Adam Braun has a really interesting book about his journey with the creation of his organization called Pencils of Promise. It’s called The Promise of a Pencil: How an Ordinary Person Can Create Extraordinary Change. He puts a lot of anecdotal thoughts in his story, and one of them that stood out to me was his recognition of responses when telling people he worked at Bain & Company, versus telling people he worked at Pencils of Promise. Adam recalls when he was in New York City attending a launch party for a large media company, that he began talking with a guy who ran an investment fund. The man asked Adam what he did, and Adam replied that he ran a nonprofit organization called Pencils of Promise. The reaction that he got from the guy was one that Adam had encountered before, but this time it seemed amplified. The man asked him if he worked there full time and then went on to speak in a tone that one may use for a small child, saying, “Wow, good for you.” The conversation pretty much dropped off after that, and the man moved on to speak others at the party.
Afterwards, Adam really reflected on that encounter, and began concluding that the word nonprofit could sometimes stop discussions or change the tone of the person with whom he was speaking. Adam even felt that sometimes people would speak “down to him” after hearing what he did as work. Upon further thought, Adam wondered why nonprofits are the only industry that introduces itself with a negative when it “exists not to reduce profit, but to foster the profusion of purpose.” Adam decided that in order to convey the importance and motivation behind his work, he would start using the term for-purpose.
I guess the question is, does it really matter what people think? If someone uses a condescending tone about another’s line of work, that’s really on them—it reflects on that person’s character. Everyone has a different passion, and that is ok. I think what Adam decided to change (saying for-purpose instead of nonprofit) was a good move for him. He wanted to make a point. He wanted others to see the worth in what he was doing, which really can help to represent his organization more clearly. I respect him being aware of those details. Maybe the question that we can glean from this passage in his book is, what small, but impactful details can we change in our organizations that can make better first impressions or represent more respectfully what we do?