A close friend of mine sits on the board of a provincial health charity. Recently, the primarily volunteer-driven organization hired a new part-time Executive Director (ED) with a wealth of experience in raising funds for a large hospital foundation.
Upon his arrival, the new ED justifiably sought to advance the group’s fund development capacity since it has struggled to stay afloat financially throughout its history. To that end, one of the first steps the ED took to foster a culture of philanthropy was convincing the board to contact and personally thank every donor who gave $25 or more within the past year.
As tactful and constructive as it sounds, the ED failed to consider some important factors when he devised this donor relations strategy:
1) A massive list of 360 donors would be divided among a small band of 8 board directors (a staggering total of 45 names each);
2) Directors were expected to engage in 15-minute telephone conversations with each donor (nearly 12 hours of dialogue);
3) Directors were expected to complete all calls within 2 weeks, and;
4) Most importantly, these directors with no experience or training in stewarding relationships were being asked to engage donors who are not accustomed to being stewarded.
Also very noteworthy is how my friend was informed of this duty by an email message she retrieved from her spam folder. To stay she was deeply annoyed is a gargantuan understatement. When she contacted the new ED to voice her displeasure, his response was an ambivalent “Oh, I thought I’d told you”. Um . . . no you didn’t.
The closest thing to support or training the ED provided was a generic script he emailed the day before the launch. My friend and other board directors were seething. None were asked whether they were comfortable or had any objections to the task. No opportunity to ask questions or request support was ever given. Just let us know when you are finished. Totally unacceptable!!
Now you will be hard-pressed to find a bigger advocate for robust donor stewardship systems in non-profits than myself. It is the key to an organization’s sustainability and a prerequisite for its quest to create positive change in the community.
However, there is a right way and a wrong way to establish one. Mandating a green unprepared group of volunteers to conduct complex altruistic verbal exchanges with a huge sample size of previously disengaged donors is not only reckless, it can destroy a charity’s base of support.
Of course, conversations with donors often begin with an awkward phase where it initially sounds like another solicitation. That is to be expected. With proper training and support, stewards are able to navigate their way through these rough patches as they help the donor experience a heightening sense of attachment to the mission.
Adopting the approach this ED prescribed will yield nothing beyond a never-ending vortex of awkwardness where the emergence of a rapport is an impossibility. The donor will be repulsed by an overwhelming sense of intrusion and annoyance. Ultimately, donors will abandon the charity and the support base will erode significantly.
The ED failed to recognize the fundraising “buy-in” gap that exists between small and large charities. Strong donor stewardship practices are second nature to hospital foundations, university advancement teams and other fundraising machines with seemingly endless supplies of fundraising knowledge, appreciation and resources. For volunteer-driven grassroots groups that are dependent on government funding, trying to understand donor stewardship strategies is akin to kindergarteners learning quantum physics. He should have taken time to acquaint the board gradually with the basics of donor stewardship.
A stellar approach is to steward relations with each board director first. Ensure that each feels thoroughly appreciated, satisfied with their role and an escalating sense of passion for the cause. If each of these boxes are unchecked, how can anyone expect them to nurture relationships with donors effectively?
In conclusion, implementing a winning donor stewardship system must be done methodically and at a pace with which the organization’s leaders are comfortable. Trying to accomplish too much toon soon will only weaken the organization and prevent needed change from happening. Although my friend has agreed to remain on the board for the duration her term, this experience has left a bitter taste in her mouth and a slightly diminished affinity for the mission. Don’t let this happen to your organization.
