Larry Johnston RSS Feed

What Makes You Strategic?

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2011-05-27T22:33:13-06:00

As someone who has helped nonprofit organizations to do strategic planning for 35 years, I find it painful that some organizations can be so non-strategic. Much of what is called strategic planning by nonprofits is merely long range planning, and a truly strategic thinker would look long and hard through many nonprofit organizational plans to find hints of what I would personally consider to be strategic.
Perhaps much of the problem relates to semantics, and that’s why visiting the dictionary might be helpful. Dictionary.com lists the following definitions of “strategic”:

pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of strategy: strategic movements.
important in or essential to strategy.
(of an action, as a military operation or a move in a game) forming an integral part of a stratagem: a strategic move in a game of chess.
Military .

intended to render the enemy incapable of making war, as by the destruction of materials, factories, etc.: a strategic bombing mission.
essential to the conduct of a war: Copper is a strategic material.
a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.

Unless you find the military definitions helpful, the first three definitions would be practically meaningful only in light of an already articulated strategy. But at the risk of being ponderous, what makes a strategy strategic?
For example, one old definition of strategy I recall is “the fundamental logic by which one accomplishes an objective.” Fair enough. But that’s a process definition devoid of any meaningful content.
As succinctly as I know how to put it, what makes something truly strategic is the right criteria. Or, more practically and specifically in terms of ministry leadership and nonprofit management, having the right criteria for strategic choice.
In other words, meeting these criteria, once defined, would make something (e.g., an activity, a project, an initiative) strategic; failing to meet the criteria would indicate that whatever else its value might be, it hasn’t earned the right to fly under the “strategic” flag
Because strategic criteria are contextual (or “domain variant,” if you want to sound scholarly), this means that what is strategic for one organization is likely to be nonstrategic or counterstrategic to others. But are there broad, if not universal, criteria that would help nonprofit organizations to improve their strategic IQ and in fact be more strategic? I think so. And with no pretense of being thorough, let alone exhaustive, here’s a list you might consider as starters:

Does the activity (current or proposed program, project, initiative) transparently link to or derive from the organization’s mission and vision?
More specifically, can a clear line of sight be established by way of linkage with the organization’s Key Result Areas (KRAs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)?
Does the opportunity take advantage of a strength or distinctive competency the organization possesses?
Correspondingly, does it avoid a dependence on something that is a weakness of the organization?
Does it demonstrably add value to key organizational stakeholders, thus likely strengthening their engagement?
Does it leverage limited organizational resources? (That is, does it get good or improved “bang for the buck,” amplify the return on time and talent invested, etc.?)
Does it offer the opportunity to enhance organizational brand equity or attain a comparative advantage in the marketplace?
Does it contribute to the internal consistency of existing strategies? (That is, does it align in a complementary or synergistic way with existing strategies or is it tangential, possibly indicating a wild goose chase?)
Is the level of risk acceptable?
Is it consistent with established policy guidelines?

Obviously, you can add to this list, but if we were playing poker, I’d contend it’s “good for openers.”
D.L. Moody (not sure whether he played poker or not), once said, “The best way to determine whether a stick is crooked is not to debate its crookedness but to lay it down next to one that’s straight.” Following that eminently sound counsel, the best way to determine whether something is strategic is not to debate how strategic it is, but to lay it down next to explicit and rigorously defined criteria for strategic choice. To the extent that most of your answers come up “Yes,” it’s highly likely that you are indeed being strategic.

The Most Important Degree in Development

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2011-02-07T23:28:21-07:00

Over the years I’ve been asked, generally by younger staff at client organizations or by people attending my seminars who are contemplating a career in the field of development, “What’s the most valuable degree you can get?” It’s a great question, and one that used to trigger a range of provisional answers.

Because the field of development now comprises more than 50 distinct disciplines, it’s clear that the most worthwhile academic degree for some people could be in any of these disciplines. That said, however, my typical responses would include a Master’s in marketing, communications, or advertising. Or an MBA (continuing to believe, as I do, that there’s no business bigger than God’s business). And, because I’m persuaded that the core discipline of marketing (and thus development) is psychology, I’ve noted that a minor in psychology certainly wouldn’t hurt.

But recently I’ve changed my mind. I’ve now settled on the most valuable degree bar none. And the good news is that almost anyone can get this degree. Better yet, it requires no major financial outlays for tuition. No time on campus. No evening courses or intensive residential sessions. The answer I now give is “an M.A.” That’s a “Master’s of Appreciation.”

