The nonprofit CEO role was never meant to hold this much

There’s something I keep noticing in the organisations I work alongside.

It doesn’t usually show up straight away.

But over time, it becomes really clear.

Everything starts to sit with one person.

The CEO ends up holding:
the strategy,
the day-to-day,
the team,
the funders,
the relationships,
the issues that pop up out of nowhere.

They become the glue.

And for a while, they hold it.
Because they care.
Because they’re capable.
Because there isn’t another option.

Until it starts to feel… heavy.

I don’t sit with CEOs and think, you’re not doing this well enough.

It’s usually the opposite.

They’re thoughtful.
They’re committed.
They’re carrying a lot — often quietly.

But the reality they’re working in is usually super tight.

Funding is stretched.
Teams are small.
Boards are doing their best, often alongside everything else in their lives.

And slowly, without anyone really naming it:

more and more gets added to the one CEO role.

I think that’s the part I keep coming back to.

We’ve normalised something that doesn’t actually make sense.

But when you step back and look at it, it’s not surprising.

Because the model most nonprofits are using
was never designed for them in the first place.

The classic setup:
board → CEO → staff

comes from business.

It was designed for:

• clearer lines of control

• defined outputs

• more stable environments

• and resourced organisations

And somehow, over time, the community sector adopted it. The legislation adopted it.

Not because it was the best fit.
But because it was available.
Recognised.
Legible to funders and regulators.

So we built around it.

The work isn’t neat or contained.

It’s not just about delivering outputs.

It’s about:
relationships
community trust
responding to complexity
working across systems
holding things that don’t have clear edges

And that kind of mahi doesn’t sit comfortably inside a tidy hierarchy.

We try to make it work.

We layer in:
more responsibility
more expectations
more accountability

But we don’t change the structure underneath.

So the pressure has to go somewhere.

And it lands with the CEO.

We’ve got:

a business-style hierarchy

trying to hold complex, relational, community-led work

inside organisations that are under-resourced

Why decisions bottleneck.
Why everything comes back to one person.
Why leaders feel stretched in every direction.

It’s not because people aren’t capable.

It’s because:

the model isn’t designed for the work.

This is the question I’ve been sitting with.

Not in theory —
but in real organisations, with real constraints.

I’m not trying to fix governance.

That kōrero can go in circles.

What I’m more interested in is this:

What would a leadership model look like if it was actually designed for how nonprofits work?

Where:

• leadership is shared across the organisation

• decision-making sits closer to the mahi

• more than one person holds relationships

• the CEO isn’t the default for everything

Not a perfect model.

But one that fits:

small teams
limited funding
complex communities
and the reality of 2026 and what’s coming next

In most organisations, it already exists.

Across the team.
Across relationships.
Across lived experience and knowledge.

But the structure doesn’t recognise it as leadership.

So it stays concentrated in one role.

I’ve started developing a more practical model for this.

One that helps organisations:

• redistribute leadership

• reduce pressure on the CEO

• work more collectively

• while still holding clarity and accountability

Not a big restructure.
Not theory-heavy.

Just something that actually works in the conditions most nonprofits are operating in.

Not where business was 20 years ago.

Not what funders are most comfortable with.

But what actually supports organisations to function, sustainably, in the work they’re doing.

And it doesn’t have to. Stayed tuned as this model is developed. Do reach out if you’re keen to be part of this journey into a better future for Aotearoa’s nonprofits.