When I was young, I wanted to follow in my father’s footsteps and make a difference. My father, an architect, was very involved in social causes as a founding member of the Committee of 1,000, which worked to help children orphaned during the war in Vietnam.
But, unlike my father, I wanted social good to be my vocation, not my avocation.
Armed with a couple of degrees—and corresponding student debt—I wanted to offer my passion, my purpose, and my endless supply of ideas and energy to a nonprofit. But the low pay—and the fact that many groups had organizational structures that thwarted innovation—forced me to give up my dream of a nonprofit career. I instead explored working in the for-profit world.
The world has changed significantly since my early-career decision. But most nonprofits still offer below-market salaries and remain maddeningly inhospitable to innovation.
If nonprofit organizations want to attract the best and brightest, and really solve social problems, they need to do more on both fronts.
Living Wages
While salaries for CEO’s of major nonprofits can be sizable, salaries for most nonprofit employees are modest compared with those that for-profit companies offer. This is especially the case for the best-educated employees who graduate from the top schools. Using 2007 data, the Bureau of Labor statistics found that managers in the private sector earned 22 percent more than their nonprofit counterparts.
Nonprofit organizations need to find ways to close the compensation gap to tap into the passion and purpose of potential employees. One option is to borrow from academe, government, and private think tanks by creating sponsored fellowships and tie those fellowships to innovation.
Charities could raise money to fund an individual or group of individuals to brainstorm new approaches to addressing the organization’s cause. Give the fellows the resources and access to all the information they need to think and act creatively, dissect the problem, and develop a new set of solutions.
The Innovation Void
Most nonprofit organizations have not institutionally embraced innovation; they lack a dedicated group whose sole focus is to brainstorm and develop creative new solutions or breakthrough approaches.
Instead, nonprofit organizations are structured and managed to optimize costs, minimize overhead, and attract new donors.
In the business world, leading companies like Apple, Google, GE, and IBM have made innovation a core pillar of corporate growth strategies.
In the case of Apple, CEO Steve Jobs helped return the company return to its culture of innovation by investing in new ideas —whether they be products or business models. Those innovations helped propel Apple from a computer company to a company that sells a huge digital entertainment library of music, books and video and a family of devices (iPods, iPhones and iPads) that can access that library.
Like Steve Jobs, IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano believes growth is intrinsically tied to innovation:
“The way you will thrive in this environment is by innovating—innovating in technologies, innovating in strategies, innovating in business models,” Mr. Palmisano told business leaders this year.
Investing in Innovation: Patience Required
Innovation doesn’t always pay off immediately. In fact, many times, it requires patience and capital to generate ideas that over time may turn out to be breakthroughs. Other times, it can spawn ideas that are just dead wrong but provide learning all the same. The marketplace, after all, is full of failed innovations.
But it is also full of successes. For example, The New York Times reported last month about a 10-year data-sharing collaboration among scientists, drug companies, and Alzheimer’s activists to uncover new information about the disease and its progression. That collaboration is now paying off with a new understanding of the disease and some promising drug trials that could help treat it.
Fostering innovation doesn’t have to require huge investments. In fact, the private sector has used the Internet and its customers to create innovative solutions for their companies.
Companies like Starbucks and Dell are using the wisdom of their customers to brainstorm ideas for solving social problems.
The private sector has also entered the social-good space with contests that provide money to organizations that are working to address problems. The best of these contests—like the American Express inaugural Members Project in 2007 and Pepsi’s Refresh Project—look for innovative ideas to fund and rely on the public to help them identify those ideas.
Taking the Lead
While the private sector has been the early mover, nonprofit groups are infinitely better qualified to frame these innovation challenges. They understand social problems. They know which strategies work—and which ones don’t. They can bring together supporters, staff members, volunteers, and donors.
All of these constituencies have a vested interest in creating and nurturing innovative solutions to complex problems.
The federal government is using similar groups to uncover new ways to share data, enhance public access to government information, and reduce fraud and waste. It’s an approach that foundations like the XPrize Foundation and the Knight Foundation’s News Challenge have used to focus attention on underserved areas.
Finally, investing in innovation has the added benefit of positioning an organization as an exciting place to work.
