NON-PROFIT SOCIETIES as HUMANIZING COMMUNITIES

by Gordon Laird

We humans hunger for genuine community and will work hard to maintain it precisely because it is the way to live most fully and vibrantly. - M. Scott Peck, 1987, p.137

People everywhere are searching for human closeness and meaningful community. Some are finding

it by moving to rural areas with small populations. Others are finding it in their citys neighborhoods, by joining clubs and associations, and even virtually by way of the internet. There are many kinds and levels of community, but they are all systems that can be made better by strategic planning and careful maintenance. In the following text the concept of community will be discussed, and non-profit societies will be examined as humanizing communities where people should be able to contribute to society while they more fully realize their own human potential. The importance of nourishing such a sense

of community in the non-profit societys board of directors will be stressed. The term community is often used loosely to refer to geographic locality and residential proximity.1
1

The concept of community, however, often

The Oxford Dictionary defines community as people living in one district.

2 transcends place and extends to any group of people who share common goals and pursue mutual interactions. These are often referred to as functional communities, some of which focus on healing as an end in itself. Alcoholics Anonymous is just one example of such a therapeutic community. In a more general sense, any community can provide an uplifting environment where human needs for belonging, engaged relationship, interpersonal recognition, personal challenge, meaningful value, and social contribution can be met. Ideally such an environment will also involve a degree of intimacy that makes it safe,2 as well as a mutual focus that provides motivation for belonging. It is in this humanizing dimension that there is a frantic search for meaningful community in our hectic and often deperson- alized society today (Martinez-Brawley, 2000, p.9).

Gangs are an exception to the need for intimacy in ones community. Although they can hardly be considered humanizing, still the members are often seeking to fulfill the same human needs. Furthermore, although a contribution to society is not made, still an impact upon society is sought. Spiritual values are replaced by exclusive and well-defined group values.

3 That people are moving in large numbers to small towns to find this kind of personal fulfillment has been a well-known trend for many years (for example, Fitzsimmons & Freedman, 1981, p.15). Moreover, computers have overcome many of the disadvantages of small-town living (such as high unemployment and isolation). The computer itself even provides opportunities for finding community; although devoid of face-to-face interaction, virtual communities bring people with mutual interests and shared values together from all over the globe (Yates, 2001, p.79). In large cities, wellestablished and/or well-planned neighborhoods can also provide a powerful sense of social empowerment (Wireman, 1984, p.121). Social workers can participate in the development and maintenance of these and many other forms of community. Some writers feel that all social workers are community agents to at least some degree (Homan, 1994, p.3). Perhaps the most relevant kind of community for social workers in their professional lives, however, especially those who do not flourish

4 in the impersonal atmosphere of bureaucratic agencies, is the non-profit society. The vision statement of the society becomes a common goal, and the people who work together towards that goal become a community in their own right. The recruitment and organization of volunteers who can fulfill their needs while making a positive contribution to society is more than consistent with social work values, and non-profit societies are often an important part of both the formal and informal helping networks of a given area. At the very heart of a non-profit society is its board of directors. This regularly-meeting group

of dedicated individuals forms a special community with considerable responsibility. The boards policymaking effects not only the organization and its clients, but also the spirit of the staff and frontline volunteers. In addition, the board is usually the caretaker of the organizations vision ( Perlmutter & Adams, 1990, p.11), maintains much of the organizations public image, and often takes care of the organizations financial well-being. Both in

5 corporate and non-profit enterprises, company failure is board failure (Leighton & Thain, 1997, p.132). Not the least of a boards important responsibilities, then, is to look after itself as a humanizing community. After all, board members are volunteers themselves who need emotional nourishment to be effective in their roles. Research shows that people volunteer as much to nurture and enrich themselves as to help others.3 This is not a call for self-indulgence; the interests of individuals should not be placed above the goals of the group (Fisher, 1977, p.9). Still, any community must strike a balance between the needs of its members and its needs as a functioning entity. Addressing personal requirements is important not only for humanitarian reasons but to keep the organization itself healthy. Even for people who work in non-profits, earnings are statistically not as important as the personal rewards of the work itself and the person-oriented work environment (VinokurKaplan, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1994, p. 118). The
3

Canadian Council on Social Development (as cited in Fisher, 1977, p.7); see also Smillie (1995, pp.27-28).

