25 Mar 13

Further Evidence on the Critical Role of Donor Engagement

In today’s development field the phrase, “donor engagement,” get tossed around like a football owned by Peyton Manning.  Everyone uses it.  But not many people pause long enough to provide any definitional specificity to the phrase.  What do we really mean when we say we need to “engage” donors?  And why is it really important anyway?

While Ken Stern’s new book, “With Charity for All:  Why Charities are Failing and a Better Way to Give,” is receiving mixed reviews for its recommendations, some of the research he presents is instructive to development professionals.  For instance, the conventional wisdom on the inverse relationship between wealth and giving may not be as simple as first thought.  For years, of course, researchers (and those concerned with social justice), pointed out the fact that the wealthiest in the U.S. give less of their income for philanthropic purposes than do poorer Americans.  It has regularly been shown that the richest among us give between 1.3% – 4.2% of their income to charity while those in the middle and lower economic classes donate between 3.2% – 7.6% of their income.

The knee-jerk reasoning behind such sad numbers has been that rich people are, well . . . jerks.  Uncaring jerks to be precise.  And that’s some of the nice ways that social scientists have described these findings over the years!

But what is really going on?  To answer this question, “The Chronicle of Philanthropy” conducted the “How America Gives” study and the findings are bit more nuanced than previously understood.  What was uncovered when looking at giving by zip codes is that if wealthy households co-mingle in a mixed socio-economic environment, they give more of their money away.  However, if wealthy folks live with a whole bunch of other wealthy folks (the threshold seems to be if they live in the same neighborhood with 40% or more people who also are wealthy), then they give considerably less.  In general, those making $200,000 per year or more give away 4.2% of their income to charity.  In the “wealthy living with wealthy” neighborhoods, the average is 2.8% going to charity.

The reason for this disparity seems to be exposure to need.  Because those with fewer financial resources rely more on others in their communities, they in turn, are more likely to help out others when they can.  The inverse also holds.  If a family lives in a neighborhood where everyone else is rich, they don’t see and experience need every day.  And, they are less likely to respond with empathy and generosity.

But the lack of empathy and generosity among the wealthy is not unchangeable.  Social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley, Paul Piff has shown that when wealthy and poor individuals are shown the same short video about child poverty, they both respond by giving at similar levels.  When people are exposed to need, they respond with generosity – regardless of their financial capacity.

Taken together what such findings strongly suggest to us in development is that we should strive to be mission-centric, donor-engaging fundraisers.  Our goal should be to get donors and prospects involved in the work and missions of our institutions.  Get them to see and experience the need for themselves.  Invite them on-site.  Introduce them to our students, clients, and others we serve.  Ask them to volunteer. Expose them to a world that may be far different than their own.  Simply put:  Engage them.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising, Leadership by
21 Mar 13

Asking Too Early or Asking Too Late

Both are bad.  But asking too early is worse.  You risk injuring the relationship by signaling that you value the donor’s money more than the donor.  And sometimes that is never repaired fully.

When you ask too late you risk getting a smaller gift (you didn’t strike while the iron was hot).  And you risk appearing as though you are less than professional.  Shrewd donors expect to be solicited.

So when is the perfect time to ask?  When the donor lets you know she is ready to be asked.

Hint:  If this answer seems unsatisfying and you can’t recall when a donor has signaled her readiness to be asked, you have been asking too soon.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising, Leadership by
17 Mar 13

The Social Media Question for Development Professionals

The most often-asked question about social media is, “How can we raise more money using Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare/YouTube/etc?”  But this question has it a bit backwards.

The more helpful question for us to ask is, “How can we use Facebook/Twitter/Foursquare/YouTube/etc., to raise more money?”

When we turn the question around, our focus becomes using social media not simply as a gift giving vehicle, but rather as a robust tool to share, engage, educate, cultivate, and steward donors and prospects in new, exciting, and effective ways.  When we turn the question around, we use social media to meet donors where they are in their electronic lives.

Your institution is better able to fulfill its mission and achieve its vision when you raise more money – regardless of how the gifts are delivered.  Much in the same way that our goal would never be to “raise more money using checks,” raising money on social media is not our aim.  Instead, effectively using social media to raise more money should be our focus.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by
5 Mar 13

Where Is Your Strategic Focus?

Recently, I was in attendance at a higher education institution’s Board meeting and watched as an administrative leader at the institution rose to address the  members of the Board.  As she began her presentation on the progress to date on the institution’s Strategic Plan, she projected a huge S-W-O-T Quadrant onto a screen behind her and said,

“the results of the institution’s SWOT analysis suggest that addressing our weaknesses will be what takes our institution to the ‘next level.’”

