First, look at the picture below.
 |
| Source: www.csmonitor.com |
Alright, in the spirit of not being judgmental, I did a quick Googe on the salary of top officials in non profit organizations. And I partly understand the argument that non profit has to compete with corporation to get the best and the brightest. But, still, six digit figures touching the veneer of $500,000 (or double that in some cases) seems a little bit unsettling to me. I am not a big corporation guy so I have little idea about the benefits and compensation in that kind of surroundings, but combining the idea of non profit dealing with malaria in Africa with the six digit figures spent on a holiday in Montreal is ..... a painful mental exercise.
I am almost tempted to urge the non profits to simply settle with the brighter mind and look for the brightest heart instead. In my imagination, someone who is not motivated by dime (or in this case, hundred thousands) and who will voluntarily choose to be under underpaid (notice the double 'under'). There must be someone like that out there right?
But after scrutinizing the report, it comes as a shock to me that World Vision, the organization that I wholeheartedly support, is on the list. Having read the book that Rich Stearns wrote, he definitely does not come out as a selfish greedy old guy, I can feel the passion and genuineness surfacing from his writings. So, no reconciliation yet to be made about this, I guess I'm just trying to be open minded and patiently waiting for a better explanation.
I'm not arguing that the top executives should suffer and sacrifice his / her life, I guess what I'm calling for is a further re-evaluation of what salary range is acceptable or appropriate. How does compensation or benefit or salary is justifiably allocated? Should it be commensurate with his / her dedication, or how much money he / she raise that year, or seniority or a soft re-calling to that deep dark place often untouched nowadays called conscience?
