Are We Protecting Our Organizations or Advancing Our Missions?
Executive Principal Taryn Deaton reflects on why putting mission first sometimes means challenging our attachment to the organizations we've built—and being willing to consider a different path forward.
Executive Principal Taryn Deaton
I've always been a mission-first kind of person. Throughout my life and career, I've been much more interested in what we're trying to accomplish than in preserving the institutions we've created to accomplish it.
And I'll admit, I've never quite understood why we're so reluctant to let organizations go.
I've spent more than 25 years working in and alongside nonprofits. I know how much time, energy, and heart go into building an organization. I understand why founders, staff, board members, and supporters feel such a deep attachment to the institutions they've helped create.
But I've also seen how easily keeping an organization going can become the goal, rather than a means of accomplishing the mission.
We focus on meeting budgets, sustaining programs, retaining staff, and keeping the doors open. All are important responsibilities. But how often do we stop to ask whether maintaining the organization in its current form is actually the best way to advance its mission?
There are a lot of nonprofits doing similar work, often competing for the same donors, grants, and other resources. Sometimes there are good reasons for that. Different communities need different approaches, and organizations bring unique relationships, expertise, and perspectives to their work.
But sometimes, I think our attachment to the organizations we've built gets in the way of considering what might be possible if we worked differently.
And in today's increasingly challenging funding environment, these are questions we can no longer afford to avoid.
What Are We Really Trying to Preserve?
When an organization is struggling financially, the instinct is often to focus on raising more money. Find new donors. Pursue more grants. Launch another campaign.
As a fundraising consultant, I certainly believe in the importance of strong fundraising strategies! But I also wonder whether we sometimes skip over a more fundamental question: Is raising more money to sustain our organization really the best way to accomplish our mission?
Sometimes the answer is absolutely yes.
But sometimes, the answer is no. Somehow, we've come to view the closure of a nonprofit as a failure. But why? If an organization has accomplished meaningful work and its mission can continue—or even be strengthened—through another organization, shouldn't we celebrate that?
I was talking about this recently with my colleague Sara LaCava Lieberman, and she put it perfectly: “Nonprofits aren't about making people feel good. The goal is making the world a better, more just place.”
I keep coming back to that. Of course, we should feel proud of the organizations we've built and the work they've accomplished. But that pride can't become more important than the change we're trying to create.
I don't believe nonprofit institutions are sacred. Their missions are what matter.
That's one of the reasons I've been so encouraged by the recent merger of two Thread Strategies clients, Live It Learn It and An Open Book Foundation.
These organizations had been doing complementary work for years, creating opportunities for children in the Washington, DC area to learn through books, people, places, and experiences. When the possibility of a merger emerged, their leaders recognized an opportunity to build on each other's strengths and create something neither could accomplish as effectively alone.
As Co-Executive Directors Erin McSpadden and Maryam Trowell shared in their recent conversation with Thread, the process wasn't easy. There were difficult questions about finances, staffing, organizational identity, and what the future would look like. But there was also genuine excitement about what they could make possible for students and teachers.
And as LILI Board Chair and my former Thread colleague Tracy Shaw reflected in her own post, putting mission first sometimes requires setting aside our own egos and attachments to the organizations we've helped build.
I think there's an important lesson here for all of us.
Questions We Should Be Asking
A merger isn't the right answer for every nonprofit. And it certainly isn't a magic solution to financial challenges. Erin and Maryam are very clear about that.
But I do think nonprofit leaders and boards should be asking themselves some difficult questions, even when things are going well.
Are we the best organization to accomplish our mission?
Is another organization doing similar work more effectively?
Are we duplicating efforts or competing unnecessarily for resources?
What could we accomplish together that we can't accomplish independently?
And perhaps most importantly, if we were starting from scratch today, knowing what we know now, would we build the same organization?
I suspect these conversations would be uncomfortable for many of us. They might challenge long-held assumptions about our programs, leadership structures, or even our organization's identity.
But I also think they could open the door to some exciting possibilities.
After all, the goal isn't to have more nonprofit organizations. It's to have stronger communities, more opportunities, and lasting solutions to the challenges we're working to address.
I've always believed that the mission matters more than the organization. But believing that and acting on it are two different things, especially when we've invested so much of ourselves in what we've built.
Sometimes advancing a mission means growing an organization. Sometimes it means partnering with another. And sometimes it means having the courage to let go.
I think we owe it to the people and communities we serve to be willing to consider all three.