Some of the most well-intentioned people in nonprofit governance and early-stage organizations share a particular cognitive pattern that quietly shapes how decisions get made, how strategy gets discussed, and how staff feel after every meeting.
They are linear thinkers.
A linear thinker sees point A and point Z. They see where the organization is, and they see where they want it to be. What they struggle to see is the maze in between. The dependencies. The sequencing. The human realities. The fact that some doors close if you open them in the wrong order. They are not lazy or unintelligent. They simply process strategy as a straight line when, in most real organizations, strategy unfolds as a layered, multi-dimensional system.
This is not a character flaw. It is a cognitive style. And it shows up in boards, founding teams, executive committees, and volunteer leadership groups across every sector.
How to Recognize the Pattern
Linear thinkers often share the same behaviours.
They tend to focus on outcomes rather than process. They are excited when a goal is achieved and confused when one is not, but they rarely engage with the operational, relational, or sequencing work that produced — or prevented — the result.
They respond to challenges with simple framings. “We just need to find one big partner.” “If we get the right donor in the room, the campaign will take care of itself.” “Once people see what we do, they will support us.” These statements are not wrong in spirit. They are incomplete. They skip the steps that turn potential into outcome.
They sometimes share articles, podcasts, or social media posts as strategic contributions. The post describes a success story or a method. The linear thinker shares it as if the lesson is self-evident and the application is obvious. The work of translating the idea to the actual context is left to someone else.
They struggle with nuance under pressure. When timelines feel tight or expectations feel unmet, the linear thinker often defaults to “why is this not done yet” rather than “what is the realistic path forward.”
Why This Matters in Governance
Boards exist to provide oversight, judgment, and strategic direction. When a board includes one or more linear thinkers, the dynamic can quietly drift in unhelpful directions.
The board may set expectations that bypass the operational reality of what staff or volunteers actually need to deliver. The Executive Director may find themselves spending meeting time defending the existence of the maze rather than discussing how to move through it. Decisions get made on the assumption that execution is easy and the only question is whether the right outcome was chosen, when in fact the harder question is almost always how the chosen outcome will be reached.
Over time, this pattern can erode trust. Staff feel unseen because their actual work is invisible to the people supposed to be supporting it. Board chairs and EDs spend energy managing perception rather than building capacity. And when results are slower than the board hoped, the linear thinker often interprets the gap as a performance problem rather than a planning or sequencing problem.
What to Do About It
The good news is that linear thinking, once recognized, is highly workable. It is not a problem to be fixed. It is a communication challenge to be solved.
The first move is recognition.
Once you can see the pattern, you stop interpreting it as resistance or disrespect and start treating it as a communication challenge that can be solved.
The second move is translation.
Linear thinkers do not need to see the entire maze. They need to see the steps. When you bring a strategic conversation to a board or founder who thinks linearly, structure it as a sequence. First we will do this. Then we will do this. Then this. By the end of the quarter we expect to be here. This works because it gives the linear thinker the procedure they can follow without requiring them to hold the multi-dimensional system in their head.
The third move is selective explanation.
Resist the urge to teach the linear thinker how to think differently. That conversation rarely lands. Instead, give them the procedure, validate their contributions when they are useful, and quietly hold the more complex strategic frame yourself. The goal is not to convert them. The goal is to lead the organization well alongside them.
The fourth move is documentation.
When decisions are made in a meeting where strategy was over-simplified, capture the operational realities in writing afterward. Minutes, action items, or follow-up notes are useful here. This is not about creating a paper trail to vindicate yourself later. It is about ensuring that the actual complexity is recorded somewhere accessible when the decision needs to be revisited.
A Note for Executive Directors and Operational Leaders
If you are the person inside an organization who can see the full maze, you are likely doing more strategic work than your title suggests. That is both a burden and a strength. It is a burden because the people around you may not understand the scope of what you are carrying. It is a strength because the organization is functioning largely because of the framework you provide.
The discipline is to keep doing the work without resentment, to communicate in ways that meet linear thinkers where they are, and to document your contribution carefully along the way. Recognition tends to come later than it should. The work, however, compounds.
A Closing Thought
Linear thinking is not the enemy of good governance. It is a common cognitive style that, when paired with a more systemic thinker in the right role, can produce balanced and effective leadership. The challenge is not to eliminate linear thinkers from boards or founding teams. It is to ensure that someone in the room is holding the maze, and that the linear thinkers trust that person enough to follow the procedure rather than insist on the shortcut.
When the pairing works, the organization moves. When it does not, the organization spins.
In our experience advising boards, this alignment is one of the most important dynamics to get right. Building for it — through how roles are structured, how communication is designed, and how strategy is translated into procedure — is the work that makes governance sustainable.
This article is part of the Boardwise Insights series, exploring the human dynamics that shape governance and leadership in nonprofit and early-stage organizations.
Is your board built for complexity — or just for consensus?
If the dynamics described here feel familiar in your organization, a governance assessment can help you identify what's getting in the way — and what structures would move things forward. No pressure, no pitch. Just a conversation.
Book a Discovery CallKeep Reading
Translating Strategy Into Procedure
The quiet skill that determines whether good ideas move forward — or stall in the meeting room.
Read articleLeadership & Org. DevelopmentThe Single Ask Principle
Why giving people options often backfires, and how a single, specific ask moves organizations faster.
Read articleBoard GovernanceStaying Informed Is Not the Same as Governing
Most nonprofit boards spend their meetings receiving reports instead of actually governing.
Read article