As one would expect, it’s a great, spot-on, quick read.  Jerry offers many, time-tested examples of how to go about the process of asking someone for a major gift.  There are some gems here.

However, the gem that sparkles most is the one he offers on page 11 about the relative unimportance of asking for a gift:

“(w)hat I’ve discovered in all my years of fundraising is that it almost doesn’t matter how you ask. . . What’s important is that you ask.  Just do it.  There’s no such thing as an incorrect ask.  Maybe it could’ve been done more effectively, more strategically and perhaps more deftly.  But the important thing is that you ask.  That’s what really counts.”

Jerry is, of course, talking about asking for a major gift, but I would broaden the scope of his recommendation.  Namely and simply put:  Asking in all aspects of your life will benefit you.

Here is what I mean:

• If you are a leader, ask those in your care how they would make the Monday morning meeting more effective.  Ask privately, not in a group setting.  And listen to the responses.  Make needed changes and give appropriate credit.
• If you are spouse or a partner, ask him or her how you could be more helpful around the house (ok, my wife reads my blog, so, yes, I need to do this more often!).  Listen, learn, and adjust.
• If you are an advancement officer, ask a donor what she thought about the way in which your institution thanked her for her last gift.  Listen, learn, and repeat.

You get the picture.  There are an infinite amount of opportunities for us to ask every day.  When we involve others (which is what asking does), at least two good things happen.  First, we get very helpful feedback.  Second, the person we asked feels important because we cared enough to ask their opinion.

And, as Jerry Panas said,  it doesn’t matter so much how we ask, but that we regularly do.

“Jason, we know you work with institutions and organizations across the country.  But we are different here.  Our institutional culture is different.  This community is different.  Our views on philanthropy are different.  We are unique.”

Everyone – from the smallest non-profits, to the most complex educational systems- makes a similar claim.  Fair enough.  In many (but not all) respects, the claim is a valid one.  They are correct.  People and places are different!

So, here’s a question:  If every institution has meaningful differences as compared to all others, why do we spend so much energy, time, and money attempting to benchmark our progress and outcomes in comparison to others?

We go through the hassles of finding “like” institutions.  We come up with metrics which we deem are the most meaningful expressions of our work.  We compare ourselves to other institutions.  We pat ourselves on the back when we are “best in class” in some benchmarked category.  And we craft strategic plans which aim to achieve “above average” status in those categories in which we don’t fare as well.

In fact, whole sectors of the non-profit world, most notably our friends in the healthcare industry, are benchmarking everything they can!

But let’s go back to this uniqueness concept.  If we truly believed in our institution’s uniqueness, instead of benchmarking and comparing ourselves to others, we would be spending our time, energy, and money developing super effective, customized advancement solutions for our settings.  We wouldn’t compare outcomes with other institutions, we would compare our outcomes against our history and our goals.  We wouldn’t ask, “how are ‘they’ doing?”  We’d ask, “what do we need to achieve?  What are our goals and how close are we to achieving them?”

I believe in the uniqueness of every institution.  Institutional leaders claim to believe it.  I just can’t figure out why they don’t act like it.

It was an effective way to gain the attention of the audience.  It worked because whispering suggests that what is being said is both important and exclusive.  It is only meant for a few ears, which makes it scarce communication and, thus, valuable.  So, we strain in an attempt to listen.

However, whispering is also counterintuitive as a method to gain attention in a noisy space.   In most similar circumstances, we raise our voice in an attempt to speak above the noise, not whisper below it.

In advancement, we are often charged with “getting our message out.”  And typically, that means we strategize on ways to produce more direct mail, magazine stories, press releases, and social media conversation.  In other words, we typically aim to raise our voice to speak above the vast amounts noise already in the direct mail, social media, and digital systems.  It’s the bullhorn approach – be louder than the next organization.

But what would it look like if we whispered in an attempt to gain more attention?  Here are 3 characteristics of whispered messaging that would encourage people to listen more closely and engage more fully in conversation with our institutions:

1. Exclusivity – Communicate with as many in your database as possible as “institutional insiders.”  Identify every receiver of your message as part of a special, exclusive group – affinity groups, donor levels, boards, advisory councils, etc.  Point out that they are receiving the communication based on their status as part of an important group within your institution.
2. Update Them. . . On Thoughts – Most institutions will send out updates and progress reports on what is occurring in the life of the institution – new enrollment numbers or increases in clients served, new major gifts received, progress on capital projects, etc.  But when we share what we are thinking about those updates or other aspects of life (especially when the CEO does the sharing) we frame the message as much more conversational, important, and less “tell and sell.”
3. Communicate – Communication, true communication, is a multi-faceted interaction.  It is not simply “getting our message out.” It is asking well-framed questions, listening, responding, creating, and engaging people.  Don’t always ask for money in your communications, but do always ask for something.  Ask for their advice.  Ask for their feedback.  Ask for their time to help with a project.  Ask for their engagement.

