Nakia Marshall, MPA

Staying Positive During the Storm

There are seasons in life when experience, education, preparation, and hard work do not seem to produce the outcome you expect. I am in one of those seasons now.

After nearly thirty years in the nonprofit sector, including years in executive leadership, I find myself navigating a professional transition that has been far more difficult than I anticipated. I have led organizations, managed complex programs, overseen operations, developed strategy, supervised large teams, worked within highly regulated systems, managed multimillion-dollar budgets, and spent much of my career serving vulnerable and underserved communities. And yet, securing the next opportunity has not been easy.

Some of the feedback I received is, "You're too smart." I usually translate that to mean, "You may be overqualified." Other times, I encounter positions that appear to be executive leadership roles but ultimately seem to require what I jokingly describe as "1,000 years of fundraising and development experience."

Of course, I am being facetious. But there is something very real underneath the humor. I have reached a point in my career where I have significant executive, operational, programmatic, and strategic experience. I understand organizational infrastructure. I understand compliance. I understand government systems. I understand programs, budgets, people, quality, risk, and strategy.

What I am discovering, however, is that many nonprofit executive searches increasingly place fundraising and development experience at the center of the leadership profile. That has left me navigating a professional space that, quite candidly, I am still trying to understand.

When Experience Becomes Complicated

We are often told that experience is an asset. And it is. But there comes a point in a career when extensive experience can create its own challenges. Employers may wonder whether you will be satisfied in the role. They may question whether the salary will be sufficient.

They may assume you will want more authority than the position provides. Or they may decide that your experience exceeds what they believe they need.

The irony is that many experienced leaders are not necessarily looking for the biggest title. Sometimes we are looking for the:

• Right mission.
• Right leadership team.
• Right organizational culture.
• Right opportunity to contribute.

After decades in this sector, I know what I bring to an organization. But I am also clear that leadership is not about needing to be the smartest person in the room. It is about bringing the right experience to the right environment and using it in service of the mission. That distinction is not always easy to communicate during a hiring process.

The Nonprofit Executive Role Is Changing

The nonprofit sector has also changed. Executive leaders are increasingly expected to be strategists, operators, fundraisers, public speakers, government relations professionals, financial managers, brand ambassadors, community leaders, and organizational visionaries—all at the same time.

In many organizations, fundraising has become one of the defining qualifications for executive leadership. I understand why.

Nonprofits cannot accomplish their missions without resources. Revenue diversification, donor cultivation, foundation relationships, corporate partnerships, government funding, and individual giving are all essential to sustainability. But I also believe we have to be careful not to define nonprofit leadership too narrowly. Organizations need leaders who understand how to build strong programs. They need leaders who know how to manage operations.

They need people who understand compliance, quality, risk, workforce development, organizational culture, strategic planning, and systems change. They need leaders who know what happens after the money is raised. Because raising resources is only one part of sustainability. Using those resources effectively, building the infrastructure to support the mission, developing employees, measuring impact, maintaining compliance, and creating strong organizations are equally important. That is where much of my career has been built.

Sitting in the Unknown

Perhaps the hardest part of this experience is not rejection itself. Rejection is part of every career. The harder part is uncertainty. There are moments when I genuinely do not know what the next chapter is supposed to look like.

• Do I continue pursuing executive leadership?
• Do I expand my consulting work?
• Do I transition into a different sector?
• Do I identify organizations that place greater value on operations and program strategy?
• Do I strengthen my development experience further?
• Do I create something of my own?

Those are not rhetorical questions. They are questions I am actively asking myself. And that can be uncomfortable for someone who has spent much of her career being the person expected to have a plan. Leadership teaches you to solve problems. Professional transition teaches you that sometimes the problem you are solving is your own next chapter.

Staying Positive Does Not Mean Pretending

I think we sometimes misunderstand what it means to stay positive. Positivity does not mean pretending everything is fine. It does not mean ignoring disappointment. It does not mean acting as though rejection does not hurt. And it certainly does not mean convincing yourself that every closed door is somehow wonderful. Sometimes a closed door is disappointing. Sometimes you thought you were the right person for the opportunity.

