The uncomfortable truth about values, power and accountability in the charitable sector
The charitable sector knows how to speak the language of goodness. Compassion. Equity. Inclusion. Integrity. Respect. Accountability. We weave these words into mission statements, strategic plans and annual reports. We invoke them when asking donors to invest in our vision of a better world. And much of that commitment is genuine.
Across our sector, organizations are working deliberately to build cultures that reflect the values they champion. Their leaders invest in people, welcome difficult conversations and recognize that integrity demands reflection, humility and accountability.
They deserve recognition.
But their example also invites an uncomfortable question:
When did having a noble mission become a substitute for examining how we behave?
Because doing good in the world does not automatically mean we are doing right by the people entrusted with that work.
When the Mission Becomes the Excuse
There is something profoundly meaningful about working in a sector dedicated to alleviating suffering, confronting injustice and strengthening communities. But purpose, however noble, can create blind spots.
An organization can advocate for dignity while struggling to demonstrate it internally. It can champion equity publicly while overlooking inequities in its own decision-making. It can celebrate inclusion while leaving little room for perspectives that challenge established thinking.
These contradictions are neither inevitable nor universal. But where they exist, they deserve scrutiny. Canadian research offers a reason to look inward. The Burden of Care, a 2023 report from Toronto Metropolitan University’s Diversity Institute and the Future Skills Centre, found that 26% of nonprofit employees were dissatisfied with their jobs, compared with 19% in the private sector and 17% in the public sector.
These findings do not establish why individual organizations succeed or struggle. But they challenge us to ask whether the values we proclaim externally are consistently reflected in the experiences of those advancing our missions.
A charitable mission may explain why an organization exists. It does not excuse how that organization behaves.
Inclusion Is Easy Until Someone Disagrees
We celebrate diversity. We encourage collaboration. We invite different voices to the table. But do we welcome different perspectives, or only those that make us comfortable?
What happens when someone questions a decision, challenges a longstanding practice or speaks an inconvenient truth? Are they heard with curiosity and respect? Or quietly labelled difficult, resistant or not a good fit?
Harvard professor Amy Edmondson’s 1999 research on psychological safety identified a relationship between employees feeling safe to take interpersonal risks and learning behavior within teams. The implications extend well beyond the organizations studied.
Inclusion is not simply about who receives an invitation to the table. It is about who feels safe enough to speak once they arrive.
If people must choose between speaking honestly and protecting their standing, we should be careful about calling that environment inclusive.
The Conversation We Avoid: Power
We are comfortable discussing power when confronting systemic injustice. But how willing are we to examine it within our own institutions? Who gets heard? Who gets promoted? Whose mistakes become opportunities for growth, and whose become defining judgments? Whose contributions are celebrated? Whose remain invisible? And who can challenge authority without fearing the consequences?
These are not accusations. They are questions of leadership, governance and organizational integrity.
Power exists in every organization. The issue is how it is exercised, shared and held accountable.
If employees are expected to accept feedback, demonstrate integrity and take responsibility for their actions, leadership must be prepared to do the same.
Accountability that applies only to those with the least power is not accountability. It is control.
Silence Is Not the Same as Trust
A meeting without disagreement does not necessarily indicate consensus. An organization with few complaints is not automatically one where everyone feels respected. Sometimes silence means people have learned what is safe to say. Trust is built when uncomfortable questions are met with curiosity rather than defensiveness, when concerns receive thoughtful consideration and when disagreement does not come at the expense of dignity. This is where organizational values become real.
Not in polished statements or carefully crafted messaging, but in everyday decisions, particularly when doing the right thing is inconvenient.
Values Are What We Permit
There are organizations striving to get this right. They understand that compassion must extend inward, equity requires examining systems and accountability strengthens rather than threatens the mission. They make difficult decisions, acknowledge mistakes and create space for people to be heard. They are not perfect. Nor should perfection be the standard.
Perhaps the real distinction is not between organizations that get everything right and those that do not, but between those willing to examine themselves and those convinced their good intentions are enough.
But reflection must lead to action. What if every nonprofit board and leadership team examined its stated values against actual decisions? Who receives opportunities? How are concerns handled? What happens when leadership falls short? Can employees challenge decisions without jeopardizing their standing? And when the answers reveal a gap between intention and practice, what actually changes?
Because values without accountability risk becoming little more than organizational branding. The charitable sector asks the public to trust us. We ask donors to invest in our promises, volunteers to give their time and employees to dedicate their talents to causes larger than themselves.
Surely, that trust demands more than inspiring words. We challenge society to confront injustice; question established systems and embrace accountability.
Should we not be equally willing to turn that mirror inward?
The question is not simply whether we are doing good work. It is whether we are doing that work in ways that reflect the values we so passionately proclaim.
Doing good is what we aspire to accomplish.
Doing right is how we must choose to accomplish it.
And if our values only matter when they are convenient, perhaps they were never truly our values at all.
Rhonda Sogren is a legacy and planned giving professional, writer and speaker with extensive experience in philanthropy and the charitable sector. She currently serves as Senior Manager, Legacy and Estate Administration at UNICEF Canada, where she brings together her expertise in legacy giving, estate administration, donor relationships and stewardship. Throughout her career, Rhonda has been particularly drawn to the human side of philanthropy, the stories, relationships, values and lived experiences that inspire generosity and shape the legacies people leave behind.
As a writer and speaker, her interests extend beyond philanthropy. Rhonda explores leadership, workplace culture, resilience, inclusion, purpose and the often-unspoken experiences that shape who we are, both personally and professionally. She is passionate about creating space for diverse perspectives and bringing greater humanity and authenticity to conversations about work, leadership and legacy. Beyond her professional work, Rhonda is a lifelong vocalist and active community volunteer. Music, storytelling, faith and service have been important threads throughout her life and continue to influence how she connects with people and thinks about community, purpose and impact. At the heart of Rhonda’s work is a simple belief: the most meaningful legacies are not defined only by what we leave behind, but by how we use our voices, how we serve others and the impact we make along the way. Diverse Voices. Lasting Legacies. Rhonda can be reached via LinkedIn or at rhondaf.sogren@yahoo.com.
