Generating New Donors

There are essentially three ways of generating new donors:

1. To nurture them from within through significant and sustained interaction with your institution. The student-to-alumni experience would be a classic example of this approach. This is the best way to build a solid, sustained base of support but it requires time and care. The largest gifts to higher learning generally come from long-term loyal donors or quintessential insiders such as long-serving board members. Many institutions fail to pay adequate attention to the long-term, loyal donors who give modest amounts annually. Yet these are the donors most likely to leave the largest estate gifts with the fewest restrictions. Parents and grateful patients are other examples of donors who are nurtured from within
2. To draw them to your organization through the strength of your ideas or unique capabilities. In the “Imagine What’s Next” campaign I ran at UCSD, 98 percent of the support came from non-alumni and 91 percent came from .8 percent of the donor base. The ability of the faculty to generate cutting edge knowledge that was relevant to a burgeoning high tech economy made it possible to attract very significant gifts from foresightful philanthropists. They had no nostalgic or emotional connection to the institution but a great respect for its scientific and technological achievements and its still greater potential. Large gifts were given to realize emerging capabilities in engineering, oncology, pharmaceutical sciences, neuroscience, oceanography and business. Independent philanthropists, entrepreneurs and companies often give on the strength of an idea or unique capability.
3. To convince them that your institution is a cost-efficient delivery system for their ideas, values or animating passions. Whether it is a determination to abate disease, alleviate suffering, expand opportunity, open scientific or technological frontiers, or overcome economic disparities, there are many philanthropists who have already decided where they intend to make a difference. There’s no point in putting other philanthropic concepts or proposals in front of them. There are not interested in what they can do for your institution but what your institution can do for them. And, yet, if your institution shares the same passion, a powerful philanthropic partnership can be formed. Independent philanthropists, entrepreneurs and foundations are among those who give to institutions who they believe will be the most productive purveyors of their ideas.

But here’s the larger point: without an institutional commitment to sustaining emotional connections over time, to producing bold concepts, or to collaborating with issue-driven philanthropists, fund raisers have little hope of generating legions of new donors. It’s not the presence or persistence of fund raising staff in the field alone, but the institutional commitments that they are allowed to broker. Institutions committed to all three will attract and retain the best fund raisers, and the combination of all those factors will lead to the best fund raising results. Period.

Response to a Young Professional

I received a poignant note from a young colleague who said his last few years at work have been difficult. His former boss and mentor left because of health issues and was replaced by “an inexperienced interim head.” He and his new boss, he said, “do not see eye to eye on most issues.”

“Anyway,” he wrote, “I was hoping you could do an inspirational piece for the young people out there. We could use some optimism. Can you comment on the job market out there? How can we use our knowledge of technology to help us be successful at what we do, and when is using technology appropriate or not appropriate? It seems as though everything is handled electronically these days, and I was hoping you could comment on its cancerous effect on relationships. “

I am deeply complimented, and feel most fortunate, to receive such a note. I will do my best to be helpful.

First of all, this young professional is far from alone. At my conferences I hear often about dispiriting working environments -- about bosses who do not do what they demand from others, the application of mindless performance metrics that belie a stated commitment to relationship building, high performance expectations unaccompanied by vision, direction, content and other forms of support, or the absence of priority setting so that people are always being asked to do more or please yet another claimant. At some point in our careers, most of us will encounter these kinds of conditions, if not worse.

So, what do we do? Let me share advice I received early in my career that proved invaluable. I had been complaining to a mentor about the glaring deficiencies of my boss. He listened with patience, expressed his empathy and then said, “But this situation presents you with a great opportunity, if you become what your boss is not.” In the nicest possible way, he told not just to complain but to manifest the qualities I saw lacking in my boss. In so doing, he said, I would come to be, and be seen as, a leader. It was a profound piece of advice, one that allowed me to grow and succeed. While we may never fully compensate for the weaknesses of a particularly poor boss, and may even engender the boss’ envy or ire for trying, it is nonetheless a good strategy for character and career building. You will always have the comfort of knowing you tried to contribute what was missing and many will appreciate your efforts.

