Ask a Board member, an Advisory Council member, or other engaged major donor why he gives to your institution.   Almost universally, you will hear how he believes in the mission of the institution.  Or, how the institution made an impact on his life or on the life of someone dear to him.  Or, how he believes in the concept of giving back.  Or, how he was touched by a story of an individual, family, or community positively impacted by the work of your institution.

Now, ask the same person how you can best encourage others to make significant gifts and you are likely to hear a very different perspective.  Specifically, you may hear something similar to the following:

• “People give to institutions that can communicate clear outcomes,” or,
• “People give to institutions that are efficient and can prove that they get results,” or,
• “People give to specific projects,” or,
• “People give to name something,” and, of course,
• “People will not give to the annual fund.”

When donors reflect on their own giving, they will regularly frame their motivations in terms of personal meaning, mission, and relationships.  The impetus for giving is pure, more altruistic, and more emotional.

However, when donors surmise on the giving motivations of others, they regularly frame their responses in more transactional terms.  The giving motivations of others are identified as more self-interested, more business-like, and more rational.

This should not be surprising, of course.  Social scientists have told us for years that, in a variety of settings, we attribute the most socially-attractive motivators to explain our behavior and less socially-favorable motivators to explain the behaviors of others.  For instance, I simply didn’t see the woman whom I cut off driving down the road.  But the guy who cut me off moments later is arrogant, self-absorbed (probably texting!), and, should have his driver’s license revoked.

People make significant gifts because their beliefs, experiences, and personal relationships trigger them to do so.  They give meaningfully because they are moved emotionally and personally to be generous.  During hundreds of interviews with major donors, I have never had one say, “I researched a bunch of institutions and made the decision to make a significant gift to this one because they were the most efficient – their cost-to-raise a dollar was the lowest.”

You should be far less interested in what your major donors think about the giving motivations of others.  Instead, find out why they give themselves.  Dig in to their motivations.  Then, implement the strategies that encourage the types of personal relationships and experiences that motivate their generosity.

The most important component of what we call “prospect research” is not finding those individuals, families, foundations, and corporations with money.  It’s not even finding those individuals, families, foundations, and corporations with money and an interest in your mission and vision.

In most instances, you already know who has the money.  Sure, there are modest-living alumni, friends, and others who surprise you with significant wealth.  But they only surprise you once.  After that, you know they have resources.  Additionally, it usually isn’t too difficult to find out more about a prospect’s funding interests.  For foundations and corporations, this information is readily available online.

Instead, the most important aspect of prospect research is identifying the key relationship-holders who possess the ability and interest in linking prospects to your institution.  Those influential business leaders, civic leaders, professors, church leaders, alumni, friends, etc., who hold key relationships with your prospects and others.  Engage those relationship-holders and ask for their guidance on how best to approach those with the resources.

We spend too much time focused on looking for wealth and not enough time identifying and engaging the people who can give us access to it.

Over the years, I have worked with, provided counsel to, or simply observed thousands of advancement officers.  The good ones stand out, mostly because they behave in ways that less effective advancement officers don’t.  For instance, the best advancement officers ask more questions.  They listen more.  And they genuinely like learning about people more.  To put it succinctly, they are more engaging.

However, there also are things that the best advancement officers don’t do that under-performing gift officers do more regularly.  Below is a list of 5 seemingly small (but I would suggest significant) things that the very best advancement officers do not do much, if at all.  The most effective gift officers don’t:

1. Check Their Phones Incessantly – you simply don’t see them engaging with their phones that much. They keep their phones in a pocket and focus on the people around them.  They will check their phones in the restroom or in other places out of sight, but when they are with people face-to-face, they keep their phones hidden.
2. Dress Too Casual – this is not to say that the best advancement officers always wear suits and ties – they don’t, of course. However, you almost never see the best advancement officers underdressed for the occasion.  Instead, they almost always are dressed just a notch above the socially-suggested and mostly unwritten code.
3. Talk Religion, Politics, or Other Combustible Topics – the best advancement officers are like chameleons on the big issues of life. Yes, they have opinions just like everyone else.  But they recognize that it is more important to find out the opinions of donors than it is to communicate their own opinions.
4. Arrive Late or Leave Early – for all of us, time is our most precious asset. Unlike money, once it is gone, you can never get it back.  The best advancement officers make it a habit to be on time and to stay for as long as the occasion suggests.  In these ways, they convey a sense that other people’s time is honored and important to them.  To ensure that they can arrive on time (or early) and not have to leave early, the best advancement officers pay careful attention to their schedules and rarely get over-booked.  They appear busy, but not harried.
5. Fill An Awkward Silence – it can be uncomfortable to ask a question (or ask the question) and wait.  The silence can be deafening.  But the best advancement professionals get comfortable with that silence and allow others to respond.  From my experience, this practice is important not so much because of the “whoever speaks first loses” concept (by the way, I didn’t know we were in a competition with our donors).  Instead, giving others the time needed to respond thoughtfully is simply a practice of good manners.

I can’t say that removing these behaviors from one’s professional life will result in immediate advancement success.  I can, however, state with a high degree of certainty that regularly behaving in these ways will reduce significantly a gift officer’s effectiveness.

Success in our work is related directly to how authentically we honor people and what they value most.  That’s what the best advancement officers understand.

Recall the one teacher in your life that made the most positive and lasting impression on you.   Perhaps you remember a teacher from your earliest years.  Or perhaps it was a university professor that made the impact.  Although I’m no gambler, I would wager that this teacher engaged you far beyond the content of the class and displayed an interest in you as a unique individual with gifts and graces.  It wasn’t only his expertise or her intellect that made the difference.  It was your teacher’s authentic care for you.

Contrast this memory with what occurs in so many advancement programs today.  In so many instances, gift officers focus almost exclusively on their message.  They focus on their talking points, their content, and the institution’s case for support.

So many spend the bulk of their time prior to a donor visit preparing to “tell and sell.”  Or to use a crasser phrase, to “show up and throw up.” The conventional wisdom is that our job is to influence, to sway, to convince, and “to close the ask.”  At best, it’s as if our job is to do something to someone.   At worst, it’s as if our work is to hawk the philanthropic equivalent of a damaged used car on an unsuspecting prospect.

But what if we view ourselves as teachers of philanthropy and our work as facilitating the learning of the joy of giving?  What if we remind ourselves – from our own experiences – what our very best teachers did with and for us?  And what if we pattern our advancement efforts after those exemplars?

We would seek to understand our donors first and educate them on our needs second.  We would ask more questions and spout fewer facts.  We would show more concern for them and less concern for our institution’s goals.  We would engage them more and solicit them less.

About education and teaching, the noted Irish poet, William Butler Yeats is quoted as having said,

Education is not the filling of the pail, but the lighting of a fire.

Whether it is teaching or advancement, we shouldn’t worry ourselves about “the filling of the pail” (neither theirs nor ours).  Instead, we should seek to light the fire.