What if organizations were good by default?

This is Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand would hate this idea, even as a thought experiment. She would have mean things to say. She was like that.

One of the trickiest parts of writing about charity work is finding the words to describe "charity" work. Not all organizations that do good are actually charities. Not all nonprofits are trying to do good. "Social impact" is a popular phrase right now but only amongst a teeny tiny group of specialists. "Public interest", "third sector", and "voluntary sector" have also had their days.

There's no common, popular word that we use to describe groups of people helping others or solving social problems in an organized way. English vocabulary focuses on corporate structure (yawn) or things that these groups aren't (like, "not-for-profit" or "non-government").

Each and every one of us benefits daily from social impact projects, so the fact we can't recognize this work is a problem.

Or is it? What if we don't need a special name for this work at all?

Why is private interest normal?

The truth is, I think it's disturbing that we consider an organization with a public interest mandate so unusual we give it a separate name.

What does it say about our society that we think selfish organizations are normal and public benefit organizations are abnormal?

We assume that every organization serves a private interest. We expect those organizations to do some harm, with some limits.

We also assume, without really thinking about it, that forming a group to benefit others is the weird and deviant thing to do. We think it's so weird and so deviant that we feel compelled to come up with new words to clarify the difference. "No, no, not that kind of organization. This kind of organization."

What if the opposite were true?

What if doing good was normal?

As a fun thought experiment, consider this: What if the norm was to create organizations that solved community problems? What if organizations who wanted to operate purely for their own self-interest were free to do so, but they were the ones who had to have the special name and registration status? What if private interest organizations were the minority in a sea of corporate entities?

It wouldn't change the fact that people can act selfishly, ignorantly, or cause unintended harm; public interest organizations can do harm, too. But it might change the reason people show up for work every day, the problems they choose to solve, and how we mobilize finite resources.

With the rising popularity of social enterprises and B-corps and such, it's not out of the realm of possibility. Imagine that they become the dominant form of organization. What changes?

This way of thinking exposes some of the assumptions we make about how and why people work together. It helps us see things we have been taking for granted.

How would the world be different if organizations were good by default? If public interest work was normal, so normal it didn't need a name. And if private interest pursuits were abnormal?

It's an interesting thought.