The “Humanity” Sector?
I just read another great article from the Harvard Business Review blog entitled “Let’s Call it the Humanity Sector,” by Dan Pallotta, a “leading expert on innovation in the nonprofit sector and a pioneering social entrepreneur.”
He’s also the author of Uncharitable: How Restraints on Nonprofits Undermine their Potential.
He starts his article by taking issue with the term “nonprofit”:
“Even on the basis of the modern understanding of profit, the nonprofit sector suffers from the distinction of being the only sector whose name begins with a negative…It apologizes for itself before it begins. It communicates only what it is against and is silent about what it is for.”
He then asks if there’s a better term, and highlights a few alternate terms currently being used, such as the “third” sector, the “independent” sector, the “voluntary” sector, and the “social” sector.”
Rejecting each of these terms in turn, he then calls on the “nonprofit” to break free from that unfortunate word choice:
“But let us not resign ourselves to this little universe. Let’s embrace truth — embrace our dreams, our real motivations — our souls, even…The word ‘charity’ comes from the Greek ‘charos,’ for grace. It’s tender. It’s beautiful. The word ‘philanthropy’ comes from an equally honest elucidation — the Latin ‘philos’ and ‘anthropos’ for ‘love of humanity.’ Love. Grace. Humanity. Now we’re getting somewhere.
“…What brings us to this work is our humanity.”
Click here to read the full article — it’s assuredly worth your time.
As one who makes a living from words, I’m 100% with him. A strategic word change could help to propel the “nonprofit” sector to a much greater standing, particularly with hard-line “capitalists” who have a visceral aversion to anything non-profit in nature.
In addition, changes to the legal code could help market perception toward the role and viability of non-profit organizations.
For example, the state of Utah has recently adopted a new business entity called a “Low-Profit Limited Liability Company,” or LPLLC, which, as I understand it, is a hybrid between a non-profit and a traditional LLC.
What do you think? Should/could the non-profit sector be more strategic in its marketing efforts? Does it matter? Why or why not?
*****************************
Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.
He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.
Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.
Connect With Stephen:
Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com
One Response to “The “Humanity” Sector?”
There are some in the libertarian camp who would argue that only a purely capitalist system can allocate resources properly. They would say that nonprofits just suck up valuable resources.
It appears to me that most nonprofits are liberal in orientation, and that seems to be a disturbing trend. I do believe, though, that there is a place in society for nonprofits and other organizations with higher purpose.
I recall reading about a debate between Milton Friedman and John Mackey of Whole Foods:
http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/01/rethinking-the-social-responsi
Mackey argued that businesses can and should be involved in social causes. Friedman, the hardline capitalist, in the end said that their viewpoints are not that different.
What’s the difference between a nonprofit and a for-profit? Only that nonprofits don’t answer to shareholders. Nonprofits can be involved in revenue generating activities.
Many people have argued that the corporate structure is detrimental to society. They say that because corporations have the same legal protections as human beings, responsibility is diffused. I think those arguments may be valid.
I am curious about hybrid organizations. I think that whether nonprofit or for profit, we need to be creating organizations that create value for all stakeholders, which would include shareholders but perhaps also employees, parters, suppliers, local communities, environment, etc.
Comment made on December 24th, 2009 at 8:06 amLeave a Comment