An Unearned Reputation (Smoke and Mirrors)

We can probably all think of nonprofits in our community that everyone knows, that enjoy stellar reputations, and to whom others give without a second thought. But you know better. You know its downfalls, the behind the scenes, how it treats its staff and clients, makes decisions, handles money, etc. And you aren’t the only one who knows; others in the community—the nonprofit community that is—know, too. But no one calls them out, publicly. And their reputation and stature in the community remain high, though decidedly undeserved.

What is our responsibility to police our own sector—not quietly, talking only with others who already know, but out there and reveal that the emperor is wearing no clothes?  Because as long as the emperor is allowed to continue to prance about naked, to act as if it is walking the walk it preaches to others, but is really only talking the talk, nonprofits who deserve to be on everyone’s lips and at the front of the donation receiving line aren’t getting their just due. Are those of us who know, but remain silent, aiding and abetting the fraud? Are we all part of a conspiracy allowing the scam to take place?

Recently, I was speaking with the friend of a colleague who was looking for a job in the nonprofit sector. In the course of the conversation with this person, an organization’s name came up with a query of, “Should I look here.” I said what I always say when this organization’s name is mentioned in the context of applying for a job: “I’d stay as far away as possible.” In this case, my statement wasn’t met with surprise or astonishment, but a simple, “That’s what everyone I’ve talked to has said.”

This same organization came up again, within days of this interview. An undergrad who had come to me once before for some help and leads sent me an email asking me for some suggestions of resources for the research he was doing as part of an “amazing” internship. Where was the internship?  The same organization I’d stay as far away from as possible—and an organization that should have been able to direct its own intern to the necessary resources, instead of needing to send him out to find them on his own. But no one inside knew where to start looking. My point? This organization continues in the larger public domain unfettered by what we in the community know, receiving accolades and donations based not on how it actually performs, or what it does, but because of its name, its staying-power and a reputation that maybe was once deserved.

Those of us in the know understand that the crash will come eventually to these types of organizations, as that does seem to be what inevitably happens. But what that crash will look like is variable. It may be that the leader eventually is ousted or the organization declares bankruptcy or it becomes a shadow of its former self or it simply closes. All to a totally stunned public, some of who may even get angry at themselves for not seeing it, the board for allowing it, staff for not revealing it. But on the list of potential targets for that anger are unlikely to be staff of other nonprofits that knew but did nothing.

But is it the job of the good and the decent in the nonprofit sector to rat out nonprofits that put themselves out as being grander than they are? The vast majority of nonprofits are not watchdog organizations. Our missions aren’t to monitor others to see if their reputation and stature are accurately deserved or built on a house of cards.

But does not each nonprofit benefit from a strong sector and, thus, have a moral responsibility to protect the good name of the sector as a whole? Thus, isn’t it the responsibility of every “good” nonprofit to expose those nonprofits that do a disservice to the sector? Philosophically, this is very nice—and righteous–thought, but then reality impinges showing us the troubles of navigating Scylla and Charybdis. Exposing the pretenders taints the whole sector, as we know the general American public paints all nonprofits with one brush.

Thus, good intentions end up achieving the very opposite of what was intended – protecting the good name of the sector. On the other hand, failing to name the pretenders allows for injustice and unfairness, things that the nonprofit sector fights against. Not calling others out allows fallacies to continue, fiercely sought after donations to go to the “wrong” places, those who are deserving to not find room in the limelight, etc. Thus, our sector cannot get credit for all the good that it does and the thousands of great organizations whose names aren’t household words can never be recognized.

Homer had Odysseus sacrifice a few for the well-being of the whole. But where does the overall well-being of the sector lie: a (short-term?) marred reputation for a more honest sector or a reputation as a community doing great work by great organizations marred here and there with pretenders?