There is a reason why I’ve only worked for non-profits so far.

Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day.

There is big gap between the poorest and the richest people in the world already. We need to learn to live a better life, at a lower cost. (And by this I dont mean only financially.)

Usually, non-profits have missions that intend to make the world a better place. Groups of people that get together to achieve something, they wouldn’t be able to achieve on their own, as individuals.

Back to score zero

However, non-profits must also survive. No matter how philanthropic their cause is, they need to pay their bills too, facing challenges just like any other type of organisation. Reaching a size that makes “survival” their primary objective, leads to the path of forgetting what the initial collective pulse was.

Focus on sales. Increase the pipeline. Improve marketing. You need to capture your ‘customers’ attention better, and seduce people to purchase your products or services faster. You need to make it better than your competitors.

It is in this context that It  got caught thinking: But isn’t it stupid, in the non profit sector, to talk about competitors?

Competing for the same resources to make the world better seems like a zero sum type of game. What I earn, you loose. No matter if the job gets done or not.


I’d like to suggest something. How about we talk about “alternitors” instead? People doing things in other ways to reach a similar type of goal.

Maybe then, minimising the fear of being ‘competitors’, fighting to gather survival resources from the others, we can discuss things, team up, and maybe approach pressing issues together.

Lets make the pie bigger, in sync.


Hat tip to Mark C for the inspiration.