« Evaluation as Symbolic Capital | Main | How Do You Define Nonprofit Success? »

September 30, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The Nonprofiteer

Albert, Bless you for calling this pseudo-science by its name. The only thing we really know about nonprofit successes is that they're infuriatingly hard to scale up: once the original inspired person is removed from the equation, the naked idea proves to have relatively little staying power or transferability. That doesn't mean we shouldn't go on trying to figure out what IS transferable, but it does mean we shouldn't take assertions of duplicability without several tons of salt.

Tidy Sum

Reminds me of a classic Monte Python sketch:

How to Tell a Witch...

Villager: We have found a witch, may we burn her?

Crowd: BURN!! BUUUURN HER!

Bedevere: But how do you *know* she is a witch?

Villager: She looks like one!

Other Villagers: Yeah! She looks like one!!!

Bedevere: Bring her forward...

Read the entire script at: http://wuzzle.org/cave/mpwit.html

"Nothing like a little medieval logic lesson". --Zaratyst

i.a.t.

nothing like indulging our size (a.k.a. scalability) fetish.

Angie L.

A great read, thanks.

Witt

What a terrific essay.

In my experience there are often two underlying assumptions that are not explicitly stated: 1) The ideal size for a nonprofit is "bigger"; and 2) it is possible to distill and standardize complex aspects of human nature so that they can be replicated.

It's hard to talk about well-managed organizations without making a list, but I wish our sector handled it more like nutrition. It's not that that there is a perfect diet of 6 items that everyone should eat in identical amounts. It's watching a group of monkeys play, socialize, fight, eat, sleep, and defecate to figure out whether they're generally healthy or not.

Albert

I think you're on to something. If we really want to understand what makes nonprofit organizations successful, we would do better to hire a multidisciplinary team of researchers headed by a cultural anthropologist. Let them watch staff and board meetings through a two-way mirror.

The scalability thing is also tiresome. Those who are lucky enough to have the means often choose to attend small liberal arts colleges instead of large state universities. We prefer intimate restaurants over sprawling, noisy cafeterias. Why are we so eager to subject poor people to scaled organizations?

Alan

“Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes.”

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz

Contributors


  • John
    Anger

    Countess
    Apraxina

    Stuart
    Johnson

    Dixie
    Moline

    Albert
    Ruesga

    Sally
    Wilde

Terror Level

Less Recent Posts