How often do we do this in others areas of life and work?  Even when we know that our actions won’t increase the chances of achieving what we want, we continue with the actions.  For instance, how about continuing with the same unproductive agenda for a weekly team meeting?  Or, having the same conversation with our spouse that regularly leads to an argument?  Or, in the world of development, what about using the same ineffective script with non-donors during phonathons year after year?  We regularly find ourselves behaving in the same way over and over again even when experience has told us the outcome we want will not be achieved.

And since we are trying something we tend to blame the team, our spouse, and the non-donors when the results don’t come back as we would like.

But the reality is that we hold the power to get more of the results we want – people will respond differently based on our approach.  And a most effective approach is almost always to ask what others think, feel, or want.

Studies (and anecdotal evidence) suggest that when a manager asks for feedback or perspective from those in her care, the subordinates are more likely to think favorably of her and also respond affirmatively to her requests.  We know that donors respond well to being asked for advice. And, likewise, spouses tend to respond well to similar questions (and yes, I need to practice this more often myself!).

So, not only do you find out what people want from asking for their advice, thoughts, and ideas but they also think better of you!  Not a bad set of outcomes from a simple question.  And a whole lot more effective than pushing the elevator button again and again.

What do I mean?  I’m talking about the Advancement VP “leading” her CEO.  I’m talking about the CEO “leading” the Board.  And I’m talking about the annual fund director “leading” his VP.  Leading up should happen at all levels of the organization.  Here’s why it’s important:

All great organizations have people who Lead Up.  And people who Lead Up advance more quickly.

You practice “leading up” by planning for and persuading those above you on the organizational chart that your strategies, tactics, and plans are the best next steps.  People who practice “leading up” don’t wait for direction.  In fact, they create environments in which they have the opportunity to direct their bosses.

With communication flowing both up and down the organizational hierarchy, “leading up” creates new learnings for the organization as new ideas are suggested, tested, and evaluated.  Further, for those staff members that master the art of “leading up,” success within the organization soon follows.  Organizations are hungry for people who can lead up.  Why?

People who “lead up” are consensus builders.  They understand how to move people and persuade them that their vision for the future is one that should be followed.  They are doers and they have the ability to get others to respond favorably to them.

But here is the rub:  ”Leading up” doesn’t mean that you are promoting yourself.  In fact, it will backfire on you if people come to believe you are promoting yourself.  People, including your boss, will only listen and act in accordance with your ideas if they believe your ideas are effective, executable, and, are being offered with the genuine intent to better the organization.  My own research on higher education presidents suggests that those who are viewed as working regularly to promote themselves, instead of their institutions, soon run into trouble.

I may or may not work with your organization, but I can guarantee this:  no matter how many are practicing this skill now, your organization needs more people who “lead up.”

Urban legend – An urban legend, urban myth, or urban tale is a form of modern folklore consisting of stories thought to be factual by those circulating them. (Wikipedia)

The final installment of the 3-part Urban Legends of Fundraising messages focuses on the faulty thinking that the broader economic environment will greatly impact your organization’s fundraising success.

Since the fall of 2008, organizations of all types have grappled with the fact that the economic and financial environments have been bad – very bad. The bursting of the housing bubble brought with it broad market contractions of at least 30%. Internet news outlets as well as traditional media could not file enough reports on the worst recession since the Great Depression.

And the fundraising world began to wring their hands. Articles were written, conferences were created, and shop-talk centered on “the negative impact of the economy on fundraising.” One almost came to believe that the environment was the predictor of our success or failure!

But according to the USAGiving Foundation, as compared to 2007, total charitable giving declined only 2% in the United States in 2008. So, the housing market collapsed and the equity and broad markets dropped over 30%, but charitable giving declined only 2%. Hmmmm.

I’ve sat with development leaders who, when asked about their progress, almost immediately begin to blame the economy. And yet I know of other development leaders who rarely mention the broader economy when asked the same question. Guess who is having success?

Here is the truth: Good fundraising work will predict your success, not the economic downturn (or uptick). Sure, we all have to operate within the economic environment, but in good times and in bad, money is always being given – and lots of it. In fact, over $40 billion to educational institutions in 2008. That’s billion with a “b” – during the worst recession since the 1930s.

