Picture yourself as a major donor for a charity that you absolutely love. You get a call from Joan, the Director of Donor Relations, with whom you have a really good relationship. She calls to tell you that she is inspired by your giving and the relationship you have her and the organization, but she is moving to a new organization.
Well that’s disappointing.
Now, imagine that happening to you every couple of years. After the second Director of Donor Relations leaves you begin to wonder what is going on at this organization that you love so much.
This is an interesting way to look at it, don’t you think? Obviously our industry feels it’s a big problem. There have been a number of articles over the last several years (for instance, this one and this one) about the problem of turnover in our industry.
Richard and I have written about this too. So, what is going on? Why can’t you stay put? Are you running away or running toward something? Whose fault is this, really?
Over the next several posts, I’d like to explore this more. I want to address it from several angles.
- A Management perspective — What can management do to support major gift officers and keep them from jumping ship?
- An MGO perspective — Why are MGOs changing jobs so quickly, how will that benefit or hurt them over time, and what are they running toward? Why are some MGOs staying in jobs and what are their characteristics?
- A Donor’s perspective — Like the scenario at the beginning of this post, we often don’t think about donors and what this all means to them. I’d like us to consider it. If we are really donor-centered, how does that change how we look at the retention of good people with whom they have relationships?
I have to be honest with you. I’ve scoured the Internet and talked with several people, including recruiters, and NO ONE has THE answer. However, we all know this is a problem in our industry and I will tell you that when I see the resume of someone that jumps ship every two years, I rarely put it in the “interview” pile.
If this is you, hopefully over the next few posts you will be able to look within yourself and discover what is going on.
And, here is the other thing. Richard and I would like your comments about this topic. The Passionate Giving Blog has a really amazing community of readers from all over the world. Perhaps we can all help each other. We would like to invite you to share your insights and stories about this particular issue. We ask for your input, as there are seasoned fundraisers along with brand new fundraisers who are part of the Passionate Giving family.
Stay tuned. There’s sure to be some honest, perhaps eye-opening discussion going on.
Jeff
Links:
#1 What Can Managers Do?
#2 What Can MGOs Do?
#3 What About the Donor?
Yes, a problem in our industry, but shame on you! You say “when I see the resume of someone that jumps ship every two years, I rarely put it in the “interview” pile.” I can tell you from chatting with my colleagues that the reason one leaves an organization after a couple of years has so much more to do with the lack of fundraising culture in an organization, than it does with someone’s competence as a fundraiser. And yes, when we leave we do consider our donors. If an organization can not keep a donor after a development professional leaves, it is a failing on the part of the organizational leadership.
So, bascially you are saying that after talking to your colleagues you’ve concluded that the reason MGO’s leave for another job every two years is that there is a lack of fundraising culture in the organization. I think that is ONE reason. But there are many. You have to understand from the perspective of someone that is hiring that if there are four positions in a row that have 2 years each, that doesn’t look good. Have you had to hire an MGO? If in the last 8 years someone jumped ship 4 times, how would that look to you. There is plenty of blame to pass around, but let’s not put it all on the organization.
I really appreciate you writing. Thank you for taking the time. We appreciate it.
Jeff
The donor perspective you mention is definitely a thought-provoking exercise for anyone engaged in nonprofit fundraising and especially major gifts.
After reading this piece, I have come to realize just how fortunate I’ve been in my career to be an exception to the norm of switching organizations every two or three years. With 27 years of work under my belt at this point, that kind of path would have had me working for 10+ organizations at this point. Something barely imaginable for me. Instead, I’ve worked for only two great organizations during that time; the first one for ten years, and my current one for seventeen years. One a national health-related charity, and the other a regional leader in human services.
I agree that there is certainly no single answer to the question of why people move, but I definitely feel that it is most often a symptom of the overall health of the organization. In my community, there are many beloved organizations that appear to have significant turnover in all departments, and at every level. Including some that seem to frequently change their CEOs and other senior leadership. I’ve always felt that such ‘shifting sands’ represents an almost insurmountable challenge to growing and moving forward in a mission. It comes as no surprise when the organizations I mention often appear to be ‘stuck’ in terms of the results they achieve from year to year, providing the same level of service they did five years ago, etc. Not at all inspiring for donors, volunteer leaders, or paid staff.
