While reading this week's , specifically the Bridgespan Report, I started asking some questions. Those questions were:
Wow, should I be glad that the nonprofit sector is experiencing a tremendous amount of turnover and job growth in the next couple of years (i.e. jobs jobs jobs)?
Or should I worry about the nature of the work that is turning so many people away from the nonprofit sector?
The more I think about it, the more I think that effective leaders are able to retain social capital or talented managers. This has led me to challenge my own assumption in relation to certain "questionable" salaries, that we as a class have worried about this semester. How can nonprofits expect to hang on to talent without compensating them appropriately. However, I still think, as Rebecca showed in an earlier post about the ED of the ASPCA, that $5oo,000 is a bit excessive.
But I guess the larger issue that concerns me is whether the standardization of the amount that nonprofits can spend on overhead, specifically management, can have repercussions upon "new" managers coming into the field, i.e. us. As managers, are we going to be expected to work more for less money because of constricting nonprofit overhead standards?
Clearly, I did not enter the nonprofit field to become rich, but I sometimes wonder what awaits me in terms of "a living" when I get out of school?
Dan I agree that the sector should not standardize compensation. As much as someone may love their job, or feel like they are making a difference, they cannot do it if they cannot afford to live, nor should they have to. However, as you mentioned, I do think that some organizations get carried away with executive compensation and I think it should comes down to a moral/ethical debate rather than a standardized debate. I question whether or not someone who is offered a $500,000 salary has an obligation to the nonprofit sector to say no, I do not need that much money put it into programs.
ReplyDeleteAs we all are aware, we have spent most of this semester talking about the standardization of the nonprofit sector and I defended Charity Navigator in class because I think some of it is relevant. However, I also think that nonprofits have the right to make their own decisions. I think the literature that is out their that provides ideas for nonprofits to help them with management is great. But, the more we continue to read and make decisions in class about standardization practices, the more and more I have thought enough already. We need to stop telling organizations what to do and just let them do their job. Ultimately, the stakeholders who support the organization will make decisions for themselves whether they want to continue to support it. If supporters stop supporting because they are not pleased with the management practices of the organization, it is likely that organization will change those practices quite quickly to ensure continued support. Why do they need one more person telling them what to do?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe idea of burnout in nonprofit was an interesting topic in the article was intriguing because burnout is something that we talk about a lot in social work classes, but have not in nonprofit classes. I think some of the nature of the burnout is that people enter into the nonprofit world with the desire to make change, and with some management skills but without the necessary self-care skills to sustain a management position. Oftentimes, leaders don't recognize the emotional stress of the work that they do until it is too late. However, if part of training better managers also meant taking time to teach them to engage in regular self-care, it is possible that the burnout rate would decrease.