6 humanizing dimension of any group is important, but even more so in the community-oriented volunteer environment of a non-profit society. In addition to the business of its mandated task, the emotional glue that holds a healthy nonprofit board together is a strong commitment to its vision. This vision must be carefully articulated in the boards mission statement and re-visited frequently. The values represented by the vision should be clear and concrete in order to best motivate the organizations members and to satisfy the human value requirement of humanizing community. This is especially important when a non-profit society ventures into commercial activity,4 which brings with it a whole new set of organizational rigours. This can be very challenging and often hazardous for the society, and although cost mentality is strengthened, commitment to the original

A non-profit society may compete in the commercial arena to preserve itself in a field that has been invaded by private enterprise, or alternatively to preserve traditional programs which are no longer selfsupporting (Perlmutter & Adams, 1990, p.10). In either case, the society must preserve its community orientation and the special strengths of its non-profit status.

7 spirit of its existence may be forgotten (Perlmutter & Adams, 1990, p.10). The consequences for a non-profit board with an insufficient statement of values can be seen in the case of EINOS (the Elliot Lake and North Shore Corporation for Business Development). Set up by Bob Raes NDP government in 1993 to revitalize Elliot Lake after many of its uranium contracts were cancelled, the board was pre-selected, fully funded, and given a specific task. Eight years later, the organization has torn apart the community it was supposed to help rebuild (Sinclair, 2001, p.52). Finding itself in the midst of legal battles, personal bitterness, and accusations of financial irregularity might have been avoided had more thought been put into the values that could keep the board cohesive and focused through hard times. Having a job to do is not enough. Most non-profits come together in the first place around strongly held values, and they often have to struggle valiantly for their initial survival. In this struggle, they tend to fall back

8 on their value statements to keep them going. It is vitally important to keep these values current and alive, especially as the organization grows more complex. Keeping a focus on the mission statement and its concomitant values also helps keep the board from becoming self-absorbed. After all, we constantly need to be on guard against self-centered communities, just as we need to watch out for selfcentered individuals (Etzioni, 1993, p.37). The central theme of this paper is that a healthy board must attend to itself as a humanizing community. In this sense, it is important for a board to focus on what has been called collective empowerment (Steiner, Gross, Ruffulo, & Murray, 1994, p.98) and organic solidarity (Sederberg, 1984, p.235). This entails treating each other with honesty, respect, and occasionally indulgence. It also involves each member taking an active role and following through on commitments in order to earn respect. Board members work hard together, and the better they know each other the easier it will be to develop a constituency for the interests they each

9 want to bring to the table (Christenson, 1988, p.14). In addition, they will have to trust and lean on each other because they:
need each others help, support, and power to deal with the inevitable divide-and-conquer routines that always seem to crop up. This applies particularly to the coordination of committees restricted in their concerns so that sensitive matters fall between terms of reference and are left unexamined by all directors. Leighton & Thain, 1997, p.105

Recognition is also important. While boards often put programs in place to recognize staff and make sure someone is in charge of writing thank-you letters to volunteers, they must also remember to apply this principle amongst themselves. Recognition is one of the key aspects of humanizing community. Not only recognition for a job well done, but also being recognized as a unique person with something to offer. It is important that board members relate to each other as full-blooded individuals and not just directors. One other often neglected way to increase a boards cohesiveness, then, is for the members to frequently relate to each other outside the board room:

10
board members must get away from the usual work environment, step out of organizational roles, and collaborate as peers to enhance motivation. There should always be plans in place for individuals to relate to each other in new configurations. Steiner et al. 1994, p.97