There are lots of reasons this can occur, but like many things, it often seems to start at the top. A poorly recruited, trained, confrontational, or disengaged board of directors can quickly become too challenging for a CEO, and he or she then decides to move on. With no one to consistently drive vision and strategic planning over time, the organizations get caught up in a negative spin cycle of being overly focused on the day to day delivery of services and paying the bills. Not even thinking about growth. Again, a huge potential de-motivator for anyone connected to the mission, and very difficult to change once it takes hold.
On the other hand, organizations with longstanding, visionary, effective staff leaders can often build very solid, active, passionate boards of directors. And those two elements working together can be lightning in a bottle. With solid strategic planning and willingness to invest in elements necessary for growth, organizations have the chance to raise more money each year, grow services/programs, pay people what they’re worth, train staff and board members properly, and on and on.
I have to believe that feeling part of a vibrant, impactful, growing organization is the most important motivator of all for staff, donors, and vols to remain involved. It certainly has been for me. My organization’s growth and community impact has been dramatic every single year for the past decade and a half. Each year has presented an exciting, fresh challenge. Our donors and community perceive our organization as a “winning investment” and are awed at the ever-growing impact we are able to make. We’ve had just two CEOs in our 30-year history, and nearly half of our staff have been on board 5+ years. Many of those with fewer than five years are in positions that were only added within the last five years. We also have a fair number of 10+, 15+, and a few 20-year employees. Consistency of vision, planning, and leadership at both the board and staff level lay the groundwork for this kind of success. Without those elements the hill can be just too steep to climb, in my opinion.
Thanks for writing Greg. That is a great story! Certainly, your tenure is amazing and I think in many ways you are exactly right about the role of the organization. No leadership or vision and it trickles down to a bad situation with all staff. I’m really looking forward to more conversations around this topic as we get into more. Thank you for doing such great work.
Jeff
I have intentionally avoided the 2.3 year trap, although I see it all the time at conferences. It seems half the people in attendance are looking for jobs. I am about to conclude my 7th year with the same organization and I fully endorse this strategy. First, I have been well compensated as I have achieved higher results (managers, are you listening? Why lose someone over salary? It’s cheaper to give them a raise than to replace them). Second, I know my donors really well. Despite what people say, some major gifts don’t come in 2-3 years, no matter how many “moves” you make or how creative you are. I am now soliciting seven-figure gifts from people I discovered 4, 5, and even 6 years ago. I could not have done this in 18 months.
The one downside that I hope we discuss is MGO fatigue as it relates to talking about the same priorities over and over. The one thing that tempts me is the idea of talking about some new and exciting plans. I work in academia which often uses long, drawn out strategic planning processes followed by long campaigns. I have to admit this wears me out a bit. I also get tired of beating my head against priorities that donors simply aren’t interested in.
Stephen, thanks for writing. Yes, you are exactly right. How can you ultimately cultivate those 6 and 7 figure gifts by moving around every two years? That’s almost impossible. I totally understand your feelings around MGO fatigue. That is a great point. How do you avoid it. And the priorities thing? Every MGO I know deals with that. This is where an organization has to be donor-centered or they run the great risk of pushing their agenda on donors. Happens all the time.
This is a fascinating subject as new professional to the field of development. In my previous position, I worked as a college adviser to under-served high school students through a program that had the stipulation of a two-year term limit. After two years, it was quite difficult to leave my students behind in the middle of their “journey” to college, as I had formed close relationships with these students as their adviser and mentor. I hope to form close relationships with benefactors to the organization I represent now and engage donors on their philanthropic “journey.” If we, development professionals, are truly donor-focused then relationships with our constituents should be the ultimate goal. However, it is not only the Development professional that the donor should feel a relationship with, but various people within the organization and they should also feel connected to the cause or organization itself, so that regardless of the ‘people’ involved in the organization, there is a connection or attachment to the goals we’re striving to achieve or our raison d’etre. Just a few thoughts. I would be interested to hear from folks that have more experience in the field! 🙂
Excellent, thoughts, Bethany. Thank you for sharing them with us.
Jeff
I have happily been in my current position for 12 years. While I am well compensated for my work, a big part of why I remain in this position in that donor cultivation is embraced throughout the organization, including Board Members, Executive Director, Senior Staff, Management, and Line Staff. Everyone knows they have a role to play. When interviewing for a position, it is as important to learn about an organization’s fundraising culture as it is for your perspective employer to learn about you. Don’t accept a position if it is clear that you will be thwarted in your development efforts or not supported by a team. Interview the President of the Board as well as the Executive Director and ask how they approach donor cultivation. Make sure this is the dream job before you accept the position to ensure that you will remain for the long term.
