Four Ways to Create a Successful Nonprofit Career Path

Thanks for this post, Rosetta! There are so many career advisors still repeating outdated advice about how job hopping is bad or “disloyal”. And few people share the “secret” about rainmaking – in our capitalist world, people who can bring in resources like money, clients, or talent are the ones who are valued in any organization.

Dear Ms. Thurman,

You raise some good points about how to make the most of your nonprofit career.

I would add,

Always be working on your branding.
Start a blog. Get on twitter and start providing value in your twitter stream. Connect with people on linkedin. Interview someone you admire. Answer questions. Start submitting articles to various journals. Get known in your field not just for working at your company, but for being yourself, and giving your unique input to the nonprofit world.

Share your perspective.
Write a book. Create something new that no one else has done before. Seth Godin and John Jantsch of Ductape Marketing and The Referral Engine have good clues in that direction.

Finally, demand what you're worth.
Negotiate a salary you can live on. And demand bi-annual reviews to make sure you keep getting more for providing more to your nonprofit. And if you can't find a nonprofit to pay you what you're worth, then get out of there and start your own social enterprise.

Mazarine
http://wildwomanfundraising.com

Awesome points, Mazarine – will have to turn this into a “reader tips” post for the future!

As someone who has some input into hiring at my organization, I have to say that I do still think job hopping can be done disloyally, and can be detrimental to a career. There are so many jobs in the NP sector that are cyclical- you really don't even get to experience the entirety of the JOB until at least one full year is under your belt…and then the 2nd year is when you can finally make it your own, be innovative, etc. When I look at potential staff, or even potential colleagues to work with on projects, etc.- people who have been at a different job every year plummet way down on my list of those I'd want to work with. How can I depend on them to be there when I need them? And frankly, someone who stayed with my organization only a year would receive a less favorable recommendation from me than someone I'd had the chance to work with for a couple of years, simply by virtue of the length of time I had to get to know them and value their contributions.

Essentially, I think there's a delicate (and important) balance between proving your worth as an employee and gaining real useful experience, and finding the next great job. Clearly, I think if you're totally unhappy, or working somewhere toxic, etc. there is a case to be made for jumping ship…but career development is about building relationships, right? It takes time to build key relationships, which can be just as beneficial (if not more so) as another line on the resume. Find the balance.

I hear you. Your comment gives me a good kick in the pants about being less defensive and more assertive.

The basis of my critique is less about bad and stagnant jobs than it is an observation and hypothesis that our society takes too narrow a view of human development. Certainly there are people who hop from job to job because they lack direction or patience, just as there are people who stay too long in jobs because they are fearful or lazy.

So if we concede we're talking about diligent people with decent perspective of their abilities and a sound grip on relationships:

Some people have a much faster learning curve than others. So, some “job hoppers” from some (non-cyclical) jobs are people who actually tend to learn in 6 months what the typical incumbent learns in 2 years. This may or may not be a matter of intelligence per se; people simple run at different paces. It is unjust and inaccurate to lump rapid learners with people who just move on because they are restless.

Some people have a greater array of talents and interests than others. If Person A is capable of excellence in (and holds some drive towards developing) three professional areas and Person B is genuinely capable of excellence in five professional areas, then Person B is going to seek more developmental experiences and lateral moves in the same time frame. It is unjust and inaccurate to lump people with multiple aptitudes (not greater necessarily, but more in number) with people who just can't make choices.

Our notions of careers and the way we configure jobs do not take those things into account – and, I believe we are all the worse for them, not just just the people getting judged for job hopping.

I will take your example of the “cyclical job.” You have made several assumptions that reflect YOUR personality and preferences, as well as convention, that I'd like to suggest may not be universally true. (Not that you're “wrong,” but that there are are other ways to interpret the same data.)

1 – “So many jobs in the NP sector are cyclical” is a broad enough generalization to raise a red flag. If “so many” are, that still leaves many that are not. Wouldn't SOME people be good for the cyclical jobs and others better fits for those that do not fall into that category? If so, why start out with the assumption that what applies for the “so many” should be a general rule rather than invoking it only where it applies?