So, yes, we should all understand the economy. But don’t get caught up in it. Why should we? Is there much we can do to impact the broader economy? Typically, no. So, why not focus on things you can impact? Focus on your donors and focus on your organization’s vision for the future. Is your vision compelling, clear, and concise? Are you operating an effective major gifts programs and moving donors closer to gifts through thoughtful visits? Is the message of your annual fund program convincing and donor-centric? If so, regardless of the economic environment, you will achieve your organization’s charitable gift goals. Because contrary to that old James Carville political slogan, “It’s really not the economy, stupid!”

1. The Teller – this is the leader who thinks of the plans herself and then tells those in her charge the end goal as well as the path to get there.  From my experience, I would say this is about 60% of leaders;
2. The Persuader – similar to “The Teller,” but “The Persuader” typically works to get people to believe that his plans are actually theirs.  If you work with a good Persuader, you may not identify the ruse, but it is there nonetheless.  This is about 30% of leaders;
3. The Embracer – this is an authentic leader in that he leads those in his care through a process of identifying goals and strategies in a collaborative style.  He holds accountability as a high value, but is willing to invest the energy and time into designing collaborative environments for those in his care.  This is a process which identifies a mature and thoughtful leader.  Only about 10% of leaders fall into this camp.

So, why should you strive to be an Embracer style of leader?   Because Embracers are more successful!  In seeking genuine imput from others, they end up with people who own their goals.  And just like homeowners display more care for their property than do renters, those employees who own their goals tend to take care of meeting them!

Each day I work with university leaders who showcase different styles.  I have one client who is a clear Embracer.  He is so good that he has been at three different institutions in different parts of the country and team members have followed him each time!  I also have witnessed a university leader who crafted the institution’s strategic plan completely by himself.  Guess which style he is, and guess how successful his plans were?

The art of leadership, when practiced well, is a collaborative effort. Possessing an ethic of care for the perspectives of others evidences a belief in their worth as individuals.  Embracers do that.  Tellers and Persuaders don’t.

Regardless of the organization type, we know that as an individual moves up the org chart, she will need to focus more on relationship building and less on task accomplishment.  In other words, your success is tied more to how well you work with others and build teams than how well you complete a specific task. Content excellence becomes less important and interpersonal skills moreso.

For new college leaders, this is extremely important.  There are alumni, donors, members of the cabinet, faculty, students, government agencies, accrediting bodies, etc., who suggest that relationships should be the new president’s focus.  However, many new presidents come to the office from the academy where their research, writing, and teaching have been done sans others.   They have earned their reputations, in large part, by working solo.  Building relationships has been, at best, tangential to their success.

In addition, many new presidents find themselves mired in pressing, task-orientated activities – the budget needs balancing or a bond covenance needs reworking. There seemingly may be no one else on campus to get the tasks accomplished in short order.  In those rare instances, the president should work to solve the pressing concern while simultaneously positioning others to do the work in the future.

My own research on new presidents strongly suggests that building relationships are an important key to early success.  Partnerships with board members, key donors, government officials, faculty members and others are needed to advance the university in substantive ways.  The enterprise is to0 large and complex to go it alone.  In addition, when the difficult days arise and some become displeased with the president or a decision, having relational bank accounts with key constituents from which to draw allows the storm to be weathered.

So as a university leader, where will you spend your time today – on tasks or on people?  As the old saying goes, “No road is long with good company.”

• Affluent – Boards of great non-profits have affluence.  Not all members are affluent, but an active core of members have personal financial capacity.  Substantial financial gifts allow the institution to reach its Far Edge of Promise and great boards understand that they must lead with generosity so that others follow suit.
• Believers.  Great boards are populated with individuals who believe deeply in the mission of the institution.  They give of their work, wisdom, and wealth because of that belief.  In acting on that belief, they are energetic and passionate and report feeling fulfilled by their service.
• Connected.  Great boards have members who are willing to engage others from their spheres of influence.  They are regularly looking for other partners and partnerships that will help the institution become stronger and serve its constituents better.  They are door openers.
• Diverse.  Great boards are populated with members who have diversified experiences, contacts, and worldviews.  Better decisions come from dedicated members who bring a variety of gifts and perspectives to the table.  In addition, a diversified board – diversified in gender, soci0-economics, geography, etc. – allows the organization to gain a wider visibility among various publics.

