On the ride home last night from my Institute for Nonprofit Management and Leadership Class, I was talking to my classmate about the difficulties of creating a comfortable workplace environment. Both of us had worked with organizations who’s good works externally did not match internal working conditions.
Nonprofit organizations walk a difficult line. Businesses have an easily measured metric of success. Nonprofits on the other hand have a broader basket of mission, vision, values and promises; these are often enough matched with the weak verb “interpret”. In trying to change society for the better, or just provide stop-gap services for an imperfect society, it can often be difficult to know where you draw the between internal and external priorities.
Can you create an organization that fully engenders your vision and values while, at the same time, effectively and efficiently achieve its mission? It’s difficult to say. As nonprofit organizations are increasingly pressed to adopt business-style methodologies (“Social Entrepreneurialism”), I’m placed with conflicting emotions. I do not believe that growth and impact (impact being the social version of profit) are the only ways to create change; yet I am aware that these methodologies can quickly and efficiently affect broad-reaching change. But are these business-style values able to adequately create dialogue and engender engagement with a broad diversity of people and viewpoints? Will they ultimately create the world we want, and if so, does the ends justify the means?
One of the issues is people (well, all issues are people, but that’s out of scope of these thoughts). Many of the people who want to work within the nonprofit sector have strongly articulated values and vision for the world they would like to live in. In my own experience, I would broadly put the majority of these within the box of Liberal Democratic principles: meritocracies embracing diversity, collaborative decision making, and inclusive participation. Unfortunately, these ideals can be at loggerheads with the management that is required of business-style growth and impact: strict hierarchies, delineated responsibilities and externally-legitimated authority. I know many groups—collectives, cooperatives and adhocracies—that are successful; but for the most part they are small, or only act upon narrow missions (for example, planning an annual conference). I also know of organizations who by growing lost aspects of a communal culture which they highly valued.
Such are the difficulties of trying to create cross-sector models of success. Our model on the for-profit side seem to be the large, publicly traded corporations: Google, Microsoft, GE. Businesses with professional managers—and for whom much of our current management training, philosophy and literature is geared towards. And yet the business world is so much richer than that. The privately owned, mom-and-pop store on Main Street (to borrow the common invocation of our last national election) has values closer to my own: local ownership, community values, emphasis on quality and relationships rather than profits, and not necessarily striving to be greater than they are right now—only better.
Related posts:
- Management Theories and Interventions Behavioral Performance management Reward policies Values translated into behaviours Management competencies Skills training Management style Performance coaching 360 degree feedback...
- Zilch for a nonprofit Last week I was contacted through LinkedIn by a stranger asking for help in forming a nonprofit organization. I get...
- My nonprofit Facebook strategy and tactics I was asked by a colleague how to increase the size of their organization’s Facebook Fan page—not that I would...
- Going crazy over social impact This week’s topic in the Millenial Blogging Alliance is “How do you define and measure Social Impact?” Since I’m currently...
- Principles of Organizational Development Practice From the Organizational Development Network: Definition of OD Organization Development is a dynamic values-based approach to systems change in organizations...











Ben,
I met you today at the Idealist Career event in Boston. Looking up your LinkedIn profile, I came across your blog, and I have to say, this is very interesting.
You appear to broach two topics. One is that there is sometimes a disconnect between a group with a wonderful vision of outward mission and the internal peer to peer or leader-associate work environment not living up to the same type of ideals. The other topic appears to be imposing a corporate MBA style of organizational development upon smaller, more organic body of organization for the sake of progress.
My background is a hybrid of experiences with not-for-profit and for-profit organizations. The 3 Fortune 500 companies I’ve been a part of love to talk about being an inverted pyramid or being a grouping of empowered “associates.” Values and relationships are part of their vocabulary; they see the importance for such principles, if just to maintain a connection with their customers or employees. I agree it is harder to keep these ideas alive with authenticity as groups grow larger and more cumbersome. But it is still an ideal at whatever stage of growth an organization is at. Likewise, getting back to the first aspect of your conversation, the sound principles of human resource management large companies have developed could help the smaller organizations balance outward mission and inward environment.
Hope I’m catching where your conversation is leading. Thanks for the dialogue.
Sincerely,
Thaddeus