Scalability (and nonscalability) in Nonprofits
New Ideas for Nonprofit Leaders
Image description: a fern leaf about to unfurl. Photo by Agathe on Unsplash.
Having recognized that scalability has significant shortcomings, we can inquire how the concept relates to nonprofits. Scaling is a topic of much discussion in the nonprofit sector. Proponents of scaling argue that nonprofits are not making a substantial enough impact on the big social challenges of our day, and that big challenges require big solutions. Therefore, they have developed an area of practice devoted to scaling up successful programs to have exponential impact.
This approach is appealing to funders who want to drive measurable, large-scale change. If a program has proven results at the local level, why not replicate it nationally? Interest in scalable projects is also very high in the field of international aid, where a model that can help hundreds of villages seems preferable to one that is particular to a single location or region.
Of course, spreading good ideas and approaches more widely is valuable. Helping more people escape poverty or more teens graduating high school is something we all want. Why not establish the effectiveness of an approach through evaluation and then replicate it widely? Considerable good has been accomplished in this manner, and the literature lifts up some great examples of local programs that have been expanded to serve many more people. Best of all, some proven programs such as pre-k programs and hospice care are adopted as public priorities and added to the list the things that receive regular government funding and are reliably available.
But there are reasons for caution as well. Scaling often relies on business theories about how to replicate services, and this top-down, managerial approach has limitations. As noted in the last post, scalability tends to reduce workers’ roles to replicable, defined key actions and reduce the use of human judgment. A key premise of scaling is that evidence-based programs need to be delivered with fidelity to the original, proven model. Flexibility, reliance on local knowledge and culture, and tapping the unique talents of staff delivering the services may be discouraged as these introduce new variables.
Can we embrace nonscalability? Nonscalability is concerned with honoring and tapping into complexity and interdependence. Natural ecosystems such as the now familiar metaphor of symbiotic trees and mycorrhizal networks are examples of nonscalable networks. Elements within a nonscalable network are open to transformation. If we are imitating this type of organization, we will prioritize relationships and embrace constant change and evolution of our ways of working and delivering value to the communities we serve. In such a system, ideas will spread organically and be adapted to new settings, and diversity becomes a strength rather than a challenge to be managed. Growth will take place via fractals (simple rules iterated to form patterns like a snowflake or fern leaf), not the precision-nesting approach (planned, hierarchical structures inside structures like a files in folders in drives) used to take projects to scale. An adaptable system such as this is more responsive and able to navigate and survive changing conditions.
The paragraphs above are dense and filled with jargon. Clearly, there is work to do to think through how to popularize these ideas and apply them in the workplace. Further, nonscalability is not aligned with our current dominant culture and reward system in nonprofit organizations. There is considerable work to do to ensure that resources flow to support a new way of managing programs and organizations. Resourcing nonscalable social impact projects requires a high level of trust and an ongoing relationship to maintain the trust. Even with this barrier to widespread implementation at present, Anna Tsing’s work inspires me to think a little differently about management and leadership and gives me one of those glimpses into how things can work better.