, & Steinbereithner, 2016; Salamon, 2003/2012; Suarez, 2010). Nonprofit organizations operate in increasingly complex environments, shaped by regulations, funding oversight, and complicated service delivery mechanisms. To manage this complexity and in response to isomorphic pressures from their for-profit and public peers, nonprofit organizations increasingly adopt business-like practices (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2002; DiMaggio & Anheier, 1990; Hwang & Powell, 2009). This professionalization trend pressures hiring committees and the executives themselves to revisit, even reprioritize the types of experience, education and credentials that the nonprofit executive position requires. Furthermore, in the past, the primary path to an executive position was substantive experience, but experience alone may be insufficient in preparing executives to be more businesslike (Suarez, 2010).

Alongside the trend of professionalization, predictions of nonprofit leadership turnover due to retirement and attrition emphasize the importance of understanding leadership pipelines. A 2011 survey of nonprofit executives found that three-quarters planned on leaving their positions within the next 5 years (Cornelius, Moyers, & Bell, 2011). Taking a scan of the sector, Tierney (2006) estimated that baby boomer retirements and demand on nonprofits required over half a million new senior managers over the next decade. Although time and further research have encouraged more optimism, there is still cause for concern, most recently framed as a “leadership development deficit,” suggesting that insufficient efforts have been applied in the sector to developing its leadership (Johnson, 2009; Landles-Cobb, Kramer, & Smith Milway, 2015). Investigating career paths may help identify alternative avenues that have not been previously explored and demonstrate untapped employment pools. With boards responsible for hiring executives and strapped by resources preventing the use of an executive recruitment firm, many executives come into the position based on a board’s connection, implying that boards hire who is familiar or made credible to them by a connection (Stewart, 2016; Tierney, 2006). Research on succession planning and executive transitions has documented a paradox—nonprofits are aware of the need to prepare for inevitable leadership changes, while not making these preparations (Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Froelich, McKee, & Rathge, 2011). Therefore, if career development can help alleviate the nonprofit leadership deficit, identifying how the current generation of nonprofit leaders got to its position may help light the path for future leaders as well.

Data Collection and Methods

Sampling

To identify executives for our study, we selected 150 nonprofits organizations operating in the top 20 largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the United States and in mission markets related to health or human services (Seaman, Wilsker, & Young, 2013; Thornton, 2006).¹ These parameters helped limit the sample to executives overseeing organizations with similar missions in similar markets so individual careers may more easily be compared. Organizations were identified using IRS 990 tax form information for the year 2013 as maintained by the National Center for Charitable Statistics (n = 9,380). We then took a stratified random sample of organizations by assigning a random number using Stata and grouping the organizations into five revenue categories: under US$500,000 (n = 3,436; 36.6%), US$500,000 to 999,999 (n = 1,493; 15.9%); US$1m to 4.99 million (n = 2,499; 26.6%); US$5m to 9.99 million (n = 706; 7.5%), and over 10 million (n = 1,246; 13.3%). For each revenue category, the nonprofits were sorted by random number, with the first 30 in each stratum chosen.² For each of these organizations, we identified the current executive (i.e., the highest paid staff person; n = 150).

Data Collection

Data on executive career paths were collected using two methods: a survey and secondary, Internet-based sources of information. First, individual yearly data on the executive’s professional position title, employing organization, and educational background were collected from LinkedIn profiles, nonprofit websites, 990 filing available from the Foundation Center or Guidestar, and general Internet searches (such as press releases, news articles, and legal documents) was collected. For example, one executive chronicled his career history and credentials in the narrative of publicly available congressional testimony, and others had career information detailed in press releases announcing their appointment as a nonprofit’s executive. A data collection protocol was followed in these searches, and information was conservatively gathered so individual identity and related career information could be confirmed.

Next, we surveyed all members of the sample so that we could fill in gaps left by Internet research, mitigate any biases from using only Internet-based forms of data, and gain a more thorough understanding of executive careers and the intentions behind different career moves. The survey tool, implemented as a mixed mode design, included an option for the respondent to provide a copy of his or her resume in lieu of responding to select questions. The survey tool included 39 questions on different aspects of the individual’s professional, educational, and personal experiences. Individuals in the sample were first contacted with a mailed survey packet (i.e., introductory signed cover letter, informed consent form, survey tool, return addressed stamped envelope, and US$5 coffee gift card incentive). Following the mailing, an email survey in identical format to the mailed version was distributed using Qualtrics to the executives for which an email could be identified (n = 100). Follow up to the survey distribution included four individualized reminder emails and three phone calls. The survey closed after 39 calendar days, and the overall response rate to the survey was 41% with 63 surveys received. Using both the secondary and primary data collection, we were able identify full career panels for 86 executives (57%) with 56 being identified from survey responses and the remaining 30 collected through secondary data.

Sample Description

Characteristics of the total sample, survey respondents, and those with career information compiled through either the survey or secondary data collection are summarized in Table 1 according to MSA, revenue size, and mission area. The total sample population is comparable to the survey respondents and those with career information with a few exceptions. The sample participant from San Diego did not respond to the survey and only partial secondary data could be identified about the executive’s career. Also, executives of larger nonprofits are slightly over-represented in the sample.

