So I am away on vacation with some friends at our family cottage when the dinner conversation turned to some subject matter I was hoping to avoid all week – the non-profit sector. Please understand my dear friends are highly empathetic and compassionate souls who support multiple causes. Yet they’re not overly versed in the particulars of the charitable ecosystem.
One of the couples were enthusiastically revealing their reasons for backing children’s health organizations. Since we are all parents, understanding their motivations was easy. The thought of innocent youngsters enduring any amount of pain and suffering is something none of us can bear. The tone and vibe of the discourse abruptly shifted when they expressed their dismay upon learning that the CEO of a major children’s hospital foundation was “pulling down an exorbitant salary” of $300,000 annually.
Oh no! Were we really going to delve into the exhausting depths of the overhead myth while we should be cherishing the majestic splendour of the north woods? Suddenly the week felt less like a vacation and more like a roundtable. Regardless, the Rubicon had been crossed. Changing the subject was not an option.
“So . . . you’re upset that they earn this much?” I asked.
“Of course! I think it’s outrageous” was the reply. “Just goes to show they’re in it for the money” the visibly irritated guest added.
Curious as to how they reached these conclusions, I pressed them to help me understand why they viewed this as a problem. “I don’t want my donations to support their extravagant lifestyles. No charity leader should be paid that much.”
When I started my career in the non-profit world I actually shared this sentiment. Donations should never be used to help Executive Directors make the next payment on their BMWs. With the passage of time, I gradually observed that offering a nice compensation package attracted the highest calibre candidates. I also noticed that preciously few donors understand this truth, and organizations were doing little to educate them.
Charity staff and board have an obligation to enlighten current and emerging donors about the connection between recruiting/retaining high quality talent and safeguarding the impact they strive to produce. The degrading notion that anyone employed by a charity should be paid little more than a living wage persists because the sector allows it to happen.
As mentioned in a prior entry, community service organizations can be their own worst enemy when they actually brag about low staff salaries as if it was a virtue. Tragically, community needs go unmet as charities focus more sharply on appeasing the ethically misguided expectations of an uninformed donor base that isn’t interested in supporting somebody’s paycheque. Its work is propelled by a fear of being blacklisted by watchdog agencies instead of empathy for the people they serve. Consequently, the organization is unable to obtain what it needs to deliver programs and make a difference in the lives of others.
However, this regressive mindset isn’t the fault of the donors. Much like our cottage guests, our donors are simply expressing a viewpoint they inherited from others. Chances are they first encountered it from their parents or adults during their childhood. Over the years, it was reinforced by media and other in their environments with pathetically little pushback from non-profits.
Subscribing to this belief centres on the fallacy that morally superior charities have the lowest salary levels and operating budgets. We have pointed out in other entries how this metric is stilled ridiculously used to measure charity effectiveness among many philanthropists. In reality, low salaries and small budgets severely impede an organization’s ability to create positive change and prolongs the suffering of those in need.
Grounded in this perspective is the thought that no person should earn a decent living from making the world a better place. As my personal hero, Dan Palllotta, noted in his famous TED TALK video in 2013, it is incredulous how we are triggered by the concept of people making a lot of money helping others, but have no problem with anyone earning millions while not benefitting any part of society. It’s ok to become rich and famous selling violent video games to kids. On the other hand, make $80K annually as the Executive Director of a food bank and you will be tarred and feathered.
This belief also implies that the private sector is the only domain that is deserving of our best and brightest leaders since charities are unable to pay what they’re worth. Imagine how many of the world’s problems would be solved or significantly mitigated if only some of the most brilliant management professionals on the planet entered the non-profit industry? Nothing is morally grandiose about denying people the help they need for cost abatement purposes. We are confusing frugality with morality.
The private sector invests in the greatest available talent because it produces the best quality products which yield the highest profits. Private companies attract the finest candidates with cushy renumeration packages and the promise of upward mobility. Although non-profits are incapable of offering incentives of any comparable scale, they can replicate parts of the formula to hire and retain a sliver of blue-chip prospects.
Most notably, representatives from grassroots and local non-profits can unite to inform, educate and help donors of all levels understand the undeniable necessity of employing top-flight personnel to lead the charge towards strengthening the vitality of the community. When a donor invests in staff salaries, they are ensuring the organization will possess the relevant skills, knowledge and expertise required to make people healthy, empower youth, galvanize communities, and enable everyone to thrive.
We must dispel the malicious misconception of charity leaders as grifting elites who drive Escalades, play 20 rounds of golf a week, and enjoy lobster and escargot with every meal. Executive Directors and non-profit managers are the selfless individuals who spearhead community, nationwide and global efforts to make the world a better place. They’re bestowed with a highly unique combination of business skills, knowledge of issues affecting humanity and personality traits that qualify them to champion these causes.
As a consultant, I’ve had the privilege of meeting many of these incredible changemakers. I can attest these extremely passionate individuals contribute countless hours of unpaid overtime tediously confronting the issues affecting the quality of life of everyone in our cities, towns and villages. Yet far too many are not only severely underpaid, but they also publicly express remorse about receiving any compensation at all. At times, they almost seem to celebrate their organizations’ lack of impact and the mounting needs of their constituents resulting from the pitifully meagre resources to which they’ve been allotted. It has to stop.
For the sake of the people they serve, charities must show the world-at-large how directing their donations towards salaries is not evil. On the contrary, it guarantees that non-profit programs are optimally delivered by the most committed and qualified professionals available.
People opt for a career in community services over the private sector most often because they care about the well-being of their fellow citizens and want to do what they can to help them. One would be hard-pressed to find a group more deserving of higher wages and greater benefits. Board and staff have a responsibility to impart this knowledge with everyone within their respective circles of influence. Through continuously reinforcing this message can we expect any meaningful shift in public attitudes on this subject.
If we truly want the community service sector to move society forward and remove the barriers that prevent us from thriving and reaching our full potential, donors must embrace the value of investing in staff salaries. Focus must be placed squarely on the difference it would have on the impact of the organization’s work. Back at the cottage, this is exactly where I pivoted the conversation I was having with our guests.
“Perhaps if the staff of your favourite charity were all paid a competitive wage, here are just a few of the outcomes you may witness:”
· “Significantly more children would survive and recover”;
· “Patients would have greater access to lifesaving medications and equipment”;
· “Illnesses would be diagnosed quicker, and treatments would begin sooner”;
· “Hospital stays would be shorter”;
· “Kids would develop healthier nutritional habits and participate in fitness activities”;
· “Fewer doctor shortages and reduced wait times for medical appointments”.
The spirited discussion concluded with our guests tersely remarking: “We never considered the points you shared but are definitely something to think about”.
“Fair enough. That’s all we could ask for”. It’s a start.
