Hi everyone. This is my fourth blog post on the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. Before I go further, yes I condemn Hamas’s atrocities committed on October 7th against Israeli civilians. And I also condemn antisemitism, a serious issue that has been on the rise all over the world.
And I condemn the war crimes and terrorism against Palestinian civilians that Israel has been committing since then, and for the past 75 years. As you read this, the number of Palestinian civilians that the Israeli government has massacred approaches 16,000 since October, including nearly 8,000 children. The death toll of Israel’s slaughter of Palestinian civilians this year has surpassed the Nakba of 1948. It will get worse, as Israel ramps up its aggression against southern Gaza, where it had previously told civilians to evacuate to. There is no place for Palestinian civilians to go to be safe. And as winter approaches, there will be more famine and starvation. The death toll will rise even higher.
A while ago, I wrote about how intermediary organizations are like mycelium, which is the rootlike structure of mushrooms. Like mycelium, these orgs are vital to the nonprofit field, as they provide several critical functions, including bringing funding to other nonprofits, connecting orgs to one another, disseminating vital information, fostering communication, and mobilizing orgs for advocacy. And they even help organizations at the end of their lives to exit gracefully, the way mushrooms help break down decaying matters and return them to the earth to feed and generate new life.
Hi everyone, before we get started, a few cool things to check out: First, my friend the amazing Kishshana Palmer, has a virtual workshop series geared towards nonprofit leaders. It starts next week. Check it out.
Finally, past and present funding professionals, please fill out the First Draft Funders Survey with your opinions on philanthropy and how it can improve.
As Thanksgiving is this week, I start to think about our society’s and our sector’s weird dynamics around gratitude. We’ve been trained to be thankful, to have an “attitude of gratitude,” to keep a gratitude journal, etc. This is mostly great. When everything feels overwhelming and out of control, gratitude can often be extremely grounding.
However, we don’t talk enough about the negative sides of gratitude. Specifically, there are ingrained notions of who is expected to be grateful to whom, and it is grossly lopsided, and we’ve been conditioned to just accept it. I’m going to call it the Asymmetric Requirement of Gratitude (ARG! I mentioned it briefly earlier here). Here are a few ways that it manifests:
Hi everyone. Over the past few weeks I’ve been getting messages regarding my two posts on Israel and Gaza. Most of them have been kind and encouraging. Some have been thoughtful in their disagreement. And some have not been so thoughtful, such as the colleague who called me a Nazi because I support a ceasefire and an end to the genocide and ethnic cleansing that Israel is committing against Palestinians in Gaza.
I have lost many followers and some work because of my stance, but it doesn’t matter. What I and others calling for a ceasefire have been experiencing cannot compare to the profound pain and suffering Palestinians are experiencing right now and have been over 75 years of Israeli occupation.
I also want to acknowledge that many of us are affected by trauma, including intergenerational traumas from horrific injustices in history. What our parents and grandparents endured lingers in our souls. Everyone is understandably on edge, and the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli civilians on October 7th and the horrific atrocities being committed by Israel against Palestinians in retaliation deeply affect us.
Over the past several years, I’ve noticed a marked increase in organizations listing the salary range (or just salary number) on their job postings. There are a few who still don’t, but since job postings are usually public, they often get swift feedback. There have also been more laws passed to ensure transparency and to stop the gross and unethical practice of basing candidates’ salary offer on their salary history. Overall, we’re doing much better on this front and should celebrate! Soy vanilla ice cream topped with Luxardo cherries and truffle salt for everyone! (You may have a different way to celebrate).
Now we must turn our attention to a horrible, no-good, very bad hiring practice that many of us, even the ones who disclose salary on job postings, are still perpetuating: Asking job candidates to do unpaid work as part of the hiring process. I’ve mentioned it briefly earlier—it’s the first item on this list of “Crappy hiring practices that need to die, and some awesome ones we need to adopt”—but it’s gotten so bad that it needs to be called out on its own. Here are some ways it manifests:
Requiring job candidates to create a fundraising, evaluation, or communications plan specifically tailored to your organization.
Making candidates write you a sample end-of-year appeal letter based on your org’s mission
Having candidates analyze your organization’s current website and provide suggestions for improvement.
Demanding candidates create and deliver a presentation about how they would approach some topic relevant to the job.
