Controversial take: Nonprofit staff deserve to share in the value they create. Most compensation models in our sector are fundamentally broken. We expect people to: * Work for below-market wages * Accept minimal benefits * Forgo performance incentives * Sacrifice financial security "for the mission" Then we wonder why turnover is devastating our organizations. What if nonprofits adopted value-sharing models where: * Staff receive base compensation that meets living wage standards * Performance is measured by mission impact, not just financial metrics * Longevity is rewarded through progressive benefits * Team members share in organizational growth through structured bonuses This isn't "becoming corporate." It's acknowledging that sustainable impact requires sustainable careers. Does your organization have innovative approaches to staff compensation? I'd love to hear about them.
Ted Davis
5mo
This recommendation should not be controversial. If a nonprofit is responsible for a critical service that has real value in the community (that the public and private sector do not offer), then the talent and passion of the staff that actually provide that service should be paid accordingly. This involves a serious commitment to a transparency with donors about why and how this is necessary. The self-sacrificing image of the nonprofit worker has been accepted and even promoted for far too long. The fact that we continue to pay teachers or child and elder care workers shamefully low wages is a visible indicator of how distorted the "value proposition" for such skilled work is in our society.
Julie Klett
5mo
I said the same to a board once. I started with: "You may not realize this, but our staff are some of our most significant donors. In many ways, we are balancing the budget on the goodwill and altruism of our employees, at great cost. It is not sustainable. It's time we take a serious look at this." In some organizations (too many) staffers donate THOUSANDS of dollars in lost potential income, unpaid time, minimal benefits, retirement funds, etc. My comments were not well-received. Many of these board members wore rings and watches worth more than I made in a year.
For the life of me I cannot comprehend why people whose end-game output is the generation of material wealth are compensated according to their "value" to the company, but ask the same for people whose output is doing good, serving others, making things better and solving unprofitable problems at social impact orgs and you're virtually burned as a heretic.
GOLD | Growing Older Living…•20K followers
5moGreat topic Louis! As a lover and student of history I try to look at the historical snapshots in time that got us to where we are today so I can understand what biases and practices we face in trying to make change. In a previous presentation on this I had gathered the following “snapshots in time “ to reflect upon: Charitable Origins: Early nonprofit work was done by volunteers, creating the expectation that it's a "labor of love" rather than a profession deserving competitive pay. The Overhead Myth: Since the 1990s, charity watchdogs have emphasized low overhead ratios, pressuring organizations to minimize administrative costs including salaries to appear efficient to donors. Donor Expectations: Many donors prefer money goes to "programs, not people," failing to recognize that skilled staff deliver those programs. Funding Restrictions: Government and foundation grants often cap salaries and administrative expenses. Gender Dynamics: The nonprofit sector is disproportionately female, and wages reflect broader societal patterns of undervaluing "caring professions." These factors created a persistent 10-25% wage gap compared to for-profit and government sectors, contributing to high turnover and burnout. We can change!