Do more with more

"We do more with less" has always struck me as an odd brag point. I get the value and intrigue of efficiency and effectiveness, but I find that it introduces more negatives - or at least questions - than positives. It makes me wonder:

• Are you doing this on purpose?
• If so, what's your secret? Those doing less with more will want to know.
• If not, why hasn't the organization invested more in the program?
• What is the state of the team doing "more" with the "less?" Are they thriving? Growing professionally? Burnt out? Looking for a new job?

What if we tried doing more with... more?

Nonprofits typically pour as much resource as possible into mission delivery - a good thing, particularly as it relates to accountability to donors and the community the organization serves. The problem is when lack of internal investment becomes chronic and accepted to the point that it actually erodes morale, engagement/retention, and effectiveness.

After all, if you're doing more with less, won't you be able to do even more with... more?

You see it in planning, when the previous year's plan stretched a team's capacity and this year's plan includes all of that plus more - but no new resources. Efforts to trim often aim at low hanging fruit, but those apples were picked a long time ago (remember the whole chronic under-investment thing?). This boxes a team in and typically undermines confidence in the planning process ("why make a plan if we're just going to abandon it along the way?). Long-term, there tends to be less emphasis on productivity/ROI because the team "just needs to get it done."

This points to a fundamental problem - and solution - that starts with a big question:

Are you under-resourced or over-scoped?

Trick question, you're probably thinking. You're both. Perhaps, but these really are two different issues.

Start with Scope

Take a fresh look at scope of work, based on alignment with mission and core business needs, and prioritized by potential going-forward, not past, impact. That will give you a sense of ideal scope. If we could do it all, what would be on the list, in what order, based on impact/effectiveness?

This is where analytics come into play - and "we just need to do it" and "we've done it that way for years, and know it works" - go out the window. This is a feelings-free zone. When looking at the list, what projects have moved the needle? Which ones haven't? Which projects are experiments to see if a new approach could be more effective? Which ones are on the list because someone important said they had to be?

Aligning with Resources

This ideal scope gets real when matched up against available resources (people, budget, time). Stay in the feelings-free zone for this one and you will get a sense of realistic scope. This can be sobering but not surprising.

In a "we do more with less" organization, you already know you don't have enough resources to get the work done - it's your calling card. It's the reality of looking at just how misaligned the work is with the resources that should point to the need to work differently.

The good conversation starts with, what steps can we take now to get in alignment and what steps can we take in the next 1, 3, 5 years to be highly productive? Working in phases allows you to make meaningful adjustments right away, such as trimming projects, adjusting timelines, scope of complexity, or even outsourcing. This relieves short-term pressure, making space for discussions about structural issues related to budget and staffing, and making the case for investment based on proven results.

This is About Mission

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about "doing more with less" in a nonprofit environment is that the "more" typically directly impacts peoples' lives. More awareness drives more participation. More funds raised for financial aid means more students benefit. More funds raised for clinical trials means more patients have access.

I love a good spreadsheet, but when you get your head out of the charts and consider how an investment in people and programs that directly impact your ability to deliver on mission, my question is why wouldn't you invest more, particularly when they've already proven effective in delivering with less?