Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Raphe Beck
Deepak Goel &
John Pavolotsky
EWMBA 257-11
Power and Politics in Organizations
April 24, 2010
Nipun Mehta, CEO
Nipun Mehta is the leader of CharityFocus, a nonprofit organization founded in 1999, with a
mission to “enable inspired people to contribute in meaningful ways to the world around them.”
According to filings with the IRS, Nipun (pronounced “ne POON”) serves as the group’s CEO—
that is, its Charity Executive Officer—and this unusual title is the first of many noteworthy
distinctions that highlight how CharityFocus is not a typical organization and how Nipun is the
unusual leader appropriate for this group. In this case study, we will examine the sources and
effects of Nipun’s influence and analyze them according to traditional models of power and
politics. We will look at Nipun’s background and the founding of CharityFocus, his motivation,
the organization’s formal structure, Nipun’s sources of power, his individual attributes that lead
to power, and his leadership style. Finally, we will predict a vision of the future.
two of his passions by double-majoring in philosophy and computer science. He was both a
talented programmer and a fan of Gandhi. Nipun was also a ranked tennis player, and he left
Berkeley for a year to play competitively. In this time, he became conscious of how his desire to
win was shaping his personality, and so despite his talent, he chose to walk away from tennis and
return to school. In the midst of the dot-com boom, Nipun was hired by Sun Microsystems as a
summer intern, but his skill as a programmer soon drew him attention beyond this role. He was
quickly recruited to work on projects with high-level Sun employees, and at the end of the
summer, his supervisors asked him to continue working while he finished his studies. Like many
of his generation with good technical skills, Nipun found himself in the right place at the right
2
time. He was soon making large amounts of money, even before he had his college degree. He
As was common in the high-tech world at that time, many of Nipun’s peers used their new-found
wealth to buy fast cars, technology, bachelor pads, etc. Nipun very quickly became uneasy with
this path. He had a hard time reconciling the dot-com lifestyle with his Gandhian philosophy.
One day Nipun and three of his friends were discussing their shared morals and values, as well as
their common dissatisfaction with their own success. On a whim they decided to volunteer at a
local homeless shelter. The four walked together into the shelter with little vision of what they
were there to do and asked if they could be of use. After some discussion, a staff member
proposed that they use their technical skills to create a web site for the shelter, and so they did.
could volunteer their services for needy nonprofits. In this way, a casual conversation became the
source of Commitment among friends, and thus was born CharityFocus. The group was
formalized with a set of three guiding principles that still guide it over a decade later:
Adhering to this principle means that CharityFocus has never had a paid staff member.
The organization is entirely managed by volunteers, and Nipun has never drawn a salary.
By this principle, CharityFocus does not engage in fundraising. While they do accept
donations to pay for expenses, they do not solicit them. On several occasions, they have
turned away large monetary gifts and instead encouraged would-be donors to perform
acts of service instead. Similarly, they have no public relations strategy, and they do not
3
3. Focus on the small. Change yourself, not the world.
CharityFocus believes in the power of small, individual acts rather than attempting to
mount large-scale projects. Like the Internet, impact and organization emerge from
Over the years, CharityFocus has expanded its services not by any strategic growth plan but
rather by the wishes of volunteers who are inspired to initiate new projects. A broadcast email
list called DailyGood sends positive messages to over 100,000 subscribers each day. The service
is volunteer run and edited. A Smile Card is a business-card-sized token that can be left behind
after performing “an anonymous act of kindness.” It invites the recipient to “keep the spirit
going” by performing another anonymous act of kindness and passing the card along. Nearly a
million cards have been distributed for free by CharityFocus. Karma Kitchen is a restaurant that
operates for lunch each Sunday in Berkeley. Staffed entirely by volunteers, the restaurant
presents patrons at the end of the meal with a zero dollar bill that invites donations to cover the
meal of a future diner. Over 18,000 people have filled out a detailed volunteer form with the
organization, and Nipun estimates that there are over 500 active volunteers at any one time.
Motivation
According to Nipun, the acts of service he performs are for his own benefit. He seeks to live by
the maxim of Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” By his claim, he is
uninterested in power for its own sake, or for the traditional trappings of power: money, fame,
and access. Nipun characterizes himself as a “servant leader,” in the vein of Martin Luther King.
