Nonprofit enterprises are about 9% of US workers and are growing fastest in the US economy with more than 1.4 million nonprofit organizations to date. The National Philanthropy Trust states that the total amount of money awarded to US charitable organizations in 2012 is $ 316 billion in total. It has increased by over 300% over 10 years ago. If profitability increases exponentially, performance is expected to increase proportionately. No treatment for breast cancer has been found and food insecurity remains strong in Sierra Leone and we have not taken measures to detect vaccines or prevent tuberculosis. The joint failure of fiscal growth and performance is due to insufficient infrastructure development within the sector, trying to combine Pasmos, capitalism and tax.
A 300% increase in charity activities over 10 years can not be explained by reflective feelings to others as the society progresses gradually. Rather, a combination of implementation of greater consciousness and financial incentives. We believe that favorite celebrities and CEOs are donating by feeling social obligations, but many donors donate to receive charity donation deduction for income tax.
In general, we relate to giving charities to others from altruism and ethical duty. Regardless of whether individuals donate from charities or charities to charity organizations, individuals are always willing to make a direct contribution to the cause. When a population of the general population pays 100 US dollars to school lunch, each person must make payment to purchase 100 dollars of food for their children without fail. It is easy to feed a child, but it is difficult to quantify the merit of giving money to the organization spending on overhead costs. The viewpoint from the donor is basic. If donation money is donated to a charity organization, it is a nonprofit organization, so other allocations have to be done extra.
With this in mind, here is an example of the charity's activities. Brad Pitt, Lebron James, Kanye West contributed $ 80 million to Habitat for Humanity, their favorite charity group [hypothetical situation]. Three celebrities are sitting with the board of directors and the well-educated, experienced and experienced CEO of Habitat for Humanity at the next Board of Directors. Chief Executive Officer claims that $ 80 million should be spent on fundraising, research, and employment, potentially further enhancing charity's revenue and efficiency. Pitt, James, and West can not rationalize ideas of wasting or using intangible money. Furthermore, even if you donate money to a charity organization or use that fund, you will not feel good about yourself. Following celebrities & # 39; CEO will decide to spend money on the construction of many houses. However, $ 80,000,000 may have been spent in other areas that can increase capital and enhance the effectiveness of the organization.
Conversely, it is recommended that three celebrities start brainstorming at the Board and invest $ 80 million in events and research to generate more income. The CEO is making a decision at this time. If they decide to invest 80 million dollars in overhead, the organization may not be able to see the return on investment. If so, the chief executive (CEO) character will wonder - people will wonder how the charity funds were spent in the organization and why funds are not the cause. Therefore, Chief Executive Officer decides to keep careful and resistant to use more than $ 80 million to build more housing.
Finally, when 800 million dollars comes back to the cause, we can not see any change in the total amount of homelessness, or it is financially unstable. Because home with 80 million dollars is not enough to have a fundamental impact. This figure shows why he found treatment for breast cancer in Sierra Leone and did not show extensive progress to end child poverty. Even though there are opportunities for non-specialists like Kanye West and Brad Pitt, eventually the charity CEO always inherits all the risks. As the CEO of the charity fears to lose loyalty of sponsors and top class contributors, it is important that you act independently by distributing capital to areas outside the cause. I will not recommend it.
If Lebron James owns a reasonable stock in a company like Wal-Mart, he will only have a minor impact on the company's management, but he made an investment donation. When someone invests in the company, they invest not only in the usual implicit value but also in the management team. In addition, the investor's input to the company can be ignored as it is simply outside the scope of expertise. As Lebron James believes that he and his CEO are on the same mandatory airplane, it is unlikely that Lebron James will have some area of financial activity when carrying a contribution from personal to non-profit. It seems rational. Officers of non-profit organizations should be considered to be the same as executives of private companies
I believe that charity fundamentally is an agent between good luck and misfortune. HNWIs with disadvantaged charities and charities are opportunities to do so. It is a psychology that is difficult to adjust. Good acts are simple and seem to have to be done that way. In fact, charities are complex and transparent organizations that function like the private sector. The social entrepreneurial spirit can not prosper as long as its incentives and obstacles remain. Non-profit senior executives need to further recognize autonomy and need to provide incentives with reasonable risks. The infrastructure of the nonprofit sector and the composition of the organization each need to be changed to enable innovation. Strong adoption of more principals related to the private sector can realize parallelism between procedures and performance expected by nonprofit organizations.
The author Simon Sinek is best known for spreading his concept of "golden circle". The golden circle is the basic and powerful paradigm of leadership. The significance of the Golden Circle is that it is promoted by a comprehensive objective for a successful leader to succeed. The cognitive process is against most people. Effective leaders will think and act in the order of what they do, how they do and what to do. Interestingly, charity executives are the first people to come to mind when thinking about those who do what they are doing because of a deep sense of motivation to achieve their goals. They do not consider money or fame. A golden circle. But charity is not being done [relatively] It is revolutionary and does not meet its cause at the global level. Personally, I believe in a golden circle and I do not believe that it can not be customarily applied to charity groups. With this in mind, I am convinced that the financial, structural and social coordination of non-profit sectors could revolutionize charity organizations. performance.
