Fundraisers don’t stay. They don’t stay at the nonprofit. They don’t stay in the industry. They are stigmatized by outsiders. They are devalued by insiders. Is the situation hopeless? Actually, no.
The problem, at its core, is story. Bad story. Externally stigmatizing story. Internally dismissive story. The solution, at its core, is also story.
Let’s go back to the beginning. The one big thing in fundraising is this: Advance the donor’s hero story. The hero story is a universal story. It is compelling at a primal level. It is archetypal. It is the monomyth. Adopting this one thing transforms the paradigm for fundraising. But the transformation is not just for the donor. The transformation is also for the fundraiser.
In the donor’s hero story, the fundraiser fills a critical role. The fundraiser is the wise sage who guides the donor through the hero’s journey. This is the role of
The fundraiser is the sage who challenges with a choice. This challenge moves the donor’s hero journey forward.
But this challenge isn’t the end. The fundraiser continues in this monomyth role beyond the initial challenge. She introduces the donor-hero to helpful friends and allies. She presents the donor-hero with powerful instruments. These magnify the hero’s impact. The fundraiser serves as mentor, sage, advisor, and guide.
For the fundraiser, embracing this role changes things. The hero is a powerful, attractive, archetypal role. But so is the hero’s guiding sage.
This character appears in all forms of myths and fairy tales. It is “the Wiseman” or “the Helper”[1] This character helps the protagonist along his or her journey, often by providing magical assistance. Paul Moxnes of the University of Oslo calls it a “primordial” role. He explains, “the role of the Helpers are of a deep role nature, and they are – next to the essential family roles – the most important ones in human societies.”[2]
Changing the story changes the role. The fundraiser’s role transforms from stigmatized to epic.[3] Along with this change in role comes a change in goal. The goal is now to help the donor. Specifically, the goal is to help advance the donor’s hero story. Yes, the fundraiser wants the donor to give. But she wants the donor to give in a way that advances the donor’s hero story.
The gift should match the donor’s values, life story, and journey. It should deliver an identity-enhancing victory. Advancing the donor’s hero story is not just about delivering money to the organization. It’s about delivering meaning to the donor.[4]
Along with this change in goal is a change in values. Fundraising work is no longer just “money getting.” Indeed, the actual work of fundraising cannot be about “money getting.” The actual work of any occupation cannot be about “money getting.” The financial outcome says nothing about the work itself.
Money for the charity is nice. But this becomes only a byproduct of effectively doing important work. Yes, effective donor guidance does benefit the organization. But the fundraiser’s work is with the donor. It is about the donor’s journey. It advances the donor’s hero story. It encourages meaningful generosity. The fundraiser’s work provides deep value to the donor.
The traditional view of fundraising manufactures fundraiser burnout. Consider the position of a new fundraiser. She starts because she loves the cause. She loves the organization.
But now she is responsible for whether it thrives or suffers. To feed it, she must do stigmatized work. She must “seek charity.” The synonyms include beg, chisel, sponge, and panhandle.[5] If she fails in her unpleasant work, the thing she loves suffers. And the suffering is her fault. Good people doing noble work get fired. And it’s her fault.
If she succeeds in her unpleasant work, her success is credited to others. (“We get donations because we deserve them.”) Worse, her success becomes the “new normal” baseline. If she doesn’t succeed even more next year, she fails. Again, the thing she loves suffers. Again, it’s her fault.
Occasionally, things get worse. A desperate crisis, project, or campaign increases the intensity. She must do more of the unpleasant work in a short period.
This all creates a perfect recipe. It’s a recipe for negative emotion, burnout, and quitting. No wonder the average new fundraiser leaves her job in only 16 months.[6]
But what if things were different? What if the job was not just about grabbing cash for administrators? What if the work was to guide, advise, and help the donor? What if the goal was to assist the donor in making a personally meaningful impact? What if the job was to advance the donor’s hero story?
The work itself then becomes independently important. The work encourages the core human ideal of generosity. It delivers value to donors. It builds personally meaningful donor experiences. It makes donors, and the world, better off.
The fundraiser’s occupational mission and values change. These are no longer just about the money. These are about the actual work of fundraising. The fundraiser’s mission and values are complementary to the administrator’s. But they are different. They are separate. This separation changes everything.
Consider this new paradigm in the previous situation. What are the emotions when a desperate organizational crisis or deadline arises? Panic and fear? Overwhelming responsibility and guilt? Dread of new unpleasant obligations? No. None of these. For the fundraiser’s separate but complementary mission, the crisis is beautiful opportunity.
The question is not, “Oh, no! How can I solve the administrators’ desperate crisis?”
The question is, “How can this crisis help advance the hero stories of the donors I am guiding?”
Does it tell a more urgent and compelling story? Fantastic! Does it provide an opportunity for personally meaningful and heroic gifts? Great! Does it motivate administrators to provide more resources for promoting generosity? Wonderful!
