But. . . .are they ready?

You answer this question silently by reviewing in your mind all of the materials you’ve sent to their attention.  They have shown up at more events this year than ever before so they know the case for support and the needs.  You have visited with them prior and you’ve had an opportunity to make the case and they have agreed that your institution is worthy of support.  Yes, they are ready, you say!

Well, maybe not.

When we ask ourselves the question, “are they ready to say yes to a gift solicitation?” we tend to answer it by reviewing a checklist in our minds of all the reasons why they should be ready.  They have heard the case – perhaps multiple times.  They understand our needs.  They attend events.  In other words, they know what they need to know to say ‘yes.’  We convince ourselves that they must be ready!

However, we often misunderstand a simple truth of the major gift giving process.  Namely, our role is not solely to get the prospect to better understand us.  Our role is to better understand them.

So, in answering the question, “are they ready to say ‘yes’ to a gift solicitation?” we should start by asking ourselves other questions.  Here are five of my favorites:

1. What other institutions do they support and why?
2. From whom did they learn to be generous?
3. What is it about our institution that draws their support?
4. How do they make decisions about where to give?  Who is involved in these decisions?
5. Where do we rank as a priority in their giving?  And do they have current major commitments already in place with other institutions?

Of course, there are other good questions we should ask ourselves to see if our prospects are ready to respond affirmingly to us.  But these are a good start.

Do you know the answers to each of these questions for your major gift prospects?  If not, you probably aren’t ready to ask them.  Because what really matters is not what they know about us.  It’s what we know about them.

Of course, theory and practice don’t always align.  On Friday of last week – the day after the U.S. holiday of Thanksgiving – we sadly learned that some “Black Friday” shoppers pepper-sprayed, shot, mugged, and fought each other for deals.  Perhaps “Black Friday” should be re-named “Black-Eye Friday.”

In any case, we are left to wonder what has gone wrong with this notion of Thanksgiving?  How is it possible for people to spend a whole day pausing and reflecting on their many blessings in a communal celebration of life’s goodness and then, a mere few hours later, turn violent in an effort to get even more of life’s goodness.

I think part of the problem is that many view life as a sequence of discrete transactions, instead of as a collection of relationships.  When we view life as a sequence of transactions, our conspicuous self-interest takes front and center.  If I want or believe I need something, I go get it.  Regardless of who I have to step on.  And since I view life as a sequence of discrete, unrelated transactions, my job is to get the most I can during the current transaction.  There are no “relationships” to protect or nurture.  My job is simply to “get mine.”  It’s the thinking that gets us “Black-Eye Friday” scenarios.   “Walmart shoppers, pepper spray on isle four!”

Even the way we talk about Thanksgiving or “giving thanks” can be problematic.  In a world of transactional thinkers, when you “give” something it can mean that you are “losing” something.  And since transactional thinkers believe their job is to get the most they can for themselves out of most every transaction, a day of “giving thanks” means a day of losing.  And who likes to lose?

In the face of such twisted thinking, I’m proud that our profession encourages people to view life differently.  To focus on relationships and not transactions.  To practice the act of giving because it not only blesses others, it blesses the giver more.  And to help people understand and live out their real task on this earth — to make the journey of others a little more meaningful.

I hope each of you enjoyed a blessed day of Thanksgiving.  And I hope you are honored to be serving in your role.  You encourage relationships.  You promote giving.  And you bring out the very best in others.

For each of you, I give thanks.

Here’s the problem:  It seems some very smart researchers are now suggesting that multi-tasking doesn’t work.  In fact they suggest multi-tasking is actually a myth – our brains can’t multi-task.  Instead, what most of us call multi-tasking is really “serial tasking,” or shifting from one task to another in very quick fashion.  So, when you are listening to music, sending emails, and watching tv all at once, you really aren’t doing these tasks “all at once.”  Instead you are stopping your brain on one task and starting your brain on another task over and over again in short order.

That makes sense to me.  And many of us do far too much of it.  We start our brains on this, move to that, focus on that for a bit, and then jump to the other thing for a few minutes.  We do this day-in, day-out, in all areas of life.  It becomes a habit – a way of life.

But is this good for us?  Is it good for our work as development professionals?  I’m not so sure.

Starting and stopping our minds may make us feel productive.  But I would suggest that it actually makes us less productive with the part of our work that matters most – building relationships and engaging others.  Engaging others takes sustained and personalized focus.  We have to be present with someone – usually for periods of time lasting longer than 5-10 minutes.

And when we allow ourselves to get into serial tasking habits, I’m convinced that we condition our minds to be less capable of  slowing down and living in the moment with the people around us.

