Dollywood’s Wild Eagle is one of my all-time favorite roller coasters.

The initial drop is a smallish 135 feet and, while the ride lasts only 2 minutes and 22 seconds and hits a modest speed of 61 mph, it does have 4 inversions.

It’s the smoothness of the ride, though, that makes it so enjoyable for me.

While it wings you around the track, you experience a smooth sense of soaring (like an eagle!) and the inversions are just enough to give your stomach that enjoyable floating sensation that makes you smile, laugh, and scream all at the same time.  I find it so enjoyable that I’ll ride it at least 3 times every time our family goes to the park.

I knew about the Wild Eagle before I ever rode it.  I went online and looked up its stats (as presented above) and even watched a number of on-ride YouTube videos to get a better sense of the ride.  I knew what it looked like, how fast it went, the layout of the track, and a whole host of other information.

But it wasn’t until I experienced the Wild Eagle for myself that I fell in love with it.  That’s when my knowledge of the ride went to a whole different level of understanding.  The data and statistics about the ride were one form of knowledge, but experiencing the ride – feeling the tightness of the straps across my shoulders, my feet dangling loose over the landscape, the smoothness of the track, the turns and the drops –  gave me a richness and thickness of knowledge that data alone could never provide.

Providing your donors with quantitative data about your programs and outcomes is fine.  It’s good to have those answers when asked – or to be able to quickly find out.

But data doesn’t motivate generosity.

Your work as an advancement professional is not about providing data.  It’s about helping donors experience your mission in action.  It’s about inviting them to authentically encounter those who are receiving the benefit of their generosity.  It’s about guiding them on a path to more fully experience the joys of giving.

Anyone can get data about the ride.  But getting on the ride is what makes all the difference.

Influence matters a great deal in the achievement of fundraising goals. The more influence an institutional leader, a gift officer, or a volunteer has with a donor or prospect, the greater the opportunity to encourage generous responses from that donor or prospect.

People give to people.

But the process of enhancing one’s interpersonal influence is generally misunderstood. For many – especially those in leadership positions – the myth is that point-making is the most efficient way to increase influence with others.

The thinking goes like this:

“Influential people are those who are experts, those who have clear and concise answers. Therefore, the more clearly and concisely I communicate my points, the more influence I will accrue with others.  I will be viewed as the expert.”

And so, a habit forms.  A habit of point-making.  Of talking more than listening.  Of stating more than asking.  Of telling more than understanding.

In addition to elevating a sense of personal influence, point-making also makes us feels good emotionally – at least in the moment. For many people, there is a rooted sense of discontented satisfaction in communicating one’s perspective and point.  (If you do not believe this to be a wide-spread truth, simply look at the ubiquitous use of social media.  Regardless of claims to the contrary, social media has not “increased connectivity” among people nearly as much as it has provided a platform for people to make their points known to the world.)

But point-making rarely gets us what we claim we want – which is more influence.

Instead, the habit of point-making creates the opposite impulses in others.  The habitual point-maker is viewed as imperious, arrogant, overly-dramatic, disrespectful, condescending, and even, ignorant. Perpetual point-makers cause people to view them as less influential over time.  People avoid point-makers if they can.

What has proven over time to enhance an individual’s influence is the opposite of expert point-making.  True influencers are curious.  They ask questions about others.  They listen and respond. They position themselves in the minds (and hearts) of others as being interested learners.

If, in 2021 and beyond you want to become more influential (and, thus, more efficacious) – with donors, with prospective donors, with colleagues, with your supervisor, with your Board – then become a skilled, open-ended questioner.  Adopt a more curious disposition when it comes to the stories of others.  Pursue more understanding not more point-making.

To reinforce the impotence of point-making vs. the power of understanding, take some time to watch Daryl Davis talk about his experience as a black man with Ku Klux Klan leaders.

There is an easily accessible and beneficent way to influence others for good.  And as advancement and development leaders, we should be leading the way.

1. Donate – inviting people to “donate” is akin to asking for hand-me-downs.  People donate used items.  They donate old clothes, or used cars.  Generally speaking, donations are second-thought give-aways, not charitable investments in your mission. Use give, giving, and gift, instead.
2. Appointment – advancement professionals don’t have appointments with donors.  We have visits or meetings.  The difference?  Appointments are reserved for experiences we typically don’t enjoy – think doctors appointments, dentist appointments, an appointment to have your car repaired, etc.
3. Ask – when you ask for something, you feel a relationship imbalance – with you being on the “less than” side of the equation.  This reality of human relationships is why so many volunteers (and even many advancement professionals) do not like asking for gifts.  It makes us feel unequal to the one who is being asked.  However, when we invite donors to give, there is a different thought process and feeling.  We invite people to parties, and other enjoyable activities we’d like to share with them.  When we invite others, we are offering something, not asking for something.  Invite donors to give.
4. Fundraiser – probably the most ill-conceived descriptor of a professional role that has ever been promoted.  We are not fundraisers any more than a business person is a “profitraiser.”  The purpose of any sound business model is to serve customers — the profit is the benefit of that service. For us, the funds we raise are the benefit of thoughtful engagement strategies designed to educate donors on the opportunity to give.  Use advancement, or development, or stewardship instead.
5. Cultivate – this is what farmers do to crops or how you might train someone or something.  No part of that definition sounds appropriate nor accurate when compared to our work with donors.  Instead, use involve or engage.
6. Culture of Philanthropy – perhaps the most overused, misunderstood phrase in our industry.  What exactly does this mean?  I’ve literally thought about this for years and I can’t concisely say.  In any case, I have used as replacements, the more straightforward and understandable, culture of giving, or, the more action-oriented, culture of invitation, or, the more ethereal, culture of encounter.  Simply put, when our institution’s culture becomes more other-centered and welcoming, gift giving increases.
7. Qualification – from a major gifts perspective, the qualification word choice suggests that there is a pseudo-application process that prospective donors either meet or do not meet. Qualification suggests the process of learning about the prospective donor is little more than a formulaic algorithm to translate.  The truth, however, is that learning about prospective donors is richly qualitative and as much art as it is science.  It’s astute question-asking, active listening, and probing.  It’s being mindful of what is being said, not said, how its said, and paying attention to many broader contexts.  It’s a skill to be learned, not data point to be used.  In short, it’s discovery – use that word, instead.

