BU over charity director salaries

[Happydoingitjusttheonce]

Is the criticism shortsighted? CEO of NSPCC criticised for earning £167k. At its peak a few years ago the charity was turning over £150m. Anyone with the skill and experience to manage that level of income could be remunerated in the private extremely handsomely and much more so than Peter Wanless is. Do people really think the charity could get someone in for buttons, or for nothing, to do that job?

[Vitalogy]

I don't know how they sleep at night. They've little or no conscience as far as I'm concerned.

[CaptainMarvelDanvers]

jumpyfrog

I’ve seen it happen. I can’t go into too much detail but to get to that situation you need a shitty board who doesn’t care and a CEO who’s out for themselves. As staff you feel you have no one to talk to, you’re threatened with gross misconduct if you talk to anyone outside of the organisation about the issues I.e. funders and senior partners. And while you suspect dodgy stuff is going on, you don’t have proof and therefore you’re wary about going to charities commission as previous times issues have been brought forward, it has completely back fired on the people who have done so.

Trustees often want the power that comes with being on the board but they don’t want the responsibility. Personally I think board members should be paid as I think it would attract more professional people who are being paid for the time and services and will take the responsibility seriously.

I have seen time and time again, trustees complaining because they are only volunteers and they shouldn’t have to deal with serious grievances and issues.

[CaptainMarvelDanvers]

I think a CEO should be paid well for the experience and expertise they have but £167k is too much even for a large national charity.

[MargeryFenworthy]

I'm more concerned about the hefty salaries to NHS management consultants. I've seen first hand how handsomely some of these people are paid.

[TheNaze73]

I think you paying the going rate for the right candidate. Supply & demand comes into it too.

I see nothing wrong with this

[ItsNiceItsDifferentItsUnusual]

Branleuse I don’t disagree with you re. small charities and donate to smaller ones myself. But out of interest where do you stand on the bigger charities with regards to the research they fund? It’s something I’m thinking about at the moment as often it’s the labs/scientists run by some of the big charities that are making the breakthroughs. I’m thinking things like dementia etc. In that sense I’m starting to think that donating to the bigger ones, where they clearly fund major research, is worthwhile.

[Nettletheelf]

Are people still fooled by the ‘we need to pay loads to attract the talent’ argument? It’s trotted out every time concern is expressed over an excessive salary.

I think that the NSPCC CEO’s salary is on the high side at £167k, yes. Not everybody expressing that view thinks that the only alternative is to pay £40k though!

[KungFuEric]

Yes nettle, and I suppose it raises a wider question of living in a capitalist society which encourages a bottom level of poverty to fund executive salaries and growth.

[ArcheryAnnie]

I am all in favour of charity jobs being paid properly, but I question whether £167k/pa is appropriate for this post. Yes, the director could get paid more in a commercial post, but this isn't a commercial post, it's a charity. Working for a charity is as much a vocation, a calling, as it is a job. And yes, a vocation won't pay the bills - but there must be a price point between minimum wage and £167k/pa which is appropriate.

I do wonder if lowering the director salary might increase the available pool of candidates, since there has been some studies done (I can't find them now - have tried googling but no luck so can't link) that a high salary actually dissuades very senior women from applying to very senior jobs, because despite being as fully qualified and experienced as men, they don't place the same value on their own worth. Plus, say a salary of - say - £127k as opposed to £167k is still not chickenfeed, and if someone really isn't prepared to get out of bed for less than £167k, then it's reasonable to assume that perhaps they aren't the right fit for this post.

[TieGrr]

My issue is with the charities that are badly run, are cutting funding and services and are still paying their CEOs high salaries.

[Jellycatspyjamas]

When you come to the larger charities those very senior posts are appointed for the post holders connections and influence, not their ability to manage a large organisation - I'd wager Peter Wanless has very limited involvement in the management of the organisation which is actually run by the board of directors and trustees. I also think the assumption that a large salary equates to competent management is a nonsense, particularly when the CEO appointment is so obviously political (in terms of influence, not party political) as in the case of the NSPCC.

[QueenAravisOfArchenland]

its why big charities are nothing more than big money making businesses and I will not give them anything.

But they aren't. They're nonprofits - by definition they do not bank a profit or repay shareholders. They have to cover costs and do marketing, though. They should be run like businesses.

And if anything the fragmentation of the nonprofit sector into lots of small charities leads to massive inefficiency and less good done with the available funds, as a PP noted. We'd be better off with fewer larger charities in most cases, especially in sectors like overseas aid.

[IsaSchmisa]

I don't think that the charities a wrong for paying a reasonable salary. However I do think that if you work for a charity and can afford to do so without pay (or with a reduced pay which is essentially what this is) then you should do so.

Right, and is it just people who work for charities who have to abide by this rule? What about people who work in the private and public sectors and could manage on less of their salary, do they have the same moral obligation to work for charities for free once they reach that point? Perhaps they should all have to either go part time and volunteer, or give the extra to a charity instead. I do hope, incidentally, that you're only working as much as you need to in order to earn enough to live and then giving the rest of your time to a charity too?

