On a Mission
I am on a mission to lose about 5 pounds. But I am also, apparently, on another mission—this one to eat every piece of dark chocolate in the universe. Can you see my conundrum? If I want to achieve one, then I am unlikely to achieve the other. Nonprofits often deal with this kind of conundrum.
For example, the fact is that it cost money to raise money. And the more money you want to raise, the more money you have to spend. Nonprofits pretty regularly decide that they cannot afford to spend the money and so, to no one’s surprise but their own it seems, they don’t raise any significant money. If they decide they won’t raise significant amounts of money, then they don’t have to spend the money—but then, they probably wouldn’t have the money to spend.
I was thinking about this sort of conundrum the other day when one of my clients mentioned that they had found the perfect CFO—except the person wanted too much money. But a good CFO, I argued, can make a huge difference for an organization. And I reminded this client how the year before, when they were hiring a CDO (Chief—and in this case only—Development Officer), they opted to go with the cheaper person. The result? Six wasted months, an ugly firing, and a position that has remained open since. Yes, yes, it is part of the strategic plan we are working on, but honestly, this action showed up big time in their revenue streams.
When I am doing trainings, particularly with board members, I often myself getting up on my soapbox, making a case for ensuring the organization has enough resources. Doing more with more is a mantra many board members—and too many EDs—take pride in, but honestly, with less you do less and are less effective.
Less is also often a problem with staffing. If we run lean, if we pay less, then somehow we will figure out how to do more with less. But with less, less happens. Period.
It starts, i think, with that confusion about what it means to be a non or not for profit organization. It doesn’t mean we cannot make a profit, it just means that we call it “surplus.” This is how much more we have this year from our various revenue streams than what we spent. And that’s a good thing. A thing that should happen every year. What doesn’t happen with this surplus is that we don’t give it in dividends to those who invest with us. We don’t say, “Hey, Jo. You contributed $250K so you’ll get 6% of our profits.” And it doesn’t mean that no one benefits from this profit. Your clients benefit. Your staff in that maybe now you can pay a reasonable wage, offer benefits that we could argue don’t belong in the workplace (like healthcare, which should not be connected to your job), but which are and so are benefits your staff deserves to have. I’m not even sure if that sentence is grammatical, but I am convinced you will all know what I mean!
People working in our sector are often willing to trade dollars for satisfaction, but that should only go so far. If you want to have good people working with you, helping to move your mission, they need to be making a reasonable salary and have important benefits. Like health care insurance, a pension. Believe me, you don’t want and you don’t want your staff to turn 65, 70, 75 and not have enough put away to live. And who could put enough away if the salaries nonprofits pay are so low, and the benefits so paltry? We should not face a conundrum that says if your job makes the world a better place, it cannot give you a better life. These should not be contradictory.
After all, I can lose 5 pounds and still eat dark chocolate, if I up my exercising, minimize the amount of dark chocolate I eat, and keep the rest of my diet relatively healthy.