If nonprofit leaders wait until nothing is urgent, they will never step away
I took two full weeks away from work this summer.
Not “away” while checking email every morning. Not “vacation” with my laptop nearby just in case. I actually left, traveled, and tried to disconnect.
I needed it.
Before I left, I was waking up thinking about everything: how much money we had, who had registered for events, whether we were engaging enough people, how staff metrics were moving, and what might need my attention next.
I was not just doing my job. I was mentally doing everyone else’s job too.
I knew what every employee was working on. I was checking registration systems to see who had signed up. I was watching the numbers and monitoring the work instead of waiting for the people responsible for it to update me.
That may feel responsible. It may even feel like leadership.
But it is also exhausting.
And if I am being honest, there was some guilt, some fear, and definitely some control wrapped up in it.
The work continued without me
Here is what happened while I was away:
Nothing.
There may have been one minor issue, but it was not even worth calling a crisis. The team handled the work. Decisions were made. Programs continued. The organization did not fall apart.
The biggest challenge was not whether they could function without me.
It was whether I could stop wondering if they could function without me.
I still felt the urge to check in. I still wanted to know what was happening. But after some time away, something started to shift.
When I returned, I was not immediately checking Eventbrite to see who had registered. I was waiting for the staff member responsible for the event to tell me.
That may sound like a small thing. It was not.
It meant I was allowing people to own their work and expecting them to keep me informed, rather than constantly monitoring it myself.
That is healthier for me. It is also healthier for the organization.
A strong number two matters
One of the things that made stepping away possible was having a strong second-in-command.
This matters in organizations of every size, but it may matter even more in small nonprofits. When the executive director or CEO leaves, someone still needs the authority to make decisions.
If no one knows who is in charge, even routine questions can become emergencies. Staff hesitate. Board members get involved in operational decisions. The executive keeps checking in because everyone is waiting for them.
A strong number two does not mean creating a complicated leadership structure. It means being clear about who has authority, what decisions they can make, and when something truly needs to reach the executive.
It also means the executive has to let them lead.
That may be the hardest part.
Boards have a responsibility too
Nonprofit executives often struggle to disconnect because the board does not stop working when the executive goes on vacation.
Board members have their own schedules. They may use a leader’s time away to catch up on questions, send ideas, or make requests. The executive logs in after a few days and finds a full inbox waiting.
Sometimes the board does not understand the organization’s PTO policies. Sometimes it understands the policy but does not respect the executive’s preference to actually be left alone.
Boards need to take this seriously.
A board’s responsibility is not just to evaluate the executive, review finances, and approve policies. It also has a responsibility to support sustainable leadership.
That means respecting time off. It means empowering the executive to lead. It means not creating a culture where constant availability is treated as proof of commitment.
Some of the best policies I have seen include a sabbatical after a certain number of years of service. Ten years is a common example.
I love the philosophy behind that: you have done good work, and we want you to take a real break.
But honestly, we should not have to wait ten years to recognize that nonprofit leaders need rest. If you keep an executive for ten years, you are already incredibly fortunate. Support should begin long before that.
Most things are not true emergencies
Nonprofit leaders often work in environments where the mission feels urgent. Political developments happen. Funding concerns emerge. Community needs do not pause because someone is out of the office.
Some situations truly do require immediate attention.
Most do not.
We can convince ourselves that every request, complaint, deadline, or uncomfortable moment needs the executive right now. Often, it can wait. Someone else can respond. A decision can be made without us.
And if the organization truly cannot function for a week or two without one person, the problem is not the vacation.
The problem is the structure.
That is a signal that the organization needs clearer systems, stronger delegation, better documentation, and more shared ownership.
Taking time away is leadership work
I do not believe taking a vacation magically solves burnout. I still worried while I was away. I still thought about the organization. I still wondered what I might find when I returned.
But I also rested. I experienced something new. I came back with more energy and a little more perspective.
Most importantly, I saw that the work could continue without me personally monitoring every piece of it.
That is good leadership too.
Taking time away is not abandoning the mission. It is not a lack of commitment. It is part of making sure you can continue doing the work without becoming consumed by it.
Leaders need time to step back. Staff need the opportunity to lead without the executive looking over their shoulder. Boards need to support a culture where rest is respected rather than quietly punished. And organizations need systems strong enough to keep moving when one person is not there.
I worried every day I was gone.
I am also already thinking about where we might go next year.
I think both things can be true.