2. You may experience and conceptualize these jobs as “an entirety” characterized by a cycle because that is the way your mind/brain works. Can you say with certainty that it would be “wrong” for people not to view this “entirety” as an “entirety” at all? Couldn't what you perceive as an “entirety” be for other people three or four separate, seasonal things cobbled together erroneously, forced into union? Why not 2 or 3 or 4 distinct things with Person 1 working for 6 months of the year doing Part 3, and then moving onto another seasonal, cyclical organization where he again does Part 3, while Person 2 works part-time through all four cycles, and so on.

I'm not arguing against the way you experience things or prefer to work. What I am saying is that you have presumed a “normal” way of being in the world, and then are judging people who are in the world in a different way against a standard that may not apply to them.

Consider the church world, where some people are “planters,” who start churches; others are pastors of stable, established churches; others specialize in reviving community in churches that are dying.

Consider the business world, where some people are “turnaround artists,” who typically leave when the turnaround is complete.

It is unfair and inaccurate to label the steadier types as “dumb plodders.” We need them. It is equally unfair to label people who don't plod as “disloyal.” We need them, too. And, as one of those job hoppers, I can tell you – as irritated as you may have been by people you feel you can't depend on, I have been equally irritated by people who I've seen (in objective fact) costing organizations money and effectiveness due largely to their relative lack of exposure to a broad range of experiences that could have been brought to bear on their jobs.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. We all experience and interpret the world through our own lenses and biases, don't we? Mine are obviously apparent in regard to this topic- I do value longevity and long-term relationships with employees or colleagues. I realize my experience is certainly not universal, though.

I definitely agree that varying learning styles/capabilities/aptitudes can play a key role in the choices a person makes to advance their career. No question about it.

I also clearly see that there could be some situations in which a year or less is all that is required to get a certain job done (like your examples of the church-related tasks which are finite and time-specific.) I think however, I would maintain that not just *many*, but in fact *most* full-time nonprofit jobs (fundraising, communications, program management, fiscal, administration, etc.) are cyclical in some fashion.

In other words, over the course of a year, most nonprofits (truly- I would put the percentage close to 100% in my community as I mentally browse through the list of NPO's I work with in my job as a community foundation program officer) have an annual calendar of events, projects, programming and priorities that is unique during those 12 months, but then repeats in a similar fashion the next year. So someone who starts their job on January 1 probably will not experience the full range of the organization's activities, needs or challenges until December 31.

I'm not trying to say that once through the cycle isn't good and valuable experience in-and-of itself…and I will own my bias re: the value of loyalty to an organization (after all, finding quality new employees, especially in smaller communities, which is my own experience again, can be tough!).

One suggestion I would offer is that before automatically hopping to a new job after 1 year (“I've fulfilled the minimum requirement…”), another option for the employee who wants additional leadership opportunities, challenges and responsibilities could be to explore roles in membership organizations (like their state or regional association, or AFP, etc.), while also looking for ways to innovate in their own organization. The point of Ms. Thurman's post was 'ways to have a successful career', and I would simply add the caveat that success isn't universally defined by having the most lines on a resume; the depth of each line also adds value.

I engaged on this particular point in Ms. Thurman's original post primarily because I feel that the general advice of “go ahead, don't be afraid to job hop” is a bit too simple and overarching. I personally believe there's a more nuanced balance to be struck between hopping and 'plodding', as you put it. Hopping for the sake of hopping (just because it's “OK” in today's job market) could be just as big a mistake as staying just for the sake of staying (just because you feel you have to).

Wishing you the very best in your nonprofit career aspirations.

Carolynn – I love the distinction you're making here around when it's good to job hop and when you might want to stay in an organization longer to really learn, make connections, etc. My take on job hopping is really giving people permission not to force themselves to stay in an org if it's not working for them. I don't want people to feel they have to “plod!”

Thanks, for the dialogue Carolynn. (And for the forum, Rosetta.)

Another small note about loyalty to an organization – a person can leave a job yet stay engaged with the organization longer term, as a board member, a donor, a volunteer, a consultant, and/or a community evangelist!

[...] Four Ways to Create a Successful Nonprofit Career Path 1447 view(s) [...]