Excellent advice, Susan! Thank you! So glad you are in a good place. YES!!
I’ve been in this field for 27+ years. I am convinced the difference is passion for the cause/mission/beneficiaries of the organization’s work. When the MGO’s passion is real and consistent with donors’ passions, that authenticity shines through and the relationship is transcendent. Too many MGOs I have known are hired guns who lack true feeling for the mission, a real commitment to the cause, deep connection to the organization. I believe donors sense this, but the MGO is their only conduit for their philanthropy to the organization they truly care about. I believe less sophisticated fundraising orgs get dazzled by resumes and claims of past performance. They hire the resume not the person and definitely not the passion. More organizations should hire for passion combined with essential transferable skills and spend a little more on professional development, training, and coaching for MGOs to learn the particulars of major gits fundraising. I know of a couple of large university’s who have tried to undertake an intentional program of talent development among alumni with some success, but leadership’s desire for more immediate return caused them to abandon the projects. Many organizations have a latent pool of fundraising talent among program staff, admin, and volunteers, but they have not found a way to unleash that potential. Smaller orgs think they can’t compete for major gifts “talent” but they can if they take a different approach. Authentic donor relationships generate passionate giving. Donors know what authentic looks and feels like. It doesn’t come from MGOs who are in perpetual job hunt mode. Just my $.02
Absolutely, excellent Dan. Thank you for your thoughts. Totally agree that there is a major difference when you ALSO hire for passion and a desire for the mission. Thanks for writing and sharing.
Jeff
As a chief development officer, I both do the work and manage a staff of development officers. I have been with the same collegiate unit (of a large university) for fourteen years because I found my niche, loved the mission and had the opportunity to grow the program from just me to seven professionals. Some of the reasons I believe that people jump ship are that they may lack the depth of experience to realize that the first few years anywhere are challenging until you begin to really build relationships and see the fruits of your labor. I think other people change positions because they want a larger salary or more responsibility.
I have been able to keep my team together because I am able to pay them fairly well, I delegate responsibility to them and I try to buffer them from some of the bureaucracy of a large decentralized institution. I also try to recognize their hard work. Nothing is perfect but we currently have a great team and good collegiality. Last but certainly not least, we have a great dean who supports the work we do and participates as a partner with us.
Thanks for your column–its one of the best I have come across.
Lynn, you are one of those great managers I talk about in today’s blog. Thank you for nurturing young professionals and knowing how to nuance salary, responsibility and shielding them from unnecessary politics so they can do their job. Thanks for writing and thanks for your kind words.
I am an Executive Director with 12 years of experience at my current post. We are now on our third MGO. I have found that we had a poor hiring process to identify the right “fit” for our organization. We hired a professional HR recruiter to help us learn to hire better and onboard better. We are confident that our current person will be longer term. We shall see. We are trying to have better clarity about who we hire and what we want them to do. The goal of our MGO is to make cheerful givers. This is simple and we have other measurable objectives but our goal is to have engaged donors that we know and they know us.
Dave Sena
Thanks for writing David. Yes, I think one way to improve retention is to hire better. Very good point. Glad you figured that out. Let us know how that goes.
Jeff
Looking forward to these blogs.
One of our major donors confided in me that he felt he was on a bit of a treadmill, it was our “head guy” that got him involved, but since then, I’ve been his FOURTH point of contact in about 5 years.
I’m coming up for 2 years in my current role, and I feel incredibly frustrated that we’re no clearer on priorities than when I joined. We have an appalling staff turnover rate and very poor management. I love the organisation I work for, but even so, am aware that I have developed a wandering eye – I’m not actively looking, but it wouldn’t be too hard to tempt me away. My career development opportunities have effectively stagnated, while investment in training etc seems to have disappeared. I’ve been here a while now and am probably the most highly qualified in the team, yet we’ve just taken someone on at a higher salary who’s never done this kind of work in their life. (They have ‘contacts’) Do I feel a little undervalued?
What makes it worse is that we have some great people, who, with the right training and nurture could be excellent MGOs, but there seems to be no appreciation of this by the director. I think our board might need to see these blogs!