In the face of frustration, we can be tempted to leave. We don’t want to labor on where our talents are wasted. Each of us has an obligation to seek the highest and best use of our abilities. But we don’t want to take a new job just to get out of the old one. Our eagerness to get out may blind us to what we’re getting into. We may move only to find ourselves in a very similar place. I have made that mistake. And we must be realistic. We’re in a stalled economy. We can’t expect to see a raft of opportunities in advancement open up any time soon, maybe for three or four years. The best strategy, then, is to develop and pursue our own growth plan.

Think of your growth plan as two-pronged. One part should focus on the development of your core skills, as if you are preparing for a greater opportunity even if that opportunity is not in immediate sight. But believe that opportunity will come if you continue to prepare. It will. Good work is never for naught. That which is undervalued in one place or time may prove of great worth at another time and place. The second part should be the pursuit of kindred spirits. If you just gripe and grouse, you will fall in with grumps and grouches. Good luck growing there. But if you share your ideas of what can, might or should be, you will find yourself increasingly in community with constructive, forward-looking souls. When I was young, I thought myself completely peculiar and kept my deepest beliefs to myself. With a little seasoning, I found the courage to give them voice and was met with enthusiastic affirmation from many who had been harboring similar feelings and thinking themselves alone. I came to realize I would never learn to truly listen, and thereby understand others, if I did not first share my soul. A leader, be it in thought or deed, must display courage to encourage others.

And, finally, I would urge young professionals to focus on content development but adjust to the ever-changing channels of communication. I have been praised for my writing and speaking skills but I’m sharing this with you on a blog, a channel of communication that did not exist when I began my career. And, my voice can be heard on webcasts, webinars and vodcasts -- all relatively new vehicles. But the reasons that others avail themselves of my words, in whatever form they take, is because of the content and delivery, not the particular technology employed.

Technology facilitates dissemination. We live in a world where the speed of dissemination outstrips our capacity for content origination and creative germination. We have ever more television channels but not much more worth seeing. We have more access to knowledge but we use technology to skip over the surface of much of it, much like the frenetic tourist who rushes from country to country to say he’s been there but gains no real insight into the people or culture along the way.

All societies throughout time place the greatest value on the rarest elements. It is no wonder, then, that in a world of mass communication and rapid dissemination, of pseudo personalization, that we now place the greatest value in having our calls answered by a real person or being thanked with a hand-written note. And, does it not stand to reason, therefore, that the most successful organizations, in good time and bad, will the those that deliver the greatest value to their clients, customers and constituents? Yes, each new wave of technology turns our heads and causes us to think that it is the answer unto itself. But the nourishing of minds and the touching of hearts will always require genuine depth of thought and feeling. The real answer to creating greater value will always arise out of authentic expression, assiduous effort, and genuine commitment to building a stronger human family.

It is no surprise, therefore, that the most successful technologies in past decade, and some of the most rapidly growing companies, have been those that allow us to better communicate on an inter-personal level, and those that make it possible for us build and sustain relationships across the globe. For institutions and the professionals responsible for the relationships with the market place, the most important emerging technologies and companies will be those that allow them to track the buying and affiliating behaviors of their customers and constituents; in short, to listen and respond. Too many institutions have lost touch; the consequent disillusionment has been noted in poll after poll. A majority of Americans have come to see the majority of institutions as bloated and moated. Crisis looms for those that fail to listen while great opportunity awaits those that do. Vehicles and channels of communication that have been used by institutions to promote their virtues, or to solicit, must be converted into systems that receive, not just transmit; to elicit the opinions and promote the well-being of those that support them.

