Something that has been plaguing me since joining a small non-profit is the resounding acceptance of our inability to do things because of our size. It feels like everyone is content in not pushing for better results ‘because we’re just a small organisation’.
My question is, does being small correlate with doing less? Missing opportunities based on financial awareness, limited staff time or uncertain outcomes seem to be the main reasons not to try and achieve more, push harder and are ultimately used to justify doing less. Is it right to let opportunities pass us by because we aren’t the biggest fish in the non-profit sea?
I am a big believer in only taking on what you can and doing it well, rather than taking on everything and doing it poorly, but where does this definition end and laziness begin? Is it better to be over stretched but know you’re giving 100% to furthering your mission and developing your organisation? Does the alternative run the risk of doing what you’ve always done and getting the results you’ve always got?
Are small non-profits guilty of not being ambitious enough to go after organisation changing opportunities? Have you had experience of this? I would welcome opinions on this and suggestions of how to achieve more even in a small organisation.