Blog
What Exactly is Leadership … Part 3
Committed To and Valued More Than Used and Consumed
This week, we will focus on why it is important that leaders display commitment to and value for others. Most people want to be valued for who they are and not just what they do. This doesn’t suggest that doing and performing never matter, clearly they do. But relationships with any sense of long-term commitment require more than doing and performing.
In covenant relationships, leaders value people regardless of their level of talent or performance. They hold people accountable, but they do so in a manner that demonstrates respect for individuals.
A Proper Perspective on Talent and Performance
For example, talent and performance are central to athletics. Yet, the best coaches understand other important aspects of the player/coach relationship. In fact, treating players with respect and consideration sometimes produces performances that make up for a lack of talent. When I played basketball in college, my coach went out of his way to help me in my personal life. No doubt, I worked harder for him than for any other coach, and I performed well beyond expectations because I knew he cared. In fact, that was the case with our entire team, and we lost only two games all season.
Conversely, commodification breeds mistrust and short-term commitment. It cannot engage the full person, because it doesn’t meet an individual’s deeper needs such as recognition and respect. When followers know that a leader’s primary commitment is based solely on their performance, then the relationship is not likely to survive long-term. They know that as soon as someone fails to perform up to expectations, the relationship loses value and can be terminated.
That said people simply aren’t products to be used and then terminated when performance slips. Individuals want leaders who are committed to them beyond their immediate performance; just like my coach demonstrated his commitment to me.
Trust Tends to Heighten Performance
This doesn’t suggest that covenants lack performance or accountability. Though power wielders might fear this result, research and anecdotal evidence demonstrate the opposite occurs. In our nonprofit and church leadership consulting, we remind clients that when people (staff or volunteers) are treated well and trusted, they tend to heighten performance and assume more rather than less accountability. Conversely, when leaders focus primarily on performance, it breeds competition over teamwork and defensiveness over accountability.
An Example from GE
Consider General Electric under the leadership of Jack Welch. One of the most successful companies in the world, revenues went from $26.8 billion to $130 billion during his tenure. By 2004 GE’s value was $400 billion, the largest in the world. Nevertheless, profits came with a price. The culture and strategic planning had always emphasized cost cutting and high performance. However, when Mr. Welch cut 118,000 jobs, he earned the name of “Neutron Jack”. Equally disconcerting, Fortune Magazine put him at the top of its list of America’s “Ten Toughest Bosses.” He also spent $75 million on fitness equipment and major upgrades. To his credit, Mr. Welch explained, “People weren’t buying it. The money I was investing was pocket change, (but) the symbolism of $75 million was too much in the face of layoffs.”
Lessons Learned
He freely admits that sometimes he was full of himself. As evidence he cites the acquisition of Kidder, Peabody, despite opposition by his board. Less than a year later federal officers arrested several company officials for insider trading. Mr. Welch commented, “There’s a razor’s edge between self confidence and hubris. This time, hubris won and taught me a lesson I’ll never forget.” Maybe that explains why GE performed at 2.8 times the market from 1985 to 2000, while Good to Great companies simultaneously performed at almost seven times the market. This is even more interesting considering that all “Good to Great” companies had as Mr. Collins described, CEOs who possess a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.
More to Leadership than the Bottom Line
No doubt, issues are never black and white at GE or anywhere else. Yet, the fundamental principle is still true. People cannot be commodified without compromising their commitment and their performance. While profit and performance are crucial to long-term success, sustaining them long-term requires leaders who realize that there is more to leadership than bottom line results.
What Exactly is Leadership? … Part 2
In Part 1, we started to define what leadership is and discuss the tendencies of covenant leadership including relationships that are:
- Influential and Dynamic more Than Positional and Controlling, and
- Developmental More Than Dictatorial…
Now today we’ll discuss a third tendency.
Humane More Than Commodified
Being humane, usually means recognizing the intrinsic worth of individuals and treating them with dignity and respect. That happens not because of your power, abilities or personal attributes, but simply because you’re human and therefore worthy of dignity and respect. Organizations built on covenants are humane simply because leaders value people intrinsically.
