When Founders Leave
Make no mistake.
Most fundraisers today have little fire in their bellies compared to the founders of their movements.
That’s not their fault. But it is a reminder that movements and causes pretty quickly run out of steam when founders retire, die or otherwise leave the scene.
That’s the principal reason most of today’s advocacy organizations over 40 years old — right or left — are in trouble. No fire in the belly. No founder to keep folks fired up.
When the founder or principal mover and shaker leaves the scene most movements wither. And some sadly ‘die’. Well not quite. They live in that taxidermied state where all hands on deck spend virtually all their time pretending they’re still life-like.
The reason? The original culture of risk taking and ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’ gives way to careful, risk-free administration and management. After all, we have pension plans.
The great movements of the ‘70s — whether environmental, feminist, human rights, homelessness, you name it — are today but a shadow of their risk-taking original selves. Ironically, just when they’re needed most to be marching in the streets and raising holy hell on behalf of change, they’re hiring clueless MBAs and retaining law firms.
This doesn’t mean, from a fundraising standpoint, they’re no longer effective in bringing in the bucks, because many still are. Movement donors are fundamentally loyal no matter what milquetoasts now occupy the head office.
What it does mean is that there’s far less risk-taking, far less experimentation, far less willingness to take chances to advance the movement … any movement. Right or left.
After all, once you’re established and have a brand why bother? This is why so many movement nonprofits are now hiring ‘development directors’ who are clueless about the movement, but well paid.
The reason to be concerned about the ‘why bother’ factor, and the move to hired guns, is that few folks who lead and work for older movement organizations understand the genesis of their very own movements — the basic biblical text that got the organization to its position of prominence — and effectiveness — in the first place.
Many organizations founded 40 or so years ago are now facing this dilemma. I’ll bet you can name one (at least if you’re one of our 17 readers over the age of 60).
Most, as they deal with their donors, ignore their ‘genesis’ and ‘biblical text’ as they spin out new missions, new goals while never understanding why, over time, they’re withering and shrinking like a raisin in the sun.
This is the frightening price most older organizations pay for attempting — always unsuccessfully — to maintain their brand under the gatekeepers and administrators of today.
The business of building and sustaining movements isn’t about ‘accounting’ or ‘management’, it’s about fire in the belly.
If we truly value an Advocacy Sector, and surely we should, we don’t need conservators and administrators and bean counters guiding us into the future.
Bland and safe and managerially correct just doesn’t cut it for their donors who want action and change.
Do you understand the ‘genesis’ of your organization? Do your communications consistently reflect that ethos?
Roger
5 responses to “When Founders Leave”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
I was pleased to see this article because it reflects something I’ve been feeling as a fundraiser of late–a dearth of vision and leadership boldly leading many organizations forward. The final sentence, however, left me wanting.
While the article outlines the need for reinvigorated leadership, it ends with an assertion that the solution lies in how we communicate, not in how we operate. I think this is fundamentally incorrect. Although I think that effective communication teams in the non profit space are hard to come by, especially when it comes to fundraising, the problem outlined in this article is not one of communication, it is one of vision and leadership.
Very interested in the thoughts of others on this.
Alas, “brand” is the enemy of urgency and rabble-rousing! I so agree. Fire in the belly fundraising is always, always more compelling . . . and more effective. When I work with a board or an organization, sometimes I wonder where all the energy went.
Thanks Roger for your rant! Makes me glad. I came of age in the 60’s and 70’s myself and wanted to be a revolutionary. Still at it today. Gail
Caitlin,
Thanks much for your thoughts. I hope you realize that you’re making a distinction without a difference. Either an organization –it’s leaders, its fundraisers, donor service personnel and the of-over protected and too much vaunted communications professionals — have heart or they don’t. It’s really that’s simple.
Organization’s that are true to their founding spirit don’t speak in different ways from different silos. As the poet Archibald MacLeish so aptly put it: “No city stands but is the image of the heart.”
there are also lots of examples where the founder leaving reinvigorated the organization because his or her desire for control or ego or lack of ability to lead the organization to another level of growth actually resulted in similar problems.
it is always about leadership. you focus on one aspect of what can happen, and I’m sure that appeals to your sense of the dramatic, but it’s often more nuanced than the simplistic scenario you outline
Sometimes I think I’m more excited about my client’s causes than they are – but that’s partly because part of my job is to dig up the amazing stories to use in fundraising and communications. So I see the good stuff whereas they’re stuck in endless meetings.
However, what really got me was your reference to hiring “clueless MBAs”. I started an MBA when I was still employed by a non-profit, partly to learn and partly to improve my prospects of advancing in my career. (In job interviews, I was just finding I was up against others who had masters degrees of some kind.)
But when I became a consultant, nobody gave a damn whether I had an MBA or not. Prospective clients were much more concerned with whether I could actually improve fundraising income and results!
Of course, the responsibilities of a fundraising manager and a fundraising consultant are quite different. But why are non-profits so eager to hire MBAs as staff and it doesn’t matter for consultants? Surely, the need to be able to produce results is as important for a staff member as it is for a consultant!