Founders are a source of innovation and energy in the social good sector. Lionized as “social entrepreneurs” they identify gaps and create organizations to fill them. But there is, sometimes, a dark side to founders. Donors, employees and stakeholders should be aware of these dynamics.

Dr. Susanna Kislenko is a researcher who focuses on founders, especially those in the non-profit world.  In 2025, she established The Founder Leadership Research Lab, based between the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University and Kellogg College at the University of Oxford. Dr. Kislenko has examined “founder’s syndrome” in new ways.  Founders are a creative social force, ambitious drivers who both imagine and launch new solutions to persistent challenges.  But Dr. Kislenko thinks we need to look more critically at founder culture in the social good space.

Founder’s Syndrome

Dr. Kislenko says “Founder’s Syndrome is a malady that affects founders who are driven by the need to control, without clear delegation or succession planning, often using defence strategies such as dominance to maintain legitimacy.”  This is a condition to avoid.

What are the symptoms?

• The organization’s image is strongly associated with the founder
• High level of micromanagement by the founder.
• High level of staff turnover
• The view of the founder is the only one that matters.
• Lack of concrete succession planning for the founder.

The Founder Decides…

• Who is on the initial board of directors
• The vision and mission of the organization
• HR policies and practices
• When the founder leaves.

Other Features

The charitable and not-for-profit world has some features that make it ripe for founders.  For examples, founders often are both “visionaries” and fundraisers.  The founder may use language filled with  sweeping generalizations and emotional urgency.  I call this “save the world” rhetoric, which has lots of noble, emotionally-charged statements that are devoid of real meaning.  It’s fatuous but strangely seductive language – especially when delivered by a charismatic founder in a TED talk, conference plenary, or stadium.

Founder organizations are built for now, say Dr. Kislenko, not for future. The board serves at the pleasure of the founder, which undermines board authority and responsibility.  The founder’s voting power may be baked into the bylaws.  The board’s ability to provide oversight is muted.  This makes basic governance functions difficult to carry out.  Responsibilities like duty of care to staff and volunteers, CEO succession, public representation, and dealing with key funders sit with the CEO/Founder.  Sometimes, donors will even make commitments that are conditional on the Founder being in charge – a key-person clause.  It’s a “person before organization” hierarchy.

A close, loyal team often surrounds the founder and puts them on a pedestal.  The organization defines their identity, which makes it hard to give up.  The founder has a terror of not having status, of not having control, and they can fight like a cornered bear if threatened.  The organizations may be innovative in the early days, but over time impact declines.  Dr. Kislenko research has identified that for many founders their role is everything, and few have outside interests.  Despite their position, one of the downsides of being a founder is a lack of confidence about other career options.  It’s easy to get stuck.

Implications for Estate Donors

Recently, I wrote an article on different types of governance boards at charities and how they might create sustainability.  I said this has implication for estate donors.  A good charity today may not be thriving or even operating tomorrow.  It’s hard to spot poor governance from the outside, but Dr. Kislenko implies it is possible if one looks for signs for Founder’s Syndrome.  She makes the same recommendation to job seekers.

Personal Reflection

This is a very personal topic for me.  I’m a founder (and Executive Director) of Aqueduct Foundation, which after 19 years has become one of the largest foundations in Canada. For better or worse, I am associated with Aqueduct, but it is not dependent upon me.  Our volunteer board is strong and mission aligned, we have clear strategic direction, and the team is stable and dedicated.  We’re all committed to Aqueduct’s future, and at least in part, that starts with a leadership succession plan.

Succession started seven years ago when Aqueduct’s Board put me on the spot about my succession plan.  Thank goodness they did.  I will be retiring in 2029, and I am looking forward to passing the baton. I’ve been working with Aqueduct’s board of directors to build capacity, clarify strategy, and help plan my own succession.  It’s an 10-year plan and there are so many pieces.  These include strong governance; palpable culture; talented, passionate team who are empowered; financial stability, strong business plan to drive growth and impact; and a clear sense of values and mission.

My goal is not to preserve the foundation as it is, but to help influence the creation of a strong entity that will continue for at least a 100-years after I’m gone. I have a responsibility to the entity we – board, team, partners, donors – have co-created. I am striving to ensure our promise to donors – all 1500 of them – that Aqueduct Foundation will be an outstanding steward of their philanthropy and legacies.  I love my work, but the foundation is bigger than me.  I reject the urge to hang on with my toenails, clinging to the best job I could ever possibly have.