On the one hand, board members must always be concerned with collegiality towards their fellows. At the same time, in order to function most effectively the board must avoid group-think. Although

individuals should try to avoid taking up the boards time with negativity, there should always be tolerance for listening to dissention. Everyone must

feel free to contribute fully, and no one should be afraid to voice differences of opinion. Not only can this prevent errors, hasty decisions, and add to the available options, it is also a good way to avoid complacency in the organization. Not unlike small towns, boards can be open systems where there is a free exchange of information or closed systems in which inertia and resistance to change can be a major problem (Leighton & Thain, 1997, p.139). Encouraging upward communication from staff can be a very important way for boards to keep

11 apprised of what is really going on (Gummer, 1989, p.122). It is also critically important for a board to keep in touch with the membership of the society; not only to keep in touch, but to keep the membership vital by reminding it of the organizations mission, by providing opportunities to get involved, and by continually seeking new members. Although sometimes painful, boards must not be afraid to make changes in key personnel, long-time practices, and well-established procedures if these are warranted by an honest assessment of the organizations best interests. There will always be a tension between seeking stability and remaining adaptive to new ideas, new conditions, and new enthusiasms (Sederberg, 1984, p.149). One major difference between corporate and nonprofit boards, besides not being responsible to shareholders for financial return, is in the nature of their leadership. Often the chairman of a corporate board is an experienced professional who knows every aspect of his or her organizations affairs. The chairman of a non-profit board may have

12 no experience in the field and know little about the organizations actual operation. In this respect, the executive director must play a key role both informing the board of the operations functioning and helping to maintain the board and the organization as healthy places to work and interact. Whether planning policy to encourage social networking in neighborhoods or trying to keep a board of directors working at their best, applying the basics of humanizing community can make a powerful impact. It may seem a small matter compared to the difficult business on the agenda, and insurmountable considering the politics that may already be getting out of control, but we must work to retain our higher purpose and cultivate the values of our organization:

Idealism is a purposeful, powerful belief. A real idealist is willing to take a hard, uncompromising look at the world and reckon with it, trusting his or her own power, strength of decency, and others who share those convictions. An idealist simply refuses to capitulate to a plodding dullness of spirit. Homan, 1994, p.32

13

Reference List
Christenson, J. (1988). Social risk and rural sociology. Rural Sociology 53 (1), 1-24. Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community change: Rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian agenda. N.Y: Crown Publishers. Fisher, J. (1977). Money isnt everything: A survival manual for non-profit organizations. Toronto: Management and Fundraising Center, Publishing Div. Homan, M. (1994). Promoting community change: Making it happen in the real world. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Fitzsimmons, S. & Freedman, A. (1981). Rural community development: A program, policy, and research model. Cambridge: Abt Books. Gummer, B. (1989). It aint what you say, its the way you say it: Communication and organizational influence processes. Administration in Social Work 13 (1), 113-130. Leighton, D., & Thain, D. (1997). Making boards work: What directors must do to make Canadian boards effective. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited. Martinez-Brawley, E. (2000). Close to home: Human services and the small community. Washington, D.C: National Association of Social Workers Press.

Peck, M. (1987). The different drum: Community making and peace. N.Y: Simon and Schuster.

14 Perlmutter, D., & Adams, C. (1990). The voluntary sector and for-profit ventures: The transformation of American social welfare? Administration in Social Work 14 (1), 1-13. Sederberg, P. (1984). The politics of meaning: Power and explanation in the construction of social reality. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Sinclair, S. (July, 2001). A town divided: A nonprofit companys dismal failure has torn apart placid Elliot Lake, a community it was designed to help. Financial Post, 51-57. Smillie, I. (1995). Altruism under fire: Non-profit organizations and International Development. Ottowa: International Development Research Center. Steiner, J., Gross, G., Ruffulo, M., & Murray, J. Strategic planning in non-profits: Profit from it. Administration in Social Work 18 (2), 87-106. Wireman, P. (1984). Urban neighborhoods, networks, and families: New forms for old values. Toronto: Lexington Books (D.C. Heath and Company). Vinokur-Kaplan, O., Jyaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1994). Job satisfaction and retention of social workers in public agencies, non-profit agencies, and private practice: The import of workplace motivators. Administration in Social Work 18(3), 93-121. Yates, S. (2001). Virtual volunteering lets everyone contribute to non-profit groups. Good Times 123 (4), 79-80.

15