





































Microsoft Word - Corcoran prooftext.docx


[Expositions 13.1 (2019) 31–45] Expositions (online) ISSN: 1747–5376 

The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 

 

WILLIAM D. CORCORAN 

 

 

Frequently, after I had made a presentation about my work with a major international relief agency, 

people would congratulate me on having the job of their dreams. Often, they waxed on about how 

fulfilling it must be to get up each morning for a job that meant something, that had purpose. 

Many yearn for employment that makes them feel as if their lives are making a difference. It 

seems that fewer employees, especially millennials, are willing to punch a time clock and make 

widgets simply to put food on the table. More positively, they seek a satisfying job and one that 

leaves the world better for it. 

In the context of employment, “service” embodies what most of them are trying to articulate. 

They are willing to work long hours and sacrifice certain amenities if there is a point to the effort. 

Students are particularly desirous of investing themselves in worthy enterprises. 

If that is the case, should Catholic institutions of higher learning encourage and empower these 

aspirations? And how can that be done in a responsible manner? 

 

Premise 

The primary impetus of most colleges and universities is to make students better equipped to secure 

adequate employment. But the Catholic ethos, that man does not live by bread alone, indicates that 

we also seek something additional. What further is it that Catholic colleges and universities seek 

for their students, and how is it concretized in a business curriculum in particular? 

 

Personal perspective as a practitioner 

Before outlining some options for future graduates and job applicants, let me provide some insights 

into my background in order to contextualize my recommendations. I am not going to attempt to 

articulate academic solutions to issues like job satisfaction or the optimal tool kits for future 

graduates. Instead, I am reflecting on 20 years of service in relief and development agencies, both 

based in the United States and overseas, and from staff and leadership positions. 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 32 

The most recent post was as Chief Executive Officer of American Near East Refugee Aid 

(Anera); I led this non-governmental organization (NGO) for ten years. Once it was a sleepy 

charity focused on health care, infrastructure, agriculture, and education in the war-torn arenas of 

Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon. In my ten years, we grew from 55 staff to 150 and 

from revenue of $35 million to $67 million. Because of that rapid growth, there was an ever-

present need for re-tooling. We expanded from four senior staff to eight, undertook three strategic 

planning processes, unveiled three new web site designs, and undertook a massive capital 

campaign. 

The point is that, in a brief period, this NGO was forced to revolutionize its mode of operation. 

Survival required significant upgrading of its systems and staff. However, that was not peculiar to 

Anera and probably represents a recurring picture of the non-profit world. Decades ago, it struck 

me as very different from the for-profit world. Now I am not so sure. 

 

Non-profit segment of the economy 

In the search for a job with meaning, many are drawn to the non-profit world. For my purposes, 

this includes any agency that is registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt organization qualifying 

under federal tax law 501c3. This could include soup kitchens, most hospitals, animal shelters, 

most colleges, and NGOs. In 2013, the total number of U.S. non-profits reached 1.41 million 

organizations. Contrast that with the number of non-profits in 1970, estimated to be only 380,000.1 

Likewise, revenue in 2013 skyrocketed to $2.26 trillion. “The non-profit sector employed over 

14.4 million people (estimated) in 2013 […]. The non-profit sector has experienced a period of 

sustained growth over the past decade.”2 In 2013, this translated into an ever-expanding 10.6% 

share of the national economy.3 A think-tank report comments further, “The non-profit sector has 

grown by 20% over the last 10 years in contrast to a growth rate of 2–3% in the for-profit sector.”4 

In brief, in contrast to other niches of the economy, non-profits offer a wide variety and an 

increasingly larger volume of opportunities for new graduates. 

 

Sophistication 

There once was a common, gross oversimplification that non-profits were sloppy with revenue 

generation and, similarly, with cost containment and tracking. Some people spoke of church bake 

sales and non-profits in the same breath. Regardless, the sheer magnitude of money entering non-



33  Corcoran 

 
 

profit coffers has prompted a wave of structural enhancements in the form of tighter strictures 

sparked by a number of quarters. 