This is particularly important for tapping into the passions of the millennial generation. Like their baby-boomer parents, they are interested in pursuing meaningful careers that offer intellectual challenge and the opportunity to generate new ideas, according to a recent study.
As nonprofit groups look to the future, finding ways to offer more competitive salaries and opportunities to be innovative will help attract a new wave of people with passion, purpose, and ideas to lead the change the world needs.


11 Responses to Purpose Is a Terrible Thing to Waste
alysonhonsa - September 9, 2010 at 10:23 am
Great article and thoughts, but working in the nonprofit sector, I know there are many barriers to developing this type of for-profit thinking in the nonprofit world. First of all, it’s extremely difficult entice donors to have their money go toward large salaries for employees or think tanks within an organization. When people donate to a nonprofit, they usually want to see that money go straight to the cause or community the nonprofit serves, rather than the staff and the innovation. Unlike a for-profit organization that can do whatever it would like with its money, nonprofits must honor the wishes of their donors, and if money was given specifically for a project, it cannot be redirected to salary or an innovation team. Nonprofits cannot change the way they use their money until there is a major shift in philanthropy. Those who give need to see the importance of competitive salaries and taking the time to be innovative within the nonprofit sector. My question is this: How do we convince donors, who are already being so generous with their gifts, to give more money that is not directly going to those in need, rather to those in charge to be more efficent and productive?
nrdouglas - September 9, 2010 at 11:37 am
Alysonhonsa, I think you offer a great argument that is tied to the current way nonprofits operate and a good question that I’ve thought a lot about. As someone who bridges Generation X and the Millennial generation, I think changes need to come from the top. Many of the companies listed above have Results Oriented Work Environments (ROWE) of some sort. In this atmosphere, people aren’t tied to hours, work locations, etc. they are tied to results. This isn’t telecommuting, this is a whole new way to approach management and your work. Many of the above companies challenge their employees to use 20% of their work time creating new things/programs/ideas, learning new things, being innovative and then they listen to these new ideas and they take chances on the ones they believe will enhance their company. Many people will say, “We have so few employees, we can barely get done what needs to get done.” I think that is the perfect opportunity to look at your organization and ask, “What can we change to make this a better work environment that focuses on results and growth that will truly meet our mission,” instead of running in the hampster wheel to nowhere.So how do we get donors to support this new thought? Ultimately, when someone decides to give a gift, they look for organizations that fulfill a mission they are passionate about and then they narrow it down to the most well run, fiscally responsible organization that best meets that mission. Once our donors see how innovation can lead to better fulfilling the mission, as I believe it can, they will be on board 110%. Most importantly, as we look ahead our longtime donors from the Greatest Generation are going to be replaced by Baby Boomers, Gen Xer’s and Millenials and these generations want to not only see the nonprofit they support growing and expanding through innovation, they want to be a part of the innovation. In order to continue to recruit members of these generations to serve on boards, advocate for us and help us raise money, we must look to innovation. The nonprofits that don’t will quickly be left in the dust by those who do and grow leaps and bounds due to the small risks they took that created bigger and better outcomes than they ever thought.As far as salaries go, the young professionals I know who currently work in the nonprofit sector are more concerned with the opportunity to be innovative, work in ROWE environments and have their ideas listened to and implemented than they are in their salary. They knew they wouldn’t make much money they are more concerned with making a true impact, they truly want to change the world and they are often quieted by higher ups who think if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it and people in my generation believe, if there is a better and more efficient way to do it, then why not? It is the stunting of this creativity, innovation and growth that drives most YPs from the nonprofit sector.
katecochran - September 9, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Excellent points that paint a vision of where the sector should head. Unfortunately, it is very difficult for capital-starved organizations to lead donors to this realization. This argument needs to be made to both institutional and individual donors, If they start rewarding nonprofits for taking risks and investing in their capacity and innovation, the organizations will find a safe environment to make these very investments.
