As usual, many weighed in. The person who nailed it, however, was Dean Remoundos, a business development executive from the New York City area.
"I think that acting more like a business is not at all inconsistent with being a not for profit. The issues are similar in many ways for example:
Mission statement: is it reviewed every year to see that it is still relevant or does the organization need to change it focus or direction? Are objectives set each year for what the organization seeks to achieve?
Is the board of directors performing its function, or are they more appropriately a board of donors? Who is minding the store and the employees? Maybe they should become a board of trustees and the board of directors scaled down to an effective working group?
Are programs being evaluated in view of the mission statement? Are they consistent? Do they need to be changed or updated? Are the results what were expected?
Has the organization identified all its constituencies? These include everyone from investors/donors to directors, to staff, to program benefit recipients. Are they all getting what they want/need/expect from the organization?
Perhaps most importantly, are costs being analyzed with respect to benefits? Are there less expensive ways to deliver the same or enhanced benefits to the target recipients?
“Not for profit” is not an entitlement to be an inefficiently run or out of touch organization that perhaps needs to update or refocus its efforts. It is just a taxable status which allows an organization to spend 100% of its money in an effort to attain the goal it seeks. While there may not be a reported Return on Investment in the traditional sense, there should well be an analysis done on a periodic basis as to whether the expected “Return on Intent” or “Return on Efforts” was achieved."
Well done I'd say. Do you agree, or disagree?