 

1. Federal Government—Every non-profit with a 501c3 status must file an IRS 

Form 990 annually as a reporting mechanism. A series of recent revisions 

demand substantially more financial details than had been the case even fifteen 

years ago. Moreover, the filing is now easily accessible to the public. The 

expanded filing includes details on the compensation of top executives and 

board members. More important, it requests compliance with a list of “best 

practices” including regular meetings by the board of directors, annual reviews 

of the CEO, and outside auditing by qualified CPAs. 

2. Donors/Funders—During the same period, individual contributors and 

professional funders acquired a greater appetite for in-depth information. 

Specifically, it has become commonplace for individual donors to elicit 

materials over and above those presented in public materials like annual reports. 

Meanwhile, funding agencies, which run the gamut from small family 

foundations to federal entities like USAID, are seeking more clarity or 

mandating methodologies for reports. An entire industry has developed simply 

to provide training for the unique charts of accounts, procurement systems, and 

qualification of expenses demanded by federal grants. That has prompted the 

hiring of banks of specialists. At Anera, 10% more staff were required to 

comply with USAID regulations alone. Moreover, Anera placed on retainer an 

attorney who specialized in nothing but federal specifications under USAID. In 

total, funder regulations and oversight have evolved into quite rigorous 

infrastructures. 

3. Watchdog agencies—The arrival of GuideStar in 1994 and Charity Navigator 

in 2001 has put teeth into the system, particularly for individuals. Functioning 

like Consumer Reports, those organizations assess program and financial 

effectiveness for donors. Under a rating system they devised, some comparison 

is available for the philanthropic shopper. This has forced non-profits to be 

more vigilant, especially regarding the all-important ratio of overhead expenses 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 34 

to programs. Moreover, the watchdogs track best practices to ensure that non-

profits evaluate staff performance, assess program effectiveness, and establish 

strategic plans. Now, consumers/donors can be significantly better informed in 

their decision making. 

 

This trend toward standardization and accountability will only increase as non-profit 

competition for donor dollars accelerates. Thus, I contend that non-profits, in their rapid 

advancements, are closing the gap with for-profit businesses when it comes to professionalism. 

Technology will further drive efficiency. The narrow margins of non-profits have forced them 

to adopt more time-savers and economize on staffing where possible. Greater usage of technology 

provides that opportunity. Illustrating the effects of hi-tech on non-profits, allow me to list what 

Anera adopted in software or Apps, only in the past five years: 

 

 Salesforce—for fundraising and customer relations management 

 Abila MIP—for general accounting and project tracking 

 Target Analytics—for overlays of donor files with wealth indicators 

 Eventbrite—for event planning 

 Classy—for event planning and crowdfunding 

 Hootsuite—for social media monitoring 

 Moz—for search engine optimization for web site enhancement 

 

That list doesn’t even cite the ubiquitous systems of Microsoft Office, Facebook, and various 

outsourced providers of pensions, payrolls, etc. that are located in the cloud. 

All of this mandates a staff highly proficient in IT and versatile on multiple platforms. If 

someone does not possess a working knowledge of a particular system, he or she must display the 

readiness and capacity to learn, rapidly. 

In retrospect, my judgment is that the non-profit world has enlisted standards of accountability, 

marketing, transparency, and technology that mirror most of what is found in comparably sized 

private corporations. Thus, the non-profit market deserves greater respect in business circles. 

Moreover, the core business qualities of a successful non-profit employee are now similar to those 

of for-profit staff. 



35  Corcoran 

 
 

Job satisfaction 

Another commonality between the two markets is the jarring effect that rapid change has foisted 

on employees, especially older ones. Most staff surveys cite heightened stress among employees 

as both markets demand constant re-invention. Where the two markets continue to differ is on job 

satisfaction. Regardless of employee age, non-profit employees note greater contentment in their 

posts than their confrères in business. 

“According to a TIAA survey, three of four employees and eight in ten managers choose to work 

at their non-profit organizations, and stay there for years, because they’re committed to making a 

difference in people’s lives.”5 Further, “managers think an organization’s values and mission 

(76%) and its ability to offer satisfying work (64%) are two advantages non-profit organizations 

have compared to for-profit companies.”6 This becomes more apparent when comparing staff 

retention. “A majority of employees and managers (65% and 74%, respectfully) have worked in 

the non-profit sector for six or more years. This is nearly two years longer than the median tenure 

for employees across all industries (4.2 years), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”7 

These data are consistent with my experience at both Anera and Child Fund (where I served as 

Vice President from 2001 to 2006): at both organizations, the average tenure for employees was 

significantly higher at eight years. When employees were asked what attracted and kept them, 

responses began with the mission, which resonated with their personal philosophy or theology. 

