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?

The thing is, Isa, you might as well ask whether we’d get anybody good enough to be prime minister if that role only offers £142k.

The difference between pure business roles and political/charity appointments is the concept of service. If somebody is ‘good enough’ to be a CEO of a plc, for example, but chooses to work in he charity sector instead, should they expect plc remuneration packages? I’d say not, because they are working in a not for profit environment, and have made a positive choice to do so.

Incidentally, you have made some good arguments on this thread, and I’ve enjoyed reading them

It's interesting that you mention MPs archeryannie. Very good example of a job that allows a holder to obtain access to much more lucrative work. They certainly aren't all on 70k!

As for the extra 40k being released to do other work, this assumes that's what would happen. Big if.

This is why I would support paying MPs more

I think the super rich should donate more money.

It gets irritating when charity workers knock on doors in council estates. Why not do that in the more affluent suburb down the road?

The thing is, Isa, you might as well ask whether we’d get anybody good enough to be prime minister if that role only offers £142k.

I'm not sure we have haha!

But as pointed out, being PM is not only a prestige role that puts a person in the history books, it's also a doorway to phenomenally lucrative work afterwards. Blair quite possibly earned less as PM than he would've done as a successful barrister. He isn't earning less now. If you want to maximise the amount of money you can earn in your lifetime, being PM is pretty high on the list of things it would be a good idea to do.

And as for the environments being different so the salary being lower, that's already happening anyway with this 167k. The problem is, to what extent does taking this even further prevent a charity from getting a competent person for the job? You say something's wrong if they can't get someone good in for 145k- well yes, absolutely. That something being that CEO pay is too much generally. Meanwhile, the NSPCC don't control the wider societal context.

Being not for profit doesn't make an organisation easier to run.

The average CEO salary in U.K. Is around the 4.5million mark. You're getting a very particular type of person from a much smaller pool who will work for 30x less than they could earn.

The people who think a charity can get someone for buttons are the same people who describe themselves as CEO of their house and/or life and genuinely believe that managing two toddlers is the equivalent of managing a hostile board

@wheresmycat let's just say I also recognise Luna's description of the Oxfam offices :) (there's crazy- to go to a meeting you get your coat, go outside, walk up the street for 10 minutes, crossing it twice. 15 minutes 4x a day- that's an hour wasted through terrible office space. And terrible access for anyone with limited mobility. I think they recouped the costs of the move pretty rapidly).

I work in contracting and procurement for relatively high value government contracts, but with a specific technical skillset in the subject area. So it's a funny combination of skills- writing, finance, commercial, research and understanding of my field plus relationships and client. And ability to travel. There are private sector companies who do same: they get nice fat win bonuses and profit share. I get a good salary and warm glow...

nomore it's pretty well-established that wealthier people are less likely to give money away at the door. They door-knock poorer areas because it works better, sadly. There are some theories knocking around about different spending behaviours (long-term planning vs impulsive decisions) but I prefer to think it's that poorer people have a keener grasp of what it means to be totally on your uppers and are more willing to help if they can.

Interesting Fishinthe, thank you. Which came first for you, the procurement side or the technical? I've always been quite interested in procurement (love to haggle (smile)) but am not really sure how well my idea of it matches up to the reality.

If people are concerned where their donation will be spent they can always specify that it goes to fund a particular part if the charities work. E.g.not overheads.only research. Only goods and equipment to deliver the service. Just send them an email after you've set up the direct debit and specify what you do and don't wsnt the cash spent on.

The points made about some charities having different attitudes to the CEO types and the volunteers/people doing the grunt work on the ground are really valid too. That's definitely a problem. I'm glad it's been highlighted.

This is part of the reason why the whole volunteering thing is so complex really. It's brilliant in a lot of ways. I am a volunteer trustee and I have volunteered in work 'on the ground' previously, so I'm not advocating against it. But in some ways, does it not make it easier for certain roles to be devalued? I think a lot depends on the sector. There are some charity jobs that the public would be willing to fund, though paradoxically those are sometimes the 'sexier' ones that attract more volunteers, and there are some that would be really unpopular.

There are also issues in that in sectors where you're effectively obliged to get some voluntary experience first but you also need a bit of training, because people aren't being pair or are only being paid a token amount, sometimes they have no choice but to sod off elsewhere with their newly acquired skills and experience once they become attractive enough to an employer to secure a paid job. Which I totally get, and they're not doing anything wrong. But meanwhile, that's your valuable member of the team leaving and the return on the investment made in training evaporates. This could possibly happen with a CEO role if the salary were low enough (and fwiw I think it would have to be very, very far below the 145k and 125k mentioned here to stop this sort of criticism being widespread, because 125k is still a massive amount more than most ordinary people can conceive of and would still make a good headline).

I also have a massive issue with the exploitation of volunteers, and at a charity where I headed a department, I was hugely keen to upskill ours, because they did so much and we didn't pay them. Not everyone in the management of the organisation was as keen on that idea as I was.

And I'd say most of these issues also exist for underpaying people too. Volunteers is just sort of the extreme end of that scale.

Also it annoys me when people are like ‘but why do they need to earn so much?’

