Equity or Equality: The critical Choice Facing Nonprofit Organizations

 

In the complex landscape of nonprofit governance, two fundamental concepts often compete for our attention: equity and equality. While these terms are frequently used interchangeably, their distinct meanings carry profound implications for how nonprofit organizations operate, grow and serve their communities.

According to Wiktionary, equity refers to the fair treatment of people, while equality describes the relationship between two things being equal. This seemingly simple distinction becomes remarkably complex when we examine how nonprofit organizations navigate their governance structures and operational dynamics.

The Governance Paradox in Growing Nonprofits

During my recent reading of "Guidelines for Improving the Effectiveness of Boards of Directors of Nonprofit Organizations" by Vic Murray and Yvonne Harrison, I encountered numerous reasons why board responsibilities often remain unclear to board members themselves. While I could address all of these challenges, I want to focus on what the paper identifies as the most common issue: the board's failure to adapt to changes that occur within the organization.

This observation leads me to a critical thesis about nonprofit governance: When a nonprofit organization is in its early stages, all members must do everything. There are no clear roles and no clear responsibilities due to the lack of personnel. However, as the NPO grows in membership, a window of opportunity opens for clarifying these roles and responsibilities.

Work distribution becomes a doable task, yet here lies the fundamental problem: the board members and founding members who workes tirelessly to gather new members, among other essential taska, won't let go of all the responsibilities and duties to others - even to new, capable members. This reluctance prevents them from focusing on what they must truly do: governance in general, but with very specific focus areas.

The Micromanagement Trap

The board of a nonprofit organization must understand their role within the organization. They must know the constitution and apply it when necessary. They must assess whether they are achieving the organization's goals. They must focus on securing funding for day-to-day activities, among other strategic responsibilities.

This article is not about teaching the role of the board - that's a topic for another discussion. Instead, this article aims to expose the problematic micromanagement that boards often impose on new and well-intentioned members of an organization.

The Fence Analogy: Visualizing Equity vs Equality

I recently encountered a powerful image on social media that perfectly illustrates the difference between equality and equity. The image showed three boys of different heights trying to watch a football game over a wooden fence, with three boxes available to help them see.

In the equality scenario, each boy receives one box. The tallest boy, who could already see clearly over the fence, gets elevated even higher. The middle boy, who could barely see the game, now has a clear view. But the shortest boy, despite having his own box, still cannot see the game over the fence. This is equality - everyone gets the same resources, regardless of their individual needs or circumstances.

Now imagine the equity scenario: The tallest boy doesn't receive any box since he can already see over the fence clearly. The middle boy, who could barely see over the fence, receives one box to see the game with no effort. The shortest boy receives two boxes, enabling him to see the game clearly as well. This is equity - resources are distributed based on individual needs to achive equitable outcomes.

The Organizational Implications

This distinction between equality and equity has profound implications for nonprofit governance. When boards apply an equality approach, rhey treat all members the same, regardless of their experience, skills, or capacity to contribute. When they apply an equity approach, they recognize that different members may need different levels of support, training, or responsibility to contribute effectively to the organization's mission.

The micromanagement problem I described earlier often stems from boards applying neither true equality nor equity, but rather a paternalistic approach that assumes new members cannot handle significant responsibilities. This approach stifles organizational growth and prevents the board from focusing on their core governance responsibilities.

To be continued...