(can you see why I’ve picked a pseudonym?)
Wow, I’m sorry to hear about this Robert. This unfortunately sounds very familiar to Richard and me. As I said in my last post great management keep great MGO’s. It sounds like management doesn’t value your work. It’s also interesting that a donor has confided in you already about this. I definitely think you need your boss and your board to read our blogs. Might be very eye-opening for them. Thanks for writing.
Jeff
I will agree with J at the top of this post. I have watched a skilled fundraiser work at two non-profits as a MGO plus other annual giving and planned giving responsibilities. Both organizations were small shops and they expected my friend to have a magic wand. As you know, small non-profits leaders (board volunteers and paid staff) tend to think events raise money and long appeal letters will help bridge the budget gap. What I have seen my friend do is wrestle with educating everyone around her about “fundraising 101” while trying to do her own job. Which has resulted in leaving organizations where trust and respect were not part of the day to day.
I hope you can guide those reading your blog who have jumped around and how they can get their resume in your “interview” pile.
Thanks for writing Susan. Bad management will kill the spirit of good people. No doubt. We appreciate your comments.
Jeff
Thank you so much for addressing this topic. I have worked solely in development since graduating with my BA 11 years ago, and I have definitely fallen into the 2.3 year trap. Honestly, I hate it. I yearn for that great mix of organization, manager, and clearly defined position–that give me the stability and privilege to really plant myself and flourish as a MGO.
I’ve talked to my mentors about this, women who are deeply respected and seasoned MGOs, and they say that this phenomena is part of my generation. This could be the case, but I don’t know. What I do know is that when I started working full time in development the positions available were mostly grant funded. Subsequently, I would invest 12-24 months of my time, energy, and passion just to be let go when the organization had completed that campaign but still had challenges with working capital.
I do believe that I am currently in that ideal position with an organization I love, with a strong donor base and board, in a clearly defined position, with a very supportive manager. I’ve been here 16 months now, and I truly hope to be here 10 years or more. It’s an organization I’d been following in my community for some time, and had applied to available positions in the development office each time they arose in the past 5 years. I’m almost afraid to refer to it as my “dream job”, but it’s the place I want to be.
Martina, I’m so glad you found a position that is ideal for you. And, I’m glad you have mentors to reach out to. That is so important. You make a good point about the funding situation and having to leave after the funding ran out. I’m sure that happens quite a bit. Thanks for writing and sharing your experience. We appreciate it.
Jeff
I started with my first new org since 2000 this year. Both jobs are small, one-person development shops. The decision to leave was very difficult, and my former ED did try to keep me by making some “too late” changes to staffing structure. We hadn’t had a pay raise in three years. I took a slight pay cut for the new job with a rising organization and hope that there will be increases for all staff as our individual donor and grant funding increases. Mission matters a lot, but so does compensation, especially when other members of the household are also at nonprofits. I hope to retire to more than a cardboard box some day.
My reasons for leaving included too many “extra” projects that made my fundraising less effective, a difficult travel schedule on top of copious desk duties, lack of respect for my work and lack of action from executive staff peers, lack of engagement from board members, some of whom who gave only lip service to their donor caseloads, micromanagement from a stressed-out ED (if I thought I had extra projects, you should see what she has), and a general sense that it was not acceptable to say that one was overworked for that salary level.
Was I a more effective major gifts solicitor because of my tenure? Yes, absolutely. On the other hand, I was at an org that had true lifetime employees with more than 20 years in the org. Some of them had not worked elsewhere at any point in their adult lives. People are allowed to change jobs when they decide the time is right., especially if that is the only way to advance or obtain new experiences. I was completely burned out despite efforts to relight my fire. Getting out the way for one and getting excited about the second was the best outcome for all.
Thanks for this thoughtful blog, you are known by all with whom I work as “my favorite fundraising bloggers.”
Susan, thank you for your thoughtful remarks. I’m glad you landed in a better place and thank you for reading. And, tell your colleagues, “thank you” as well.
Jeff
As a millennial who graduated in 2005, right before the economy tanked – almost everyone I graduated with non profit or for profit has had short job stints based solely on the terrible economy. The economy caused poorly run non profits to force entry level employees to do the job of sometimes up to four people. There is something to be said about paying your dues but it’s quite another to force employees into working eighty hour work weeks. It gets tiring after a point thus leading to turnover.