People tend to ask me why I present on the topic of death. As a fundraiser, I have been in many uncomfortable situations, and some of which have caught me completely off guard. I present on this topic to help push myself, and others, to battle against the death denying society we live in, and hopefully encourage myself and my peers to get a little more comfortable.
We are incredibly privileged to be invited into the lives of our donors, but that privilege also needs to be repaid. I feel very strongly that we can’t bring our own baggage into our conversations, and whether we know it or not, we may not be as comfortable with this topic as we should be. And, as an October 2018 article in Psychology Today puts it “…getting comfortable translates into being comforting.” Really, I think this is the least we can do as professionals in order to honour our donors.
The use of euphemisms is constant when it comes to death; think about your everyday conversations. Does it seem more natural to indicate that someone has died, or that someone has passed away? Megan Devine (@refugeingrief on Twitter) speaks about euphemisms, the broken models in our society, and the many other ways we deny death. Death denial brings about the result of making grieving even harder for those doing it – Devine speaks about grief shaming, and it is heartbreaking to think we play a role in this. The good news is that it isn’t necessarily our fault. It’s not us, but the societal models/norms that are broken. This being said, I personally think it is up to each of us to strive toward breaking these norms so that we can all grieve in our own ‘normal’ ways. The peril for our profession is that if we don’t stop to think about what the norms are, we can very easily say the wrong thing. Our words can certainly be well intentioned, but could come across as otherwise. The use of platitudes is one such trap, and one much too easily tempting in our work as fundraisers. As relationship people, this is concerning.
You’ve likely heard of the stages of death, a theory written by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. When I present on this topic I always show a much beloved Simpson’s clip when Homer hears that he is going to die. He moves through all the five stages in very quick succession. It’s ludicrous. In fact, I’ve learned that Kübler-Ross herself regretted penning the theory. As people started to use the theory, they have attached the stages to grief as well as death. On top of this, the author meant solely to give normalcy to the various reactions that people can have as they encounter death. Kübler-Ross had hoped that the stages would bring comfort, instead of cage people within their grief. The truth is that there is no ‘right’ way to die (or grieve), and that everyone is different – there is no norm, no one clear path in grief.
So in our many interactions with donors, are there a list of hacks, or do/do not’s that can feel accessible? As relationship specialists, I have hope that most fundraisers are already doing the following with our grieving donors:
As for what not to do, or pitfalls to avoid:
Easy enough… or maybe not. Missteps may still occur, but hopefully in this case practice makes perfect… or at least easier.
One last resource I have personally used and found incredibly helpful is an idea called The Ring Theory . This theory is incredibly easy to understand and can hopefully be a quick reminder of where we may stand on a donor’s ‘rings’. Basically, draw a centre point – that point represents the person at the heart of a tragedy. From there, draw a ring circling the point, and then a subsequent ring circling that first ring, and so one and so forth. Then, think about where the spotlight of comfort should remain – the centre point. Now determine which ring you would place yourself as the fundraiser or professional advisor. Finally, simply remember to always comfort in to the inner rings, and ‘dump’ out. So if you need support, or have an “I” statement (“I’m having a hard time with this”), you’re only allowed to express that to individuals who are on rings circling yours. Never dump in.
To close out my recent session at the CAGP-ACPDP national conference on strategic philanthropy, I wanted to spend some time on the ideas of empathy, emotions & professionalism. I recently came across an article in the BMJ (an academic journal for physicians) , which made me think about the whether fundraisers & advisors should cry at work? I think we can acknowledge that crying has been portrayed as a sign of weakness and could be seen as a lack of professionalism. In reality, if we think about the amount of energy we can expend on trying not to cry in certain situations, maybe we are actually doing our donors and ourselves a service by just letting the tears come. I think that many people in my session agreed that crying alongside a donor is acceptable in our line of work, but we were also quick to differentiate between a sobbing, all-consuming cry and gently shedding a tear alongside someone. Again, remember the spotlight in the Ring Theory, and ensure the spotlight stays where it ought to be. If we can remember this, I think that our professionalism and friendship with our donors will be retained throughout their journey with grief.
How do you interact with grief in your role? Let’s continue this conversation – feel free to connect @jlstdenis on twitter.
Janice St-Denis is a certified fundraising executive (CFRE) and an experienced senior-level fundraiser with a proven track record in higher education. Passionate about the places I work, the stories I tell, and the alumni and donors I connect with.
