Evaluating Your Fundraising Talent? Here are a couple of quick tools to use

A large component of talent management revolves around it’s most basic question: who do we have? Answering this can be more difficult than we think. A full review of who you have on the team requires leadership attention and a commitment to follow up. In development, where we have many levels of leadership, roles and responsibilities, it can be especially easy to focus on one level of the team, while ignoring rising stars and performers elsewhere. Luckily we can borrow some tools from the business world in performance management. The first of which is the well-known 9-box, which is a tool for mapping out team members based on performance and potential.

9 box

An alternative method for categorizing performers can be completed through focusing strategically on current performance and answering key questions relation to the attrition risk and next steps of each team member in a category. A sample visualization of this process can be found below:

rating performers

The visual above can further be applied specifically to development, refining the definitions of the behaviors that merit a ranking of 5 versus 4 versus 3, etc. In my work I have spent quite a deal of time building out a full 1-5 competency matrix for frontline fundraisers, breaking out key competency areas and levels of performance against which managers can evaluate development officers. It has been incredibly interesting and challenging, but the increased clarity pays off as medium and rising performers now more clearly can see what they have to do differently. An excerpt of the model (which has five major competency areas, with 4-5 sub categories each) is below:

compentency excerpt

Advertisements

Create a Superstar Fundraiser in 2015

Originally published December 10, 2014

If there’s one theme to emerge from the conferences, research topics, and discussions of 2014 across the world of development it’s this: it’s very hard to find and keep talent. Demand exceeds supply, and competition for a shallow talent pool is only going to increase if trends continue. Development programs must start to look inward to create and build their own talent pipeline.

This process should involve looking at your staff, enhancing culture, growing team strengths, and setting priorities.

Ultimately, however, outcomes along the front line will be made by a handful of exceptional fundraisers. Elevating even one more individual to that tier of performance can dramatically impact your overall results.

Below is a brief overview of a process that development leaders can follow over the next 12 months to transform a high-potential individual into a high-performing fundraising star.

Find the Right Footing and Foundation
There is a core set of knowledge and expertise fundraisers must have to be successful. Make sure your team members have a firm foundation in the science and art of fundraising. Evaluate and create a plan to deepen their knowledge and grasp of critical areas, including:

  • Major donor types and motivations.
  • Giving vehicles and types of giving.
  • Institutional culture and priorities.
  • Portfolio management and optimization.
  • Strategic solicitation, and matching big ideas with high-capacity prospects.
  • Trends and new tools in development.

Get Moving
Part of what sets star fundraisers apart from their peers is the ability to manage time effectively and maximize their time out of the office meeting with donors and prospects. Focusing on growing an individual’s performance should include immediate, intermediary, and long-term action items. That way he or she can have clear avenues to put theory into practice in all steps of the process. Integrating all learning, mentorship, and self-development into existing responsibilities and activities will solidify knowledge and deepen understanding more readily.

Look for the Heart of a Star
When talking about growing your own superstars, focus on finding individuals who have the right qualities and potential to become your future highest performers. Look for individuals who:

  • Seek out challenges and new opportunities beyond assigned top prospects and goals.
  • Can speak and connect with people of all backgrounds and personality types.
  • Are inspired by your organization but have room for growth.

Perfect Technique and Strengthen the Right Muscles
The best athletes, musicians, physicians, and executives all have one thing in common: they practice a lot. More often than not that practice includes focused coaching and mentorship. Fundraisers, likewise, become more effective the more targeted practice they are able to have. Build a performance plan that not only increases classroom learning and expectations but allows for practice, shadowing, mentorship, and coaching by existing stars on your team and experts in the field so that your professionals can try new techniques and receive guidance on how to refine and hone their own personal approach with donors.

Guaranteeing a feedback loop during this process requires that managers and directors must be actively engaged and protective of time for the skill and strategy growth of the individual.

Foster Leadership and Collaboration
The biggest gifts require collaboration and multiple contact points, and often our top performers are expected to be team leaders as well. However, content areas for skill building often leave out collaborative strategies and good leadership and management. Similarly, we often wait too long to give individuals leadership opportunities. Leadership should be developed well before a promotion.

Part of what makes a fundraising star is his or her ability to lead internally as well as produce externally. In order to transform individuals you must make sure that they are given opportunities and tools for leadership. Find or let your team members identify new projects or initiatives in need of an owner. Include leadership skills and management in your expectations and performance evaluations of your team. For individuals to become leaders, they must understand their own management style and approach with peers, direct reports, and contacts across an institution and be able to translate that into success in actual programs and projects.

Focus on the Future
Developing the skills and improving the outcomes of performers is only as effective as your ability to retain them. Any program, formal or informal, that you develop must account for and incorporate the personal and professional goals of the team members involved. A curriculum for 2015 should, therefore, be focused on improving and multiplying fundraising results for the next 12–24 months AND act as a stepping stone for your fundraisers’ own ambitions for the next 5–10 years. Taking the steps described above helps communicate to your performers that you value them and their growth. Don’t shortchange your results by neglecting to communicate that you have a plan and place for them as they grow.