Table 1.

Organizational Characteristics by Total Sample, Career Information, and Survey Responses.

	Sample total	%	Career information	%	Survey responses	%
Metropolitan statistical areas
Atlanta	6	4.00	2	2.3	2	3.6
Boston	14	9.3	9	10.5	5	8.9
Chicago	13	8.7	6	7.0	3	5.4
Dallas/Ft. Worth	2	1.3	1	1.2	1	1.8
Denver	3	2.0	2	2.3	1	1.8
Detroit	8	5.3	4	4.7	3	5.4
Los Angeles	7	4.7	3	3.5	1	1.8
Miami	5	3.3	2	2.3	1	1.8
Minneapolis	12	8.0	9	10.5	7	12.5
New York	27	18.0	16	18.6	9	16.1
Philadelphia	10	6.7	6	7.0	3	5.4
Phoenix	3	2.0	2	2.3	2	3.6
Pittsburgh	2	1.3	1	1.2	1	1.8
San Diego	1	0.7	—	—	—
San Francisco	11	7.3	7	8.1	6	10.7
Seattle	3	2.0	1	1.2	1	1.8
St. Louis	6	4.0	4	4.7	3	5.4
Tampa	5	3.3	2	2.3	1	1.8
Washington/Baltimore	12	8.0	9	10.5	6	10.7
Total	150	100.0	86	100.0	56	100.0
Annual revenue
Under US$500,000	30	20.0	12	14.0	6	10.7
US$500,000-US$999,999	29	19.3	15	17.4	10	17.9
US$1 million to US$4.99 million	30	20.0	18	20.9	11	19.6
US$5 million to US$9.99 million	31	20.7	21	24.4	14	25
Over US$10 million	30	20.0	20	23.3	15	26.8
Total	150	100.0	86	100.0	56	100.0
Mission area
Human service	98	65.33	57	66.3	38	67.9
Health	52	34.67	29	33.7	18	32.1
Total	150	100.0	86	100.0	56	100.0
Average total revenue
Human service	US$6,975,136		US$1.05e + 07		US$9,347,452
Health	US$1.41e+07		US$1.4e + 07		US$2.04e + 07

The summary statistics also provide a profile of the average nonprofit executive with select characteristics summarized in Table 2. Nonprofit executives are primarily male (52.3%), Caucasian (60.5%), and hold a post-graduate degree (59.3%). Only two in the sample reported no college degree. On average, executives were 56.8 years old (although average ages varied according to organizational size with larger organizations served by older executives). Furthermore, the average nonprofit executive was active in the sector belonging to professional associations (67.4%), spending time as a volunteer through board service (60.5%) or general volunteering (72.2%).

Table 2.

Select Characteristics of Nonprofit Executives (n = 86).

Gender

52% was male (45)

43% was female (37)

5% unknown/not available (4)

Average age 56.8 years old

43% considered baby boomers (37)

37% age unknown/not available (34)

Ethnicity

61% was white (52)

6% was black or African American (5)

2% was Hispanic or Latino (2)

2% was Asian (2)

1% was Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (1)

28% unknown/not available (24)

Highest level of education

59% had a post-graduate degree (51)

21% had a college degree (18)

2% had no college degree (2)

17% unknown/not available (15)

Professional associations

45% was currently a member (39)

13% was a member in the past (11)

7% was never a member (6)

35% unknown/not available (30)

Civic association

15% was currently a member (13)

14% was a member in the past (12)

37% was never a member (32)

34% unknown/not available (29)

Board service

43% was currently a member (37)

17% was a board member in the past (15)

4% never served on a board (4)

35% unknown/not available (30)

4.52 average number of boards served

Note. Unknown/not available reason due to data collected from secondary sources and/or respondent declined to respond to survey question.

Interesting to note, the demographic profile matches that found by Cornelius et al. (2011) and Norris-Tirrell et al. (2018) in their studies of nonprofit executives, with one notable exception: gender. Over half of our sample was male, whereas their samples were, respectively, 70% and 54% female. This may be due to our sample being limited to health and human service type organizations solely and does not necessarily imply contradictory findings. Instead, this may bolster the generalizability of this study across organization types to some degree, given the close match between all other demographic measures.

Findings

Executive Career Paths

We explore executive career paths in two ways: First, we use summary descriptive statistics to look at the range and averages of different career variables, including executive tenure, number of positions held, and variation in positions across sectors found in Tables 3 and 4. The range and mean of different career variables demonstrate the significant variation across executive careers. On average, the executives in our sample had over 32 years of experience across 5.42 positions. Executives spent the fewest years in nonmanagement positions, with more time spent at the management and executive levels. Nearly 40% (n = 33) of the executives had at least one internal promotion; however, this also demonstrates that many executives changed organizations in order for promotion. The majority of executives were not an employee of their current organization when hired as the executive (68.6%). Furthermore, 34.9 had experience in the for-profit sector spending just under 10 years there, on average, whereas 33.7% had professional experience in the public sector spending almost 9 years there, on average. Finally, 46.5% spent their entire career in the nonprofit sector only, whereas the rest of the sample had experience in either the public or for-profit sectors or both.

