It is that time of year, planning and KPIs are rolling off our tongues. Not usually with much joy. I was lucky enough to join Rob Woods in a webinar earlier this month and whilst we were talking about how we deepen levels of understanding of supporters and partners to better design experiences for them, the concept of how we might make this a KPI came up from one of the listeners. Typically we set KPIs around what we want to have by the end of the year. Key word here being HAVE. So that is often a set of targets around income or relationship numbers or ongoing relationships or projects to be funded. There is a lot of debate still around classrooms I'm teaching in about whether this is helpful or not. The bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that you need clarity around what you are working for, otherwise there is nothing to help you prioritise your work or align your efforts. Often, you also see KPIs being set around what work will need to be done to achieve those HAVE goals. These become the DO goals. This quite frequently looks like meeting targets, email or phone call targets or even event targets. Consistently this is the set that I find upsets teams the most. This is the space where teams want flexibility to do what is necessary rather than follow rigid agendas set on what may or may not be the right approach with particular relationships. How can we set targets for meeting numbers when we have no idea what might suit various people we are meeting. When I have had this conversation with line managers previously, they have been concerned about how they motivate their staff to go out and get meetings and make calls if they don't make it a KPI. I've always empathised with this, they are looking for a way to motivate the behaviour they feel will make the difference and bring in the results. The only problem is that setting DO targets to motivate behaviour sacrifices not just the quality of the doing, but also the creativity of what they do. Teams start making calls for the sake of making calls, not to reach out to make a connection with someone and inspire them in a really human way and we leave no space for creative alternative ways of inspiring and reaching out to people. In short, we over mechanise the doing and suck the life out of it. So, what then becomes the alternative to motivating great active behaviour? Well, what about setting KPIs around how we are BEING. Ultimately, our way of being is what dictates not just what we do but how we do our work. It is the underlying factor influencing the quality and creativity of what we do so why not start there? What would a way of BEING look like? How about 'positive', 'determined', 'supportive', 'collaborative'...the list could go on! Can you imagine what DO activity might look like if you were BEING all of these things? The first question that usually then comes up is, 'how do you measure this?'. I don't have a definitive answer on this yet, but my instinct says this cannot be quantified in a limited target. It is something that needs to be demonstrated as widely as possible by the team member in 1:2:1s and be reported by colleagues independently and observed by line management. We can even incentivise this with awards for demonstrating the behaviours we know are going to bring success and let's not make this an annual awards thing! If you want to reward great ways of BEING then you need to do it daily! Make it the highest profile thing you are doing because it underpins everything! Otherwise these ways of BEING end up being nothing more than values written on a wall somewhere, ultimately hollow. Another concern people often have about setting BEING KPIs is how to support colleagues in this space. After all, how do you help someone BE a certain way. The first thing to note, is that it is not unusual to look for help in supporting your colleagues through a KPI. Even if you were just setting targets around what you wanted people to DO it is likely you would be coaching them through this or bringing in outside help from coaches or consultants to help you get the results you were looking for. So helping someone on a KPI is normal. The support people need in this space is coaching to help them become better self reflectors (an amazing skill to be working on!) and to notice their mindsets and look for clues that their bodies give them all the time that their mindsets have shifted and techniques to swing easily back into a happier more productive state. For me the answer to this is mindfulness - but that feels like another blog post. What do you think about BEING KPIs? Have you ever attempted something like this? Let us know in the comments below. A thank you also to Arti Chhatralia for promting this blog from our conversation! Kim

