Over and over Tom and I receive emails and comments claiming there just isn’t enough time or staff resources required to make some of the basic changes we suggest, or engage in much innovation.

Yet, anyone who’s spent time with most nonprofits knows that’s simply an excuse without much truth to it.

Tom’s post yesterday, applauding the commitment of Ann Kensek and The Counseling Service of Addison County-Vermont, made that abundantly clear.

Every organization can make the changes required to grow — if they stop wasting time.

In a moment I’ll illustrate some all-too-common examples of wasted time and exalted triviality, but first some background concepts that may be helpful.

Parkinson’s Laws. If you’re not familiar with C. Northcote Parkinson’s 1957 Parkinson’s Law, you’re in for a real treat. This stylish, witty and sometimes satirical work cuts through all the management theory and nonsense to show how and why bureaucracies waste time.

His famous dictum — “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion” — applies to virtually every human enterprise, including our nonprofit world.

Not quite as famous, but hugely important for understanding the barriers posed to innovation, is his corollary ‘Law of Triviality’ that states, “Organizations give disproportionate weight to trivial issues”.

Parkinson illustrates his ‘Law of Triviality’ by chronicling a Finance Committee meeting in which there are three items on the agenda: 1) the signing of a multi-million contract to build an atomic reactor; 2) a proposal to build a $2,500 bicycle shed; and, 3) a third proposal to supply refreshments for the Joint Welfare Committee of the organization.

The multi-million $$ number is too big and too technical, and it is passed in 2.5 minutes.

The bicycle shed is a subject understood by the board and the dollar amount is within their life experience, so the debate rages for 45 minutes on whether to use an aluminum or galvanized iron roof. “The board members sit back with a feeling of accomplishment.”

The third item — $57 for refreshments — consumes 1.25 hours. While some members of the committee may not know galvanized iron from aluminum, everyone knows about coffee — how it should be made, where it should be bought. After an hour and a quarter the committee votes to ask the Secretary to procure further information, leaving the matter to be decided at the next meeting.

Sound familiar?

Parkinson’s Laws At Work in Fundraising

Here are some examples of why organizations and their consultants seldom have time either to make the basic changes that would improve their retention rates (improved donor service, a timely and effective thank you process, an effort to seek donor feedback), let alone for innovation that may produce a big breakthrough.

Audience. Organizations spend far too much time and money on infinite — and beyond a certain point — uselessly complex segmentation. Instead of spending this time to find better and innovative ways to identify and approach an audience, the exaltation of triviality reaches its zenith with cells containing 17 donors upon whom no meaningful action can be taken.

This type of trivialization is expensive. Analysts, consultants and spreadsheet jockeys cost money. It’s wise to remember that the profit in consulting lies in making things complex. True growth for the organization lies in simplification, allowing additional time and resources for putting best practices in place.

Product/Offer. Nothing wrong with using — over and over — an offer or technique that works. But, once they’re proven to work, there should be less and less time and effort devoted to them. Having learned it works, don’t re-invent the wheel by testing it over and over. Put the freed up time to work on improving donor service or the thank you process.

Creative/Copy. Because most fundraisers can read, they also have fierce opinions on copy and creative. As Jeff Brooks over at Future Fundraising Now continually points out, these opinions are worthless and a big time suck. Avoid the democratization of creative input.

Most of all stop focusing on the trivial. If I had a nickel for every hour I’ve witnessed trivial debates over orange vs. blue envelopes, or closed-face vs. window envelopes — what the late, great Ed Mayer termed “testing whispers” — I could buy Tom a new typewriter.

Failure to spend serious time and effort in the development of new strategies for message and creative is the direct result of trivializing the creative process by focusing on incremental changes that don’t make a damn bit of difference.

This is why most non-profits look homogeneously alike — awash in a Sea of Sameness. See Tom’s post, Out-Strategize or Out-Execute.

Metrics that Matter. ‘RFM’, ‘Clicks’, ‘Open Rates’ — and all the other hackneyed metrics that have resulted in little more than flat or declining performance and value in our sector — continue to get increased and ever more complex attention in the game of Fundraising Trivial Pursuit.

Spend some of that time and those resources identifying metrics that point to and measure real progress. Metrics like lifetime value, share of wallet, donor commitment.

Ask your consultant and your staff to outline the five most ‘vital sign’ metrics for your organization. Then ask how they’ve incorporated them into their plans and the execution of those plans.

Innovation and progress come not from working harder, but working smarter and taking an axe to the time wasters and the trivial.

Roger

P.S. While you’re at it, also pay some attention to identifying the real time-wasters in your organization. Tom and I — and lots of Agitator readers — make some suggestions in Down With Fundraising Nonsense.