What’s the best tool for making change: non-profits, charity, traditional for profit business, social enterprise, what?

This is one of the big questions in the world of social benefit these days. Here are three really interesting recent articles on the subject, (here, here, and here).

Despite its popularity, this may be the wrong question. Don’t get me wrong – it’s not a bad question. Somewhere in our evaluation of whether we want to support an organization, we should consider how the finances are managed, and make a call as to whether we’re on board with the approach.

But this is often being asked outside the context of any particular organization, or even issue. It’s being asked as a big, blanket thing: “SHOULD CHANGE HAPPEN THROUGH FOR-PROFIT OR NON-PROFIT MEANS?!”

Apathy

Can we talk about something else, first?

As if there could be one answer that fits every kind of change, every cause, every goal.

This is like asking whether changemakers should use Macs or PCs; whether they should buy, lease, or rent their facilities; whether they should hold live conferences or webinars. 

The answer, in every case, is “whatever gets the job done”.

This for-profit vs. non-profit debate, while interesting, is just one more distraction from the real issue: accountability for real change to the cause.

Financing, like computer systems or furniture, is a tool that organizations use to get a job done. All of these tools represent the opportunity for mismanagement, waste, skewed priorities, etc. A non-profit that overspends on luxury office chairs might damage its ability to fund its real work. But a for-profit might not do the exact same thing.

The first question should always be the organization’s performance – how are they doing at the work they officially exist to do? All other questions flow from there.