Table 3.

Executive Experience Summary Characteristics (n = 86).

	Range	M
Career length (years)	2-52	32.79
Number of positions held (count)	2-12	5.42
Experience in nonmanagement positions (years)	1-21	7.74
Experience in management positions (years)	1-32	12.94
Experience in executive positions (years)	1-47	16.20
Internal promotions (count)	1-5	2.03
Experience in the nonprofit sector (years)	1-49	23.31
Experience in the for-profit sector (years, n = 30)	1-30	9.80
Experience in the public sector (years, n = 29)	1-28	8.97

Table 4.

Executive Experience by Sector (n = 86).

	#	%
Experience in nonprofit sector only	40	46.5
Experience in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors	17	19.8
Experience in the nonprofit and public sectors	17	19.8
Experience in all sectors	12	14.0
Total	86	100

To identify if any significant differences existed between the executive experiences by sector and their summary characteristics (found in Table 3), we next completed a series of inferential tests. We investigated each relationship using a cross tabulation and a chi-square statistic. While no relationship was found to be statistically significant at the p < .05 threshold, one relationship neared significance: executive experience by sector with number of positions held, X² (30, n = 86) = 43.26, p = .056.³ Therefore, the relationship was explored further using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether there were significant differences between the mean positions held across different types of career paths, F (3,82) = 6.41, p = .0006. Given the significant results, a Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post hoc test was utilized to determine where the differences occurred between groups. The results indicate that while statistically significant differences in number of positions held did not exist between most types of experiences, executives with experience in all sectors had a significantly higher mean number of positions held (M = 7.92) than those with experience in the nonprofit sector only (M = 4.58, t = 4.37, p = .000), nonprofit and for-profit experiences (M = 5.59, t = 2.66, p = .046), and nonprofit and public sector experiences (M = 5.47, t = 2.79, p = .032).

We also look at career paths as a whole according to their ordering of events to identify patterns across the sample. The initial analysis approach to make sense of common career patterns was to use sequence analysis. This analytical approach has been applied by Smith and Martinez-Moyano (2015) and is helpful to identifying patterns among sequences of events, such as career paths (MacIndoe & Abbott, 2004). Yet among the sample, limited to no repeated frequency of career path patterns was found. Sequence variations were evaluated using the type of position held (i.e., operational, management, or executive), the sector of employment (i.e., nonprofit, public, or for-profit), as well as interactions of the two and found that there was no “traditional” career path or one even shared by more than two individuals. This dearth of career path patterns could be a factor of the sampling approach given the size stratification among health and human service nonprofits, but as the differences identified above demonstrate, nonprofit careers differ widely according to individual and organizational factors. Thus, career paths appear to be highly individualized in terms of both the professional filling the position and the preferences of the volunteer boards recruiting executive candidates.

As a secondary approach for analyzing the career path data, the career typologies developed by Driver (1980) and Suarez (2010) were applied. These typologies offer a purely descriptive means for understanding the movement patterns of individuals over their careers as defined by the length of time and the type of position held, the sequential movement between and among positions over individual careers, and for Suarez (2010), the sector of employment. The two principal researchers individually coded respondents in the sample who had sufficient information for identifying a career path (n = 86) according to each typology, and then merged their coding to identify and discuss any disagreements. For Driver, only eight careers were initially coded differently and five for Suarez, indicating 91% and 94% inter-coder agreement, respectively. After discussion, the researchers agreed to a coding for each of the Driver and Suarez typologies for all individuals in the career sample. Table 5 includes a summary of the career typology coding.

Table 5.

Coding of Driver (1980) and Suarez (2010) Career Typologies.

	Operational definition	#	%
Driver (1980)
Steady state	Lifetime commitment to occupation; few if any job changes	22	24.72
Linear	Moves up occupational ladder, usually within same or similar organization(s)	45	52.33
Spiral	Series of different positions entailing changes in nature of work performed and skills required (7-10-year durations)	12	13.48
Transitory	Entails almost continuous change of occupational field, organization, and job (1-4-year duration)	7	7.87
Total		86	100.00
Suarez (2010)
Nonprofit “Lifer”	Work their way to the top over time or create a nonprofit before developing management expertise	37	41.57
Substantive expert	Great deal of experience or training in specific disciplinary area, but sector has little salience	18	21.35
Social entrepreneur	Focus on management and innovation, interest in cost, and finances	20	22.47
Professional administrator	Business acumen and willingness to work in multiple sectors	11	14.61
Total		86	100.00

The sample predominately follows Driver’s linear career path (45, 52%), followed by a steady state (22, 25%). A linear career path is described as movement up a career ladder within the same or similar organizations, and these finding are contrary to Onyx and Maclean’s (1996) who studied the careers of an Australian sample of nonprofit managers and found a predominantly spiral path, signaling a series of different positions, marked by work’s nature or the required skills. According to Suarez’s (2010) typology, the sample is described as nonprofit lifer’s (37, 42%), and a social entrepreneur profile (20, 23%) and substantive expert profile (18, 21%) closely follow. Thus, the typologies signal a preference to nonprofit experience over management or trained expertise. Although this may seem contradictory to the statistics reported earlier about the executive’s experience across the public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, typologies dominated by nonprofit experience does not preclude experience in other sectors.