The reality is that most people working for charities are already being paid less than they could be elsewhere. This sort of attitude only further reduces the pool. The charities I've worked in have all at least partially done some pretty specialist stuff. There isn't actually a pool of people out there waiting to work for free or well below going rate. Sometimes we even had trouble filling some of the market rate posts.

its why big charities are nothing more than big money making businesses and I will not give them anything.

Smaller local charities are where its at and are usually far more useful for practical help and support.

Completely pointless generalisation. There's not necessarily a correlation between size of charity and efficiency, or usefulness.

The most utterly useless one I've ever worked in was a tiny local charity and had a CEO type who was actually unpaid. He more than justified his salary. About 35k would've secured someone decent to actually run the place properly and there is no way he didn't manage to fuck things up to the tune of 35k+ in the 12 months I was there. They were reliant on volunteers, many of whom were magnificent, but were grossly, grossly inefficient with it. They were also, in all honesty, partly there as something to benefit the volunteers, many of whom came from the client group. Nothing wrong with that but call it what it is.

Next most useless was a big national operation that actually went bust while I was there. I think small charities can do some wonderful work and I'm actually a trustee of one myself, but if you donate to them and not the bigger outfits because you think that'll mean your money automatically does more good, you're very sadly mistaken.

The problem is that people demonise admin costs and fetishise volunteers when it comes to charities. Volunteering can be great but it's not the ideal for everything and some charity jobs actually require paying people not just enough to live on but enough to also have an incentive to stay and retain talent.

In terms of this particular NSPCC salary, if anyone has a particular reason why it's too high for this role (ie something a bit more than saying the people who don't agree with them are being fooled, or it just sounds too much on principle) I'd certainly be open to hearing about it. But nobody really has.

Maybe lowering it a bit might widen the pool, who knows, but then it's not like 127k wouldn't get people frothing either is it? Realistically it would have to be a not very out of the ordinary salary to avoid this type of criticism (or to keep to a minimum, since you're always going to get people ignorant enough to think the role ought to be done for free). Quite possibly not much in advance of 40k, in fact. I mean, 60k is more than what, 90% of the population?

And meanwhile, what would you have happen if it weren't possible to attract someone good enough at the salary you think is justifiable?

[Fishinthesink]

I've worked in the charity sector my whole career. I'm on a pretty good salary but I'm also highly qualified in a niche shortage area. I was headhunted for my last role. I work in a 'sexy' area of the voluntary sector where I'm constantly approached by amateurs who think they can do a better job: they can't and our sector is riddled with actual harm caused by part time voluntourists.

Yes charities are increasingly contracting for government services. The point is 'profit' is pulled back into the charity and funds the unpopular things no one else will- this can include overhead or working with marginal client groups. I'd rather have that than profit to shareholders which is what our private sector competitors do.

Which is not to say some aren't poorly run- of course they are- but the idea that the charity sector should be populated by wealthy people who can work for free rather than adequately rewarding professionals is ridiculous. I've had people tell me I'm immoral for earning a salary before.

The other thing on size - being large helps you have a strong lobbying voice. The government will listen to Shelter or Nspcc or Macmillan in a way they won't listen to smaller local organisations. That's not ideal but it's the way it is. For most charities their ultimate aim is to remove their need for existence altogether and you can't do that if you just provide services without addressing the underlying issues. 165k a year for a top lobbyist? Quite cheap.

[Bubblebubblepop]

I don't think £167k is very much for the NFP sector and its certainly not too much for a CEO. As others have said, pay peanuts get monkeys.

I see no reason why charities can't be run like big businesses. They are looking after Millions and running a service. Running it as a business has to be the most efficient way, surely?

Agree though that standards and performance are often low in the charity sector (I used to audit it) and that's where I think more experienced professional staff can really make a difference

[LunasSpectreSpecs]

www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong

Everyone should watch this - he is 100% in the way he discusses not for profits and how we see "overheads" as a dirty word.

Back in the late 90s I had an interview at the Oxfam head office about a marketing job. Their offices at that time were a hodge podge of rooms above shops in about 6 different buildings in Oxford, people were falling over each other, there was no space, no meeting rooms and buckets in the corners to collect drips when it rained. (Didn't get the job!!) A couple of years later the charity announced that they were investing in a new building where they could bring everyone together on the same site. You'd have thought from the reaction locally that they were proposing sacrificing children. Massive outcry. But since then the charity has grown hugely.

[IsaSchmisa]

Which is not to say some aren't poorly run- of course they are- but the idea that the charity sector should be populated by wealthy people who can work for free rather than adequately rewarding professionals is ridiculous. I've had people tell me I'm immoral for earning a salary before.

Yep. 100%.

It's the sort of thing that sounds very nice in people's heads, but given that lots of charities require niche skills and sometimes struggle to fill vacancies, why anyone thinks it would be a good thing to exclude some of the potential talent base is beyond me. Because you do, if you insist on not paying, or not paying much.

