She encourages and directs team members so that they grow into the best, most effective versions of themselves.  She engages volunteers so that their passions are realized through their efforts on behalf of the institution.  She manages those to whom she reports so that they serve as appropriate supporters and endorsers.  And she welcomes partnerships with peers when the outcome is a stronger institution.

The good leader works with and through people so she cannot be responsible for everything that happens.  Her job is not to do all herself, her job is to get more done.  And she realizes that she can get more done by sharpening her skills to work with and through others – any and all others.

But, never forget, the good leader is always accountable.  If the results aren’t what they should be, she is exposed and liable.  Good leadership accept that.  Good leaders want that.  Because they know that if they give away responsibility effectively, the results for which they are held accountable will almost always be successful.

But, when one steps back and looks at the bigger picture, the campaign is moving along well.  The results still pace ahead of goal, and the activity of visits and solicitations is still occurring at a good clip.  Good things are still happening.  The near-term results just haven’t seemed as positive.

So, why do people grow impatient so quickly?

In part, Geatano Kanizsa’s “Triangle” helps to explain why staying patient is not always easy.  Kanizsa was an Italian psychologist who published on topics regarding visual illusions.  You may have seen his Triangle illusion before.

Simply put, to create sense out of our world quickly, our brains make patterns, create shapes (like triangles), and make huge assumptions from incomplete data.  As you look at the white triangle above, you will note that it has absolutely no lines defining it as a triangle.  Instead, our brains, based on our experiences, believe a triangle should be there, so we see one.

When we were hunters and gatherers and we had to watch out for the lion in the weeds, we needed to make these quick decisions.  We needed the ability to make assumptions based on less than complete data.  If we thought we saw a lion lurking, it was better to getting moving before confirmation!  Our quick decisions meant we lived another day.

So, today, as we analyze a million different situations and decisions (almost none of which are life endangering), we revert back to our hard-wired tendencies.  And yes, our brains make quick decisions based on models and patterns that are regularly helpful.  We don’t have to re-learn that clouds mean it probably will rain.  We can assume it based on experience and plan accordingly.

But, when we make assumptions regarding complex issues over a longer time frame (say a 5-year campaign) and based only on a few data points, we can make some serious mistakes.  So, when people start assuming a campaign is in trouble based on incomplete data, our job is to create another Kanizsa’s Triangle for them.  Our job is to refocus their attention not on the incomplete data of a few bad solicitations, but on the progress that has been made to date.  Draw the lines of the triangle for them by communicating the fact that the campaign still remains ahead of goal and that the activity that will produce results in the future continues.  Pretty soon, the new “triangle” they see is more positive.

We are hard-wired at birth to make decisions quickly – based mostly on incomplete data.  This mental skill saved our lives.  But today we can use the same hard-wired mental process to have people “see” another triangle, simply by including more important data.  Part of our work should be ensuring that we are communicating the data that supports people “seeing” the triangle from more than one perspective.

You know the argument.  The idea is that the amount of “quality time” (whatever that is in the mind of a eight or six year old) with a parent or primary care giver is more important to the child’s overall development than is “quantity of time” with said parent or primary care giver.  In other words, your being around a lot doesn’t matter a whole lot.  What matters is that you are around when it really counts.

Of course, how one can predict the occurrences of when the “times that really count” will happen is beyond me.   But there is a bigger problem here:  The “quality versus quantity” argument is a false one.  Relationships don’t become stronger or don’t dissolve because we’ve chosen (or not chosen) the exact right moment to be present.  They grow stronger or weaker ultimately because of how much time and attention we pay overall.

Think about it:  Want a stronger relationship with your spouse or partner?  Think and do things with and for them more often.  Want a stronger relationship with your parents?  Call more often than once per month.  Find out what is happening in their lives.  Show interest and do it regularly.  Want a better relationship with those on your team?  Take more time to engage them.  And our kids?  They talk to you about the important stuff when you least expect.  They come to us when they are ready, not when we’ve scheduled them.

Almost regardless of the type of relationship, the quantity of time we spend engaging with others trumps the so-called “quality time” idea.  And the reason is simple.  Quality time and quantity of time are not mutually exclusive concepts.  In fact, they are connected in a very specific way – quality time happens within the context of quantity of time.  It turns out, those special, “quality time” moments with our children and others are not necessarily planned and scheduled in our Outlook calendars.  Those magic moments that give us peace and bring joy happen when we least expect it.

But think of how we conceptualize our relationships with our donors.  We schedule them.  We set up meetings.  We professionalize them.  We aim for that quality time.  And mostly on our schedules.  Instead, what we should be doing is figuring out how to spend a larger quantity of time with our donors and engaging them.  Go to community events, sporting events, or concerts with them.  Invite them to dinner with no agenda.  Text them about something other than setting up a meeting.  Join them at their hobby or club.   When we build more “wrap-around” relationships with our donors, the “quality times” will happen – sometimes when we least expect it.