Whispering our messages means that we make them exclusive and important.  We can always use the bullhorn approach.  And while many may hear us – along with all of the other noise – they probably won’t strain to listen.

Because CASE conferences have been effective in disseminating good ideas and initiatives, the friendly joke within development circles in education is that CASE actually stands for “Copy And Steal Everything.”  If you practice development outside of education, you may be aware of a comparable organization which serves a similar purpose.

The problem with the “Copy And Steal Everything” mantra is that it only works early on.  Copying and stealing everything can help get you started in development.  It can give you helpful ideas on programs, initiatives, events, and activities when you are just learning the principles of effective development.  It can provide you with off-the-shelf tactics that work in most circumstances.

But as you grow and embrace the principles of donor-centric development, you recognize that situational nuance is more important than any specific tactic.  Asking well-framed questions and listening trumps telling and selling.  Creating solutions specific to your organization’s culture and donors is more effective than simply applying what has worked someplace else.

To be an exceptional development professional – one who consistently gets results and advances the institution in meaningful ways – we must be much more of a creative than we are mechanic.

When we create new programs, when we craft proposals from scratch, when we design new events  - all based not on what has worked elsewhere, but what needs to work for our institution and donors – we begin the journey to exceptionalism.  And don’t be surprised if someone else wants to copy and steal what you are doing.

I hear this statement (or another variation on the theme – “we have too much on our plate already”) far too often.  And it is almost never the reason why we don’t attempt a new direct mail strategy or make more visits on our most promising donors or create more engaging competitions (with prizes) for our phonathons.

Instead, it’s an easy response to give when we are in a State of Lack.

We might lack the creativity to pull off a grand idea.  We might lack the vision to see how a new strategy could be effective.  But in most instances, we lack the belief – the faith – that we can do something big, something important, something that can radically change our institution’s circumstances.  We simply don’t believe it.

And in place of all that lack and disbelief, we say firmly, “we can’t afford it.”  It’s an idea killer.

Yes, money is tight in many institutions.  But, in most instances, we don’t lack money.  Ask your CEO if you can spend an extra $7,000 (not in the budget) on a new integrated social medial-direct mail-phonathon strategy that you’ve planned and have projected will bring in an extra $50,000 and see if your institution lacks the money.

What we lack, usually, is the  faith that we can change our institution’s reality.  Yes, our institution’s past may be filled with lack.  But the future picture of our institution is waiting to be painted.  And advancement teams hold the brushes.

If we push aside the thoughts of lack, we give ourselves room to plan, prepare, and implement the types of strategies and programs that inspire, encourage, and stimulate others to join with us in the transformation of our institutions and the lives of those we serve.  Lack keeps that from happening.  Faith guarantees that it will.

I remain unconvinced, though, that creating a thriving “culture of philanthropy,” is the answer.  First, philanthropy is defined as goodwill toward or love of fellow man.  I’m unsure as to how, exactly, an institution can take folks who are not exceptionally “philanthropic” (i.e., lovers of human beings) and become the impetus for the kind of transformation it would take to make them so.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, when I hear advancement professionals talk of creating a “culture of philanthropy,” my sense is that they aren’t attempting to create an environment that supports people who are extraordinary lovers of human beings per se.  Rather, they are wishing to create an environment in which fundraising efforts are supported and donors regularly give to their capacity!

So, perhaps our language is a bit misguided. Instead of seeking a culture of philanthropy, we may be really seeking a Culture of Engagement.   Simply put, the more engaged people (e.g., donors, employees, board members) become with our institutions, the more they give to their potential.  And, to my mind, the better culture to create is one that encourages engagement.

The 10 hallmarks of an institution with a Culture of Engagement are:

1. The mission of the institution is compelling and unique and is regularly integrated into institutional events, speeches, and other activities
2. Employees are passionate and exemplify extraordinary commitment to the institution
3. Board members use the pronoun “we” and “us” instead of “you” or “they”
4. Donors have relationships with multiple employees and administrators
5. The input from donors is valued as much as their money – there are formal and informal ways in which the institution regularly asks donors, “We’d like your advice on. . .”
6. Advancement officers are evaluated not only on dollars committed by donors, but also on activity that leads to increased donor engagement
7. The advancement budget is seen as an investment – as opposed to an expense – by the leaders of the institution
8. Donor stewardship efforts – saying “thank you” publicly – are regularly integrated with all institutional activities and events
9. Each employee sees herself as an “advancement officer,” and encourages others to join in the work of the institution
10. Board members recognize the need to attract more people of influence, affluence, and generosity to the Board and regularly introduce new Board member prospects to the CEO/president.

A Culture of Engagement is open to the ideas and perspectives of others.  It supports inviting others to participate in and help define the institution’s future.   It says, “we want your input because we value your experiences and perspectives.”  And when your institution regularly and consistently expresses that culture, people, employees and donors included, respond to their highest capacity.

