Difference in work culture between third sector and private industry.

[FredaFruitcake]

I've heard there's a massive difference in work culture between third sector and private industry, and that many people struggle to adapt.

I'll be starting a new job soon in the third sector - can anyone explain what this means, what the differences are?

Thank you

Major donors though does take time. I wouldn't expect someone without contacts and without a relationship to bring in proper major donor money in a year so that doesn't necessarily raise alarm bells. A trust fundraiser who can't deliver in a year though, major problem

tovel it's trusts

That's a serious problem then! One of the charities I'm involved with have made about 25 applications in the last year and have a success rate of about 70% at the moment. Some are large applications, others are smaller and that's a small charity. Some of the trusts at the moment, especially the funds from the sales of carrier bags can't actually give away their money. Lottery / Comic relief / Henry Smith etc are always going to be harder but Awards for All and some of the smaller heritage funds are relatively straightforward as are some of the local grant givers who want to get rid of their money before the end of the financial year.

Agreed tovel

My experience is that the third sector sector is more similar to the private sector, being driven by achieving results, than either is to the public sector - which is where I've encountered people with a 'that's not in my job description, leaving on the dot, lots of coffee breaks, jobs for life for minimum effort' mentality. (Have seen good public sector people too of course but, a few years ago anyway, it was clearly hard to get rid of dead wood there and there was a culture of not attempting to do so).

My part of the third sector was a specific field, seen as desirable to work in, that attracts very well qualified, capable, motivated professionals, with good degrees and post-grad qualifications, who had made a values-driven choice to work there for lower wages and 'make a difference' rather than work in the private sector and dance to the client's tune. So full of over-qualified, driven people in very low paid, short term jobs, trying to get their foot in the career ladder. Some quite inspiring and many capable people in more senior positions. Some burnout and people driven out by poor employment conditions.

Reading others' posts, it looks like some of that might be peculiar to my field (or a sub-set of fields represented in the third sector).

So my view of downsides (often, not always) are; poor governance, poor or no staff development, high turnover of staff on short contracts, this contributing to poor organisational memory, poor continuity - success not built on through lack of funding, failure not learnt from almost always, so an amount of running in small circles repeating mistakes, also setting up false expectations in partners / users then letting them down, through bursts of short-term enthusiasm which can't be followed up. A tendency to over-promise and rely on staff dedication to deliver.

Also, perhaps especially in small organisations, part of the poor governance is trustees who are passionate about the subject, in which they have huge amateur skill and dedication and cannot quite comprehend that people working professionally in this field don't necessarily want to volunteer in it at the same time - lots of extra unpaid hours, or that they are professionals with careers, not volunteers doing their hobby on a bursary (with a private income / well paid spouse). I think / hope that attitude is (literally, sadly, as they're amazing people if deployed constructively) dying out.

Lack of funds means performance cannot be rewarded financially of course. But, I found there was a willingness in some organisations to do what they could, so offer flexibility to valued employees (all or some).

Oh also, staff being very poor at working in the 'corporate style' and hard to manage (often not managed) because their dedication and passion for their subject means they see themselves almost as freelance experts being given a platform by the charity, rather than fully accountable to it. Results in all sorts of problems internally and externally.

Managing very motivated people when you have no real career structure or progression to offer them is hard.

I agree. Short term contracts can be frustrating but unfortunately a fact of the current climate.

Plenty of charities reliant on a single stream of funding with no exit strategy or diversification in funding streams who are absolutely screwed once grants they've become dependent on are cut. There's also a fundamental lack of understanding, especially in smaller charities of how community fundraising is labour and time intensive and isn't always the best use of staff time. A lack of understanding that being driven by a mission isn't actually the best way to drive forward to cause too.

My major frustration at the moment are boards of Trustees who don't have a single person with a knowledge of the voluntary sector. This is a major problem and absolutely vital. I like to see a board with a broad set of skills and at least 1 person with a voluntary sector background and a good knowledge of fundraising, one person with an HR background especially if there isn't an HR function, someone with knowledge of marketing and comms who understands working to limited (no) budget and a good finance person. I also like to see a service user or two. Rare to get this though

this contributing to poor organisational memory, poor continuity

The private sector are no better at preventing knowledge loss from the organisation, especially as they off shore vital functions such as IT and HR to cut costs. It means hand overs and succession plans are poorly executed nonexistent with years' of experience "walking out of the door". A continuous cycle of starting from scratch the whole time!

