Hot Topics

This Month's Responses

March 2001
Purity and Reality: For-Profit Consulting in Volunteerism
By Susan J. Ellis

 

March is Energize's anniversary month. Adding another year is always cause for reflection, particularly as we are beginning our milestone 25th year in business.

From time to time, I find myself facing a degree of suspicion over the fact that Energize is a for-profit company-serving a field in which financial "profit" is never the point. My most recent encounter over this issue followed the World Volunteer Conference in Amsterdam, during which some key IAVE leaders were heard to complain that too many workshops were led by "consultant-types" rather than "true" volunteerism practitioners. Needless to say, this pushed all my buttons, as it implied "using" volunteerism for personal gain.

Apologies to everyone to whom this thought never occurred! Further apologies to anyone who views this "Hot Topic" as a whine. But I wanted to use Energize's anniversary as an opportunity to challenge any thinking that draws lines in the sand between people who are "pure" and "impure."

Debates about purity have been raging for decades. First it was whether "enabling funds" somehow tainted genuine volunteering. Then we disputed academic credit as personal gain for students in community service. Yet another heated discussion continues to be whether paid managers of volunteer services are somehow less worthy than volunteers themselves. The debate in focus here is whether it is somehow self-evident that being a nonprofit organization is more admirable than being a for-profit business.

Let's settle the major issue right now: Anyone can be self-serving and no one accrues "purity" simply by falling into one category rather than another.

Why Volunteerism Needs Consultants
On the assumption that most volunteerism practitioners agree with this last statement, let's look at why volunteerism needs consultants (as does almost any field):

1. Competent consultants make it their business to keep informed about trends, issues, new ideas, and new resources. This accrual (and analysis) of knowledge would be enormously time consuming for anyone handling a program management job. It is also hard for someone in a specific type of program to get access to the wider world of resources without some effort and cost.
   
   
2. Competent consultants are into cross-fertilization. Because they work with many different types of clients, they are able to identify practices that are relevant to many settings-and they are able to translate when they see in one place into the context and vocabulary of a different place.
   
   
3. Most organizations do not give themselves enough opportunity to spend time thinking and planning. This is something of a luxury. But, when money is spent on a consultation, the organization justifies the time spent by staff in focusing, discussing, and reaching decisions on that subject. The fee somehow forces everyone to pay attention.
   
   
4. With some pre-planning, consultants can be hired on the schedule of the client--available in short bursts of time to meet deadline requirements. One of the reason consultants charge fees is accessibility--if an organization wants a training session on May 6, the consultant doesn't have to request limited leave from a full-time job to be available.
   
   
5. Finally, consultants – as outsiders – can ask hard questions and take the risk of challenging the status quo. While this is sometimes thought of as being the "hatchet man," it is more like asking "where are the emperor's clothes?" Asking "why?" is a powerful tool.

For any readers who are considering transitioning into consulting, think about whether these are tasks you want to do.

For-Profit vs. Not-for-Profit Consultants
The field of volunteerism has access to consultants/trainers and other resources in three ways:

• Universities: both through academic centers for nonprofit support and through individual faculty who earn side incomes from private consulting.
  
  
• Nonprofit technical assistance organizations, which in our field include Points of Light, National Center for Nonprofit Boards, local volunteer centers, and general nonprofit support groups, among others.
  
  
• Private consulting firms (which may be sole practitioners) and publishing houses.

Take a look at the rates for workshops sponsored by universities or the cost of materials produced by some nonprofits, and you'll quickly see that all three categories charge for what they do. You'll also see that high wages for top nonprofit execs as well as dividends to company owners both equate to "personal gain."

The difference is not money or even the excess of revenue over expenses (profit), it's the source of it. Nonprofits have to impress funders and donors; businesses have to prove themselves to consumers. If you are interested in the philosophical reason why I started Energize as a business, go the end of the Web page "About Us." I am not trying to make a counterargument that for-profits are "better"; I just want to challenge some prejudice.

The prejudice about for-profit vs. not-for-profit has many manifestations. For example, the cost of such things as exhibit booths, ad space, resource materials, organizational memberships, and even conference registrations, is frequently divided into lower nonprofit and higher business rates, even though size or annual budget are much fairer indicators of ability to pay than how an organization is legally incorporated.

One last thought on the question of "consultant-types" at conferences. Most attendees continue to earn their salaries while attending a conference. But when you see consultants at something like the IAVE conference or the ICVA, most have decided to forego paying work for that time, plus pay their own expenses to attend. The professional payback is worth it, but it's not financial.

So do you have any thoughts on this combination of reflection, venting and information? Your comments are welcomed, as always.

Read People's Responses