Sometimes you leave an interview feeling confident and still receive the email that begins with, "Thank you for your interest…" You are allowed to be disappointed. But you cannot build a permanent residence there. For me, staying positive means acknowledging the disappointment and then asking:

• What can I learn from this?
• Is there something I need to strengthen?
• Is there something I need to communicate differently?
• Am I targeting the right opportunities?
• Do I need to reposition my experience?
• Or was this simply not the right organization for me?

Those questions allow disappointment to become information rather than identity.

I Still Know What I Bring to the Table

A job search can challenge your confidence in ways you do not always expect.

When you have been successful throughout your career and suddenly find yourself repeatedly trying to convince someone of your value, it can be humbling.

That is when I have to remind myself that a hiring decision does not erase thirty years of experience.

• It does not erase the organizations I have led.
• It does not erase the teams I have developed.
• It does not erase the programs I have strengthened.
• It does not erase the difficult decisions I have made.
• It does not erase the communities I have served.

And it certainly does not erase what I know. A "no" from an organization means I was not selected for that particular opportunity. It does not mean I no longer have value. That distinction matters.

Perhaps the Storm Is Also a Transition

There is another possibility I am beginning to consider. Maybe this season is not simply about finding another job. Maybe it is about redefining what the next phase of my career should look like. After decades in nonprofit leadership, perhaps success does not have to mean finding another organization willing to give me a title.

• Perhaps it means consulting.
• Advising boards.
• Helping organizations strengthen operations.
• Developing emerging leaders.
• Supporting nonprofits through strategic planning and organizational change.
• Teaching.
• Coaching.

Or combining several of those things while continuing to pursue the right executive opportunity. I do not have all of those answers yet. And I am becoming increasingly comfortable saying that. Ultimately, what is loud and clear: IT IS TIME TO PIVOT! I have spent much of my career telling other people that they do not have to know everything immediately. Now I have to extend that same grace to myself.

Experience Still Has Value

There is something important that those of us who have spent decades in this work have to remember.

Our experience matters.

• We have institutional knowledge.
• We have pattern recognition.
• We know what organizational dysfunction looks like before it becomes a crisis.
• We know that every strategic plan eventually has to become an operational plan.
• We understand that mission without infrastructure is difficult to sustain.
• We know that leadership decisions have consequences for employees, communities, families, and organizations.

And many of us have learned these lessons not from textbooks but from decades of actually doing the work. That experience has value.

The challenge is finding organizations that recognize it.

Continuing Through the Storm

So how do I stay positive?

• I keep applying.
• I keep networking.
• I keep learning.
• I continue developing my consulting practice.
• I continue writing and sharing what I have learned.
• I continue looking for organizations whose needs genuinely align with my strengths.

And I remind myself that my career is larger than any single job search. Some days that perspective comes easily. Other days it requires intention. But I keep moving. Because one thing thirty years in nonprofit leadership has taught me is that difficult seasons do not last forever. Organizations change. Opportunities emerge. Relationships open doors. Careers evolve.

And sometimes the path forward looks very different from the one we originally imagined. I may not know exactly where this season is leading me. But I know what I have built. I know what I have learned. I know the value I bring. And I know that uncertainty does not mean the story is over. Sometimes it simply means the next chapter has not been written yet. Staying positive during the storm does not mean pretending the rain is not falling. It means trusting that you still know how to navigate—even when you cannot see the shore.

How I Built My Career in the Nonprofit Sector: Getting to the Table to Create Change

When people look at where I am in my career today, they may see the executive titles, the leadership experience, and the years I have spent in the nonprofit and human services sectors.

What they may not see is how the journey began.

My career was built while going to school full time and working full time. Throughout both my undergraduate and graduate studies, I was simultaneously building my education and my professional experience. It was not always easy, and there were certainly sacrifices along the way, but I understood that education and experience were both essential to creating the career—and ultimately the impact—I wanted.

I did not have the luxury of separating school from work. In many ways, the two developed together.

What I learned academically helped me better understand the systems in which I was working, and what I experienced professionally gave context and meaning to what I was learning in the classroom.

Looking back, that combination became one of the greatest strengths of my career.

I Was Always Looking for the Next Opportunity to Grow

My career progression was intentional.