For the fundraiser’s mission – the separate but complementary mission – these are superb opportunities. Administrators may be in crisis. But this need not create destructive emotional experiences for the fundraiser. In the new story, the fundraiser’s core mission and values are not in crisis. The fundraiser’s work is not the administrator’s work. The fundraiser’s work is to encourage meaningful generosity among the donors she is guiding. The fundraiser’s work provides deep value to the donor.
The bad story encourages bad behavior. If the fundraiser’s job is simply “money getter,” then she is a burden to donors. She is an unwelcome obligation. She gets money from donors and leaves them worse off.
But what if the fundraiser advances the donor’s hero story? What if she serves as an effective guide on this journey? Then she offers real value to the donor. She provides deep, meaningful benefit.
The donor is left better off than if he had just spent more money on more consuming. What trinket is better than having a more meaningful, even heroic, life journey? More consuming can’t compete with that experience.
Does messaging affect fundraiser satisfaction and retention? One study found a direct link.[7] Some nonprofits focused on selling the organization’s story. This was the “press agent” model. Fundraising was “a one-way avenue.” In these nonprofits, “information spews forth from the organization yet few comments, responses or concerns are returned to the organization.” And, “In terms of fundraising, the interests of the donor are outstripped by the interests of the organization.”[8]
These organizations scored lowest in fundraisers’
Another approach was the polar opposite. It was the “two-way symmetry” fundraising model. Donor communication was based on “mutuality,” “cooperation,” and “collaboration.” Fundraisers’ satisfaction, trust, and commitment were all highest in these organizations.
One approach views the donor as an ATM. Striking the donor ATM with the fundraising “stick” spits out cash. This view isn’t just bad for fundraising. It’s bad for fundraisers. It’s bad for fundraiser retention. The opposite approach is based on providing value. The fundraiser helps the donor. She delivers value to the donor.
Of course, providing real value isn’t always easy. It may require learning the donor’s life, the donor’s values, and the donor’s journey. Uncovering these can be a difficult process.
Challenging another to heroism isn’t easy. The monomyth sage who challenges with a choice always faces rejection. Refusing the call to adventure is part of the hero’s journey. Advancing the donor’s hero story is hard work.
Being a competent guide means knowing the terrain. It means knowing the dangers and the short-cuts along the journey. The effective guiding sage knows how to introduce the hero to friends and allies. The effective guiding sage offers powerful instruments or weapons. This might mean developing new giving opportunities to match the donor’s story. It might mean learning about tax benefits and complex instruments. The role isn’t easy. But it is important.
If you start with the right identity, techniques will follow naturally. If you start with the wrong identity, techniques won’t fix the problem.[10] Michael Norton explains that success in fundraising is really not about what you know. It’s not even about who you know. Instead, “in actual fact, it is much more about who you are.”[11] Michael Bassoff and Steve Chalder explain, “The secret to rapid and astonishing success in fundraising seems to require a shift. Not a shift in what you are doing (although that will happen) but more of a shift in who you are being.”[12]
Dr. Beth Breeze describes the advice this way. Effective fundraising “goes beyond the mechanical aspects” because it requires “making existential changes.”[13]
The hero’s journey is a primal story. In this story, the hero is a compelling archetypal character. But so is the hero’s guiding sage. Transforming the donor’s identity is powerful. But so is transforming the fundraiser’s identity. The fundraiser becomes the guiding sage who advances the donor’s hero story. This changes things.
The fundraiser fulfills a critical role in a personally meaningful journey. She provides deep, lasting value to the donor. She makes the donor’s life more transcendent. She becomes an essential character in an epic story. That’s a character worth playing. That’s a story worth living.
[1] Moxnes, P. (1999). Deep roles: Twelve primordial roles of mind and organization. Human Relations, 52(11), 1427-1444.
[2] Id. p. 1433.
[3] This reframing from stigmatized to epic may also relate to underlying gendered associations. Dr. Elizabeth Dale explains, “The application of gender theory reveals that fundraising roles and responsibilities rely on key relationship‐building and organizational tasks, which are commonly associated with stereotypical women’s work and are, thus, valued less in a patriarchal society.” Dale, E. J. (2017). Fundraising as women’s work? Examining the profession with a gender lens. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1605. The guiding-sage role, in contrast, is traditionally cast as a male role. Heroism researchers explain, “Campbell calls these helpers mentors, who bear a resemblance to the Jungian archetype of the wise old man.” Allison, S.T., Goethals, G. R, & Kramers, R. M. (2017). Setting the scene: The rise of heroism science. In S. T. Allison, G. R. Goethals, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership (pp. 1-16). Routledge. p. 3
Thus, particularly within the context of a patriarchal society, reframing the fundraiser’s role in these “epic” monomyth terms may increase the value placed upon the fundraiser’s work.
