I can’t let Roger’s paean yesterday to pursuing one’s fundraising career in small nonprofits stand with no countervailing comment.

I appreciate all the reasons why small is beautiful … although many times those reasons are given by folks who have no choice but to make the best of ‘small’ and find virtue in it.

Yes, you get to wear all the hats at once … probably mastering none beyond a casual level, with growing frustration over the many opportunities you can’t seize because of being stretched too thin or lacking relevant expertise.

Yes, a small organization might be more risk-taking and innovative … but I submit at least as many would be risk adverse, faced with the stark reality that precious scarce resources could not be placed in jeopardy. I’ve found that openness to risk and innovation is much more a function of leadership attitude than of size. Stupidity and mental straightjackets are not limited to large organisations; and wise and entrepreneurial leaders are not limited to small ones.

Yes, you might feel closer to donors when you have several hundred or several thousand of them. And, whatever your mission, if that’s all you need to make a difference, good for you. But if your mission requires hundreds of thousands — or millions — of donors and supporters, I’d rather have their sheer scale at my disposal, and not fantasize that I’m going to be ‘close’ to my $50/year donors. Which isn’t to say I shouldn’t strive to give each donor recognition and an outstanding donor experience.

To me, ‘small’ more often than not means under-resourced, whether in terms of funds (and people) to get the basics done well, availability of risk capital, resources for professional development, sufficient scale to make a difference. All rewarded by less opportunity for personal upward mobility.

Most of us in the fundraising biz want chiefly, I hope, to make a difference. Both within the organisations we work for (to produce a satisfying work culture), and externally in terms of actually advancing the organization’s mission.

Is it more difficult to have a personal impact within a larger organization and on its mission? Yes, it’s more challenging. But your own efficacy depends in no small part on you and your ambition. You can’t blame all inertia, risk avoidance, sameness and mediocrity on ‘the organization’.

Tom

P.S. There were excellent comments on Roger’s post, from which I thought the key takeaway was about organizational culture — it starts at the top and, irrespective of the size of the organization, can be stifling or inspiring.