In her wonderful little book, The Simple Truths of Appreciation, Barbara Glanz shares one of her favorite quotes from Albert Schweitzer:

Sometimes our light goes out but it is blown into flame again by an encounter with another human being. Each of us owes the deepest thanks to those who have rekindled this inner light.

She tells how in sharing this with audiences she then asks people to shut their eyes and think of someone who, at some point in their journey, has rekindled their inner light. She then asks them to write down the name of the person and to commit to their own act of appreciation by letting that person know in the next 72 hours that he or she was thought of.

One man shared his recollection of an eighth grade teacher who was everyone’s favorite and who had really made a difference in all of their lives. He planned to track her down and let Barbara know the outcome.

A couple of months later she received a call from him. He was so choked up he could barely make it through the story. After writing to his teacher, the following week he received this letter:

Dear John,

You will never know how much your letter meant to me. I am 83 years old, and am living alone in one room. My friends are all gone. My family’s gone. I taught for 50 years and yours is the first “thank you” letter I have ever received from a student. Sometimes I wonder what I did with my life. I will read and reread your letter until the day I die.

Although my sentiments and convictions regarding an “attitude of gratitude” and the role of appreciation in development (and leadership, and management, and…) had been maturing for four decades, reading this letter nailed it for me. It reminded me of the awesome power of appreciation to transform lives, and “sealed the deal” in my thinking about most valuable degrees. Not only in development, but in life.

So if you’re thinking about pursuing a degree, let me urge you to become a Master of Appreciation. The truth be told, I simply know of none better.

Plugging the Holes in Your Bucket

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2010-11-22T19:08:26-07:00

By Larry F. Johnston, Ph.D.

At conferences where I speak, I’ll often tell those in my seminars, “I don’t care what your mission is, you’re in the energy business.” That’s simply my way of expressing a deep personal and professional conviction that the primary task of leadership and management is to focus energy on productivity.

Stop to think about it a moment. This energy -- what the military would have in mind when they speak of the “morale” of the troops – will never appear on any balance sheet or operating statement and yet it is arguably the most important asset your organization has. (An important presupposition is that you’ve hired the right people, because highly energized incompetents can be more than a little scary!)

In fact, Victor Vroom’s celebrated formula in motivational theory states that “A x M = P” – Ability times motivation equals performance. Multiply even great ability by minimal motivation and you’re toast (as in soggy milk toast). Multiply even modest ability by “incandescent eyeball” motivation and you’re likely to do some rockin’ and rollin’.

What has this got to do with buckets? Well, in their national bestseller, How Full is Your Bucket?, Tom Rath and Don Clifton note that “Each of us has an invisible bucket. It is constantly emptied or filled, depending on what others say or do to us. When our bucket is full, we feel great. When it’s empty, we feel awful.” Based on research, Rath and Clifton note that 99 out of 100 people report they want to be around more positive people, and 9 out of 10 report being more productive when they’re around positive people.

The book goes on to explain what we’ve all experienced, and may in fact even experience on a daily basis. And that is that each of us has an invisible dipper, and we can use that dipper in our daily interactions to fill people’s buckets or to empty them.

How many of us realize that organizational climate – how we feel about our working environment – can account for 30% of performance? More pointedly, how many of us genuinely appreciate the awesome power we have in our daily interactions to help fill (or empty) the buckets of others in our families, in our churches, or on our organizational teams?

Please understand. My personal bent is simply too pragmatic to advocate some cheesy, happy-face, saccharin approach to making people feel good. It’s a lame idea, and people would see through it in a heartbeat. But I’m also sober enough and just observant enough to know that a kind word, and a simple but heartfelt recognition of people’s value and their work can work wonders.

If you’re interested in improving organizational climate and performance, let me encourage you to mind your dipper. More practically, as a discipline, let me encourage you put three matches in your left pocket each morning. Then, each time throughout the day that you genuinely share a word of appreciation or affirmation with someone, transfer one of those matches to your right pocket.

At the end of each day, if you’ve got three matches in your right pocket, you’ll have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re lighting fires that will help your organization to burn brightly. As John Wesley is reported to have said, “Set yourself on fire and people will come from miles around just to watch you burn.”

Blessed Are the Closers...

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2010-08-30T12:29:30-06:00

By Larry F. Johnston, Ph.D.

Although it’s hard for me to grasp this at times (Yes, Virginia, denial is still alive and well), I’m frequently reminded that I’ve now spent more than 40 years in the field of development. Over those years I’ve gained some priceless insights. Truths on which hang “all the law and the profits.”

