Many nonprofit leaders steer away from business language when talking about how we manage and lead our organizations. We do it to combat the tendency of government and private-sector advisors to assure us that the application of a business solution will fix something that is challenging or organization. A common refrain from our friends in other sectors is that we need to merge our organizations, that growth and bigger agencies taking over smaller ones is not only smart, it’s actually the goal.

How often have we been asked by well-meaning friends something like: “Why are there so many theatre companies in Toronto?” “Why does Prince George need four seniors’ centres?” “Why doesn’t the community centre run your environmental awareness program instead of you doing it by yourself?”

The answer, of course, is that our sector is trying to achieve something much more complicated than profit. Nor are we responsible for ensuring democratic governance structures exist (ok, some of us are). There are a million responses to the question “How do we end violence against women?” Throwing time, knowledge, and vision behind a nonprofit that is trying to implement the answer to that question that resonates with you is part of what makes the fabric of our sector such a tight weave. And, as some organizations develop, grow, and become more bureaucratic, smaller organizations pop up in the wake to ensure nimble and innovative responses to complex problems continue to be explored.

But…COVID.

Vantage Point’s research for the No Immunity Report of May 2020, and this is echoed in the most recent study to be released February 9^th, shows us that organizations are treading water. We will lose vital community-based innovation and supports, important artistic vision, and key programs that support healthy communities if we do not work together.

This is a moment that we, as a sector, need to seriously consider and move toward merging our organizations. This is a time when smaller organizations need respectful and equitable support from bigger, more resilient organizations.

When mergers happen, most players focus on the How, the issues related to how to manage staff, how to merge boards, how to handle communications, etc. But before going there, success will be more likely to occur, and the How becomes clearer, if both organizations have explored the 5 W’s first.

Why are you doing this?

For either party to a potential joining, it is fundamental to success to have a transparent and honest response to this question. If it is a larger organization taking on a smaller one, are they doing it because they see the revenue as new (often smaller organizations are accessing different donors, different funding programs)? Be careful, taking over the program does not guarantee the revenue sources will translate effectively and shift with the small organization’s programming. Being able to explain to donors and funders why this is happening will help with that.

Also, if funders are insisting on the merger, if the Why is because our core funder or our biggest donor is insisting, well…it’s a bit like mandatory mediation, it rarely accomplishes what the parties need.

What are your strengths and challenges?

Each party should be clear about their own strengths and challenges. At Vantage Point, we utilize the nonprofit lifecycle framework to help identify where an organization is at in its development and what that means for its infrastructure strength. This framework envisions a nonprofit as a table, an entity with four legs holding up the table top that is the organization’s mission and programs/activities. The four legs are Governance, Management/HR, Business Model and Admin systems.

When two organizations come together, they should complement each other, not replicate similar challenges. If one organization has ancient and challenging tech and admins systems, and so does the other, it will only compound the challenge and might weigh down both once a merger is complete. If one organization has a staff team still in start up mode – multitaskers passionate about the cause and ready to dive into everything that needs doing – they may benefit by joining an organization farther along the path to maturity, but struggle to merge effectively with a mature organization that has very strict and defined job descriptions and expectations around a highly professionalized team.

Who are the key players?

Each organization will have a stated, or more likely unstated, organizational culture. Who are the leaders in the organization? If both are hierarchical and have a strictly policy board, then the path to a merger will involve decisions from the ED/CEOs and the board with a change management plan for the two staff teams. If each organization has flat leadership, or shared leadership, then many people will need to meet, connect and be a part of the project in an active way.

Where is each organization located?

This isn’t just about geography, but also social and political location. All three are about analyzing who each organization understands its community to be – who are they serving, who makes up their audience, what are the physical surroundings and how does that impact and define the mission and programs?

If we are talking about theatre companies, for example, does one have its own theatre that is grounded in the demographics of the people living within walking distance, while the other company uses the rehearsal and theatre space of others, depending on what audience they are hoping to engage? If we are talking about a small nonprofit daycare being taken over by the local neighbourhood house, will changing the location create safety concerns? Or will it allow for intergenerational programs neither group could do alone? If one organization is active in advancing and implementing strong anti-oppression and anti-racism lenses to its work, but the other is still asking the question “how will diversity benefit us?’” then the social and political locations of the two organizations are very different and could be very painful and involve an emotional burden on the first organization, as it likely has a higher BIPOC presence on its team.

When is it realistically possible to complete such a process?

If we assume everyone in your organization is experiencing change fatigue, do you want to rush the process? Often we face the merger decision in a crisis moment for at least one of the parties involved. There may be deadlines driving the timeline, such as staff contracts ending, payroll capacity, or a looming event that can’t be managed effectively because of layoffs. In these situations, one has to look for opportunities to expand the money or scope involved.

If time is of the essence, perhaps an actual merger isn’t an option (scope) and the more stable organization simply takes over the program and the staff attached to the program. In that case the smaller organization simply dissolves. But if there are funders or donors involved, perhaps they are willing to fund all the expert resources that are needed to make such a process happen quickly (for example, very experienced but possibly more expensive lawyers or facilitators).

And what will be involved in managing the change? It takes time to communicate the plan and ensure those involved have considered all the issues and have planned to mitigate risks and challenges.

In conclusion, COVID is challenging our sector to consider creative collaboration, partnership, and even full mergers or acquisitions. For it to be nonprofit-led rather than driven by funders and government partners, leaders need to take a deep breath and rest their gaze on organizations they might once have seen as a funding competitor, or an ideologically-incompatible peer, and truly see how creative we are all capable of being. There are opportunities for us to strengthen and support each other. We can hope financial supporters are prepared to help us with the true costs of such intimate partnerships, but we also can’t afford to wait for them.

Please join us at Vantage Point’s upcoming BOSS (Building Organizational And Sector Sustainability) conference where we will explore the themes of Collaboration, Equity and Transformation.

Alison Brewin is the Executive Director of Vantage Point, a charity in Vancouver BC with a mission to convene, connect and equip not-for-profit leaders in BC with the tools they need to succeed in advancing their missions. Vantage Point will be Hosting a week-long virtual conference Feb 27-March 5^th Building Organizational and Sector Sustainability (BOSS).