Why You Should Join Me In The Not-For-Profit Sector

In the last 100 days or so, at least seven people have been saved using defibrillators and training that we have helped to fund in Ontario arenas and recreation centers. Being able to directly link actions we have taken to lives saved is the greatest job satisfaction I have experienced in my entire life. Working with passionate colleagues who are driven first by a cause and not by a commission is a tremendous pleasure.

Those experiences and many more like them are available to all who enter the not-for-profit (NFP) sector. More and more executives are making the leap. Some, however, are held back because they have bought into one or all of three myths about moving to the sector. I want to examine and respond to all three in the hopes that more of you will consider joining me.

The first myth is that by going to the NFP sector you suddenly have "gone soft" and won't be able to meet the real competitive challenges should you wish to return to "the real world."

The reality is that having a soft heart needn't and shouldn't result in having a soft head as well. Just because you are in the NFP sector does not mean you are in the for-loss sector. In fact, there is no more competitive sector in the economy. There are almost 80,000 registered charities in Canada and each year Revenue Canada issues over 2,000 more charitable numbers. Standing out and performing well in that kind of crowded market filled with many worthy alternatives is a significant challenge that will test and grow all of your business skills.

The second myth is that managing change is so much slower and different in the not-for-profit world because of all the "touchy-feely" handholding required to deal with the multiple stakeholders. You'll be driven crazy and/or "infected" with a process that will make you unfit to return to the for-profit world where bottom-line, time-sensitive expectations rule.

Clearly, pace of change varies dramatically across industries and size of enterprises. A small, entrepreneurial enterprise can typically bring about change faster than a major bank or telecom. But even if we were able to control for size and complexity of organization, the reality is that the for-profit sector frequently mistakes decisions and activity for change. As someone who has consulted to and been a senior executive in several small and large for-profit enterprises, I have my share of t-shirts and coffee mugs with the legends "Success '95" or "Transformation 2000" and so on. Typically, after a bit of analysis and discussion around the senior executive table (and/or perhaps a hefty consulting bill), the CEO comes to a conclusion, issues the email communication, approves the t-shirt and coffee mug logo, and "change" takes place.

In the NFP world, there is typically a lot more consensus-building and communication upfront with the many stakeholders involved. The t-shirts and mugs (if there is budget for them) usually take a bit longer to issue.

Unfortunately, while the edict comes out of the executive offices faster in the for-profit world, my experience is that lots of communication and bridge-building, and maybe even a new set of t-shirts, tend to follow before real "change" actually takes hold. The delta between that time and when change happens in an NFP organization is far less than initially meets the eye. In fact, managing "change" the other way to meet shorter-term deadlines is, more often than not, harming long-term value creation.

The third myth is that it is fundamentally different dealing with volunteers than paid employees or staff.

There was a time when sociologists spoke of "organization man," of the employee who would spend an entire career at an institution, and where command and control, pay and advancement were the critical tools in managing and motivating employees. That time, however, is definitely in decline. Today's employees, particularly the youngest ones, are not driven primarily by pay. Yes, a reasonable level of pay is required to be in the game, but today's employees are looking for input to decision-making, for recognition for their contributions, and for belonging to something that is bigger than themselves.

In fact, in today's war for talent, the best employees are actually "voluntemployees" --they are temps but the time spent at a company is determined by them and not the companies. All the skills one learns in managing volunteers are actually invaluable in managing today's top employees and those skills are easily transferable should you decide to return to the for-profit world.

But once you enter the NFP sector, returning to the for-profit world becomes hard not because you don't have the skills to do it, but because of the difference your skills can make and how that makes you feel. The not-for-profit world has been attracting great leaders from the for-profit world--Paul Alofs at Princess Margaret Hospital, Peter Goodhand at the Cancer Society, Mike Russill at WWF, Rahul Bhardwaj at the Toronto Foundation--and they are having way too much fun to consider returning. Why not consider joining us?

Comments

[laurenmodery]

I recently decided to leave my career in the film business to work in the NFP sector. I discovered two things- a.) it typically doesn't pay as much and b.) you should work for a NFP organization that you're really super passionate about, not just any ol' one.

[StudentLoanDebt]

I'd love to join you in the non-profit world if Sallie Mae didn't say, "No, no, no." Unless you have a trust fund, spousal income, or parental support, paying off student loans without taking a vow of poverty is pretty tough on a non-profit salary.

As you say, "more and more executives are taking the leap." Perhaps the non-profit world is really better suited to former CEOs.

[Triangle1]

Biggest truth of all, if you work in nonprofit, you'll be poor. Sure you can try and save the world, but who wants to be a starving college student for the rest of their lives. This is fine if you have a rich spouse and don't have money worries. But the bottom line, it's better to have a real job and make enough money to survive. Then you can volunteer evenings and weekends. You can be fulfilled, and have a well paying job. http://mespace.wordpress.com

[Parducci]

Obviuosly, not everyone can work in a not for profit venture. Where would the money come from?

[BADEN]

Serving people.

[jackson93]

As someone who has worked for an NFP for over 10 years, I believe in serving society and giving back. However, the satisfaction of contributing to society does not pay the rent or repay my student loans. People who work for NFPs are generally underpaid. They work extremely hard and generally with fewer resources than people in the for profit sector. NFP employees deserve to be appropriately compensated. We can not live on noble intentions and warm and fuzzy feeling alone. It can be very difficult for a person to work at an NFP and make ends meet without a trust fund or a well to do spouse.

[BADEN]

Perfect.

And another fallacy....

Employees of non-profits can't earn a 'fair wage'...absolutely wrong.

Wages and job performance standards are set by the non-profit board.
There is no reason a well-qualified person cannot earn their "fair wage" in the non-profit arena.

And, one of the MOST important points to make - all that 'profit' goes right back into the backbone of the non-profit - not out to 'shareholders'.

[S1m0n]

As a fifteen year veteran of the sector, I can report that wages tend to vary between 'exploitive' and 'slightly less than average'.

As a rule, the disease societies, particularly fundraising disease societies, pay the absolute worst and treat their employees likewise. The boards tend to interpret their role as 'keeping the cost of fundraising to an absolute minimum', and cycling through badly paid convenience employees is the easy way to do that.

Better pay and greater institutional respect can be found in orgs that provide actual services to the public or their target cause instead of simply doing fundraising. Here, its possible to have an actual career instead of merely being exploited and discarded. This is particularly true if you're there to provide a skill or profession, whether that's as a social worker, researcher, or lawyer. General office staff don't do much better than in the disease clubs.

[jackson93]

This has not been my experience. At my NFP, we went for three years without any salary adjustments at all after 9/11, because donations took such a dive. Since 2005 we have received 3% cost of living increases. There are almost no performance related pay increases (I know because I work on my institution's budget). Also, our board has nothing whatsoever to do with performance standards or setting salaries - those are set by department heads and HR. Our board approves our budget and that's about as involved in salaries as they get.

In addition to a lack of funding in general, people who donate money to NFPs like to donate money to specific initiatives and projects, not funds for capital projects or salaries. When a donor gives a restricted gift, our hands are tied as to how to use that money. Also, donors expect that an institution be run as leanly as possible, especially when it comes to things like salaries and employee amenities (but not so much when it comes to wining and dining donors). And the truth is just like any other employer, NFPs get their employees as cheaply as they can. Some NFPs take advantage of the fact that people are passionate about a cause and know that they can get that person for less. As hard as it may be to believe I love my job and my institution, but I have also been around long enough to know the reality of the situation.