Why Nonprofits Have a Difficult Time

Finding Employment Candidates

By Michael G. Smith

In the nonprofit world, it is widely assumed that individuals who share an organization’s beliefs make more effective employees. I have found three reasons why nonprofit leaders believe this to be the case: 1) individuals who personally support the organization’s philosophy may be motivated to work harder; 2) they already understand the ideas, so they don’t need to be trained; 3) the opportunity to work for an organization whose mission is personally fulfilling may be more important than maximizing compensation. In short, sympathizers are highly motivated, understand the ideas, and may be more affordable than outsiders.

There is no denying the truth of these three assertions. However, the issue is not whether these three points hold true, but whether commitment to, and agreement with, the organization’s philosophy translates into greater employee effectiveness. Sympathizers may, in fact, be less effective employees than outsiders. 

The ability of an employee to perform a certain job is determined primarily by innate ability, experience, and training. Of these three qualification factors, only training can be readily provided by the employer. Innate ability must be inherent in the prospective employee and experience must be acquired in previous positions. No amount of desire to aid the cause or commitment to shared principles can overcome a deficiency in innate ability or lack of experience in performing certain types of work.

Conversely, consider an individual who has innate ability and experience in a certain job, yet lacks an understanding of the organization’s mission. This prospective employee can be trained by the organization. An intelligent and educated person can master fundamental concepts and arguments quickly, especially when his or her job and salary depend on doing so. This happens every day in the for-profit world. To cite one example, sales reps (particularly in a business-to-business, major account environment) must possess the innate ability to influence decision makers and close deals. Successful salespeople sharpen their skills over time as they learn from experience how to quickly distinguish likely buyers from time wasting “tire kickers.” Yet ability and experience, while necessary, are not sufficient, since complex products (i.e. enterprise software, lease financing, data communications) require an in-depth knowledge of the product, marketplace, and application. That is why businesses provide product training for newly hired sales reps; it adds the third qualification necessary to insure success.

The concern is sometimes expressed that training an employee is not as satisfactory as finding an employee already imbued with the group’s philosophy. I believe this viewpoint gives short shrift to the quality of an organization’s ideas. If the organization lacks confidence that its views can be mastered by paid employees, then how does the organization expect to gain public acceptance of those same ideas?

Another common objection is that, even with training, nonprofit groups have many jobs for which there is no corresponding position in the for-profit world. This is undoubtedly true in a few cases, but the more closely one explores work activity in businesses, the less viable the objection becomes. What do grant writers do? They write proposals designed to secure funds for specific projects, which is exactly what project managers and department heads do when they write proposals for management in a large firm having many potential projects and investments but limited funds available to finance them. What do fundraisers do? They market the organization’s mission to those who may be willing to provide funding, particularly those who can do so long-term. That’s exactly what an account manager does when selling a firm’s services, focusing on larger accounts with long-term potential.

What opportunities are created when an organization is able to train new hires in the organization’s mission and philosophy? One immediate advantage is that the pool of qualified employment candidates is vastly enlarged. By setting aside the exceedingly constrictive requirement that candidates be versed in organizational philosophy, employees may be selected from among all job seekers having adequate ability and experience. With more candidates, there will nearly always be more combinations of skill, experience, and compensation from which to choose. With budget limitations, a broader choice of candidates may offer more options than considering only sympathizers, on the assumption that they may be willing to work for less.

Hiring more employees from the business world provides another, surprising advantage. Study after study has revealed that workers who seek jobs in the nonprofit sector are often willing to accept lower pay in exchange for a less demanding work environment. According to economist Kevin Hallock, “workers accept lower wages in nonprofits in exchange for a host of pleasant amenities, such as flexible hours, and a slower pace of work.” An organization that recruits primarily from likeminded nonprofit groups is maximizing the number of employees with a preference for “a slower pace of work.” Whenever possible, an organization should recruit outsiders from for-profit businesses as a hedge against this “nonprofit work-pace syndrome.”

Another benefit is that workers trained by their employer understand the mission and philosophy in exactly the way the employer wishes to have it understood. When the organization relies on the employee to arrive on the job with his or her own view of the organization’s mission and philosophy, there will be significant knowledge gaps, misunderstandings, and even divergence on fundamental components. Many businesses hire only individuals coming from another industry or seeking their first job (IBM and Xerox for example) so they can train the employee “from scratch” and avoid having to overcome existing beliefs, misperceptions, and attitudes.

Robert Kaplan of Harvard Business School has found that hiring supporters of the organization can actually detract from maintaining the group’s focus and alignment: “such individuals arrive already equipped with a clear, albeit personal, idea about how to accomplish the organization’s goals, and they often encounter a nurturing environment in which all opinions are valued. This is an engine for diffusing organizational energy.” Individuals with their own ideas about what the mission is and how to achieve it are less likely to adhere to the organization’s plan or take direction from managers.

Before you make your next hire, think about whether it is time to reconsider your assumptions about what makes a good employee.<

Back

Home