Words matter.  And the way we talk about our work matters.  When we pay attention to our language choices, we may just find that we are sabotaging our success before we even get started.

1. Your donor database will always have more inaccurate or missing data than you think is acceptable.  You can still raise more money.
2. Your institution’s brand and messaging could always be more concise, clear, and compelling.  You can still raise more money.
3. Your case for support does not need to be completed for you to contact donors.  You can still raise more money.
4. Your annual giving and planned giving programs do not need huge investments in creative design to be effective. You can still raise more money.
5. Your major giving program will not stop producing because in-person visits are being curtailed by the pandemic.  You can still raise more money.
6. Your understanding of your major gift donors’ capacity will never be as transparently clear as you would like.  You can still raise more money.
7. Your focus on sharing data and numbers in an effort to “convince” prospective donors to give will not work.  You can still raise more money.

Donors give because they come to believe in the goodness of your mission to make the world a better place. They give because they develop an authentic trust in your leadership.  And they give because someone influential to them personally invites their deeper involvement.

Healthy adult humans give because we have a deep-seated need to help others.  Tap into that motivating factor – with trust, authenticity, and influence – and you will raise more money.

When we fail to remind ourselves of these truths, we can easily fill our time with interesting but debilitating distractions.

We talk often about “leaving legacies,” in development work.  Mainly, of course, we talk about this concept with donors who might have an interest in making a planned gift of some sort.

Another way to think of “leaving legacies,” though, is not nearly as future-casted and is focused on your choices as opposed to the choices donors make.  It’s the legacy you are leaving each day you toil in the philanthropic vineyard.

Through our work, we have more than an opportunity – we have the responsibility – to invite into action the most virtuous of human impulses.  We encourage generosity.  We promote caring for others.  And we advance causes that make our world more beautiful.

How we go about doing that work matters today and it matters to the broader legacy we leave for the organization we serve.

Will you choose to bring an attitude of eagerness and intensity to your calling?  Will you be the positive voice in the meeting that seeks to raise the aspirations of the team?  Will you be the colleague who goes the extra step to ensure success?

Your choice matters not only in that moment.  It also becomes part of a broader mosaic of choices that lead to the culture you help create and pass on.  A strong organizational culture of philanthropy is cobbled together over time through a collection of seemingly inconsequential decisions and always grows inside-out.

Regardless of our position, your title, or your role, you are serving a noble calling.  Your attitude as well as you aptitude matter.

Only you can choose how your legacy today will be remembered.

In any given year, most advancement shops that work smart and with effort will focus on increasing either gift income or donor numbers. Those two metrics – gift income and donor numbers – are, easily, the most important when assessing the success of any given fundraising year.

Occasionally, though, I’ll hear an advancement leader proudly lead with the proclamation that, “our average gift size increased this year!”  Typically, this means that they didn’t raise much more money (if any) as compared to the year prior and their donor numbers actually decreased – sometimes dramatically.

Average gift size is a not a direct nor a consistently accurate measure of effectiveness.  You can have an average to even poor year with donors and dollars and still see average gift size increase.

The truth is that most advancement teams do not implement specific strategies to increase average gift size – it simply fluctuates based on what happens with donors and dollars.

But. . .if you increased gift income and the total number of donors and increased your average gift size all during the same year, you’ve done something special.  When taken together, these results strongly suggest that your team strategically asked more donors for more money – a combination that, while sounding simple, is achieved by very few.

Programming Note:  For the last few years, my Gonser Gerber colleagues and I have talked about creating a more meaningful educational experience for higher education vice presidents.  I am pleased to announce that we’ve just started marketing the Community Colloquy For Private Higher Education Vice Presidents.  The Community Colloquy is designed as part support group, part reading group, part discussion group, and part professional cohort.  We will meet virtually for 3 days in 2021, and enrollment will be strictly limited to ensure group engagement.  Enrollment is on a first-in basis and is open now.

If you (or someone you know that serves as a private higher ed. vp) is interested in leadership growth and exploring a rich landscape of perspectives on important advancement leadership issues, this is the opportunity!