So, to this young professional I say don’t be discouraged. Focus on delivering content to your job that arises naturally and uniquely from the content of your character. Build and guard your own brand. Be consistent and considerate. Never be complicit in anything mediocre or mean. Plan for a better day and believe it will come. It will. The course of any single career never runs smooth throughout, but who speak from and listen with their heart, who value and develop the abilities of others, who are grateful and giving, will not go unnoticed or unappreciated. They will achieve the most satisfying of successes, of spending more of their days working with good people toward good causes.

If You Were a Philanthropist

Imagine, having achieved a degree of financial comfort, that you resolve to help others. After reflecting on what made a difference in your life, you decide to help young adults in your area launch their careers. You seek the counsel of wise and trustworthy advisors and, from their recommendations, put together a list of talented, motivated young people who are in need of support. After interviewing some wonderful candidates, you make the wrenching decision to provide significant support to two of them, rather than modest support to several of them.

Seth and Sarah, the two you have chosen, say the best way you can help them is to buy them a car. They make a similar case: a car will give them access to people and places that they would not otherwise have, allow them to focus the majority of their time on building their careers and, yes, make a positive impression as a young rising professional. You write a generous check to both of them in the same amount and tell them that they are free to buy whatever car they choose or, indeed, to use the money any way they would like. Seth spends every cent on a luxury car while Sarah buys a nice but practical vehicle, spending less than the full amount that you have given her.

Seth, whose career gets off to a roaring start, tells you that the quality of the car made all the difference. Like it or not, he says, you have to look a certain way for others to believe in you and his luxury car has allowed him to create the appearance of success which, in turn, proved invaluable in attracting a small number of very high end clients. Sarah tells you about where her car has taken her in developing a solid business base and begins to imagine where it might take her in the future. You are pleased with progress both are making, albeit in different ways, and make it clear that you are willing to consider additional support.

Seth says he needs additional support to keep his luxury car finely tuned, to keep up with the expensive repairs, to add a GPS system, and pay for the rising cost of fuel. Sarah says she could use money to extend her service area and shares with you her research which shows which new markets are within her reach. You provide additional support to both, giving more to Seth because his business has achieved such prominence in such a short time while recognizing that Sarah’s plan is sensible and full of promise.

This pattern persists for some time. Each time you consider a new investment, Seth always makes a case for the state of the vehicle and the rising cost of fuel while Sarah seeks additional investment to extend services to more and more clients. After awhile, you find yourself reassessing your priorities. As impressed as you have been with Seth, you find yourself growing frustrated with his endless insistence that more and more is needed to keep the increasingly expensive vehicle in optimal running condition and to keep up appearances lest he fall out of a select social group. Sarah, meanwhile, has treated her car as means of reaching more clients, not an end unto itself.

Then misfortune falls. The stock market collapses and your net worth is cut in half. You are determined to continue to help others, but at half your previous level you. And you apply the same principle as before; it is better to provide significant support to one rather than modest support to both. Seth doesn’t change his argument. Sarah says she’s trading in car to buy a smaller, more fuel-efficient one that will allow her to spend more of the capital available on delivering a higher level of service to her clients. Which one do you choose to support?

When I review the cases of support from various schools and non profits, I see too many Seths and too few Sarahs, too many asking for support to keep the enterprise in fine fettle, or so that it can remain competitive with peers, or just to keep it running as it always has, and too few explaining exactly where they are going and how they propose use private dollars to make difference in the lives of those they serve. I see too many asking for support on the basis of increased costs and too few detailing how they have cut costs to ensure that new philanthropic dollars add value to delivery of service to those most in need or those who stand the benefit the most.

Times have changed. New realities have been visited upon us. Philanthropy-seeking organizations will have to adjust. In making their case for support, they would be wise to put themselves in the philanthropists’ position and ask what they would do if they had to make had to decide between Seth and Sarah.

