The argument here is that there isn’t — and shouldn’t be — any conflict in the not-for-profit sector between the social benefit and the personal gain from information and intellectual property. Why? Because the not-for-profit professional’s goal *is* social benefit, and therefore the professional wants to and must give away all information so society can do the most with it. Those who do otherwise are engaging in “a form of corruption,” as stated in one of the comments. I think the argument made in this piece is incomplete (email me if you’re interested in my take, which is too long for this space). However, I think this article is an interesting example of a broader debate I see happening: what is the “right” way for not-for-profit professionals to balance their commitment to achieving a vision and their need to care for themselves, their employees, and their families. It is an important debate to make sure we have a voice.
The Cost of Information Sharing in Philanthropy | Tactical Philanthropy.
