Why Do Confident Fundraisers Want More Solicitation Training? I'd appreciate your help. I was surprised. When Louis Diez and I looked at the results of our State of the Development Profession survey, I was struck by the responses to the question, "In which area of fundraising do you feel you need the most improvement?" The second highest response was "Solicitation." I was surprised for two reasons. The first was that these same respondents expressed confidence in their abilities and listed their "strongest fundraising skills" as "Donor Cultivation" and "Stewardship." So if you're doing those well, wouldn't solicitation naturally unfold from ongoing conversations? The second reason I was surprised is because experience has taught me that the process leading up to the solicitation is far more important than "the ask" itself. I would have expected those who expressed confidence in their relationship building and stewardship to have placed more emphasis on aligning interests in a way to make the success of the solicitation a foregone conclusion. But it is what it is and if I am going to provide advice, training and services that are helpful and responsive, I have to understand the needs and desires expressed by frontline practitioners. How do you interpret the survey response? Is the desire to be better trained in solicitation because: ▫️ More young or inexperienced practitioners are entering the field and not being acculturated to best practices? ▫️ Many adept relationship builders don't know how to turn the conversation toward differences to be made? ▫️ They think the solicitation, not the content of the proposal, is what will raise donors' level of investment? ▫️ They're not aware of the power of the "soft ask," as in, "are we at a stage where you would consider a proposal"? ▫️ They've mythologized "the ask" and feel as if they can't live up to the myth? ▫️ They understand that a formal ask, in many instances, is required and they want to be a respectful and complimentary as possible? ▫️ They just want it to do it as well as they possibly can? I would benefit from your interpretations and it would help me develop training modules that a significant portion of practitioners clearly want and need.
I would guess a combination of all of the above. But I also wonder if it’s because many are being pushed by senior leadership to ask too quickly so the ask inherently feels more difficult and may be less likely to succeed. Very, very early in my career I was told by a manager that I needed to make a $250k ask of a donor who I had visited 3 times. The reasoning was that I’d met her 3 times so it was time to ask - never mind she made it clear in every conversation that she wasn’t in a place to make a large gift at the time. Needless to say it was the worst ask I’ve ever made and I swore to myself to never push something like that again. I feel like if you really get to know your donors and listen to their interests and priorities, when you do make an ask, it doesn’t even really feel like it, it’s just a continuation of a conversation you’ve already been having.
I think your questions are good...though my thoughts drift toward defining the 'confident fundraiser' first. Consider (and no stereotypes intended) - 1) the age of the fundraisers (newbies or seasoned?) 2) their years of experience 3) are they professionally trained or do they 'think' they're fundraisers (big difference, right?) 4) are they soliciting for chocolate bars, their friends/family, or institutional and individual (major) donors Maybe honing the 'confident fundraisers' pool might provide a diffferent, and more accurate, response that you were expecting?
Don't very accomplished fundraisers always want to take additional training classes? I worry about the ones who don't. 1-successful fundraisers are often more on the work than peers. Training places them with peers in a professional setting focused on the group's type of work. 2—With "new" developments happening regularly in the space, no matter what percentage are genuinely new, additional training keeps one updated, meeting CE units, and informed enough to ask intelligent questions. 3-Finally, we will not engage in rocket science. Once the basics are understood, we will engage in the art of purposeful communication. Each practitioner brings their unique style to this. The political environment (micro and macro), senior leadership efficacy, and economic perceptions cue practitioners to infuse different amounts of themselves into donor relationships. Time with peers in a structured setting allows constructive feedback absent of organizational agendas or personal bias. Members of the teams I coach must take at least one course a year. Some courses directly align with their position. Some choose to learn new skills. Others have chosen very specialized subject matter courses related to the mission we support. Never stop learning!
I am confounded by this, Jim. I agree that the solicitation is the easiest part if you have properly and respectfully engaged the donor over a period of time. It is natural, and will not come as a surprise to the donor. I always say that the hard part begins with stewardship because it requires intentionality, focus, and the time required to remain committed and communicative with the donor. It’s a huge responsibility, and one that is not often recognized by leadership in terms of the amount of time it requires. I suspect that the desire for more solicitation training is because of the unrealistic pressure being put upon nearly all of us in development. It takes guts to stick to your guns and your values when constantly being pressured by the board, colleagues and CEO to “close, close, close.” I think many professionals in development are beginning to question their own skills. I was so ground down by pressure and criticism at a former organization that I truly questioned my abilities. Now I know better. But - for those who are newer to development, the gulf between expectations and reality may cause many to question their approach. Perhaps it’s coaching, strategizing and validation that is needed.
In an attempt to answer your question - asking for money is right up there with public speaking in most people’s minds. I was fortunate to work early in my career where they focused on training and role play in this part of our work. Learning to actively listen for queues that indicate a go or no go on the ask is also something that can be taught. It has been my experience that the best ask is the cultivation, but at some point you must always ask permission to go to the next step. This is why I have used a structure in approving the go ahead for the ask. Happy to chat further if you wish most details.
Caution, editorializing.... a conversation that is beginning to occur more and more, particularly with CAOs that I'm going to guess are under the age of 55, in side bars or one-on-ones is around uncertainty for the future on the industry. Particularly what does philanthropy look like once the greatest transfer of wealth has in fact concluded and assets have passed to Xers and Millennials. I point this out as I think there is a lot of dis-ease around generational differences in giving, potentially borne out in the data as larger gifts, but fewer donors. I suspect "solicitation training" is a proxy for acknowledging that the landscape is changing in ways we don't precisely understand. 2cents
In my experience the myth holds the most power of these. There is a lionizing of a perception of a kind of confident asker who I think largely doesn't exist or is on the far end of the bellcurve. I've seen very effective fundraisers think they are failing because they feel they aren't doing it like thier perception of how another person does it, which is almost always about a harder ask. I think in my training of new officers going forward a significant part of it will be about finding your own genuine and differentiated voice and letting go of the myth.
I don't think it is a surprise that confident fundraisers want more solicitation training as David Chalfant stated. You wouldn't want to call a first responder that didn't keep up their skills with regular training. Setting up the ask is more conversational and very much in tune with a person with very good relationship-building skills. Plus, the fundraisers are more in the driver's seat in those situations. The ask shifts the balance to the donor and all of the pressure that we put on field fundraisers to meet their goal is lurking in the background. Confident fundraisers will trust the portfolios that my team creates for them. They will qualify and disqualify prospects and they will worry about upcoming solicitations with prospects but they will have their well-earned share of successes. These fundraisers are not likely to wander outside of their portfolios, poach from others, or try to meet their goals by piecemealing together many many smaller gifts. Even though I am on the "other side" of fundraising now, I did have to engage with donors face-to-face when I started in our industry. I very much admire and respect what you all do. Thank you again for a great post Jim Langley!
Sr. Director of Development | Principal Gift Officer | Philanthropy Advisor | Strategic Nonprofit Leader
1wMy biggest donor successes and largest gifts have resulted from building relationships and cultivating in such a way that the solicitation serves only as confirmation of the donor's commitment. By asking for permission along the way and understanding the donor's desired impact, the donor's interest and "what it will take" from both parties to achieve our shared objective has been established. The solicitation formalizes and clarifies the commitment rather than establishing it. Yet, I have worked for leaders who insisted on asking quickly and approaching every donor with a proposal. So perhaps the need is more about reconciling those approaches?