I have often advised employers to bet on time rather than money. More often than not, the opportunities for fundraisers to raise serious money are there; the question is whether we can keep our fundraisers around long enough to prove it. My conversation today with Stephanie echoes this point; in order to get this right we have to think more holistically about the jobs we are creating for fundraisers to fill. As Stephanie explained, it’s going to come down to meaningful work and competitive compensation. In my mind, meaningful work is largely a matter of how long they stay in the role rather than how much money they raise. We have to create environments where fundraisers can thrive.
I would insist that too much of the conversation about professional turnover has always been about addressing one side of the time/pay equation while ignoring the other; we’ll pay fundraisers well, but who gives a damn whether they want to stick around. Stephanie and I wrapped up today where I hoped we would, asking whether we can persuade employers to incentivize sticking around rather than raising a lots of cash. The more we make sense of how fundraising really works, the more we discover that money raised is an outcome of longevity in the position. If organizations are stuck in lane one, they’re not experiencing fundraising as meaningful work and there isn’t enough margin for meeting everyone’s expectations.
As always, we are especially grateful to our friends at CueBack for sponsoring The Fundraising Talent Podcast.
If you’d like to register for one of Responsive Fundraising’s upcoming roadshows, visit their website here.
324 | What if we incentivize sticking around rather than raising lots of money?