Yet it was the overall work environment that kept employees engaged for years. The process of 

decision-making was of particular importance. A participative system was perceived as a 

recognition of employees’ personal value: they appreciated being offered a possibility to impact 

agency direction. This was immediately apparent in our Anera organigram, which stressed a more 

flattened chart in contrast to the traditional hierarchical pyramid. 

As may be expected, salary is not the primary element of satisfaction for employees of non-

profits. In advance, employees at Anera and Child Fund anticipated the industry stereotypes of 

business paying higher wages/salaries but more frugal benefits. They mentioned that they 

perceived the non-profit emphasis on health care packages as evidence of their serious appreciation 

of employees. Here the stereotype is borne out by facts. As one report notes, “non-profits generally 

pay less for comparable jobs than for-profit companies but […] non-profits often have a richer set 

of benefits.”8 That said, in recent years, this gap has dissipated in many job categories. Those 

positions that are replicated in the for-profit world face stiff market demand and, as a result, reach 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 36 

parity. At Anera, we discovered that the toughest competition was for accountants, IT specialists, 

communication experts, and social media managers. The old salary disparity remains profound 

only at top levels for CFOs, CEOs, and Vice Presidents. It remains common for NGO executive 

pay to be only 50% to 60% of his or her peers in the for-profit world. Part of this difference is 

attributable to charity watchdogs that monitor and publish senior management compensation 

packages. But this contrast would not be a concern for entry-level employees and, in fact, may be 

an incentive. Having a narrow pay range at Anera spoke to millennials of a community rather than 

a hierarchy. 

 

Opportunities 

Oddly enough, the frugality of staffing in non-profits may provide extra opportunities for 

employees. For instance, at Anera, we sought to maintain expenses at a rate under 7%. That single 

digit made us more marketable with donors and funders. At the same time, it forced us to be very 

creative in utilization of resources. This actually proved to be a benefit for new employees who 

deliberately sought a variety of experiences. Our job descriptions heavily accented the final clause, 

“and other duties as required.” This meant that jobs were rarely cookie-cutter roles with minutely 

delineated tasks. Instead, they actively encouraged cross-training in various other disciplines. This 

enabled us to supplement overtaxed departments during peak periods, supplant individual staff 

during illnesses, and stretch existing staffing before justifying a new position. Thus, a secretary 

could become a procurement officer, fundraisers might help design a school construction project 

so that it was appealing to donors, and an intern could become a lead negotiator because of his or 

her language skills. We had to utilize talents regardless of strict job titles. 

Another attractive feature stemmed from being an agency with international projects. Both 

Anera and Child Fund had the occasional need for staff who could volunteer for temporary posting 

overseas. This TDY (temporary duty) or seconding was quite popular for many who were 

unencumbered and sought the work or travel experience. 

All of this served to build an atmosphere where staff felt valued in the present and encouraged 

to continue professional and personal growth for the future. 

 

 

 



37  Corcoran 

 
 

From adventure to service 

Often, our new hires would exhibit huge fascination with the drama and glitter of geopolitics and 

international travel. Based in Washington, D.C., our work involved regular elbow rubbing with 

foreign ambassadors, State Department officials, and wealthy donors. That glitz attracted many to 

jobs in relief and development. Yet, you can imagine their perspectives soon changed. 

What transformed them was the first trip overseas to meet recipients and inspect projects. 

Examining with school teachers the debris of a recently bombed out kindergarten in Gaza tends to 

make things real. Likewise, meeting a twenty-year-old Syrian woman who lost her husband 

because he was executed focuses the idealism. These encounters personalized the work and gave 

employees something tangible as a purpose. No longer were they striving only for an ideal. Now 

they could work extra hours and sacrifice when necessary for the benefit of real people who had 

touched their lives. 