Why is it that we tell individuals to “work to your strengths” yet suggest to collections of individuals (i.e., organizations of various forms) to “fix your weaknesses?”  I don’t like my weaknesses.  I tend to stay away from them.  I bet you do too.  And, yet, here was a higher education leader who was saying, “we must focus on our weaknesses, because those are what will make us great!”

The problem, of course, is that they used a strategic planning approach (SWOT), that encouraged them to look at Weaknesses early in the process.  And humans, being human, tend to focus on what is not good or what is lacking.  Sure, this well-meaning, “we can get better!” emphasis can make it seem as though we really are addressing significant issues.  But the reality is, by focusing on Weaknesses we’ll expend a lot of energy, effort, talent, and resources.  And our institutions won’t become great.

In fact, if you think it through, the best we can usually hope for when we focus on our Weaknesses is to become mediocre.  Here’s an example:  Let’s say our institution is at 50% of the national average of some important variable.  So, we focus on that variable for the next 3 years and we double our output!  So, now we are at 100% of the national average.  But that just means we’ve achieved “average.”  And yet, people in the institution will praise each other for making such great strides.  ”We increased our output by 100%” they will say.  And everyone will applaud the mediocrity.

But there are alternatives.  When I work with clients on strategic planning engagements, I use the Appreciative Inquiry approach and the S-O-A-R (Strengths, Opportunities, Aspirations, and Results) Model.  I don’t want to focus on Weaknesses (or Threats) in the early part of Strategic Planning.  I want people to focus on the institution’s Strengths, Opportunities, and their Aspirations first.  Let’s talk about what we could become tomorrow by investigating what we are good at today.  People like Strengths.  They gravitate toward them.  It makes it much easier to implement – and it works.

When an institution focuses on building on its Strengths, it can begin to carve out a niche in the marketplace (“We are really good at ‘X’”), it has a chance to differentiate itself (“We are known for ‘X’”), and, ultimately, it has the real opportunity to become great.

0 Comments Posted in Leadership by
24 Feb 13

Is Your Mission Worth Sacrificing For?

When talking with Board members or other major donor prospects, we often use the words, “meaningful” and “personal” when describing the characteristics of the gift commitments we would like them to consider making.  But, I find fewer and fewer advancement professionals who are using the word “sacrificial” when describing the types of major gift commitments they would like to receive.

While I regularly advocate that giving benefits the giver more than the receiver, which would suggest that the phrase “sacrificial giving” is oxymoronic, I do believe we are missing opportunities to encourage more giving when we fail to communicate why stretch giving is important.

I think there are two primary reasons why this concept of stretching or sacrificing for mission has gone out of fashion at many institutions.

  • First, we don’t communicate our mission.  I think we talk too often about supporting our institution, and not often enough about supporting our mission through our institution.  The distinction is important.  When we talk about supporting our institution with donors, we miss the real power of our message which is our mission.  When we tap into the values of our mission, we are much better positioned to encourage donors to give more than they had thought about previously.
  • Second, we allow a transactional view of philanthropy to replace a relationship-based perspective.  In other words, when we focus more on “what we will give the donor,” and focus less on partnering with the donor to advance a mission that we both value, we lose the opportunity to encourage stretch or sacrificial giving.

It is important, I think, to communicate to major gift donors and prospects that your mission is important enough, worthy enough, to give more than they regularly might.   When we first gain agreement with a donor that our mission is valuable and compelling, we can more easily get into a discussion about increasing giving to more fully live out that mission.  When we start by talking with a donor about naming opportunities or other tangible benefits of their giving, we forfeit our ability to make the case that our mission is worthy of sacrificial giving.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by
20 Feb 13

Time vs. Money

Many people shy away from the process of asking others for a financial gift.   Interestingly, the level of trepidation usually is much lower when people are confronted with the task of asking someone to spend their time (and not their money) helping out a good cause.

Based on the differential responses to these activities, it would not be unreasonable for an observer to infer that money must be much more valuable than time.  Hence, the reason people don’t like asking others for money, but have little difficulty asking for people’s time.

But which, truly, is more valuable?  A person’s time or their money?

There is an old saying, “My time is far more valuable than my money.  I can always make more money.”

Maybe we have it all wrong.  Maybe asking for money should be the easier of the requests.

 

1 Comment Posted in Fundraising by
17 Feb 13

So Who Wants Some “Cookies and Cream”?

You know, the ice cream flavor that regularly is voted as a favorite flavor of ice cream lovers everywhere.

Do you know where this ice cream flavor was created?  The University Dairy at South Dakota State University, in Brookings.  This is only one of the fun reasons that effective advancement professionals should consider one of the new Director of Development positions the SDSU Foundation has open.

Three positions – in the College of Education and Human Sciences, the College of Nursing, and the Division of Student Affairs – are available.  And making the move to SDSU is attractive for more reasons than ice cream!