Like the truth that big gifts add up quicker, an insight I could attribute to my grade school math teachers. Or the truth I learned from the mining industry, that you’re either an inch from a million dollars or a million inches from a dollar. And why, with that in mind, it pays to know where you’re digging.

I’ve also learned from an old Apache proverb that “What is needed is less thunder in the mouth, more lightening in the hand.” Or as Otto von Bismarck put it poignantly, “I’d rather have pointed bullets than pointed words.”

But I’m still persuaded that of all the truths I’ve learned in development, this is the greatest by far: Of all the reasons why people give, and they are myriad, the most important is that someone asked.

The amazing thing to me is that after decades in the field and enormous strides made in the disciplines of development (there are now more than 50), so many people are still so reluctant to ask for the gift. They just can’t close. Although the reasons for reluctance are multiple, here, from my vantage point, are just a few of the usual suspects:

Extrabiblical baggage: Far too many Christians want to appeal to mythologized, rose-colored accounts of how George Mueller and Hudson Taylor did things, rather than how Moses, David, Solomon, or Paul did things. In short, their fundraising models simply aren’t biblical. Their appeals to extrabiblical authorities are often mere camouflage; convenient escaped from responsibility when the truth is that they just don’t think it’s “spiritual” to ask for money.

Passionectomies: Some fundraisers have apparently had their passion surgically removed. Because much of selling or persuasion is the transference of feeling, too many fundraisers fail to realize that the most important sale they’ll ever make is when they sell themselves on the cause. Remember what the –iasm on the end of “enthusiasm” stands for: I Am Sold Myself!

Fear of rejection: Too many people think that asking for funds is about them. If the gift is declined, they feel personally rejected. Well, it ain’t about you so get over it! It’s about creating a transformational “bridge” across which God-given resources can travel to change lives. The lives of benefactors as well as beneficiaries.

Lack of knowledge: Just as Paul told Timothy that there are those who are “always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth” (2 Tim. 3.7), so in development there are legions of “grip and grin” types who are always lathering but never shaving!

Because precious little is accomplished in organizations without financial resources, and because most of these resources come when people are asked, here’s a beatitude you can take to the bank: “Blessed are the closers…”

Improving Waste Management

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2010-07-12T17:20:59-06:00

By Larry Johnston

There are a lot of things that separate the pros in management from the amateurs. And the amount of time they’ve been managing has little to do with whether they’re one or the other. I’ve met people who are pros the first day they got started, and amateurs who’ve been at the task for 20 years.

But for this blog, I want to focus on just two differentiators. Both can be either adaptational (i.e., it’s something you adapt to rather than deeply believe) or orientational (i.e., a deep internal compass that reflects core values, beliefs and inclinations), but they quickly find their expression in behavior and methodology. More simply, what we value gets fleshed out in what we do.

One is the notion of stewardship. The other is the nasty “D” word: Discipline. Let’s start with stewardship.

I’m not talking here about stewardship in the sense of encouraging people to give. I’m speaking more to what stewardship is really all about, the use (management) of God-given resources to accomplish God-given tasks. Here we should be mindful of the etymology of the word “steward.” It comes from the old English “styward,” where the sty was the warehouse of personal or communal goods, and the ward or warden (manager) was responsible for the judicious care of its contents. Translating this concept to modern management, especially of nonprofits, is the obligation of managers (stewards) to maximize the impact (results) of every gift entrusted to their care. That entails, among other things, the elimination of waste.

That’s where discipline comes in, and more specifically the disciplines of Total Quality Management (TQM) and Total Quality Service (TQS). Students and practitioners of these disciplines know from research as well as personal experience that in the typical organization an alarming percentage of the activities and processes of the organization cannot demonstrably be linked to value creation or mission- and vision-related outcomes or results. In other words, they’re waste. That assertion is unbelievable to many, offensive to some, but a wake-up call to others.

But whether you’re incredulous, offended, or awakened, the challenge remains: How do we, with greater effectiveness and efficiency each day, gain increasing understanding and mastery of process design and process management at every level of our organizations so that more and more of donors’ hard-earned dollars translate to life-changing and world-changing impact, rather than being frittered away through process deficiencies and managerial negligence?

It’s clear to anyone who hasn’t been comatose that there’s a new game afoot in terms of the level and sophistication of philanthropic competition. A new game means new rules, and new rules mean new tools.

Some of these tools relate critically to how we design and manage key organizational processes. And to become more effective at mission management, we’ve simply got to get better at waste management.

