The word “profit” comes from the Latin noun profectus for “progress”. Thus the term “nonprofit” literally means “no progress”.
When I changed jobs from working for an investment bank to working for a non-profit foundation, one friend in the philanthropic world, who knew me well, and whom I respect, highly recommended that I read this book -- Uncharitable -- before I started the new job.
A few nights ago, a heated discussion at the dinner table with friends prompted me to write about this book. An acquaintance of mine was telling the table of how he would love to buy this specific $10,000 Rolex. I suggested that he instead donate the money to help fund disadvantaged girls in Vietnam to finish middle school. We talked about the (im)possibility of giving up the watch for charity. But seriously, it costs only $250 to send one girl to middle school in Vietnam for a full year.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the importance of luxury goods and the role they play in society and in the business world. I am not so naïve and stubborn as to think that we should give up all material goods and donate all possessions to the third world. But the advantages that for-profit businesses such as Rolex have for everyone’s disposable income over charities is unfair (just look at the above advertisement). Why is it that the not-for-profits are not given the tools and capital to convince people to donate to worthy causes?
Uncharitable discusses these issues, and delves further by pointing out how certain restraints on nonprofits actually undermine, and even destroys their potential. One restraint that I feel strongly about is the compensation structure.
Two years ago, I was hired by an investment bank with a large sign-on bonus, half a year before I graduated from business school. The company wanted to make sure I wouldn’t take their competitor’s offer and I would not leave the firm until I have worked for them for at least one year. During the time I was there, I was reminded, every month, in writing, how much money the firm has spent on me, and how much revenue I have produced for our shareholders.
Four months ago, when I interviewed for my current job at a non-profit foundation, the HR manager told me that there is no sign-on bonus, and I can leave whenever I want to. When I was negotiating for the salary, I knew very well that I would not get paid more than the value-add I can bring to the organization, so I asked if there was a performance-tied pay structure. To my surprise, the HR manager told me it is considered “unethical” to pay someone based on the funds he/she raises in the non-profit world. I then tried to be creative and suggested to negotiate for a higher salary, but to donate 1/5 of it back to the foundation. The HR person looked at me as if I was crazy.
My personal experience and belief lead me to agree with the author, Dan Pallotta, in the compensation structure argument. He has asked the questions that we need to be asking, and delivered the answers that very few had the courage to say.
Do you think that all those working at nonprofits need to sacrifice financially and rather do it out of the goodness of their heart?
Do you think it is wrong to pay high salaries to attract talent in the nonprofit sector?
If financial sacrifice* is the price of the choice, we have to ask – how many talented people chose not to sacrifice? At the end of the day, the recipients of the charities do not care about the salary structure of employees, but rather they care about survival, clean water, food, basic education, etc. By denying higher-quality candidates, those that could have been further helped are the ones being sacrificed.
Uncharitable discusses these issues, and delves further by pointing out how certain restraints on nonprofits actually undermine, and even destroys their potential. One restraint that I feel strongly about is the compensation structure.
Two years ago, I was hired by an investment bank with a large sign-on bonus, half a year before I graduated from business school. The company wanted to make sure I wouldn’t take their competitor’s offer and I would not leave the firm until I have worked for them for at least one year. During the time I was there, I was reminded, every month, in writing, how much money the firm has spent on me, and how much revenue I have produced for our shareholders.
Four months ago, when I interviewed for my current job at a non-profit foundation, the HR manager told me that there is no sign-on bonus, and I can leave whenever I want to. When I was negotiating for the salary, I knew very well that I would not get paid more than the value-add I can bring to the organization, so I asked if there was a performance-tied pay structure. To my surprise, the HR manager told me it is considered “unethical” to pay someone based on the funds he/she raises in the non-profit world. I then tried to be creative and suggested to negotiate for a higher salary, but to donate 1/5 of it back to the foundation. The HR person looked at me as if I was crazy.
My personal experience and belief lead me to agree with the author, Dan Pallotta, in the compensation structure argument. He has asked the questions that we need to be asking, and delivered the answers that very few had the courage to say.
Do you think that all those working at nonprofits need to sacrifice financially and rather do it out of the goodness of their heart?
Do you think it is wrong to pay high salaries to attract talent in the nonprofit sector?
If financial sacrifice* is the price of the choice, we have to ask – how many talented people chose not to sacrifice? At the end of the day, the recipients of the charities do not care about the salary structure of employees, but rather they care about survival, clean water, food, basic education, etc. By denying higher-quality candidates, those that could have been further helped are the ones being sacrificed.
Goodness of heart is only one of the many things that motivate people. When we demand that it be the only one, we are actually hurting the people who need help. I think after a careful cost-benefit analysis, paying competitive salaries to hire the right people is definitely the right thing to do.
As a donor, observer, worker, or beneficiaries of the charitable world, if you still say yes to those two questions. Read this book and think again.
* The book provides a study to show what kind of financial sacrifice we are talking about. Here is what I roughly remember -- In 2006, the average annual salary plus bonus of the MBAs from the top 30 schools was about $100,000. Their average age upon graduation was 28. The study also sampled about 1500 MBAs who graduated 10 years ago from the top schools and their average annual salary was about $300,000. (at age 38)
In 2004, the average salary of the non-profit senior executives in America was about $110,000 and the average age was well over 38.