Fundraising Directors - Why is your job so hard?

I recently wrote a blog called “Fundraising Directors - Are you harder to hire or harder to keep?”. The post basically argued when charities hire a Development Director (DD), the adverts and job descriptions lead on how they’re poised for growth and have ambitious fundraising plans.

That was the hiring bit……

This blog post (part 2) wants to look at what happens next – once you accept the job - is it a keeper?

Just for background; I have worked in Fundraising for over 20 years, 8 years of which I was a DD. I have worked in-house for charities and for funders, so have worked closely with approximately 350 charities from Start Ups to Big Brands and all other shapes and sizes in between.

I have spent the last two weeks doing coaching calls with DD's, predominantly from the UK, working for medium and small charities and representing a wide variety of causes. All were heading up the fundraising for their charity.

Throughout the sessions ONE recurring theme kept popping up. The same issue, I have heard over and over for years. To summarise it is:

Development Directors are hired to do one job (grow income) but are actually employed to do another (solve problems).

The majority of DD are hired to grow income. In keeping with the ads and job descriptions above the charities are poised for growth and keen to hire an experienced fundraiser to lead the charge. The job interviews focus on a DD’s ability to raise funds, lead a team and be a senior team player internally.

BUT then they start the job – and slowly the extent of THEIR “problem” unfolds.

92% of my calls for example went like this. I have been hired to grow the income, but I can’t do my job because:

• I have an on-going deficit to reverse.
• We are massively reliant on one or two funders and I need to renew that funding before I can do anything else.
• I need to sort out the staff turn-over problem.
• I have zero resource; fundraising is seen as a cost which must be kept to a minimum.
• We are heavily reliant on statutory funding that is coming to an end and needs replacing urgently.
• We do not have full cost recovery budgets or unrestricted income - and I’m struggling to cover core cost.
• We are trying to fundraise without a network.
• There is no fundraising support outside my department, it’s pretty much down to me/my team.
• We are competing amongst ourselves; our projects/regional teams fundraise too.
• We’re struggling to collect or demonstrate impact.
• We have a 3- year strategy but it doesn’t have a budget – we don’t know the cost of anything.
• Everyone is obsessed with new income, existing donors are completely ignored or taken for granted.
• Everything is reactionary, we just chase available money bending the projects into whatever shape is needed, and then wait for the accident to happen.

My point isn’t that charities have problems – the issue is the DD comes into a job to grow income, NOT fully aware of an issue that is going to stop them in their income growing tracks. They need to sort the problem out. BUT despite the discovery of a significant problem – they and everyone around them STILL expect them to grow the income. The DD is left under pressure to solve a problem and continue to deliver the growth. It is being put into this situation that creates sentences like “I am supposed to be doing my job but…”. It is unrealistic to tackle an entrenched problem and grow income simultaneously as one usually annihilates the other, expectations are not aligned, and it creates enormous pressure for the DD.

So why does it keep happening?

I believe - charities hire to their wish list and not their problems, thinking their wish list (growth) will “rescue” them from their (usually entrenched over years) problems.

This means:

• The DD must deal with or solve the problem FIRST before their department can deliver or even think about the wish list – and these are not simple nor are they quick fixes for one person to take on. 
• Because the problem was never upfront or articulated in the JD or at the interview, the DD must go on a journey of discovery and figure out the extent of the problem for themselves when they start the job. Trying to diagnose the problem can take weeks. Time, when everyone else thinks the growth fairy is warming up her wand ready to knock it out of the park…...
• The expectation spotlight stays on the unfulfilled wish list – however unrealistic. Putting pressure on the DD to justify why they are not dishing out the fairy dust. 

Why hire to your wish list and not your problem? 

I think there are several possible reasons:

• By sweeping the problems under the carpet and putting your “best job forward”, you think you are in a better position to attract great candidates in an already "tough to hire" marketplace. Plus, other charities are putting their “best job forward” so if you were honest about your problems it would put you at a disadvantage. 
• Or you’re simply far too close to the problem and do not recognise it or under-estimate it as an obstacle between you and your ability to grow income. 
• You think growth will cancel out your problem not appreciating your problem is often the very reason why you cannot grow – or it’s a symptom of a much bigger problem (which again stunts growth).

I don’t think people are being purposefully misleading or doing anything wrong per se, they are genuinely trying to recruit good people, and if asked at interview stage they will answer questions honestly. But they are not proactively hiring to solve a problem.

Hire to solve your problem

I think charities would be in a stronger position if they were more transparent about their problems and hired to solve them, which I know on face value sounds risky in this competitive marketplace.

BUT to succeed I think you are better off attracting the DD who has the track record in the key issue you need to address, rather than dress up a JD to attract someone who has a track record in securing large donations. This could be an interim role if needs be.

If you have a deficit for example, asking a donor to "put their gold on your (perceived) sinking ship" is a very different ask than asking a donor to jump on your "band wagon".

OR at the very least ditch the pretence. Do not put the DD under pressure to grow the damn thing – when an absolute result would be to solve the problem as step one. At least align expectations with reality.

The real pressure for the DD is believing they can solve (usually entrenched) problems and grow income at the same time. It is bad enough if they think that of themselves (which many do initally because they are too close to the scenario to see it is a symptom of a much larger problem). The pressure is then compounded when others (the rest of the Senior Leadership Team and Board) think so too.

Nobody – fundraiser or otherwise wants to apply for a pretend job because the real job has been swept under the rug. Only to find once they join the organisation, the real deal crawls out from under the rug and morphs itself either into the “elephant in the room” or “the monkey on their back”. Either way, that thing isn’t staying under the rug……

Better, the charity is clear about the challenge they are asking candidates to take on. If a candidate wants to throw up at the thought of a deficit, an over reliant funder or replacing half the income that is about to walk out the door – best they don’t apply. And best not to be lured in via a BS job description. If, however, a candidate has experience and the gumption to take on the challenge, at least they start from day one being clear what the objective is and what success looks like. Expectation are aligned with reality. Time is not wasted trying to figure out what’s under the rug, strategies can be formed to tackle reality and donors can be brought on as genuine authentic partners (because you need to be clear with them to protect your reputation).

And here’s the rub, as much as I have heard from DD’s who have accepted the wish list job and are now trying to solve the real problem. I have also heard from DD’s who talk about being “once bitten twice shy”. These DD’s read the last three years of annual accounts, ask donor they know about the charity's reputation, speak to their fundraising network about the charity/the CEO/the Chair etc. So, the experienced people most charities wish to attract, know to look beyond the JD, and are still happy to take on challenging roles – because experience also says be clear, understand what you are walking into, manage expectations and do not agree to unrealistic goals or timeframes. 

So, my point is, CEO’s whatever you have been sweeping under that rug, pull that baby back and hire to solve your problem and you will get to your wish list faster. DD’s if you are grappling with what’s under that rug that is your job, do not think I should be doing my job BUT……

And of course, the Senior Leadership is a team and entrenched problems and all fundraising are team sports.

In my last article I offered a free download of my “4 Stages of Fundraising Growth” Framework which is a one-page PDF that lists the differences between the fundraising growth stages. 

Start - Survive - Systematise - Scale

The Framework is part of a much bigger programme, but even on its own it can help you to articulate or clarify where you are on your departmental growth journey, and what you need to be thinking/addressing at each stage.

If you are a CEO, Trustee or Senior Fundraiser and would like a copy of my one-page framework illustrating the “Stages of Fundraising Growth” and how one evolves into the next please download it HERE

Enjoy!