At this point in their employment, we would observe a transformation from rather naïve and 

even selfish motives to a dedication to service. To assist this journey, we created opportunities for 

new hires to process what they had observed. Debriefings conducted by several staff would allow 

someone to digest a wide array of emotions. Some struggled with guilt because they felt so 

fortunate to be living in the U.S. Others expressed anger and hatred for those who were responsible 

for unjust conditions. Still others were grappling with the very basic realization of evil in the world. 

In those discussions, we were able to clarify their feelings and motivations for service despite the 

now apparent forces battling against them. 

 

Servant leadership 

Understandably, non-profit careers are attractive to many who seek a life of service. Yet 

developments in management theory have made deeper purpose in work a possibility for students 

inclined to the for-profit world as well. 

The rather hackneyed term “servant leadership” was popularized in 1970 by a former executive 

for AT&T, Robert Greenleaf. According to the Center for Servant Leadership, it is “a philosophy 

and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations and ultimately 

creates a more just and caring world.”9 Greenleaf first developed the concept in his essay “The 

Servant as Leader.” The initial hurdle that he found was that this phrase struck most listeners as 

an oxymoron. In traditional discourse, the two cannot co-exist. The leader must be in charge and, 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 38 

thus, not at the whim of the masses. But since the 1960s, societal trends toward participation and 

equality broadened the outlook of how people view power and authority. Thus, from Greenleaf’s 

point of view, this novel approach became not only possible but a necessity for the truly successful 

leader. 

For those from a Christian perspective, the idea of servant leadership should not be shocking. 

A concordance of the Bible lists the word “leader” six times, whereas the word “servant” appears 

900 times. Business school professors Sen Sendjaya and James Sarros acknowledge that “[i]t was 

the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, who first taught the concept of servant leadership.”10 

Nevertheless, despite numerous examples, the Apostles did not comprehend this novel 

management style. The evangelist Mark records a situation when they were bickering with each 

other about who was the heir apparent to Jesus. In a moment of correction, “Jesus called them 

together and said, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over 

them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whomever 

wants to become great among you must be your servant.’”11 Later, Jesus reiterates this teaching 

with nonverbal action at the Last Supper. Washing the feet of the Apostles was demeaning and not 

to be performed by honored guests, but by slaves or servants. Yet this action was not one of a 

groveling, insecure man, but one who was self-possessed enough to deliberately place himself at 

the disposal of others. 

Greenleaf’s 1977 book, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power 

and Greatness, proposed the following: 

 

A fresh critical look is being taken at the issues of power and authority, and people 

are beginning to learn, however haltingly, to relate to one another in less coercive 

and more creatively supporting ways. A new moral principle is emerging, which 

holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and 

knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the 

clearly evident servant stature of the leader. Those who choose to follow this 

principle will not casually accept the authority of existing institutions. Rather, they 

will freely respond only to individuals who are chosen as leaders because they are 

proven and trusted as servants. To the extent that this principle prevails in the 



39  Corcoran 

 
 

future, the only truly viable institutions will be those that are predominantly servant 

led.12 

 

This prescient thought from 1977 seems to be more valid now. 

Greenleaf’s vision presumes, however, that each manager will undergo a metanoia, or 

transformation, in his or her style of decision-making. Simply to change structures would be 

insufficient. Greenleaf expects that adopting this model in a thorough way requires its philosophy 

to be integrated in the leader’s daily personal style. Then, personal conduct will feed the new 

organizational mentality and not be an artificial overlay. Authenticity will encourage other 

managers to adapt and other staff to respond in a cooperative manner. It cannot be simply a nine 

to five business approach. Sendjaya and Sarros put the point this way: “Th[e] being and doing 

attributes of servant leadership represent a significant paradigm shift in the act of leadership, which 

comprises the leader’s self-concept and primary intent.”13 

This admonition segues to another feature of servant leadership as envisioned by Greenleaf. 

