How often have you heard that non-profits need to be “more businesslike”? Or witnessed the awe that greets people who cross over from the private sector to an NGO? Despite the global financial meltdown, relentless reports of corporate malfeasance and catastrophic breakdowns in governance at some of the most respected businesses, the corporate sector is continually held up as a model of efficiency, effectiveness, leadership and innovation to non-profits in India and around the world.

If only, we are told, we would adopt ‘corporate best practices’ in strategy, systems, structure, skills, staffing, governance and, increasingly, even style, we might finally break out of the mindsets that keep NGOs small, slow, and starving. With corporate support promising volumes of new resources, NGOs across India are scrambling to acquire the board members, metrics, and skills that will, they hope, unlock their slice of the CSR pie.

It’s been almost two decades since I escaped the corporate sector to find purpose, significance and, yes, learning on the non-profit side of the fence. It took me a while, and much frustration, to shed my MBA hubris and unlearn the shallow paradigms that a decade in the glass towers had imprinted on me.

Let me not discount the value of the tools, processes, technologies and disciplines prevalent in the corporate sector that the non-profit sector could benefit from. Or the fact that many NGOs would be well-served by applying some hard-headed business logic to their operations.

Combining best of both

Non-profit is a tax status, not a business plan. Non-profits could also do well to emulate the ambition and agility that 21st century businesses demonstrate. It is as vital, however, that we recognise the limitations of business thinking and appreciate the value of non-profit expertise.

Take, for instance, the fusion of head and heart that is virtually a prerequisite for decision-making in the non-profit sector. As businesses begin to grapple with customers, employees, and investors demanding values as much as value, the pragmatic idealism that is the hallmark of a well-run NGO is a trait in ever greater demand. As is the ability to attract and retain staff where remuneration is not the sole or even the main source of

motivation. Consider the potential value to businesses in the art of building consensus across diverse stakeholder groups.

What can business learn from organisations whose only real asset is public trust and whose existence depends on their ability to attract and motivate supporters on budgets that would not cover a day’s marketing expense at a corporate?

Increasingly, I find the non-profit sector polarised between those who espouse the corporate world view and those that reject it. Not only do these two groups seldom interact, each appears to hold the other in utter disdain. The schism obviates any possibility of combining forces or of cross- fertilising ideas and values.

On every issue, from gender-based violence to education and the arts to governance, interventions are fragmented rather than seeking to combine the best of both world views. This polarisation also prevents the development of shared norms, narratives, and networks, which in turn erodes the credibility of the sector and plays into the hands of those who seek to discredit it.

Business commands virtually unlimited financial resources. It enjoys great leverage with the mainstream media – through advertising as well as ownership. In an era when a nation’s performance is measured more by ‘ease of doing business’ and market indices, than by its progress on human development markers, big business barely needs to exercise more direct political clout through campaign contributions, lobbyists, and worse.

Distinctive value of social sector

A substantial part of civil society’s role comprises addressing the failings of state and market and curbing their excesses. The ability to design and deliver unfettered by either quarterly reporting requirements or election cycles is, or should be, a key strength of the social sector.

Efficiency vs justice. Programme design tailored to 12-month reporting vs the slow, often erratic processes that lead to sustained change. Inclusion and diversity vs the filter bubble that is the typical corporate boardroom.

Photogenic, feel-good interventions vs defending our basic democratic rights and freedoms. Self-congratulatory donor engagement vs deep partnerships that change hearts and minds.

If we are to emulate the private sector, I wish it would be in being able to set aside competitive differences to lobby for policies that benefit the sector as a whole; or in seeking to rationalise the regulatory frameworks that keep us unsustainable and vulnerable; or to work together on developing norms and standards that strengthen our collective credibility; or just to make more serious investments in our people, our capabilities, and our institutions.

If we are indeed to make a dent in the problems and complex issues we confront, we will have to collaborate in ways that are built on mutual respect and clear recognition of each sector’s distinctive value. We need enlightened leaders in government, civil society, and business to show the way.