Your Fundraising Career Choice
If you had it to do all over again, what size organization would you choose to work in for your career?
That was the fundamental question Tony Martignetti, host of Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio asked me in an interview we did for The Chronicle of Philanthropy’s ‘Fundraising Fundamentals’.
You can listen to the full interview below.
In short, my preference is for small organizations. Even though larger nonprofits generally have more financial and human resources (especially important for mentoring) and more job and compensation security, my personal preference runs to the small group, especially if it’s a start-up organization.
I’m attracted to small for three principal reasons.
First, they usually require wearing multiple hats and performing a broad range of duties.
Next there’s an opportunity for the fundraiser to be much closer to the donors (unless, of course you’re a major gift officer or donor services officer in a large organization).
Finally, I’ve found that smaller organizations are more likely to take risks, to explore new avenues. Partly because their very survival may depend on innovation and breakthrough thinking.
Over the years I’ve found that, with very few exceptions, large organizations operate with a high level of specialization both by channel (direct mail, online, social, telemarketing, etc) and by function (acquisition, donor development, monthly giving, major or mid-value giving).
As a result, big organizations more often than not miss the big, integrated picture involving donor needs and experiences. They tend to stick to the mistaken belief that maintaining the status quo is ‘low risk’, when, in a world of fast-moving change, inflexibility and stubborn adherence to the status quo may be the highest risk of all.
Sign me up for the small nonprofit please.
What’s your choice? And why?
Roger
P.S. In addition to Tony’s interview, you can read The Chronicle’s special report on fundraisers’ career choices.
P.P.S. While you’re at it, do yourself a favor and signup for a free podcast subscription to Tony Martignetti Nonprofit Radio.
12 responses to “Your Fundraising Career Choice”
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
Small to medium is good as long as the leadership is open to ideas and learning. It just takes too long to get things done in large organisations – too many stakeholders and bureaucracy.
Couldn’t agree more, Roger. Alia and my greatest transformational moments have all taken place with small, soulful, well-led causes. Large organizations inevitably succumb to silos and internal tribalism. And I don’t really know why this is, but large organization tend to have very poor leadership…
Life is too short.
I am working in a larger organization as a major gifts office after years of working in small shops as EE or ED. I appreciate the resources and support but find the way donors are treated is odd. I have a list of 150+ people I am supposed to get to know and ask them for a gift. I find it oddly separate from the work of the organization. I don’t know if this is inherent to larger organizations or is just an issue where I work. But although I like the organization and mission, I don’t like the separation.
I vote for the larger organization. Hands down. Why? Because so many new fundraisers are younger women. What is their experience? Awful.
The smaller organizations are often more mismanaged than large ones. No one understands fundraising. So they will hire a green, idealistic, unsuspecting young woman and pay her next to nothing. Then they will set completely unrealistic expectations, because they think a development director can do it on her own.
So many young women have approached me and shared this story. It breaks my heart to see the sexism, ageism and patronizing behavior of male board members and female ED’s. Don’t get me started on this!
So I advise, always, to start in a larger organization. There you’ll have professional and peer support and a decent budget to work with. And maybe you’ll have benefits and not be expected to work 80 hours a week.
Terrific conversation, Roger. Thank you for sharing your valuable opinion with Fundraising Fundamentals’ listeners.
I’m loving my experience with an infant nonprofit, which is a year old. There are NO traditions, and the Executive Director recently told me, “I do not WANT to do what you tell me, but I’m SMART enough to do everything you say!”
Why just the binary option? If you’re like me, you’ve been in both. I started small (3-person shop) and fortunately I had a great boss and trusted colleague. And we were able to try new idea, be creative. And we were just restarting fundraising at a hospital… So we were able to be close to the donors and the amazing work at the front line.
But small organizations often have inexperienced staff… And sometimes leaders who are waiting out retirement rather than infused with passion for the donor, drive to innovate, and trust in younger colleagues. And like Gail, I’ve known many small charities who have not had good HR policies in place. Sexual harassment is real – from colleagues, donors and volunteers. (“Oh, I’m sure he didn’t mean it” and “the event’s almost over” and “are you sure you felt what you say you felt?” are just a few comments one hears to discount what happened).
Big organizations have their own challenges… Mark mentioned silos and internal tribalism. That can be very true. But there can also be important gains in professionalism and discipline in larger organizations; there is a true beauty in team work, in understanding that your colleagues have crucial roles to play and that they are equally valuable to your role. More can be accomplished. Often, the resources are greater.
I think this argument is akin to music. The solo violinist has full control over how the music is played and interpreted. All accolades rest on her shoulders. A quartet bring brings a more layered sound: the piece is a joint interpretation and the various harmonies and dissonances can truly move an audience. Collaboration is vital. And a full orchestra… Well, the single instrument can be lost, but the big, full sound down to the pianissimo, can transport the audience to a different time and place. Maybe a mistake can be hidden, but playing in concert means the violin depends on the piccolo and the kettle drum to achieve results.
I value, myself, my early small shop work… I know how to enter gifts and hiw important details are… I’ve also been in small, stale, suffocating organizations. Soul crushing. I also appreciate my work now at a university. Many colleagues to share and with whom I can innovate.
For me, it isn’t the size of the boat but the captain and journey that makes the biggest difference to the fundraiser’s lived experience.
I agree completely with Gail for the starter and with Beth Ann that it doesn’t have to be either or.
While I might say I started small (that would be in my volunteer life, not a paid professional), my first professional fundraising job was at a national organization that was part of a multinational organization. My volunteer experience included a lot of writing, speaking and some small fundraising letters. My big NGO life included significant training, including paid workshops and national conferences, learning from my very experienced colleagues, learning from our big vendors in direct response, TV, mail house, focus groups, corporate identify etc and working with board members who were nationally known experts in their fields. Not to mention demands for annual business plans, fr analysis, strategic planning, and lots and lots of interaction with our international marketing and fundraising peers and other national colleagues. Luckily, though I was responsible for just one department (fundraising from current donors), I was an active member of teams of all aspects of revenue development and management of this $30 million organization.
These high level skills and knowledge served me well when I moved into a much small state based organization of $1 million. And I learned new skills, as our national organization had very underdeveloped face to face fundraising, no events, and little corporate giving.I also appreciated the different between working with a nationally spread out donor base of 100,000 and working with a donor base of 4000 within my own community.
So rather than size, I valued working on a cause that matters, in a team, where I have the opportunity to grow personally and continue to learn.
Which is why I’m now happy working with smaller organizations as a consultant.
I’ve worked with organizations small, medium and large and have found the experience is colored by both the spirit within the organization and career phase. As I enter what probably will be the last 10-12 years of my practice I’m happy to be at an organization large enough that I can focus on leadership-level and legacy donors but small enough that it’s possible to move new ideas forward without having to navigate a complex bureaucracy. It’s a gift to have been able to experience service at nonprofits of varying sizes and with very different organizational cultures. Also, the development community here is fairly small and quite colleagial, so mentoring and networking opportunities are there for professionals working in one-person offices or those with small development teams.
Agree with all above!
It’s less about the size than how well-run, focused on mission and caring of employees the organization is. I’ve worked with medium to small organizations – mostly smaller. Some experiences have been good and all that you mention, Roger – willing to experiment, close to donors. Some have been such that I had nightmares (true!) for almost a year after leaving.
Does leadership care about caring about donors? Are you allowed to try and fail, so long as something is learned? Are there awful silos in place that prevent fundraising from being effective? That’s what I’d want to know.
Agree with Mary 100%
Large or small – it is the leadership above and around that makes the difference!