I was first taught MD fundraising 14 years ago. I remember it well, the conference room space at the top of the NSPCC building on Curtain Road in East London. My eyes popping out of my skull. Prospecting. Researching. Cultivating. Ask. Steward. Solicitation Cycles. Portfolios. I remember the terminology blowing me over. Fast forward 14 years and I have been teaching these same principles for over 10 years. Over the last three years I have had an increasingly niggling sensation that teaching from the best practice of the past means that we are tied to the potential of the past. Imagine if scientists, engineers, designers and more only worked from the information of the past instead of the vision they had for the future. We might still be looking up at the stars instead of down from them and we might still be sailing months across the seas to visit loved ones instead of connecting with them in an instant. The techniques, the language, the assumptions, written and unwritten rules have built my fundraising success and those who I have worked with but we have been hearing the creaking of our old practices for several years and haven’t fully responded. More than that the world seems to be crying out for the services of our organisations and major gift fundraising is surely one of the most powerful ways to make an impact. To do this we need to pause for a moment and consider where we are starting from. If you will allow me I’d like to refer to the fundraising techniques, the language or words that we use, the ways of working, the written and unwritten rules, the assumptions and rationalisations we use as the ‘Technology' of Major Gift fundraising. It is the knowledge that we use for practical purposes. And take a look at some of them. The 9-4-1 rule, 18 months to gift rule, the cultivation cycle of identify, research, plan, engage, ask, thank, steward. The concepts of portfolios and prospects, the assumptions that Trustees should give and be a part of fundraising to have success, the concept that major gift fundraising is difficult or that you need established connections or to be an organisation with a big brand, or the supporter needs to have a connection to your cause. The list goes on. You know the assumptions, judgements, rules and unwritten rules. What is the impact for major donor fundraising if we continue to play by these rules? I’m just not sure we have the time to play by all of them if we are going to have the impact we want to have. I’m not suggesting that we don’t use the old technology where it is helpful. Gravity is an old rule that still proves valid and helpful today, but some technology is naturally superseded or becomes obsolete. Fundraisers like Tony Gaston at EMMS International who joined me for the session at the conference are breaking these rules all the time and it is so exciting. Tony shared how he started major donor fundraising from scratch in a little known organisation as someone without any contacts. He has doubled his income year after year to be generating nearly £1m in 5 years. He is showing everyday how you don’t need to be a big organisation to bring in big funding and you can be the face of important relationships as ‘just a fundraiser’. And his secret? He doesn’t accept the industry standards and norms. I’m now working with an organisation that has never professionally fundraised before. They are definitely not comfortable with it and the usual major donor stuff just won’t work so we have had to build from scratch. That started with fundraising language. I can’t talk about ‘prospect meetings’ or ‘fundraising’ because the team look like they want to head for the hills, so we talk about ‘conversations’ and ‘inviting people to join us’. I refuse to use time limitations such as 18months for gifts coming in and will never mention ratios for conversion of cold possible supporters. That is a limiting mindset I don’t want anyone in the team to relate to (let alone the language!). We also use mindfulness practice at the beginning of all conversations about fundraising to reduce fear levels, get past our cynicism and open up new opportunities. This is the technology that is necessary in this organisation to achieve success so I want to use it. I’m not ready to throw out all the old tools - there are staples I’m definitely still using, but I am worried that we work from the best practice of the past at the peril of ignoring what we can learn from the future that is emerging in front of us. Surely this is how we will work from where we want to go, not where we have been. I’m going to be having the conversation about the future of Major Donor fundraising a lot over the next few months, I’d love to hear your thoughts - please share!

