It’s not exactly agreed by everyone (or perhaps even agreed by most) that earning significantly more than the next highest paid person on staff is some sort of ethical violation. In fact, I would say that it’s absurd to suggest that this is unethical. Just because we work for nonprofits and want to do some good in the world doesn’t mean that we need to sign on to the levellers’ agenda.
Really, Bif? That’s how you feel? Why don’t you go ask the next highest paid person (who is likely being grossly underpaid) how they feel about your ethics. Now please don’t go getting your panties in a bunch thinking I’m saying that nonprofit CEOs should be paid less, because I’m surely not on THAT bandwagon. I want one of those gigs when I grow up. But. What I am saying is that if you’re gonna pay the CEO well, pay everyone else well, too. Senior staff should be getting paid much fairer salaries in relation to what the CEO makes. Let me make it simple:
UNFAIR: CEO makes $150,000/year while Deputy Director makes $50,000.
FAIRER: CEO makes $150,000/year while Deputy Director makes $100,000.
What’s the problem, right? Can’t we behave with common sense in the nonprofit sector and value our senior staff enough to pay them fairly? I’m not too good at math, so you tell me.
Perspectives reader John Wasinski asks a practical question about the lack of competitive nonprofit salaries:
I wonder if the current state of affairs due to lack of awareness, ignoring a problem they know exists, or just due to funding woes and an inability to solve them?
What do you all think? Why do nonprofits continue to pay pennies for the important work of social change? Do you see excessive CEO salaries as an issue?



