Should Employees of Non-Profit Organizations Be Treated Differently From Those at For-Profits?
Low pay, good benefits, sympathetic supervisors, high stress, and
burnout have historically been par for the course in non-profit
settings. These characteristics are distinct from those of profit
oriented businesses. Should this distinction exist? Is there
any choice?
Nothing more than face validity is offered to substantiate the
statements in the above paragraph. Still, it is doubtful that many
would argue its accuracy. If it is true, the two questions posed
at the end of the paragraph are loaded.
Should personnel at non-profit organizations be treated differently from
those at profit based companies? Drucker, in his writings on
non-profit management, has indicated that people who work at non-profits
do so for more than a paycheck. They have chosen to forgo a more
sizable income in order to share in the mission to do good. In
this view, the worker in the not-for-profit sector is owed a break.
That is, if they have difficulty mastering a job responsibility, they
are provided with multiple chances to learn to do it properly. If
they still do not become proficient, they are provided with a different
position within the organization rather than being terminated. It
is all a part of what this writer will call the “merciful management”
approach.
However, this does not necessarily mean that warm and fuzzy feelings are
the primary force driving this approach. Historically, salaries
have been low in the non-profit arena. The merciful approach is a
way of offering something to try to keep employees in a field without
many tangible incentives. In fact, this writer submits that this
approach offers a feeling of validation that is strongly sought by many
of the people in the field. This is, after all, a field with a
high percentage of females and “Women, and the professions they
dominate, receive lower salaries and have been held in less social
esteem than have men and the professions they dominate” (Who
We Are : a second look / Gibelman and Schervish, 1997 by the NASW
Press).
By offering a more supportive and validating environment these employers
might slightly offset some of the negative aspects of the profession.
In this way, the merciful management style is self serving.
Similarly, one could argue that these employers must be willing to
nurture lower caliber employees to the point of competence because the
probability of attracting a more qualified individual at the salary
being offered is quite low. It must be remembered that there is a
high level of education in the not-for-profit sector. The majority
of employees in most such organizations have at least a Bachelor’s
degree. In a majority of for-profit businesses, a Bachelor’s
degree would meet the educational requirement for upper management.
It is also self serving in another, but related manner. Well over
90% of lawsuits faced by non-profits deal with employment issues
according to an Office.com article by Kathy Prentice. She cited
information from Lisa Ruhnquist of Ruhnquist and Zybach, LLP which
specializes in non-profit law. One often recommended way of
minimizing risk from lawsuits is to “do the right thing”. This
should fit nicely in non-profits with their ostensibly altruistic
natures.
For a little while now, this writer has noticed what appears to be a
shift in some non-profits to outcome and accountability based systems
such as the “zero defect” approach. For several reasons, they do
not fit the field well. Rather than “merciful management”, these
can be termed the “or else” approach. These systems have their
benefits, but in the long run they usually do more damage than good in
not-for-profits. They generally find people to blame, rather than
ways to improve. Worse, they often distract the organization from
its mission. Instead, the focus becomes the good grade or positive
report. This is not a good thing in what are usually supposed to
be people oriented organizations.
The point is: Drucker was right in the first place.
Non-profits are different. And they should be.