Nonetheless, he does seek to have influence over others, and he is highly attuned to himself as a
political actor. His greatest concern as a leader is authenticity, and he questions how his actions
will be interpreted by others. In Cialdini’s terms, as detailed below, he uses Consistency and
4
Commitment, Reciprocity, Social Proof, and Authority. We do not mean to suggest that Nipun
employs any of the foregoing to confer an advantage upon himself, but rather that these are tools
available to anyone to help shape an organization, and given the topography of CharityFocus, it
would not be unusual, and in fact would be expected, that its leader would use such tools. Put
otherwise, there is nothing inherently negative or sinister about the use of such tools.
Consistency is the fundamental need, once a choice has been made, to behave in accordance with
such choice (even if incorrect). Commitment “produces the click that activates the whirr of the
powerful consistency tape.”1 As applied, the Commitment is the decision to embrace the guiding
principles of CharityFocus. But, as intimated above, Nipun does not “in fine jujitsu fashion . . .
structure [his] interactions with [other CharityFocus volunteers] so that [their] own need to be
Reciprocity touches upon a person’s innate need to give back when something unsolicited has
been given to them. Nipun feels the term may connote premeditation and thus impure motives,
and as such, it may not be the best term to describe his modus operandi. Put more accurately,
Nipun is a firm believer of giving for the sake of giving, and he derives most of his power from
such unconditional giving and the benefits that flow back to him (karma). Nonetheless, a form of
Reciprocity is at the heart of CharityFocus, except instead of inspiring favors back to the original
person, acts of service are meant to inspire recipients to “pay it forward” to someone else.
Since CharityFocus is entirely a volunteer organization, Nipun also uses Social Proof to keep
members following the norms and values of the group. Social proof is the tendency to rely on
social evidence to guide and, in many cases, determine behavior. Cialdini described social proof
1
ROBERT B. CIALDINI, INFLUENCE 67 (HARPER COLLINS 2007) (1984).
2
Id. at 64.
5
succinctly (and colorfully) with the heading “Monkey Me, Monkey Do.”3 As an example, seeing
everyone’s shoes at or by the door, a CharityFocus tradition, will give the next volunteer entering
the room little choice but to likewise remove his or her shoes before joining the group. Nipun’s
least-used tool is probably Authority since the organization grants him little. Per Cialdini, people
have a natural tendency to submit to authority, real or perceived (symbolic).4 At no time would a
new member be “trained” that Nipun is the group’s leader or shown an org chart with Nipun at
the top. Finally, by taking money and fundraising out of the equation, Nipun has removed
Scarcity of resources as a motivator for people in the group. Put simply, Scarcity is based on the
principle that an item that is more difficult to obtain is inherently better than one that is easier to
secure.5 Scarcity, however, may still play a role in the organization; there is only one Nipun, and
given how integral he is to CharityFocus, a request from him presumably would be more
Formal Structure
The idea of an organizational chart is completely anathema to the values of CharityFocus. That
said, there is certainly a degree of formal organization, and we have attempted to construct an
org chart of the nonprofit’s leadership (see Figure 1). CharityFocus is managed by three main
groups, known as the Eagle, Tiger, and Bear Teams. The Tiger Team consists of nearly 200
people and is sometimes referred to as the group’s “think tank” to ponder and weigh in on new
opportunities. The Tiger Team is committed to supporting CharityFocus’s values. The Bear
Team currently consists of 31 people and is considered the group’s “do-tank,” coordinating all
internal CharityFocus projects and acting on its own will. Although in most organizations the
3
See id. at 140.
4
See id. at 216 (describing actual legitimate authority) and 220 (providing example of perceived (symbolic)
authority).
5
See id. at 244.
6
Figure 1: Constructed Org Chart for CharityFocus
thinkers would be considered the managers of the doers, CharityFocus maintains an even balance
between these two groups. The Tiger Team does not direct the Bear Team; they only respond to
the ideas the Bear Team brings them. Membership on either team is loosely by appointment.
Finally, the Eagle Team is a group of eleven members who lead and synchronize all operations.
The Eagle Team includes, among others, Nipun, his younger brother Viral, and Nipun’s wife
Guri. Nipun considers a few members of this group to be the informal “Wisdom Council” and
any one of them has the experience and perspective to lead the group. Finally, the unsung heroes
of CharityFocus are the central technical team of about 9 people who are critical to every project.