You will close many more gifts by showing authentic interest in your prospects than you will by working to get them interested in your institution.

It’s our job to show interest, not seek it.  When we do that work well, the ROI (Return on Interest) will be strong.

But, there are many reasons to engage volunteers in our work.  Indeed, volunteers – when involved appropriately and effectively – can help us raise far more money than if we go it alone.

Gonser Gerber partner, Cal Stoney, and I will be discussing the important issues around utilizing volunteers in a Gonser Gerber Institute webinar titled, “How To Engage Volunteers To Raise More Money,” this coming Tuesday, April 24, 11:00 – 12:30 Central.  If you are in a campaign and wondering how best to engage your volunteer leaders, or not in a campaign and trying to better utilize volunteers in your ongoing development program this program is for you.

I hope you’ll plan to join Cal and me on Tuesday, April 24, at 11:00am Central.  Sign up today for this Gonser Gerber Institute webinar.

Talk with you on Tuesday!

Were the presents that came from Santa wrapped or unwrapped?

From my days studying family dynamics and sociology, I recall it is not uncommon for a young married couple to have a first lingering disagreement around this question. If one in the marriage comes from a home that wrapped Santa’s presents, and one comes from a home that did not wrap Santa’s presents, there is at least some discussion about what the new couple will do once children enter the picture.

Why would an issue so objectively insignificant (we are talking about how a mythical figure delivers presents), become the center of an early disagreement for a couple?  Because it feels very significant.  It is about the norms of what important events in the life of a family should look and feel like.  And, of course, if our family wrapped (or unwrapped) Santa’s presents that must be the right way to do it.  Because we wouldn’t have done it wrong!

So, we passionately make the case to our new partner who disagrees with us why Santa should deliver presents wrapped or unwrapped.  Our way is the right way.  It just feels wrong to do it any other way.

But, when you really think about it, it doesn’t matter, of course. Children get enjoyment from the presents and the excitement of Santa whether the gifts come wrapped or unwrapped.  And isn’t that the outcome we are really seeking?

How many times in your workplace has someone on your team doggedly held to a process, an event, an activity, an approach for no other good reason other than, “it’s the way we’ve always done it.”  When we are faced with such a circumstance, we would all do well to remember that the real gift that Santa gives is not the one that is either wrapped or unwrapped, it is the outcome – the wonder, the joy, the experience that our children will take with them throughout life.  And when we think of it in this way, we realize there are many more important aspects to our family events than the specifics of how a mythical figure delivers presents.

So, the next time someone in your shop begins the “it’s the way we’ve always done it,” argument without really examining what the fundamental goal or outcome should be, just remind them of Santa delivering presents.  Because, upon examination, what we believe to be important really may not be at all.

Disclaimer:  In Jason’s house, Santa delivers gifts unwrapped – which, of course, is the correct and only way.

The problem with this statement is that almost always works.  We think to ourselves, “yeah, that wouldn’t be a bad idea.”  But ask yourself this, is it wise to place the bar of idea acceptance just above all the bad ones?  So, ideas don’t have to exceptionally good – they just have to not be bad.  Is this an appropriate standard for an effective advancement program?

Sure, sometimes the whatever that comes after the “It wouldn’t hurt to. . .” can be exceptionally good and helpful – maybe the phonathon script does need to ask people if they are planning to attend an upcoming event.  But the real concern with this seemingly innocuous statement is that you run a far greater risk of clouding an exceptionally good and helpful message or focus by adding something that confuses.

In most instances, the primary path to long-term advancement success is not to dream up more messages to send to our constituents.  Or, to plan even more events for them to attend.  Or to come up with even more societies or groups of which they can become members.  We do not suffer from a dearth of ideas or innovations.  We struggle primarily with execution – consistent and compelling execution.

And one of the cardinal sins associated with poor execution is sending so many messages to our constituents that our events, letters, visits – our entire programs – become muddy.

You should always listen when someone says, “It wouldn’t hurt to. . .”  But the decision to add something to our original plan should be made because what follows the “It wouldn’t hurt to. . .” is compelling and helpful.  Not because we believe “it wouldn’t hurt” – because more times than not – it really can hurt.

Quality, of course, suggests that we do only a few things – but do them exceptionally well.  Quantity, on the other hand, suggests that we attempt as much as we can with less concern about being world-class.  Both characteristics are present in our work as development leaders, but applying these two concepts effectively can sometimes confuse even the most seasoned development leaders.