Three years ago when I uncovered the work of Tania Singer, a professor working at the Max Planck Institute in Germany, I had an almost out of body experience. Tania's work was looking to see the impact of training the brain with mindfulness techniques. Her results, proven by MRI scans and the rigour of neuroscience has shown incredible results. The outcome for participants? Greater attention to detail, better perspective taking and empathy, increased grey matter (yes you even get smarter!) and lower levels of cortisol under pressure (yes, less stress people!). When I think about the techniques that set the most exceptional fundraisers and managers I know apart from the rest, so much of it is rooted in a mindset that is calm, really really able to understand supporters, able to fully appreciate their perspectives and empathise with the emotions that they have. This is why next year will see me increasing my use of mindfulness practice for my coachees and in my training and consulting. The results are just too hard to ignore. Have you ever explored mindfulness? My first attempts using a popular app resulted in a rather disastrous affair over 5 years ago and I promptly gave up, but Tania's research has prompted me to put my money where my mouth is and really commit. 20 minutes a day (sometimes on the tube looking like a melting wax work out of Madame Tussauds) has now become one of my favourite moments during the day. The thing I'm loving the most is the impact of slowly becoming the observer of my thoughts rather than being those thoughts. This is the distinction that has begun a rather exciting journey because if you are not what you think, and you are not governed by that inner narrative, then the possibilities become so big. Inner narrative not just for you but for all those you work with can often bring judgement, cynicism, fear. Anything sound familiar? Think about what potential supporters say when you talk about your organisation. What internal staff say when you try to get things done. What the voice in your head says throughout the working day! So taking command of this and being able to relate to those around you with a really open mind and with empathy and with excitement about what you are making happen is a rather lovely antidote. If you are keen to explore how mindfulness could impact your work or your team, get in touch with me for a chat. In the meantime, why not give that 10 minutes of closing your eyes and focusing on your breath just one more go... BLOG UPDATE: If you are keen to find out how all of this mindfulness works in practice join me on the 20th March 2019 for a morning session where we will apply mindfulness to preparing for supporter meetings. Bonus, we will be in the most unusual and inspiring of places - a bedouin tent in the middle of London City. Book your place now!

I remember feeling guilty, like I had been caught snooping around someone’s house. I was one week into my first job as a fundraiser when I was handed my first piece of research on prospective donors and supporters I had yet to meet. So now I had an idea of how much they might give, how I might contact them, what interests they might have, what charities they might like to give to, what commitments might keep them from giving. It was overwhelming and I was not happy about it. A lot of you will have heard me refer to that moment as the time I felt like a professional stalker. In the years since that first encounter with prospect research and data I have learnt about how valuable it can be. When I’ve had good (legal!) information I have wasted less time (my own and that of potential donors), made more people delighted to be giving to charity, and raised more faster. In short I’ve been a far better fundraiser for playing by the rule of understand your donors better, raise more. And of course, it’s not just my observations that attest to this. To name one, Macmillan have raised an extra £5m from understanding their Coffee Morning supporters better and researchers Alan Andreasen and Philip Kotler have well documented the impact that a target audience mindset can have on fundraising. Their experiences show that if you know your audience well enough then you know what will get them to take action and how you can give them a benefit for interacting with you. Win win. So if there is so much to be gained from knowing your supporters better, what on earth is the information that could ruin your relationship? Here it comes... All of it. That’s right, every last morsel. No, I don’t mean to contradict myself, great research can lead to great fundraising, but here is the ‘but’. It CAN lead to great fundraising only if as fundraisers we don’t forget that no one can be brought to life on two sides of A4, particularly not when it comes to something as personal as giving to charity. This rings particularly true for fundraisers working with major donors, companies, trusts and legacy givers, where there is often a personal relationship established. I have watched so many of my coachees start out emotionally and rationally stuck behind hypotheses about what donors ‘might’ or ‘could’ do. “I don’t think they would want me to bother them at work”, “I don’t think this is the kind of project they would want to fund”, “I don’t think this is the kind of charity they would want to support”. “They aren’t going to want to take a call from a fundraiser”. I could go on. Any of them sound familiar? And here lies the danger. We end up making assumptions about people based on relatively limited data. In the last week alone, I have had two coachees jumping up and down about the positive responses they got when they just picked up the phone to get to know someone. They stopped making assumptions and they used their research to guide their contact with potential supporters, but not dictate it. And there is a big difference! Using research as a guide gives you hints, tips, suggestions. Using research to dictate your approach fills fundraisers with assumptions and anxiety, and in my experience a lot of excuses about why they shouldn’t reach out. The best of the best extend an invitation to people and get to know them, properly know them. So here are my top tips on how to build glowing relationships with prospects and supporters: Take hints about approaching and working with your supporters from good quality prospect research. Never ever make assumptions about what a prospect or donor is really thinking or going through. Give people the chance to say yes or no, don’t make that decision for them. Spend more time working up how you talk about your charity. We fail to engage people because of the language we use and the way we deliver it. Building better relationships is entirely within your grasp no matter how experienced you are, what causes you work for or where you are based. No excuses. Get to grips with good research and take action, listen to the response and keep making changes until your results are speaking for themselves. Like any of these tips? Share the love and help fundraising everywhere.

