How Much is it Worth to You?

I got into an interesting Twitter exchange yesterday with Mark Reardon of KMOX.  He was upset that the new Manager for the Ferguson Commission was being paid $138,915.  Set aside whether one thinks that salary is appropriate for this particular job.  The issue I tried to raise with Mark is the knee-jerk reaction that if a non-profit person is paid well, it is a waste of resources (see also my post on this blog, “In Search of Sustainability”).  I don’t see anyone reacting that way when a corporate executive gets a large compensation package (much larger than you’re ever likely to see at any non-profit).  But when I said that to Mark, he scoffed.

 

Why?  If a corporate CEO is paid $10 million and the company delivers gains to shareholders, no one complains; in fact, the CEO is very likely to receive an increase in compensation.  So why do we so often react negatively if a non-profit professional is paid $100,000 to help solve an intractable problem?  That makes no sense to me.

No one would think of asking the CEO of a major U.S. company to accept $60,518 per year (the median salary of a non-profit ED in the U.S.) to run her organization.  Well, how much should we pay people who are tackling racism?  Or poverty?  Or homelessness?

The exact number isn’t important to me: the devaluation of non-profit professionals is. Surely the alleviation of poverty is at least as important as the release of the newest gadget. If so, that means holding non-profit professionals in the same esteem as their corporate counterparts and, like the for-profit sector at its best, compensating them well when they show results. At the end of the day, a person should not have to be put in the position of choosing between dedicating her talents to creating social good and having the resources to provide for her family.