What Cuba and Germany Teach Us About Nonprofit Leadership Succession in Public Service

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Karl Besel, Tonya E. Thornton & Kenneth M. Chilton
July 17, 2026

In public administration, we spend considerable time discussing strategy, budgets, policy implementation, workforce development and organizational performance. Yet one of the most significant threats to institutional sustainability often receives far less attention than it deserves: leadership succession.

Whether in government agencies, nonprofit organizations, universities or community-based institutions, leadership transitions are inevitable. Executives retire, relocate, change careers or unexpectedly leave their positions. Despite this reality, many organizations remain surprisingly unprepared for the moment when leadership changes occur.

Recent research examining historic preservation nonprofits in Cuba and Germany provides an interesting perspective on this challenge. While these two countries differ significantly in their political systems, economic environments and governance structures, nonprofit leaders in both settings expressed remarkably similar concerns about preparing the next generation of organizational leaders. Their experiences offer valuable lessons for public administrators everywhere.

At first glance, Cuba and Germany appear to have little in common. Cuba’s nonprofit sector operates within a highly centralized political environment where civil society organizations have historically faced considerable restrictions. Germany, by contrast, has a mature nonprofit sector that operates within a democratic system and has long benefited from strong public institutions and civic engagement.

Yet when nonprofit leaders in both countries were asked about leadership succession, a common theme emerged: finding and preparing future leaders is becoming increasingly difficult.

This finding should resonate with public administrators across the United States.

Today, many public and nonprofit organizations are confronting a convergence of workforce challenges. Baby Boomer retirements continue to accelerate. Competition for talent is increasing across sectors. Younger professionals often have different career expectations than previous generations. Meanwhile, organizations face growing demands for services, increased stakeholder expectations and heightened resource constraints.

In this environment, leadership succession is no longer simply a human resources concern. It is a strategic risk management issue.

The reality is that many organizations remain heavily dependent on a small number of individuals. Executive directors, city managers, department heads, nonprofit CEOs and senior administrators often serve as institutional anchors. They possess years of organizational knowledge, maintain critical stakeholder relationships, understand funding mechanisms and provide strategic direction.

While these leaders are invaluable assets, organizations become vulnerable when too much knowledge and authority reside within a single individual.

When leadership transitions occur without adequate preparation, the consequences can be significant. Funding relationships may suffer. Strategic initiatives can lose momentum. Institutional knowledge may disappear. Staff morale can decline. Community confidence can erode. In some cases, organizations spend years recovering from poorly managed transitions.

Unfortunately, many governing boards continue to view succession planning as something that can be addressed later.

Research consistently suggests that while board members acknowledge the importance of succession planning, relatively few organizations maintain formal leadership transition strategies. The assumption often appears to be that strong leaders will remain in place indefinitely or that suitable replacements will emerge naturally when the time comes.

History suggests otherwise.

One of the more interesting findings from our work in Cuba and Germany was that the challenge was not simply finding technically qualified individuals. Rather, leaders were concerned about identifying individuals who possessed the values, commitment and long-term dedication necessary to lead mission-driven organizations.

In Cuba, interviewees emphasized the importance of future leaders understanding both economic development and community needs. They expressed concerns that redevelopment efforts could prioritize tourism and investment at the expense of local residents. Future leaders, they argued, would need to balance competing interests while preserving cultural identity and community character.

In Germany, nonprofit leaders raised concerns about attracting younger generations to historic preservation work and ensuring that future leaders possessed the cultural awareness and community engagement skills necessary to work in increasingly diverse environments.

Although the contexts differ, the underlying lesson is universal.

Effective leadership requires more than technical expertise.

Future leaders must be capable of navigating complexity, building trust, managing competing stakeholder interests and adapting to rapidly changing environments. These competencies are increasingly important within public administration, where leaders routinely operate at the intersection of politics, policy, finance, technology and public expectations.

The challenge becomes even greater when we consider the pace of change affecting today’s organizations.

Public administrators are managing issues that were either nonexistent or far less prominent a generation ago. Cybersecurity threats, misinformation campaigns, climate resilience, artificial intelligence, critical infrastructure protection, public health emergencies and workforce shortages have dramatically expanded the leadership skill set required for success.

Simply replacing a departing executive with someone possessing similar technical qualifications may no longer be sufficient.

Organizations must intentionally cultivate leadership capacity long before transitions occur.

This is where succession planning becomes less about replacing people and more about building resilience.

Resilient organizations create systems that transfer knowledge, develop future leaders and distribute responsibilities across multiple individuals. They invest in mentorship, professional development, cross-training and leadership opportunities. They encourage emerging professionals to assume greater responsibility and expose them to strategic decision-making processes.

Perhaps most importantly, they recognize that leadership development is a continuous process rather than a one-time event.

For smaller nonprofits and local government agencies operating with limited resources, formal succession planning can seem overwhelming. However, leadership continuity does not necessarily require complex systems or extensive administrative infrastructure.

Even modest efforts can make a substantial difference.

Organizations can identify potential future leaders, create mentoring relationships, document key processes, cross-train staff and establish emergency succession protocols. Shared leadership models, in which responsibilities are distributed among executives, staff and governing boards, can also reduce dependence on any single individual while simultaneously preparing future leaders for greater responsibility.

The experiences of nonprofit organizations in Cuba and Germany ultimately reinforce an important truth for public administrators.

Regardless of geography, political systems or organizational missions, sustainable institutions require intentional leadership development.

The question is not whether leadership transitions will occur. They will.

The question is whether organizations are preparing for them.

As public agencies and nonprofit organizations confront increasingly complex challenges, succession planning should be viewed as an essential component of organizational resilience. It is not simply about replacing executives. It is about preserving institutional capacity, sustaining public trust and ensuring that organizations remain effective long after today’s leaders have moved on.

Whether in Havana or Hamburg, the future of public service depends not only on the quality of today’s leaders but on our commitment to preparing those who will lead tomorrow.

---

Author: Karl Besel is Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Health and Science at the University of Saint Joseph. With more than 25 years of experience in higher education, nonprofit leadership and public service, his research focuses on nonprofit management, leadership development, organizational sustainability and succession planning. He can be reached at [email protected].

Author: Tonya E. Thornton is Vice President of Research and Development at the Global Connective Center and an adjunct professor at Arizona State University. A recognized subject matter expert for the Departments of War and Homeland Security in emergency management and critical infrastructure protection, her current projects focus on mission assurance and acceleration in support of national priorities. She can be reached at [email protected].

Author: Kenneth M. Chilton is a Professor of Public Administration at Tennessee State University. His teaching and research focus on local government management, community and economic development, public finance, nonprofit organizations and urban policy. He has authored numerous scholarly publications examining governance, public management and community development issues. He can be reached at [email protected].

(No Ratings Yet)
Loading...