Nonprofit culture celebrates the overworked staff member. The person who stays late, takes on extra projects, and somehow keeps all the plates spinning when the team is short-staffed. We call them dedicated. We give them awards. We promote them.
But is this actually good for our organizations?
The Hidden Costs
When one person does the work of two or three, several things happen:
- Quality suffers: Nobody does their best work when stretched too thin.
- Relationships suffer: Donor relationships require time and attention that overwhelmed staff can’t provide.
- The person suffers: Burnout isn’t a badge of honor; it’s a precursor to turnover.
- The organization learns nothing: If one person can “make it work,” leadership never feels the pain that would drive real solutions.
The Martyr Trap
There’s something seductive about being indispensable. Being the one who holds it all together can feel meaningful—even powerful. But it’s a trap. The martyr role is ultimately disempowering: you’re so busy surviving that you can’t advocate for change.
A Better Approach
When you’re short-staffed, the answer isn’t to do everything badly. It’s to be ruthlessly clear about priorities:
- What must be done?
- What can be done adequately but not perfectly?
- What should be explicitly paused or stopped?
Then—and this is the hard part—communicate those choices to leadership. “Here’s what I can accomplish with current resources. Here’s what won’t get done. What are your priorities?”
This isn’t complaining. It’s professional clarity. And it gives leadership the information they need to make real decisions about staffing and priorities.
