In the early 1990s I accepted a job as executive director of a small nonprofit based in Philadelphia. It’s called Philabundance. The organization works in what would come to be known as the food security field (though that term didn’t yet exist). Still in a startup stage, Philabundance had four staff members and a small board.
To give context, poverty and the related problems of homelessness and hunger had been growing in American cities through the ‘80s, but government funding to address these issues had decreased sharply. It was a bona fide crisis. Many community organizations had sprung up to address these issues. Philabundance was just the second “food rescue” operation in the U.S. and an early innovator for what would become a widespread model. The organization had some success but, like many nonprofits, faced immense needs and funding challenges.
Another trend was taking hold concurrently: “Diversity” had recently become a mainstream interest in corporate workplaces, and the nonprofit sector had begun to consider its own diversity challenges. Ours was a predominantly white organization serving a very diverse population–a common trait for nonprofits in that era (and not uncommon today). Relationships in the community were strong, and we faced no specific pressure to change this.
Photo by Chris Henry via Unsplash
We did, however, face huge needs for our services, which primarily consisted of delivering fresh food to a network of shelters, social service agencies and community organizations. Stakeholders agreed that lives were at risk and our top priority was to meet those needs. This required growth and new hiring. Serving communities of need eclipsed other goals.
Fortunately our funding funding base began to grow, bringing another immediate need: hiring capable people we could afford. This was no easy task, as the work was hard and we didn’t pay a lot.
Despite that hurdle, our services and staff expanded steadily. Fast forward nine years: We had a staff of 45, 60% of which were people of color, including both hourly and salaried positions. Women served in many key roles, including some (e.g. dispatchers, operations and finance managers) nearly always filled by men at the time. The board had become more diverse too, though not to the same extent. The organization better reflected our community.
Here’s the story of how we did it. Spoiler alert: We didn’t need special training, didn’t require an epiphany on systemic racism, and didn’t have to compromise any other goals or priorities. We did, however, need to make some changes and long-term commitments.
Recruitment
We had been advertising job openings in the familiar places. We were getting candidate pools that weren’t thrilling us, either in quantity or quality. In interviews and reference checks we often learned that the better prospects on paper (they actually were on paper back then!) weren’t really qualified or, often, weren’t willing to venture into the neighborhoods we worked in. Several offers were rejected. Sometimes we’d take a leap of faith only to regret it later. One new hire quit two hours into his first shift. Another filed a dubious workers’ comp claim during his first week. (It was rejected.) I’m sorry to say that I also hired—and fired—a compulsive liar, a belligerent sexist, and a guy who invented a college degree.
We needed to change some things. We started recruiting through informal channels–sharing posts with our community partners, encouraging our employees to tap into their personal networks, and asking business contacts to pass on information on to their staff members. We began to get more candidates, and they came with personal or professional recommendations. Many happened to be people of color and women.
We were willing to train folks on the job. Another new practice was modifying our picture of the ideal candidate, favoring basic skills and behavioral attributes–such as demonstrated work ethic, reliability and ability to learn–over specific job skills and experience. In essence, we started looking for the best candidates 6-12 months down the road as opposed to on day one.
Two other practices included: building an advance pool of potential hires, many of whom were currently employed elsewhere; and hiring more part-time employees as a step toward full-time work.
Together, these changes made hiring less time-consuming, more seamless, and more successful. They also diversified our staff.
Compensation
It’s not enough to be good at recruitment. The first thing most job applicants look at is salary. The second (to make another) is benefits. We had to be competitive on the job market, which was heating up by the mid-90s. How to do this, as a still-small nonprofit?
The first major leap was to stop thinking of our organization as a small nonprofit and start seeing, when looking in the mirror, a growing company with operational and funding needs. Nothing was more freeing than letting go of the charity mindset that a mission-focused entity just could not compete with larger employers and for-profit businesses.
The truth is that an unproductive workforce is no bargain, and nothing is less productive than a vacant position. Vacancies put stress on the rest of the staff and often have large indirect costs. Further, high turnover–along with the task of training and accommodating learning curves–is brutal on managers and frontline workers. In short, we recognized that we’d be much better off with a capable and stable staff.
Instead of viewing our organization as a 3rd-tier employer, we began to see ourselves in the 1st-tier. We abandoned a charity mentality in favor of a growth mentality.
