From Making a Profit
to Making a Difference:
How to Launch Your
New Career in Nonprofits

Chapter 1:

Assimilating Into the Nonprofit Culture

Culture Clash

The business world and the nonprofit world can be characterized as clash of different cultures. These differences are substantial and begin with the most basic elements. While the business sector’s primary goal is to make a profit for shareholders through the sale of goods and services, nonprofits strive to be agents of change: building affordable housing, a child learning, appreciating art, building community, saving a child from the streets, enjoying a clean environment.

The business sector raises capital through the sale of stock and manages its financial affairs with a close eye on reducing tax liabilities. The nonprofit sector raises capital by soliciting charitable gifts from individuals, corporations, foundations, and government sources. It manages its financial affairs with a close eye on personnel costs. The business sector talks about return on investment, debt–equity ratios, marginal utility, and governmental interference. The nonprofit sector talks about sources of funding support, constituency building, volunteer recruitment, and balanced budgets.

Business professionals who have made the transition to the nonprofit sector agree that the “process orientation” of the nonprofit culture is the single most significant factor in assimilation. The most obvious manifestation of this process orientation is the slower decision–making procedures of nonprofits compared to the business world. Unlike the business world, the process of how decisions are made in nonprofits is often as important as the decision itself. Sometimes the process of making the decision is even more important than the decision because the process, in terms of internal politics, serves a distinct purpose within the organization’s dynamic. Experienced non–profit executives are oriented to an understanding of the importance of process within this culture.

The majority of business professionals are, on the other hand, outcome oriented. The business culture rewards quick decision making, especially when it leads to profits. Establishing a process of decision making that runs counter to timely reaction and response is not only costly to a business venture, but also culturally verboten. Consequently, adjusting to the centrality of process orientation in the nonprofit world can be difficult for business professionals. Assimilating into a culture where the emphasis is on process rather than profit can be a huge barrier for many business people making the transition to the non–profit world. Some find it merely frustrating and perplexing; many others never adapt to it. Others try to cope with it and fail. So, why is the process orientation so central to the nonprofit culture, and why is it so crucial for business professionals to assimilate it?

The most pervasive reason for process orientation is the presence of multiple constituent groups which accompany every non–profit entity. Unlike business where constituent groups share the same motive, namely maximizing profits, nonprofit constituent groups are likely to have a variety of motives and points of view — even when they generally support and agree with the mission of the organization. While a belief in profit is universal and straightforward, a belief in altruism can take on many shades. Internally, an interdisciplinary employee group creates a need for process orientation.

Just about any university offers a good illustration. Its “internal” constituent groups include its board of directors, faculty, and students, plus building engineering, finance and accounting, development, publishing, and legal departments, among others. Faculty alone is comprised of many different disciplines. Many disciplines are represented; many points of view exist.

This same school’s external constituents include alumni, friends, community and neighborhood residents, donors, plus governmental officials and regulatory agencies. Many viewpoints exist here as well. Successful university administrators figure out a way to provide a process for input and participation by all these differing constituent groups while retaining management and leadership authority. Without incorporating process orientation in running the institution, one of the constituent groups most certainly would step in and take over.

Another reason for the importance of process orientation is reverence for the cultural value that might be called “getting along.” The ability of employees to work together is crucial in nonprofit organizations. So it is with members of the board of directors and key volunteers as well. Working in harmony with each other requires that all points of view be considered, that full disclosure and discussion be afforded to all, and that people be treated with respect and dignity even if dissenting views are expressed. Beyond this, people who share the same passion for the work of the nonprofit organization expect to be involved and included in its work. Thus, the group expects a process orientation as a way of continually articulating the direction of the organization through an inclusive style of communication.

Preparing to Assimilate

Some people have a greater propensity to successfully assimilate the nonprofit culture than others. The most significant factor related to one’s capacity to assimilate is a very simple one to understand: preparation. To demonstrate this need for preparation, and to introduce many of the key transition strategies presented in this book, consider the following two case examples of Bill and Donna which illustrate the effect that preparation has on  whether or not you’ll successfully make the switch into the nonprofit community.

Two Real Life Examples

Bill: From Seed Business to Nonprofit Executive

Bill was a successful 42–year old business entrepreneur who had taken over his family’s wholesale seed company ten years earlier. An avid downhill skier, sports enthusiast, and college all–star basketball player, he started thinking more seriously about the idea of running a non–profit organization, something he had pondered the past year or so. He was in my office to begin to explore that possibility.

