I’m looking for a stellar self-starter who makes things happen to join my team.
Success means that a year from now, Acumen Fund will have a higher profile, deeper relationships, a stronger and more engaged community, and significantly more funds coming from Europe to support our work.
This is an opportunity to represent Acumen Fund across a major geography and be at the heart of the evolution of our sector – and if you’re really good, to help define how the sector evolves.
I don’t care if you’ve done not-for-profit fundraising before, but you must have sold things, created things, and gotten people to take action through your ability to build genuine relationships and your powers of persuasion. You must have real working experience in the developing world – ideally India, Pakistan or sub-Saharan Africa. You must have a demonstrated commitment to and understanding of our sector.
This is a unique opportunity for the right person. All the details are here including the link to apply.
Applications close on February 6th.
Sasha,
While reading the listing I noticed and immediately wondered why it specified that, “Acumen Fund offers an attractive compensation package for the nonprofit sector […] .” To me, this seem as a diminishment of what Acumen Fund is offering. If the compensation package is good, it should be so in its own right, regardless of comparison to the corporate sector.
As an undergrad student interested in the nonprofit sector as my career, I often find peers who are turned-off from doing the same because of the stereotype that they won’t enough money or have room for growth. I would really like to see nonprofits make an effort to attract top talent straight out of college, as I feel that can make a significant impact on the sector’s capabilities to innovate and create positive change. Currently, it is as though they are starting a race already in second place.
Please shed some light on whether I am correct in my perceptions.
Dear Sasha
Congratulations on your speech at NextGen Charity! Very inspiring.
As fundraiser in the field of infrastructure and emerging markets, I am myself exploring the space between philanthropy and market. The risk/return profile of patient capital is in my view very diverse which make it difficult to link each category of “impact investors” to the right asset class…. I am nonetheless convinced that the blended social impact/financial return approach is growing and will become (one day) a mainstream.
Hope I will have the opportunity to further debate with you on this fascinating topic in a near future.
With my best regards,
Hugo
Marina, thanks for your comment. I agree with exactly half of it! That is, you say “because of the stereotype that they won’t [make] enough money or have room for growth.” Interesting to couple these two things, as I think they don’t have to be related at all. What I’ve seen is that there can be limitless room for growth at a nonprofit, and the salaries are necessarily (and correctly, I’d argue) more modest. It’s a function of a number of things but I don’t buy the notion that unless nonprofits pay full for-profit salaries (which, by the way, vary radically) that they cannot attract top talent.