Are we ignoring the reality of mental health in fundraising?

We are beginning to redefine fundraising. We are redefining it to truly fit the purpose of serving a supporter experience. Fundraising was about raising money from people and organisations to serve our causes. It is shifting to become a gift in itself. Research from Philanthropic Psychologist Professor Jen Shang and Social Neuroscientist, Tania Singer both point towards the positive personal benefits of giving. Happier, healthier individuals thanks to compassion and altruism. So fundraising needs to become increasingly less about the money and so much more about the experience of giving that fundraisers can offer their audiences. To be in a place to facilitate gift giving and all the benefits it has to offer, fundraisers need to be able to listen and understand supporters better than ever before. They need to be able to hear what supporters don’t feel comfortable disclosing, what social norms keep them from saying.

It is a familiar story. You get a third of the way into your year and take a look at the plan that you and colleagues spent weeks pouring over last year, only to conclude that if it floated off out of the window it would likely have little bearing on what you raised for your organisation. I've heard great fundraisers denounce gift tables, cash flow projections, pipelines, declaring them pointless. I can't really argue with that reality. By the time you are in the swing of your year the unforeseeable is happening and the agile fundraiser is making the most of new opportunities, weaving them in amongst the skeleton of the original plan. So why bother if it is all going to go to pot anyway? The answer to that for me lies in how we define planning. If we call a plan 'what we are going to do', then it is likely to be the most frustrating document created. But if we call it, 'How I know I can handle what is expected of me', then the purpose changes. It goes from a blueprint to a toolkit. It has detail of what could be delivered to meet goals, but it should also ensure the right resources are available to meet unexpected circumstances. And importantly, because the planning process (if done properly) ensures that the goals are completely realistic and that breeds a confident fundraiser which, let's face it, is usually one of the least common species of fundraiser out there! So planning for me is non negotiable, it has to happen because I want my fundraisers to be confident. That confidence comes when they can see that the goal for the year is aligned with what they can deliver through their activity. And that activity in turn is aligned with the resources, skills and processes that they have to hand. When these come together there is a satisfaction akin to solving an equation. Thankfully, to achieve this we don't need Matt Damon's Good Will Hunting mind. I have a simple presentation technique that I'm creatively calling a '4 Tiered Planning Model' which has been a helpful starting point for teams. Here is a simple overview of it:

When you drive in first, second, third, fourth or fifth gear, the speed and power of the car is completely different. The fuel consumption is completely different, the sound is completely different. The ‘feeling’ is completely different. When you are responsible for fundraising, you might be quite conscious of which gear you are working in. Lower gears burning through resources as you establish your momentum, higher gears seeing much better efficiency and speed towards your goals. I’m not going to lie, this analogy is proving to be better than I initially anticipated. So what has driving in neutral got to do with it? This means standing still, surely? Well, you are right it is precisely that moment of pause that I want to check you are taking. Pausing in neutral means deciding what route and performance is going to get you to your goal safely and on time. But more than that, neutrality is important in the sense that you try to remain unbiased in your decisions. Travel a particular fundraising road regularly and it becomes your natural choice out of habit, even though it may not be your best one. Marketing academics refer to this same principle in deciding media planning as ‘media neutral’ and they know just how important it is. It means that if you are clear on the outcome you are looking for and on the messages you want to convey, then you should remain neutral about which types of media will work best for you and choose a mix or blend that best suits that campaign. I wonder how much of a gear shift we could have if we borrowed the concept for fundraising? If instead of investing in the fundraising techniques and activities that we did last year, we stopped to ask which are the ones that would best suit our ambitions and needs this year, could we achieve more than we thought possible Over the years dozens upon dozens of fundraisers have said to me,” I don’t think we should still be doing this event”, or “I’m trying to engage people who just don’t seem interested” or “this type of fundraising just isn’t working for us”. Now diagnosing why in all of these areas is essential, but we also have to stop to evaluate whether we should be doing them at all. The essence of great fundraising is about achieving as much as possible with as little as possible. To get there we have to be brave enough to try new avenues, take risk and shift investments around. Some fundraising planning neutrality could be just the thing to make sure you aren’t headed in reverse. If you’re curious on how this played out at the NSPCC then take a look at the paper published in the International Journal of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Marketing, by Angus Jenkinson, Branko Sain and Kevin Bishop called Optimising communications for charity brand management.