P.S. My thoughts on reviving lagging campaigns are featured in the latest Academic Impressions newsletter, at:

http://www.academicimpressions.com/news.php?i=108&q=6282v274891yT

If you would like to get this newsletter, click on:

http://www.academicimpressions.com/news_signup.php&q=6283v274891yT

A New Kind of Feasibility Study

We need a new kind of feasibility study, one that samples a wider range of opinions than the usual major prospects, board members and institutional insiders, one that is conducted every few years, not just in advance of a campaign.

The new feasibility will allow institutions to see how they are tracking with their key constituents, and where their purposes are converging or diverging. It will be conducted largely on-line or over the phone and will sample the opinions of various stakeholders across the demographic spectrum. It will not only test whether constituents understand the institution’s mission and whether they believe it to be sufficiently focused and pursued with all due discipline, but the viability of specific aspirations and strategies -- before a major fund-raising initiative is introduced.

Let me give an example. When I was arrived at Georgetown, I committed myself to gaining a deep understanding of that culture, including the deeply-held beliefs and concerns of its alumni. We began sampling alumni opinion and learned that over 90 percent of its alumni, across all age groups, believed they received an excellent or very good education. Great. Over 80 percent said their alma mater had a “profound impact” on their lives. Fabulous. But only 17 percent were giving. Huh? Why the disparity between gratitude and giving? We then began testing the alumni’s receptivity to fund raising appeals and learned that 50 percent of the current donors didn’t really believe the institution needed the money. They pointed to the success of a recent campaign, a building boom on campus, and the hefty cost of tuition as proof that the University was more than adequately funded. And, they said, it wasn’t really clear what the University needed. The annual fund had become what one colleague called a “dog’s breakfast” of options, asking for so many “small” things that it appeared it didn’t really have any major needs.

We then tested the receptivity of the alumni to various funding categories -- faculty support, financial aid, programmatic initiatives, and capital projects. There was a general and genuine interest in all of them but when we asked which they would choose if they had to pick one, the vast majority said financial aid. That told us a lot about how to weight the priorities of the upcoming campaign. But it also told us we had our work cut out for ourselves. Although alumni believed that “need blind” admission, the policy of admitting students on merit alone, then committing to meeting their financial need, was something the University should be doing, but only 17 percent believed that policy was being actively pursued. It was an astonishing finding. The University had been committed to the policy since 1978 and had increased its financial commitment to it year after year, until it represented a very significant portion of its annual operating budget. The trouble was that the alumni, in the absence of specific communication about the extent of that commitment, and with what appeared to be contrary evidence -- healthy tuition income and, correspondingly, a larger number of wealthy students -- had formed an entirely different perception. A sizable gap had grown between the actual practices of the University an the perception of those who might support it. For the alumni of a Jesuit university, it was a moral issue. Until we could convince them that the University was not only committed to need blind admission but needed their financial support to respond to the growing demand, we realized, our fund-raising efforts would fall short.

That’s why we need a different kind of feasibility study. Too many institutions are flying blind. They’re asking money for this and that without knowing whether their prospects understand or believe in their mission, think they really need the money, or harbor a concern about the way the institution is going about its business. Without an understanding of these factual or perceptual gaps, institutions are wasting an enormous amount of time and money. They do not know the real reasons why calls go unanswered, or why solicitations prove unsuccessful.

Yet, with a broader-based sampling of constituent opinion, specific content and policy gaps for specific groups of prospects can be clearly seen which then allows for the creation of highly targeted strategies that work to systematically close those gaps, either through changes in institutional policy or precision-tuned communications. Institutions cannot raise more money by asserting they need more but by first making sure their goals harmonize with their potential supporters. When we achieve mutuality of purpose and common cause, we lay the foundations for sustained fund-raising success.

My 100th Post

Gratitude, I believe, is the key to personal and professional success. It is achieved by reflecting on what we have and by realizing that none of it is owed to us. That which is not owed, is given. And what was given yesterday or today is not promised tomorrow. Tomorrow is constructed by making the most of our gifts today with what we inherited from yesterday.