“Over the past ten years I’ve transformed a fledgling mom and pop business into a very profitable and competitive enterprise,” he said. “But what I really want to do now is take those business skills I’ve perfected and apply them to a leadership role in a nonprofit organization. I really think that most charities lack the business orientation to operate more effectively and I think I can make a real contribution in this regard.”

Bill had no particular nonprofit setting in mind and admitted that he was not knowledgeable enough about the industry to have any preferences, except that he would not consider running an organization that was very small. He said that compensation was not a factor. He had income from investments and other holdings which would continue to provide him with a good income stream even if he left the seed company today. He believed that his financial situation would be attractive to a charity when it came to determining salary.

Further discussion with Bill revealed that he had rarely done volunteer work for any nonprofit organizations. He had been an officer for the regional chapter of a seed industry association, but that was about it. A former college classmate who was now the provost of a major Eastern university was the only person Bill knew in the nonprofit sector. He could recall no family members or friends who had ever worked in the nonprofit sector. He described his greatest strengths as turning a stagnant, unprofitable business into a going concern, creative deal–making, and being an expert in the wholesale seed business.

When our meeting ended, I had to tell Bill something I knew he did not want to hear: it would take a considerable amount of time for him to make a successful transition into the kind of nonprofit leadership opportunity he sought. “The market is that bad?” he replied. “No,” I said. “ simply not prepared to make the transition.” I proceeded to explain the many factors that led me to that conclusion. Bill’s interest in seeking a nonprofit leadership position was predicated on a negative, namely that nonprofit organizations lack the business acumen to run effectively. As motives go, that’s pretty thin.

There is no question that knowledge and experience in financial management, accounting, personnel, budgeting, planning and administration are necessary executive abilities for running a nonprofit organization. But if it were a simple matter of applying business skills to nonprofits, every business executive in the world would be qualified to direct a charitable organization. There’s just more to it than that. After Bill brings his considerable business skills to the organization, what happens next? I did not get a sense from him that the mission and direction of a charity was compelling to him. Somehow, he would have to learn this before he could consider himself competitive in his search for nonprofit leadership.

Another telling factor was Bill’s work style. He was obviously a successful entrepreneur: a hard driven, quick acting decision maker with great intuitive business sense and an incredible feel for the numbers — all the qualities required to run a business in the highly competitive business environment.

The problem was that the classical entrepreneurial personality type is often not suitable for nonprofit organization leadership needs. The entrepreneur generally tends to make decisions independently, rarely consulting others before taking action. Many manage people poorly and do not delegate tasks well because they don’t take the time for these activities. Bill would probably be quite frustrated by the “corporate culture” in nonprofits. His entrepreneurial style and the nonprofit culture almost certainly would clash. He would have to learn more about the management dynamics and leadership requirements of nonprofits before he could make a successful transition.

Bill’s lack of experience as a volunteer with charitable organizations also concerned me as did his lack of personal contacts in the nonprofit community. From a networking standpoint, he would be starting from ground zero. In addition, the way he reported his personal financial situation and the compensation he might seek from a nonprofit was very revealing. There is no question that nonprofits are conscious of personnel expenditures (in some organizations, personnel costs are as much as 90 percent of total expenses). But most nonprofits acknowledge that they have to pay a competitive salary to attract and retain qualified executive leadership. Although well–intentioned, Bill’s attitude about compensation would create skepticism about his intentions on the part of any legitimate organization. Before any potential nonprofit employer would take him seriously, Bill would have to use a resource like the Non–Profits & Education Job Finder to identify salary surveys that would tell him how much people with his experience and education are paid for the types of positions he is seeking. See Chapter 7 for a thorough discussion of compensation practices among nonprofits.

Finally, the fact that Bill had been a chief executive officer of a business for the past ten years does not automatically make him qualified to serve as a chief executive for a nonprofit entity. At that level, boards of directors usually require content–specific skills and experience in their chief executive officer. Bill probably would be competing with nonprofit executives who have the relevant content–specific backgrounds. He would fare poorly against such serious competition.

Donna: Viewing Herself Too Narrowly

When I met her, Donna was a single, 35 year–old woman who working as an account manager for a medium–sized brokerage firm in Chicago. She was a cum laude graduate of Michigan State University’s business school. Her petite frame and easy manner belied her considerable success in developing new investment business for her firm. In four of the seven years she had been with the company she led all other account managers in new business development. She had purchased a three–flat on Chicago’s Gold Coast. Proud of her accomplishments, and financially comfortable, she was in my office to talk about changing careers to the non–profit sector.

