The nonprofit sector prides itself on our commitment to justice and societal transformation. We speak of working to provide access, equity, opportunity and dignity to those who are either powerless or on the down side of power relationships.

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?

Recently I was invited to discuss social policy implications of our NonprofitNext research initiative and Convergence report findings with a group of arts organization leaders, arts funders, and policymakers in the Twin Cities. Despite the frigid weather my colleague Brent Copen and I received a warm Minnesota welcome throughout our two-day trip.

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.