Studying the impact of our professional language on organisations for the last five years has been a fascinating glimpse at the havoc that words can play on teams. We borrow words from sectors we don’t like being associated with like the Sales industry (think prospect, pipeline, target). We look to abbreviate complex ideas with catch all words that leave us having little individuality (think support, empower, advocate). And we use words without interrogating what they really mean, or even more importantly, what they should mean to our individual organisations. Think stewardship. You’ve probably heard of it. You might even say, 'we do it’. You might even be able to say, ‘stewardship is more than just a thank you for supporters, it is a supporter experience’. If you have got to that stage, I take my hat off to you. For so long we have buried this crucial part of the fundraising cycle at the very end of the steps we take. The last thing we have trained ourselves to think about is the bit that comes after the ‘ask’. The afterthought. We are so preoccupied about how to ask for the donations and bring them in that we haven’t even run a course on the 'thank you' at the IoF until now. 'Crazy!' I hear myself shout. We are diving into the 2018/19 financial year on the back of a wave of socio-cultural change agents and an appetite and motivation to crack on and actually make some significant changes to the way in which we fundraise. The international development scandals have proved to be the latest tough reminder of how dangerous it is to be complacent of scrutiny and just how much damage it can have on supporter trust and ultimately the survival of our projects. Now we need to say that the definition of stewardship is donor experience, but we need to prod and provoke as much discussion about this as possible as The Commission on the Donor Experience is doing. Without this discussion we don’t craft a shared meaning for this word. We don’t craft a meaning that is admired and inspiring. We don’t help fundraisers to explore what this term means in their organisations. What it cannot continue to be is a set of reminders to send thank you messages. It cannot be a typical charity event to invite people to. It cannot be a series of emails with spin and a snippet of what the reality is. It needs to be a review of how the organisation listens to and responds in bold new ways to what supporters want, not what works for the organisation. In August I’m bringing together a group of fundraisers to explore in real terms what supporter experience means in their organisations. Tangible stuff. No fluff, no jargon, no assumed meaning. We are going to lift stewardship as a term right off its place at the end of the solicitation cycle and reframe it around the entire cycle. An all-encompassing bubble of experience. We are going to start designs that challenge the ways in which we work and showcase those bravely making the leap. We are going to give these fundraisers the confidence to make the commitment to supporters in exactly the same way they make commitments to their beneficiaries. Why am I hosting this session? Because I found myself reflecting in a keynote speech in March about my fears that nothing, not even GDPR would ultimately make a huge difference to how we fundraise. So this is my first commitment to the sector that as a faculty member I will teach how to build trust, not just business as usual. If you want to be a part of this and push your organisation’s thinking with the next curve then join me on 1st August in London . Post first published on The Institute of Fundraising site 8 May 2018