Just Pay Them by
John
Mcllquham
The Nonprofit Times, March 1999
Volunteers' managers getting shorted in pay
Executive and staff compensation can be a telling point for the
emphases an organization places on the way it's managed and the resources
used to fund programs. Last month's NPT 1999 salary study (and the last
one of this century, depending on your calculation of when the century
ends) made some important points beyond the literal numbers, some of which
were disheartening, frankly.
One point constantly made through the years by professional
associations and leaders of the nonprofit field is that executives of
nonprofit organizations are generally paid less than their for-profit
counterparts. It's been a generally accepted point of fact that taking a
job with a nonprofit means less money but greater emotional reward.' Also,
some nonprofits offered better benefits and a certain intrinsic payment
for helping others, which was a supposed attraction for burnt-out
commercial executives.
Nonprofit organizations, like their commercial counterparts, have
compensation packages that vary according to the size of the organization.
As in the for-profit world, management salaries are linked to operating
income, not revenues, a fact often lost in discussions of who gets paid
and why. Volunteers are the heart and soul of every nonprofit organization
and therefore part of the revenue stream. They are the both the tangible
and intangible badge that distinguishes a flourishing organization from a
floundering one. Look at any successful nonprofit and it always has an
active volunteer recruitment and retention program.
Volunteers are often mentioned from podiums and panels alike as the
distinguishing force between the nonprofit and the for-profit world. They
are the bread and butter symbol of what makes a nonprofit organization
tick. Given the major restructuring going on in volunteer programs, as
nonprofits have had to adjust to the alterations of today's labor force
and volunteer retention efforts, the urgency to recruit top volunteer
directors should become more urgent, not Ness so. At least you would think
that, until you look at our salary survey, which suggests that volunteer
directors are one of the most poorly compensated among a variety of
nonprofit management positions.
On average, last year's volunteer director made only $33,541, according
to our survey. An equivalent middle management position in a sales or
marketing organization would be at least $57,500, according to a recent
study by Abbott, Langer & Associates, and probably with not as much
responsibility or number of people to supervise.
Also, planned giving officers were barely able to inch out a paltry
increase from last year's numbers. A less than 1 percent climb suggests
that planned giving positions may have reached a ceiling and that despite
increasing demand for qualified planned giving officers, organizations may
have reached their salary limit for that position.
In case you are wondering about the very top, the average nonprofit
chief executive officers would fall somewhere between a top marketing
communications executive and regional sales manager in the same Abbott,
Langer & Associates salary survey. Even more discouraging is that
development directors, the real "sales managers" for a nonprofit
organization, fell below the salary levels of both planned giving and
major giving officers in our survey.
Is it any wonder larger organizations find resistance among development
directors to turning over their best donors for cultivation to a planned
giving officer or major gifts officer sent from headquarters?
The other amazing aspect to our compensation study is that in larger
organizations, there are only small differences between salary levels
among titles, other than president or chief executive officer.
Organizations may recognize the same value among planned giving, major
gifts, direct mail and development. The only exception to that equilibrium
is, you guessed it, volunteer director, which falls off precipitously.
Some organizations have purposely depressed salary levels to avoid
public criticism. The mind-set that nonprofit managers should be paid less
is without foundation. If organizations want the best stewards of their'
time and labor resources, they should pay for them and justify the
performance outcome as any other for-profit company.
Volunteers are the bedrock of a nonprofit organization- Managers of
volunteer programs deserve better pay and should command more respect.
AVA's Response: (printed in The Nonprofit Times, June 1999)
Volunteer Managers Get Their Due
Dear Editor:
The recent Out on a Limb feature entitled "Just Pay Them" by John
McIlquham struck a chord with members of our international asssociation of
volunteer leaders. Mr. McIlquham's thoughtful article confirmed what we
had suspected for some time and then confirmed in a recent survey of our
members -- salaries of managers of volunteer programs do not reflect the
value of the human resources they secure, maintain and grow for their
organizations. And, we pay the price for it in the end.
On behalf of our membership I want to thank you for the attention paid
to this obvious discrepancy. This issue is important because it is not
just about the volunteer managers of programs. These leaders are
well-trained professionals, many with academic credentials from colleges
or certification designation by our association. They have been involved
in building collaboratives before it was fashionable. They oftne manage
large, complex, dynamic programs. When salaries don't keep up, these
people unwillingly leave the profession to take positions which are
compensated more appropriately. The result is that too often less
experienced and skilled people fill the position because they are the only
applicants.
Who suffers? The unfortunate answer is clients and organizations and
communities. How do we know? Our anecdotal feedback and a 1997 survey by
the UPS Foundation which, among other findings, presented data that
indicates that the most often cited reason for volunteers leaving a
program was "poor management."
Translation: quality volunteer program managers mean quality programs
for clients and for organizations. Taken to an extreme: poor management
equals no volunteers or fewer volunteers equals limited organizational
services to communities.
Thank you for giving this issue the attention it deserves. We stand
ready to work with orgainzations who share our concern about the impact
this phenomenon had, does have and will have on the future of the
communities in which we live.
Michael Newman, President
Association for Volunteer
Administration
| 