Look at the boards with which you work.  Do they know their A, B, C, and D’s?

Ever notice that some people perform well under pressure while others seem to wilt? As the chart above suggests, we typically need some level of anxiousness in order to care enough to perform. But at some point the level of anxiousness becomes debiliating causing a drop-off in performance. But at what point does this happen?

Peyton Manning, the SuperBowl winning quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts has said that he typically does not get nervous or anxious before big games because he knows he has prepared himself as fully as he possibly could. In his mind, there is little to be anxious about when you’ve left no stone unturned in preparation. Anxiety is tied to the degree of preparation.

When we present an important proposal, or solicit that major donor, how prepared are we? Do we know our audience as well as we possibly could? Have we done research on their capacity, other charitable interests, and history with our own organization? Have we spent ample time building the relationship so that appropriate relational capital is present? If so, we will find ourselves in the middle area of this chart, relaxed, enjoying the experience, peak performance, and most likely success. If not, we may find ourselves on the right-hand side of this chart – with high anxiety and a corresponding low level of performance. How prepared will you be today?

Order even undergirds the vast amount of diversity and creativity in our world.  Biologist Stuart Kauffman suggests that fundamental laws govern the order of life. However, those very laws create completely unpredictable complexities and varieties of life.  It would appear then that there is a wonderfully incongruency:  creativity arises from order.

As leaders we regularly want those in our care to be imaginative, ingenious, inventive, resourceful, fullfilled in their work, and productive — we want creativity!   To encourage these dispositions suggests that we should design environments and systems which, like the artist’s canvas and even our natural world, provide the order, structure, and encouragement leading to unpredictable creativity.  When we design strategic systems and structures which incentivize productive behavior, we allow good people to become their creative best – leading each to individual fulfillment and outstanding results.

So, what kind of environment will you design today?

In the non-profit arena, there is less research from which to draw, but the findings are similar.  As an example, in the world of higher education, Neumann and Neumann (1999) found that leadership style impacts enrollment growth and even endowment yield!

But when we think about effective leadership, especially in the non-profit world, what images do we conjure up?  A take-no-prisoners, “I have all the answers” approach?  Or a rabbit-eared, consensus-chaser devoid of personal vision and focused aspirations?  Probably neither of these extreme images fits the bill.  Most people view effective leaders as what I call “ambitious embracers with vision.”  To understand better what I mean, let’s unpack the phrase.

First, effective non-profit leaders are those who do, indeed, have vision.  They have focused aspirations.  They have a vision for what they want the organization, division, or department to be capable of accomplishing in 5, even 10 years.  Second, they are viewed as involving others meaningfully in the creation and implementation of that vision.  They are embracers.  Effective leaders are other-centered and ask questions which attract and embrace others – and not just any questions.  But consequential questions like, “tell me who taught you how to be philanthropic?”  Or, “what would you like us to accomplish over the next five years?”

So, on one hand effective leaders have a vision or aspirations for their organizations.  But on the other hand, they embrace others in the creation of that vision.  Effective leaders allow others to inform their vision and are masters at massaging and integrating the great ideas and passions of others into an organizational vision or set of aspirations which can, simultaneously, propel the organization toward greatness and bring many others along for the ride.

Finally, effective non-profit leaders are ambitious.  But not in the way people may think.  Yes, they have ego.  But effective leaders who sustain excellence over time have even more ego devoted to their organizations.  They are ambitious, but they are more ambitious for their organization than they are for self.  They worry less about “being,” and far more about “doing.”

As I have worked with a variety of leaders, I have become convinced that leadership is an art form which can be practiced regardless of title or position.  I have also become convinced that the best development staff members are “ambitious embracers with vision.”   They have an ambitious vision for the organization’s future, and they embrace donors inviting them to help create and implement that very organizational vision.  So, as you go about the business of quality development work, be also mindful of being an “ambitious embracer with vision.”  After all, we are responsible for “developing and advancing” our organizations.