I will be leading the keynote at the Ohio Grantmakers Forum Annual Conference in October on the topic of Nonprofit Strategy in the New Abnormal and check out my recent guest blog at the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Tell me what you think. Is any of this new or normal?

My colleague David La Piana and I have both observed the dynamic of parallel process within the sector. This Nonprofit Paradox has been defined as, “what an organization seeks to solve or resolve in society, they recreate as a problem internally”. We see this as not only an issue among staff, but unfortunately in the way we in the sector can treat candidates for positions with our organizations.

I have had the pleasure to teach in the nonprofit graduate program at the University of San Francisco. You meet some great dedicated professionals in the field. I am fortunate enough that some of them keep in touch, or drop me a note about where they are and what they are doing.

Recently, a former student of mine shared her experiences of searching for a job in the field.  We all know that it is tough market, that more nonprofits are laying people off than hiring, and that there are some very talented, committed people looking for work.  That can make organizations a little cocky- sitting in the power position of having the option of choosing the cream of the cream.

Since December of 2010 this young woman has applied to over 50 jobs and has had over 30 interviews, either over the phone or in-person.

She shared with me the following experiences:

• One interviewer fell asleep in our interview.
• Another was so rude that I got home and called their HR director to complain and retract my app. Their director of programs later called me to try and convince me to go back in because the rude interviewer/potential supervisor only liked me out of their candidates.
• An org turned me down via email and in the next paragraph asked me to volunteer my time with the department that wouldn’t even interview me.
• Feedback from another was that I need to cut my hair (it’s long, but groomed and just fine).

She went on to list the number of organizations that simply canceled the position, put hiring on hold, did not make a decision or simply never responded to her.

We have to do better. We have to treat candidates with respect that they deserve.  There is vulnerability to those who are seeking work and opening themselves up to the possibilities, as well as the probabilities of not getting the job.

I will let my former student speak for herself:

Simply, if they can’t send a basic email to inform candidates of their search progress or that they aren’t advancing to the next round, they should revise their operations and staffing capacity in recruiting. They are giving their organization a bad reputation and limiting future partnerships. And I know that I’m not the only person with a list like this.

So, if you’re looking for a job and not having luck, understand that companies don’t have it together right now. Keep at it and don’t be too critical of yourself.

Tell us what you think.  Do you have any advice to add?

I cringe every time I read about a celebrity joining the board of an organization.  Board members are trustees and each board member is equally accountable for insuring that the organization is properly governed. These roles include:

• Determining the Organization’s Mission and Purpose
• Selecting the Executive
• Supporting the Executive and Reviewing His or Her Performance
• Ensuring Effective Organizational Planning
• Ensuring Adequate Resources
• Manage Resources Effectively
• Determine and Monitor the Organization’s Programs and Services

I doubt if most celebrities realize that if the organizations fails to pay its payroll taxes the individual board members are legally liable or if the organization is in debt and has to close, the board is the body to blame.  If an organization wants to engage a celebrity they should consider asking them to be on an honorary board or co-chair of an advisory body to the board.

It strikes me that when municipal governments start looking to local nonprofits for help with public sector financial problems the end of civilization cannot be far off. What’s next, the mayor standing in line at the soup kitchen?

This phenomenon reminds me of a story I heard from a client who worked for a tech company. He claimed he could track his company’s fortunes by the prices at the soda vending machine in the lunchroom. When he first started at the company the vending machine was left open and the sodas were free. As the economy tightened a modest charge was imposed at the vending machine, basically to cover the cost of the drinks. “But,” he told me, “when they raised the prices again and I figured out that the vending machine was now being viewed as a profit center, I knew the company was in trouble.”

Viewing nonprofits as a revenue source for local government strikes me as the “vending machine as profit center” way of thinking.  The entire tax system is off, yet we look to nonprofits rather than to tax reform. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world – yet many large companies pay nothing at all. Let’s look to close those loopholes before we start asking the local community hospital to contribute to the city’s coffers.

At one point I raised the possibility of networked activity replacing the function of some nonprofits. This is the dreaded disintermediation we all wince when hearing about.

If an artist can sell his or her work through an easily-constructed web site, why do we need art centers and galleries? If a volunteer can surf the net for places to give time, what role do volunteer centers play?

There are certainly value added activities associated with each of these entities so I don’t mean to imply that they can be readily replaced tomorrow.

On the other hand we should not delude ourselves that there is something sacrosanct about our current line-up of nonprofits. If major cities and small towns alike can lose their newspapers they can also lose their once-cherished nonprofits.

As I made this point a young woman commented that she was not sure there was reason to mourn the loss of these groups if they were made irrelevant by advances in technology, changing community needs or generational preferences.

My initial reaction was that people who had worked or volunteered on behalf of these organizations for major portions of their lives might feel differently. But I immediately realized that was a defensive reaction.

There is a classic case of nonprofit law involving cy pres, a legal doctrine which asserts that if a donor’s intent can no longer be met his or her gift should be devoted to another cause “as close as possible” to the original cause.

The case I’m thinking of involved a lighthouse in Boston Harbor. A trust had been established to bring the local newspapers to the lighthouse keeper from Boston each week by boat. Eventually the lighthouse was automated and the keeper retired. Through this technological advance there was no way for the trust’s original intent to continue to be pursued. The court determined that delivering newspapers to an old sailors’ home was close enough and the trust’s purpose was shifted. Here is a hundred-year-old case of technology impacting a nonprofit’s purpose and fundamentally altering it.

I assume no one cried over the loss, but then again, the lighthouse no longer had any employees to shed those tears.

In the case, a long-slumbering board hires an entrepreneurial executive director to revitalize their museum. He brings in a small cohort of new board members who are local business leaders. Fundraising increases, and the business board members are highly involved, then they become too involved. They make executive decisions behind the director’s back, move the museum’s banking to the board chair’s bank, buy office equipment from another board member’s company, and tie the museum’s signature event to their businesses.

You can imagine the end of this story. Both the executive director and the board chair submit resignations in frustration and the organization is on the brink of collapse.

When I use this case I ask students, or workshop participants, to first determine what actually happened. Step by step, I want them to understand how the decisions unfolded and the relationships unraveled?

Then I ask them to apportion blame among the various parties – there is plenty to go around. Finally I ask them what could be done now. This usually leads to a lively discussion.

Cases are a powerful learning aid, a realization which brought me the following insight: could a nonprofit experiencing significant internal conflict or lack of clarity benefit from writing its own case?

The idea would be to gather organizational leaders from board and staff and give them a structured writing exercise where they describe the road that has gotten them to their current situation. What key decisions, external circumstances, and relationships were most significant? Maybe do it in small group format so that they can later compare and contrast different versions of the story.

This would lead to an airing of different viewpoints and ultimately, with luck and good facilitation, to a shared understanding of the present situation. With agreement on the “what happened” question, I would ask them to address the causes of their current situation, and then what can be done about it now?

This process follows the model of my big picture view of strategy. It asks: where are we, how did we get here, and what do we do about it?

Why are nonprofit organizations so often plagued by the very ills they aim to cure?  Read the article online, or download a PDF, and let us know what you think.