[4] In Paul Moxnes’s description, the role is “the Wiseman that helps in fulfilling … spiritual (immaterial) needs.” This contrasts with other helpers in other roles that focus just on material needs. Moxnes, P. (1999). Deep roles: Twelve primordial roles of mind and organization. Human Relations, 52(11), 1427-1444. p. 1434.
[5] To “seek charity” or “beg,” according to Thesaurus.com, has synonyms including solicit charity, hustle, cadge, chisel, freeload, mooch, sponge, and panhandle.
[6] Flandez, R. (2012). The cost of high turnover in fundraising jobs. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. https://www.philanthropy.com/article/The-Cost-of-High-Turnover-in/226573
[7] Tindall, N. T., & Waters, R. D. (2010). The relationship between fundraising practice and job satisfaction at historically Black colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(3), 198-215.
[8] Id. p. 201-202.
[9] In formal terms, this chapter proposes an archetypal narrative for reframing the occupational ideology of fundraising. Such ideological reframing is essential because the fundraising occupation is stigmatized. Professors Blake Ashforth (Arizona State University) and Glenn Kreiner (Penn State University) studied the entire realm of stigmatized occupations. They found the same solution everywhere. The solution was story. More technically this is called an “occupational ideology.” They explain, “Occupational ideologies reframe, recalibrate, and refocus the meaning of [stigmatized] work.” Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413-434, p. 414.
In other research, this process is described as follows, “reframing, recalibrating, and refocusing may change an occupation member’s dominant cognition from ‘I am associated with an occupation that others view as tainted’ to ‘I am associated with an occupation that has intrinsic value’” Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 149-174, p. 159.
As another example of using the hero’s journey to change one’s occupational perspective, see also Warden, S., & Logan, J. (2017). The nurse practitioner hero’s journey. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 13(7), e350-e351.
[10] The need for occupational ideology is particularly critical for new fundraisers. This is true across new employees to all types of stigmatized occupations. Writing of this need within stigmatized or “dirty work” occupations in general, Ashforth and Kreiner (1999, p. 426) explain, “This need for sensemaking is particularly acute for newcomers to dirty work occupations, because they must confront and reconcile themselves to the disparaged aspects of the work (Levi, 1981). As members of society, newcomers likely import stereotypic expectations but lack the subcultural armor to cope with the stereotypes and the dirty particulars of the work…. occupational ideologies are needed to provide esteem-enhancing interpretations of the stigma…. Thus, ideology serves as an important bridge for the transition from outsider to insider, providing alternative and edifying interpretations for the problematic features of work.”
In contrast, the typical training for newcomers to fundraising is focused exclusively on techniques. Techniques are useful, but the terrible retention rates for new fundraisers suggests that training in techniques is not enough. Something is missing. That something is an occupational ideology that casts the work as valuable, desirable, even noble. Nonprofit administrators often miss this gap in fundraiser training because
a) They are not in a stigmatized occupation. Thus, they don’t intuitively perceive the challenges inherent in the fundraiser’s occupational role.
b) They believe that no occupational reframing is necessary because they will use the money for good purposes. However, this justification says nothing about the work itself. It says nothing about the value of the fundraising process itself. Thus, it does not reframe the occupation. To use an extreme example, if a drug dealer sells meth to children but gives the proceeds to a nonprofit, this does not reframe his occupation. The use of the proceeds says nothing about the work itself.
c) Their personal “administrator-hero story” archetypal role tends to dismiss the importance of the work of the fundraiser or other efforts to provide personal value, service, or agency to the donor. Donors are viewed as being motivated to give simply because the heroic administrators deserve it.
d) Their personal “administrator-hero story” archetypal role strongly conflicts with the alternative “donor-hero story” in which the fundraiser does play a valuable and meaningful archetypal role as the sage who guides the donor hero in the hero’s journey.
[11] Norton, M. (2007). Need to know? Fundraising: Help any cause – legally, safely and effectively. HarperCollins. p. 11.
[12] Bassoff, M. & Chandler, S. (2001) RelationShift: Revolutionary fundraising. Robert D. Reed Publishers. p. 1.
[13] Breeze, B. (2017). The new fundraisers: Who organises charitable giving in contemporary society? Policy Press. p. 118.
You’ve heard of marketing automation, and you’ve likely heard of fundraising automation too. And if…
The metrics that will actually lead to improved fundraising performance will not be about tasking…
Low-Dollar vs. Major Gifts Fundraising – Strategy Over Amounts In the nonprofit world, leaders, board…
"Cultivation." It's one of the most frequently used words in fundraising, but used by so…
Over the last decade, I’ve had the privilege of learning from Bill Crouch, the founder…
A fundraiser's first obligation is to philanthropy itself. All ethical fundraisers and fundraising organizations must…