Home » Blog » "We are not going to staff our way out of this."

"We are not going to staff our way out of this."

Posted by Marla Cornelius on Jan 22nd 2013 at 5:22PM

This became a refrain while in the midst of analyzing the data for our newly released report: UnderDeveloped: A National Study of Challenges Facing Nonprofit Fundraising (a joint project of CompassPoint and the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund). But this is not a report about recruiting and retaining development staff. At least not entirely. This is about a much deeper problem, what we describe as a vicious cycle that many organizations are caught in: They lack the conditions for fundraising success, which leads to premature development director departure, which creates instability in the development function, ultimately making it harder for an organization to recruit and retain its next development director. And so on…

The Adaptive Challenge

The authors of The Practice of Adaptive Leadership (Heifetz, Linsky, and Grashow) said that "The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems." They describe adaptive challenges as complex, systemic, murky problems that require:

  • changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and loyalties;
     
  • organizations to clarify their values, develop new strategies, and learn new ways of operating, and
     
  • the mobilization of others in collective problem solving.

Technical problems on the other hand are those that we know how to tackle. We find solutions in our current structures, procedures, and ways of working. We don’t need to re-learn. We already have the knowledge.

By attempting to break the vicious cycle with HR tactics we have fallen right into this trap. It’s not to say that some technical fixes aren’t important. In fact, there are many issues tangled in the cycle that we do know how to fix—and by the way, we should get started right now because they are exacerbating the issue. We talk about many of these technical fixes in the report’s calls to action. For example:

  • From executive transitions management we have learned how to successfully handle leadership turnover and properly onboard new leaders.

  • The fund development field has articulated a deep body of knowledge and has taught us that fundraising requires a specific skill-set and expertise.
“The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems”
- The Practice of Adaptive Leadership by Heifetz, Linsky, and Grashow
  • Our colleagues in human resources have provided us with good performance management practices like tailoring job descriptions with relevant competencies, setting realistic performance goals, and providing staff with leadership development opportunities.

A New Mental Model

While we get to work on some of the technical fixes named above we have to be careful not to neglect the adaptive challenge that fuels the cycle. Of course this is the hard part. Like a true adaptive challenge, it is bigger than any one person or organization. The failure of leadership in this case is not individual, it’s collective. But it’s also an opportunity.

The Opportunity

We know that we can interrupt the cycle because there are a number of organizations that have figured it out. They have a healthy culture of philanthropy in place, they practice shared fundraising leadership, and they have invested in their infrastructure. As a result, their fundraising activities are very successful.  In the report we call them "high-performers." In Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard, the Heath brothers call them "bright spots."

Throughout the course of this project, I learned so much from these bright-spot groups—about fundraising, yes, but also about the opportunities that I just didn’t see as clearly before. Part of the work of adaptive leadership is to name the entrenched issues. We all know that challenges that go unnamed remain elusive. I’m grateful to our terrific advisory committee and focus group leaders for helping us name the challenges described in this report and guiding us to see the opportunities in front of us.

One tremendous opportunity begins the calls to action in the UnderDeveloped study:to embrace fund development and adopt a mental model shift across the sector. We hope you will help us do that -- read the report, reflect on how these issues play out at your organization, and join the national conversation we have planned for later in the spring.

By Marla Cornelius, Co-author of UnderDeveloped and Senior Project Director, CompassPoint.

 

Resources

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 03/25/2013 - 10:29am.

Lee Anne,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to the blog and for your interest in the report. Although we did not include this data in the written report, I thought this might be of interest to you:

In the national survey, we asked the development directors who were in the process of leaving their positions what factors contributed to their decision. The #1 reason given was "overall burnout" followed closely by "desire for more flexibility/control over schedule." "To make more money" was 12th on the list of 17 possible reasons.

I agree that compensation is an important factor in career decisions, but I am not sure that it is the most effective way to show appreciation. Studies usually show that other kinds of rewards tend to be more motivating (increased responsibility, opportunities for growth, interesting work, being in control of own work/schedule).

I appreciate your point however that organizations would be better positioned to discuss compensation with current and potential employees if they have intentional, articulated compensation strategies in place--for all positions, not just development.

Thank you again,
Marla Cornelius

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/25/2013 - 8:05pm.

Dear Maria,

I just read this report and I am surprised that one of the major issues affecting retention of excellent Development Officers did not include the agency's reevaluation of the salary offered. One of the key ways an Executive Director and Board of Directors can show they value the Development Director is to compensate him or her appropriately. In many cases, I believe that a Development Director should be compensated virtually the same as the ED, if not more, in the fiscal years when budget goals are reached and surpassed, which is quite rare these days. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the board to consider the two positions as virtually equal.

As a Development Director of a small agency with many years in Fund Development and even more years working in the corporate world as a Director of Sales and Marketing and later as the owner of my own firm, I find it disheartening to learn that one of the obvious solutions to turnover, a compensation increase, is being overlooked when the right Development Director is being hired or successfully in place.

And most especially, it concerns me that smaller agencies compensate less than larger ones, though I know that is true. As is typical with a small agency, the development director wears MANY hats. We dream up and execute events, manage volunteers, write grants, complete marathon online funding applications, write outcome reports after receiving funds, keep statistics on services, help create a reasonable budget goal (which is ignored), have sleepless nights worrying how to pull rabbits out of hats to make the budget, manage the acknowledgement process, manage or oversee the database, manage the website, design marketing pieces, design newsletters and annual reports, manage Facebook, write press releases, recruit Board members, call on corporate sponsors, secure in-kind gifts, visit with major donors, manage board members, and on an on. For larger organizations with more development and marketing staff members with specific expertise, the development director supervises these activities rather than actually doing them, but, of course, they still have the same sleepless nights.

I think it would be important to ask Development Directors... at what salary level might you commit to a five year employment agreement? Or what three specific changes in the agency philosophy or operations would encourage your commitment to a five year employment agreement. I think the Boards and EDs need to think in a totally different way about this type of individual whose primary skill set is most associated with a very successful, high producing, creative and outside the box Sales Director with the extraordinary skill set to manage multiple projects at once and sell a cause rather than a product. And frankly that is far harder than selling a piece of land, a car, a service--or virtually anything. If Boards don't begin to think that way, the agency will forever be looking for the perfect longterm person.

Many other positions at a nonprofit are unique to the nonprofit community and not necessarily duplicated in the forprofit world. But that is not the case for the skilled and successful Development Director. Why wouldn't someone with those strenghths move to the private sector where compensation will always be better?

Lee Anne Wills
Nashville Children's Alliance
leeanne.wills@nashvillechildrensalliance.org

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Privacy & Terms of Use | Cart | myCompassPoint

© 2013 CompassPoint Nonprofit Services. Site developed and maintained by Giant Rabbit.

Contact us at info@compasspoint.org.

myCompassPoint

Follow Us