As I gained experience, I continued pursuing positions with greater responsibility. Not because I was focused solely on titles, but because I began to understand that the higher you move within an organization, the greater your ability to influence how decisions are made.

I wanted to understand more.

I wanted greater responsibility.

I wanted to know how budgets were developed, why certain programs received resources while others did not, how policies were created, how staffing decisions were made, how contracts affected services, and how organizational priorities were established.

Most importantly, I wanted to be at the table where those decisions were being made.

That desire became one of the driving forces behind my professional growth.

Each position taught me something different. Direct service helped me understand the experiences of the individuals and families receiving services. Program management taught me how policies and systems affect frontline work. Quality assurance taught me the importance of compliance, accountability, data, and continuous improvement. Senior leadership taught me how finance, operations, workforce development, fundraising, governance, and strategy ultimately shape an organization's ability to fulfill its mission.

Over time, I came to understand that leadership gave me another way to serve.

Leadership Became My Form of Advocacy

There are many ways to give back to vulnerable and underserved communities.

For some people, that means direct service.

For others, it means clinical practice, advocacy, community organizing, education, philanthropy, or public policy.

For me, it became leadership.

I realized that I could use my position to influence the systems surrounding the people we serve.

When you are sitting at the decision-making table, you can ask different questions:

• Who is not represented in this conversation?
• What are families telling us that we are not hearing?
• Are our programs actually meeting community needs?
• Are resources reaching the people who need them most?
• Are we creating unnecessary barriers to accessing services?
• Are frontline employees being given the resources and professional development they need to serve people effectively?
• Does our budget reflect the priorities we say are important?

Those questions matter because decisions made in conference rooms and boardrooms eventually find their way into people's lives.

A budget decision becomes a program that opens—or closes.

A staffing decision affects whether a family receives timely support.

A funding decision determines whether a child has access to mental health services.

A policy decision can either eliminate a barrier or unintentionally create another one.

That is why I wanted to be at the table.

I Learned to See the Organization as a Whole

One of the most important shifts in my career was learning to look beyond individual programs and understand the organization as an interconnected system.

• Programs cannot operate successfully without strong operations.
• Mission cannot be sustained without financial stability.
• Great ideas cannot scale without infrastructure.
• Employees cannot perform at their best without effective supervision, development, and organizational support.
• And nonprofit organizations cannot sustainably serve communities without strong governance, strategic leadership, partnerships, funding, and accountability.

As my responsibilities grew, so did my understanding of how all of those components fit together.

That perspective ultimately prepared me for executive leadership.

Education Was Never Just About the Degree

Continuing my education while working full time required tremendous discipline, but I viewed education as an investment in my ability to lead.

Education gave me language for some of the things I had already experienced professionally. It challenged me to examine organizations differently, understand systems more deeply, and strengthen my approach to leadership and management.

But education also taught me something else:

Learning cannot stop when the degree is awarded.

Some of the most important lessons of my career did not happen in a classroom.

• They came from supervisors and colleagues.
• They came from mistakes.
• They came from employees I managed.
• They came from families receiving services.
• They came from navigating difficult organizational challenges.
• They came from asking questions when I did not understand something.
• They came from stepping into positions that stretched me beyond what I already knew.

That is why I remain such a strong believer in continuing education and professional development.

Whether it is another degree, a certification, leadership training, executive coaching, conferences, reading, mentorship, or simply remaining curious, we should never become so comfortable with our experience that we stop learning.

Success Was Progressive, Not Immediate

My career did not move from entry-level professional to executive overnight.

It was progressive.

• Each role prepared me for the next one.
• Each challenge developed another leadership competency.
• Each opportunity gave me greater visibility into how organizations operate.

And every time I stepped into a position with greater responsibility, I accepted that there would be something new that I needed to learn.

That is an important part of my definition of success.

Success is not simply arriving at an executive title.

It is developing the knowledge, judgment, resilience, relationships, and experience necessary to carry the responsibility that comes with that title.

Getting to the Table Was Never Just About Me

As I progressed in my career, I became increasingly aware that being at the table carried another responsibility.

When you come from communities or experiences that have historically been underrepresented in leadership, your presence can bring a perspective that might otherwise be absent from the conversation.

But presence alone is not enough.

