Swipe, swipe, swipe.
I could feel my heart rate increase. Glancing at the number on the top left of my screen, I made a quick calculation whether I had enough moves to collect the required number of berries to pass this level of Homescapes. Since the start of the very first lockdown, I’ve finished 352 levels of the game and while you wonder and assume that I’ve wasted my time, I beg to differ. The game is a wonderful illustration of an important consideration which we often overlook in our daily activities: efficiency. With the limited resources that we have, how can we best use it to achieve our goal with the least amount of wastage?
Efficiency: a situation in which a person, company, factory, etc. uses resources such as time, materials, or labour well, without wasting any. [Cambridge Dictionary]
Though the term is mostly familiar in the settings of businesses, it often plays an important role in the minds of individuals as well. From being told by your parents to switch off electric appliances when not in use to learning daily hacks so you can do chores and homework with the least amount of energy, being efficient is something valued in society and individuals.
So why is it any different for our third sector organisations? In fact, should it not be even more important given that it often involves life changing global issues as well as the money and time of well-intended altruistic donors and volunteers? In a sphere where normal market forces of demand and supply are absent and other factors such as human values and emotions dominate decision making, I argue that there’s a public interest in ensuring the efficiency of third sector organisations.
In 2017, following an incident in which a charity was given a stark warning by the Charity Commission for “breach of trust” after spending only 3% of their income on charitable activities, Channel 4 FactCheck proceeded to investigate how common the practise was amongst charities in the UK. It was found that micro (annual income of under £100,000) and super-major charities (annual income of £100 million and more) on average only spent 60 - 64% of their income on charitable activities. This is despite the latter increasing the size of their funds over the years. (In contrast, the funds for micro-charities were seeing a downward trend). As always, there are multiple limitations with the data at hand; limited research on the matter worsens the case. Therefore we should not be quick to jump to conclusions. Even if efficiency in third sector organisations is low, the causes behind it may not be straightforward. There is however one thing we can conclude. The lack of accessible data and discussions on efficiency for the different types of third sector organisations show that there is a lack of demand and consideration on the matter, not just by third sector organisations themselves and those part of them ie volunteers and donors, but by the wider public. And this is where the real problem lies.
But wait. If the ultimate goal is to be impactful and tackling long term issues, is efficiency the only consideration? Following criticisms that third sector organisations should be more efficient, there are those who argue that not only other considerations such as responsiveness are more important, efficiency might even be harmful and counterproductive to reach the ultimate goal.
The argument goes like this. When organisations focus solely on achieving efficiency in the management of resources, they lose sight of the cause itself. Moreover, taking too much care on how the numbers show on paper might stop organisations from investing and experimenting for long-term growth. Supporters of this line of thinking argue that third sector organisations should instead focus on empowering volunteers and the public to take action, and be responsive to current needs, not being scared of experimenting, all this even if it does not show immediate results on paper.
There are two issues with the line of argument above. First, critiques of efficiency fail to show why organisations need only adopt one mindset over everything. Humans after all are not single minded. We have to adopt and consider multiple considerations at all times, even those that are clashing with each other. From debates of development and sustainability, the classic trolley problem in philosophy, to what to eat for lunch! On the last matter, hopefully you attempted to balance eating healthy and eating tasty food. Since organisations are run by humans, it seems that there’s always room for multiple tactics and considerations to be employed at the same time. Life after all, is a great balancing act.
But secondly and perhaps more importantly, efficiency is not merely a short term focus on measurable input and output. In a framework created by Education Scotland for the use of third sector organisations to evaluate overall efficiency, it considers strategic leadership and capacity for improvements. So perhaps it is merely just understanding efficiency as including long-term and sustainable growth. This is not even necessary to rebut critiques of efficiency; just by using the traditional narrow definition of efficiency, empowering volunteers and the public itself is an efficient way to use resources around us while bringing about the highest output. Responsiveness and empowerment is not against efficiency, it is part of being efficient.
One final point to make is that the responsibility of improving our third sector organisations does not lie squarely on the shoulders of third sectors themselves. It lies on the shoulders of everyone. Whether you’re a volunteer, a donor, a student leader, or just an individual trying to reduce your carbon footprint at home, we can all participate in the revolution to be more efficient in the way we manage our resources. Time and time again, academics and public figures such as Rutger Bregman, Jane Goodall and Bill Gates crunch numbers and show us that we have more than enough resources to end poverty, protect our rainforests, and eradicate certain diseases. But it boils down to how we use these resources. Efficiency is not a choice, it is a necessity.
Bibliography:
Comments