4 ms·

I have never seen a functional non-profit. I've seen quite a few. For whatever reason, non-profits seem to attract all kinds of people who are motivated by th

I have never seen a functional non-profit. I've seen quite a few. For whatever reason, non-profits seem to attract all kinds of people who are motivated by things I can only describe as "weird." Not sure how to put my finger on it, but your overall depiction does seem a bit, how to put this, "drama queen"-ish. As in, yes, we've all known of certain horror stories, meltdowns, etc, among non-profits. But overall your characterization (not specific to the sentence above) seems rather hyperbolic. People join non-profits with all kinds of motivations, just like they do for-profits. Yes, you do find narcissists -- but you also find a lot of solid, highly principled (and highly skilled) people. It's just that their stories usually aren't the ones that trigger open letters, blogposts, and interactive timeline visualizations.

ianamartin 11y ago
I'm calling it as I've seen it from my experience. I think I made that pretty clear. I'm not trying to make a general case that there is some specific quality of non-profits that makes it impossible for them to be functional. As I said pretty clearly above, the wikimedia story sounds typical, based on my interactions with non-profits.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Your experience, though, does not meet the reality that there are many fine non-profit success stories. There are a lot of non-functional ones, but I think all folks are pointing out is that it isn't as dire as you have seen.
  - ianamartin 11y ago
    Success is not the same as functional. One could argue that wikimedia has been very successful in its mission and it is at the same time also disfunctional. I wouldn't call any of the non-profits I've worked at failures. Hell, many people have described companies like Microsoft as badly disfunctional, but it would be hard to argue that they are not successful. If I stepped on anyone's toes with my post, I apologize. I was not trying to take a swipe at any one or any type of organization. I'm still involved with a number of organizations and admire and respect the work that they do.
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      No, I didn't mean to imply your experiences aren't valuable. I am the one who should apologise.
      - RyanSingley 11y ago
        This kind of civil and thoughtful disagreement on the internet is rare, bravo.
    - Angostura 11y ago
      By the criteria you're using, I'm struggling to think of many fully 'functional' for profits that I've worked for.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  Well, we've had vastly different experiences, then. But to state that one isn't aware of the existence of large, decades-old, indisputably functioning non-profit organizations (like e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières) seems, well... disconnected from reality.
- badsock 11y ago
  My experience agrees with yours. I've worked at two companies whose clients have all been non-profits - this has put me in a position to witness the state of dozens of them. I've also spent just as much time in the private sector, which has lent some contrast. While there are definitely some very well-run non-profits, they are (in my experience) more the exception than the rule. Having said that, I wouldn't say the majority of private sector companies are well-run either. But in general, the level of flakiness, obsessive behaviour, and eccentricness bordering on insanity was much, much higher at the non-profits. I don't necessarily think that it translated into poor performance as a rule, but at the very least it isn't pretty. The office parties are a hell of a lot more fun, however, and for my part I'd prefer the company of someone at a non-profit. I have a theory that there's just as much crazy behaviour at for-profits, it's just less tolerated and therefore better hidden (rather than absent).
Chris2048 11y ago
Wouldn't you need to know of OPs experience to know whether it is hyperbole? You're pushing your own experience as more canonical, and putting the difference down to a 'drama queen' label attributed to OP.

ianamartin 11y ago

I'm calling it as I've seen it from my experience. I think I made that pretty clear. I'm not trying to make a general case that there is some specific quality of non-profits that makes it impossible for them to be functional. As I said pretty clearly above, the wikimedia story sounds typical, based on my interactions with non-profits.

chris_wot 11y ago
Your experience, though, does not meet the reality that there are many fine non-profit success stories. There are a lot of non-functional ones, but I think all folks are pointing out is that it isn't as dire as you have seen.
- ianamartin 11y ago
  Success is not the same as functional. One could argue that wikimedia has been very successful in its mission and it is at the same time also disfunctional. I wouldn't call any of the non-profits I've worked at failures. Hell, many people have described companies like Microsoft as badly disfunctional, but it would be hard to argue that they are not successful. If I stepped on anyone's toes with my post, I apologize. I was not trying to take a swipe at any one or any type of organization. I'm still involved with a number of organizations and admire and respect the work that they do.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    No, I didn't mean to imply your experiences aren't valuable. I am the one who should apologise.
    - RyanSingley 11y ago
      This kind of civil and thoughtful disagreement on the internet is rare, bravo.
  - Angostura 11y ago
    By the criteria you're using, I'm struggling to think of many fully 'functional' for profits that I've worked for.
kafkaesq 11y ago
Well, we've had vastly different experiences, then. But to state that one isn't aware of the existence of large, decades-old, indisputably functioning non-profit organizations (like e.g. Médecins Sans Frontières) seems, well... disconnected from reality.
badsock 11y ago
My experience agrees with yours. I've worked at two companies whose clients have all been non-profits - this has put me in a position to witness the state of dozens of them. I've also spent just as much time in the private sector, which has lent some contrast. While there are definitely some very well-run non-profits, they are (in my experience) more the exception than the rule. Having said that, I wouldn't say the majority of private sector companies are well-run either. But in general, the level of flakiness, obsessive behaviour, and eccentricness bordering on insanity was much, much higher at the non-profits. I don't necessarily think that it translated into poor performance as a rule, but at the very least it isn't pretty. The office parties are a hell of a lot more fun, however, and for my part I'd prefer the company of someone at a non-profit. I have a theory that there's just as much crazy behaviour at for-profits, it's just less tolerated and therefore better hidden (rather than absent).

Chris2048 11y ago

Wouldn't you need to know of OPs experience to know whether it is hyperbole? You're pushing your own experience as more canonical, and putting the difference down to a 'drama queen' label attributed to OP.