Nature’s abundance, as well as the opportunity to freely express their faith and their opinions, and to seek and enjoy the fruits of their own labor, left many early Americans with a profound sense of gratitude. Realizing they had been given much, they resolved to build a better tomorrow by extending the franchise of freedom and opportunity to ever more members of the human family. This spirit defined our culture from its inception and continues to animate it today. The level of voluntary wealth transference is has produced is unparalleled in human history. I call it the American Philanthropic Revolution.

On July 13, 2008 I began writing this blog to remind us that we are not owed this revolution, that it will persist only as long as we remain grateful for it and commit ourselves to building better tomorrows from it. I wrote to suggest ways that we could replenish our remarkably rich philanthropic soil and to warn against tactics and techniques that were taking from it by taking it for granted. Too many non profits, I argued, were taking this revolution for granted by concluding all they need do is lay claim to some virtue and ask, ask, ask -- even without an imaginative vision, a compelling set of objectives, a commitment to contain ancillary costs, or a deep sense of accountability to their contributors. I saw too much of fund raising training and practice focusing on the “the ask,” and too little on “the give” as envisioned through the wants and hopes of donors. I saw too many non profits wandering about in pursuit of the mythic “low hanging fruit” and too few committing themselves to the long-term growth of orchards of support. I saw institutions expecting too much of donors and too little of themselves.

I shared my blog with a small group of friends, long-term colleagues and family members and received great encouragement from them. I asked a young company called Academic Impressions to allow me to design and present a series or workshops built around my philosophy of philanthropy, which they graciously consented to. When I made my case to fund raising professionals at their conferences, they responded with enthusiasm and asked for more. So I referred them to my blog and the number of readers grew. They, in turn, began sharing my blog posts with others, and I began hearing from conscientious professionals that I had never met. When I began to doubt the utility of writing this blog, some of my readers seemed to intuit my misgivings and wrote to tell me of its importance to them and to encourage me on.

So on the occasion of my 100th blog post, I write to thank my loyal readers and to let new readers what this blog is about. I will continue to write because of you and, indeed, because we all have more to do. We need to encourage and support best practice, to remind young and new members to the field, that our finest professionals see themselves as agents of philanthropy, not just representatives of a single institution. As such, they understand that philanthropy is a compact between their organization and those that support it to get something of mutual interest done. They know that the relationship between their organization and its donors, like all successful relationships must be based on mutual respect, regard and tactful candor, that even a whiff of institutional entitlement can create an atmosphere of donor exploitation, and that institutions must, in word and deed, always call upon the “angels of their better nature” if they are to attract the most conscientious professionals and the most constructive philanthropists.

Those are our purposes. Please write me at jim@langleyinnovations.com to let me how I can continue to make this blog meaningful to you for the next 100 posts.

A Philanthropic Forecast

Penelope Burk has released “The Cygnus Donor Survey, Where Philanthropy is Headed in 2010.” As is the case with everything Penelope produces, this report is full of interesting and useful information.

For instance, the report sheds light on an intriguing correlation between age and the number of non profits one supports. “The percentage of donors over 65 who supported sixteen charities or more in 2009 is double that of donors between 35 and 64 years of age and forty times that of respondents under the age of 35.” the survey says “Young and middle‐aged donors confirmed their growing preference for supporting fewer causes, which should be noted by not‐for‐profits that rely on volume of donors rather than on gift value for their profitability.”

Other donor trends noted by Burk include: “a preference for giving to charities that provide donors with measurable results (69%); eliminating or reducing support to not‐for‐ profits that over‐solicit (67%); a greater tendency to take cost‐per‐dollar raised into account when making giving decisions (65%); shifting more support to charities working locally (43%); and supporting fewer causes (41%). Additionally, 59% of respondents said they now do more research prior to supporting a charity for the first time, which speaks to donors' growing independence in managing their philanthropy.” These trends, corroborated by other survey, make it clear that philanthropy-seeking organizations will have to work on what I call the the C’s -- Cost containment, a compelling Case, and being more closely Connected to the concerns of their key constituents.