Generally speaking, success in major and planned gifts relies more on quality.  While exceptional annual fund results rely more on quantity.  Here are two examples:

• Advisory Councils – this formal major donor cultivation activity is clearly a quality issue.  Some institutions will have multiple Advisory Councils or groups, but have the wrong people on them.  In other words, every program has an Advisory Council and those who serve on each of these groups are best characterized as run-of-the-mill annual fund donors.  Of course, each of these Advisory Council must be staffed and managed.  So, the advancement office ends up serving groups of weak major donor prospects and, then, wonders why they don’t have time to call on better prospects in their portfolios.  Much better to have a single institutional Advisory Council and place the most promising major gift prospects on it.
• Phonathon – this staple of annual fund work is clearly a quantity issue.  Whether you are talking about the number of prospects to call (which should be just about everyone in your database) or the number of callers to solicit, quantity trumps quality.  Sure, you need to train your phonathon callers to be effective and efficient on the phone.  And, yes, you are better off calling a database full of lybunts and sybunts as opposed to “not yets.”  But, in the end, the more callers you have and the more prospects you can call, the better your results will be.  Your phonathon is a numbers game.  The more, the better.

There other examples that support the point – the number of major gift prospects on an major gift officer’s pipeline.  One hundred high-quality (high affluent) prospects is better than having 200 unknown prospects.  But on the other hand, the number of direct mail solicitations sent is different.  It more important to send an appropriate number of direct mail pieces (quantity) than it is slave over wordsmithing every word in a single letter (quality).  You get the point.

It can be easy for development leaders to get caught in the trap of “we must do it all – and do it all well.”  It simply is not true.  And, it’s actually bad leadership to attempt implementation of such a philosophy.  You will not get the best possible results.  And, you run the real risk of burning out those who are in your care.

Some parts of our work should lead us to focus closely on quality.  In other aspects of development, quantity is the key to success.  Understanding when and how to use both principles will help you become a more effective and respected leader.

The messages – or “advertisements” – are almost always black and white.  They contain a picture that captures scenes of the familiar, of everyday life.   Maybe its a child smiling broadly while driving a toy car.  Or maybe its a child laughing and swinging on a old tire hanging from a tree limb.  And then next to the picture, there is a short message – a play on words.  For the tire swing picture, it might be “reusable fun.”  And for the child driving the toy car, it might be “pedal pusher.”

Each “advertisement” encourages you to pause and reflect and almost always stirs a smile.  But, they don’t immediately make you think of Hampton Inns specifically.  Instead, they remind you of memories and just make you feel good.  Hampton Inns have figured out that their ads don’t need to sell their customers on each of their room amenities, or their late check-out time, or their 24 fitness center.  No, pointing out their service differences is not compelling. But what is compelling is making people feel good.

So, tonight, when the elevator door slid closed, the “advertisement” was of a little girl in a dress with a yo-yo.  The yo-yo was all the way to the ground with the string tight.  The message read, “walking the dog.”  My father introduced me to “walking the dog” with a yo-yo.  When he was younger he was pretty good with a yo-yo, and “walking the dog” was a favorite trick.  So, of course, I paused and was reminded of being with my Dad as he attempted to teach me how to “walk the dog.” And I smiled.

In today’s world of data-driven outcomes measurements and concepts like “return on investment,” development professionals can easily lose their focus.  They can begin to think that their job is to spout lots of data about student success, or placement, or client satisfaction, or some other measurement that seems to have won the day.  And sure, at the appropriate time it is wise to educate our donors with data and facts.

But facts, by themselves, aren’t compelling.  Almost always our first order of business – our real work – is to help donors connect with things that make them smile.  Memories.  Values.  Interests.  Whatever those memories, values, and interests might be.  And in order to do that well, we have to know our donors as people.  What are the special memories that most members of the class of 1967 will recall with fondness?  What are the values they hold dear?  What interests do they have as it pertains to philanthropy?

Out of all the hotels I could stay at, I almost always choose Hampton Inns.  They just feel comfortable to me.  Maybe now I figured out why.   I think I’ll teach my children how to “walk the dog” when I get home.

This expectation of communications simultaneity is difficult enough.  Added to it, though, is the reality of our every message being archived.  Most everything we write, print, video, tweet, update, etc., is now being captured for future reference.   Our every computer key stroke is captured by some software program somewhere.  This is why we tell our young people that any message they send today could come back to haunt them 10 years later during a job interview.

While we are expected to communicate regularly about especially current outcomes of our institution’s work, we also have to live with the fact that all our communications will live on in perpetuity.  So that nothing comes back to haunt our advancement efforts, we have to be fast, incredible accurate and especially prescient.

Caught between the pressure to be instantaneous and the archive-happy world in which yesterday’s mistakes live on forever, our advancement programs have to behave differently.  We have to be even more strategic in creating our priorities so that our communications have lasting accuracy and value.  In other words, we need to base our fundraising priorities on a solid, long-term, comprehensive institutional strategic plan – something that articulates priorities that won’t shift or be supplanted from one meeting to the next.

Strategic plans that animate compelling fundraising priorities have always been a foundation of strong development programs.  In today’s world of instant and archived communications, they are even more important.  If what we say are our priorities today change tomorrow, we run a similar risk as the young person who posts the pictures of his 21st birthday party on facebook – it could come back to haunt us.