“Do the hustle.” Three of only six total words sung repeatedly by Van McCoy and the Soul City Symphony. I wonder if this is what McCoy had in mind, this “hustle culture” that’s become so commonplace in the workforce? It’s a hot-button topic. So hot, in fact, that an anti-hustle movement has developed, appropriately dubbed the #antiwork movement.

Where do you and your employees fall on the anti-work-to-hustle culture scale? To answer that, we first have to define hustle culture. We can then address the pros and cons of such a culture and highlight what some organizations are doing to find the right balance.

What is hustle culture?

At its core, hustle culture “is all about constantly working.” It may not be new, but it seems to be more prevalent. The executive lifestyle goes beyond working hard, beyond long hours for a major deadline, and beyond moving up the corporate ladder. It’s an all-consuming obsession and need to be constantly productive that impacts our quality of life and our quality of work. With hustle culture, there is no such thing as a work-life balance. A study conducted by the Harvard Business Review tracking how large companies’ CEOs spend their time found that 79% of those leaders conducted business on weekend days and up to 70% of vacation days.

We don’t realize that hustle culture is typically not demonized but celebrated. Shoutouts in morning huddles for the project manager who worked 30 days straight to meet a deadline or the supervisor answering emails while on vacation. What’s more, employees – myself included – are proud participants.

Why we love the hustle

The hustle gets you places. From a young age, we are taught that hard work and dedication are the cornerstones of success. Do you want better grades? Hit the books. Do you want to be a better athlete? Practice, practice, practice. And you know what? It pays off. You ace the test, make the team, get the job, land the promotion. The most challenging part is differentiating where the natural hustle, and hard work ends and the toxic work obsession begins.

The benefits of participating in and fostering hustle culture can yield greater output, better sales, more clients, higher revenue – everything that can make an organization successful. So why bother stopping the hustle? In short, wellness. The timing of this blog following our Wellness in the Workplace series is strategic. Hustle culture is another culprit negatively impacting employee well-being. Our work addiction can trigger burnout, chronic stress, depression, anxiety, and even cardiovascular disease.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, an overworked and stressed employee can be up to 68% less productive despite putting in more effort and hours. Executives leading the charge are often at higher risk of the pitfalls associated with hustle culture. According to Corporate Wellness Magazine, the constant need for executives to always be “on” means absorbing the largest amount of stress, potentially leading to chronic health conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and hormone imbalances.

Finding a balance

The easy part is done. We know what needs to change. But where do we go from here? Before we can even begin moving toward potential solutions that would squash our corporate hustle culture, we have to have buy-in from leadership as much as from individuals. Starting with a common goal is step one. Commitment to that goal is step two. Steps three and beyond will look different for everyone and remain fluid as we develop as individuals and organizations.

In a recent article for Inc., Inc., Dmitri Lepikhov, CEO of Mightcall, outlines three steps to killing hustle culture in the workplace.

  1. Agree on what a “good workday” is

A blueprint developed by managers and employees to establish not a scheduled to-do list but task progression breaks to stay fresh and generally available. A long-term vision to outline what an employee is reasonably capable of doing.

  1. Vacation time for everyone

Whether your organization offers a set amount of vacation days or the tricky “unlimited vacation days,” employees need to be encouraged to recharge and reset without being fearful of passive repercussions.

  1. Lead by example

Everyone’s favorite adage. Lepikov states it beautifully: “If you genuinely want staff to relax and prioritize their own well-being at work, you need to show yourself doing it first.

Corporate Wellness Magazine explains how some corporate boards of directors are taking matters into their own hands, and investing in their executives’ health and wellness. Going above and beyond their standard health insurance to include, preventative exams, health action plans, and follow-up care. In many cases, executives remain loyal to their company because of the health benefits they receive. These highly intelligent people understand that their company is investing in them and their families by investing in their health.

