4 ms·
That doesn’t seem like an entirely bad thing, though. Once you have an organization built up to solve a problem, shifting those resources into solving another p
by matthewdgreen 3y ago
That doesn’t seem like an entirely bad thing, though. Once you have an organization built up to solve a problem, shifting those resources into solving another problem is a reasonable next step. This is not the same as TFA, which talks about organizations preventing the problem from being solved.
- cratermoon 3y ago> That doesn’t seem like an entirely bad thing, though. Not at all. It's an example of a good pivot. Probably Gall thought it rare enough to mention it in a book otherwise full of wisdom about how systems go wrong.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoI disagree. When you've solved the problem the best thing to do is to celebrate, give resources back, and then organize to solve another problem if you want. Switching missions is a bait and switch for your supporters and should be avoided.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoOrganizations are expensive and hard to build. If you liquidate an organization, you might free up some modest amount of cash in a bank account (and maybe some furniture, office supplies, etc.) but the cost of rebuilding that same organization will be vastly higher than the money freed up. It’s like tearing the copper out of a working industrial air conditioner and selling it for scrap: a huge waste and a loss of value in absolute terms. Perfectly reasonable to give back money to recent donors who opt out and raise it over again, though.