Strong leaders, characterised by ‘high quality thinking’, are what distinguishes great fundraising charities from the just good, according to research from professors Adrian Sargeant and Jen Shang.
The researchers identified several characteristics of great fundraising programmes, but concluded that it was quality of the thinking of those leading the fundraising in high-performing charities that ultimately separated the cream of the crop. “It is the quality of thought that underlies action that gives rise to greatness, not the actions themselves,” the report, titled Great Fundraising, argues.
The report, a year in the making and released today, is the result of detailed case studies of organisations which were identified – by survey - as having the most successful fundraising programmes. These included Save the Children, the British Heart Foundation, British Red Cross, the Royal British Legion. The first two are led by female fundraising directors, the other two by men.
Commenting on the 'systems' thinking approach the fundraising leaders share, Prof Shang said: “Outstanding fundraising leadership was characterised by an ability to take a systems perspective on problem solving, increasing the impact of fundraising yes, but simultaneously assisting others in their achievement of their goals.”
The leaders behind these fundraising programmes, the academics report, adopt a holistic view of themselves within the organisation and all needed to change their own organisations in order to succeed. “None of them, in creating great fundraising, felt that they could create it within the current organisational system. Rather, all of them believed they must transform the organisation in order to create their outstanding fundraising success,” the authors suggest.
Commissioned by Clayton Burnett and available in full for free via the consultancy website, Great Fundraising also found that highly successful fundraising programmes were characterised by the development – and hiring – of strong teams in which success is rewarded and which, among other things, embrace a culture of learning (including learning from failure). Fundraising was also central to the organisations; an integrated culture featuring co-ordination as well as specialisation were present in the outstanding fundraising charities.
Clayton Burnett’s Alan Clayton said: “It is clear that the great fundraising leaders make sure their entire organisation is proud of fundraising and that, without that culture, truly great fundraising cannot happen in isolation. Fundraisers everywhere should make sure their CEOs and trustees read every word.”
Sargeant slams NPC report
Prior to the release of the report today, Prof Sargeant (pictured) published a blog heavily critical of research released by New Philanthropy Capital last month.
Sargeant argues the research, which claimed to identify types and motivations of major donors in particular, rather than helping charities “could be immensely damaging” and is nearly entirely without theoretical basis.
Writing on the Institute of Fundraising website, the fundraising academic argues that too much money is wasted on weak research and more investment is needed in research conducted by fundraising research specialists, rather than by advisory committee.
In a detailed critique of the NPC’s Money for Good report, he said the “weakest section” was the part in which donors were segmented by types. “The report also offers a number of sweeping generalisations that could be harmful if actioned by smaller non-profits,” he wrote, arguing that the report’s recommendation to trumpet achievements ignores other research which says this must be done from the donors’ perspective.
Director of research and consulting at NPC, Rob Abercrombie, today published a response on the Institute's site, saying his organisation accepted criticism of the report, but were "puzzled" by some of the critiques made by Sargeant.
"We are not clear why Adrian thinks that the sector will be so damaged by the report. In particular, we are puzzled by his point that charities that followed the recommendations could “conceivably reduce giving to a specific appeal by as much as 75%”. Since we make no specific recommendations that charities are expected to follow uncritically in the report, we are unsure what basis Adrian could have for calculating such a figure. Furthermore, we make very clear in the report that it is our intention to test its findings in practice, working with the Institute of Fundraising and fundraising charities to find out what works and what doesn’t, a transparent approach that makes the risk of damage remote."
Abercrombie also defended NPC's advisory board approach to fundraising research, arguing that its work with academics, fundraisers and professional pollsters made its research more robust.