  • Fundraising efforts at SDSU have been hugely successful in recent years – $220 million raised to date on a campaign goal of $200 million!
  • Brookings is the fourth largest city in the state (and growing).  It is considered one of the friendliest and highest quality of life places to live in the Midwest.
  • The SDSU Foundation is growing, the salaries for these positions are competitive, and the University leadership is committed to expanding the role of philanthropy at the University in the future.

If you know of any professional who has an interest in one (or more) of these positions, please contact me directly at jmcneal@gonsergerber.com.  I am happy to talk with anyone who is seeking a fulfilling position with a University and community on the move!

In addition, if you are searching for a new advancement position, please check our Gonser Gerber Advancement Search page for the latest on our open searches.  We will gladly talk with anyone who is seeking a new opportunity and challenge.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by
14 Feb 13

Do Bonuses Really Work?

Following a general trend in society and, specifically, a practice held up as productive in for-profit world, our advancement profession has been overrun in recent years with examples of bonuses for exemplary efforts.  Sounds like a simple and logical proposition.  “Let’s reward the folks who are doing the best work!”  But, there is a basic question that doesn’t get asked very often.  Namely do bonuses actually work?  Do they, in fact, lead to the desired results of increasing productivity and results over time?

I’m not so much concerned with the specific application of how bonuses are provided.  Whether you have 5 quantitative measures being tracked, or 8, or whether you give out bonuses based on some other subjective criteria. However they might be awarded, I’m asking if they work.

Alfie Kohn’s comprehensive book, “Punished by Rewards,” is a text every leader should read.  He draws from research with children, teens, and adults, in a variety of fields, including education, child-rearing, and business.  He tells one story which is succinctly powerful in helping to answer the question of whether bonuses work.

An elderly man is harassed and ridiculed by a group of 10 year old boys each day on their way home from the school bus stop.  Each afternoon, the boys jeer the man as they pass by his front yard telling him how old, fat, and bald he is.  One afternoon as the boys pass, he announces that any boy who comes to his yard the next day and ridicules him will receive a dollar.  The boys are wildly excited!   This is a great deal they say!

On cue, the next afternoon, the boys stop by his home and holler epithets for all they are worth.  He gladly hands them each a dollar. Then he states that if they do the same tomorrow, he will pay them again.  But this time, it will be 25 cents.  The boys still think that’s a pretty good deal and so, the very next day they show up again to cat call.  He pays them each 25 cents.

As he giving each boy his quarter, he announces that from then on, he will only be able to pay them one cent for their trouble.  “Forget it!” the boys cried, “It’s not worth it!”  And they never came back to hassle him again.

This story is cute, but its lesson rings true.  More importantly, the research in this area is clear.  When we provide extrinsic rewards for an activity – such as bonuses – we lessen the intrinsic motivation to participate in that activity.  Put another way, when we say, “Do this and you’ll get that,” the “this” always gets diminished and the “that” becomes the focus of our efforts.  Just like the boys who heckled the elderly man lost the “fun” of harassing him, when we introduce bonuses for “good work,” we lose the joy of doing that very work.  Instead, our focus becomes achieving the bonus or reward and the work becomes secondary (or worse).

Bonuses do work.  But only to incentivize the seeking of more bonuses.  And strengthening a “culture of philanthropy” (to use a phrase in favor today) will not be achieved through the seeking of more bonuses.  Just as the ubiquitous executive bonus in business has not produced a strong economy.  Good advancement work is never about the money.  Money is a consequence, a by-product of our real work.  For example, a donor’s gift is a result of our work with them, not the work itself.  When we make the mistake of focusing the attention of our team members on the money, we do great harm to the very “culture of philanthropy” we claim to be building.

0 Comments Posted in Uncategorized by
4 Feb 13

Why our Definition of “Donor Research” Must Change

When your major gift colleague says, “I need more research on this prospect to have a better sense of his capacity,” what do you think she means?  My strong suspicion is that you believe she is talking about quantifiable, database-driven, wealth-indicating research.    Research that is done principally online and answers such questions as:  How much property the prospect owns.  What business interests are present.  Whether or not they are a top officer at a publicly-traded company.  And you, most certainly, would be correct.  That is exactly the kind of “donor research” your colleague would be seeking.

A Google search for the phrase “donor research” returned 49,800,000 results.  And while I didn’t go through all 49 million, all of the results found on the first and second pages (save 1 which was an entry I made to this blog back in March of 2011) speak to the quantitative, electronic, wealth screening process.  This is how we think and talk about “donor research.”  It is a process that we conduct like electronic super-sleuths.  Under cover of darkness (or at least without the prospect’s knowledge).  And without any real sense of how accurate our results are.

We sit in our offices, sign on to one of the myriad of database options, follow links across the internet, and, generally, act as if we are on an electronic treasure hunt.  The problem with this treasure search however is that it is both inefficient and, in many instances, completely wrong or woefully incomplete.