Managing the Moments of Truth

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2010-03-08T12:49:34-07:00

by Larry Johnston

The truth be told, the field of development isn’t overrun with philosophy majors. You see, by and large, development folks are activists. That means most of them won’t fit the definition of a conservative that I love: “Someone who sits and thinks, but mainly sits.”

I won’t bore the philosophically disinclined with detailed distinctions between correspondence and constructivist epistemologies. That would no doubt be a cause for great yawns. But in a nutshell, the correspondence gang generally believes that “truth” exists as a sort of monolithic “given,” independent of our conscious perception. Constructivists rightly recognize that all reality outlooks are constructed and thus they’re less inclined to confuse the map with the territory, the symbol with the reality.

What’s my point? Simply that from the perspective of your stakeholders, there is no such thing as the reality of your organization. Instead, there is only the highly subjective image your stakeholders have of your organization and its work, and this image is simply the cumulative sum of all the impressions they have been exposed to, along with the ways these have been mentally (and idiosyncratically) processed.

In other words, “moments of truth” matter. What are moments of truth? All the impressions stakeholders have of your organization along with the “service encounters” they experience as they interact with you. That’s why for many years we’ve advocated an understanding of the image “bank,” exhorting staff from nonprofit organizations to recognize that every contact with donors and other stakeholders either makes a deposit in their image bank (a good thing), or a withdrawal (something to be strenuously avoided).

Albrecht and Zemke, in their book, Instilling a Service Mentality:
Like Teaching an Elephant to Dance, make a point that all of us should grasp:

“From many of our everyday experiences…we can draw a fairly mundane conclusion, one that we believe can be stated as an out-and-out principle of service management: When moments of truth go unmanaged, the quality of service regresses to mediocrity”

Assuming that the quality of service your organization provides to stakeholders will increasingly determine your future (your stakeholders have lots of choices in a fiercely competitive environment), here’s a critical question:

Are you mapping and proactively managing the moments of truth?

If you’re not, no need to panic. There’s a good chance you’re not on the endangered species list yet.

But I wouldn’t wait too long. The competition is coming up fast. And as one proverb puts it, “It’s not the large that eats the small. It’s the fast that eats the slow.”

How BORED is Your BOARD?

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2010-01-27T19:38:53-07:00

By Larry Johnston

One of the better articles on boards is “The New Work of the Nonprofit Board,” from the Harvard Business Review (Reprint Number 96509). The article opens with the following sad but true state of affairs:

Effective governance by the board of a nonprofit organization is a rare and unnatural act. Only the most uncommon of nonprofit boards functions as it should by harnessing the collective efforts of accomplished individuals to advance the institution’s mission and long-term welfare. A board’s contribution is meant to be strategic, the joint product of talented people brought together to apply their knowledge and experience to the major challenges facing the institution.

What happens instead? Nonprofit boards are often little more than a collection of high-powered people engaged in low-level activities.

The authors go on to point out that the reasons are myriad, and the ones they mention are on the money (perhaps the most important being “strategic misalignment” or “majoring on the minor” although they don’t use these terms).

But they don’t address something that in my experience more boards need to address: aligning individual board member portfolios with their strengths.

Prior to facilitating a recent board retreat, I suggested to the board chair that we buy each board member a copy of Strengths Finder 2.0 by Tom Rath. The purpose was not only to introduce the board to strengths theory and strengths-based leadership, but to have them complete the Strengths Finder profile prior to the retreat. Because one of the goals of the retreat was to begin to overhaul the board and its work, the results of the individual profiles would allow us to build a strengths map showing which board members had different strengths in the four key organizational domains of Execution, Influencing, Relationship Building, and Strategic Thinking.

Although it will be some time before all these board members settle into their sweet spots in terms of fit with the organization’s strategic agenda, I think one of the “Aha!s” for the group was a whole new level of clarity regarding the upside of “fit” and the downside of “mis-fit.” When we soar with our strengths, we not only perform better but we feel better and that energy is contagious. Recalling one of my favorite management books of many years ago, Zapp! The Lightening of Empowerment, it means we’re more likely to be Zappers! than Sappers.

Over the years I’ve known board members who have developed the gift of enlightenment: They can lighten up a room just by leaving! The problem is not that they’re misfits, just “mis-fits,” earnestly but counter-strategically willing to do with marginal effectiveness and energy-eroding weariness the assignments they never should have said “Yes” to in the first place.