They manage more than 18 million lines of code that power all the platforms.
The formal structure of CharityFocus presents several challenges for Nipun. He observes that in
a group with no financial incentives, people “bring all their baggage” to the table. In other words,
a paid employee is compensated with wages and is expected to perform a certain job. A
a large volunteer organization, Nipun must take into account a level of motivations and concerns
for those around him that many corporate managers can choose to ignore.
7
In general, Nipun tries to avoid hierarchy, but he acknowledges that it is necessary “at the
edges.” No matter how idealistic CharityFocus is, it must operate in the real world, and this
means, for example, that the bill for the group’s web servers must be paid. Beyond these
“edges,” however, Nipun attempts to create an organization filled with redundancy so that it is
not dependent on any single person completing their assignments. Service is always a choice.
Sources of Power
Nipun doesn’t see himself as having any power. He is very aware that power tends to corrupt and
that many leaders are lonely because they need to build up walls around themselves. Nipun
wants very much to retain his humanity. He presents himself neither like a CEO nor a guru, but
rather as an average person, and this is evident in everything from the way he dresses, his lack of
an office, and his casual demeanor. Nipun claims that his primary source of influence is
Nipun has made a conscious decision not to work with scarce resources such as money. Because
he doesn’t fundraise and doesn’t have any paid staff, he doesn’t have to answer to any sponsors
if the projects are not completed on time. Nipun has complete control on all his projects and can
choose to run them the way he wants them to run, and in this way he is very powerful. On the
other hand, since all members of the organization are volunteers, Nipun works extremely hard to
ensure that the trust they have in him is never broken. He strives to ensure that volunteers get the
stamina; focus; sensitivity to others; flexibility; ability to tolerate conflict; and submerging one’s
8
ego and getting along. We found that while Nipun was very well positioned in each of these
categories, in not all cases did he fit the paradigms proposed by Pfeffer.
also inspire others to work harder.6 Nipun’s energy is positive and fills the room; our experience
interviewing him confirms as much. Nipun works extremely hard, usually 12-14 hours per day,
seven days a week, a habit he learned while still on the tennis circuit. He is deeply involved with
every project of CharityFocus (which also goes to focus, as described below), and he makes
extraordinary efforts to respond to every email of every volunteer. Such deep involvement and
commitment can credibly be compared to Lyndon Johnson’s immersion in the details and
mechanics of politics and in his (successful) efforts to respond to each and every letter of the
constituents from his district. At all projects, Nipun tries his best to get involved in the most
labor-intensive tasks such as dish washing at Karma Kitchen. If there is a volunteer on a team
who is not doing his job well, he rarely tries to mentor that person. Instead he picks up the slack
and fixes it, hoping that the person will take a clue and improve himself on his own.
Focus
Pfeffer recognizes that our energies or skills are, by definition, finite, and that people with great
power tend to concentrate their efforts in one direction.7 Nipun doesn’t have a regular social life
filled with eating out, watching movies, and hanging out with friends. Nearly all of his time is
spent in serving others, whether listening intently to someone who is having a conflict with her
parents, “tagging” a person by giving them an unexpected gift, or feeding monks. Again, we can
credibly compare such focus to, for example, Robert Moses’ singular commitment to the parks.
Nipun is also very focused on CharityFocus values. For example, he won’t let advertisers put
6
See JEFFREY PFEFFER, MANAGING WITH POWER 168 (HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PRESS 1994) (1992).
7
See id.
9
logos on Smile Cards, even if that means the project can’t scale as quickly as it might with
underwriting. Although he has had the opportunity, he won’t appear on Oprah because he
doesn’t feel he can ensure that the message delivered through such “eye candy” will stay true to
the values of CharityFocus. Recently he was invited to speak at the TED X conference, and he
replied that he would only speak if five Karma Kitchen volunteers were allowed to speak with
Sensitivity to Others
Pfeffer defines sensitivity as “understanding who [others] are, their position on the issues, and
how to best communicate with and influence them.”8 Sensitivity thus requires both self-
awareness and awareness of others.9 Nipun is extremely sensitive to other people’s needs and
what inspires them to serve. He understands that one person may be good for a six-hour task and
another will be able to commit to one hour a day, six days a week. If a volunteer is not doing
well in a particular role, Nipun takes the responsibility to place the person in another role. If a
volunteer is having personal issues, he takes a “big detour” to support him, setting aside other
projects and dedicating the necessary time to lift up that individual. As noted earlier, Nipun is
also highly attuned to how he affects others and in turn how others perceive him.
