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?

YABU and so are all those people claiming that charities, BBC and the public sector should pay big fuck off salaries to “attract the best”.

The fact is that a charity isn’t a business - the aims and imperatives are very very different. IMHO putting business people in charge of charities is what leads to chuggers and charities promoting unsuitable products to the very people they are supposed to be helping - running a charity should be a vocation, not part of the two years here, three there management circus that infects business.

They're businesses looking to maximise income vs outgoings. If an experienced CEO can do this then they'd be foolish not to get one.

Of course they're big money-making businesses. It's a fundamental aspect of their existence.

running a charity should be a vocation

Yes, and why should they not be well paid for it?

I work for a charity and I hate this attitude. I care a great deal about the cause but at the end of the day I have nearly a decade of experience and I am earning £25k (in London), have to pay for my own christmas meal out and put up with a shite slow computer because they don't want to spend anything on overheads.

I will be returning to the private sector at some point fairly soon because not only will I get paid nearly double there, I will also get a massive array of benefits including flexible working that I do not get in the charity sector.

Obviously no one expects charities to be able to pay as much as financial institutions or whatever, but why shouldn't they pay market rate for decent people?

And having worked for charities for a lot of my working life can I just say that a CEO who is MASSIVELY invested in the cause is often a hindrance rather than a help.

Kids Company is the perfect example of someone who indoubtedly cared a lot, but hadn't a clue about proper business management.

There is nothing distasteful about running a charity as a business. Charities are there to maximise income for their nominated cause, whatever that may be. They need a CEO who is prepared to try different things, approach fundraising from different angles and cut costs to make things more efficient.

Obviously no one expects charities to be able to pay as much as financial institutions or whatever, but why shouldn't they pay market rate for decent people?
Because the market rate is distorted bollocks.

The financial bods are not clever, they are just rentiers who get lucky.

Executive pay is a disgrace and is unrelated to ability.

The sooner it reverts to a multiples system the better

I'm not talking about execs, Ta1kin, I'm talking about your average Joe like me.

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

^this

In line with Christmas a fb post came up with what percent of donations goes to salaries.
The international Red Cross was close to the top but that is a massive organization. I certainly expect that would involve a lot of equipment and personelle hence why a smaller proportion only reaches those in need.

I would say that £127k is fairly low. It's on the lower end for say, a finance director. The charities finance director needs to be paid less than the CEO don't they? What do you propose you pay the FD? £90k? You wouldn't get anyone

I think multiples (as per the John Lewis model) is an excellent idea although certainly doesn't go hand in hand with low pay (the JL CEO isn't highly paid for a Comparable role, but is highly paid generally)

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.

You are to some extent blurring two issues here though. Whether the pool of people with the relevant experience are in their positions based solely on merit (no) and would all be there if the playing field were totally level (no). And whether it would be possible to get someone with the experience necessary to do the job, for a salary low enough not to piss people off. They're not the same argument.

Now, if it's the case that the salary is putting some capable women off as it's too high, as someone touched on upthread, it would be a completely relevant argument then. I don't know whether that's the case or not, but think it's the best point that's yet been raised against the salary.

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".

With respect, whether that amounts to a sacrificing passion is not for you to call in any case except your own. If the people with the experience needed for the job could earn more elsewhere, it's going to be up to them how much of a sacrifice taking this role is.

And incidentally whatsonthelist the BBC pay less than their competitors for the most part, not more. Their biggest names could get more elsewhere. They're a good example of an institution with enough clout and prestige to be able to pay less than some others would have to.

Old Witch - I also think those sorts of figures, without explanation, are meaningless. SOme larger organisations like the Red Cross work with local on the ground charities and funnel emergency relief through them. Rather than sending mosquito nets to Africa, they employ a local team and funnel cash through other charitable organisations.

But often that's interpreted as "high staff costs"

The Quakers used to have a multiples system. I don't know if they still do.

