Caution: We’re being invaded by aliens from inner space. Yes, it’s something we’re doing to ourselves. But don’t panic; let me explain.
Over the last half century, corporate values and market-oriented thinking have invaded areas of society where they don’t belong.
It’s an intriguing and disturbing development, because the values of business and those of the civil society are vastly different and frequently antithetical.
What’s happening? Entrepreneurs are selling babies to childless parents, prisons are run by corporations, national assets and wars are sold off to multinationals, physicians become “concierge” doctors and university admissions and honorary degrees are sold to the highest bidder.
More to the point here, the nonprofit sector suffers from this invasion as well. For example, the general media carry articles advising nonprofits to be “more like businesses.” Trade journals advise the use of business management practices.
Donors are advised to see their gifts as “investments” from which they are justified in expecting “returns.” Charities should see their donors as “customers.” Board members get antsy if their organizations are not “efficient” or can’t produce immediately identifiable and measurable impacts.
One popular trend in this direction is “philanthrocapitalism.” It combines capitalism’s self-interested profit-making with philanthropic approaches to solving major world problems like hunger and poverty.
For example, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are throwing tons of money at multiple, difficult worldwide problems. Grameen Bank has loaned millions to destitute women to start home industries. Steve Mariotti in Harlem, N.Y. is teaching students to form their own businesses to liberate themselves from the urban ghetto. Mario Morino has invested millions in “venture capital” to quickly turn bright ideas into “strong, high-performing nonprofit organizations.”
For the most part, these are all well-intentioned ideas and ventures, so why the concern? The answer emerges when we view the differences between the values of voluntarism versus those of the private sector.
For example, business entrepreneurs like to take risks and “rock the boats” of traditional methods. Nonprofit organizations take a more caring approach, nurturing inter-connectedness to community, using all available means to relieve and eliminate human misery.
Enterprise champions speed and measurable results; “winning” is everything. Free markets? They’re inconvenient when monopoly profits beckon.
Corporate impatience with human and environmental annoyances frequently results in “collateral damage” and “unintended consequences” they never clean up. That would too easily result in social engineering: imposing top-down solutions.
Nonprofit managers use a more compassionate, personable and collaborative approach to address social problems. Pushing human
beings around for corporate convenience doesn’t work.
Achieving success requires a geologist’s sense of time. Humans don’t change quickly: New understandings and patterns of behavior develop slowly, requiring patience and staying power. Those steeped in the business world typically have little patience for process.
It is not appropriate for our nonprofits to become businesses, or even “like” enterprise. Yes, management practices frequently can be improved. But professional management in the voluntary sector must be based on very different principles.
We certainly want to treat our donors with respect; their generosity and urge to volunteer are the lifeblood of nonprofit accomplishment. We want our organizations to use all available resources prudently.
But speed, risk, winning at any cost and closefistedness with human frailties have created many of our social problems. They don’t belong in nonprofit management.
Our society certainly needs entrepreneurs wishing to benefit humanity. Their most valuable contribution would be to re-equip our understanding of markets and corporate responsibility with a less importunate individualism.
