The concept of “performance-based metrics,” is well known in our advancement work.
But, saying something is well known does not mean that it is well understood. In fact, in the case of “performance-based metrics,” I would suggest the concept is very poorly understood.
What “performance” are we talking about?
Does “performance” equate to outputs? Like dollars raised? Or, commitments received? If so, that definition comes with the problem of receiving a significant gift and equating that to success. “I guess I can go home now because I just met my fundraising performance metric with this estate gift!”
Or, does “performance” equate to outcomes? Like growing the endowment to a certain level? Or, increasing the percentage of tuition discount rate that is funded by charitable gifts? If so, that definition comes with the problem of being able to control key variables impacting these outcomes. “Wait, we had a strong year and raised more endowment gifts than ever, but we can’t help it that the markets went down!”
On the other hand, “responsibility-based metrics” focus on the role of the advancement professional and help clarify, “what should I be doing?” In addition, responsibility-based metrics use evaluative measures that are more controlled by the advancement professional. For example, the number of visits with assigned prospects, or, the number of gift invitations made, or, the number of gift invitations made at a specific dollar amount.
We can either evaluate people on outputs/outcomes or we can evaluate people based on process.
If we truly believe in the process (and people have far more ability to control that process), why wouldn’t we evaluate based on that?