The Commodities Model
By contrast, valuing and affording people dignity and respect only when they produce, is actually commoditizing them. What is a commodity? Investorwords.com defines commodities as, “Substances like food, grains, or metals, interchangeable with other products of the same type. Commodities are bought or sold, usually through futures contracts.” Because corn in Indiana is really no different than corn in Indonesia, the value is quantified by its utility in consumption and is subject to fluctuations in supply and demand. Commodities markets are clearly of great benefit to both investors and producers. But what happens when the model extends into other areas of life?
Learning from Gary Becker
This was the proposition of Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker in, A Theory of Marriage: Part II. He demonstrates how even the most intimate of human relationships can be commodified. Becker cautions, “Economic theory may…(soon provide)…a unified framework for all behavior (and)… marriage is no exception…”
He argues that decisions such as spouse selection, marriage timing, children, divorce, etc. can be quantified with certain utility functions including income level, physical capital, and intelligence. Becker is not suggesting that vast numbers of people test mathematical correlations to select spouses. However, it’s clear that this thinking is becoming more prevalent.
If commodification influences marriage, it surely influences our relationships at work. Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, speaks of that trend growing. Organizations attempt to get larger shares of customers, members or donors by becoming trusted advisors. According to Rifkin, “These ideas boil down to the commodification of a person’s entire lifetime of experiences assigning lifetime values to people with the expectation of transforming their lived experience into revenue.”
Covenants Provide More Benefits
Ironically, studies related to productivity imply that the relationships that yield the most benefits in any kind of structure are covenants. In fact, there’s substantial research suggesting that marriage covenants are more rewarding and beneficial than single life or cohabitation. Likewise, growing evidence suggests the covenant model applied in business or fundraising is also far more productive and profitable. That’s because commodities can be manipulated, but people must be led. It makes sense that individuals perform better when they’re respected. Valuing donors and gratefully acknowledging their gifts is a proven method of increasing donations.
Nevertheless, organizations today (including churches, non-profits and businesses) still cling to a model where the “value” of individuals is measured solely by how well they serve the self-interests of decision makers. This is not to suggest that people shouldn’t be productive or held accountable, but when there’s constant emphasis on production the intrinsic worth of individuals can be lost.
Power Wielders vs. Leaders
Power wielders commodify people; leaders don’t. That’s why covenanting with people to achieve common purposes is far more humane and productive than commodifying them. If that’s true then the decision should be clear. If you’ll never achieve optimal success through commodification, it defies logic to continue doing so. When people are commodified, they may perform temporarily, but they also lack long-term commitment. That’s because the product of the relationship is valued over the people of the relationship. Conversely, when people are treated humanely and bonded together in a humane culture, they’re free to give themselves fully to a common purpose and the sky is the limit.
7 Reasons Churches Fail in Fundraising…Part III
This blog should actually have been published last week since it is the final blog in the 3-part series, “7 Reasons Churches Fail in Fundraising.” We apologize for any confusion caused by the articles appearing out of sequence.
Let’s Recap
Previously we covered the following reasons for fundraising failures in church campaigns:
- The pastor and/or leadership establish unrealistic Goals, and have nothing to back them beyond needs or wants.
- Churches that are not teachable because the leaders believe they are experts in every area.
- Church leaders who approach the campaign casually and lack a comprehensive campaign plan.
- The Pastor has a hard time giving up control and empowering others to act, and…
- The Pastor is reluctant to get involved and ask others for help.
Now today we’ll cover the last two items in our series.
- The pastor assumes people should give and therefore spends little time teaching the principles of stewardship…
Defining Stewardship
Webster’s defines Stewardship as careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care. Many interpret it as simply giving money, but stewardship involves more than that. It is the assumption that all we own possessions (time, talent and treasures) that are provided by God. As stewards we’re called to care for these gifts. However, church members don’t always understand this principle and they need to be taught.
Therein lies the rub. I knew one pastor who didn’t like to talk about money or stewardship and therefore neglected it. Why? It was uncomfortable for him. Yet, Jesus talked a great deal about money. In fact, 16 of the 38 parables are about money and stewardship. In the Gospels one of every 10 verses is about money, and the entire Bible has over 2,000 verses on the subject. That’s more than verses on faith and prayer combined, so it appears to be a mistake for pastors to ignore the topic.
A Cheerful Giver
Second Corinthians 9:6-7 tells us, “…whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”
There is a cause and effect relationship here. The more we give the more we’ll reap. Now God doesn’t need our money or our offerings of anything. Instead, He wants our hearts. Giving through the heart is actually the route to becoming what the Apostle Paul called a cheerful giver, one who gives not reluctantly but joyfully.