You have to use your voice.

I have tried to use mine to advocate for children, families, people with developmental disabilities, individuals experiencing behavioral health challenges, communities of color, people navigating poverty, and others whose experiences are often discussed in decision-making spaces without their voices actually being represented there.

For me, executive leadership became another form of giving back.

• I may not always be the person providing the direct service, but I can work to ensure that the professional providing that service has adequate resources.
• I can advocate for the program.
• I can challenge inequities.
• I can examine whether policies make sense.
• I can strengthen organizations.
• I can help develop employees.
• I can ask difficult questions.
• And I can use whatever influence I have to make sure that vulnerable and underrepresented communities remain part of the conversation when important decisions are being made.

And Now, I Want to Help Others Get to the Table

Perhaps one of the greatest evolutions in my definition of success is recognizing that getting to the table myself is no longer enough.

I want to help other people get there, too.

• I want emerging professionals to understand how organizations operate beyond their individual roles.
• I want them to understand budgets, governance, strategy, fundraising, quality, operations, and leadership.
• I want professionals—particularly those who may not initially see themselves represented in senior leadership—to understand that executive leadership can be part of their trajectory.
• And I want organizations to become more intentional about identifying, mentoring, educating, and developing the next generation of nonprofit leaders.

Because leadership pipelines do not develop accidentally.

• Someone has to invest in people.
• Someone has to explain what they were never taught.
• Someone has to create opportunities.
• And sometimes someone simply has to say, "You belong in this room."

My Definition of Success

Today, I define success differently than I might have earlier in my career.

Yes, I am proud of the degrees.

I am proud of the progression.

I am proud of the executive positions I have held.

But I am most proud of what those opportunities have allowed me to do.

• They have allowed me to advocate.
• To build.
• To develop people.
• To strengthen programs.
• To challenge systems.
• To make decisions.
• And to help organizations become better equipped to serve the people who depend on them.

I worked full time while pursuing my education full time because I believed there was somewhere I needed to go.

I continued seeking greater responsibility because I knew there were conversations I wanted to be part of.

And I pursued executive leadership because I wanted to be at the table where decisions were being made.

Today, I understand that getting to that table was never the final destination.

The real purpose was gaining the ability to use my seat, my voice, my experience, and my leadership to create opportunities and better outcomes for people who too often do not have a seat of their own.

That, for me, is what success in the nonprofit sector looks like.

Nonprofit Boards — Do They Get It?

Governance Is More Than Attending Meetings

Nonprofit organizations are created to advance missions, strengthen communities, address inequities, and meet needs that too often go unmet. Behind every nonprofit is—or should be—a Board of Directors entrusted with protecting that mission and ensuring the organization's long-term health.

But there is a question nonprofit leaders sometimes hesitate to ask:

Does the board actually understand its job?

Serving on a nonprofit board is not an honorary appointment. It is not simply an opportunity to add another affiliation to a professional biography, attend a few meetings, vote on an annual budget, or show up at the organization's signature fundraiser.

Board service is governance.

And governance carries real responsibility.

The Board Is a Governing Body

A nonprofit Board of Directors exists to provide governance, fiduciary oversight, strategic stewardship, and accountability.

The board does not exist to manage the organization's daily operations. That responsibility belongs to the chief executive and the leadership team. Instead, an effective board operates at a higher level, ensuring that the organization remains financially sound, legally compliant, strategically focused, adequately resourced, and faithful to its mission.

That distinction between governance and management is critical.

A board that becomes overly involved in day-to-day operations can undermine the authority of its executive leader and create confusion throughout the organization.

But the opposite can be equally damaging.

A board that is disengaged, uninformed, or unwilling to exercise meaningful oversight can allow financial problems, compliance concerns, organizational dysfunction, leadership challenges, and strategic drift to grow unchecked.

Strong governance requires finding the appropriate balance.

The board should not run the organization.

But it must govern it.

Fiduciary Responsibility Is Not Optional

Board members assume fiduciary responsibilities when they agree to serve. At the core of nonprofit governance are three fundamental duties: the Duty of Care, the Duty of Loyalty, and the Duty of Obedience.