To add to the descriptive analysis, we explored the coded career paths inferentially to look for further differences or patterns across career types. Specifically, given the findings on generational cohorts and their divergent motivations, we conducted a contingency table analysis to determine whether a relationship between the career types identified by Driver (1980) and Suarez (2010) and age cohort existed. While there was no relationship found between career paths coded using Suarez’s typology and generational cohort, X² (3, n = 54) = 1.98, p = .076, there was a relationship between the executive careers coded using Driver’s (1980) typology and age cohort, X² (3, n = 54) = 10.24, p = .017. The results for both career typologies are found in Table 6.

Table 6.

Cross Tabulation of Career Typologies and Generational Cohort.

	Baby boomer		Non-baby boomer
Driver (1980)
Steady state	8	21.6%	2	11.8%
Linear	19	51.4%	9	52.9%
Spiral	9	24.3%	1	5.9%
Transitory	1	2.7%	5	29.4%
Total	37	100%	17	100%
Suarez (2010)
Nonprofit “Lifer”	16	43.2%	6	35.3%
Substantive expert	6	16.2%	4	23.5%
Social entrepreneur	9	24.3%	6	35.3%
Professional administrator	6	16.2%	1	5.9%
Total	37	100%	17	100%

Although further analysis is limited by both variables having a categorical level of measurement, we can see that only one baby boomer was identified as having a transitory career, whereas only one non-baby boomer was found to have a spiral career using Driver’s typology.

Executives’ Explanations of Their Career Paths

In addition to identifying an executive’s career path, the survey prompted explanatory depth from the executives themselves about their perceptions of their career path. Executives were asked a series of questions using a Likert-type scale to identify if their path to the executive office was based on international career decisions, if they specifically sought an executive position in the nonprofit sector so that it would reflect their mission-related values, and if they felt their professioanl skills and experience were more important than their mission-related skills and experience when hired for their current positions. The results are summarized in Table 7.

Table 7.

Executive Perceptions of Career Path Development (n = 56).

	Disagree (%)	Neutral (%)	Agree (%)	Mean score^a
My path to executive office was based on intentional career moves	32.1	10.7	54.9	6.4
I wanted to work for nonprofit organizations to reflect my mission-related values	17.9	2.03	80.07	7.5
For my recruitment to the executive office, my professional skills and experience were more important than my mission-related skills and experience	17.9	25.0	57.1	7.0

Original responses were placed across a 10-point Likert-type scale, condensed here to improve readability.

More than half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their path to the executive position was based on intentional career moves (54.9%), but interestingly nearly a third also disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement (32.2%). Executives reported somewhat of a balance on perceptions of professional skills, with just over half of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that their professional skills were more important than their mission-related skills when recruited for their current position (59.7%). Finally, a large majority of respondents (74.2%) agreed that their work in a nonprofit reflected their mission related values.

Executives were also given the opportunity on the survey to share an open-ended description of their path to executive office, with many taking the opportunity (n = 57). Responses were coded according to different topics respondents discussed, with coding informed by the responses themselves and being an iterative process. Again, we see incredible variation in what respondents stressed. Very few respondents (n = 5) mentioned specifically seeking a nonprofit executive position, with one respondent stating, “Early in my career, I set a goal to become an Executive Director and sought positions that would allow me to acquire the necessary skills.” Similarly, a few (n =4) mentioned that they never intended to work for a nonprofit. One respondent stated, “I wouldn’t have accepted the job had I not been committed to the mission of the organization but it was never my intent to work for a ‘nonprofit organization.’”

Other infrequent or moderately discussed topics, including changing jobs across organizations given limited opportunities in their current organizations (n = 4), and a discussion of progessively moving up the career ladder within one organization (n = 15). Almost one-third of respondents (n = 17) mentioned skills in some way, including that their experience made them ideal candidates, that they sought to hone their leadership skills, or that their particular set of skills were sought after. For example, one respondent “actively sought out jobs that could benefit from my skill set,” whereas another discussed how experience in the business sector was seen as an asset to their current organization.

Predominant among responses was two recurring themes: Their current position was based on opportunities available to them (n = 25) and that mission, values, and purpose were very important (n = 29). These included as follows:

The position of Executive Director was placed at my “ feet” because I was at the right place at the right time.

For almost 45 years, I have worked in various types of aging service organizations. . . I have found mission driven the most satisfying.

Seeking financial gain or personal accolades has never been important to me or motivated me. Knowing that I am helping others is very important to me and very rewarding.

My professional career is a journey. . . Lately, mission focus and leadership opportunities have dominated the opportunitiess that have caught my attention.

