Why should we stop calling nonprofits that and instead call them cause organizations? Three reasons: People, profit, and perspicacity.

While working with cause organizations, I’ve struggled with what to call them. Nonprofit is the dominant term here in the United States, and has the additional advantage of being short. Social sector organization is more accurate and positive, but it’s unwieldy. The solution (so far): Cause organization, for three reasons.

• People: No one should be defined by what they don’t do. Do you want your identity to be that you don’t make a profit? I don’t want that for the amazing people I’m blessed to work with. The people I know are making a profit for society every day. Every day they’re doing what Bono says: Tearing a little corner off the darkness. So I’m not going to stand for defining people by what they don’t do, especially when that definition is wildly inaccurate. Which leads me to the second reason …
• Profit: Folks, the old government grants and philanthropy business model is not coming back. Cause organizations must be generating their own revenue—I daresay, profit—as a portion of their overall revenue models. I don’t have time right now to cite the extensive evidence to back up this point, but trust me—it’s there, and it’s awfully solid. More on this in future posts.
• Perspicacity: Alright, I’ll admit I was going for the alliteration first. But think about it, friends; perspicacity means sharpness of sight; acuity; insight. What are we in cause organizations for? The cause! It’s about the mission, folks. No other focus compares or will do with all the dark corners waiting to be torn.

What’s your preferred term for cause organizations? Why? Has your view changed over the years? Let me know in the comments or on Twitter.