Charismatic leader: pity the poor replacement CEO. (Streetsmart Nonprofit Manager).

You know the type. She founded the agency 20 years ago on little more than two nickels and a passion. His ideology embodies everything you can imagine in a leader. Plus, he knows how to get others excited about it. She is clearly doing the job selflessly, and she articulates a stunning vision for the future. He has an amazing work ethic and seems to know every last square inch of the organization.

These kinds of executive directors are everywhere in this sector. Here's a label for them: charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders are usually thought of as religious or national leaders, which is how early observers introduced the idea to modern sociology.

While the concept is normally associated with heads of state, such as Charles De Gaulle or Winston Churchill, many have also considered private sector leaders as diverse as Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science movement, or Lee Iacocca of the Chrysler Corporation to be charismatic leaders.

What many current observers don't yet realize is that the nonprofit sector has more charismatic leaders per square inch than any other sector. For-profits aren't as hospitable to charismatic leaders for two reasons. First, the route to the CEO chair in a for-profit usually involves ownership on some level, and this cuts down on the available candidates. Second, most charismatic leaders' personal qualities don't lend themselves well to working up through the ranks to lead an organization whose reach is limited to a defined group of consumers.

Charismatic leaders tend to want to influence the general public, as well as their own organization.

As government's influence and scope recedes and nonprofits continue to proliferate, we are seeing more and more charismatic leaders gravitate to this sector, whereas in the past their only choice would have been a political vocation. Consequentially, the ability to recognize and work with such leaders is becoming an indispensable skill for staff members, board members--and even the charismatic leaders themselves, who often don't appreciate the uniqueness of their own style.

Admittedly, the term charismatic leader is being used here broadly. To a degree, every leader of a nonprofit is expected to have at least some of those qualities described above. But there is a large difference between leaders who have a special charisma and those who manage in a more conventional way.

A lot of the difference comes from circumstance. A 200-bed nursing home does not need a charismatic leader, just someone who knows how to manage well in a complex environment. A troubled national organization could use a charismatic leader--if it could find one.

Charismatic leaders bring many benefits to their organizations. Here are just a few benefits.

They have a vision. Charismatic leaders usually have a true vision. They convey the impression that they know exactly what the future of the organization should look like. In this way they really are at the heart of the organization.

They offer an exit from crisis. Just as in whole countries, charismatic leaders often emerge to lead an agency from crisis. While they may convey a sense of confidence, their real message is dogged persistence.

They carry the organization "on their back." One gets a sense from charismatic leaders that they are behind just about everything their organizations do. And, in a real sense, they are. Sheer energy and commitment to the cause drive the organization forward. Even if others lag, they don't.

A variation on this theme is when all of the organization's roads lead through the charismatic leader. This is not quite the same thing as micro-managing, although it's related. It's more the case that staff make decisions only after explicitly considering what the leader would prefer. This behavior comes partly from respect and partly from the fact that things are set up so that staff have little choice other than to go through the leader.

They work cheap. Because of their energy and drive, charismatic leaders are often able to work with fewer support staff. Sometimes it may even seem as though they are supporting the support staff. Moreover, rather than paying high salaries, they tend to recruit people who, like them, have an enhanced commitment to the mission.

The board gives them wide latitude. Think of the charismatic leader from the board's point of view. In such a person the board of directors has an absolutely reliable CEO, proven performance, a single point of accountability, and minimal risk of failure. What's not to like? In return they offer trust, respect, and latitude.

At the same time, charismatic leaders are not unadulterated blessings. They bring some drawbacks, as those hiring them or working for them know well. Perhaps not surprisingly, almost all of the disadvantages come from their departure, not their performance.

The organization dips after they leave. It's not easy to replace a charismatic leader. If you're ever picked to succeed one, proceed cautiously. By designing the job around themselves, the charismatic leader creates a pair of executive shoes tightly based on their own foot size, shape, and style of running. Even if it's a close fit, there are certain to be lots of blisters and fatigue for the next wearer.

Organizational performance will also almost certainly suffer because the people the charismatic leader hired are there because of their relationship with the leader, not because they fit a job description. This is because the charismatic leader manages by relationships, not by structure. While this is a widespread style of management in the nonprofit sector, it means that removing the charismatic leader disrupts a web of relationships. This, in turn, means that efficiency suffers.

Charismatic leaders don't build systems. Charismatic leaders don't create systemic ways of operating in their organizations because their style can't easily be systematized, and because deep in their hearts they probably see systems as a limitation (which can be true). And why bother routinizing common decisions since most of the decisions routinely get routed through the charismatic leader anyway? The result is that when the charismatic leader takes their voluminous institutional knowledge with-them and leaves few systematized procedures behind, the organization will stumble at least temporarily.

The charismatic leader's brand is individual, not organizational. The charismatic leader is over-identified with their organization to the point where outsiders are more likely to know the leader than the organization. As nonprofit brand names become more and more important, it is a major problem if outsiders have to re-create their knowledge about an organization when the charismatic leader leaves.

The problems that nonprofit charismatic leaders leave behind will be particularly acute in the nonprofit sector in the future for a couple of reasons. First, many currently mature non-profits were created during the 1960s and 1970s and their baby boomer CEOs are now on a downhill march toward retirement. These groups are vulnerable because they were created at a time when the small-is-beautiful concept prevailed and so they will be especially hard hit by the departure of such a key executive.

Second, it is reasonable to assume that the growth in size and influence of the nonprofit sector will be relatively more attractive to many charismatic leaders in the future. So, the charismatic successor problem will persist indefinitely.

On balance, this sector benefits more from charismatic leadership than from the pragmatic, one-committee-decision-at-a-time variety.

Thomas A. McLaughlin is a not-for-profit management consultant with Grant Thornton LLP in Boston. He is the author of Nonprofit Mergers and Alliances: A Strategic Planning Guide and of the new Trade Secrets for Nonprofit Managers. His email address is [e-mail].