The prospect of working in the non-profit segment with my current employer was very attractive to me. Seeking financial gain or personal accolades has never been important to me or motivated me. Knowing that I am helping others is very important to me and very rewarding.

Two respondents’ descriptions of their careers were particularly interesting and reflective of the aggregate as they reflected mission, service, and skills. One described his or her desire to lead and help others, classifying himself or herself as “somewhat of a bleeding heart but with professional business skills,” and another reported having a “heart for mission but (being) a business minded leader.”

Discussion

What is systematically known about the nonprofit executive office is often cited from the 2011 Daring to Lead study (Cornelius et al., 2011), which has not been updated to reflect dynamics of the sector post-Great Recession nor did it focus widely on the career background of the nonprofit executives in its sample. This research addresses this gap and also demonstrates the potential for future studies of nonprofit executive careers. Prior to revisiting this study’s research questions, we first comment on our sample’s descriptive statistics. The executive profile presented herein does not reflect the sector’s attentiveness to representation and diversity. The office holders in this sample are primarily white and male, and although the sample is limited, these demographics should be monitored across generational cohorts to ensure that initiatives, such as the Building Movement Project, aimed at promoting diverse leadership are ultimately changing the profile of the sector’s leadership (Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017). Benchmarking and periodic profiling of executive demographics along with intervention assessments will help explain if such diversity-focused initiatives are achieving their desired changes in the demographic profile of nonprofit leadership. Furthermore, longer term perspectives could be applied to investigate access, representation, and related outcomes that stem from the sector, employing diverse leadership to systematically document if diversity is not just an ideal but also necessity for the sector to achieve its mission mandates. Furthermore, the executives in the sample held credentials marked by higher education and external involvements. Both are possible means for identifying and developing leadership potential—emphasizing leadership qualities in nonprofit management education curriculum and creating opportunities for nonprofit junior professionals to serve on boards, be involved in professional associations, or volunteer.

Turning to the research objectives of this study, the findings are discussed in light of these questions: What are the defining characteristics of nonprofit executive careers? Are there primary paths to the nonprofit executive office? Are nonprofit executives’ paths to the executive office intentional? To address the first two research questions, we first comment on the focused career the executives had, holding only five positions, on average, with short tenures at the lower ranks of organizational hierarchies. The limited number of positions the executives held across their career may reflect that employee loyalty and dedication are indicative of leadership qualities. The quick promotion to management and executive positions also hints that leadership potential was identifiable at early career stages. Taken together, these two findings are indicative of screening criteria that could be considered in an executive selection process as candidates are reviewed. We investigated these factors further by testing for differences by other individual and career characteristics. The only significant difference we found was that executives who had worked in all three sectors held more positions than those who only worked in the nonprofit, nonprofit and public sectors, or nonprofit and for-profit sectors. This is a sensible connection in that to work in all three sectors a professional would have to move between jobs, but could also point to a more career-minded individual who is accruing experience and credentials as they seek promotion up their career ladder regardless of the sector of employment.

Referencing Carman et al. (2010), Kunreuther (2003), and McGinnis (2011), career development may look different according to the professional’s generation, and we examined our data for variations according to the executive’s year of birth, grouping baby boomers and non-baby boomers. We found no difference between the number of positions held, internal promotions, and other career characteristics between baby boomers and non-baby boomers, indicating that there may be some factors that are common about a nonprofit career regardless of the executive’s career starting point. Yet, we did find spiral-type careers were prevalent among baby boomers and transitory careers were more common among non-baby boomers, which may suggest that career movement varies by generational cohorts. Given the few millennials in our sample, generalizability about this finding is limited, and future research should investigate career variations among a sample that includes more young executives.

Our findings also more generally speak to the very limited commonalities across nonprofit’s executive careers. The summary statistics on executive credentials demonstrated considerable variation across each and was reinforced comparing the sample’s career paths. Although we are able to make sense of the career paths through coding according to typologies in the extant literature, initial approaches using sequence analysis demonstrated just how divergent executive experiences are in the nonprofit sector. This personnel diversity may reflect the sector’s diversity—comprised of varying missions, clientele, and geographic parameters tied only together by a tax status. In terms of primary paths to the executive office, nonprofit experience was most common, but the frequency of other promotion paths was not insignificant.

Our third question was included in the study to add some explanatory value to the first two questions. In particular, we believed that the explanation of nonprofit executives about their career moves might give us insight into the variations. Yet, the findings from these qualitative data buttress what we found when examining the commonalities across career paths: significant variation. Although some executives were very intentional with their career moves, others described their career as a “journey,” and the most common theme discussed across responses was a dedication to mission. Even if individuals found themselves in a nonprofit executive position as a result of a random career opportunity, they found working toward a mission or purpose to be fulfilling.

