The Chronicle Shouldn’t Overstate the Risks of Change

To the Editor:

It seems that Chronicle articles on the future often carry a debilitating comment by the author or a quoted expert on the risks of movement toward a for-profit style of operating. I would like to suggest that we need to critically examine the ideas carried in such quotes, including one that appeared in the January 13 article “Technology and Accountability Will Shape the Future of Philanthropy.”

The quote reads, “but critics also argue that commercialization may confuse donors about a charity’s purpose or, worse, induce some non-profit organizations to abdicate their charitable missions for the allure of profits.” The debilitating word is “may.”

Obviously, there is a risk if non-profits adopt a narrow private-sector net-income approach to defining work and evaluating performance. Is there anyone who does not believe there are risks associated with change? What course of action does not have a downside?

Non-profit leaders’ responsibility is not to merely point out problems associated with change but to guide us through the dangers and inspire us to find solutions. Non-profit leaders who think their job is to point out that there “may be issues” are not doing their jobs. In fact, they probably cripple their organizations by instilling fear of making mistakes instead of inspiring people to solve the problems facing their organizations. Reporting their worries as sage comments is shallow service to your audience.

Instead of focusing on problems that may occur, suppose that non-profits use the talents of their people and the board members to retain a focus on the mission of the organization. And suppose non-profits apply some techniques of the for-profit world and insist on high performance throughout the organization. Suppose the organization’s leaders make changes when a donor or client mentions that there seems to be a lot of bureaucracy to get small amounts of money. Suppose the organization insists that its people return phone calls promptly, answer e-mail, and not drop work on untrained volunteers or employees.

If these are the characteristics of high-performance organizations in the for-profit sector, perhaps they should be adopted by non-profits if it improves our ability to carry out our work.

The word “may” sets off a chain reaction of fears and a culture of great caution and worry that paralyzes otherwise enthusiastic people. When a leader says there “may” be a problem, readers easily assume that there is an imminent danger. Non-profit leaders should be looking for practices that improve performance of the mission, rather than repeatedly theorizing about the possible diseases that may be caught from the for-profit sector.

For example, consider the advice to be very cautious in accepting one-time contributions from stock-market gains. The concern is that the funds “may” disappear next year if the market drops. The rest of this logic says the non-profit and its clients are better off not taking the one-time increase and not launching new programs that the money would enable.

I would argue that this is actually a way for leaders to avoid difficult decisions rather than a sound, mission-based way of working. It appears to me it is the possible diseases that may be caught from the for-profit sector.

For example, consider the advice to be very cautious in accepting one-time contributions from stock-market gains. The concern is that the funds “may” disappear next year if the market drops. The rest of this logic says the non-profit and its clients are better off not taking the one-time increase and not launching new programs that the money would enable.

I would argue that this is actually a way for leaders to avoid difficult decisions rather than a sound, mission-based way of working. It appears to me it isgrounded in avoiding mistakes rather than seeking the best way to serve clients and provide scarce services. Leaders should define this as a problem of proper financial planning rather than advocate avoiding irregular flows of funds.

I would like to see Chronicle reporters and non-profit leaders change the discussion from “worrying about possible risks” to “How could we handle this opportunity in the best interests of those we serve?”

Thomas K. Klein
Director, Resource Development Unit
University of Minnesota Extension Service
St. Paul