Recently, at Duke University’s Commencement, technologist and philanthropist Melinda Gates stated to the assembled graduates:

“Technology is just a tool.  It’s a powerful tool, but it is just a tool.  Deep human connection is very different. It’s not a tool.  It’s not a means to an end.  It is the end – the purpose and the result of a meaningful life – and it will inspire the most amazing acts of love, generosity, and humanity.”

Dr. Gates went on to suggest to the graduates that they should view the use of technology throughout their lives as a means to make the world much smaller.  To create a global neighborhood of people who learn from, share with, understand and care for each other.

In our work as advancement professionals, it is easy to get caught up in the tools we use.  Maybe its producing the best app for our alumni, or building the most technologically-advanced website, or producing the most inspiring case statements.  And it’s not that these tasks are unimportant – it’s simply that they are just tools.  And if we get lost on perfecting our tools and lose focus on what the tool is supposed to help us achieve, we become far less effective.

Stephen Covey is quoted as saying, “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”  I would suggest that our “main thing” as advancement professionals is very similar to what Dr. Gates is talking about.  We are to create understandings, to educate, to care, to empathize, to involve, and to encourage.  In other words, we are called to create “deep human connection.”  That is our “main thing.” And that work, indeed, is very different from the tools we might use.

When we keep our focus on creating “deep human connection,” we become our most effective selves.  Because it is that connection – and not the tools – that truly will “inspire the most amazing acts of love, generosity, and humanity.”

Millions of dollars are spent each year on professional development.  People attend conferences, webinars, conventions, workshops, and buy books all in an attempt to become more knowledgeable and become more valuable employees.  Learning matters. The more we know, the more effective we become.  That’s easy enough to understand.

But if we can all agree that learning matters, what, then, should we be learning?  This question, actually, is the question.  There are three areas of knowledge that impact our effectiveness as professionals:

1. Technical knowledge – or understanding the specifics of our work;
2. Personal knowledge – or understanding our strengths and weaknesses as individuals;
3. Interpersonal knowledge – or understanding how to effectively engage and involve others.

Think about our work as advancement professionals.  Overall, what type of knowledge has the biggest impact on our effectiveness?

Without hesitation, I would answer “interpersonal knowledge.”  Our work is all about engaging others.  Gaining a broader understanding of human behavior and motivations enhances our efficacy to do this work.  Learning from the fields psychology, sociology, education, history, social-psychology, consumer behavior, cultural studies, behavioral economics, etc.,  can provide us with the types of knowledge that make us better advancement professionals.  The more we understand other people, their drives, influences, deep-seated patterns of behavior, etc., the more effective we become.

But compare this to what we spend our time (and money) actually learning.  We go to conferences and workshops and attend all sorts of technical trainings.  We spend hours and hundreds of dollars learning how to use facebook to make our young alumni give more.  We listen to experts talk about how to make our phonathon scripts produce more “yeses.”  We buy books that claim to teach us “How to Write Fundraising Materials That Raise More Money”.

And yet, there are huge problems with focusing so much of our attention on gaining more technical knowledge.  First, it grows stale.  Technical knowledge becomes obsolete when MySpace users migrate to Facebook and then to Twitter.  Technical knowledge can also pigeon-hole us.  It can turn us into specialists when it could be more beneficial to be a generalist.  Understanding a formula for writing strong fundraising letters is a worthy technical skill for an annual fund officer to possess.  But that specialized skill doesn’t particularly help the annual fund officer grow into a skilled major gift officer later in her career.

Despite the drawbacks, though, there is always something new on the technical knowledge horizon to capture our attention and imagination.  Something promising.  Something shiny and exciting.  The next killer mobile app.  The next (false) hope of a computerized silver bullet which will increase our gift income simply by hitting “enter.”  And so, we buy it.  Our appetites for technical training appear voracious.

Conversely, learning more about interpersonal knowledge feels old-fashioned.  It is boring.  It is tired.  There are typically no new and exciting breakthroughs in these fields of knowledge.  When we learn more in the area of interpersonal knowledge we simply grow toward deeper understandings that change our effectiveness in nuanced ways over time.  There are no quick fixes that result from increasing your interpersonal knowledge.  It’s about becoming more wise – and that takes time and patience.  Just like advancement work.

P.S.:  Two interesting “interpersonal knowledge” books that I have recently finished and would encourage every advancement leader to read are “Punished By Rewards” by Alfie Kohn (Kohn will challenge everything you believe about performance metrics and employee evaluations) and “The Narcissism Epidemic” by Jean Twenge (She sheds light on an important sociological reality that is quietly impacting giving and volunteerism).

Last week I sat in a major gift donor prospect management meeting with a client and listened as a gift officer said, “What we know from visits and our research is that John (the donor) has the capacity to make a $5 million gift during our campaign.  But I just don’t think he will give that much so I would suggest we ask for much less.”

With that, the Vice President got up from the meeting table and walked over to her desk drawer and pulled out a bag.  ”Have I told you the story of my socks?” she asked?

Everyone, including me, wondered if the Vice President was losing it.  We were talking about leadership-level gifts and donors and she is pulling out a bag of socks from her desk.  All of the gift officers around the table kind of looked at each other as if to say, “what on earth is going on?”

“No, I’m serious,” she said, sort of laughing.  ”Look at these!”  And with that she pulled out this pair of 100% cashmere socks.

Don’t answer for major gift donors

Take a close look at the price tag. . . one hundred and five bucks!  The socks were passed around and the vice president said,

Who on earth would anyone pay $105 for this pair of ugly socks?  I know I wouldn’t!  I only paid $6 for them.  I don’t even like them.  But I bought them because someone out there – probably a lot more people than we would guess – paid the full price for these socks.  Real people paid $105 for socks.  I don’t understand it, but they will and they have.

With that she continued,

Our job is not to answer for our donors.  Our job is to understand their motivations and their giving capacity and then offer charitable opportunities that align with their capacity and motivations.  That’s our job.  Their job is to give us an answer.  Let’s make sure we stay focused on our job.

Because someone out there is paying $105 for ugly socks.

Last week our family enjoyed celebrating my wife’s birthday.  She received gifts, cards, Facebook greetings, and good food over the course of a few days of celebration.  She even received a handful of text and email messages.  In today’s world it is simple enough for a friend or colleague to drop a quick text or email to say “Happy Birthday.”

Except, these texts and emails were not from friends or colleagues in the ways we typically see them.  They were from for-profit companies with whom my wife had transacted business in the past.  You know those organizations that claim to be about building relationships – but really only care about our money?   She received an email from Disney, another from the Children’s Place, yet another from Ruby Tuesday’s Restaurant.  Kellog’s sent an email as did CVS.  And she received a text message from our neighborhood dentist.  Now, of course, these emails and texts are auto-generated.  But these organizations took the time to see that a system was put into place to aut0-generate them.

During the same period last week, like many Americans we were putting the finishing touches on our taxes.  In readying our charitable gift receipts, I realized that not one of the organizations we supported with a gift had sent my wife a Happy Birthday email or text message.  Now, please understand.  My wife wasn’t sad that she didn’t receive a text from each charitable organization.  However, her consulting husband was reminded that our sector – our relationship-building, “we care about people” sector – still has a long way to go to show donors that they (and not just their money) are important.

Sending a text or email doesn’t,  of course, build a relationship.  In fact it’s only on small, simple act.  But it is one small and simple act that says much more than Happy Birthday.  It says, “We notice you. We pay attention to the details.  And you are worth the details.”

It is one thing to talk about building relationships.  It is quite another to do the work necessary to build them.