Is passivity an innate trait in a nonprofit organization?

Be honest.

Does anyone feel that working at a non-profit is less like having a job and more like supporting a cause? Jobs mean you’re making money. A cause means you sacrifice. Reading through complitchick’s entry made me realize that whenever I think of nonprofits I don’t think of business growth and job markets. I think of causes and for the community. I think of filling a niche the for-profit world does not choose to engage in.

It’s not really an obvious thought that normally occurs to me. Instead, it is the conceptualization I hold that emerges below the surface like a large rock in a stream. I don’t usually see it, but it does change my thought-flow.

I realize that my underlying understanding of nonprofit is the same one that parts of the nonprofit sector had about itself. Does the need to ask the general public for funds cause the nonprofit world (that engages in fundraising) to put itself in a place of servitude more-so than a for-profit company? Certainly influential donors sit on the board of directors and can carry as much clout as an investor. What is the investment? Success is defined by fulfilling its purpose for existence and making enough money to do the same thing next year. The locus of control is put into the general public or its donors.

A for-profit company puts its locus of control into its shareholders. Which shareholders run the company? The ones that have put the most stock into them. Money, the bottom line, it has been said a number of times is what drives a for-profit company. Otherwise they wouldn’t be called for-profits. The locus of control is given to the people that hold the greatest financial investment.

As you can see, the two are very similar. The difference is that a non-profit has to scramble to change for the purpose they serve while at the same time make money. A for-profit, however, has only to change enough to maximize its ultimate goal – make money. Being that that is the main focus, a for-profit puts all its energy into making more money – a singular definition of success. The NPO has its double-definition of success: Fulfill the purpose for which they exist (not money) and make enough money to continue striving for its goal. Ultimately both are only as good as their publics will let them be. They both answer to key shareholders/board members.

There are plenty of aggressive nonprofits whose aim it seems is to make more money to put into the organization so it can make more money to do better next year and certainly there are passive for-profits, though I fail to come up with any examples off the top of my head.

I rhetorically ask the title question to provoke thought. It may or may not be true. I am not asking a question of reality, but one of context. What do you think when you think of nonprofit? We are learning of the many different roles non-profits play in our society. So, think back to your high school, or perhaps undergrad class and do a free-writing exercise while thinking of nonprofit. What is the feeling that you get when you think of a nonprofit? What do thoughts of a for-profit company conjure up in you? Where do the respective industries stand themselves?