Flexibility
In Pfeffer’s view, flexibility refers to the ability to change behavior if certain actions are not
producing the required effects.10 Similarly, flexibility is based on focusing on ultimate goals and
emotional detachment (namely, in terms of tactics selected).11 Thus, the distinction is not so
much as where one will agree to bend (for whatever reason) and where one will not, but rather
8
Id. at 172.
9
See id. at 173.
10
See id. at 174.
11
See id.
10
whether to accomplish certain goals, one is willing to explore and take a variety of roads. As
such, as far as we can tell, Nipun does not fit the paradigm proposed by Pfeffer, though this does
not (as far as we can tell) in any way disadvantage CharityFocus and in fact in many ways may
work to its benefit. In brief, Nipun is flexible in certain things and inflexible in others. He is
extremely flexible when it comes to spending money just to create a good volunteer experience,
which seems somewhat ironic given the lack of fundraising at CharityFocus. For example, the
organization could easily ship Smile Cards in a cost-effective manner spending around $50 a
week, but Nipun would prefer to complete the project in an “inefficient” way, spending around
$100 a week in a way that engages more volunteers in a more communal effort to stuff, address
and stamp envelopes containing Smile Cards. On the other hand, Nipun won’t compromise on
the core values of CharityFocus at any cost. He won’t accept donations if they are tied to a
specific CharityFocus project, no matter how large. He won’t write grant proposals to raise
money. He won’t let conflicts between volunteers fester, even if one or both of the opposing
positions are justified. And he won’t hire a paid staff member, no matter how much time that
To be sure, in terms of his relations with others Nipun tolerates conflict, but Pfeffer speaks more
will talk to anyone compassionately, even if he knows that the other person is trying to
undermine him. He believes that such people actually deserve more compassion and love than
anyone else. He told us about a particular project in which two people were not getting along. It
was clear to everyone that one person was wrong and the other person was right. Instead of
12
See id. at 176.
11
taking the “wrong” person out, Nipun requested that everyone in the group “tag” him with good
deeds, and this attention influenced him to shift his attitude to the positive. This, of course, is
different from engaging in battle to achieve one’s goals. Further, the ability to tolerate conflict, in
Pfeffer’s view, is tied to a sufficient independence to not require intimacy with others.13 While
we may agree that Nipun is sufficiently independent, because unconditional love cannot be
divorced from intimacy, it follows that Nipun does not tolerate conflict as such attribute is
viewed by Pfeffer. By the same token, Nipun’s ability tolerate of conflict is right for
Pfeffer relates this last attribute to “flexibility, since it entails the ability to trade present restraint
for greater power and resources in the future.”14 Without a doubt, Nipun can get along with
others and if he has an ego (as we all do), as shown below he is clearly able to submerge it.
However, there is no calculation or trade (which, of course, is consistent with Nipun’s view of
reciprocity and acts of unsolicited kindness). Again, given the dynamics and needs of
CharityFocus, Nipun’s actions and philosophy are clearly appropriate and advantageous to the
organization, but again Nipun does not quite fit Pfeffer’s paradigm.
Nipun speaks at conferences or gives seminars almost 50 times a year, but he doesn’t take any
speaking fees. He recalled a particular incident where the sponsors of a conference didn’t have
time for all five publicized speakers, and in the middle of the program, they had to decide whom
to cut. Nipun volunteered to be the one cut. One way in which Nipun voluntarily gives up power
is by not demanding that he be treated as someone special. He understands that his time is
13
See id. at 182.
14
Id.
12
continually abused because he doesn’t charge speaking fees, dresses very casually, and doesn’t
come across as a typical dignified speaker. He observes that he is often treated as less important
than peers who charge fees and act the part of the VIP, even when they share billing on an equal
status. But Nipun is committed not to change his personality to suit others’ expectations of him.