I've actually made this point within some of the charities I've worked in before: not everyone is able to volunteer. You can't do it if you need to work full time to live, or you're on certain benefits. You need an income source coming from somewhere that doesn't require you to engage in paid employment/jobseeking activity for the time you're working at the charity. I'm a trustee now and I'm not paid, but there are times in my life when I wouldn't have had the financial luxury of being able to do that because I needed to be paid for my work. You reduce the talent available to you when you fail to recognise this.

And yes of course some charities are horrifyingly badly run. The worst run place I've been at in my career was the charity I mention upthread, the close second was a small private sector enterprise.

[Nettletheelf]

My personal view is that no charity chief exec should be paid more than the prime minister: £142,500 last time I looked.

I agree that charities should be run like businesses, but they are not businesses. There are no ‘profits’ for the CEO to be judged on for a start, and unlike private businesses, charities have to think about the circumstances of the people they are helping.

Martin Sorrell, the chief exec of WPP, earned £70m or something ridiculous last year. Is that because he’s the very best person for the job, and worth every penny? Unlikely. So it’s equally unlikely that paying an absolute mint for charity chief executives will guarantee top performance for the charity.

Let’s look at what the NSPCC do. Lobbying, as somebody mentioned upthread. Devising campaigns and delivering services. Producing ‘comms’ (not a discipline I think justifies high salaries, incidentally, but that’s my view). The CEO of the NSPCC isn’t personally managing service delivery or devising new services. £150m turnover isn’t that much really: it puts the NSPCC on a par with, say, The Entertainer chain of toy shops or a reasonably successful medium sized construction business.

If somebody in the charity sector can’t run a charity (note, not a business: businesses and charities are fundamentally different in nature) for the same money we pay the PM for running the country, something is a bit wrong in my view.

[Bubblebubblepop]

Luna I recognise your descripton so much office space is important. Many people near the top of their game, high achievers, highly skilled don't want to work in shorty buildings

[Bubblebubblepop]

*shitty buildings

[IsaSchmisa]

Oh, no doubt somebody could. I'd give it a go for 142k: I have few of the skills required, but for that wage I'd be willing to learn on the job. There's not going to be any shortage of applicants for that salary, is there? The problem is whether that person will be good enough for the role or not. I don't think anyone is labouring under the delusion that the NSPCC couldn't get an arse on the seat for any less.

[wheresmycat]

Fishinthesink I'm really interested in what you do now-both DH and I are third sector/third sector adjacent and I'm looking to develop more specialist skills; without outing yourself, could you tell me a bit more about it?

I definitely recognise the very mixed feelings on here about volunteers-yes you can get a lot done with them, but ultimately they aren't accountable in the same way as paid staff, nor as invested.

I think charity work compares in some ways to academia-means a great deal to people, relies heavily on free labour (in that people aren't paid for all the work they do), and comes with a lot of social pressure to over-contribute. Given how exploitative both sectors can be, the massive pay of CEOs/Pro-VCs looks obscene. It's the 'oh we need to outsource our cleaners onto shitty bank contracts because we can't afford otherwise' while paying big bucks that really pisses me off (looking at you, London Quakers and LSE).

I recognise those senior jobs are important and there are relatively few people who can perform well in them. I know the CEO of a medium-sized but nationally important charity; she's well renumerated but her role is highly political and involves a level of lobbying, advocacy and strategy that no-one else in the organisation (perhaps even in the region) would be able to replace; she also founded the whole shebang from scratch, I assume taking some significant risks in the process. They also don't expect people to to actual work for free. So...I think it depends on how it's done, basically. And yes there's a wider problem with income disparity but I don't think this is quite the same conversation.

[wheresmycat]

Nettle would that it were so but most of the Tory party are 'independently wealthy' or have significant business interests which yield more than their MP's salaries, and probably more than the PM's. These other connections might be why they're largely corrupt as fuck

[ArcheryAnnie]

And meanwhile, what would you have happen if it weren't possible to attract someone good enough at the salary you think is justifiable?

Except this wouldn't happen. MPs get, what, £79k or something? And there's no shortage of people applying for that job, which has just as much responsibility, and a great deal more scrutiny and grief. And realistically if the pool of potential directors are coming from the civil service, they've already got decades of decent pay and a decent pension behind them, so they are hardly going to be penniless on £127k. And I still think if a potential director doesn't want the job at the NSPCC at £127k, then the NSPCC shouldn't want them, either.

I agree that people would still complain if the director of the NSPCC was being paid £127k rather than £167k, but since that change of salary would both mean that the director was still being paid a very substantial amount, and that £40k pa was released, which could mean an extra member of staff at a much lower level, it would be worth it.

[Bubblebubblepop]

But being the prime minister is purely a prestige job. No one says I am going to turn down prime minister because I could earn 3x that salary in chambers. It's not comparable.

Lots of people don't particularly care about the charitable aim of their organisation (any more than other people care about their employer) you're niave if you think all charity workers care about the cause