13/05/2026
When the Sector Loses Its Leaders: Why South Africa Cannot Afford Another Civil Society Brain Drain
South Africa’s nonprofit sector is often praised for its resilience. It survived apartheid, helped build democracy, and continues to support millions of vulnerable citizens. However, beneath this resilience lies a quieter problem that is becoming increasingly visible: the sector is losing many of its most capable leaders (AGAIN).
Across the country, experienced nonprofit executives, founders, and programme leaders are moving into government, corporate social investment units, consulting firms, and international development agencies. The reasons are not surprising, and in fact understandable: higher salaries, better institutional support, and more stable career paths.
What is concerning, though, is that South Africa has lived through this moment before, and the consequences shaped the sector for decades. Understanding that history is important, because the pattern now appears to be repeating itself. I’m just curious as to how we will deal with it and if the sector, this time around, will be able to come out of this stronger.
Let’s start us off with a bit of history. During apartheid (yes, here we go again), civil society organisations were not primarily service providers; they were engines of political mobilisation, policy innovation, and leadership development. Community organisations, trade unions, churches, and human rights groups produced many of the leaders who would later shape democratic South Africa. Think of organisations such as the United Democratic Front, which became a home for many political activists when the ANC was banned, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the Legal Resources Centre, and Black Sash, to mention but a few. These organizations served not only as political platforms but as training grounds for organisational leadership.
Many figures who later entered government or national politics built their leadership capacity inside civil society organisations. Think Cyril Ramaphosa, a former trade union leader and current president. Jay Naidoo, a union leader who became a cabinet minister in the first democratic government, and Frank Chikane, a church leader who later served in the Presidency.
Civil society organisations were therefore schools of leadership, producing leaders with deep organisational and political capabilities. But when democracy arrived in 1994, that success produced an unintended consequence. My point is that the democratic transition created an enormous demand for capable leaders to build new institutions, and many of these people came directly from civil society.
Scholars studying the transition described this as a “leadership migration” from civil society into the state (Habib & Taylor, 1999; Swilling & Russell, 2002). The movement was understandable and, in many ways, necessary. But the consequences for the nonprofit sector were significant. Thousands of organisations suddenly lost their most experienced leaders. At the same time, donor funding began to shift. During the anti-apartheid struggle, international donors heavily funded advocacy, movement building, and leadership development. After 1994, funding priorities shifted toward service delivery, technical programmes, and project-based development. The sector professionalised, but its leadership infrastructure weakened (Professionalization of the sector: what was gained and lost I wonder).
I digress
When we look at South Africa, the country still has one of the largest nonprofit sectors in the Global South. As of 2026:
• There are + 295,052 registered nonprofit organisations in the country, according to the Department of Social Development.
• More than 167,000 of these organisations are non-compliant with reporting requirements, reflecting governance and capacity challenges across the sector.
• Over 6,000 NPOs were deregistered in 2025 due to non-compliance.
These organisations operate across education, health, community development, and social services. The sector is still large and essential, but size alone does not guarantee strength or strong leadership. In fact, I argue that leadership capacity is increasingly stretched.
Growth of the Number of Nonprofit Organizations VS Its Leadership Capacity
Over the past decade, another shift has been underway. Corporate South Africa has significantly expanded its role in development through corporate social investment and impact initiatives. Large companies now run programmes in education reform, youth employment, entrepreneurship development, and community development. To lead these programmes, companies often recruit people with deep experience in development work, and those people frequently come from the nonprofit sector.
As you might have guessed, the result is a quiet but steady migration of leadership talent. However, unlike the post-1994 transition, this movement is not driven by political transformation; it is driven by labour market dynamics, but the impact on civil society capacity is similar (we are losing leaders we need)
At the same time, global politics is reshaping development funding. Several trends are affecting the sector, from my observations, and these include rising geopolitical tensions, donor budget pressures, and increasing domestic funding expectations in developing countries.
As international funding becomes more constrained, donors often make predictable decisions, and usually the first programmes to lose funding are typically leadership development initiatives, fellowships, organisational capacity-building programmes, and sector learning platforms. The rationale for this has been that these investments are often seen as indirect or “overhead”. However, I think this logic can be dangerously short-sighted.
So why does leadership development matter most in uncertain times (side note, I had to check myself if I’m making this argument because I lead a leadership programme, and honestly, I don’t have an answer yet).
I argue that periods of political and economic uncertainty are precisely when leadership matters most. My rationale has been that strong civil society leaders hold institutions together during funding shocks (I know this from personal experience, having worked at enke, and witnessed how our then CEO led us through the COVID – 19 pandemic). They build collaboration across organisations, navigate political complexity, and mobilise resources and partnerships, while ensuring the team’s jobs are secured, and programme implementation is not affected, because we are all still showing up.
Without investment in leadership development, organisations become reactive rather than strategic, isolated rather than collaborative, and operational rather than transformative. If you take time to reflect, organizations that have survived the 2008 financial crisis, COVID-19, and will make it through the current political turbulence will be organizations that have always invested in strong leadership.
So, what can the sector do? If South Africa wants to avoid repeating the leadership vacuum that followed the democratic transition, several steps are necessary.
• Build Leadership Pipelines Earlier: Organisations should identify and invest in emerging leaders well before senior roles become vacant. Mentorship, fellowships, and structured learning programmes are essential (e.g., DGMT Innovation Fellowship, wink wink).
• Focus on Mid-Career Leaders: The greatest leadership attrition often occurs 10–15 years into a career. Retention strategies must target this stage (part of the reason why, in Cohort 9, we have extended the age requirement to 40, from 35).
• Build Shared Leadership Infrastructure: Leadership development should not be the responsibility of individual organisations alone. Sector-wide initiatives, leadership academies, fellowships, and peer networks are critical.
• Advocate for Flexible Funding: Funders increasingly recognise that strong programmes require strong institutions. Leadership development must be seen as core infrastructure for the sector, not as a nice-to-have, done as an afterthought.
• Encourage Cross-Sector Leadership Circulation: Movement between sectors is inevitable. Instead of seeing this as a loss, the sector should build pathways that allow leaders to return to civil society with new experiences and networks. Working in partnership with the government, for instance, can allow the sector to create that systemic change that we desire.
South African civil society has survived enormous challenges, and its most powerful moments have always depended on strong leadership. The anti-apartheid struggle was not built only by organisations. It was built by leaders who could mobilise communities, build institutions, and imagine a different future. As the sector continues to once again lose its leaders, it risks becoming something very different: a large sector, but not necessarily a powerful one. Investing in leadership is therefore not a luxury. It is one of the most important forms of infrastructure the sector has.
Why do I feel like I’m preaching to the choir?