Yet, scripture also tells us that joyful giving is a decision of the heart. Decisions of the heart don’t just happen. They’re cultivated through teaching and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is much easier for the latter to occur if the former is present.
- The church hasn’t done a planning study to test their case and assess the level of support…In our work capital campaign consulting with churches, our practice has been to create a planning document (or case statement) that outlines the plans of the church. Once that is finished, we distribute it along with a survey to the entire congregation. We ask them to complete the survey either online or through personal interviews.
We ask questions related to the campaign but also to the overall ministry of the church. This provides vital information regarding levels of support, gaps in information, church growth trends and ministry opportunities. It is also one of the first steps in building consensus around the campaign. The findings provide a reasonable assessment of what can be expected financially and what needs to be done to get there. Without such a process the church is shooting in the dark.
Of course, there are many other reasons church campaigns fail, but these seem to be the most frequent ones.
What Exactly is Leadership?
Often leadership creates images of the charismatic CEO, expounding a vision to industry analysts or a charismatic coach giving an inspirational talk that turns a halftime deficit into victory or a fundraising presentation that secures a major gift.
A recent Google search on Leadership revealed over 800 million sites with multiple applications of the clearly overused word, “Leadership.” Yet, despite its many applications, the consensus appears to be that leadership is not only about, “what” is accomplished, but also about “how” it’s accomplished. That “how” happens through relationships, the characteristics of which we’ll describe in the next few blogs. Today we’ll begin with two important ones:
Influential and Dynamic More Than Positional and Controlling
As I read some titles and selected articles, I wondered, “Why is leadership so broadly defined?” After a bit more reading, I concluded, that many people confuse leadership with headship, job titles or responsibilities. However, true leadership is not positional, and its dynamics are far more complex than presiding on top of an organization or using people to get things done. Many organizational heads (including Syria’s Assad) get things accomplished through power, but that doesn’t make them leaders. Leaders use power and influence strategically to create or strengthen relationships and motivate individuals to achieve common purposes. Those purposes are about the needs of organizations, leaders and those being led.
James MacGregor Burns on Leadership
In 1978, James MacGregor Burns described leadership in even simpler terms in his definitive (Pulitzer Prize winning) book on the subject. In Leadership, he argues that the term is best understood as a relationship between leaders and followers. Inherent in that relationship is power and how one uses power in working with the people, purposes and resources determines whether that person is leading or power wielding. To this point, Burns comments, “To control things – tools, mineral resources, money is an act of power, not leadership things have no motives. Power wielders may treat people as things. Leaders may not. All leaders are power holders, but not all power holders are leaders.” Leaders, then, don’t use power to control people or make them serve only the leader’s purposes. Instead, they influence followers to act on purposes that both leaders and followers have in common.
Developmental More Than Dictatorial
It’s interesting that the inability to engage people productively is often blamed on laziness. This logic follows that managers need only to dictate what should be done and punish those lazy people who don’t comply. While “laziness” could be a factor, often the lack of productivity is due to the manager’s inability to teach and develop people effectively. According to Dr. Mel Levine, a learning expert, developmental pediatrician and college professor, laziness is a myth. He explains that neurodevelopmental dysfunctions may cause what he calls “output failures”, but he argues convincingly that none of these failures is due to laziness. He commented, “We’re all born with a drive to produce, and we have within us the resources to bear fruit from early childhood on through our adult years, we want to show what we can do. We gain energy and feel good about ourselves whenever our personal output wins the approval, the acceptance, the respect of (others).
Assuming Dr. Levine’s observations are correct, what he says has significant implications for leaders. Though we may be born with the drive and resources to produce, these traits need cultivation and nurturance for individuals to learn how to produce. The learning “how” is the job of leaders. They teach by explaining, modeling, measuring and allowing followers to succeed and fail. Essentially they develop people by creating a culture of teaching and learning, where it’s safe to ask questions and take risks. Of course, talent is crucial for any organization (as well as in nonprofit fundraising), but unless leaders develop talent they are bound to be less productive.