Implications and Future Research

Taken together, these findings have important implications both for future research and for nonprofit executive selection. First, prior nonprofit experience is highly valued among hiring boards, but other forms of career experience should not be discounted in the selection process. Although moving between sectors or staying solely within the nonprofit sector varies, few executives in the sample worked up the ranks of their current organization, and instead, moved across organizations to gain promotion. This finding follows Stewart’s (2017) description of “stepping stone nonprofits,” that is, nonprofits that graduate executives to other career opportunities but also indicates organizations may be missing opportunities to develop and retain talent. As Cornelius et al. (2011) discussed, leadership development is critical for long-term organizational stability: Investing in leadership development of staff at all levels is essentially investing in the capacity of the organization as a whole. Finally, mission dedication and alignment are a significant consideration for potential executives as they progress along their career paths, and stressing the benefits of working in a mission-based environment could bolster an organization’s ability to attract and retain top talent. Although there is no accepted balance between mission dedicated and skills, executives who are committed to an organization’s mission will also recognize that their personal skill development, in turn, strengthens the organization.

Given the lack of research on nonprofit executive career paths to date, this study offers fresh insights into who fills the highest paid position of nonprofits, highlighting career paths have no one-size-fits-all explanation of how people got to the top nor how the sector’s leadership pipeline can be prepared. The findings are not only interesting and compelling on their own but also useful for framing propositions for future research to investigate.

The findings, particularly the typology summary, stress though the importance of nonprofit sector experience in grooming and preparing future nonprofit executives. Promotion to the top was most commonly constructed from prior positions in the sector that prepare both mission and sector expertise from on-the-job experience. Although executives in the sample had both public and for-profit experience, nonprofit positions most commonly defined the career backgrounds of nonprofit executives, and for those who rose to the executive position in larger nonprofits, they held more positions than executives of smaller nonprofits. Collectively, these findings indicate nonprofit careers as a series of stepping stones, and even nonprofits, not just nonprofit positions, as rungs in a nonprofit professional’s career ladder. These findings further imply that despite blurring sector boundaries, nonprofit executives are more likely to come from within the sector than from outside, which holds implications for how the sector maintains its expressive logic amid professionalization pressures. Furthermore, the profile of who holds the executive position is understood as a reflection of preferences and values of those doing the hiring, the nonprofit’s volunteer board. Accordingly, a first proposition for future research to consider is as follows: Nonprofit boards will maintain preference for nonprofit experience and expressive values over experience of other sectors and instrumental logics.

The career path data and typologies also stress, although to a lesser degree than nonprofit sector experience, the importance of prior management experience. This follows expectations about the professionalization of the nonprofit sector and the business acumen expected among nonprofit executives. Executives moved quickly out of the entry level into management positions, commonly held the executive position more than once, circulated through various management-related positions over their careers, and were also likely to be promoted internally. Further executive remarks indicated that they did not necessarily seek new opportunities in as much as they were sought. These findings give evidence that nonprofit professionals can be identified and groomed for their leadership potential, which has implications for those from singular organizations and across the sector who are interested in more intentionally developing a nonprofit leadership pipeline. Intentionally tracking nonprofit employees for their leadership potential seems to be an appropriate tactic for fostering and sustaining a leadership cadre for the nonprofit sector. Boards charged with executive selection may benefit from retaining a professional recruiter or playing this role themselves rather than simply taking a “post the job description and see who applies” approach. Future research, even using a treatment and control approach, could follow individuals promoted early in their careers or leadership development program graduates, such as Independent Sector’s NGen program focused on nonprofit professionals broadly or American Society of Association Executive (ASAE) Foundation’s Diversity Executive Leadership Program for association professionals. Longitudinally tracking outcomes of such initiatives would provide evidence of how the leadership pipeline can be more formally constituted. Thus, a proposition for future research is as follows: Nonprofit professionals promoted early in their careers or participating in a leadership development program will be more likely to become a nonprofit executive than those who are not promoted or participate in such programs.

Individuals seek post-graduate degrees for many reasons, among which are the professional skills and career opportunities afforded through such a credential. Executives in the sample who had higher levels of educations (i.e., master’s degree or higher) had held more positions and were also the executives of larger nonprofits. Akin to leadership development and promotion among nonprofit organizations, higher education programs appear to be another leadership path. An element of professionalization is a formal education credential, and the growth of nonprofit management education programs indicates that the nonprofit sector is forging its own professional identity. Graduate education will continue to be a predominant qualification of the executive position, and the displacement of other degrees in favor of a nonprofit management education degree will be indicative of the sector’s professional identity. The prevalence of nonprofit management graduate programs—topping 250 at last count by Mirabella (2018)—and the curriculum offerings that balance skills and mission-related values position these graduate programs as the preference of those seeking the nonprofit executive position. Career paths presented in this study are also representative of a point in time, and although only one executive in the sample had a nonprofit management-related degree, future generational cohorts are expected to reflect trends and pressures of the current nonprofit sector in their educational preferences. Thus, the next proposition is: Nonprofit management education will increasingly be a higher education credential held by nonprofit executives. We do offer caution in monitoring this trend of nonprofit management education to ensure accessibility so that the professionalization expectations of the sector are not in tension with the sector’s values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

