I have found on occasion in the non-profit world there is an unfortunate binary thinking with respect to fundraising. Either it's all about the relationship or it's all about the transaction. Success rose by embracing the power of "and." With our small 501(c3), we had quite a few who were excellent at the relationship, but often couldn't close the deal or, as you caution, gave away too much control in order to please or appease.
Our treasurer, a CPA, was all about the transaction and used a gas station analogy. The funder was the gas station and we're the customer in need of fuel. Therein lies the transaction. The funder wants us to have the fuel, but they also want something of value in return. Obviously, it's not going to be money. Instead it's intangible things like "furthering a valuable mission" or "enhanced reputation." True enough, some funders expected the royal treatment and if the value they seek is to have someone put some extra polish on the crown diamond, then so be it. Perhaps that's a fair trade. But carry their water? Maybe not so much.
Gregory, yours is a great reminder that there is no master recipe. We are working with people and institutions with varied preferences. It's an unwritten part of the grant seeker's job to act with those preferences in mind. As you state so well, it can mean the difference between funding and no funding, between pushing forward and walking away.
Spot on, Susan! Nonprofits need to exercise THEIR power. And leverage their formidable knowledge of what works in their issue area in negotiations with funders.
Glad you found resonance with this theme, Melanie. I find it hard to recognize these patterns in ourselves unless we're forced to consider them.
I had an a-ha moment early in my career when I realized that my "polite" professional side was excessively deferential. Our field normalizes this behavior, but I now see a pattern of more rapid funder rapport development when the tone shifts.
I have found on occasion in the non-profit world there is an unfortunate binary thinking with respect to fundraising. Either it's all about the relationship or it's all about the transaction. Success rose by embracing the power of "and." With our small 501(c3), we had quite a few who were excellent at the relationship, but often couldn't close the deal or, as you caution, gave away too much control in order to please or appease.
Our treasurer, a CPA, was all about the transaction and used a gas station analogy. The funder was the gas station and we're the customer in need of fuel. Therein lies the transaction. The funder wants us to have the fuel, but they also want something of value in return. Obviously, it's not going to be money. Instead it's intangible things like "furthering a valuable mission" or "enhanced reputation." True enough, some funders expected the royal treatment and if the value they seek is to have someone put some extra polish on the crown diamond, then so be it. Perhaps that's a fair trade. But carry their water? Maybe not so much.
Gregory, yours is a great reminder that there is no master recipe. We are working with people and institutions with varied preferences. It's an unwritten part of the grant seeker's job to act with those preferences in mind. As you state so well, it can mean the difference between funding and no funding, between pushing forward and walking away.
Spot on, Susan! Nonprofits need to exercise THEIR power. And leverage their formidable knowledge of what works in their issue area in negotiations with funders.
Glad you found resonance with this theme, Melanie. I find it hard to recognize these patterns in ourselves unless we're forced to consider them.
I had an a-ha moment early in my career when I realized that my "polite" professional side was excessively deferential. Our field normalizes this behavior, but I now see a pattern of more rapid funder rapport development when the tone shifts.