7 Reasons Churches Fail in Fundraising…Part II
Last week we began a series on 7 reasons churches fail at fundraising, and what to do about it. Specifically we mentioned:
- The pastor and church leadership who establish unrealistic goals, and have nothing to back those goals beyond needs or wants.
As fundraising consultants, we recommend that churches begin the campaign process with a planning study to help determine both the capacity and the will of church members to achieve the goal. Conducting such a study also helps church leaders determine exactly what a reasonable goal is.
- Churches that are not teachable because the leaders believe they are experts in every area.
To address this we recommended that churches not only hire outside counsel to help them with the campaign, but also listen to that counsel. A good consultant can save you time and energy and help you increase donations as a result of their experience.
Now today, we’ll look at a few more reasons that churches fail in fundraising and what churches can do about it.
- The church leadership approaches the campaign casually and they lack a comprehensive campaign plan.
Often churches will start a campaign by simply announcing it, talking about the projects and then having people make their commitments one Sunday. Others might be a bit more sophisticated, so they decide to visit with each church family asking them for a specific amount. However, neither method involves much of a plan nor does it work as effectively as it might. In a church, the best way to maximize results is to have volunteers working a comprehensive plan with a master schedule, communications strategies, deadlines, and more.
In the campaigns we facilitate, there are several operational committees that we personally meet with at least twice (sometimes more) to explain their responsibilities, provide training and give them advice. Each of these committees has specific activity schedules, instructions, deadlines and prototypes for their work This committee work tends to build ownership, consensus and enthusiasm over time, and that usually translates into higher giving and motivates church members. When a church lacks this, campaign success becomes a lot more questionable.
- The Pastor has a hard time giving up control and empowering others to act.
One of the primary elements of successful campaigns is the involvement of church members. When we structure campaigns we have several committees of people involved. In fact, rather than have a few people do a lot of things, we have a lot of people doing a few things. This tends to build ownership and enthusiasm and stimulate giving. However, if the pastor isn’t willing to let go of the reigns and allow people to lead in some key areas, then the campaign isn’t as likely to succeed.
- The Pastor is reluctant to get involved and ask others for help.
The pastor may not be the only leader, but the pastor should be the primary leader. At the start and throughout the time of the campaign, the Pastor must be out front, identifying and helping recruit key committee chairs and talking about the importance of the campaign.
In addition, while the vast majority of members won’t be asked for specific amounts, there are a few lead gift prospects with whom the Pastor should visit at some point about making a major gift. Campaign leadership can accompany the Pastor, but the Pastor needs to be involved.
Without the Pastor’s involvement in some of these key activities, it’s not likely that the campaign will be successful. In fact, people shouldn’t have to ask, “where is the pastor,” or “where is the pastor on this campaign?” That should be obvious from the start!
7 Reasons Churches Fail in Fundraising - Part I
Throughout my career, I’ve heard many stories of churches setting out to raise lofty goals, only to come up short. Unfortunately, once the horses are out of the barn you can’t close the door and bring them back.
The same is true for capital campaigns. Once they’re launched and completed, the church is done with capital fundraising for 3-5 years. That’s why it is important to do the campaign right the first time. The following are a few key reasons we’ve seen church campaigns fail with some tips on how to avoid these pitfalls:
- The pastor and/or leadership who establish unrealistic goals, and have nothing to back those goals beyond needs or wants – Campaign success is usually the result of a combination of capacity and will. Does the church have the capacity and the will to achieve the goal? In our church campaign consulting, we’ve seen many churches that have enough people with enough capacity to well-exceed the goal. The problem is that their people don’t have the will.
The Feasibility / Planning Study is Key
That’s why it’s important to conduct a planning/feasibility study with the congregation to determine what the church can reasonably expect to raise. Most consultants say that you should be able to raise between 1 and 3 times your annual budget.
First, there’s no real standard supporting that claim. We’ve had a church struggle getting to one time its offerings. Yet, we’ve also had a church achieve 20 times its offerings. But there were logical reasons for both results, and knowing that in advance allowed us to help them set reasonable goals.
The first church was full of young people with toddlers. They were generous, but they lacked financial capacity. By contrast, the latter church had people with excellent capacity. They just needed a process to sway their will.
Set Realistic Goals
Goals should certainly be established according to need, but it is important that they also be realistic. In both cases, our study process allowed us to help set realistic goals and achieve success.