There will be valuable members of your team who may not be ready for the next step. That’s okay. As you work to grow your fundraising stars, keep these folks in mind—team building and performance across the bell curve should be a parallel priority for talent development this year.

It’s not an easy task, but, as the saying goes, something worthwhile is rarely easy.

BWF’s TalentED practice partners with non-profit clients to create superstars through competency-based, one-on-one coaching by seasoned experts. Contact us at training@bwf.com to learn more about coaching, workshops, or our talent management services.

Copyright © 2014 Bentz Whaley Flessner & Associates, Inc.

Something Worth Reading: Talent Retention and CASE’s “Hire Learning”

I know that talent management is a critical component of development success. This article  from CASE Currents highlights just why. Written by Peter Hayashida (VC for Advancement at UC Riverside) this essay describes the great challenge of turnover in the development field.  Hayashida makes many good points, including:

That leads me to an important point about retention, pay, and performance. In their book,First, Break All the Rules, authors Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman argue that people don’t leave jobs; they leave managers. Specifically, they leave managers who don’t properly manage employee performance. Poor performers drag entire organizations down and make high achievers vulnerable to the lure of greener pastures. In development, we tend to promote people with strong technical abilities as fundraisers into managerial jobs but give them little training on the skills required to be successful leaders.

We’ve talked about  the gap between technical and managerial skills, and the challenges of finding good managers, and the difficulty of recruitment before. Peter Hayashida hits one key issue on the head here: effective management is one of the best tools we have to attract and keep valuable talent. In a market where fundraisers are being called about job opportunities multiple times a month, having managers who engage their employees, inspire good performance, and build rapport is going to make the difference in whether your fundraisers stay or go.

 

In about a month Bentz Whaley Flessner will be releasing the report of its findings from a national survey of frontline fundraisers and what drives their behavior and job engagement. Early glances at this data have consistently pointed to two things: weak management is the top reason listed by those with low job satisfaction, and leadership training is the top topic area where fundraisers want more professional development. We should be able to address both these areas by focusing on building up what it means to effectively manage fundraisers and development teams.

 

The article also features perspectives of three other experts on diversity, job hopping, and talent management investment. It is definitely worth a read.

The Three Fundamental Questions in Talent Management

We’ve spent time talking about talent, what makes good fundraisers, what to look for in incentive structures, and the role of titling. Talent management, especially in a sector as competitive as development, is a complex process, but almost every element related to this array of challenges can be boiled down to one of three fundamental questions.

The questions (and what they mean) are below:

question mark

1. Do we have the right people?

This question really can be broken down to one big idea: talent composition. When thinking about whether or not you have the right quantity or quality of talent, one should focus on institutional objectives. What is your non-profit trying to accomplish in its fundraising program? Can you tie those objectives to expanded or existing responsibilities for specific team members or positions? If not, that means that there is likely a gap in your staffing that needs to be filled. If so, your next question should assess whether there is confidence in the skill level and breadth of these individuals to meet the goals set out before them. For example, a new objective could be to triple gift income designated towards an existing program, but if the giving team program is inexperienced or already maxed out in workload you do not have the right people to reach that goals even if you can trace responsibility initially.

Similarly, the level of skill required to meet goals can be higher than what is found among existing staff members.  If a development shop wants to go after 7 figure gifts in New York City it will need a seamless operations team to handle the $1M+ gifts and fearless, versatile frontline fundraisers who can converse fluently about high level wealth and have a proven ability to get new gifts. In all likelihood the organization entering this goal area will not have the right level of talent immediately available.

2. Are our people in the right place?

Take the scenario described above, where a team is unable to meet the existing or new demands placed upon it. This type of occurrence doesn’t necessarily mean that you are required to bring someone new on board. Rather, the next question to think about is where your top talent is. Non-profit talent management is all about minimizing cost and maximizing outcomes – one key way to do so is to match staff members with positions that best fit their skills. For example, if your development shop has three top priorities, it follows that you should ensure that the institution’s strongest talent are positioned to work towards or lead the efforts related to those priorities.

In a different example you may have a strong leader on your team. He is a stellar frontline fundraiser and has strong relationships with board members who can easily open new doors. Since his performance has been so strong he has been put in front of a new team to manage. This new position effectively reduces the time he can spend fundraising by half. Unless this individual strongly desires the management responsibilities or there are sufficient other fundraisers who can maintain similar high level donors relationships this new position may leave a gap in current performance and fail to utilize his greatest strengths towards institutional goals.

3. Are team members reaching their full potential?

This question related to two levels of potential: current efficiency and work quality and long-term potential and growth. If you look at questions #1 and #2 and feel confident that the size, skill, and organization of team members are all effective, but are still dissatisfied with performance this question should be the launching point for identifying the problem. Are team members under-performing because they don’t have sufficient staff support or there is a negative office culture? Perhaps the structures supporting the team are insufficient and don’t give teams the tools they could use to be more effective. In the area of long-term potential you may have individuals with strong performance, but very high capacity that aren’t getting the training and coaching that would help them be even better.