In fact, he seems to revel in outperforming expectations, preferring instead to “rock it like a fifth
rituals that are followed at most CharityFocus meetings. Meditation is very central, and
volunteers are encouraged to take silence breaks regularly. Nipun usually requests volunteers to
perform an act of giving before each meeting. At every meeting, Nipun and other volunteers tell
stories of kindness and compassion. In their recent book Made to Stick, Stanford Professor Chip
Heath and his brother Dan talk at length about the power of stories.15 Stories in many instances
speak to or help promote the core values of an organization; for example, John Bogle, founder of
Vanguard, was known to in each instance ask for the least expensive hotel room and as such
inculcated a sense of responsibility and ownership to and throughout the firm. Nipun has been
using stories to convey the impact of CharityFocus for almost 10 years, frequently including the
“creation” stories of how the organization and its programs were each born.
Nipun and his parents have hosted 40-50 people for regular meetings every Wednesday for the
last 12 years, touching thousands of people to date. The meetings begin with an hour of
dinner. Every week, Nipun is physically accessible to every one of them and makes it a point to
15
See CHIP HEATH & DAN HEATH, MADE TO STICK: WHY SOME IDEAS SURVIVE AND OTHERS DIE, CH. 6 (RANDOM HOUSE
2007).
13
talk to anyone who is there for the first time. These rituals of meditation, story-telling, and
serving a meal are all symbolic actions that help to create a space of authority and community in
the group.
Nipun could be called an expert networker and knows thousands of people. As with Heidi
Roizen, Nipun’s life has essentially no separation between the personal and the professional.
Like Roizen, Nipun is an extremely attentive listener and seeks to make every interaction with
another person significant. But where Roizen’s goal may be to connect people for mutual benefit,
Nipun is extremely wary of using his power in this way. He acknowledges that such connections
can be mutually beneficial, but “there’s an edge to it” that may go beyond selfless service. For
example, he won’t pair single people together whom he thinks may be compatible, because he
doesn’t want to have that kind of influence over others. Despite his deep, high-tech network, he
Nipun’s relationship to fame is an uneasy one. He recognizes that he, in many circles, is famous.
But he stated that “If I become a famous person, then I have failed in my purpose.” Nipun is
sensitive to recognize the inconsistency between being, or wanting to be, an ordinary person
dedicated to a life of service and being famous, which implies that one is extraordinary. Thus,
Nipun strives to help others avoid the misperception that only special people can do service. He
notes that Gandhi was just an “ordinary” person. To this end, Nipun deliberately “carries himself
as a janitor.” While Nipun is troubled by the disconnect between his view of who he is, or aims
to be, and how, due to his fame, he may be perceived, he also takes pleasure in the disconnect,
enjoying the shock value of not telegraphing who he is. For example, at a recent conference, one
moment Nipun was helping a guest who, due to how Nipun comported himself, thought Nipun
was part of the staff, and the next moment Nipun sprung to the podium as the keynote speaker.
14
The perception of power (or fame, which can be viewed as either a byproduct of power or a
proxy) can create actual power. Nipun turns this concept on its head. It is as though, cognizant
of the power and fame he has achieved, he is actively trying to deflate how others perceive him.
Not surprisingly, Nipun speaks of “distributed” or local heroes, which, to his mind, are more
important than fame or famous people. Fame spotlights; Nipun prefers diffusion. He wrestles
might lead him. To be sure, Nipun does not view CharityFocus in such terms; he does not have a
vision per se. Legacy is anathema to Nipun. In fact, Nipun’s interpretation of “serving with what
you have” is that the organization cannot worry about how the bills will be paid. If operations
needed to cease tomorrow, then that’s just what would happen. Only by not worrying about this
The nature of CharityFocus leaves little avenue for anyone other than Nipun to seek leadership.
With no salary, no VIP treatment, and essentially no titles, there is no reason for others to covet
Nipun’s position. While it is certainly not Nipun’s goal to protect his place in the organization,
the result of the structure is that his leadership is secure for as long as he desires it. We can be
quite certain, however, that if Nipun exited CharityFocus, the organization would change. The
leader of a for-profit endeavor, or even the head of a more traditionally-funded nonprofit, would
be ill-suited to take Nipun’s place, just as his talents would likely not serve him well in a
different sort of operation. Our analysis of Nipun’s power and politics lead us to the conclusion
15