An interest of this research study was to identify patterns that might predict nonprofit leadership pipelines. Yet, we are limited to draw conclusions from the data as no clear promotion pattern sequences emerged when examining position and sector movement and no statistical differences emerged among the typologies. For example, we cannot infer what is the preferred career profile that executives serving in health or human service nonprofits hold. The sampling criteria might be a partial explanation, but being the executives were drawn from nonprofits of similar missions and stratified according to revenue size, an expectation forms that executives serving in similarly sized nonprofits might follow similar career patterns. Yet, no statistical differences were found with reference to the organization’s size. Thus, we view the careers of nonprofit executives as highly individualized to both the person holding the position and the organization hiring the executive. This conclusion is supported by the diverse range of remarks that nonprofit executives made when reflecting upon their career paths. We further suppose that in the absence of intentional leadership development in the sector, this pattern—that is, lack of patterns—is likely to perpetuate with a new generation of nonprofit leadership. We even suppose that career patterns might become more individualized as young professionals are motivated by compensation and other personal objectives (McGinnis, 2011). Thus, our final proposition is as follows: The rising generation of nonprofit leadership will follow highly individualized career paths.

Limitations

This study is not without its limitations, which are raised for their potential for future research to consider. First, this study explored the career paths of nonprofit executives, but the path of those who aspired for the executive position but fell short is unknown. Thus, it is challenging to hypothesize about the counterfactual to understand the differences, if any, between these nonprofit executives and those who were not selected as candidates for the office. Second, the sampling parameters limited the executive pool to those leading health and human service nonprofits in the top 20 largest metropolitan areas. Primary and secondary data collection resulted in over-representation of executives from some MSAs and larger nonprofits. Yet, these parameters were selected based on their relevance to one another, examining executive careers in similar mission, resource, and labor markets. Future research should investigate executive careers in different mission areas. For example, hospital executives may be promoted for their business acumen, whereas an art executive may be promoted for his or her artistic talent or an environmental executive for his or her environmental science background. Furthermore, executives in smaller labor markets may also have different paths to the top position given the fewer employment options available to them, and future research should explore how career paths vary given the community context.

Next, 150 executives were included in the sample and we were only able to identify full career information for 86 executives. Thus, the analysis may be affected by a nonresponse bias. Executives who had both a phone and an email were more likely to be a respondent to the survey method, and executives of larger nonprofits were more likely to respond to the survey and have secondary information available on the Internet for collection. By using both primary and secondary data, attempts were made to mitigate bias, but we do not know the reasons for who did and did not respond to the survey. The decision to make career information available online may also reflect a career-motivated individual, such as those who maintain Linked In profiles, or a more professionalized nonprofit that seeks to promote the credibility and credentials of its executive. Despite this limitation, we still feel that there is a contribution from what we were able to ascertain from the responses, as the nature of the study is exploratory.

Given these limitations, we offer caution in interpreting the findings, and also acknowledge that our findings are not unlike what has been found by others inquiring about nonprofit executive career backgrounds. We also acknowledge the complexity of factors that contribute to career decisions. Our survey did inquire about such responsibilities and external involvements, but for the sake of focus are not reported here. Future research should incorporate more of these peripheral considerations to career paths that are not commonly listed on a resume alongside positions and education, but are influential to decisions about career movement and opportunities. Furthermore, these career paths reflect a current cohort of nonprofit executives, and future research should make use of this description alongside other information, such as the executive’s age to understand generational differences among executive careers.

Conclusion

The sector is a reflection of who is in it, particularly who is at the helm, and with conjecture asserting the sector as evolving, the study of career paths helps confirm the nature of this evolution. Career paths are commonly depicted on resumes, and herein, these complex sequences were distilled into a concise data set capable of analysis. From the findings emerging, appreciation must be given for career paths as individualized stories and layering of experience, credentials, and characteristics that are challenging to disentangle and make sense of in a systematic way. These individual stories of promotion and career intentions hold great explanatory power in understanding the leadership of the nonprofit sector—both in looking back retrospectively at what were the sequential paths that led people to the top positions and for looking prospectively and intentionally developing future nonprofit leaders.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Kerry Kuenzi is now affiliated with University of Wisconsin Green Bay, Green Bay, USA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received support for this research from the North Carolina State University’s Scholarship and Research Award.

Notes

Author Biographies

Amanda J. Stewart is an assistant professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at North Carolina State University. She has her PhD in public administration from American University.

Kerry Kuenzi is an assistant professor in the Institute for Public and Nonprofit Studies at Georgia Southern University. She received her PhD in Public Affairs from the University of Colorado Denver.

References

Abbott

(1988). Professional choices: Values at work. National Association of Social Workers.

Bowling

Kelleher

Jones

Wright

(2006). Cracked ceilings, firmer floors, and weakening walls: Trends and patterns in gender representation among executives leading American state agencies, 1970–2000. Public Administration Review, 66, 823-836.

Bozeman

Ponomariov

(2009). Sector switching from a business to a government job: Fast-track career or fast track to nowhere? Public Administration Review, 69, 77-91.

Brinkerhoff

(2002). Government-nonprofit relations in comparative perspective. Public Administration and Development, 22, 3-18.

Brousseau

Driver

Eneroth

Larson

(1996). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 52-66.