Anyone who has ever been involved with a not-for-profit will at some point be asked to serve on a search committee or lead a search committee’s search for a new CEO/President or senior officer. We have written previously about the responsibilities of search committee members and how candidates can prepare for a search committee interview but wanted to take a deeper look at the role of the Search Committee Chair.

We turn to Steve Taylor, a leader in the not-for-profit community for nearly 30 years who is currently serving as Executive Vice President and Chief Mission Officer of the Arthritis Foundation. Steve recently chaired the search committee for the President and CEO of the National Health Council, which has been widely viewed as a well-run search with outstanding results. Below, Steve answers the questions we are frequently asked as not-for-profit recruits using search committees.

How big should a search committee be?

I believe the ideal size is seven, including the Chairman who should also have a vote. You could possibly do nine or five, but frankly, if the Committee becomes too large, it can be hard to coordinate schedules. You have too many opinions in the discussions, and you want every voice to be heard. You’ll also want to make sure it’s an odd number; that way there is no tie.

Who should be on a search committee?

Much of it depends on the position. Ideally, one to three members of the Executive Committee should be on the Search Committee and supplement that with volunteers who represent different parts of the organization. I recommend looking at the various responsibilities of the position you are trying to fill. Which volunteers can best represent and understand these responsibilities? The key to a successful search committee is that you want members with perspective but who are not living in the past. On the other hand, you don’t want search committee members being so free-spirited they are substituting their vision for that of the Board’s.

The ideal Search Committee member understands the history of the organization as well as its future vision.

And that is what is so important when selecting volunteers to serve on a search committee: they need to be familiar [with] and embrace the Board’s vision for the organization and also represent different constituencies of the organization.

Should current employees sit on a search committee?

Many organizations wrestle with this question. Sometimes, it makes sense, especially when you have long-term employees who understand the organization. But this is not a choice without challenges.

If there are internal candidates for the position, it can be difficult to ask a colleague [to] make an unbiased choice.


Secondly, a staff member on the Committee may not have the strategic view of the organization that a high-ranking volunteer or board member will have.
Thirdly, it can be sensitive for an employee to be involved in salary discussions involving the successful candidate.


I typically recommend that one of the Search Committee members serve as a liaison to a group of employees/staff. On the search I led for the National Health Council, I personally maintained contact with the senior leadership team. While I did not discuss individual candidates, I asked the search firm to solicit their opinions on the type of leaders we were seeking, and I communicated to them on the progress of the search.

Who selects the search firm, and what should be considered?

I can’t overemphasize the importance of a strong partnership with the search firm. You want it to be a partnership, not just a firm presenting resumes. The Chair should have meaningful input on selecting the search firm because they’ll be the one working [most] closely with them. Of course, the Search Committee reviews proposals and meets with several finalists. Ultimately, the Chair of the Search Committee should have a strong voice when selecting a search firm.

For me, the search firm needed to have experience in organizing and administratively providing infrastructure to the committee so that I and the Committee could focus on the candidates.

I also believe the Chair shouldn’t rely on the Search Committee or search firm to coordinate. There will be times that the Chair needs to jump in to either facilitate meetings or deal with scheduling or personnel challenges. The search firm should be willing to do more than just conduct the search as many members of a search committee have full-time jobs.

I advise my colleagues running search committees to be very specific with what you would like the search firm to do.

Do you want them to:

-Attend search committee meetings?
-Set the agenda for search committee meetings?
-Provide interview questions?


I believe you need a search firm to do anything the Search Committee and its Chairman cannot or do not want to do because of time restraints.

It is a given that a search firm needs to have a robust Rolodex, but I’m still trying to figure out how to evaluate that. [laughing] What you can evaluate is recent searches a search firm has conducted for similar positions. As we evaluated search firms, some listed searches conducted over a decade ago! That was a lifetime ago in the not-for-profit world.

Finally, I believe you need to find a search firm that is upfront and honest with you about who the lead staff will be—and that you have the opportunity to meet with that lead staff to ensure compatibility and understanding of the process you envision—before you finalize your selection on a firm.