Servant leaders should possess an ancillary and, as circumstances require, perhaps unspoken goal 

of transforming society in the course of achieving business success. Greenleaf writes, “Businesses 

are asked not only to produce better goods and services, but to become greater social assets as 

institutions.”14 A business led by a servant leader has the potential to catalyze ripple effects across 

society in the form of heightened societal expectations of transparency, participative decision-

making, rewards for group sacrifices, and respect for individuals. In extremis, the corporate world 

can feel exempt from these expectations. But the expanding popularity of servant leadership in 

business, especially but not only in the non-profit world, can create a momentum that even the 

most profit-seeking of corporations might find difficult to ignore. 

 

Merger of two worlds 

Personally, I think we are seeing a convergence of major segments of the traditional for-profit and 

the non-profit worlds. As I observed above, part of this convergence is triggered by technology 

and core competencies mandated by both sectors. But part has also been a by-product of pioneers 

like Greenleaf and Stephen Covey who popularized the servant leadership concept in business 

circles. 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 40 

An additional ingredient to muddying the waters has been the appearance of social 

entrepreneurs who fostered for-profit businesses with servant leadership mentalities. For many, 

Tom’s of Maine, founded in 1970, was the harbinger of this novelty. A producer of natural 

toothpaste built on a family-like atmosphere, Tom’s became so successful that Colgate Palmolive 

purchased it in 2006 for $100 million. Before that sale, it developed a cult-like for its open 

management style and allocation of millions by employee selection to various charities. The titles 

of Tom Chappell’s two books, The Soul of a Business: Managing for Profit and the Common Good 

(1996) and Managing Upside Down: The Seven Intentions of Values-Centered Leadership (1999), 

clearly indicate his bent. By no means averse to making money, he advocates a more Christian 

way of doing so. It is no mistake that Tom himself graduated from Harvard Divinity School. 

Of more recent vintage is TOMS Shoes, established in 2006 by Blake Mycoskie. This California 

firm skyrocketed to success with the business model that, if you buy a shoe, it will donate a shoe 

to a child.15 The altruism of shopping to save the world, so to speak, was especially appealing to 

millennials. Additionally, Mycoskie ran the operation in a very horizontal fashion. 

During my tenure as CEO of Anera, we developed a sustained partnership with TOMS. It used 

Anera as its distributor of free shoes in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. Over the years 2012–

2017, TOMS donated $8 million of footwear to our children alone. In 2015, I inspected the 

company’s headquarters outside of Los Angeles. In a very “laid back” Californian style, TOMS 

had retrofitted an old warehouse with an open concept. An espresso bar, firemen’s poles to the 

lower floors, and animal-friendly sections were among the amenities. But TOMS truly surpassed 

the frills and incorporated a collaborative style that attracted and retained employees. Moreover, 

even though it was a for-profit venture, its philanthropic approach fed many of the staff with the 

satisfaction that they were in fact making the world better. 

I see this new generation of business entrepreneurs as routinely incorporating into their 

businesses features of what previously had been considered a strictly non-profit mentality. 

Gradually, the executive washrooms and separate dining areas are being eliminated as all 

employees mingle. The net result will be a shrinking number of firms that embody the old-school 

mentality of business operations. 

 

 

 



41  Corcoran 

 
 

A new world for future managers 

I have recounted that the non-profit and for-profit worlds which once ran in parallel universes are 

now in direct competition for many resources. Charity watchdogs and federal regulations will only 

accentuate that trend as they force the rapid professionalization of charity operations. 

Simultaneously, a full employment economy, as we have now, heightens the competition for 

employees. Employers must provide superior packages, but in return they will ask for superior 

skill sets. 

The question arises then: How do colleges and universities outfit students who seek a career of 

service during this shifting reality? One initial response has been to focus directly on incorporating 

business disciplines into novel forms of non-profit studies. A cursory search reveals 212 schools 

that offer credit courses and advanced degree programs in non-profit management. Johns Hopkins 

University and Virginia Commonwealth University produced master’s programs that have filled a 

niche in the Washington non-profit job market, particularly for NGOs. Throughout the country, 

other programs have emerged with variations on a theme. Harvard boasts a master’s in public 

administration (MPA), which leans more heavily to government service but in recent years has 

begun catering to NGO executives. Notable graduates include Ban Ki-moon, General Secretary of 

the United Nations; David Petraeus, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency; and 

Kathleen Sibelius, former Secretary of Health and Human Services. Other monikers for similar 

programs are master’s in public affairs or master’s of public policy and administration. Still other 

schools have created more boutique offerings, like philanthropic studies, managing mission-driven 

organizations, and strategic fundraising. And some Catholic universities have responded in kind 

by developing uniquely Catholic solutions, like a master’s program in church administration 

(MCA), as offered by Villanova University and Catholic University of America. 

