Seth Godin rocked my face this morning (and it should yours) with a rant about Non-Profits and their inability to change due to fear.
To be quite honest, he’s right. He’s dead-on with his evaluation, and it’s not just a rant without purpose:
Sorry if I sound upset, but I am. The work these groups do is too important (and the people who work for them are too talented) to waste this opportunity because you are paralyzed in fear.
We do amazing work (the most “important” work perhaps) through the local church and through our ministries. Let’s not let fear or our pride or whatever stop us from doing all that we’ve been called to do.
It’s not about resources, time, or intelligence; it’s about you doing what you need to be doing without the bogus things that hinder valuable progress.
It’s not really a problem with non-profits; it’s a problem with you.
[Image from Scr47chy]
Paul Steinbrueck says
Tru dat! I think for most non-profits (at least the larger, established ones) their big donors tend to be older people who like stability, and the leaders of the organizations are scared of pissing them off.
Graham Brenna says
I don't think… I know so!
@adamrshields says
I think Godin is being overly simplistic here (maybe to the point of being obtuse.) There are a number of reasons that non-profits are inherently conservative.
1) Legal reasons: in many state (which is where much of the relevant law is located) require that non-profits be conservative. The board is required to keep investment in low rate markets in order to preserve principal. The point of these regulations is insure the continued existence of the organizations rather than a short term goal. Godin may believe that is the wrong goal, but we have hospitals and cultural institutions primarily because of long term slow growth. There are very few meaningful health or cultural institutions that are new. This might be different for non-profit political organizations but those are a very small part of the non-profit world.
2) Funding: Non-profits primarily are funded by individuals. About 70 % of all non-profit funding in from individuals. Foundation, corporations and government funding is the remaining 30%. There are a few non-profits that are diverse enough to allow for grandstanding or very fast movement, but most move slowly in order to make sure they don't move out in front of their funding. Godin views this as a negative, but if you are trying to move a community, then you are not helped by moving faster than the community. Funding is one measure of this, but other measures (like volunteer hours, political support, belief in the mission, etc) also require organization moving at the speed of their community.
3) Views of the non-profit. Many non-profits provide social services, which many people assume makes them liberals. But the way that many non-profits provide those services are actually conservative. Many are "empower those that they are helping" types of organizations. So it is not unusual for there to be conservative methods.
Other thoughts: a) Godin missed the World Economic Forum, it is #76 on the top 100 and an international non-profit. b) In many areas the word non-profit is required to be in the name. The reason that they are given tax benefits is in part their willingness to submit to government regulation. There are some notable examples of organizations that have chosen to not live under the non-profit regulations even though the goals are similar. Google's foundation is for-profit in order for it to be exempted from non-profit regulations. There are also many others like Land of a Thousand Hills Coffee and the Grameen Bank that were created as for-profit in order to give them more flexibility. But that means that people don't give to them because they don't get the tax exemption. So organizations must deal with the inherent conservativeness required of non-profits by government regulation or no tax deductions for their donors. c) I totally agree that non-profits need to work hard. What I disagree with is that they are currently doing not doing that. If you have ever worked with a non-profit you are probably aware that many staff work incredibly hard, for low pay, and with poor support systems.
This is already too long and need to feed a baby.
human3rror says
go feed. ๐
Graham Brenna says
First off I must say thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's clear that you've done your homework and have substantial evidence to support your claims. I want to challenge you on #2 if I may?
Yes non-profits are largely supported by individuals and so therefore they have some responsibility to those individuals. I think the point Seth was making here was that non-profits believe in their cause so much that they organized themselves get out in front of the issue and try and tackle it before it gets any worse. If they're simply going with the flow of the community and growing at the same rate, then they're really not doing their job to the best of their ability. Are we letting culture shape the non-profits when we should really be letting the non-profits shape the culture? I believe so. I think that if you are trying to move a community, that it is essential to get out in front of the community and LEAD. It's much harder to lead when you're running at the same pace as the rest of the pack. But you are right to caution non-profits not to lead too far ahead that the community can't understand them at all.
