Throughout the course of our @phillyhistory semester project, I have been a proponent of downsizing historical institutions. For our Steem grant, I specifically proposed funding the Philadelphia History Museum's moving and other related fees to help merge with Temple University. While our class has decided that this project is outside of the realm of possibility, I'm still an advocate for downsizing and I'm going to keep talking about it.
Almost everything we've read this semester, including this week's piece by Paul Connolly and Laura Klein, "Getting Back in Shape: Guidelines for Improving the Fitness of Established Nonprofit Organizations" acknowledges the problems in the cultural sector. Institutions are perpetually fighting the uphill battle to maintain their funding. As Connolly and Klein note, even when things are going well, stagnation can occur. In my opinion, every critique we've read leads me to the conclusion that nonprofits need to reject the idea that growth = success and embrace the necessity of downsizing.
Connolly and Klein provide a list of common problems in nonprofits, including outdated programming, too much bureaucracy, and chronic budget deficits. For almost all of their stated issues, the pair argue for restructuring. Only for the deficit problem do they actually acknowledge a need for dropping "nonessential services," not just altering them. While I think that restructuring is a crucial solution for many of the problems the piece lists, I view restructuring as part of a larger downsizing effort.
Historical institutions should follow the model of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania and assess what they do well to actually serve their target population(s). Before constructing new dynamic programming, which Connolly and Klein state as a necessary effort for many stagnant institutions, they need to cut out old programming, and possibly the staff or even the mission statement that is dedicated to that outdated, ineffective programming. Before an institution can truly restructure, it needs to trim its fat. Yet, my grand plan for downsizing is maybe too ambitious because it directly contradicts the growth culture, which is fueled by the larger curse of capitalism.
Bigger is not necessarily better, yet nonprofits exist in a society that believes the opposite. This means that, even when it wasn't necessary, even when it wasn't sustainable, many of our historical institutions have grown. And now they're paying the price.
In the for profit world, shrinking is often seen as a way to maximize profits. It is cruel and greedy, removing staff and services that actually do assist the consumer experience for the sake of making more money. Or, shrinking is the first sign of a failing business. I understand why people are wary. Yet, in nonprofits, downsizing can be a necessary and effective way to better serve the mission. It's not about making more money, it's about being of better service to the public.
I wish that it wasn't this way
In reality, I want historical institutions to have more funding to create new, dynamic programs. I want them to grow as much as they please to best serve their communities. But we do not live in an economy that allows for that. As long as funding for these institutions are so dependent on finite grants and donors, there isn't the stability necessary to count on long term growth. Thus, the goal cannot be growth. Institutions need to shrink to counteract the unnecessary bloating that occurred in the growth culture.
I know it's a hard sell, but I feel passionately about this. I hope you're able to see some of my logic within my ramblings.
What do you think? Is shrinking a good idea? If so, how do we convince institutions to do it?
Source: Paul Connelly and Laura Klein, Getting Back in Shape: Guidelines for Improving the Fitness of Established Nonprofit Organizations (The Conservation Company, 1999), 8 pp.
100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program, is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.
Yes, it's ironic that
I think you are absolutely right that "the goal cannot be growth." So what we need to do is redefine what the goal actually is. The $50 million or $150 million solutions are not possible, and wouldn't even necessarily be viable or effective (and thus desirable).
So what's a $50K or even the $5K solution look like? It's not about small being better, so much as small being effective.
I agree that for many institutions, shrinking is a good idea. Still not sure how to convince them--Stitt was successful by proving to the board that they had a crisis and needed to address it. However, it seems like being on the verge of shutting down or bankruptcy is the only way to convince an institution to downsize. I imagine an institution that feels like it's doing ok would take much harder to convince.
It's important to continue talking about downsizing and I'm glad you're doing so!
I actually have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this, as an employee of an institution that recently went through a downsizing. However, instead of "trimming the fat," they got rid of some essential people and kept a few high-profile directors who really don't pull their weight. There's also still a growth culture that doesn't account for the severely reduced staff, leaving many remaining employees overworked and stressed.
How do you suggest institutions approach restructuring in a way that reflects an accurate assessment of their strengths and weaknesses (instead of letting ego and prestige get in the way) and doesn't fall victim to growth culture?