I worry, however, that most of these efforts are highly specific to niche segments of the 

workplace—segments that may not endure. I fear that they train people to answer the tailored needs 

of either NGO, church, or government sectors, but severely limit the recipient’s mobility. For 

example, I know from personal experience that recruiters in the for-profit industry or even those 

in secular non-profits balk at applicants with a distinctly churchy background. Some such 

employers have admitted that they were uncertain about the transferability of work experience and 

education. Moreover, they quietly feared that the value system of a “church employee” would not 

mix well with a secular environment. 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 42 

Conversely, in the Washington, D.C. environment, recruiters at NGO agencies were very 

hesitant to interview MPA graduates. First, they were thought to be interested in government 

policy rather than administration or operations. Second, their education and work experience 

tended to be more “macro” than the daily needs of NGOs. Third, government employees had no 

experience in the fundraising or marketing necessary to sell an agency’s wares. Fourth, they were 

stereotyped as less “hungry” and probably unwilling to work hard or for long hours. For all those 

reasons, they were routinely placed at the bottom of the CV pile. 

Thus, students who pursue, for instance, an MPA or MCA may find their later career choices 

highly restricted. If students are thoroughly convinced that their entire life will only be spent in 

one sector of society, so be it. But considering human nature, I suspect that most people cannot 

plan out all of their life choices in their twenties. Moreover, the volatility of our economy 

recommends optimal flexibility. Versus our parents, the average American has many more careers. 

“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average worker currently holds ten different jobs 

before age forty, and this number is projected to grow. Forrester Research predicts that today’s 

youngest workers will hold twelve to fifteen jobs in their lifetime.”16 

Of the two sectors, for-profit business is undoubtedly more volatile at this point and for the 

foreseeable future. Technological revolutions alone are forcing rapid reconfiguration. An article 

on “America’s 24 Dying Industries” has some surprises.17 The dying industries range from the 

predictable loss of bookstores and textile mills to the demise of recording studios and harbor 

operations. Its most startling feature was the rapidity of decline. Since 2007, most of the industries 

in question have plummeted in employment totals by more than 45%. 

Unpredictable fluctuations of societal tastes, technological ripple effects, and economic 

necessities will force both for-profit and non-profit markets into quicker transformations over the 

next years. Current students should be prepared. 

 

Recommendations for the future 

First and foremost, I highly recommend non-profit jobs as a means of discovering unparalleled 

satisfaction. In particular, the experiences of international NGO work provided me with insights 

into life which could not have been garnered elsewhere. Even years later, I revel in the knowledge 

that I built schools and fresh water systems, provided jobs, and delivered medicine that saved lives 



43  Corcoran 

 
 

in some of the most war-torn corners of the world. Students should be thoroughly exposed to the 

magnificent potential for fulfillment through non-profit careers.  

Second, I suggest that Catholic institutions also promote non-profit careers as worthy vehicles 

for living out the Gospel in a spirit of service. If students desire an opportunity to sacrifice for a 

higher goal, there are few better ways. While agencies like Catholic Relief Services are specifically 

crafted on biblical principles, even secular non-profits labor in ways that will transform an 

individual and society. Overseas, I was particularly struck by groups like International Rescue 

Committee and the Aga Khan Foundation which always had notable impact. 

Third, while I heartily suggest that universities encourage dreams of changing the world, the 

shifting plates of our economy caution that they do so with an air of practicality. Even a well-

intended desire to be thoroughly immersed in a specific discipline can handicap later options. 

Consequently, I advise that those considering a non-profit career should not follow the route of 

full specialization in non-profit studies. To prepare for an uncertain future, students should 

entertain a master’s in business administration. The core skills necessary for non-profit work, the 

generation of revenue and its appropriate spending, are precisely what an MBA hones. Most of 

that knowledge would be transferable to non-profits. Moreover, the big picture offered by an MBA 

is highly valued at the executive level by boards of directors, many of whom are business leaders 

themselves. 

