Teacher unions aren’t the only ones who have a problem with linking compensation to performance. The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), the interest group representing the people who raise money for non-profit organizations, has declared that it is unethical.
As the AFP’s standards of ethics puts it: “Members shall not accept compensation or enter into a contract that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall members accept finder’s fees or contingent fees.” According to the AFP, paying fund-raisers a percentage of what they bring in is not just a bad idea, it is wrong.
I have been a member of three non-profit organization boards and at each one the board was told that it could not pay a fundraiser a percentage of money brought in. Instead, we were told that we were ethically bound to pay a fundraiser a flat fee and hope that the person would raise significantly more than the flat fee. I must also add that at each one of these organizations the fund-raiser we hired barely covered his/her flat fee and the non-profit came away with virtually nothing.
I have never understood why percentage-based compensation for non-profit fund-raisers is unethical. I understand that it is in the AFP and their members’ interest to declare that it is unethical. Doing so almost always stifles discussion on boards about what is the best way to compensate fund-raisers. It also shifts all risk to the organization from the fund-raiser and assures them a profit.
The AFP has gone as far as proposing that Congress pass a law forbidding non-profits from using percentage-based funding for fund-raisers. The argument about why this is such an awful practice that it needs to be outlawed is flimsy at best. First, the AFP claims: “Percentage-based compensation sets up a conflict of interest. A consultant’s desire for personal gain shouldn’t trump the broader social interests of the organization.” But it is not clear why paying fund-raisers a percentage of what they bring-in sets up a conflict of interest. If anything, paying fund-raisers a percentage aligns the interests of fund-raisers and organizations by providing the fund-raiser with an incentive to raise more money, which is exactly what most organizations also want.
If percentage-based compensation creates a conflict of interest, why should that be any more of a problem for fund-raisers in the non-profit sector than among sales-people in the for-profit sector? As the AFP concedes: “Percentage-based compensation methods are generally legal. They are also common practice in the commercial sector.”
Every objection that the AFP raises to percentage-based compensation could apply equally well to the profit-seeking sector. And each of these problems can be successfully managed. If they cannot, people in the profit-seeking sector would avoid percentage-based compensation as unproductive, but almost no one would denounce it as unethical.
What if a consultant were to receive compensation based on an unsolicited gift or on an annual contribution that commenced before and continues after the consultant leaves? Such reward without merit would create resentment among organization staff and donors. Since many contributions are the result of teamwork among organization staff and consultants, no one person should be able to cart off the rewards of that effort. Consultants motivated by personal gain could unduly pressure a donor to make a contribution, without consideration of the donor’s wishes or timetable. And if the practice became widely known, the organization’s reputation and credibility could suffer irreparable harm.
Sales also come to businesses “that commenced before and continues after the [salesperson] leaves.” Businesses that use percentage-based compensation devise ways of assigning responsibility for sales (some of which may be arbitray) or they exclude certain sales. These problems are not unique to non-profits and have been addressed in the profit-seeking sector.
It is also true that “many [sales] are the result of teamwork among organization staff and consultants, no one person should be able to cart off the rewards of that effort.” Again, these are problems that also exist in the businessworld and solutions have been developed.
Lastly, it is also true that “[salespeople] motivated by personal gain could unduly pressure a [customer] to make a [purchase], without consideration of the [customer]’s wishes or timetable.” This is also not a unique or intractable problem in the businessworld.
In the end, the declaration that percentage-based compensation for fund-raisers just feels like self-interested bullying. Non-profits may choose not to pay fund-raisers on a percentage basis, but they should feel free to consider whatever way would best serve the organization without being told that they are behaving “unethically” without any valid reason.
I’m thinking about starting a new organization, “People United for Jay P. Greene.” One of our first actions is likely to be to declare it unethical not to give Jay P. Greene a million dollars. We’d have about as much reason for saying so as the AFP has for its “ethics.”
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
For that idea to work, Jay, you would need to establish that your new organization has moral authority, such that other people should allow it to do all the thinking for them on ethical issues. So it would have to be something like Teachers and Non-Profit Organizations for Jay P. Greene.
I’m an AFP member and can give you my own perspective on why I don’t mind the policy and do think there is a legitimate conflict of interest that’s worth considering.
I write proposals, primarily, in my fundraising capacity. I could write a proposal for a large, new program that, honestly, would probably sink the client organization (were they to get the grant) – they don’t have the management capacity, it’s not on a scale in line with their long-range plans, or the reality is that they won’t be able to find the right staffing to live up to the outcomes the proposal promises. I would hope that it’s my basic sense of decency not to do that to an organization–to give them some frank feedback and help them re-define their goals, but it also helps that I’m not thinking about how much I might personally get out of it.
In a related fashion, the policy keeps organizations from asking me to write proposals for programs they’re not really ready to implement. Having to pay me a flat fee does ensure that they’ve at least given some thought to how serious they are about a program rather than just putting a few (or many) ideas out there and seeing what flies.
I get offered percentage-based compensation jobs a lot, but am hardly ever tempted to pursue them. On the very rare occasions when an organization really can’t afford my services and I truly believe in the project, I’ll do it pro bono.
That doesn’t sound very different from the situations all the rest of us face in our jobs. In virtually every type of job, people have incentives to direct the company’s business one place rather than another, to inflate their own departments’ budgets at the expense of others’, and so forth. The fundamental problem here is just that all the people working in these organizations are people, as opposed to angels. Yet your profession is almost the only one where this universal problem is used to justify insulating employees from performance-based compensation. Forgive my bluntness (and don’t blame Jay for it, since I’m commenting on his post) but why should you get off the hook and not me?