Episode Details

Reflections from host Sarah Olivieri ...

The Problem Isn't Change. It's the Size of the Decision.

Most nonprofit leaders I talk to are not actually afraid of change. They are stuck between two sizes of it.

On one side, a monster decision. Restructure the program. Leave the role. Overhaul the funding model. A move so big it feels reckless to say out loud.

On the other side, no change at all. Keep going. Ride it out another quarter. Wait for more information. Wait for the board. Wait for a better moment.

What nobody offers is the middle option. The small, cheap, fast, reversible move whose only job is to teach you something. That option is almost always the right one, and it is almost always missing from the conversation.

Where This Thinking Came From

I've been turning this over for a while. I recently had a conversation about exactly this with Ashley Jablow, who works with leaders and teams in transition and has deep training in design thinking. It sharpened how I think about why change gets stuck inside nonprofits and what actually unsticks it.

The short version: the problem isn't that leaders lack courage. The problem is that the only option on the table is too expensive to say yes to.

Change Is Neutral. The Story You Wrap Around It Isn't.

Change is constantly happening. Seasons turn. Budgets shift. Staff come and go. A funder's priorities drift. A board member rolls off. None of that is catastrophic on its own. What makes change feel charged is the story we attach to it.

In the nonprofit sector, that story is usually some version of: change is dangerous, so we should avoid it.

That story hardens into a posture. The posture becomes the culture. The culture becomes the reason your organization cannot move.

In short:

• Change is constant and mostly neutral.

• What makes it feel dangerous is the interpretation the organization layers on top.

• Culture that treats change as risky will struggle to adapt even when adaptation is overdue.

If you want an organization that can respond to what the world is actually doing, you have to separate the event from the story.

The Hidden Cost of "Staying Put"

Here is the belief I keep running into inside nonprofits: doing nothing is the safe option. Especially with money. Especially with programs that "have always worked." Especially when funders are watching.

The truth is, staying put is not neutral. It has a cost, and that cost is usually larger than the one people are trying to avoid.

If a program is slowly losing relevance and you do not adjust, the cost shows up later as a funding cliff. If a leader is quietly burning out and the system does not adapt, the cost shows up as a crisis hire. If a revenue model depends on one big grant and you do not diversify, the cost shows up when that grant does not renew.

In short:

• Inaction is not the absence of risk. It is a different kind of risk.

• The cost of standing still usually arrives later and bigger.

• Every "we'll deal with that next year" is a decision, not a non-decision.

When leaders only weigh the risk of moving, they miss half the math.

Why Nonprofits Over-Index on the Risk of Moving

Two structural things push nonprofits toward inaction.

The first is the donor stewardship story. Somewhere along the way, "be a good steward of donor money" got translated into "never take risks with money." Tha