If we look at things logically we will conclude that financial savings can be brought about by rationalising services and joining-up organisations that seem to do similar work. We may also conclude that large size would allow standardisation of training, fundraising, policies, and many other necessary aspects of organisations. Bigger is better as the saying goes……
All good!
I believe, however, that largeness has a negative effect on vital elements like creativity and the sense of adventure that we have identified as important in our organisation so that our work with very vulnerable families will be effective.
Part of the reason for this is, I believe, the need for self-perpetuating elements to exist to service the organisation. This is usually known as bureaucracy, described elsewhere. While it is necessary for some power to reside in the office element of the organisation, (i.e. accountancy, administration, human resources etc.) this power should be appropriate to the needs of the operational elements. Sometimes bureaucracies can have too much power – and the bureaucratic tail can wag the operational dog.
The smaller an organisation is, the more likely it is that it will retain a firm grasp of the essentials. This has certainly has been my experience not only in this area of work but other areas also.
Let us compare, just as an exercise, a large engineering project with protecting children in families affected by imprisonment. Both might be deemed to be difficult but possible. Factors that might be common to both would be a good work ethic, competent HR, financial propriety, and high accountability.
However in the engineering project it’s not essential to have a big emphasis on, say, cultural matching. If contractors use foreign expertise and personnel it may be helpful for them to match their culture to the culture of the foreign staff.
However, no matter how much cultural matching is attended to project will not be successfully undertaken without large and diverse engineering, scientific, financial, organisational, and management resources.
Largeness is a requirement and the venture will not succeed without it.
However, in protection of children in vulnerable families and communities, I would argue that vast financial, organisational, and management resources is actually a huge disadvantage.
Small size enables the grounded-ness that is needed for cultural matching, assists democracy and healthy debate, lessens the danger of becoming concerned with image, increases the chance that staff at all levels have a voice, allows users of the service to become familiar with different staff members, facilitates adaptability and flexibility, enables the mirroring of the warmth, informality and intimacy that is so necessary in the work itself, and, above all, optimises connection.
But I also believe that a balance needs to be attained.
If our organisation is too small there are a number of risk factors that need to be mentioned. These include:
1. Lack of Diversity: Not having enough diversity within our team to ensure that the outward looking and creative attitude that is so necessary prevails.
2. Power: The possibility that one very powerful person has too much influence.
3. Identity Problems: Lack of identity, (i.e. the possibility that we may be subsumed by an ethos and practice norms of larger organisations that may be doing similar but different work).
4. Impropriety: The covering up of wrongdoing and sloppiness. (Without the monitoring that is part and parcel of large organisations, financial, or other impropriety may go unchallenged).
I mentioned when discussing discipline that it is necessary to have a high level of integrity if we wish to follow the creative path. It is the same with small size – the risk factors 1 to 4 above are minimised substantially by having integrity.
Finally, when I think of largeness in child protection, I think of the War on Drugs which was mentioned here, when I discussed hard and easy problems for humanity, and also here (no. 5 in the Table).
In both posts I described it as a hugely expensive mega-myth that has, as its ultimate aim, the protection of children and vulnerable people in communities. But – is it really working?