Requiring candidates to write and then act out a pitch to a potential major donor
Asking candidates to create a detailed work plan for how they would do their job if they were hired.
Having candidates to show up and “volunteer” at your program to see how they do.
There are tons more examples. My friend and colleague Irene Nexica, an equity-minded recruiting and hiring expert, wrote “I received an assignment as the second round for something that they described would take 3 to 4 hours (already too much to ask), and actually took me more like 16. The assignment was basically designing the first 30 days of the job for this new role.” (Irene was also forced to endure SIX rounds of interviews, proving that this organization is completely incompetent and no one should ever work there).
The practice of asking candidates for unpaid labor is awful and anyone who does it needs to stop immediately. Here are several reasons why it’s bad:
It is inequitable. Many of these assignments take hours of researching, planning, thinking, drafting, reviewing, etc. You’re asking job candidates to spend time that they may not have, when they could be doing other things that would actually earn them money. This is not just annoying, it’s also inequitable when you consider that many job candidates aren’t currently employed, and many are people of color, disabled people, women, older adults, neurodivergent, etc. Every unpaid hour you require job candidates to engage in special assignments as part of your hiring process is another hour of your organization furthering inequity.
It excludes people: A lot of people just don’t have the luxury to spend time doing unpaid work. They may drop out. Or if they know unpaid work is what you tend to request when you’re hiring people, they may not even apply at all. You are losing out on good candidates. And again, this disproportionately affects people from marginalized backgrounds, who are less likely to have time and energy for unpaid labor. You’re excluding them. Don’t ask for unpaid work in your hiring process and then complain about the lack of diversity in your pool of job candidates.
It is unethical. I hear horrifying stories of organizations asking candidates to spend hours, often urgently and without pay, to create some sort of bespoke document. Then, the candidate doesn’t get hired, but the organization still uses the document for its work. Using people’s expertise in this way, without paying them fairly and without their permission, is absolutely unethical. These documents don’t come out of thin air; they reflect years of experience, honing of skills, lessons learned from having to endure difficult challenges, etc. Even if you don’t use these assignments you forced people to do, you’ve still exploited their time and labor and absorbed their knowledge. Shady and unethical.
It is inaccurate: What a candidate produces in a hiring process is not a good indicator of their performance or quality on the actual job were they to get it. Assignments done as part of the hiring process are often rushed and the candidate doesn’t have complete information. Asking someone to produce a fundraising plan, for example, when they don’t have the full picture of your org’s culture, values, history, fundraising approach, previous plans’ results, etc., is ridiculous and does not reflect what the candidate is capable of.
It makes your organization look really bad: I’m sure there are a few job applicants who do the uncompensated assignments you require and think, “Wow, I had such a great time and learned so much by being forced to spend 7 unpaid hours creating a presentation over the weekend for a job I didn’t get!” The majority will likely think your org is run by assholes. Word will spread, and in the long run this will affect your organization’s reputation and ability to hire candidates in the future.
Because of power dynamics, many candidates will put up with these horrible assignments, and you won’t get much feedback about how crappy and inequitable your hiring process is. But asking for unpaid work is terrible and should be abolished immediately. Here’s what you can do instead:
Accept work that the job candidate has already done and is part of their portfolio. You get all the information you need about the quality of their work without burdening the candidate to create something unique for your organization. Ask them to elaborate on their thinking process, results, lessons learned, etc., based on the samples of their past work.
Ask them for the process of how they would go about doing the work with you: Instead of requiring job candidates to develop a full evaluation plan, during the interview ask how they would go about creating such a plan, what components it would have, some general philosophies they have, some challenges they anticipate in the implementation, what would be some of their first steps, etc.
If you must require a bespoke assignment, pay candidates a consulting rate: Says Irene: “Unless you are paying a consultant rate for these assignments, you are still not fairly compensating someone for labor during the job process where basically the employer can walk away and not hire the person and still keep whatever product they have ‘paid’ for. In the example that I give [above] I was given a ‘stipend’ of $40 an hour for the theoretical four hours it would take me to do the assignment. I would never have charged $40 an hour as a consultant to do that kind of work.”
Please stop this practice if you’re currently doing it. It is time-wasting, inequitable, inaccurate, exclusionary, unethical, and makes your organization and hiring team look like assholes. We should view this practice as shameful as not disclosing salary on job postings.