In terms of future giving, the Cygnus survey says donors will hold the line in 2010, “with the majority reporting that they will support the same number of charities with gifts of the same value as they gave in 2009. Only 8% of typical donors plan to give less in 2010, which compares favorably with 17.5% who responded this way in last year's survey.” Again, this comports with other analyses I’ve seen and seems to suggest that the recent survey done by CASE, in which respondents projected increases of four to five percent over last year, is overly optimistic. I hope my assessment of those numbers is wrong but, so far, I haven’t seen any evidence of a that suggest a turnaround.

“On the flip side,” the Cygnus survey says, “charities who have seen their donor numbers and fundraising revenue drop during the recession will not likely see those numbers bounce back immediately. Among select donors, 11% intend to give less in 2010, and among the top 10% of select donors (by 2009 total gift value), the percentage rises to 17%. Even a small downturn in giving among these very generous donors can have a substantial impact on overall fundraising performance.”

The report does offer an encouraging word by noting, “An opportunity to build support exists across the respondent group but especially among donors under the age of 35, with 39% indicating that they plan to give more in 2010. They referenced healthy household incomes, were less likely to be supporting children or aging parents, and were more optimistic about the future. When asked, "Could you be inspired to give more generously than you had planned this year?", 81% of younger donors said yes vs 71% for older donors.” In addition, the report stresses that young donors’ lower gift values are not indicative of their “real current and future potential.” That potential is not being realized “due to fundraising design which is more passive (waits for donors to give at above‐average levels before offering meaningful stewardship), than active (offers meaningful stewardship first in order to inspire more generous giving).”

Remarkably, “72% of respondents in the Cygnus Donor Survey said they could be inspired to give more generously this year. When asked how this could be achieved, the response most often given by donors over the age of 35 was "Do not ask me to give so frequently". Donors under 35 said, "Explain what you intend to do with the money when asking me to give". For years, even well before the current economic contraction, Burk’s research has demonstrated the adverse impact of asking donors too often. The findings are consistent and convincing, yet too many continue to ask, ask, ask with too little explanation of how the money will be used.

“The predominant themes that emerged from unsolicited comments are,” Burk says, unfortunately, negative in nature. They are concerned with unwanted token gifts (premiums) that donors receive either after they give or as incentives to contribute, lack of results or specific information on how donations have been applied or will be used, and over‐solicitation. Despite their concerns, however, donors remain firmly committed to philanthropy, even while continuing to contend with a struggling economy.”

Some of the unsolicited comments she cites, presumably because they are representative, include:

“I do see that the nonprofits I support are offering more information to donors relating to accountability and transparency. This is a good direction. Though best practices in the sector are nascent, they are emerging. Relevance and effectiveness are high on my list of things for which I seek accountability from the organizations I support financially.”

“People need a reason to give. Saying, "Give me money and I will do good things", is not enough. People need to know where their money is going and how it will help.”

“I volunteer (for Women International) and donate to them as well. The fact that they have an outlet for me to volunteer makes me feel closer to the organization, and thus more likely to continue giving long‐ term.”

There you go. Donors continue to show us the way. We need only to listen and respond. It really is that simple.

Myopic Metrics

A colleague told me recently of a university advancement office that requires each member of its regional staff to make 200 contacts and secure at least $2 million every year. The person in charge says it’s working because just about everyone meets their goals every year. Well, when you think about it, that’s the trouble with metrics and a sure sign they are not working. Allow me to explain.