As readers of this blog know, I firmly believe that our work as advancement professionals is a deeply human experience.  It is about meaning.  It is about values.  It is about taking the time to understand and care for people.  It is about philanthropy – or love of people.  My experience has provided clear evidence that the deeper we engage our donor prospects, the more generous their actions.  We ask for advice, instead of money.  We seek feedback, instead of telling our story.  We authentically express an interest in others.  In the parlance of today, we “build relationships.”  Perhaps not an exceptionally useful term due to overuse.  But one which drives home the point that we need to be doing more to get to know our donors and prospects better.

Why then, have we allowed “donor research” to be defined as an arms-length, transactional calculation that is conducted by anyone with an internet connection?  Why do we consider “donor research” to be the work we do completely without feedback from the prospect herself?

Here’s a thought:  In a calling that asks us to “build relationships” and better understand each of our donors and prospects, we need to recapture the true definition of “donor research.”  Only when we learn to conduct donor research by becoming gifted qualitative researchers – skilled in the art of inquiry, interested in asking insightful questions, and listening actively – will we learn all that we really need to know about our donors and prospects.

A gifted major gift officer can spend one lunch conducting a peer screen with the right volunteer and find out more about a prospect’s capacity and philanthropic priorities than will be gleaned subscribing to the most sophisticated online database.  And in the process, that major gift officer will increase the likelihood that the peer screener will give more as well.

Our work with our donors and prospects is qualitative in nature.  The very best “donor research” is also a qualitative activity.

0 Comments Posted in Fundraising by
1 Feb 13

Avoiding the Leadership “Comb Over”

We’ve all seen it.  The older man, clearly going bald, with extra-long strands of hair combed across the top of his head.  With a part beginning just above one ear, he carefully orchestrates these long hairs until their ends find their way somewhere near his other ear.  The comb over.

When we see it, we wonder why.  Why does he do it?  Why not just shave it all?  Bald is in.  Bald is cool.  Or, at least he could cut it close.  Anything but the comb over.  Maybe he is trying to regain a feeling a youthfulness (it won’t work).  Maybe he thinks no one notices (everyone does).  Maybe he thinks it looks natural (from what angle is he looking?).  Maybe he believes his head would not look good without hair on it (it has to look better than the comb over).

Here’s the deal.  The only thing the comb over does is announce to the world that he, in fact, is bald.  And also vain.  He is insecure.  He isn’t content with who he really is – a man who no longer has hair growing naturally on his head.  He is uncomfortable in his own skin.  And that makes us uncomfortable too.  We want to say to him, “It’s ok.  Let it go, man!  You really look silly and you don’t need to!”

Leaders can be like this.  If you haven’t taken the time to assess authentically your leadership shortcomings, your imperfections, your weaknesses, and your Achilles’ heel, you may be employing a “leadership comb over.”  In other words, you may be trying to hide, deflect attention from, or distort people’s view of your abilities as a leader.  But it doesn’t work.  Just like the hair comb over, everyone sees the leadership comb over.

Have you ever really asked yourself what deficiencies you have as a leader?  What is your greatest weakness?  And have you ever really answered it honestly and deeply –  not with the typical surface answer.  Give the real answer.  The answer that is the driving force for the surface answer.  For instance, a surface answer may be, “I sometimes micro-manage.”  The honest answer is, “I’m autocratic and don’t believe anyone can do anything as well as I can.”  Or, a surface might be, “I have a bit of temper.”  The honest answer is, “I’m selfish and when people don’t do exactly what I say I destroy them with words.”  Or, the surface answer may be, “I’m not very patient.”  The honest answer is, “I’m arrogant and consider anyone who makes a mistake to be incompetent.”

Know yourself.  Know your leadership weaknesses.  Not to get fixed – you probably won’t be able to “fix” your weaknesses.  Most of them are longstanding and deeply ingrained.  Your leadership weaknesses most likely were formed during your childhood.  And everyone has some weaknesses in any case.  And besides, I believe we are at our best when we work to our strengths, not spending energy attempting to fix or upgrade our problem areas.   So, don’t attempt to get “fixed” necessarily.

But it is still exceptionally important to know well your weaknesses.  When you do come to authentically understand your weaknesses as a leader, you give yourself the opportunity to work around them.  You see them.  You understand what situations cause your weaknesses to present themselves and become especially evident.

But more importantly, when you know your true leadership weaknesses, you gain confidence because you have a measure of self-awareness that exudes an air of ease.  You become contented with who you are as a leader and with what you can and can not do naturally.  You become calm because you accept your gaffes while also acknowledging your gifts and graces.  You get comfortable with yourself.  You get comfortable in your skin.  Ultimately, you get comfortable with your bald head.  And everyone else gets more comfortable with you, too.

1 Comment Posted in Leadership by

« Older Posts

Newer Posts »