I've seen wildly different boards of trustees in similar size, medium, charities. Some really strategic, actively recruited for specific skills. More technical people being useful on sub-committees. Good interaction with staff. Then places where parochial, technical interest people were the trustees, out of their depth on strategic and employment issues. It's definitely something to look into. Forming direct relationships with trustees is a good idea.

Then there's the structure whereby (something like) an inverted pyramid of trustees sits atop a pyramid of staff, with the CEO the lynch pin between them. Massive problem if the CEO is poor and determined to hide their shortcomings. Dealt with by good governance and structures of course - but really tricky with an obstructive CEO.

We're all talking about quite different sizes of charities though aren't we.

Likewise, the frankly bonkers family-owned medium-sized company is a world away from a big corporate.

I don't think you can draw any sweeping generalisations- so much depends on the organisation and management.

This. I'd say there are probably more parallels between employers of a similar size than the sector they're each from. You can't compare a small family-run corner shop with a major international bank, but they're both private sector.

Even if most organisations mostly fit whatever generalisations are made about their sector, you may be looking at one of the organisations which doesn't fit the mould - be it in a positive or negative way.

The things i thought were most amazing were the paranoid resistance to being 'told what to do' by anyone. I used tp be a project leader and would get everyomrt agree to what needed to be done, agree tgat they were there to work as well as talk, but as soon as any tasks were allocatex to anyone i'd get emails saying i was 'some sort of

*Oh also, staff being very poor at working in the 'corporate style' and hard to manage (often not managed) because their dedication and passion for their subject means they see themselves almost as freelance experts being given a platform by the charity, rather than fully accountable to it. Results in all sorts of problems internally and externally.

Managing very motivated people when you have no real career structure or progression to offer them is hard.*

Absolutely this. I work in the third sector and have done for a lot of my life. I have a job now that I used to love and have come to hate, funding and unclear management structures due to the above mean I have a mishmash of projects to manage with several directors/managers above me or from funders/partner agencies who all have opinions and give 'orders' whilst not actually doing any work themselves. I, in turn, manage other people and try to support and encourage them and protect them from the impacts of the above but the result is I am utterly exhausted and disillusioned and seriously considering doing something else altogether even though, when I can actually get on with my job, I love it, work very hard and do a good job that genuinely helps people.

If half the money that is spent on the 'chiefs' was filtered down into the projects I manage we could genuinely change lives with it. It is so frustrating.

Trouble is, the hard working, committed people get disillusioned and leave, leaving the others to go on and progress into the senior positions over time which results in more of the same.

Agree with pp - you just can't generalise. The charity i work for is well governed and managed. We have a clear vision, we have kpis, delivered against outcomes focus etc. Very high staff retention, if there are any 'coasters' i don't know where. Focus is on the beneficiaries at all times rather than profit. I like it.

Lottie I reckon we work in the same sector. It saddens me greatly though that the over qualified people we are getting good through are increasingly those who can afford to work for free for ages. Jobs that used to be entry level are now interns. It was a pretty homogenous sector before and it's getting worse.

*come through

I've worked in private sector public sector and also third sector.

The public sector was the worse in terms of being poor moral, very inflexible - in terms of moving between jobs or teams within the organisation, they hired people as managers who couldn't manage and made good people redundant because their project was being cut (rather than move them to another team).

Still seen people being very well paid in private sector despite not knowing the nuts and bolts of their job - because they are good at schmoozing with management.

3rd sector - there were a lot of good, hardworking people - but also a high turnover due to poor pay, leading to inefficiency . And some people who take the piss with sick leave.

Wow. I have worked in a charity since November. This is an eye opener. I left public as a fairly newly qualified hcp. I can recognise a lot of what is being talked about here.

As a former CEO (for 8 years) of a medium sized third sector organisation I found the majority of staff to be very dedicated, hard working and we had a low turnover of staff. The Trustee Board was a very different kettle of fish, difficult to get many of them to think strategically and sometimes it felt like herding cats.
I was expected to be available to them 24/7; I worked 60 hour weeks and eventually my health suffered. Being CEO of a charity turned out to be a pretty thankless task in the end, my only consolation was that the organisation was very beneficiary-focussed and I know we made a real difference to many, many peoples' lives.

Sounds about right TheBeanpole and, if so, that has always been the case to an extent - everybody started as a volunteer, certainly volunteering for experience while a student etc was a given - but there were lots of project positions and some training schemes as ways in. Student loans have made a huge difference in putting people off I think. Plus recession / austerity limiting opportunities. Just how can you expect to get to a position of being able to afford to support a family, in time to have one? It's not healthy for the sector, or its ability to reach people, at all.