Well, lots of them are based in London (nb I think it would be better for lots of reasons, salary being one of them, if lots were not!). In much of London if you have two kids, then for me, where I lived (not trendy), two kids at full time nursery is 3600 a month, plus basic ex council 3 bed on edge of not very prosperous estate is 900k. A mortgage of say 2-4K a month? So you are looking at outgoings 6-8 k a month before you get to living. Why would anyone do this without being paid enough?

This is not to open up debates about how many people live in London for less; I’m sure they do but it’s very very hard. I have just moved back to one of the cheapest parts of the U.K. and am looking at jobs with less than a quarter of the money I’d be able to make in London. It doesn’t matter; houses are available at an 8th of the cost of where I’d need to be in London, there are places available in multiple subsidised childcare, every single activity we do is cheaper etc, I am largely just as well off as I was.

So IF these jobs are based in London, which I’m not saying they all are or should be, it should be taken in to consideration that it has an entirely different economy and operates on a different scale. If your costs are 5 or 6 grand a month, then of course you are going to want 7 coming in.

Nb lots of people where I am speak wistfully of London salary, when I mention 2k a nursery place for one child (deduction for second), cost of stamp duty for a crappy house - don’t say its worth it for the value of the house because think of all the interest paid on that massive mortgage - cost of rail tickets etc, they nearly faint.

Obvs if this particular job is based in e.g. north east then I take it all back

Lots of people don't particularly care about the charitable aim of their organisation

Then they shouldn't be the director of that organisation.

Nobody expects or needs the in-house electrician or the accountant to care about the charitable aims (though many of them will care), they just need to be able to do the wiring or do the accounts. But the director of a charity is, I would suggest, substantially hampered in doing their job if they really don't care about the aims.

Good to have those numbers laid out mouse. I live in a Northern city so even though I know there's a massive economic difference the number just don't mean the same to me at face value.

My issue frankly is with all Executive pay
since the 80's there have been incestuous remuneration commitees
where they all suggest higher and higher pay for each other
to get the best talent
and yet across the board British productivity is dire
management standards are shite
rewards for failure are rife

Executives get paid a lot to do very little
in all sectors

If the rules went back to a multiples approach the super rich would suffer
but the rest of the world would benefit

But the director of a charity is, I would suggest, substantially hampered in doing their job if they really don't care about the aims.

Mmm. Yes and no.

They're also sometimes substantially hampered in doing it if they do. If you care a great deal you're not always good at seeing the wood for the trees, especially if the charity concerned is your 'baby' (obv not the case here).

There was a lot of discussion of this issue around the time Kids Company went tits up. CB was obviously dodgy regardless, but a lot of people pointed out that sometimes having a true believer can be as much of a hindrance as a help. I think it depends a lot on what the particular charity needs at the time, as well as the culture there. Some are better served by passion, others by a more neutral approach.

I mean, with the broader charities most people are at least somewhat supportive. There aren't a lot of people who don't want cancer research to be well funded, through pure self interest if nothing else. Unless you're a child abuser you're probably in sympathy with the NSPCC's aims. That type of thing. But that's not the case with all charities, and that's not just an issue with the more niche ones either.

So for example I can see that, as the Red Cross do a lot of work with refugees, the CEO can't really be in Britain First. I'm less convinced that they need to be truly passionate about refugee welfare for its own sake in order to do a good job, not least because that would even further reduce the pool of candidates. Btw I pick the Red Cross because I did a project with them a while ago.

Sometimes when you really care about something it can be really hard to protect yourself and not get burned out too.

Today 13:48 Kissisforpirate

kissisforpirate how is it possible? They can't ring fence your donations for specific spend in any meaningful way can they? It all just goes into the P&L as income and out as expense. Bottom line, nothing is directly paying for anything unless specific grants with terms and conditions attached to them

ArcheryAnne I was referring to workers generally TBF but even so I don't think CEOs need to be nailed to the cause.

The MD of easyJet has just been made MD of ITV. I'm sure she's passionate about both easyJet and ITV. But they're not life long, sacrificing passions like people seem to be indicating the CEO of a specific charity should have

I think the charities are fair for the level of responsibility involved. Won't I don't like (and have seen amongst acquaintances) is people who earn decent, market rate salaries working for charities making out like they're amazing people for doing so.

I know of one well-known charity where the head honcho earns well in excess of £500k which is taking the proverbial.

Not at all easy to find this piece of information on the Charities Commission website though, as it is buried among hundreds of branches, groups, and shop trading etc. One could be forgiven for thinking they have a hugely complicated structure purposely to conceal little details like this.

kissisforpirate how on earth would that work? If everyone called up and insisted their money go on research and not overheads they’d be no one to process your direct debit or answer the phone when you want to ensure your money goes to the ‘right’ bit.

Yes, it's definitely all about merit, that's why 60,000 trustee of charities are called either John or David and the top 20 male names in the lists of trustees are more popular that all of the female names put together.

You're absolutely nuts if you think CEOs are super talented people who deserve loads of money. They're an endless succession of the same man over and over. The way you get to that position is not through merit (unless you think women aren't as good as men?) it's through being in the right place, looking right, having a penis, and ideally being called John or David.

Link to the report re trustees: www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/more-than-60-000-trustees-called-either-john-or-david.html

Bubble I agree that a lifelong passion is probably not what you want in a director (you want them long enough in the job for experience, not so long they become stale), but I'd disagree that £127 (for example) hardly demands a "sacrificing passion".

£127k, that is!