A fifteen-point scale for organizational efficacy
Leadership 3.
The leaders are indisputably in charge, and are considered the legitimate final authority in settling disputes. The leadership has broad approval from most of the organization, although there might be disagreement on specific issues.
2.
The leaders are clearly in charge, but are often disliked, or considered incompetent. “Us vs. Them” disputes sometimes appear. Many people in the organization sometimes think they could do a better job of running things.
1.
There are open factions within the organization, which might dislike or even hate each other. People within one faction think it would be disastrous if other factions were running the group, and might threaten to quit. Much time is spent fighting between factions, rather than helping the organization directly.
0.
There are no clear leaders. There might be open warfare between factions, with each side refusing to recognize the authority of the other.
Finances 3.
The organization has plenty of money, in both income and reserves, and everyone is paid reasonably well. This situation appears sustainable into the indefinite future. In some cases, the organization might have more money than it knows how to spend.
2.
The organization can fully fund operations, but the source of money is somewhat uncertain or irregular. Budget cuts might eventually have to be made, if there’s bad luck or temporary funding dries up without replacement.
1.
There’s a definite shortage of money. Staff might be laid off, or forced to take uncomfortably low salaries. Most operations are done on a shoestring. Funding might depend on special loans, selling assets, or other emergency measures.
0.
The organization is broke, or effectively broke. Bills are left unpaid, and employees stop getting checks. It’s unclear when new funding will come in, if ever.
Growth 3.
The most important metrics are on a steady, long-term growth trend, which is expected to last for the foreseeable future.
2.
The organization is clearly growing, but it might be bumpy or irregular. The metrics tracked might be proxy or side metrics, rather than direct indicators of goal fulfillment.
1.
No clear indications of growth. The organization might resort to making up new metrics it can easily game, or use other forms of cheating, like lowering the bar for X (if a metric is “number of Xs”). The metrics tracked might be irrelevant to the goal, or there might be no tracking at all.
0.
The organization is clearly shrinking, falling apart, or doing steadily worse. Sometimes this is openly acknowledged; in other cases, efforts are made to deny it or cover up evidence.
Goal 3.
Most of the organization, and all key staff and allies, agree on a single, well-defined mid-range goal. There might be disputes about the best method of achieving it, but these are relatively minor.
2.
Most people agree on a core goal, but there might be significant differences in focus or interpretation. Some attempts to achieve the goal might be regarded by others as “cheating”.
1.
The organization actively pursues multiple mid-range goals, but they all have a common “heading” or “theme”. To reduce fighting, arguments might be made that the different goals “support each other”, or are “really the same underlying thing”.
0.
Different people or factions pursue their goals totally independently, with little or no commonality. In an attempt to keep the organization together, the goals might be joined under an extremely broad banner, like “progress”, “change”, or “justice”.
Operations 3.
Most everyday tasks are done on time, to a reasonable quality standard. Phones are answered, blogs are updated, taxes are filed, and bills are paid. There are few interruptions to basic operations, which mostly require little attention.
2.
Things mostly get done, but there are some gaps. Some areas might be forgotten or delayed. Unexpected problems sometimes crop up, which require special intervention and “leave people hanging” in the meantime.
1.
Everything is ad-hoc and helter-skelter, with regular disasters impairing normal functioning. Many important tasks may be severely delayed, or dropped entirely. Things getting done is largely a matter of luck. Payroll, rent, and other critical bills might sometimes be left unpaid.
0.
Operations have been abandoned. Most or all everyday tasks do not get done, or are delayed for indeterminate periods. No one is responsible for making sure things run smoothly. Large parts of what the organization does grind to a halt.
13–15: Solidly-run organization.
9–12: Functional organization.
6–8: Mismanaged organization.
0–5: Broken organization.