Some of the arguments for are that with merging, "weaker" nonprofit organizations can benefit from a stronger well run organization and thereby cut costs and provide more efficient services. Those who are opposed to mergers say that the specific missions of many smaller, or not as large, nonprofits can be lost when merging with another nonprofit. They say in the end, it is the clients who do not win, as then central point for the organization being around does not survive when it is "swallowed" by a larger nonprofit.
In order for a merger to succeed, experts say it must be a win-win for both sides.
1. What do you think would need to happen for a merger to be a win-win?
2.Can you think of the American Red Cross merging with another agency?
3.If not, why not and If so, what would the steps be that you would take to ensure its success?
4.Are there other models that encourage collaboration that you're aware of? And do they work?
1. In order for a merger to be a win-win, the merger would have to result in an increase in the operational efficiency and effectiveness of both organizations involved. Secondly in order for a merger to be a win-win situation, it is vitally important that the merger results in an increase in the financial resources that are gained by each organization, such as an increase in the number of donations and grants that are received by the organizations involved in the merger. It is also important for their ...