I know this might make some nonprofit leaders and board members uncomfortable but it has to be said: Mission alone is no longer a compelling employee value proposition.
Although that may feel jarring to some, it also represents progress.
For decades, the nonprofit sector operated on an implicit deal: We can't pay you what the private sector pays, but we can offer you meaning. We can't give you predictable hours, but we can give you purpose. We can't invest in your professional development, but we can offer you the chance to change the world.
That trade-off made a certain kind of sense when the alternative was a corporate job that felt empty. When working for a mission meant something rare and special.
But the world has changed.
Today's workforce, especially the talent nonprofits most need to attract, isn't choosing between soulless corporate work and meaningful nonprofit work. They're choosing between multiple mission-aligned options. B Corps. Social enterprises. Corporate social responsibility roles. Impact investing firms. And yes, nonprofits.
Mission has become table stakes. The differentiator is what else you're offering.
In my work, I have candid conversations with talented people who are deeply committed to impact. What they tell me they want isn't surprising but it is clarifying.
They want mission and competitive compensation. Purpose and clear boundaries. The chance to create change and a realistic path for career growth. Organizational values and flexibility that honors their whole lives.
Notice the "and."
They're not asking to choose. They're asking organizations to stop making them choose.
This isn't entitlement. It's honesty. Previous generations wanted these things too but they didn't feel empowered to ask for them. The difference now is that people are more willing to name what sustainable employment actually requires.
There's a term for what happens when organizations lean too hard on mission to compensate for everything else: the mission tax.
It's the unspoken expectation that if you really care about the work, you'll accept less. Work longer. Make do with ambiguity. Stay even when you're burning out because leaving feels like abandoning the mission. This frame is particularly prevalent among nonprofit board members - who have already made their money in the private sector or are wealthy through other means but like to lecture the rest of us that because their work has meaning, mission-driven leaders should be willing to sacrifice their own financial well-being.
I've seen it show up in budget conversations: "We can't afford market-rate salaries, but our people are so passionate about the cause." In job descriptions: "Must be committed to the mission" as a substitute for competitive pay bands. In exit interviews: "I loved the work, but I couldn't sustain it."
The mission tax extracts real costs: talent you can't recruit, leaders who leave, burnout that compromises the very impact you're trying to create.
What if instead of asking people to pay that tax, we asked ourselves: What would it take to build an organization where mission and sustainability aren't in tension?
The organizations I see winning talent aren't the ones with the most inspiring missions, though mission still matters. They're the ones who've figured out how to build workplaces where talented people can do meaningful work and have sustainable careers.
That means:
None of this requires abandoning mission. It requires integrating mission with operational reality.
The best mission-driven organizations I know have stopped asking, "How much can we ask people to sacrifice for the cause?" and started asking, "How do we build something good enough that talented people want to stay?"
Here's the thing: If your recruitment and retention strategy depends on exploiting people's passion, you don't have a strategy. You have a vulnerability.
The shift we're seeing, where mission alone isn't enough, is forcing the sector to get better. To build more sustainable operating models. To think differently about investment in people. To stop treating workforce quality as a luxury and start treating it as infrastructure.
Organizations that resist this shift will struggle. They'll keep losing talent to opportunities that offer mission plus sustainability. They'll keep wondering why they can't attract the caliber of leaders they need.
But organizations that embrace it? They're discovering something powerful: When you build a workplace that respects people's whole lives, you don't get less commitment to mission. You get more sustainable commitment. You get people who can show up fully. Who stay long enough to create deep impact. Who bring their best work instead of their exhausted work.
You don't have to sacrifice sustainability to serve a mission. In fact, you can't serve a mission well without it.
So the question isn't whether mission is still important. Of course it is.
The question is: What are we building around that mission?
Are we building organizations that can only attract people willing to sacrifice their financial security and personal wellbeing? Or are we building organizations that can attract and retain the best talent because we've created genuinely compelling places to work?
The sector's future depends on how we answer that question.
Mission is still the foundation. But it's time to build something sustainable on top of it.
Follow our CEO, Christina Greenberg, on LinkedIn for her daily insights on hiring trends, succession planning, and all things Find/Hire/Keep.