- Churches that are not teachable because the leaders believe they are experts in every area. We had a church approach us about helping them. They had 4,000 families and were building a new church for $12 million. All of these variables indicated that they were in a good position to have a successful campaign effort, but they needed help.
The church spent over $700,000 for architectural fees, but they were reluctant to pay our fee, which was only about 10% of the architectural fees.
The elders decided they could organize the campaign, raise the money and save the expense of consulting fees. Despite the fact that we have a stellar 20-year track record of helping church clients raise about 155% of goal, they moved out on their own and wound up raising less than $2 million.
In another case we had a young church hire us, pay us but fail to implement several crucial strategies on which we advised them. Evidently, the pastor and two of the elders didn’t think these strategies were important, so they neglected to implement them.
When You Hire a Company, Listen to Them
Even though we spent considerable time organizing and training around these strategies, the leaders just didn’t think they were essential. As a result, this turned out to be the first church we worked with in over 20 years that failed to achieve its goal. The point is that fundraising consultants do this every day. When you hire a company and pay them to help you, it makes sense to listen to them.
Next week we will continue our series on 7 Reasons Churches Fail in Fundraising.
The Most Effective Form of Fundraising - Part 3
In the last two blogs we’ve discussed the most effective form of fundraising, face-to-face solicitations. Specifically, first we compared faced-to-face visits with other forms of fundraising, and showed how the productivity of this method is far superior to any other form. Then last week we covered several steps that include:
- Setting the appointment
- Opening the call by making a personal connection
- Telling the story with a sense of passion
- Explaining the need
- Sharing the vision
- Asking for advice
- Asking for a specific amount or above
- Asking and then being quiet
Now today I’ll cover a few final points.
Determining Targeted Amounts
In solicitation visits it’s much more effective to provide a targeted amount than it is simply to ask a person to give. But how do you establish those amounts? Simply stated, as fundraising consultants we recommend that our clients conduct a wealth screening of their databases. It provides information like real estate holdings, political contributions, estimated net worth, giving capacity and much more.
Of course, because people have high giving capacities doesn’t guarantee they’ll give generously. That’s why we also consider giving levels to an individual organization and other anecdotal information.
For example, the wealth screening may indicate that a person has a $10 million giving capacity, but they have given only small amounts to you. Clearly, they’re not likely to give you a major gift right away. In fact, it usually requires substantial cultivation, but the wealth screening tells you where to put your cultivation efforts.
Handling Objections
In the actual meeting after you make the request, the individual/s may have questions or offer objections. We actually try to anticipate at least some of the objections and then cover those in our orientation and training sessions. We also give volunteers a fact sheet with information that covers many of the questions they may receive.
However, it’s impossible to anticipate all questions or possible objections, so when that happens we simply suggest volunteers respond by saying, “That’s a good question and I don’t know the answer. Let me get back to you.” Finally, in our capital campaign consulting we also recommend to the extent possible that a staff person and a volunteer make the calls together. That way if questions emerge the staff person can usually address them.
Following Up Appropriately
Often people need time to consider your request and discuss it privately. In that case I don’t recommend leaving behind a pledge card. If and when you do, you are opening the door for them to send it back, usually for an amount that is far less than the original ask amount.
That’s why we recommend that volunteers settle on a follow-up time. Also, the follow up doesn’t have to be in person. Telephone is fine, although a personal visit is a very effective follow-up strategy. That said, people are busy, so phone follow-up is quite acceptable.
We also recommend that follow-up be completed within two weeks of the original visit. If it’s a call, we ask how they are coming along with their decision. If they still haven’t decided, we ask if there are any questions or any more information they might need. Then we recommend that the volunteer tell them they will follow up in a couple more weeks. If after two more weeks they still haven’t made a decision, more than likely they have decided but just don’t want to tell you.
Finally, major gifts take a lot of work but they’re well worth the effort. For organizations that have big plans and a big vision, clearly face-to-face solicitations are the way to go!
The Most Effective Form of Fundraising - Part 2
In our last blog we established that by far face-to-face fundraising yielded the best results. We also established that many organizations and their boards are reluctant to engage this way because it’s uncomfortable. Still, there are some techniques that can reduce anxiety and enhance success.