So, if we think we are (or know) habitual serial taskers, how can we do it less (and thus engage more with the relationships that matter)?  I would suggest the following:

1. Turn off your continuous stream of email – check it only a few times each day.  If you regularly answer emails as they hit your in-box, you are most likely a serial-tasker.
2. Go someplace without your smartphone so you can focus fully on the people and activities around you.  Next week, go two places.
3. Ban smartphones from meetings in your shop so members of your team can concentrate on each other and on being creative together.
4. Practice active listening.  Pay attention to how the person is sitting?  How are they using their hands when they talk?  What is their overall demeanor?  And what does all this tell you about what they are saying?  This kind of listening is the anti-thesis of serial tasking – it is focused, takes time and practice, and is exceedingly helpful for development professionals.
5. Move your largest and most important projects to the top of your to-do list each day.  Many serial taskers will focus on many smaller tasks to gain a feeling of being productive.  But many of these smaller tasks aren’t the most important.  Getting in the habit of setting aside chunks of time to focus on bigger, more important projects helps condition your mind to focus for longer periods of time.

Below I present you with some of the more interesting defect levels.  I hope you have already enjoyed a good breakfast.

• Apple Butter – can not have more than 4 rodent hairs or 5 or more whole or equivalent insect parts per 100 grams.
• Frozen Broccoli – can not have more than an average of 60 aphids, mites, and/or thrips per 100 grams.
• Ground Cinnamon – can not have more than 400 insect fragments per 50 grams.
• Chocolate – can not have 60 insect fragments per 100 grams.
• Fig Paste – can not have 13 insect heads per 100 grams.

So, now that you are thinking anew about what you eat. . .

Here’s the point.  We’ve all been eating these things (well, I don’t know that I’ve ever had fig paste) and we’ve not suffered harm.  We’ve been just fine.  And, even with this knowledge, most of us will continue to eat these items and we’ll be just fine.  That is because these defects are inconsequential.  While 13 insect heads sounds horrible, they don’t make a substantive difference to our enjoyment of the food nor to our health.

However, in many cases with our work, we expect perfection.  We stall projects, initiatives, direct mail letters, phonathons, major gift asks all because something is “not quite perfect.”

Over the longer term, demanding perfection will harm progress.  Because the stars are never fully and completely aligned.  Perfection will never be reached.  And when we demand it from ourselves and, especially from others, we squelch creativity and initiative.  Who wants to start a task when it is understood that perfection is required but will never be achieved?

We will have “unavoidable defects” in all we plan and implement.  Our role as development leaders is to have a strong understanding of when an “unavoidable defect” will and will not compromise the substantive effectiveness of our plans.

In other words, we must know that 13 insect heads in 100 grams of fig paste gets a green light, but that 14th head. . . now that is trouble!

During the summers of my youth I went to work with my Dad.  I can still recall him walking into homes and, after asking about the symptoms of the problem, saying, “we’ll get you cooled down in no time.”  You could see the relief on the customer’s face.

I learned a valuable lesson on these calls:  Talk in ways that show you understand what matters most to the customer.  When the AC is not working in the summer heat, they want to be cooled down.  In that instant, nothing else matters much.

Think about how this principle translates to our work as institutional leaders and development professionals.  In many instances we don’t talk at all about what matters most to our customers (read: donors, community, alumni, other constituencies).  We talk about what matters most to us!

As I’ve written about recently, most case statements focus on the proposed building, the growth of the endowment, the new program funds, etc.  But most institutions struggle to articulate fully why it all even matters.  What is the mission of the institution and what is the vision of how it will fulfill the mission more completely in the future?  This is what our donors care about.

The buildings, the endowment, the program funds are really just tools to fulfill the mission and vision.  And when we talk about the tools we should describe how the new building, the larger endowment, or the increase in program funds will allow the institution to serve more and serve better.

In short we talk far too much about the tools and far too little about the intended result.

Just imagine if my Dad had walked into the hot home of a customer and, instead of saying, “we’ll have you cooled down in no time,” said, “let me show you this new wrench I just bought. . . it’s made of the highest grade steel, is 2 inches longer than the old one, and makes it easier for me turn bolts in tight spaces. . .”

Talking about tools inspires neither a hot customer nor a donor.

Asking suggests a power imbalance and that you hold the donor’s giving capacity in high esteem.  Inviting suggests a partnership and that you hold the donor in high esteem.

Giving has significant benefits for both the giver and the recipient.  When we recognize that benefits accrue to the donor, we are beginning to understand why we should stop asking and start inviting.

And inviting works.  As a rule, humans want to be invited and included.  Most major donors respond favorably to being invited.

There is, however, a key component to the invitation.  You must sincerely want the donor more than her money.

