Segment 3 | What change looks like right now

Change is everywhere but its scale varies sharply with size. Almost half of all respondents say their organization is running between one and three initiatives, while the largest nonprofits are managing many at once. Among those with more than 5,000 staff, three in four report eight or more simultaneous initiatives.

These differences show how uneven the change load can be. For smaller organizations each initiative touches nearly everyone. In large entities multiple streams overlap, stretching resources thin and making coordination a challenge.

Most nonprofits describe themselves as keeping up only moderately well with the pace of change. Nearly half selected “moderate” and only 6 percent said “very well.”

Yet there is a clear link between awareness and adaptability. Among organizations that regularly check their capacity before launching new initiatives, half report keeping up well or very well. Where such checks are absent, only 6 percent say the same.

This capacity check effect is one of the clearest signals in the dataset and points to a simple truth: balance matters as much as ambition.

Perceptions of adaptability vary by role. Executives and programme managers tend to see their organizations as coping relatively well, while practitioners and communications leads describe a more uneven experience.

This difference highlights an ongoing theme across the dataset: the higher the role, the more optimistic the view. Those closer to implementation report more friction and fatigue.

Overall, staff reactions to change are far more positive than resistant. Thirty-six percent describe the overall mood as mostly positive and another 38 percent as mixed. Only a small minority report mostly negative sentiment.

The patterns by size are striking. Small organizations tend to describe strong morale and enthusiasm for change. Positivity peaks where one to three initiatives are underway, then drops sharply when workloads multiply. In the largest nonprofits, where ten or more initiatives often run in parallel, fatigue becomes visible and morale dips.

When asked about barriers to managing change effectively, budget limitations top the list across all sizes. But the texture of difficulty shifts depending on scale.

Smaller nonprofits most often mention limited capacity. Mid-sized ones struggle with the absence of tools or defined processes. Large organizations point to competing priorities and communication gaps that make alignment difficult.

Interestingly, resistance from staff appears very low across the dataset, suggesting that most challenges are structural rather than attitudinal.

Role perspectives add further nuance:

• HR and OD respondents emphasize budget and capacity issues
• Programme and project managers cite missing tools and processes
• People managers highlight capacity and prioritization
• Executives point to leadership support
• Change Management specialists focus on competing priorities and silos
• Communications leads emphasize both budget and silos

Together these views paint a picture of change under strain from practical constraints rather than lack of will.

Recent funding changes are a powerful driver of organizational change across all sizes, with intensity rising as organizations grow. Even small nonprofits often report moderate to significant effects, while the largest almost universally describe the impact as highly significant.

Among the smallest organizations with 1–5 staff, more than 40 percent reported moderate or stronger effects from recent funding changes. Across those with 6–100 staff, around three-quarters described moderate or stronger effects, showing that funding shifts are already highly influential. In the largest organizations with more than 5,000 staff, every respondent reported at least a moderate effect, and over half rated the impact as very significant.

When funding realities shift, the form of adaptation differs sharply by size. Very small nonprofits most often adjust service delivery, mid-sized organizations focus on financial or operational realignment and the largest introduce structural measures.

Among organizations with more than 1,000 staff, between 59 and 72 percent reported restructuring and roughly half to two-thirds mentioned staff reductions. Even among the largest with over 5,000 staff, 71 percent also noted changes to service delivery, showing that financial shocks often cascade into multiple layers of adaptation.