Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Depending on the organization's lifecycle and purpose, about 15-20 percent of the budget on overhead is normal. A very new nonprofit has to spend a lot more on outreach and fundraising, as would a nonprofit that's raising funds for a major capital project.
I've found one of the most telling signs is a big gap between the CEO's salary and that of the next highest-paid staff. Unless there's some obvious reason (the CEO is the only full-time employee), that's the sign of a big CEO ego and a weak board.
The CEO and upper exec salaries should reflect their real market value, including the perks of the nonprofit sector. Most CEO turnover in the nonprofit world is voluntary, for example. In addition, the CEO of an organization with a lot of independent chapters has a lot less to do with their revenue stream than the CEO of one that's highly controlled from the parent organization.
Unless the organization is doing fundraising for a capital campaign, there shouldn't be big payments to professional fundraisers, compared to total income. Big consultant fees are another warning sign.
A lot of Apple's value to the consumer comes from the perception that one is standing out from the crowd as an Apple product user or for conspicuous consumption. That's the main reason that their headphone cords are white instead of black, for example.
While definitely somebody can talk about having the iTV, it's not the same as being able to carry it around.
You know things like "ostracize those who speak to outsiders", "venerate central personality who makes all decisions", or "target and harass ex-members".
In the political sphere, at least, I'd say that does happen. Political compromise gets a lot of scorn poured on it, there are certain political figures/organizations who get venerated and call most of the shots, and while there's very little side-switching in national and state politics, so not quite the equivalence to becoming an ex-member, those who do stray from doctrine get targeted, most definitely.
The oil companies/heartland institute don't have to create spin anymore, because they've had the most important success possible: making denialism an important part of the identity of a lot of people.
In some ways, it's very cult-like in the way that it forms identity. Denialism gives you victim/threatened status (those evildoers are attacking our beliefs, we need to be warriors), enough victories to think of oneself as a winner but maintain the communal aspects of thinking oneself under threat, charismatic leaders, the companionship of shared beliefs, a sense of superiority to those who disbelieve, and, in the most cult-like aspect, the assurance of being above mere facts, of living in a world where your personal beliefs trump mere objective facts.
I mean, "The passive voice was forgotten."