Bad Fund Raisers: Why Do Charities Keep Hiring Them?

September 02, 2008

Bad Fund Raisers: Why Do Charities Keep Hiring Them?

The nonprofit world is full of organizations that repeatedly hire fund raisers who don’t have the skills to do their jobs and then let them go because they do a poor job, writes Mark J. Drozdowski in his latest column for The Chronicle of Higher Education.

While some turnover can be attributed to high demand for fund raisers and the temptation of development officers to switch jobs for higher pay, Mr. Drozdowski writes, “how many of them aren’t so much seeking new opportunities as they are escaping certain failure? As long as the profession allows it, we’ll continue to reshuffle incompetence.”

Mr. Drozdowski, executive director of the Fitchburg State College Foundation, calls on nonprofit leaders to ask tough questions to determine what a fund raiser has actually achieved in his or her career. He says that many would-be fund raisers with high potential and limited experience are being passed over for those who have had several development jobs but achieved little of distinction.

“Probe for results,” he advises. “And don’t hire carelessly because a campaign deadline looms. It can wait.”

Have you seen this situation — in which bad fund raisers get hired again and again? How can it be avoided?

— Holly Hall

Comments

How does one evaluate a “good” fund raiser? “Results” are actually very subjective criteria. Often, fund raisers are limited by factors outside their substantive control, such as institutional support. On the other hand, some “results-oriented” fund raisers are really flash-in-the-pan types who can trade a metaphorical (or real) smile and a handshake into short-term results with long-term negative implications.

Two guideposts I’d look for: first, a development philosophy that is both ethical and meets the philosophy of the institutions’s leaders. Second, an educated curiosity on the part of the potential hire, asking probing questions of the institution’s leaders that will inform his/her decision as to whether the institution will allow him/her to be successful.

— Michael L. Wyland Sep 2, 03:59 PM #
Too often the references are not checked or the person who is called is not honest at all. How do we rectify this? As someone who conducts searches for clients, I can’t tell you how hard it is to get a good evaluation of the person’s skills. I finally just ask, “If you had the opportunity to hire this person back would you take it? Most will either say, “Absolutely or would really enjoy the opportunity” or “No comment and I know what that means.

— Jack Hickey-Williams Sep 2, 04:03 PM #
Checking past results through references is essential. Take the time to call presidents, board chairs, and/or major donors and ask the hard questions.

— Dr. Steve W. Batson, CFRE Sep 2, 04:16 PM #
One of the issues for organizations with limited staff is that the board and/or executive director doesn’t do a good job of matching the qualifications of the candidate with the job that needs to be done. Typically, someone with minimal qualifications is hired for a job that really needs experience and even more staff but the organization is not willing to recognize and pay for what they need.

— Philanthro Joe Sep 2, 04:18 PM #
The organization HAS to be honest with the candidate and itself. Does the organization have a strategic plan that the fundraising will support? Has it thought through what will be needed to succeed in this effort and will it provide it to the candidate? Jobs are tight; it takes a very brave candidate to tell a potential employer, “sorry you folk’s expectations are unrealistic when compared with the resources you’re prepared to provide.” Too many organizations are looking for “rainmakers” to save them, when they would profit more from a long, hard look in the mirror.

— Tom Cannon Sep 2, 04:32 PM #
Having migrated from banking to fundraising, I have again enjoyed the humor of an old adage from my project finance days that applies to both sectors.

“The Six Stages of any project?

1. Enthusiasm
2. Panic
3. Despair
4. Search for victims
5. Punishment of the innocent
6. Praise and honors for the non-participants”

Fundraising success depends on so many factors. Mediocrity in fund-raisers should not be accepted. Neither should be weak boards, inadequate records, internal politics, incomplete infrastructure, underinvestment in the effort, superficial strategic planning, and more. Experience in both the private and non-profit sectors suggest a generalization to me that the non-profit industry is closing the gap in strategic and tactical alignment, but that still a gap exists. A great fundraiser will be able to harness and deliver all these things, but usually if the operation for which he or she works is fully committed to the fundraiser’s success.

— Tom Pyle Sep 2, 04:34 PM #
I am so glad that someone has finnally addressed this issue – I can’t begin to tell you how many incompetents I have worked with or for – those who embellish their resume. Organizationhs need to do a thorough screening of candidates and take the time to get the very best. Let’s face it – the cost of turn-over in making poor choices – costs organizations far more than just making hiring mistakes.

— Andie Wilcox Sep 2, 04:49 PM #
I’m right on board with Tom Pyle: an organization needs to be structured / organized for the best and even mediocre fundraisers to be successful (i.e a “living” strategic plan with new marketable initiatives that is quantifiable and realistic, sound HR policies, an active but macro-managing board, and most importantly a competent executive director).

I can’t tell you how many E.D.s I’ve worked for who are clueless in terms of management, leadership, knowledge of fundraising and work ethic. And many times the board isn’t keeping them accountable.

As someone who has been in the business for over 15 years with success I might add, the biggest challenge facing non-profits is right at the top: the Executive Director position.