During this hectic time, my hope is that you and the members of your team will take time to reflect on the great privilege we have in doing this good work.

To serve institutions that transform, save, or help lives each and every day would be, in and of itself, an uplifting work.  But our work offers even more fulfillment.  As development professionals, we are called to assist donors in their process of giving.  Think about this for a moment.  Helping others fulfill their need to give.  There are few calls to service more commendable, more noble, or more rewarding.

During this holiday season, my best wish is that you will be reminded, perhaps again, about the awesomeness of this development work.  It’s inspirational, and we should be too.

So, how does an advancement team create these conditions for donors?  One way is the professionalized, “staff-centered” approach.  Hire sharp people, indoctrinate them on what your organization has done in the past, train them at professional conferences where they find out what everyone else is doing, and tell them it is their job to do the work.

And while this may be an understandable approach, it can also lead to the commodification of advancement.  According to Wikipedia, “a commodity is a good for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market.”  Think rice, gold, soybeans, or oil.  No creativity in the final product because the producer doesn’t much matter.   Oil is oil is oil.  A bag of rice on your supermarket shelf is the same as a bag of rice on mine.  It is what it is.

For some areas of life – i.e., filling up our car with gas – commodities are great!  It’s an easy exchange relationship – we know what we are getting, pay the market price, and it’s over.  There is little in the way of building a relationship with the gas pump!

But advancement is a bit more complex.  And as advancement programs become more professionalized, I see commodification as a concern.  Professionals, in any field, have been educated.  They have been certified and trained.  Unfortunately, the number one area in which many have been trained, is in the belief  that they know more about the work than those they serve!  For surgeons, this approach might work.  For directors of development, this approach is suicide.

Professionalized, staff-centered advancement programs believe it is their job to sign the direct mail solicitation letters and their job to extend thank you calls to donors.  And advancement activities look more like commodities in the process.  One direct mail letter from a director of development is the same as another.  One thank you call from an annual fund director is the same as another.  Oil is oil is oil.

Of course, I’m not against hiring sharp people.  It’s what we ask them to do after hiring that concerns me.  Steer clear of professionalizing their thinking.

Instead, educate them on how to ask thoughtful, engaging questions.  Role-play with them to strengthen their listening and response capabilities.   Have them visit with donors, before visiting with peers.  Teach them that donors typically will be more inspired, more encouraged, more energized, and more generous in response to calls, letters, and visits involving volunteers, other donors, Board members, and others not being paid.

Our role is not to do all the work ourselves.  It is to engage donors and others in the work.  The best advancement programs are far from commodities.

However, we make a huge mistake when we make metrics our focus.  Much like teachers who end up “teaching to the test,” when our focus becomes the measurement, we miss the point.  And we don’t achieve our goals.

At the core, development is a qualitative enterprise.  We build and strengthen human relationships. We inspire.  We educate.  We create and communicate institutional vision.  We support mission and the work of others in a variety of ways.

However, metrics are almost always quantitative.  We quantify.  We count.  We add.  We classify.  We compare.

The point is not that quantifying a qualitative enterprise is impossible.  We can quantify our work – e.g., number of visits, number of moves, number of proposals, dollars raised – and more and more, we must.

The point is that our focus should always stay on the qualitative.  Keep the focus on building the relationships with donors.  Keep the focus on inspiring others with a compelling vision for your institution’s future.  Keep the focus on educating people about the opportunities to give and support your work.

When we focus on the qualitative work, all of the quantitative metrics take care of themselves.  If we attempt to do the reverse and focus on “meeting the numbers,” we find we can’t.

This distinction is important.  Understanding where donor wealth comes from tells us a good bit about the donor.  However, it tells us little about her willingness, passions, interests, and goals for giving.  And asking for a major gift without obtaining clarity around these more personal assessments is risky.

So, prior to asking a prospect for a major gift, I suggest you make 3 Appraisals:

1. Wealth Appraisal – At what level could the prospect make a gift if she were motivated?
2. Philanthropic Appraisal - In what ways has the prospect evidenced a willingness to make major gifts in the past?
3. Interest Appraisal – How specifically do our mission, vision, and values align with the donors interests, values, and giving motivations?

In order to make these appraisals, the gift officer must learn more about the prospect’s personal life.  For instance, what other non-profits does she support?  Or, what hobbies occupies her interest and time?  Or even, what are the life circumstances of her children?

Major donors, by definition, must have sufficient wealth and we must obtain clarity on the wealth appraisal.  However, by understanding better our prospect’s philanthropic motivations and interests, we give ourselves a much better opportunity to successfully cultivate, solicit, and steward every major gift donor.