What would you think if a job that you were interested in asked you to work for free for at least six months to a year before even considering applying? And not only work for free, but also work abroad? Would you jump at the opportunity?

This is a basic expectation of most entry level jobs in global health and the entry level jobs that expensive to obtain experience qualifies you for are far from challenging and substantive. Here is an excerpt of responsibilities from a large nonprofit organization that works in global health (portions are redacted that are specific to the organization.)

“• Assist in preparation, review, and editing of reports, scopes of work, papers, manuals and presentations;
• Schedule and coordinate meetings and prepare necessary meeting materials;
• Maintain organization of electronic and paper files;
• Assist with tracking and submission of all project deliverables on two key projects;
• Work with travel agent to coordinate travel logistics for site visits and meetings;
• Assist in preparation of consulting agreements, purchase orders, and/or sub-contracts.” 

Global health is definitely one industry where Gen Y has not changed the way the workplace functions. There is a high barrier to entry for recent college graduates who can not afford to pay for their volunteer experience abroad neither during college internships nor after graduation. Unpaid internships are the norm rather than outliers. Global health is an industry where supply outstrips demand, partly due to the advent of high profile organizations such as the Gates Foundations and the Clinton Foundation.

Even when you finally enter the workplace, finding a challenging position is very much about paying dues. Entry level jobs consist almost entirely of administrative work. Management hierarchy and approaches to management are heavily influence by government practices due to the overlap of both personnel and the funding from agencies such as United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These same management practices certainly play a role in the declining interest in government careers.

Millenials generally have two paths to receiving a promotion: work in the mindnumbingly dull entry level job for 2 years or go to graduate school. Promotion is heavily based on seniority of tenure and/or credentials rather than talent and expertise. I would love to spare myself from spending thousands of dollars, however it is not really an option. My decision to live abroad was prompted as much by personal reasons as career considerations.

The future of this field depends on the injection of new ideas and perspectives that Gen Y has to ability and desire to deliver.  I wonder when and if the powers that will be willing to accept and welcome them.

Lucy at Philanthropy 2173 has started an interesting discussion regarding cross-platform philanthropy:

“Just as a radio program or tv show must now be developed with an eye toward its other media platforms and outlets, our public/philanthropic financing of these ventures need to be considered within these “cross sector” financing opportunities. We need to think of philanthropic funding strategies - and the public goods they support - as cross-platform. Public goods are now provided by private firms, public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and social enterprises. They are funded by public dollars, charitable donations, fees for service, corporate sponsorship, licenses, social investments, sales, and search engine/ad revenue. Oh, I like this metaphor - I’m gonna have to expand on it — next post.”

Taking the idea further, I started thinking about changes that might take place if non-profits were traded on the stock market like for-profit enterprises.

1. More secure and steady source of funding

Currently, non-profits compete for a limited set of funds among possible donors. A donor’s choice of the beneficiary may be influenced by media coverage of the cause the organization supports. Because there is a finite source of funds, prevailing priorities determine which causes and organizations gain the most. Reliance on quarterly fundraising totals can swing between feast and famine with any number of factors affecting donors: economic conditions, other pressing events, etc. Companies participating in stock exchanges generate profit from the value they offer through goods and services. Generating profit is not a zero sum game in the market; all organizations have the opportunity to show the value that their organization brings about and earn profit.

2. Changes in the organizational governance structure

Trading non-profits on the stock market also democratizes the governance structure of the organization. Shareholders have a financial stake and hopefully a personal interest in effective programming. Members of the community can share their insight about how the organization can be most effective directly with management. Involving more opinions in the direction and governance of the organization diversifies perspectives and strategic direction, much like some organizations hope to do by recruiting millennials to non-profit boards.

3. Altered definition of organizational accountability and responsibility

Non-profits would have an external measure to determine how well they are at doing good. Right now, most accountability for evaluation and demonstration of effectiveness is less of a requirement for continued donor support. Within the market, organizations that could prove they actually accomplish what they set out to accomplish will see the dividends literally in the stock dividends. Developing and maintaining effective and sustainable programs would affect the bottom line, promoting evaluation and the incorporation of best practices.

What do you think about the idea of nonprofits on the stock market? Worthless adaptation from for profit enterprises or the future of nonprofit fundraising? Let me know what you think in the comment section below.