Compensation was a big part of this. We led with benefits as a competitive advantage. We offered a full benefits program to all employees working 60% time or greater.
And, before the term “living wage” came into vogue, we set starting wages for all positions at more than double the minimum wage. With benefits, this meant that entry-level workers were earning triple the minimum wage. This put us above the median compensation for most positions.
Our applicant pools grew, our turnover rate went down and our staff productivity skyrocketed.
How could we afford this, you ask? These practices did cost more, but not as much as you might think. The added productivity meant that we could contain staff growth and, on occasion, even eliminate a vacant position that was no longer needed. Our policy was to hire the minimum staff we needed and pay people well. This meant that we had to focus on having a robust business model, and our financial bottom line was a driver of other essential goals.
Work Environment
Money isn’t everything. Higher wages may buy lower staff turnover, but don’t ensure high productivity. What does? We tried a range of things, and these are the ones that worked:
“By the book” HR management practices with a focus on standards and performance
Are you surprised I led with that? I’ve read think pieces that have suggested that the opposite promotes equity and inclusion at the workplace. But our experience was that setting high standards and holding people accountable–in very consistent ways–actually reduced stress on employees because they knew what was expected of them and knew they’d be treated fairly. It also minimized resentment when problem employees weren’t carrying their weight. High standards improved morale.
Autonomy
Employees, even new ones, were granted degrees of autonomy in doing their jobs. This extended to work methods and styles, within the bounds of schedules and standards established by supervisors. We also included all staff in some organizational policy decisions, giving them influence on their workplace. These practices helped build mutual trust, and our managers believed this fed productivity.
Value of soft skills
A lot of our work was transportation and warehousing. But the real essence of our work was relationships with the many people we partnered with in the community. Employees were encouraged to develop relationships with our partners and were rewarded for success. This emphasis on the human side of work gave us a competitive advantage in the job market and supported staff retention.
Paths of advancement
We aimed to establish paths for career advancement within the organization, where possible, and established a priority of promoting from within, when practical.
Culture of respect
Last, but not least, we established a simple guideline for how all team members would interact with others, both within and outside our staff: We respect other people.
Many nuances fall under the umbrella of those four words, and it extended to cultural differences, opinion and style differences, conflict resolution and supervision methods. We weren’t perfect but succeeded more often than not. There’s no substitute for respect, and we found that it bred loyalty to the organization. Loyalty manifested itself through employees working overtime when needed, proactively generating solutions to problems and staying with the organization longer. And, it essentially cost us nothing.
In Summary
If this story seems pretty straightforward, it is. Only the “living wage” policy felt innovative at the time. From a high level, it’s all basic human resource strategy, yet I’ve found these practices to be uncommon in the nonprofit sector. We had the benefit of funding growth during this period, but a share of that success was a result of our HR strategy; we had a highly productive workforce, which led to strong results, which in turn made it easier to raise money. There’s an old cliché, “success breeds success.” It’s often true.
A key point here is that while our organization was intrinsically committed to racial justice, we didn’t need that value in order to justify the worthiness of diversification–self-interest alone justified it. We never hired anyone who wasn’t the best candidate for the job, independent of race or gender, and we never used employment as a means to achieve a social end. (In fact, I don’t believe we ever noted the successful diversification of our staff in any way, either internally or externally.) Instead, HR was a primary tool to maximize the organization’s performance. By changing several practices and committing to changes over the long haul we built a more effective operation with greater mission impact and financial results. A diverse staff helped us do that .
I’ll also mention that we had a large competitor in our city, a nonprofit that did comparable work and vied for funding and public attention, usually on peaceful terms. It’s notable that they never made a commitment to diversification and experienced none of the gains that we did through the 1990s and beyond. This was no coincidence. Their staff lacked a vitality that I believe was both a cause and effect of their HR strategy. (They’re no longer around.)
Commitment to diversity and inclusion was smart business regardless of any context of social values or political imperatives. This less has been valuable to me in developing other organizations over the years, as a senior manager and a consultant.
Philabundance continued to grow over the years and, under new leadership, still makes huge contributions to community life in Philadelphia and serves as a model of diversity and inclusion. From my perspective, these three successes have come hand in hand.