Nonprofit University Blog

What about founders? Do they help or hurt?  That was a student’s recent version of a question I get asked a lot, in many different setting?  Loaded question or what! 

The truth is that founders who know how to be good founders are a true asset, not just to the organization which they establish, but to the community which they serve.  Unfortunately, however, the flip side of that is equally true:  founders who do not know how to be good founders are worse than not being asset; they are a determinant to the organization and the community they intended to serve. There is a reason that whole forests have been felled to write about Founder’s Syndrome.  (Just do a web search on the term and you will get hundreds of thousands of hits, the vast majority of which talking about Founder’s Syndrome in the nonprofit sector.)  And a reason that the phenomenon was given such an odious name.  And so it is time to hail the good founders. 

Who is a good founder?  After all, anyone who has the passion, commitment, energy, truculence, fortitude—okay, I’ll stop—to start and sustain a nonprofit must be good.   That is clear.  But a founder isn’t good simply because s/he starts an organization.  A good founder understands that it truly does take a community to sustain a strong, vibrant, health nonprofit, and s/he builds that community initially and intentionally, and then let’s the community, of which s/he is a part, take over.  A good founder understands the value of having a board that will work in partnership with him/her, challenging, pushing, introducing new ideas, rather than, as a colleague refers to it, a board that will simply bobble their heads and rubber stamp. 

A good founder understands the importance of planning for his/her eventual departure, and thus cultivates new talent, builds an inclusive management structure, encourages independent thinking.  

A good founder understands the extreme importance of being open to new ideas, of staying ahead of the curve, of not going stagnant, as a stagnant organization is a dying organization. 

And finally, a good founder knows when it is time to move on and allow the community to continue the good work. To all of you good founders out there,  I tip my hat.  And to those who still think you organization you founded is yours, please come around and allow your original good intentions to flourish.

In criminology, there is a theory called “broken windows” used to explain how neighborhoods decline and become riddled with crime. Simply put, it goes like this: when the first evidence of “petty” crimes—vandalism, graffiti, loitering—goes unchecked and uncorrected, that is a signal to others that the neighborhood does not care. It is a welcome sign for more serious criminal activity. The first broken window that goes unrepaired, the initial graffiti that is not instantly removed, invites other, more serious crime into the neighborhood. Thus, this theory says, we need to worry about and respond to “public nuisance” crimes in a serious way.

I’d like to expand this notion to “broken decorum.” It goes like this: when a society no longer values or expects basic politeness, an adherence to the basics of please and thank you, it is a signal that society no longer cares about the homeless, the ill, poverty, hunger, health and wellbeing, the arts, etc. It has put out the welcome sign for self-centeredness and a lack of caring for others. The ramifications for our nonprofit sector are huge. This is not a conservative rant, please understand that, but a logical thought process that worries me greatly.

Recently, I have become even more appalled at the lack of common courtesy and respect exhibited regularly by people of all ages, but in particular by those who are of the generations that are, as we so love to say, “the leaders of tomorrow.” If our future leaders do not know how to hold a door open for someone more senior than they, how will they know they have a responsibility to care for a homebound neighbor? If our future leaders do not know how to say thank you when another does something for them, or to give up a seat on a crowded bus to a senior citizen or an adult with a baby, how will they know that they should care about the sick, providing access to all to the arts, ensuring a quality education for all children, protecting the environment, and so much more? If our future leaders aren’t being taught the rules of civility and protocol that ensure that a society’s windows are not broken, then we have opened the flood gates for a society that will no longer care about those less fortunate.

And this scares me.

“Are you biased?” asked the MBA student the first night of our Nonprofit Management class offered as an elective in La Salle University’s School of Business MBA program. Good question!

The basis of our question: Do I think nonprofits are better than for-profits? Do I prefer nonprofits to for-profits? Let’s not equate enthusiasm with bias. My mindset isn’t one of opposition, competition and tension, but one of symbiosis.

How often do you read somewhere in the literature of nonprofits that part of the reason they are pursuing their mission is “to improve the communities in which we live and work?” Quite often, if you are me. But if, on average, only one in 12 jobs is in a nonprofit, then most of the people working in the communities are working for a for-profit. Symbiosis.

If the boards of nonprofits want to bring to the board different perspectives or specialized talents such as finance or human resources, where do they look? The for-profit sector. And where do for-profits look for valuable but inexpensive professional development opportunities for their junior and up-and-coming executives? To serve on nonprofit boards of directors. Symbiosis!

In this world where competition seems to dominate, far too many people are setting up nonprofits and for-profits as enemies instead of allies. The communities in which we live and work are better when there are viable, healthy nonprofits and for-profits. When people earn enough money to buy large homes on big lots, patronize specialty and boutique stores and restaurants, pay full-freight for the theatre, and donate to charities, our communities are better as they have a healthy tax base, a diverse community, etc. And when corporations can demonstrate that the communities in which they operate have strong schools, arts and culture organizations, and social services to support every possible need, including providing drug and alcohol counseling to employees, our communities are enriched. Each brings to the table something the other lacks, and in that complimentarity, all are enriched. Perfect symbiosis!It should not be about competition, one being better than the other, but about how the for-profit and nonprofit worlds can work together to make communities stronger and better for all the residents.All of that said, perhaps what the student was picking up on was not a bias, but a personal preference: personally, I could never work in a for-profit; I’m simply not wired that way. This is not a judgment, merely a statement of fact.