Big vs small charities?
Process vs people
Welcome to the Nest Egg!
Whether you’ve been reading our stuff since 2019, or are new here - you are welcome!
Today’s article…
…is all about big charities vs small and (ultimately) what happens when you put process before people.
So much of what we do revolves around relationships. Prioritising great relationships in every aspect of our work is always going to pay dividends.
As always, we value your feedback so do drop Tony a line directly to let him know your thoughts - tony@larkowl.uk
Big vs small charities
by Tony Richardson
The issue of 'Big vs Small charities and which is ‘better' is a topic I’ve done a complete 180 degrees on.
Obviously I need to point out that I'm making a mass generalisation here - we all know big charities who are marvellously efficient and small ones with laborious processes and poor management.
This article is about wider trends and hopefully will have some resonance, whatever the size of charity you currently work for.
Originally, I was somewhat cynical about small charities and saw larger organisations as being able to have greater impact.
But from experience, there is a danger that larger organisations tend to become ineffective by the bureaucracy created within it.
That then impacts the culture, with people adhering to arbitrary expectations which have been set for reasons no-one can remember.
Sound familiar? Read on…
Forgiveness over permission
Being the newbie in an organisation is great because you can always play the “ooops, I didn’t know that” card.
Shortly after joining the National Trust I was tasked with project managing a new café. With 3 months to go before the grand opening, I was thrilled at the opportunity.
I worked at a pace that energised me but was repeatedly confronted with the “old guard” who wanted to question everything I was doing. I’m not reckless, but I don’t pander to egos either. I purchased some outdoor furniture for the new café which I had seen at several other National Trust properties.
One colleague asked me whether I had “consulted with the regional curator”. I found myself thinking that anyone with that role isn’t going to care too much about some folding chairs. I did email him in the end to say I’m new, have already bought the chairs and would like to know if, in the future, he would like to be part of this process.
His reply was joyful, in that he said it’s a waste of his time and he’d rather trust people like me and pick up the rare mistake than have to waste time with this constant requests.
I really liked him!
People told me whatever project management timescale I was used to outside the National Trust, double it. I, (and thankfully many of my amazing colleagues) didn’t listen to this, seeing it as unnecessarily risk averse and bureaucratic, which in turn stifled efficiency and creativity (ironically the skills which many of us believed we’d been hired for).
Recently I had the most joyous moment in a client meeting (a much smaller charity than the National Trust) observing a conversation between a CEO and one of her senior managers. They were discussing a new opportunity. Within 5 minutes, the CEO asked a number of questions, felt satisfied by the answers, and had set up a trial for an entirely new arm to their operation.
I was in awe. No sub-committee, consultations or review board, just clear, decisive action. I wanted to leave LarkOwl and take any role in her organisation immediately.
People vs process
From what I’ve seen, when you are bogged down with bureaucracy, you’ve removed all the space for authentic leadership. From here, it’s just management of processes.
Manage these and everything will be okay.
One colleague represented this more than anyone I’ve ever met. Our long standing “disagreement” would always come back to ‘people vs process’.
I believe that if you trust in people, you’ll get the best results 95% of the time, because in my mind, 95% of people are really good, and given opportunity, support, and a safety net they can trust in are capable of performing minor miracles.
His view on the other hand was that if the process was right, you could count on 100% best results.
My counter to this was that 'you’re delusional if you think any of us are smart enough to get a process completely right' (maybe I was projecting my insecurities in this argument?). In addition, you’ll kill all the creativity along the way.
It’s also rare (in my view) for a process designed for a very large organisation, to take account of nuances in circumstances (location, delivery teams, customers – the variables are significant and numerous).
Neither one of us ever shifted the opinion of the other – and thanks to Myers-Briggs, it was “scientifically proven” that we were complete opposites!
So how does this happen? How is it that organisations reach a certain size and then become far less effective?
My best guess is that if you follow my path of trusting the skilled professionals within your charities and allowing them to do their best work, then there will always be a small trail of mistakes.
The intellectual pursuit of perfection can be very alluring to those who believe in it. I do personally believe I could never create a perfect system (some would say I lack ambition, others would see this as sane humility).
Given then that a degree of error is inevitable, whether or not you have a mountain of watertight processes in place, then maybe some control of the reins can be released (in the pursuit of effective change).
For me it’s about effective change. Smaller organisations must be creative, ambitious and efficient, because there isn’t the time or resource for anything else. All resources are focused on a very specific spot within the deeply nuanced aspects of their community.
I don’t believe that huge organisations bulging with systems and processes to eliminate as much risk as is humanly possible, can be as effective as the smaller grassroots ones.
If this has struck a nerve and you’d like to have a conversation, please give me a call, I promise I’m always polite, even if you are a person who loves a solid process!
Email me tony@larkowl.uk
Teenagers: patience, listening, space. Shared TV moments. And optic measures for alcohol.