Duty of Care requires board members to be informed, prepared, engaged, and thoughtful in their decision-making. Members should review financial reports, understand significant organizational risks, attend meetings consistently, ask meaningful questions, and seek additional information when something does not make sense.

Duty of Loyalty requires board members to place the interests of the nonprofit ahead of personal, professional, financial, or political interests. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed and appropriately managed. Board decisions should be driven by what best serves the organization and its mission—not individual agendas or relationships.

Duty of Obedience requires the board to ensure that the organization remains faithful to its charitable purpose and complies with applicable laws, regulations, governing documents, contractual obligations, and organizational policies.

These duties are not theoretical concepts buried in bylaws.

They are the foundation of responsible nonprofit governance.

If an organization is experiencing persistent financial instability, repeated compliance failures, significant leadership turnover, unresolved organizational risks, or continued mission drift, the board cannot simply view those problems as management issues.

At some point, they become governance issues.

Governance Is Not Micromanagement

One of the most common areas of tension between nonprofit boards and executives is determining where governance ends and management begins.

The board should be asking questions such as:

Are we financially sustainable? Are our programs advancing our mission? What are the greatest risks facing the organization? Are appropriate internal controls in place? Does our strategy reflect the environment in which we are operating? Do we have adequate resources to execute that strategy? Is the CEO meeting the expectations established by the board?

The board generally should not be deciding which employee handles a project, directing frontline staff, rewriting operational procedures, managing individual grants, approving routine purchases, or inserting itself into everyday personnel decisions.

A healthy governance structure establishes clear boundaries.

The board governs. The chief executive manages.

That does not mean the board is passive. Quite the opposite.

An effective board establishes expectations, monitors performance, examines data, challenges assumptions, evaluates risk, asks difficult questions, and holds executive leadership accountable for results.

It also recognizes that accountability must work in both directions.

The board cannot reasonably hold a chief executive responsible for delivering an ambitious strategic plan while failing to approve adequate resources, participate in fundraising, recruit needed expertise, make timely governance decisions, or address structural problems within the board itself.

The Board's Relationship With the CEO Matters

Few relationships are more consequential to a nonprofit's success than the relationship between the board and its chief executive.

The board hires, supports, evaluates, and, when necessary, terminates the chief executive. But effective governance requires more than supervising the CEO.

It requires partnership with appropriate boundaries.

A strong board provides the executive leader with clearly defined expectations, regular performance feedback, strategic guidance, access to expertise, and the resources necessary to lead effectively.

The CEO, in turn, provides the board with accurate information, strategic insight, financial transparency, organizational context, and sufficient data to make informed decisions.

Problems emerge when that relationship becomes adversarial, overly political, excessively operational, or unclear.

A CEO should not have to guess what success looks like.

And a board should never wait until a crisis—or an annual evaluation—to communicate significant concerns about executive performance.

Committees Are Where Much of Governance Happens

A strong board is rarely effective through full-board meetings alone.

Committees allow directors to examine complex issues more deeply and bring informed recommendations to the full board. Depending on the organization's size and structure, committees may include Finance, Governance, Development or Fundraising, Programs, Audit, Strategic Planning, Executive, and other specialized committees.

But creating a committee is not the same as having an effective committee.

Every committee should have a clear charter, defined responsibilities, measurable objectives, an annual work plan, appropriate membership, and a chair capable of moving the work forward.

Committee Chairs Are Leadership Positions

The committee chair is not simply the person who schedules meetings.

A strong committee chair understands the committee's mandate, establishes priorities, develops agendas with purpose, ensures members receive appropriate information, facilitates substantive discussion, assigns responsibilities, tracks progress, and reports recommendations to the full board.

Most importantly, effective committee chairs understand the difference between doing the organization's staff work and governing the work.

For example, the Finance Committee should not merely receive a financial statement and move on. It should understand revenue performance, expenses, cash flow, reserves, liabilities, budget variances, financial controls, audit findings, and emerging financial risks.

A Governance Committee should not exist only to nominate new board members. It should continuously assess whether the board itself is functioning effectively—including composition, competencies, attendance, engagement, succession planning, committee performance, board education, and periodic board assessment.