If a student matriculates at a university with diverse course offerings, it would be advisable to 

salt an MBA program with various electives in non-profit management or project design and 

programming. That exposure would at least introduce the student to the vocabulary of the non-

profit industry. In the end, if a promising non-profit career is interrupted by external factors, at 

least, the employee has the tool kit to enable a shift to for-profit firms. 

Finally, the majority of business students will undoubtedly be attracted to the for-profit sector. 

That being the case, the inculcation in the curriculum of Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership, 

later popularized by Covey, would seem to be consonant with the Catholic world view. Promoting 

authority based on service, even in the private sector, could act as a leaven against more utilitarian 

approaches. 

 

 

 



The Return on Investment of a Non-Profit Career 44 

Conclusion 

Students hunger to leave their mark. Naturally, some may yearn for name recognition, power, or 

monetary success. It would be refreshing to challenge that drive with an authentic Christian spirit 

of service. It strikes me as appropriate that alternatives be offered, at Catholic colleges and 

universities, in more places than campus ministry. There are ample reasons for infusing academic 

disciplines with our spiritual outlook on people, authority, and responsibility. Active promotion of 

non-profit careers and servant leadership are rational means of accomplishing that goal. 

In the seminal book Small is Beautiful, E.F. Schumacher entitles one chapter “Buddhist 

Economics,” which articulates an Eastern religious perspective on commerce.18 Considering our 

rich tradition of Catholic Social Teaching, it would be heartening to see biblical concepts become 

a source of positive values that could seep into the economic milieu of the country. In the process 

of observing these principles, graduates may achieve the jobs of their dreams. 

 

 

Notes 

 

1. Colin B. Burke, “Nonprofit History’s New Numbers (and the Need for More),” Nonprofit 

and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30.2 (June 2001): 174–203, at 180, https://journals. 

sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0899764001302002, accessed April 5, 2019. 

2. Brice McKeever and Marcus Gaddy, “The Nonprofit Workforce: By the Numbers,” 

Nonprofit Quarterly 23.3 (Fall 2016): 12–17, at 14, http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/407546/ 

Downloads/Digital_Magazine_Issues/2303_NPQ_Fall_web.pdf. 

3. Ibid. 

4. “Nonprofit Sector Growing Faster than Any Other,” 501c Agencies Trust, https://www. 

501ctrust.org/nonprofit-sector-growing-faster-than-for-profit/, accessed April 5, 2019. 

5. Paul Clolery, “Nonprofit Managers, Staying Put,” The Non-Profit Times September 20, 

2018, https://www.thenonprofittimes.com/human_resources/nonprofit-managers-staff-

staying-put/, accessed April 5, 2019. 

6. Ibid. 



45  Corcoran 

 
 

7. Ibid. 

8. Steve McDonnell, “Salary Difference between Corporate and Nonprofit Industries,” 

Chron, 2019, https://work.chron.com/salary-difference-between-corporate-nonprofit-

industries-24453.html, accessed April 5, 2019. 

9. See “What Is Servant Leadership?” Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 

2016, https://www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/, accessed April 5, 2019. 

10. Sen Sendjaya and James C. Sarros, “Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and 

Application in Organizations,” Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9.2 (2002): 

57–64, at 58. 

11. Ibid., 59. See Mark 10: 42–45. 

12. Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into Nature of Legitimate Power and 

Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002), 23–24. 

13. Sendjaya and Sarros 59. 

14. Ibid., 61. 

15. See further “Company Information,” TOMS, 2019, https://www.toms.com/about-toms, 

accessed April 5, 2019. 

16. Scott Marker, “How Many Jobs Will the Average Person Have in His or Her Lifetime?” 

LinkedIn, February 22, 2015, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-many-jobs-average-

person-have-his-her-lifetime-scott-marker, accessed April 5, 2019. 

17. Sam Stebbins and Evan Comen, “America’s 24 Dying Industries,” 24/7 Wall St., 

December 8, 2017, https://247wallst.com/special-report/2017/12/08/americas–25-dying-

industries-2/7/, accessed April 5, 2019. 

18. E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (New York: Harper 

& Row, 1973). 