tonymartignetti - September 9, 2010 at 11:30 pm
Your discussion of innovation alludes to another reason people have difficulty entering the nonprofit sector. Employers in this recession–which created a labor surplus–are too exacting in their hiring. Nonprofits are searching for the “perfect fit” employee. This post might interest you: http://mpgadv.com/blog/2010/08/the-elusive-perfect-fit-employee/
ryanscott - September 10, 2010 at 12:50 am
nrdouglas:”As far as salaries go, the young professionals I know who currently work in the nonprofit sector are more concerned with the opportunity to be innovative, work in ROWE environments and have their ideas listened to and implemented than they are in their salary. “Those things you talk about are the base level of what you can expect in the for-profit sector, in *addition* to a reasonable salary.You talk about what drives professionals from the market, but nothing about all the people who cannot work there because it doesn’t pay enough. If you graduate with an expensive degree, how can you afford to work in the nonprofit sector? You can’t, so millions don’t even try. You have to pay off those debts somehow.I don’t understand why there is something morally wrong with paying people who have expensive educations a competitive salary to solve the worlds most difficult problems, and yet we have no moral qualms with paying those same people high salaries to, for example, sell sugar water to kids.
bill__huddleston - September 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm
All of these are valid viewpoints, and I do recommend reading Tony Martingnetti’s post about too many employers looking for the “perfect fit” employee, but I want to suggest a different approach to the topic of innovation and “soft infrastructure.”I think that the time is ripe for the nonprofit sector to lead by example, pick one major societal need, and work on it. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t thousands of other real needs, but I actually think that there is one societal need that all can agree on, and that is literacy. It doesn’t matter if you’re conservative or liberal, minority or not, regardless of a person’s age or circumstance, our society is better off if a person can read than if they are illiterate. If you like working with kids, volunteer in the your neighborhood school, or in a school with more needs. If you prefer to work with adults they are many programs, some of which are in prisons, others in community centers or ESL workshops. My point is that if the entire sector would say we are working together to address the problem of literacy, it really would help thousands if not millions of children, youth and adults to learn to read, and would also serve as an example of how the nonprofit sector makes a difference every day to millions of people.Regards,Bill HuddlestonBillHuddleston1 at gmail dot comwww cfcfundraising dot com
joshee23 - September 28, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I don’t understand why there is something morally wrong with paying people who have expensive educations a competitive salary to solve the worlds most difficult problems, and yet we have no moral qualms with paying those same people high salaries to, for example, sell sugar water to kids.Thanks….[url=http://howtodealwithdepression.org/anxiety-and-depression]anxiety and depression[/url]
pampugh - November 2, 2010 at 9:52 am
having come from a non profit that excelled in innovation, i speak from first hand experience that innovation does pay off with customers/donors, particularly the entrepreneurial type of donor. personally, they value innovation and therefore when they see it in a charity they reward it financially with contributions and with their influence by telling others. we had a 20% growth rate each year with 50% of our new donors coming from donor referrals! i also consulted with many non profits, hundreds of them and found the majority that were run by 50+ year old white males to be completely opposed to innovation, unfortunately.
growgive - November 2, 2010 at 10:12 am
working for a purpose/cause provides intrinsic value to the worker. working for purpose with less income so that more may go towards cause is a personal choice which many choose to make.
missionforgood - November 9, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I think if money is your motivator than the non-profit sector is not the sector for you. Although, I do believe people who work for great causes should be paid a fair wage in order to support the kind of life they want to lead.
The non-profit will never be able to pay as much as profit. Hence why one is called “non-profit” and the other is called “profit.”
-Dylan Raines
http://missionforgood.org
http://twitter.com/missionforgood
kamillya14 - December 28, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Very interesting post and I have to say I do agree with you! In my experience with nonprofits, including the one I currently work for, there is a stronger personal connection with employees and people tend to move up based on their longevity, opposed to how much they contribute to the company. Which can be both good and bad.
One of the negative results is you have people who have been there a while and have a vested interest in things staying the same.
For new-comers like myself, accepting a lower salary would be okay, if we felt we were learning and contributing. When innovation is discouraged or overlooked, that’s when the real problem arises. Nonprofits may not be always able to offer staff, especially newer ones with a strong salary, but you can offer them the room to grow, create and develop, especially if it will help the organization.
When you combine a poor salary with a disregard for innovation, that’s really where the problem stems.