— Charles H. Sep 2, 05:01 PM #
As an executive recruiter working on behalf of my clients, I earn my fee by truly investigating the validity of a fundraisers background. I have found that there are a lot of fundraisers who are being recycled every one to two years and are able to do this because of the demand. Supply and Demand economics is alive and well when trying to hire talent in this area. As the article points out you need to probe for results period. However most organizations are going to come face to face with not being able to attract the superstar fundraiser because of the supply/demand forces at work. I encourage my clients to look at a candidate who may not have the depth of fundraising experience they may need, but make up for it in other ways. These candidates are teachable, ego free and if they succeed will be long term loyal employees.
In order to properly vette candidates, I not only ask for several references which include, previous supervisors and board members, but I also conduct “Why” based referencing which I customize based upon the position. Instead of the standard reference questions everyone uses and are easily answered and incidentally do not indicate one way or another whether or not you have a good candidate only that the candidate has been able to give you a list of references who will give you a good reference. I want to know the why factor. Why is someone good, Why is someone not good. When you ask why, you get a more complete and accurate portrayal of the persons performance and personality. Below is a list of questions I employ to uncover the real essence of a candidate.
How did Joe stack up against his other fundraising peers at your organization?

If you could only have one fundraiser at your organization would Joe be the one you choose? Why? (I also look or opportunities to ask for specific examples to underscore their view of the candidate)

Based on your knowledge of the position I have described to you what would be Joe’s probability of success? Why?

Should the appropriate opportunity present itself, would you hire Joe for your own organization? Why would you work with Joe again?

In addition to good reference questions, you need to ask yourself the question of what is it about my environment that will attract great candidates and keep them once they are here!

— Michael Epifanio Sep 2, 05:08 PM #
Poor fundraising is more often a symptom rather than the underlying problem. Poor planning, a less than fully committed board, vague programs that keep doing the same old thing year after year, a minimalist strategic plan that vaguely outlines goals that would be achieved in any case, and chronic underinvestment in fundraising over time are all factors in the success of any development executive. A star in one context is a failure in another. It is a high risk profession and while it does attract its share of snake oil vendors, it also is increasingly attracting and growing some of the most competent executives in the nonprofit sector. Fundraising must focus on the big picture, the bottom line and relate to all constituents, internal and external. Too often playing it safe is a higher priority than making the hard choices and saying what is needed to really move the mission. It’s better to give it a best effort and fail than to go along, make no waves and apparently survive. Survival is generally short lived and you’ll be dispatched later rather than sooner. Fundraisers can’t do it alone, development can’t be delegated and everyone must own the process. If not, win a few, loose a few…it’s not always the failing of the fundraiser. Many non-profits are clueless as to the dispositions and professional habits of serious, professional and mission driven fundraisers. They will advertise widely, have an HR officer sort through resumes, and ultimate pick the one that is best at interviewing skills. Given the investment of time, and the lost opportunity to raise money while conducting a protracted search, the most cost effective approach is to simply hire an experienced executive search firm. I’ve done it both ways, and I’m going with the Pros to both save money and to find the best, most authentic candidates.

— Christopher Lytle Sep 2, 05:23 PM #
I think the author of this article is actually writing about his own situation at Fitchburg State College

— jojo Sep 4, 05:21 AM #
My 1.5 cents worth: Too many organizations put the focus just and solely on fundraising. If they haven’t done at least an adequate job of fund development (the process of relationship developing and communication) and can’t really relate their programs and services to philanthropy, no amount of vetting is going to find someone who will be successful. If the organization basically has an attitude—and many do—when they hire a new development director of: “Sit down, shut up and just spin straw into gold” they get what they deserve.

— Philanthro Joe Sep 8, 01:23 PM #
In the last year I hired 3 people with varying levels of experience. My qualifying question is this “If you received a phone call telling you that our organization was to receive $50,000 through an estate gift, what would you do?” The people who began their responses with either “I would say thank you” or “I would offer my condolences” are the ones I hired. Why? Because they were thinking of others first and not thinking about their own interests. A selfless gift officer communicates a real interest in the donor’s welfare and engenders trust. Establish trust and you have greater successs. Greater success leads to stonger relationships. Strong relationships leads to a reduction in turnover. I have been more than pleased with the results.

— Phil Curtis Sep 8, 09:50 PM #
While investigating if a potential candidate has jumped jobs “to avoid failure” as the article indicates, please practice a little source criticism, too. Ask the reference how many Development Officers they have had in the last five years. The failure your candidate is fleeing might be systemic to the job and have nothing to do with the candiodate’s abilities.

— Andy Zovko Sep 9, 09:14 AM #
One of the reasons development people “hop” around from job to job IS the salaries they are offered. Too often compensation is not balanced with job responsibilites and goal expectations. Organizations and boards expect the world and the development officer is generally working by themselves to produce as much as they can, as fast as they can. Perfect recipe for burnout…

— Rose Sep 9, 12:50 PM #
Many nonprofit executive directors don’t know what to look for when they hire fund development staff. They confuse the competencies needed for successful fundraising results with other talents such as being a good writer or having access to people with money.
After receiving many requests from Executive Directors for help, Sue Geary CFRE and I penned a primer that is available through the Association of Fundraising Professionals (www.afpnet.org) called “Bringing a Development Director on Board” which was written expressly for Executive Directors.
I addressed other traps that lead to bad hires in the article “10 worst reasons for selecting your director of development.” The article was first posted on charity channel.com and is available there or at http://www.ceffect.com/article_ten.html

— Gayle L. Gifford ACFRE Sep 9, 01:58 PM #

Commenting is closed for this article.

Previous: Learn How to Get Money for Operating Costs: Online Discussion Today
Next: Job Market for Fund Raisers: Changing With the Economy

Related Articles

Blogroll

Bad Fund Raisers: Why Do Charities Keep Hiring Them?

Comments