Talking about the NGO management we have to start with the fact that this concept in Russia differs a lot from a Western one. In the West the NGOs is a powerful sector that utilizes various mechanisms and technologies of management. Our non-commercial organizations are not so powerful and it is very hard to adopt the foreign methods here. Even when we speak about marketing the complications are very significant. In the West a lot of organizations are engaged in market research, the estimations of potential target groups, etc. We do not have such institutions in Russia. If abroad there is a big tradition of charitable activity and social help, in Russia people tend to stay alone within their narrow frameworks and the standard marketing programs, usually developed by the Americans, do not work here. People are trying to follow them, then nothing works out and they are trying to come up with something else.

 

In principle, all NGOs have the same kind of mission - people need their services and for the services to reach the clients the NCOs get money from sponsors. The scheme has to do with the fact that the NGOs should not consider earning money or making profits as their main objectives. Because if the NGOs will start making money in order to feed themselves and the profits will be good then the people who work there will be tempted to start making even more. It is a very dangerous temptation as it may lead people to losing the direction of their work that was the main one.

 

Museum can be a good example. Its main function is to popularize and develop culture.  It is obvious that now there is no money for the museums and the museums start to engage in a commercial activity in order to survive and develop. Finally the process gets to the point when the management starts thinking as following: let's forget those museum visitors and just carry out presentations and banquettes - they bring more money. This is a real situation and the temptation is hard to resist.

 

People who work in the NCOs usually believe that they have a mission (that corresponds with the main task of the NCO). And of course they start arguing if they can 'descend' to commercial activity or not. But if you do not descend to commerce then you have to go to the philanthropists who say a lot of nice words but you never know whether you will get the money.

That is how we get a conflict around a question whether an NGO worker can devote some time to commerce or if it contradicts with his mission as a non-commercial professional. As an example I again would like to describe a museum - Hermitage, and its director - Prof. Mikhail Piotrovsky. In 1990s the situation was critical - if there would be no money there would be no workers and the museum will die. Piotrovsky has made moves that were very unusual and innovative for the Russian museum workers but very much in line with the Western NGO logic, he has attracted people, attracted additional funds and the Hermitage started to wake up from its sleep. Another perspective is represented by the State Pushkin Museum of Fine Art's director Irina Antonova. This respected lady's self-identity is the one of the culture safeguards and any commercial activity here is being cast away as the traders were cast out of the temple. And what is the result? The museum almost never purchases new items and became a minor actor in the Moscow cultural life, staying on its forgotten outskirts while the Tretyakov Gallery is now leading the game. The Pushkin museum had everything it needed to launch the sales of commercial items - reproductions, T-shirts, dishes with pictures; it could have also organized exhibitions with new interesting concepts as it was in the Hermitage. This would attract the young people who would gradually become regular guests of the State Museum. But due to a clear lack of desire to instill marketing technologies into a life of a museum none of these programs were realized. If you, for example, visit the museum's website (http://www.museum.ru/gmii/defrus.htm) you won't find a single commercial offer (for example, you cannot order a reprint of your favorite piece to be made for you while there are now technical obstacles to do that).

 

Also the foreign NGOs usually have the boards of trustees who determine who and how will be spending the funds. In Russia more widespread is another type of an NGO - an organization created around a single sponsor or an organizer - a person or a company. But if this person is tired of the NGO activity or decides to leave it for some other reason it inevitably leads to a dramatic situation. In order not to be unfounded I will give an example of two Symphony Orchestras - Svetalnov's and Fedoseyev's. It is obvious that long ago the state was their main donor. But in the 1990s the state said 'Good-bye', leaving the Orchestras to their own survival strategies. What did they do? Svetlanov preferred to sit around and wait for the governmental funding, that was very low back then. As a result his musicians received petty salaries and did not have money for the new instruments, for the costumes. It has led to a conflict that naturally resulted in Svetlanov being practically banished by the musicians themselves. Unlike him Fedoseyev was fast to understand that the state will be a weak sponsor and that any high purpose requires funding. The professional managers were hired. The orchestra's trustees' foundation was created that attracted the people, able to provide sufficient resources. And a soon it became very prestigious to be a sponsor of the Fedoseyev's Orchestra; the contributions were soon enough for the musicians to get normal salaries and the orchestra to tour regularly and prepare new programs.

 

I can give another example - a New York Metropolitan Museum that is analogous to the Moscow's State Museum of Fine Art. Together with selling merchandize and allowing the sponsors to put the museum's logo on their products the museum has also created a board of trustees. In this case the sponsors insisted to o that - they wanted to prevent the organization from 'evading the museum activity'.

 

These examples show that for the NGO to work steadily the board of trustees is essential, a sit is important to allow the staff not to think constantly about the necessity to make some cash. But it is a rare phenomenon in the current Russian situation. It will keep being a rare phenomenon until the state will create normal and profitable conditions for the commercial organizations to participate in the NGO activity. It is easy to understand why Western corporations are eager to donate. Of course they have a tradition of charity, but it is also important that the donated money is tax-exempt. When the name of the company or its owner becomes well-known due to the charitable activity this leads to new clients and the growth in sales. Of course some businessmen use this mechanism to avoid taxes - they donate huge amounts for charity thus moving their income outside the taxation system (as Bill Gates who has donated almost all of his fortune) and making their relatives high-paid managers of the charity foundations. In Russia now only 1 percent of the income can be exempt from taxes through a charitable donation, and that is, of course, a very small amount.

 

Therefore in conclusion we may say that for a successful NCI management three elements are required: the sponsors, the director with normal income and a professional manager, who organizes the work. In US to manage an NGO is considered a good job. Of course the salaries there a lower that in a commercial organization but the job is more relaxed, less stressful. Also the work is enjoyable as a person feels himself well being a center of attention and doing something useful for the society.

 

Speaking of the perspectives of a 'third sector in Russia' and the possibility of wide introduction of the boards of trustees, I do not think this is possible (at least, in the close future). The idea of the non-commercial organizations is based on acknowledging the inability of the state to be effective in certain areas. Then the Western society came to the understanding that it is best to channel the private money, donated for social initiatives, through the NCOs. But, keeping in mind the current situation in Russia, I do not believe that the authorities will allow anybody except for the state to spend money on social programs independently, because our officials always want all financial streams to go through their hands. Therefore it seems to be that in the close perspective the state will keep the role of the NGOs in our society to a minimum as the government will not tolerate a strong competitor. This means that charity in Russia will continue to be based on personal relationships of a donor and a recipient, without the support of the state, and this mechanism is very unreliable. Concerning the financing of individual programs and the NGOs, supported by the state, the businessmen who are donating receive no taxation privileges and it is clear that the business will be forced to donate from the net profits. Therefore the businessmen will donate unhappily and in accordance with the level of pressure. But if the state will apply less force, even the state-supported programs will lack financing.