What allowances did you make during COVID-19 in the most recent search you chaired?

Overall, it worked out well. In certain ways, the process moved more efficiently given the Search Committee met by Zoom and the candidates were interviewed by the search firm and us for first-round interviews by Zoom. One advantage we had as a search committee is that we all knew each other—some better than others—but this familiarity allowed us to work together well virtually.

Once we narrowed the process to our finalists, we asked them to meet face to face, of course, social distancing, wearing masks, etc., with another search committee member and me. Despite adapting to video conferencing, meeting the candidate in person makes a big difference. To have a candidate willing to invest the time to travel to a meeting and meet a group of people, some in person, some virtually, was critical to the final steps of our process.

We were able to observe how they handled themselves in the middle of a pandemic, watch how they coordinated their presentation, and even how they arranged the papers on the conference table. In a virtual interview, you have no idea if the candidate has sticky notes on their computer screen providing possible hints to questions. That was important to us because that’s what the job is going to be (ultimately): face-to-face meetings working with different constituencies and being able to communicate and think on their feet. Interestingly, I believe we would have ended up with the same candidate if we had searched COVID.

As a search committee chair, how do you handle candidate withdrawals and surprises?

As a search committee chair or member, you understand that many candidates are currently in good positions, and you are hoping to attract them to your organization. You can’t get too nervous about that. It is part of the process. You reach for candidates; some attract, and some lose. And if a candidate pulls out, I believe they should do it in the search process rather than later.

As for the second part of your question, as Chair, you have to be flexible, responsive, and nimble because issues arise that need to be acted on quickly. Several times, I had to reach out to Committee members individually to keep the process moving either because an issue arose on a Friday night or there was simply not the time to call a full committee meeting. You establish that at the beginning of the search, so there is no misunderstanding. In every search, there may be small decisions made either by the chair or by a smaller group on the committee, because trying to get everyone together all the time isn’t possible, but ultimately the big decisions are made as a group.

How much time does it take to do a good job?

The time required ebbs and flows during the search. If you have a good search firm, as we did in using The Alexander Group, there’s less time initially because you allow them to do the search and trust their judgment on the candidates they’re presenting. The search committee chair is free to focus on the higher-level items most important to finding the right candidate. Once the interview process is underway, you must be available for the search committee, search firm, [and] staff as the process unfolds. There is a significant time commitment required for the Chair. The organization needs someone who can make that time commitment because you’ll never finish the search if it is not a priority.

Who should be the Chair?

Choosing the right search committee chair is critical to a successful search. The chair needs to be a leader in the organization who understands its past and its future vision. It does not have to be the current board chair. It could be a past board chair that might have more time because it’s not the current board chair. It is important the chair can lead without supervision and is trusted by the board.

After a successful 11-year run at Cubist Pharmaceuticals, former CEO Rob Perez asked himself, what next?

“While I loved (almost) every aspect of leading Cubist, my favorite part was helping to develop the unique culture that was a hallmark of the organization. And a big part of that culture was our extraordinary commitment to the community,” he said.

“There were many enticing and, frankly, flattering offers, but I found that nothing provided a greater return on happiness than giving back to others.” After much reflection and conversations with close friends and family, Perez founded Life Science Cares, an organization committed to eliminating the impact of poverty in the greater Boston area. “Being involved in the community, and helping others do so as well … gave me the greatest joy.”

Executive Directors of not-for-profit organizations report high levels of job satisfaction.

And he is not alone. A 2011 study of nonprofit executive leadership found that Executive Directors of not-for-profit organizations, like Perez, report high levels of job satisfaction. Ninety-one percent reported that they are very happy in their jobs or have more good days than bad. Sound attractive?

The opportunity to “do good” appeals to many chief executives who are looking to channel their leadership skills and good fortune more directly toward their community and causes.

But there are a few myths that must be confronted:

Myth #1: If I can lead a Fortune 500 company, I can run a nonprofit.