If you impose aggressive metrics on a development staff, you say, in effect, “here’s how we’re keeping score.” If you’re a development officer, you’ll say, “Fine, then I will do what it takes to meet that score.” Since 200 substantive contacts is extraordinarily difficult to achieve, you will be forced to secure appointments with those most likely to agree to them. Yes, every institution has them, the loyal folks who can’t get enough of the place and will agree to meet once or twice a month is asked. If you have five of these folks in your portfolio, you can use them to rack up close to half your required visits. It would be far more productive if some of that time was spent pursuing new, high end prospects but they are very busy, and being chased by multiple organizations, so getting to them is much, much harder -- and your incentives don’t encourage you to stay in pursuit of the very best for very long. Yes, you will try to meet the best prospects you can and to make every interaction as substantive as possible but you always have one eye on the score card. The longer the year wears on, the more you worry about your progress toward the required metrics so you take the easy appointments or start to stretch the definition of a “contact.” One morning, you’re so frazzled that you have a traffic accident. As fate would have it, you hit someone who once gave a $100,000 to your institution. You file a contact report which reads, “Had a wonderful encounter with Beulah Bumpkin this morning. Despite her incredibly busy schedule, she made time for me on her way to work. Though she seemed discombobulated at first and complained of screaming neck pain, I was able to bring her around and talk about our new initiative in non-invasive imaging. Though she has not given in a long time and no one has been able to get an appointment with her, she clearly has far greater capacity so I feel good about creating the opportunity to rekindle what could be a very productive relationship. She promised to get back to me soon, or to have her lawyer call. Next step: Call back in two weeks if I don’t hear from her.” Come on now. Let’s tell the truth. Necessity is the mother of invention. Don’t we have the tendency to do what we have to do to make the numbers? And the more ridiculous the goal, the more ridiculous the extremes we will go to.

And then there’s that $2 million bogey. Now, it might make more sense for you to pursue some very promising prospects that might make a gift in 18 to 24 months of relationship building but you’ve got to make your numbers. You’ll focus on those most likely to give, even if it may be smaller amounts. Again, “the system” incentives are such you end up asking for $250,000 today rather than working with that prospect to develop a $1.5 million gift a year from now. And the other thing you will do is insist that gift accounting provide you a list with every gift that has come in from your region so that you can take credit for it. Now, if you had been instrumental in development of those gifts, you would have heard directly from the donors; you wouldn’t have to learn about it from the folks in gift accounting -- unless you’ve been reduced to taking credit for anything that comes in over the transom, regardless of or despite your efforts. Yes, yes, I know you’ll argue that you need to know about these gifts so that you can steward the donors but it that dark place in your scared soul, you’re just looking for anyway to meet your goal. A sure sign of metrically-mad development operation is a gift accounting operation under siege by the development staff asking for more timely, more specific donor information from their region.

And the person who put these metrics in place will argue until he or she is blue in the face that they work. Look at the numbers, they will say. Just about everyone has met or nearly met their goals. Great, I say, so how many new dollars are you raising and how many new prospects are you bringing in year upon year? And, in most cases, there’s not that much movement in the aggregate numbers. That’s because the operation is really raising that much more; its just found a better way to turn otherwise decent folks into credit-seeking hounds. The more ambitious the metrics, the more the system can actually work against the kind of assiduous relationship building that produces more significant, sustained support.

I’m not against all metrics, just the wrong kind. I don’t believe in individual dollar goals because they force development officers to sub-optimize the long-term potential of many donors and weaken their ties to institution by asking them to give too often to purposes that are not near and dear to their philanthropic hearts. I would advise development operations to focus more on substance, both in terms of what the institution is asking for and those it is seeking support from. I would ask the front line development officer to orchestrate 60 substantive interactions each year. And to orchestrate something, you have to work in harmony with others, be it on the development staff, on the academic side of the house and, perhaps, volunteers. I would try to create a culture of orchestration, not one of lone, hungry, frightened wolves.

Good metrics, ironically and unfortunately, create goals that are so realistic that some people can’t meet them. The measure of an effective system of metrics, then, is not that everyone is meeting them, no matter what, but that some are and some not, and that they are bringing out the best in the best people and exposing the weaknesses of the pretenders.