YY to overly invested CEOs- 'Founder Syndrome' (and this also goes for overly operational trustees) is an absolute curse. Most of my friends work in the voluntary sector too and they move around from cause to cause- because the work is interesting and because they're able to think more than one thing is important at a time. Medicine is a vocation and no one argues doctors should be badly paid.

I just checked on CharityJob and there are no jobs advertised over 100,000 k a year (well some contracting, but not proper jobs) and just a handful at 80k plus. The vast majority are in the 25k to 40k categories and I guarantee a lot of those will require a Masters' degree or really substantial experience.

160k IS a lot of money. I don't know if the role at the NSPCC merits that; I do know that a good CEO is worth their weight and the spend on their salary is a tiny proportion of, say, the equivalent marketing spend you'd need to get that much profile.

A CEOs job is to maximise a) funding and b) impact. Nowt wrong with that.

I think someone pointed out that it's not merit-based and those senior level appointments are dominated by the same revolving circus of white blokes- that's also true, but in itself that's not an argument for paying less. That's an argument for making appointments more equitable. And it's one of the reasons we should be encouraging more young people to serve as trustees.

Thank you Luna, my thoughts exactly.

But @IsaSchmisa surely you're not arguing we should pay CEOs less so more women do it??! So women earn less for the equivalent position?! No! We should create an environment where women can apply for those roles.

In my field my experience is that a lot of women go freelance in their 30s/40s to fit around kids and so they have more control of their international travel. You can actually earn fair bit more this way too, so it's not necessarily a poor financial choice, but it takes you off the director track. Bringing those women back in later would also be a good step.

Well it wasn't me who suggested that fish, it might be bollocks, but if it's true it would be a way in which LeCroissant's point is relevant.

Re trustees, we absolutely need more young people but that possibly would mean having to pay more/something, given the demographics of wealth in our society. The people most likely to have income/assets allowing them to give skills for free are older, retired. Judging by some of the views on this thread, that might not go down brilliantly with some.

I would think the criticism of charities using public donations to pay over inflated salaries to CEOs, high than the PM's for running the whole country, is because it is well known that a larger proportion of charitable donations from the public are from the poorer sections of society.

I actually think it's a disgrace that the public are funding things which should be dealt with by the government and to which they have already contributed tax revenue for.

I care a great deal about the cause but at the end of the day I have nearly a decade of experience and I am earning £25k (in London), have to pay for my own christmas meal out and put up with a shite slow computer because they don't want to spend anything on overheads.

CarefulBunny I agree - and that's part of my argument, that the charitites should pay the regular workers more and the CEOs a bit less - there would still be a differential, but it wouldn't be such a huge one.

Our CEO earns peanuts too, considering, Archie. We aren't a big charity. We could spend more on wages but we don't because we would be criticized.

This relies on the idea that a lower CEO salary means there's more available for wages lower down. Not necessarily the case!

Carefulbunny
In both Charities and businesses, the multiples system would help you while reducing the number of skiing holidays for the folks at the top.

Various studies have shown that any salary over £150k results in no increase in spending
just an increase in saving that will never be spent in the recipients lifetime
and an increase in bling

If charities had to restrict the pay of the head honcho to say 10 times the lowest FTE then there would be more money to pay dedicated staff

If companies had to restrict highest pay to 20 times the lowest FTE (so a cleaner on NMW) there would still be great wealth, but a lot less obscene wealth

That wouldn't make much difference. Say you paid the CEO £100k less (in NSPCC) and they seem to have approx 2,500 employees according to google. £100k saving won't go far will it?

bubble
a 67k CEO reduction = 3 more decently paid non London staff.
that sounds like a win win

I wonder about the charities which offer soft toys for supporting an animal. Wouldn't they be better to spend the money on the real animals than making toys to give away? It might not be much of their overall income, but every penny counts when protecting endangered species.

I mentioned in a previous thread that I support this charity where you can see exactly where your money goes, even the name, age and a photo of the child who has received the bag you funded and maybe packed yourself.

www.schoolinabag.org/