One of my greatest personal discoveries decades ago was that “Half of bein’ smart is knowin’ what you’re dumb at.” If the fizz has gone flat, your board is bored, and you’re your board meetings would make funerals look fun by comparison, check to see if board members are working in their areas of strengths. And remember that with board members as with staff and volunteers: “Don’t try to put in what God left out. Try to draw out what God put in.”

Your Donors' Wish List

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2009-12-30T11:21:46-07:00

by Larry Johnston

A recent article on BNET (newsletters@bnet.online.com) called “Change everything: Smile & Move,” had a great list of things on “Your Colleagues’ and Customers’ Wish List”:

More attentiveness and care
More gratitude (less entitlement)
More personal connection and authenticity
Less complaints and more smiles
More positive surprises (less negative ones)
More resourcefulness and resilience
More commitment to delivering

I really like this list. It packs a lot of punch in just seven succinct bullets. I also like it because it would make a great list for donors to many organizations.

You’ll often hear MJI consultants talk about “the relentless pursuit of donor delight,” and delivering on the above wish list would help lots of organizations in the pursuit of that delight.

If the logic in the list above makes sense to you, let’s get practical. What one step could you take with your donors on each of these bullets? More to the point, if you focused on just one step per month for the next seven months, practically what would that look like?

A popular credit card ad concludes by asking, “What’s in your wallet?” A better question for those of us in development might be, “What’s on your donors’ wish list?”

What's Driving Your Donors?

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2009-12-14T15:01:09-07:00

By Larry Johnston

In seminars I do at conferences, I’ll frequently ask the question, “What is the primary purpose of development?” Answers vary, but they tend to cluster in several areas like raising funds, building relationships, advancing the organization’s mission, and teaching stewardship.

There’s truth in all of these, but I’m doubtful about “teaching” stewardship. That’s a role of some excellent ministries, and certainly the role of churches although most of the latter fail miserably on this front for a host of reasons. If development has a role in stewardship, I think it has to do with providing attractive kingdom investment opportunities and then helping investors to feel, in the immortal words of Mae West, that “Too much of a good thing is marvelous!” That is, when it comes to giving and generosity, moderation is a vastly overrated virtue!

After hearing from the seminar audience, I’ll tell them what the primary purpose of development is from my vantage point: To create and keep the right kinds of donors.

Creating donors entails a host of activities, including branding, marketing and communications. And central in these activities is developing and articulating a distinctive value proposition, something that should be the cornerstone of your organization’s strategy. A value proposition recognizes that increasingly, development departments must be about the business of mutual value creation: proactively creating value for donors and other stakeholders as they go about creating value (gift income, a healthy donor base, visibility, brand equity, etc.) for their organization.

But keeping donors increasingly entails knowing what value is for your donors, and more specifically, what are the key value drivers for your donors. Our research has confirmed that there are a couple dozen drivers of donor satisfaction, engagement, loyalty, and thus donor lifetime value. We know that these drivers vary by organization and that while some of these clearly overlap, each donorbase has a distinctive “personality.” What’s more, our research confirms that key drivers not only vary between organizations, they can vary within organizations by segment. That is, key drivers for major donors can be different than those for medium and “mass” donors.

Now here’s the head-scratcher. It can be forcefully argued that nothing (other than, perhaps, divine favor) is more important to the success of development than consistently delivering on these key drivers, and yet not one in 100 development people can provide empirically based answers to the critical question of what drives their donors’ loyalty.

Abraham Lincoln wisely noted that if he had six hours to chop down a tree, he’d spend four hours sharpening the ax. For those in development, sharpening the ax includes knowing, not merely guessing, what drives donor loyalty and thus, to a great extent, what drives the success – and even the sustainability -- of their organizations.

Do you know what’s driving your donors?

Making Major Donors Your Priority Now

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2009-05-21T22:36:06-06:00

By Larry Johnston

Major donors play such a vital role in funding your organization's priorities, programs and projects you simply can't leave their involvement to chance. It takes a concerted and consistent effort to "do justice" to your major donors. Remember what Abraham Lincoln said: “If I had six hours to chop down a tree, I’d spend four hours sharpening the ax.” Here are some things good major donor reps, development directors, board members and executive directors (in short, ANYONE who has responsibility for cultivation and solicitation of major donors) pay attention to. The best reps do so consistently:

• Pray! – Having great skills and abilities is vitally important but they’re no substitute for wisdom, discernment, and the favor from On High that are the result of concentrated “closet” time. (Major Ian Thomas is reported to have said, “There is nothing more pathetic or nauseating than human flesh trying to glorify God!”) If prayer is indeed the slender nerve that moves the muscles of Omnipotence, the failure to pray is profoundly counterstrategic!
• Focus! – knowing what matters most, the best reps refuse to get stuck in the thick of thin things like organizational redtape, fruitless activities and time-wasting antics, and the “grip and grin” rituals that entail endless lathering but never shaving. The best reps are acutely aware of the difference between hunting and mere hiking.
• Listen!! – My partner, and the guy I still consider the “Dean of Development” after 33 years of partnership, says there are four keys to success in major gift fundraising: 1) Get involved in the lives of these folks; 2) Discover what their hopes and dreams are; 3) Show them how your organization can be a great vehicle for the realization of those hopes and dreams, and: 4) Challenge them to make those dreams come true now. Discovering the hopes and dreams of donors and prospects can’t be done without asking smart questions and elevating listening to an art form.
• Measure – Good reps may take some things by faith, but personal performance isn’t one of them. The best reps don’t wait to have their work measured; they would measure their own work whether or not anyone else did and use these measures in a disciplined way to consistently improve performance against quantifiable targets. They’ll measure lag (efforts or performance drivers) and lead (results) indicators and will strive to focus on the critical few activities that yield the greatest fruit.
• Learn – In today’s marketplace, if you’re not getting smarter, the sad truth is you’re getting dumber. (The amount of information on deposit at today’s colleges and universities is doubling every three to four years.) You can rest assured that the competition is raising the bar in terms of their knowledge base, and all you have to do to fall behind is move slower than your competitors (In today’s marketplace, “It’s not the big that eat the small, but the fast that eat the slow.”) The best reps, like the best leaders and managers, are lifelong learners with an insatiable desire to improve their knowledge, skills and performance.
• Ask! – It’s tragic but true. Some reps never get around to asking for the gift. Perhaps they feel that “hope” is a strategy and “hinting” a sound tactic. There’s simply no doubt about it: of all the reasons why people give, the most important is that someone asked. The wisest reps don’t ask people to give to the organization, but through the organization to those it serves in Christ’s name.
• Persist – Field rep work is clearly not for the feint of heart. The work can be wearying and the temptation at times is to throw in the towel. Many failures in development can be attributed to those who quit not knowing how close they were to success.

Critical Truths in Development

larry_johnston@mcconkey-johnston.com — 2009-04-25T16:27:50-06:00

By Larry Johnston

In today’s competitive environment, you and your organization MUST focus on the critical issue of donor retention. Keeping the donors you have can be a significant factor in your ability to not only survive in difficult times, but to thrive in any marketing environment. There are, however a variety of assumptions made about what it takes to satisfy donors that your organization is “doing a good job” with their giving dollars. Some of these assumptions can be downright dangerous, so let’s get back to some basic, bedrock truths:

Truth #1: The primary purpose of development is NOT simply to raise money. It’s to create and keep the right kinds of donors. For example, you might succeed for a while in getting ad hoc gifts, but without a stable, loyal base of givers you’ll never be truly successful in development.

Truth #2: Organizations do not keep dissatisfied donors. When donors become dissatisfied, most simply walk away, taking their checkbooks with them. Most organizations are perpetually hemorrhaging donors and many never even stop to ask why. (Don’t be fooled by “financial hardship” being cited by donors as a reason for discontinuing their giving. In 9 out of 10 cases they’re still giving to other organizations. What they were too kind to say is that your organization didn’t make the cut.)

Truth #3: Some donors are more valuable to the organization than others. Losing a “gold” donor is different than losing a “silver” donor. However, a great many organizations don’t know what their overall donor attrition/ retention rates are, let alone what their major donor attrition rates are.

Truth #4: The longer you keep donors, the more valuable they become. Even a donor who downgrades her giving from $5,000 to $2,500 annually is still $2,500 more valuable to the organization than she was last year!

Truth #5: Some factors are more important to donor retention than others. Our research confirms that a single factor can account for more than 50% of donors’ satisfaction with the organization!

Truth #6: Smart development people keep the main thing the main thing. They know which satisfaction “drivers” are most important to lifetime donor value and they concentrate on those factors. Majoring on the minors is a folly they gladly leave to others. They welcome clumsy competition.

Truth #7: Any money you spend to acquire new donors, simply to replace donors lost because of dissatisfaction, can rightfully be considered waste. Dollars that should be going to impact lives are perennially detoured into “revolving door” donor activities: around and around we go, always in motion but never getting anywhere. (There really is a difference between motion and progress but some people apparently don’t mind the difference as long they’re enjoying the trip!)