A client recently asked us a critical question: Is our impact thinking not too neoliberal? Is the idea that organizations should work purposefully and efficiently not simply an adoption of capitalist thinking? And are we at S&L critical enough of our own way of working?
It is a fascinating question. Because yes, we work impact-oriented. We want to change the world. And yes, that requires strategy, purposefulness, efficiency. But is that the only right model? By thinking this way, are we not unconsciously becoming an extension of the systems we want to fight?
The tension between dream and reality
My answer? We do not live in the society of the future. In my ideal world, people do not necessarily organize themselves to achieve goals. They care for each other, have fun, live in connection. They do not have to be “efficient.”
I have experienced this myself. In my cohousing project, there was a clear goal for years: to build a place to live together. We worked efficiently, in a project-based, task-oriented way. But once the goal had been achieved, that goal-oriented mindset lingered. Did we then suddenly have to appoint a coordinator? A director? Introduce a structure to work even more efficiently?
We radically rejected that. The workdays were allowed to go slowly; we discussed for an hour where a small tree should be planted. We turned goal-orientation around: it was no longer about efficiency, but about pleasure.
That worked there. But for organizations that want to change society, it is more tense. Because yes, we already want to be a little bit of that ideal world now. But at the same time, we have to fight within the system we want to change. And that sometimes does mean being efficient. It does mean working impact-oriented.
That tension is not new. It is a classic dilemma within progressive movements. How much pragmatism is needed to achieve your goals without betraying your own ideals?
Setting goals in a non-ideal world
You also see this tension in revolutionary movements. We cannot wait until the ideal world is here. Until then, we have to be tactical and strategic. And yes, that sometimes means using the weapons of the old system.
Should we then embrace everything that works today? No. Democracy and efficiency can go hand in hand. Maximum care and goal-orientation do not have to be mutually exclusive. But there are limits. Inclusive work is fantastic, but total inclusion can be inefficient. Caring for people is necessary, but if you spend 100% of your time on care, you will not achieve your goal.
And that is where the real paradox emerges. Because if we only want to be efficient, we risk falling into the same trap as the structures we want to undermine. But if we let go of all goal-orientation, we will get nowhere.
A revolution without strategy is a cry in the wilderness. An organization without vision is doomed to get bogged down in bureaucracy.
The shadow side of impact thinking
The criticism we receive forces us to reflect on our own language and practice. We talk about impact, strategy, efficiency. But whose language is that? And what does that language do to us?
Impact thinking can be dangerous if it means that we focus only on measurable results. Because not everything that is valuable can be quantified. The power of a movement, the building of a community, the creation of shared outrage—these are not Excel spreadsheets.
Strategy is essential, but it must not come at the expense of spontaneity, creativity, and resistance. Some things simply have to emerge. Not everything has to be planned from above.
Efficient organization is important, but not if it means that people feel squeezed dry by a logic of productivity. People are not resources. People are the movement.
So, if we embrace impact, strategy, and efficiency, then we must do so on our terms. Not because it aligns with a neoliberal logic, but because it helps us realize our ideals.
The new world begins now
An organization like S&L, or any progressive movement, must be aware of this tension. We do not simply want to copy the old system in our way of working.
But we must not be naive either. If we truly want change, we have to build power, act strategically, make smart choices. The new world will not emerge by itself.
Therefore: yes, we are critical of our own way of working. And yes, we embrace goal-orientation. But not without reflection. We are not only building structures to fight the old world; we are also already planting the seeds for the world we do want.
Because the real revolution? It is not only economic or political. It is also cultural. And it begins here.
So, are we siding with the enemy?
No. And at the same time, we must remain critical of ourselves.
If our impact-orientation means that we allow ourselves to be absorbed by a neoliberal logic, then we have lost. If our strategy means that we compromise our ideals, then we are no different from the structures we are fighting.
But if we use impact, strategy, and efficiency as weapons to change the world, then it is not betrayal. Then it is progress.
And then we are not siding with the enemy. Then we are preparing the future.