Development professionals smile when they talk about donors who “get it.”  Typically, this means that the donor gives generously, regularly, and encourages others to do the same.   These donors talk about giving as an important part of life and characterize giving to your institution as a joy.  They are not complainers or negative.  They are proactive and they are builders.  They uplift people, circumstances, and institutions.  They add value.

Development professionals like these donors.  And our aim should be to increase the number of donors in our database who “get it.”  But how might we do that?

Much like the “Give First Rule,” I believe there is a “Believe First Rule.” And here’s how it works.  In order to increase the number of donors who “get it,” we have to first “get it” ourselves.  We must believe that giving is a joy.  We have to first evidence a generous, positive spirit.  We must strive daily to add value and build up those around us.  We should proactively engage in philanthropy – in all its forms.  Not just because it is our work, but because we believe it is best for us, our institutions, and our communities.

If you want to increase the number of donors who “get it,” start with the one you know best.  Yourself.

Task-oriented people like to work on projects.  They like jobs with deadlines.  They get primary fulfillment from “checking off” their completed assignments.  They measure success by “getting things done.”

On the other hand, relationship-oriented people like to engage others.  They build trust and camaraderie.  They are facilitators and encouragers.  They measure success by building many strong relationships.

When “task-oriented” individuals take on more responsibility in the organization but don’t learn how to evolve into a more “relationship-oriented” work-style, effectiveness is limited.  When compared with relationship-oriented bosses, staff members tend not to respond well to task-oriented bosses.  Ultimately, a heavy task-orientation for an executive can lead to a failure to meet key goals.

Why?  Because “getting things done” at higher levels of responsibility typically means “getting things done with people.”

If you are new to development, concentrate on the tasks.  Gain competence.  Build the Annual Fund.  Clean-up the database.  Set-up the special event.  Do the work in front of you.  In most instances, mastering task-oriented competencies will evidence your capacity to take on broader roles in development.

But as you advance in your career and take on bigger challenges, you should begin transforming your work style to a relationship-orientation.  Build teams.  Encourage others.  Strengthen relationships with major donors.  These are your new “tasks.”

There is an old saying, “Dance with the one who brought you.”  In other words, to continue being successful, stick with what you know.  Do what you’ve done in the past that has worked.   In most instances, that axiom may hold true.

But when it comes to your development career, you probably won’t be successful unless you are able and willing to switch your work-styles.  In other words, “dance with the one who didn’t bring you.”

It is estimated that development officers are staying in their positions an average of 1.5 – 2.5 years.  Understanding that quality development work is a relationship-based enterprise and that the total cost to replace an employee rests somewhere around 1.5 times the annual salary, it should be a priority for development leaders to increase the average tenure of team members.

So why do people leave jobs?  Conventional workplace wisdom suggests that money remains the chief reason driving employees to leave one institution for another.

However, workplace satisfaction surveys abound which suggest that money typically doesn’t register as a top job-leaving motivator.  Here is what the HR consulting firm Right Management found after surveying 1,308 people on why they left their last positions:

• Sought new challenges or opportunities (30%);
• Ineffective leadership (25%);
• Poor relationship with manager (22%);
• To improve work/life balance (21%);
• Contributions to the company were not valued (21%);
• Better compensation and benefits (18%)

So, only 18% identified better money as the impetus to leave.  Hmmm.

In Leigh Branham’s book, “The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave,” he argues that the vast majority of people want to feel “trust, hope, worth, and competent.”  His 7 “hidden” reasons why employees leave?

1. Unmet expectations
2. Mismatch skills
3. Lack of coaching and feedback
4. Limited growth opportunities
5. Feeling unrecognized or devalued
6. Overworked
7. Loss of confidence in senior leaders

The lists crafted by Right Management and Branham suggest there are far more effective methods to keep star employees engaged, excited, and productive.

One of the most effective methods is for leaders to regularly and proactively plan for each employee’s growth.  Put another way, the best development leaders systematically have conversations with staff members that explore their likes, interests, goals, dreams, and plans to grow professionally.

What’s the next challenge or position for them?  What do they want to achieve ultimately?  And how can their supervisor help them get there?  It’s a simple but powerful attitude:  Care for each person by accessing their dreams and goals.  Make yourself available as a coach and mentor.  Proactively look for new challenges and create new opportunities.  And do these things regularly.

We do our best development work with donors when we evidence a care about them as people.  The same holds true for each of our staff members.

When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice. – Marquis de la Grange

I love this quote.  It can be read as manipulative, but I choose not to. And yes, “accomplice,” does convey wrongdoing of some sort.  But if not taken so literally, it can be read in a way that reminds us of how we should be doing our work:

1. Find prospects with financial capacity and at least some interest in who we are or what we do;
2. Communicate with them about the impact we make;
3. Get them involved;
4. Ask for their advice regarding our work/plans for the future so that we can have even more impact;
5. Explore with them how they can supplement their advice with their financial investment.

Every organization needs more accomplices.  And when you regularly ask for advice, you are one-step away from gaining more.