Carman

Leland

Wilson

(2010). Crisis in leadership or failure to plan? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 21(1), 93-111.

Cornelius

Moyers

Bell

(2011). Daring to lead 2011: A national study of nonprofit executive leadership. San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Meyer Foundation.

Croteau

Wolk

(2010). Defining advancement career paths and succession plans: Critical human capital retention strategies for high-performing advancement divisions. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10, 59-70.

Damman

Heyse

Mills

(2014). Gender, occupation, and promotion to management in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25, 97-111.

10.

DiMaggio

Anheier

(1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137-159.

11.

Driver

(1980). Career concepts and organizational change work, family and the career. New York, NY: Praeger.

12.

Dur

Zoutenbier

(2014). Working for a good cause. Public Administration Review, 74, 144-155.

13.

El-Sabaa

(2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 1-7.

14.

Froelich

McKee

Rathge

(2011). Succession planning in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22, 3-20.

15.

Frumkin

(2009). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Gates

Guarino

Santibanez

Ghosh-Dastidar

Brown

Chung

(2004). Career paths of school administrators in North Carolina. Rand Corporation.

17.

Hwang

Powell

(2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268-298.

18.

Ibarra

(1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.

19.

Johns

(1996). Organizational behavior: Understanding and managing life at work (4th ed.). HarperCollins.

20.

Johnson

(2009). The nonprofit leadership deficit: A case for more optimism. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19, 285-304.

21.

Jordan

M. H.

Schraeder

(2003). Executive selection in a government agency: An analysis of the department of the navy’s senior executive service selection process. Public Personnel Management, 32, 355-366.

22.

Kunreuther

(2003). The changing of the guard: What generational differences tell us about social-change organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 450-457.

23.

Landles-Cobb

Kramer

Smith Milway

(2015, October 22). The nonprofit leadership development deficit. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_leadership_development_deficit

24.

Lee

Wilkins

(2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71, 45-56.

25.

MacIndoe

Abbott

(2004). Sequence analysis and optimal matching techniques for social science data. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

26.

Maier

Meyer

Steinbereithner

(2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 64-86.

27.

McGinnis

(2011). The young and restless: Generation Y in the nonprofit workforce. Public Administration Quarterly, 35, 342-362.

28.

Mirabella

(2018). Nonprofit management education. Retrieved from http://academic.shu.edu/npo/list.php?sort=state&type=gr

29.

Mirvis

(1992). The quality of employment in the nonprofit sector: An update on employee attitudes in nonprofits versus business and government. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 3, 23-41.

30.

Mirvis

Hackett

(1983). Work and work force characteristics in the nonprofit sector. Monthly Labor Review, 106(4), 3-12.

31.

E. S.

Gossett

C. W.

(2013). Career choice in Canadian public service: An exploration of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, 42, 337-358.

32.

Norris-Tirrell

Rinella

Pham

(2018). Examining the career trajectories of nonprofit executive leaders. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 146-164.

33.

Onyx

Maclean

(1996). Careers in the third sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6, 331-345.

34.

Rawls

Ullrich

Nelson

(1975). A comparison of managers entering or reentering the profit and nonprofit sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 616-623.

35.

Salamon

(2012). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. (Originally published 2003)

36.

Seaman

B. A.

Wilsker

A. L.

Young

D. R.

(2014, October). Measuring concentration and competition in the US nonprofit sector: Implications for research and public policy. In Nonprofit Policy Forum (Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 231-259). De Gruyter.

37.

Smith

Martinez-Moyano

(2015, June). Who’s coming and who’s going? Interorganizational mobility, professional socialization, and the dynamics of revolving doors. Paper presented at the Public Management Research Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

38.

Stewart

(2016). Exploring nonprofit executive turnover. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 27, 43-58.

39.

Stewart

(2017). Exploring board perspectives on non-profit executive turnover. Voluntary Sector Review, 8, 169-186.

40.

Suarez

(2010). Street credentials and management backgrounds: Careers of nonprofit executives in an evolving sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 696-716.

41.

Thomas-Breitfeld

Kunreuther

(2017). Race to lead: Confronting the nonprofit racial leadership gap (Building movement project). Retrieved from http://www.buildingmovement.org/pdf/RacetoLead_NonprofitRacialLeadershipGap.pdf

42.

Thornton

(2006). Nonprofit fund-raising in competitive donor markets. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 204-224.

43.

Tierney

(2006). The nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit. The Bridgespan Group. http://imap.wildforeverfuture.org/downloads/Leadership_Deficit_White_Paper.pdf

44.

Tschirhart

Reed

Freeman

Anker

(2008). Is the grass greener? Sector shifting and choice of sector by MPA and MBA graduates. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 668-688.

45.

Watson

Hassett

(2004). Career paths of city managers in America’s largest council-manager cities. Public Administration Review, 64, 192-199.

46.

Wilensky

(1964). The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology, 70, 137-158.

47.

Wooten

(1993). Using knowledge, skill and ability (KSA) data to identify career pathing opportunities: An application of job analysis to internal manpower planning. Public Personnel Management, 22, 551-563.