A Development Committee should understand that fundraising cannot simply be delegated to the executive director or development staff. Board members should participate in opening doors, cultivating relationships, making personally meaningful contributions, identifying prospects, supporting stewardship, and serving as credible ambassadors for the organization.

A Programs Committee should maintain visibility into outcomes, quality, impact, community needs, and whether programs remain aligned with the organization's mission and strategy—without attempting to manage program staff.

Committees should create deeper governance, not additional bureaucracy.

Board Composition Matters

Passion for the mission matters.

But passion alone does not create an effective board.

Nonprofits need directors whose collective competencies correspond to the organization's needs. Depending on the organization, that may include expertise in finance, law, fundraising, government relations, human resources, risk management, marketing, communications, technology, data, programs, community engagement, real estate, healthcare, education, or other relevant areas.

Boards should periodically conduct a board skills and competency assessment and ask:

What expertise do we currently have?

What expertise are we missing?

Does our board reflect the communities and stakeholders connected to our mission?

Who understands our financial model?

Who understands fundraising?

Who understands our programs?

Who understands governance?

And perhaps most importantly:

Are our board members willing and able to do the work required of them?

A prestigious title or extensive professional résumé does not automatically make someone an effective nonprofit director.

The organization needs the right board, not simply impressive names on a website.

An Ineffective Board Can Become an Organizational Risk

Organizations frequently examine operational risks: funding reductions, staff turnover, compliance concerns, cybersecurity, litigation, program performance, and economic uncertainty.

Far less frequently do organizations acknowledge another significant risk:

An ineffective board.

A weak board can contribute to delayed decision-making, poor financial oversight, inadequate fundraising, executive turnover, unmanaged conflicts of interest, compliance failures, strategic stagnation, and organizational instability.

It can also create a particularly damaging dynamic in which executive leadership is held accountable for organizational outcomes while the board fails to examine its own contribution to those outcomes.

If the board approves the strategy, approves the budget, evaluates the chief executive, oversees organizational risk, and holds fiduciary responsibility for the institution, then organizational accountability cannot reside exclusively with management.

Governance must include board accountability as well.

Boards Must Evaluate Themselves, Too

Nonprofits routinely evaluate employees.

Boards evaluate chief executives.

Programs are measured.

Budgets are monitored.

Funders demand outcomes.

But who evaluates the board?

Strong governance requires periodic board self-assessment.

Boards should examine attendance, participation, financial literacy, committee effectiveness, fundraising engagement, strategic contribution, board composition, CEO support and oversight, succession planning, and adherence to governance responsibilities.

Individual directors should also understand that board membership is not necessarily permanent.

When members consistently miss meetings, fail to prepare, avoid fundraising responsibilities, disregard conflicts of interest, undermine governance boundaries, or contribute little to the organization's work, board leadership must be willing to address the issue.

Accountability cannot stop at the boardroom door.

Governance Is Stewardship

Ultimately, nonprofit board service is an act of stewardship.

Board members are temporarily entrusted with something that belongs to a much larger community: an organization's mission, reputation, resources, history, and future.

That responsibility deserves more than quarterly attendance.

It requires curiosity.

Preparation.

Financial literacy.

Strategic thinking.

Courageous conversations.

Accountability.

Fundraising engagement.

Respect for governance boundaries.

And an unwavering commitment to the mission.

The strongest nonprofit boards understand that their responsibility is neither to simply support management nor to control management.

Their responsibility is to create the governance conditions under which effective leadership and sustainable mission impact can thrive.

So perhaps every nonprofit board should periodically ask itself a few uncomfortable questions:

Do we understand our fiduciary responsibilities?

Are we governing—or merely meeting?

Are our committees producing meaningful oversight and action?

Are we giving executive leadership the resources, clarity, and accountability necessary to succeed?

Are we willing to evaluate our own performance with the same rigor we expect from staff?

And finally:

If this organization succeeds or fails, do we understand the role that we played in that outcome?

Because when governance works, a strong board can be one of a nonprofit's greatest strategic assets.

When it doesn't, it can become one of its greatest liabilities.

Nonprofit Boards: Do They Get It?

The organizations—and communities—they are entrusted to serve cannot afford for the answer to be no.

Nakia Marshall, MPA

Nonprofit Executive | Organizational Strategist | Management Consultant