In this exploration of the differences between third sector organisations and businesses I have considered the tendency of third sector organisations to become bureaucratic and legalistic. These in turn lead to a tendency for no-one to take responsibility for decision-making.
There are two main reasons for this, one is the general ethos of third sector organisations and the other is to do with their staffing arrangements and I’ll look in-depth at staffing next time.
In general a small voluntary group have a committee, Trustees’ meeting or board of directors. Their ethos is shared responsibility and the committee is the vehicle through which its members act together. So, small groups have to make collective decisions and so tend to build lack of trust in any one person into their structures.
A small business will have one or very few active decision makers. Larger businesses and voluntary sector organisations may encounter similar problems and will develop strategies over time to mitigate them.
It is easy to say it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. Generally this can be good advice. When you’re dealing with bureaucracy if you make a proposal a likely response is proliferation of decision-making steps. The temptation to act and sort out the bureaucracy afterwards is attractive. But is it advisable?
I suggested a radical change to a voluntary sector organisation facing a desperate shortage of cash. They needed to research this new direction’s feasibility. Their marketing and development committees are separate and apparently unable to communicate. If marketing is aware of demand, their development committee won’t necessarily be interested because they’re already developing stuff. The development committee is interested in what they’re doing and not in selling it. Their products are good but follow their members’ interests and not the demand from their market.
Subcommittees
Furthermore it is not clear whether these subcommittees can make decisions themselves or whether they need to go to the Trustees, who meet about once a quarter.
Meetings of all these groups are occasional and so it is difficult to get any traction or make progress. I’ve forgotten what we were talking about between meetings because they are so far apart. Most people are volunteers and don’t have the time to pay full attention to the matters in hand.
In this case it is not practical to act and ask forgiveness. My ideas are in the long grass and not because anyone opposes them. The organisation is not able to accommodate them. It is in desperate need of finance and yet unable to take the decisions necessary for its survival.
There is another reason asking forgiveness is not always a good idea. If someone in control is threatened they can act to close down discussion. Where several very part-time people are involved in decision-making, one person can have a great deal of power.
Handling Offers
The principle, you would think, is simple but many organisations don’t know how to handle an offer. An offer requires a response; a yes or a no. I time limit my offers for my sanity. Generally a long silence means “no”. Even a silence accompanied by assurances they’re thinking about it means no. Personal attacks and accusations you’re trying to make money out of them also mean no. No will suffice. You don’t need to give a reason, just say no!
A small business may have similar constraints. But there is one big difference. An offer is ultimately about how much they want it and whether they can afford it. Also time is their most precious commodity and even if they don’t care about mine, they care about their own.
You would think third sector organisations would be better off if they employ staff to carry forward the work of the organisation and enable the Trustees to take a more strategic view. But staff can make matters worse. I’ll explain why next time.
