One of my favorite bloggers, Seth Godin, had a great riff recently about getting good at the important things in our work.  Seth suggests that sometimes we “quickly jump ahead to the new thing, failing to get good enough at the important thing.”  Good point – and I would add a bit to it.  In addition to wanting to jump to the newest, latest, before mastering the foundational in development work . . .

sometimes, we want to believe there is a short-cut approach, failing to accept the fact that relationships can’t be fast-forwarded.

Sure, we know there are no short-cuts in individual major gift work, but it is easy to forget this truism in corporate and foundation grant writing.

Enter a great article by the Philanthropy Journal about writing effective grant proposals.  Todd Cohen writes that effective grants require all the normal “stuff,” a clearly written case,  a compelling need,  strong evidence, and a program that works.

In addition, though, the article emphasizes the relationship with the corporation or foundation.  ”Instead of a ‘beggar relationship,’ a nonprofit through a grant application should be developing a ‘partnership’.”  Effective grants begin when institutions “understand and develop relationships with their funders.”

Corporate and foundation relations should never be a ‘numbers game.’  We should not approach this important part of our development program in the same fashion as we do our phonathons.  Instead, corporate and foundation relations should be viewed similarly to major gift work.  Identify those corporations and foundations with both capacity and interest in our work and then develop relationships with them.  Our corporate and foundation relations officers should be out of the office with partners and prospects as much as our major gift officers.

But we typically define the work of the corporate and foundations relations position differently.  For instance, what is the aptitude most often identified as being vital to successful corporate and foundation relations?  Answer:  Grant-writing.

Perhaps we aren’t focused enough on “the  important thing.”

We use the terms “donors,” “funders,” and, in some instances, “giving units” (yuck!) to refer to those individuals, businesses, foundations, churches, and other organizations that provide our institutions with gift income.  Each of these terms is incomplete and, I believe, short-circuits our thinking about how we should relate to these important individuals and organizations.

When we label those who are financially loyal to our institutions as simply “donors” and “funders” we conceptualize the relationship as one-way.  We deliver the services, they write the checks.   We are the experts, they are the bank.

Perhaps that was once an accurate portrayal of how philanthropy occurred.  Some might point to Andrew Carnegie as being a “donor” or a “funder.”  He gave money to libraries, schools, and universities.  He didn’t tell the librarian what books to purchase.   Perhaps. . .

But, those days are gone.  Think about your donors today.  They want more say.  They want to participate and be involved in ways that make our institutions uncomfortable.  They want to start new programs that cause our institutions to recoil.  And they want results – fast.  And at most institutions, “fast” is not part of the lexicon.

Of course, the poster-children for this type of engagement are Bill and Melinda Gates and their work to eradicate malaria.  If you click the link you will see that they provide an overview of the issue and they also outline their approach to solving the problem worldwide.  They are not simply “donors” or “funders.”  They are not willing to simply support someone else’s work in this area.  They have their own ideas and approaches and they are enacting their strategies.   And while your institution may or may not be getting millions of dollars from the Gates Foundation, your major donors are following their lead.

Instead of viewing them as “donors,” we need to start conceptualizing those who provide gift income as “collaborators” who can provide ideas, creative energy, strategic thinking, and other assets.

When we switch our thinking from “donors” to “collaborators,” we change the way we view our work.   We begin to engage, instead of simply ask.  We seek new opportunities, instead of simply seeking to meet our metrics.  In the end, when we embrace our “donors” as “collaborators,” our institutions will become richer – in all ways.

You can’t be in development today without at least saying that you aim to engage your donors.  It’s the language that all sophisticated development professionals use.  I sometimes wonder, though, how many who use the engagement language actually understand and practice it.

If you look up the word “engage,” you come across the following synonyms:

• Absorb
• Engross
• Interest
• Involve

Unfortunately, I think the rich concept of donor engagement has been cheapened to the point of meaning something akin to simply visiting with donors — much in the same way as the Prospect Management term, “cultivation,” has become synonymous with “visiting.”

Are we really committed to engrossing and absorbing our donors with the work of our institutions?  Are we serious about truly involving and creating a deep sense of interest in our donors?

In my experience, we spend much more time strategizing the solicitation of our donors and much less time simply engaging them.  That’s like a guy spending only a little time with his girlfriend and far more time planning how he will ask her to marry him.  It’s not about the ask, it’s about the relationship.

When we understand that we get the best results when we seek to absorb, engross, involve, and interest our donors, we will practice authentic engagement.

A growing body of research is forming around the role of exercise in heart disease and other ailments.  Turns out, exercise alone may not be enough to keep a heart attack at bay.  Today so many of us sit so much of the time that no amount of exercise can counteract some of deleterious effects of resting on our backside.

So, while many people might think that the “30 minutes per session, 3 times a week” exercise routine will make us more healthy and heart-attack proof, the research on sitting is saying something else.  Yes, exercise is good, but to really make our hearts healthy, we need to stand and walk more — be more active in general.  We weren’t designed to sit so much.

This compelling research got me thinking about our development programs.  It is not uncommon for me to work with institutions who practice what you could call “sedentary development.”  In other words, they conduct major direct mail efforts a few times per year, implement a phonathon a couple of times per year, and, perhaps, have a number of special and outreach events.

Such a development program is similar to the “30 minutes of exercise 3 times per week” paradigm.  It’s not that they are doing the wrong things.  Direct mail, phonathon, outreach events – these are all good.  But they represent bursts of activity – not unlike the 30 minutes of hard exercise 3 times per week.  And just as with exercise, these bursts of development activity don’t add up to a healthy institution.

The healthy development program doesn’t get caught up so much with bursts of activity.   It’s a not a collection of distinct and separate activities with periods of rest in between.  The cycle of high activity followed by periods of rest isn’t effective.

Instead, the truly effective development program is an exercise that occurs everyday.  It’s a comprehensive system, incorporating major and planned giving strategies with annual giving strategies.  It is a year-round endeavor which includes regular visits with major and planned giving donors and prospects.

It is well-measured and even.  It is constant.  It is a lifestyle that includes much more standing and much less sitting.  If you choose this approach, both your heart and your institution will thank you.

Sometimes it seems donors tell us more than we want to know.  But here are some important thoughts donors may not share with you.

#1 – You set up a visit as if you only want to see me.  You are making a mistake by not involving my spouse.

#2 - My name is not “Friend.”  Personalize a letter or email using my name.

#3 – Sending me an invitation to an event two weeks away makes you appear unorganized.  Give me at least 4-6 weeks’ notice.

#4 – When you continue to send me direct response appeals after I have made my annual gift, you appear greedy and/or unorganized.

#5 – I’ll give a gift to your institution because I believe in the goodness of your institution.  But, I’ll invest in your institution because I believe in you.