“I’m just tired of squeezing out another one–quarter point for greedy customers,” she said. ”I look around at what’s happening in this country, the homeless that live under Wacker Drive, children abused for just being children. I don’t feel very productive anymore. There’s something missing. I know I can’t change the world but I know I can do something.”

She was not the first person to wish to put relevance and meaning into her work, to feel that she is contributing to a greater good. Nor was she the first person to get stuck right there. “The problem is, I don’t know much about nonprofits except that they can’t make a profit” — a statement that only proved her point. “I’ve been selling investments for the past five years. I doubt that this is something nonprofits are looking for.” She was right, of course, but she was looking at herself too narrowly.

When I asked her to describe the most outstanding skills she had developed over the past several years, she narrowed them down two major achievements:

• The successful way she related to her client investors, insightfully noting her effectiveness in a male–dominated industry, and
• A high level of intuitive judgment when it came to data.

It was clear that Donna had a good understanding of herself. She was achievement oriented, liked to juggle a lot of agendas, was highly self-directed — but not in a selfish way — and she had a very outgoing personality.

Donna sat on the board of directors of a homeless shelter for the last five years, something to which a former college friend had introduced her. She had served as an officer for three years, and chaired the long–range planning committee as well. That led to some other volunteer work she pursued with the Special Olympics for young adults with developmental disabilities. Through her company she was selected to serve on a United Way task force to study the effects of different allocation formulas on investment policies. It became clear that these experiences provided Donna with a solid understanding of the nonprofit environment. She had not yet developed her network of contacts, but her volunteer involvement had set the stage for building and exploiting it.

Two months later a national network of food bank depositories headquartered in Chicago was seeking a national distribution manager. The executive director of the homeless shelter where Donna served on the board regularly received food from a local food bank. He had heard about the opening from its director. He told Donna about the position after a board meeting and offered to introduce her. The job involved coordinating food supplies donated by hundreds of food manufacturers around the country via a rail and trucking system. The donated food would eventually end up in shelters, social service programs, and church pantries for distribution to the needy. It required continuous communication with major food producers and distributors. The distribution manager was in a pivotal position on the organization’s management chart.

Donna’s accomplishments were obviously an important component in meeting the requirements for this job. But just as important was the relevance of the organization’s mission to Donna’s accomplishments. This nonprofit needed a gutsy, business–disciplined, people–oriented professional to run a complicated distribution system. It needed someone who was not intimidated by male organizational bias nor afraid to make quick, independent decisions. Its mission was driven by a need to get donated food quickly and safely into the mouths of the needy in a cost–effective and efficient manner.

The organization interviewed Donna several times. It turned out that the group was more interested in her volunteer leadership background at the homeless shelter and at the United Way than in her accomplishments in the investment field. In the end, the network selected her for the job over several candidates who had worked for nonprofit organizations. It was clear that the organization did not base its hiring decision on her sales background at the investment firm. That job was not relevant to the group’s needs as an organization, nor to the national distribution manager’s duties. Donna’s volunteer experience enabled her to overcome the initial hurdle and launch her new career — and assimilation — into the nonprofit world.

Successful assimilation into the nonprofit community — so necessary to the transition from the private sector to nonprofits — consists of a number of steps that are detailed in the rest of this book. Chapter 2 explains “skills transference” — which business skills meet the needs of nonprofit positions — and helps you chart your skills. Chapter 3 includes a unique “Nonprofit Preference Index” that will help you classify your interests so you can decide what sort of nonprofit work will be most rewarding. Chapter 4 shows how to use “Strategic Volunteerism” to enhance your prospects of winning the nonprofit jobs that really appeal to you. Chapter 5 equips you for building and using a network of contacts in the nonprofit community to find job openings and get hired. Chapter 6 offers guidelines and examples for writing an effective resume and cover letter than will get you interviewed even if you have no experience in nonprofits. Chapter 7 explores salary and benefits issues with tips for effective salary negotiation. The remaining chapters include a directory of executive recruiters for nonprofits, a directory of professional fund raising consulting firms, a directory of selected professional associations, sources of philanthropic information including the Foundation Center’s “Cooperating Collections Network,” and a resource collection of career books and software useful for your job quest.

Click here to return to Part 1 of Chapter 1.

 

Click here to return to the main page for From Making a Profit….