Much of what you have done in the private sector will be relevant, but there are some profound distinctions. Businesses have wide-ranging goals and objectives, but there is really only one focus: To make a profit. The goal of nonprofit organizations, however, is to “change lives.” That passion for the mission or the art often competes with—and sometimes trumps—business decisions. An Executive Director, and his or her board, must learn how to balance the two: develop and maintain a sustainable organization that also has the means to pursue its passion.

When a leader can’t affect performance through giving or withholding rewards, leadership style shifts from power to influence.

Another key distinction? In the business world, one enjoys a deep bench of talent. By contrast, nonprofit staffs are generally lean, paid at below-market wages and hampered by limited resources. And nonprofits often have large numbers of volunteers who aren’t getting paid.

“You can’t just pull everybody into a conference room and make them do something,” says Dean Niewolny, CEO of the Halftime Institute, a nonprofit organization that coaches and connects high-capacity leaders to serve communities. “When a leader can’t affect performance through giving or withholding rewards, leadership style shifts from power to influence.”

Jane Howze, Not-for-Profit Practice Leader at The Alexander Group, agrees: “A not-for-profit CEO does not have the power of promotions, salaries, or discipline to motivate teams. Instead, a not-for-profit CEO must rely on his or her ability to appeal to constituents by communicating the organization’s mission and vision.”

Myth #2: I’m not ready to retire; this will be an easy transitional role.

Many mistakenly believe working for a nonprofit is easier than corporate work. The work can be incredibly rewarding, but one will be expected to do the same work as before, and with fewer resources. The work takes passion and commitment.

It feels like I am just beginning and I couldn’t be more grateful.

Retired pharmaceutical executive Scott Boyer helped launch ROW Foundation in 2014 to deliver epilepsy treatments to underdeveloped countries. “All of this is happening at an age when many of my contemporaries have retired. For me, it feels like I am just beginning and I couldn’t be more grateful.”

He urges other executives considering a transition to “think about listening to that voice inside you that says you could make your ‘what if’ a reality and ignoring the voice that says you cannot.”

Myth #3: I know lots of people with deep pockets.

More important than who you know, is how you know them. A robust personal network indicates that one is adept at networking and building relationships—an important skill for nonprofit leaders. Executive Director candidates must demonstrate that they can continually seek new sources of revenue and in-kind support, whether donations, grants, corporate alliances, or partnerships with other community organizations.

Club promoter Scott Harrison used his social media influence to spread awareness of charity: water, the nonprofit he founded in 2006 to bring clean water to communities in developing countries. Harvard grad Elizabeth Scharpf engaged in a creative corporate alliance with Johnson & Johnson, the multinational consumer goods company, to lend brains, talent and equipment to Scharpf’s nonprofit organization Sustainable Health Enterprises (SHE). In exchange, SHE is sharing its innovations in producing affordable sanitary napkins in rural Africa.

A robust personal network indicates that one is adept at networking and building relationships—an important skill for nonprofit leaders.

Networking can also help attract new board members and create staff development opportunities including recruiting, education, best practice sharing.

Myth #4: I’ve served on a not-for-profit board; I can easily transition to Executive Director

Nonprofit board membership is very different from running the organization day to day. As a board member, you understand the need to balance the expectations of various stakeholders—local governments, donors, beneficiaries, employees, volunteers and the community at large—all with distinct points of view and demands. As Executive Director, however, those demands will routinely land on your desk. The buck stops with you. And balancing competing agendas takes diplomacy, tact and thick skin.

Balancing competing agendas takes diplomacy, tact and thick skin.

“Not-for-profits often have limited resources and competing demands for those resources,” says Howze. “It is up to the Executive Director/CEO, along with the board, to prioritize the resources. We see this quite often with voluntary health organizations in which some constituents’ priority is funding research in hopes of finding a cure in the future, while others are more focused on offering the best treatments, programs, and services for those presently afflicted with the disease.”

“Stakeholders with differing, and often conflicting, agendas can make a not-for-profit CEO’s job much more complex,” Howze emphasizes.