@adamrshields says
I don't really think we disagree much. I think you can't lead if you are walking by yourself. So you have to develop and communicate a vision that while out in front still communicates why you are doing what you are doing to your followers.
I think Northpoint is an example with their online church. They are starting slow, one service a week, no sacraments, not calling it church but an online experience. They are still out in front of the vast majority of church but not so far that their own people are rebelling against them.
What Godin doesn't seem to allow for is the ton of work that goes into building your base. You can be the greatest think tank in the world and really know what is right, but if you don't lead in a way that people follow you aren't doing any good.
So he may be frustrated with the slow pace of things, but that is part of life. Things happen slower than what we think they should. The first house that my organization rehabbed (it ended up being the last) took two and a half years start to finish and the project was ruined because one of the partners sabotaged it by "moving out in front" of where we were at. Ended up loosing a lot of money and all of our credibility in that community because they thought we were moving too slow. If they had stuck to the plan, the family would have had the house, we would have been paid for our work and been able to start the next one, hopefully a bit quicker. As it was, the family moved in before the house was ready, they family didn't have their financing lined up properly, the family spent their own money fixing things we were planning on doing, then ended up in trouble with their loan because they didn't have the money to close properly. We ended up spending all of our remaining funds trying to fix the problems created by labor not hired by us, the family came very close to loosing the house. We didn't get paid because the terms were violated and the group that moved ahead didn't have any negative consequences.
I am all for shaping culture, but shaping culture takes time and there are no short cuts.
Graham Brenna says
Agreed.
And that stinks about that house deal. It's not good when people don't stick with the plan. That is why planning meeting are so important. I have been involved in countless planning meetings that have gone very well but when it comes to carrying out the plan… people either get scared or the response they'll get or they try to do too much at once and then fail. I personally struggle with this a lot. ๐
Graham Brenna says
Dude… I'm glad Seth finally said it!
human3rror says
hehe.
GordonMarcy says
If one's organizational structure and strategies are accomplishing the mission and the metrics confirm it, there's not a problem. Keep on trucking!
On the other hand, if the organization is not growing or in decline; is not being as effective as it once was; or could be more effective, i.e. using new technology tools, then change is called for.
Need will drive change.
Global forces are creating needs. The world is experiencing it. Many organizations are radically adjusting, or being changed unwillingly, as a result. I think Godin is simply issuing a call to action for nonprofits in response. Do something. Responsibly, yes. But, do something.
For Christians and churches, our first "to do" is pray. We need God. When we see Him, our fears will be overcome and we'll make the changes we need to make (people, processes, resources, etc.) to carry out what God's called us to do in our communities.
With eternity on the line for so many, serving the status quo of the past, even with the best of intentions, just might be poor stewardship.
Duncan Robinson says
I think that Tribes, his latest book is one of the best books I have ever read. I do think to some degree he is simplifying matters. The truth is most churches are successful and then try and do the same thing over and over again, with limited success, until the spiral into safety.
I am pretty sure Jesus isn’t after Safe Churches run by Safe people with Safe committees. Jesus is dangerous, he’s the king, but he is good (to alter a quote from narnia!)
klreed189 says
I think he brings a good point up about the top 100 twitter users.
And maybe I am missing the point, but it seems that people are more concerned with following celebrities than non-for-profits. The top 20 pretty much consist of celebs who have a huge reach and a huge fan base. I would love to see blood water mission in there or something like that, but it seems that people are more concerned with what Ashton Kutcher is doing than what Blood Water Mission is doing to save lives. Just a thought.
@adamrshields says
I think what he is discounting is the vast majority of non-profits that are very small. They do a ton of work with a few people and almost no budget. Yes they don't have the resources of Ashton Kutcher, but if they did they would become organizations that would be less nimble. It is hard to have a lot of media capital and be small and nimble.
Daniel Roberts says
I'm going to have to think about this for a while before I really post, but I just wanted to disagree with him on the top 100 list. He's forgetting that it's actually Twitter that's the non-profit. (Well, maybe not technically, but in bottom-line terms at least.)
Graham Brenna says
so far… ๐