Several months ago, I pushed back on an article in The Chronicle of Philanthropy entitled Desperately Seeking Fundraisers. As they have before, they argued that the search for fundraising candidates was dire. I have never bought the high-demand, short-supply argument; and, given the reaction to my commentary, it seems a lot of my colleagues don’t either. My argument is generally that too many employers don’t know who they are looking for and don’t know how to set fundraisers up for success. I believe there are plenty of talented individuals out there who would welcome the opportunity to advance the mission of a great organization. Unfortunately, there is a growing cohort of savvy fundraisers who are increasingly aware of the fact that, instead of being assured a place where they can thrive, they very quickly become the scapegoat for all their employer’s financial problems.
That said, I am not completely letting fundraisers off the hook. I often point out that, despite what their resumes might suggest, there are a lot of fundraisers out there who will do everything they can to avoid the uncertainty of a genuine relationship, making it all but impossible to have higher expectations when it comes to a donor’s level of support. Just as fundraisers are getting savvier about whom they work for, a lot of employers know how to spot a master technician at arms-length fundraising a mile away. What I find this cohort is generally missing is a sensitivity to changes in our environment; the messier and more uncertain our world becomes, the less responsive our donors are to the low-context communication upon which they are notorious for being overly-reliant.
Regardless of the size or mission of an organization, it’s certainly at the top of my list to help employers make sense of whom they are hiring to carry out their fundraising efforts and of how they expect these new hires to go about their work. As I shared in an earlier article, I believe this sensemaking journey begins with understanding that there are not one but two types of passion. If the candidates we hire lack a harmonious passion for fundraising, everyone is being set up for disappointment.
After having made sense of the two types of passion, I would argue that our next challenge is to understand the differences between our implicit motives and explicit goals. We need to be asking ourselves whether a misalignment between our fundraiser's explicit goals and their implicit motives are to blame for the high turnover that we experience in these roles. 1 We have found that our three-person typology based on psychologist David McClelland’s Needs Theory2 helps our clients answer several critically important questions. For example, does the fundraiser actually want to do what the job requires of them, or does the opportunity simply align with another aspiration that they might have? Without an appreciation for one’s implicit motives, neither the fundraiser nor the employer is able to figure this out. In short, when we’re in the dark on what our implicit motives are, we’re ignoring what moves us, what we gravitate towards, and what we deliberately avoid.
When it comes to our implicit motives, psychologists explain that there are three that tend to move us the most: the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for control. It was from McClelland’s Needs Theory that I developed the three personality typology that I discussed at length in The War for Fundraising Talent. As I explained, my intent wasn’t to pigeonhole anyone into a particular role or attempt to predict where they will or will not be successful. I simply wanted fundraisers and employers to have a useful tool for making sense of where they are inclined to find the greatest satisfaction—or the greatest frustration—in fundraising environments. I characterized these three personalities as I’ll Lead the Way, Let’s Work Together, and How Am I Doing? 3
I’ll Lead the Way has a high implicit need for control, or power, and will be at their best when their explicit goals are aligned with this need. We understand their need as a desire to influence, control, or impress others—and to receive recognition for these behaviors. I’ll Lead the Way is eager to break new ground, and they expect others to follow them. They are impatient and, we must note, fearful of betrayal. I’ll Lead the Way can be counted on to develop a plan and delegate responsibilities, yet they hesitate to be in a setting where they feel out of control. I’ll Lead the Way is the most likely of our three colleagues to insist, abrasively, that board members must give, get, or get off. When it comes to raising significant dollars, I’ll Lead the Way has difficulty finding the patience for the process; and, with such a competitive mindset, it’s hard for them to envision the gift exchange as a win−win for both the organization and the donor.
Let’s Work Together has a high implicit motivation for affiliation. Naturally, they rise to their highest levels when their goals are in harmony with this underlying motive. We recognize this need as a concern with establishing, maintaining, or restoring a positive emotional relationship with another person or group. Let’s Work Together is eager to work as a team and expects others to enjoy collaboration as much as they do. (Of course, not everyone does.) They will sometimes admit to being the more disorganized in our group and the most fearful of rejection. Let’s Work Together is always enthusiastic about building new relationships but hesitates to work independently. Their preference for collaboration and interaction with others will sometimes lead to an unwillingness to work autonomously and an inability to accept responsibility for outcomes. Fundraising may be the most difficult for Let’s Work Together when the focus of the process moves from cultivation to solicitation. They are especially fearful of the effect a request for funds could have on their relationship with a donor.
How Am I Doing has a high implicit desire for achievement and will succeed most easily when their goals line up with this. The need for achievement is an unconscious, recurrent preference for rewarding experiences that relate to improving performance. Therefore, How Am I Doing is eager to pursue reasonable goals and expects to receive constructive feedback. How Am I Doing prefers to work alone, and what they fear most of all is failure. How Am I Doing expects clear, measurable goals with or without peers who are tasked with similar goals. Their preference for independence can lead to isolation and detachment from the team. When working with others, How Am I Doing is cooperative, eager to participate in discussions, and quick to define goals and objectives for which everyone can be accountable.
As I explained in the book, experience has taught me where we most often find these individuals in the nonprofit sector and in what kinds of roles. For example, I have found that executive directors, especially those in small shops, most often align with the I’ll Lead the Way type. They have a strong sense of where the organization needs to go and are willing to take the lead in making sure everyone gets there. I have also found that I’ll Lead the Way has a tendency to hire an army of Let’s Work Together types— the friendly, outgoing individual who is agreeable and likes working as a team.
Anyone who knows me understands that I am a big advocate for How Am I Doing, and not necessarily because I fully identify with this personality (none of us fit perfectly into any one of these boxes). In general, I believe How Am I Doing is the type most lacking in our sector and, more specifically, in fundraising. As I explained in the book, I have always found that the smaller the shop, the less inclined they are to hire and retain our somewhat difficult friend How Am I Doing. We find it especially difficult to supervise this ambitious go-getter who prefers clear goals, an opportunity to work independently, and supervision from a boss who genuinely understands the work as much as they do. What I think we least appreciate about the effect of How Am I Doing’s absence is that, not only are they difficult to find and perhaps the most difficult to manage, but their drive for achievement also makes them the most inclined to raise a lot of money. If you’re interested in finding and retaining a How Am I Doing on your team, I want to help you do it.
If your organization wants to understand how to raise extraordinary levels of support by way of meaningful relationships and higher expectations, our team at Responsive would welcome the opportunity to help you do that. If you’re interested in learning more, email me and/or our managing partner, Michael Dixon. We will be happy to volunteer an hour to get to know you and to explore with you what a partnership with our team might look like.
Host the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow?
We would welcome the opportunity to host the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow in your community. Since 2014, our team has been organizing high-quality, one-day roadshows in partnership with nonprofit leaders who want to showcase their space and champion thought-provoking and highly-interactive fundraising training for their nonprofit community.
Our hosts have included the Children’s Defense Fund in DC, the Henry Ford Health Center in Detroit, Cause Leadership in Toronto, Mission Capital in Austin, North Texas Food Bank in Dallas and The Gateway School in New York City. If you’d like to explore the idea of hosting the Responsive Fundraising Roadshow, email us today.
Implicit Motives. (2010). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, USA.
McClelland, D. C. (1988). Human Motivation. United States: Cambridge University Press.
The War for Fundraising Talent: And How Small Shops Can Win. (2018). (n.p.): Gatekeeper Press.