You Have to Set Up an Appointment
Now you might think this is a given, but you’d be surprised at how frequently busy people fail to get around to it. In our capital campaign consulting we remind staff and volunteers that the biggest barrier to a successful visit is not making the call to set up the appointment in the first place. We suggest clients set aside time to make calls and to avoid conducting business on the telephone. Simply ask for a 20-30 minute meeting.
Make a Personal Connection
After the appointment is set and the meeting date is here, it is a good idea to begin the meeting by making a connection. A good way to do that is to talk about family, friends or associates that you may have in common.
Personal connections are important, but eventually you need to transition the conversation to the organization you are representing. Here’s where collateral materials with fact sheets can help. Talk about some of those facts and how the organization is making a difference.
Tell the Story of the Organization with a Sense of Passion and Commitment
Sometimes that includes a personal account of how you or a family member has been served. Either way they should learn why you’re involved, who is served, what happens, where and how it happens and why it’s important.
Explain the Need
If you do a good job telling the story, the need should flow from it. For example, you may be doing great work, but you are also limited in some way. It might mean that you need more space or equipment to serve more people or serve people more effectively. Whatever the need is you have to make it clear and to the point.
Share the Vision
The conversation can’t be just about need. You also have to talk about what will happen as a result of filling this need and why it matters.
Ask for advice
During a campaign when I was a vice president, the president of our university told me something that stuck with me. He explained that when he first became president he used to ask for money and he got a lot of advice. However, as he progressed he started asking for advice and he got a lot more money. When people give advice they tend to become a lot more vested in the conversation, and that often leads to a gift.
Ask for a Specific Amount or Above
People need targets. Here’s where a gift table can help. Some people would rather point to a number than say the number, which is fine. “I’d like you to consider making a commitment at this level (point to it on the gift table) or above.” Again, we don’t want to limit anyone’s giving. Asking this way typically yields 5 or 6 gifts above targeted levels. However, first donors must have an idea of the level you’re asking them to consider.
Ask and Then Be Quiet
As fundraising consultants we advise clients that although this strategy takes discipline, it works. Sales people tell me that once the offer is on the table, the next person who speaks is at a decided disadvantage. This is certainly true in fundraising. When you’re asking, don’t try to let the donor off the hook; a little pressure works. Simply put your request out there and then discipline yourself to wait for a response.
Next week we’ll discuss how to how to handle objections, determine targeted amounts, initiate follow up and more.
The Most Productive Form of Fundraising
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard negative comments about fundraising. “I hate fundraising; I just really don’t like asking for money; fundraising makes me uncomfortable.”
Of course, very few people who say these things have actually been involved in a well-planned fundraising campaign. In the coming weeks we’ll try to provide some basics of fundraising and also try to deal with some common fears.
However, even before we get into, “techniques” I want to address a fundamental question. Though it’s most important to success, it is often is neglected. Simply stated, which method yields the best results?
Why Face-To-Face Asks are Superior
Many nonprofit organizations and boards prefer events, direct mail or even telephone solicitations over making direct face-to-face asks. Despite the fact that the aforementioned methods are costly, labor intensive and less productive, nonprofits and their volunteers continue to rely on them. Therefore, I thought we’d begin our series by looking at each method.
Direct Mail and Phone-a-thon Fundraising
In direct mail good response rates are typically 1%-3%, and 8-9% for house renewals. Phone-a-thons are more effective if people answer. In fact, a Showcase of Fundraising Innovation/Inspiration (Sofii) report cites a 38% response rate for telephone upgrade campaigns (vs. 4% in direct mail upgrades).
However, that doesn’t consider what it costs. In fact, direct mail is the most costly and least effective method of fundraising. Now I’m not suggesting that you drop it. On the contrary, direct mail also helps acquire new donors, renew or upgrade old ones, enhance brand recognition and increase visibility. It also can tell stories that demonstrate how you’re helping others, but it does have limitations.
Special Events Fundraising
Golf tournaments, auctions and galas can help, but you have to watch costs. While professionals suggest that they shouldn’t exceed 30%, in our capital campaign consulting we’ve seen them reach as high as 70%. And this doesn’t consider the labor-intensive nature of events. Still events raise organizational visibility and bring new people to the table.
Of course, well-balanced development programs include all of these methods and more.
Face-to-Face Fundraising
The operative word here is balanced. Often nonprofits employ plenty of the previous methods, but they neglect the most productive form of fundraising and that is face-to-face solicitations.
