[CerealFounder]

I think theres probably an interesting full book here examining exactly how and why "cause based" orgs become all end up looking the same once they cross a certain threshold. Power, influence and money seem to be a magnet for more of itself, so it fundamentally shifts the guiding principal of each org as it grows bigger.

Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses?

[philipkglass]

Like why do no-profits and charities seem to corrupt their aim at a greater speed than for profit businesses?

It seems inherent to the different aims of charities and businesses. Nucor Corporation has a nominal lineage from "Nuclear Corporation of America Inc." incorporated in the 1950s. But its actual business has had nothing to do with nuclear technology in 50+ years; it found more success in the steel business. Shareholders aren't mad that the company isn't following its original nuclear technology mission since it found a better business. There's nothing to "corrupt" when a business goes after different markets.

But some donors will be upset if a charity focused on one mission broadens or deviates from its original mission. Some people may also be happy with these sorts of change, of course, but mission changes tend to be more controversial with charities than with for-profit companies.

[fallingknife]

People of the type needed to run an organization like the ACLU are rare. You need people who are willing to stand on principal even when it makes them unpopular, and who are skilled enough that they could be making a lot of money for themselves in the corporate sector, but are willing to forgo that. The failure mode of this is attention seeking "activist" types, and people who don't have the skills to cut it in the for-profit world. For profit businesses also have a failure mode like this too, where the initial leadership who got there off being innovative and willing to take risks are replaced by boring MBA types who are just there for the paychecks. But in this case, the people taking over are both more in line with the objectives of the organization (to make money) and more competent than the incompetent / activist types who take over non-profits.

[michael1999]

I’m not sure they do. Restaurant owners make bad choices, start skimping on food, etc. all the time. The difference is that the customers notice and the restaurants go out of business. But political organizations “produce” nebulous goods which are difficult to value or sometimes even understand. So corrupt civil organizations can continue much longer and a practical business.

[javagram]

The ACLU going “corrupt” is arguably much better business for them since they can more effectively harvest donations from politically engaged partisans on the left - their fundraising has been supercharged since 2016. Right-wing partisans weren’t giving to them much anyway so more closely aligning with a side is all upside from a financial perspective.

[baggy_trough]

Non-profits and charities perform at the behest of the whims of a small number of rich donors instead of needing to get through the reality filter of making a profit in the broad consumer marketplace.