Using these questions in problem-solving.

To look at this process from another angle – these three questions are useful to diagnose existing frustrations or challenges you currently face. Take any struggle, high turnover in a critical program for example. Do you have the right people in the program? High turnover often happens when position responsibilities are too voluminous or technical, thus overwhelming or overextending employees. Are your people in the right place? A weak or disorganized leader may discourage retention or perhaps there’s highly technical element that requires a stronger partnership across the organization. Are team members reaching their full potential?  A common reason for leaving offered in exit interviews is that there is no room for advancement so staff members feel undervalued and underused.  These questions help you identify the root of problems that any office encounters and lead to stronger solutions moving forward.

 

The talent management process and strategy-building comes into play once you answer these questions. Talent management is designed to be the “what’s next?” when institutions realize that they don’t have the right people, or their talent isn’t organized effectively, or performance is below where it should be. We will talk a little bit later about what your most effective options are when you look at your staffing related to these questions and come up short.

On an unrelated note – I will be at the AFP International conference this weekend in San Antonio. Stop by the Bentz Whaley Flessner booth 539 and say hello, ask me any questions you may have about talent management, or share some feedback on your own talent management struggles.

Something Worth Reading: The appeal of non-profit leadership in “Work-life demands intense for CEOs at nonprofits”

Those of us who have worked in the non-profit industry for a while can become used to the “when’s your serious career going to start?” sort of questions. But there’s more to this doubt than the lower salaries that come with working at a non-profit organization. Increasingly institutions demand more and more commitment, time, and energy from their staff and leadership. This article post touches on the effect of that pressure on CEOs in particular, but there are several salient points, in particular:

When you lead a nonprofit, where the end game is about making the community a better place to live, the workload can be immense and the emotions intense. It’s a big responsibility – and one that people in their 20s and 30s aren’t rushing to undertake. As the demand for leaders in nonprofits increases, young workers say they don’t want to make the work-life sacrifices required of nonprofit executives…

We’ve spent a lot of time on this blog talking about fundraisers and development officers, but fundraising talent in the form of leadership is also often in short supply. Even those who have great potential may be reluctant to take on new leadership responsibilities because the increased pressure and stress that accompanies a promotion are not sufficiently balanced out by job benefits and satisfaction.

Part of the struggle can come from the nature of non-profit leadership. Most non-profit institutions are smaller organizations and with every promotion comes a large jump in responsibility. Individuals therefore tend to shoulder a broader spectrum of responsibility for an organization’s success, and, if something does go wrong, staff don’t face a loss in “profit” – they are in a position to see and feel responsible for a gap in services provided or institutional impact.

We do have a silver lining, one that applies to most non-profit staff members in general – the great privilege of working to do good and using you passion, education, and time to change the world. The article acknowledges this as well. The question becomes then, how do we utilize team members’ passion and enthusiasm for an organization and it’s mission without burning stars out too early?

Titles in Fundraising – Break-out of 4 Urban Healthcare Centers

As I mentioned before, this series of posts will focus on titles, and I will be breaking out titling by categories in the non-profit sector. First we had big public universities and now we will look at urban medical centers (note: none of the cases used were Academic Medical Centers or Health Systems) . I looked at the frontline staffing for 4 hospitals and mapped out the titles that were used. The full chart is below.

A few things of interest:

  • There was more variety and volume with titles with “senior” or “executive”.
  • There seems to be a lot more weight of senior titles here than we found in higher ed.
  • Frontline fundraising staff totals for the five institutions I chose ranged from 10-18.
  • It was more difficult to map seniority and career ladders at each institution. There are fewer clear steps between career stages in titles.

Urban Healthcare Titles

What do you think? Any surprises?

Titles in Fundraising – Break-out of 5 Big Public Universities

As I mentioned before, the next few series of posts will focus on titles, and I will be breaking out titling by categories in the non-profit sector. First up – big public universities. I looked at the frontline staffing for 5 big schools and mapped out the titles that were used. The full chart is below.

A few things of interest:

  • There were 17 Vice President positions related to development between 5 institutions – it looks like the VP title in this grouping is becoming less and less associated with only meaning the CDO or most senior fundraiser.
  • While I excluded explicit support staff, there appears to be set of junior fundraisers coming up through “associate” titles (development associate, constituent relations associate, etc).
  • Frontline fundraising staff totals for the five institutions I chose ranged from 24-76.
  • There were only two individuals with the traditional “development officer” title and one “major gift officer,” with the most frequently used general title being “director of development.”
  • In the broader staff rosters the title “Director” seems to be the favorite for staff positions in both development and advancement services.

 

Big Public Titles

What do you think? Any surprises?