Beyond Capability: Why Executive Leaders Need Organizational Support

Lessons from a nonprofit transformation that reveals why even the most qualified leaders need structural backing to succeed

Angela Nicole Spranger

Owner

Chandler Henley Consulting LLC

Leadership transitions are make-or-break moments for any organization. When those transitions happen during periods of strategic change, especially with leaders from underrepresented backgrounds, they often expose underlying structural weaknesses that can derail even the most capable executives. I recently observed this dynamic firsthand while consulting with a century-old nonprofit in the Midwest. The organization had hired an experienced Black woman as President and CEO, specifically to lead institutional turnaround and align internal practices with their equity-focused mission. She had the credentials, the track record, and the vision. What she didn't have was the organizational support structure necessary to succeed.

The Capability Trap

We often assume that hiring the right person solves organizational problems. Find someone with the right experience, the right skills, the right leadership style, and transformation will follow. This thinking creates what I call the "capability trap," where organizations place enormous responsibility on individual leaders while failing to provide the structural support those leaders need to be effective.

This dynamic is particularly pronounced in what researchers call the "glass cliff" phenomenon. As Wooten and James describe in The Prepared Leader, women and leaders from underrepresented backgrounds are disproportionately appointed to leadership roles during organizational crises. While these appointments may appear progressive, they often occur under conditions of heightened risk and limited institutional support, setting leaders up for failure rather than success. In this case, the new President quickly stabilized operations, resolved a seven-figure budget discrepancy, and prevented the closure of two core facilities. She initiated necessary policy reviews and performance alignment processes. By any objective measure, she was delivering results.

Yet resistance emerged almost immediately. Legacy staff objected to new expectations for documentation and accountability. Rather than working through proper channels, they bypassed supervisory structures and communicated directly with board members, framing the President's leadership style as problematic.

When Support Systems Fail

This situation illustrates a pattern I've seen repeatedly in organizational change efforts. Leaders are hired to transform, but when the work becomes uncomfortable, the very people who should provide support begin to waver.

The board, instead of reinforcing the President's authority and backing the changes they had hired her to make, began aligning with dissenting staff members. And before long, the Board and the President... "came to an agreement," shall we say, and parted ways.

This represents a fundamental failure of organizational support. The board had neither formal succession plans, structured onboarding for interim leadership, nor crisis communication strategies. They drifted from policy governance toward operational interference, without providing the day-to-day support that a managing board would be expected to offer. In short, they relied on the goodwill of the people who remained to keep the organization afloat.

The Real Cost of Structural Gaps

When organizations fail to provide adequate support structures, the consequences extend far beyond individual leaders. In this case, the President's exit created a ripple effect that damaged psychological safety throughout the leadership team. Other executives found their input dismissed and their expertise ignored.

This dynamic reflects what I and other researchers call psychological contract violation. Leaders enter roles with reasonable expectations of procedural fairness, transparency, and consistency in governance. When those expectations are violated, especially in visible, high-stakes decisions, it creates lasting damage to organizational trust and culture. And it damages the psyche of the person who has lived and breathed the leadership role and experience.

Building Better Support Systems

Organizations serious about transformation need to move beyond the capability trap and focus on creating structural conditions for success. This means:

• Governance clarity. Boards must maintain clear boundaries between governance and operations, especially during transitions. Policy decisions should be documented, transparent, and consistently applied.
• Communication structures. Establish formal channels for feedback and conflict resolution. When staff concerns arise, they should be addressed through proper supervisory channels, not through backdoor conversations with board members.
• Performance frameworks. Create clear metrics and evaluation processes before leaders begin their work. This protects both the organization and the executive by establishing shared expectations and accountability measures.
• Succession planning. Every leadership transition should include contingency planning. Organizations cannot afford to make reactive decisions during crisis moments.
• Psychological safety protocols. Ensure that all team members, especially those in leadership roles, can voice concerns and take necessary risks without fear of retaliation or sudden removal.

Moving Forward

The most capable leaders in the world cannot overcome structural dysfunction. When we hire people to lead change but fail to provide the organizational support they need, we set them up for failure and damage our own institutional capacity in the process.

As Peter Drucker observed, "culture eats strategy for breakfast." In this case, a culture of informal power dynamics and resistance to accountability devoured what should have been a straightforward organizational transformation. The lesson is clear: before you hire someone to lead change, make sure your culture is ready to digest the strategy you're asking them to implement.

Here's how to start building that support:

• Document your governance processes - Create written policies for board decision-making, executive evaluation, and conflict resolution before you need them

• Establish clear communication channels - Staff concerns should flow through supervisory structures, not around them to board members

• Set performance expectations upfront - Define success metrics and evaluation timelines during the hiring process, not after problems arise

• Plan for succession scenarios - Have interim leadership protocols ready before any transition becomes necessary

• Create psychological safety checkpoints - Regular pulse surveys or feedback sessions help identify cultural resistance before it becomes destructive

True transformation requires more than individual capability. It requires organizational commitment to the structures, processes, and cultural norms that enable leaders to succeed. Without that foundation, even our best efforts at change will remain fragile and unsustainable.

The question isn't whether your leaders are capable enough. The question is whether your organization is ready to support the capabilities you've hired.