As fundraising consultants we often quote the statistic that 70% of the time a peer visits a peer this way, the answer is “yes”. Of course, it may not be at the same level you ask, but it’s usually “yes” at some level. Also, gifts are much larger in face-to-face visits than in any other form of fundraising.
Why People Fear Face-to-Face Visits
Fears generally come from one of 3 concerns. I’m afraid they’ll say “no”; I’m afraid they’ll get mad; or I’m afraid I’ll make a mistake. So what are the answers?
First, the reality is that 70% of the time the answer is “yes” and not “no”.
Second, in over 30 years of fundraising, I’ve only had one person get mad, and he later apologized. People are sometimes flattered, but they hardly ever get mad. In the one case where it did happen to me, I responded, “I’m not asking for myself. I’m asking for the kids who are being housed, fed and cared for here.
Third, no one is perfect. Whenever you initiate something new, you’re bound to make mistakes. In fact, Michael Jordan said that during his career he missed over 9,000 shots, lost 300 games and he’d been called on 26 times to make the final shot in a game and missed. Jordan noted that he failed over and over again and that’s why he succeeded.
Fundraising is the same; you simply get better with practice. In future blogs we’ll talk about some effective techniques for asking.
The Greatest Leader of All Time (Part 2)
Last week we talked about the characteristics that make Jesus the greatest leader of all time. Specifically we mentioned that:
- Jesus attracted and inspired others by casting a compelling vision and taking impressive actions.
- Jesus believed in the potential of followers and He developed them, regardless of their backgrounds.
- Jesus served His followers and
- Jesus met crisis head on.
Now today I want to continue talking about characteristics that made Jesus a strong and successful leader.
- Jesus was humble yet committed to the cause – In Philippians Paul challenges us to have the same mind that Jesus, the very equal of God, had. Of course, Paul tells us that Jesus was humble and He:
- Did not use His status with God, His divinity, for His own advantage.
- Instead He humbly became a man and a servant to others.
- He also humbly became obedient to the Father’s plan even to the point of death.
Lessons from Good to Great
In Good to Great (GTG) Jim Collins noted that the leaders of all (GTG) companies had what he called personal humility combined with an unwavering commitment to the mission.
This demonstrates a leadership commitment to achieving the mission and vision without it being about the leader. Jesus was not a self-promoter but a kingdom promoter. His leadership was about the mission and vision and not about Himself.
- Jesus demonstrated His commitment to the mission, vision and people He led. In fact, so committed was Jesus to those things that He was willing to go to the cross and die for them.
In other words, Jesus walked the talk and proved His authenticity. How many leaders are willing to demonstrate anywhere near that level of commitment? Simply stated, when leaders walk the talk it inspires and moves people.
Jesus clearly demonstrated His commitment, not only in dying but also by keeping the promise that He’d be raised from the dead. It inspired others to follow. Consider that all of the apostles carried forward the mission and vision (the message of the Gospel) to others. As a result, church growth exploded and all but one died for the cause.
- Jesus built a team and then collaborated and empowered them to act. No doubt, before His death many people followed Jesus and were the beneficiaries of His leadership. However, He built a comparatively small inner circle (12) of collaborators that He mentored, empowered and encouraged to act.
For example, when the apostles brought Him the problem of feeding 5,000 people, Jesus told them they should give them something to eat. Even though they had no idea of how to do that, Jesus was preparing them to take action in faith on their own.
Similarly, in Mark 6: 7, Jesus sent His disciples out two-by-two to tell others about the kingdom, and He also gave them power and authority. Then, in John 14 He promises that they will do greater works than He has done. Finally, in Matthew 28 He encouraged them to go and make disciples of all nations baptizing and teaching them.
While working with clients as a fundraising consultant, I have often heard complaints that while people are given a job to do, they’re not given authority or they’re not empowered to do the job without gaining permission every step of the way.
By contrast, Jesus wasn’t afraid for His followers to achieve. In fact, He wanted and even encouraged them to achieve so the Gospel (His vision) would accomplish the mission of preaching and making disciples of the whole world. And He empowered them and gave them authority to do that very thing.
In modeling these characteristics of Jesus, followers of Christ can make a major step forward in becoming inspiring and productive leaders.