Having been an HR practitioner in the NFP-charity space and as strategic planning and governance consultant to same at present, I have had the opportunity to observe fund-raising strategies developed, the next great fund-raiser hired (and then fired), tactics, brilliant ideas, lead balloons and leading edge practices come and go.

So, no, I am not a fund-raiser except when I browbeat my family and both social and professional circles into sponsoring me.

What I am, though, is a keen observer and collector of data bits, repeat behaviours and trends during the past 15 years where I have had the unique opportunity of being both "insider" as a member of executive teams making strategic philanthropic decisions and as a third party guiding process to develop strategy and implementation plans.

The Myth of Major Gifts

I have yet to know a charity that doesn't see major gifts as the panacea for all revenue woes. How could a multi-million dollar gift NOT solve the competitive problems faced by charities of all size and affiliation?

However, I have yet to see significant re-interpretation of a "major gifts strategy" for small, non-bricks- and-mortar charities; what I continue to see is a recycling of hospital and university major gift strategy re-packaged and scaled down for charities with causes as diverse as health, social justice and arts.

And, when the strategy includes start-up costs related to staffing, technology and training, those costs are more often than not crossed off the proposal in favour of investing in one person designated to major gifts; and, this one person is usually tied to a revenue formula that requires them to "pay for themselves X 2 or 3 or other number" in the first or second year.

The Board and "What you don't know CAN hurt you" I have seen many boards at work during my consulting assignments and often get to know them over a period of planning rather than at a single event. It's extremely laudable that volunteer board members strive to govern to achieve mission success which is so frequently dependent on donations rather other sources of funding.

And I can't tell you how often I see the gleam in their eyes at the prospect of a huge donation as it is dangled like a carrot to motivate approval of the new major gifts strategy or the new major gifts staff member.

What the board doesn't know:

1. Boards don't know how very long it takes to cultivate a major gift.

The unrealistic expectations of securing one or multiple big donations in a year or two contradict the experience of most fundraisers. Even as charities incorporate the language of "relationship building", they may neglect to identify the extended timelines necessary to build relationships, especially those where significant affiliation and emotional connections underlie the potential motivation to give.

2. Boards don't know that "major" as an adjective for a donation is completely dependent on what is major or significant to the donor.

The "M" words are often deemed interchangeable where major means millions. What is major to one donor may be insignificant to another. Similarly, a "small" gift to an institution may be huge to a community-based charity. Definition, context and relativity are key to defining major gifts and too often, board expectations are based on an ambiguous or poor understanding of a specific organization's major gift culture. 3.

And Boards don't know that one person cannot single-handedly change a culture from community, monthly or event based giving to one of major gifts.  

I compare this to my own experience of an organization essentially asking an HR person to "fix morale" or change attitudes. Creating a major gift culture-like any major organizational culture change-is dependent on changes at a systems level such as: people (performance, rewards), technology (enterprise, accuracy and reporting capability) and service (consistency and standards)…to name a few.

And, if you'll pardon resuscitating this old expression, Boards do not "walk the walk". Unfortunately, not all boards have well-defined giving requirements for themselves. And I have heard from major gift fundraisers-repeatedly-that Board members are very slow to make introductions to feasible prospects from their own connected and affluent circles.

Lessons from the "Round Table" (or, Executive)

What can the CEO/ED and executive team do? If the board is ignorant of what it takes to create an environment in which major gifts is a plausible revenue stream, how culpable is staff for that ignorance?

In my practice, I see genuine, committed and hardworking teams that have been taxed with doing "more with less. And less, and less". In the tumultuousness and fray of daily NFP life (which, incidentally, includes a much higher turnover rate than either government or private sectors), executives and managers have less and less time to think through strategy or to plan and act today for the future.

Often, these small charities use hard-won donor dollars to engage services of reputable and well-intentioned consultants to advise and propose a major gift strategy. But even the best consultants can't promise a flourishing crop in a neglected, fallow and less than fertile field. These strategies often lack context and some of the basic realities of charities: "

Size matters. A charity of almost any size is unlikely to increase staff, or head count, by much. Consider a charity with a head count of 25 and a proposal to increase staff by 25-30% to build major gifts. (Why 30%? Prospect research. Proposal writer. Stewardship and donor relations. Data. Major Gifts officer. Corporate Gifts officer. And others.) "

The lack of a case for support. As a non-fundraiser, I continue to be surprised that this is not the first stake in the ground for any revenue strategy. Without an urgent and compelling reason to financially support the organization, there seems to be no foundation for any fundraising strategy much less one for major gifts. "

The lack of philanthropy and mission literacy. From an organizational development perspective, I see the collective staffs of charities are not well-informed enough regarding philanthropic values and mission goals. Orientation and onboarding programs are not sufficiently expansive and enduring to instill these values early in an employee's tenure. This is a critical step in working for any fund-raising organization regardless of its revenue strategies and regardless of the role one plays with in it. From accounts payable to reception, every staff member can and should be informed regarding mission goals and fundraising. "

Lack of board education and the will and ability to "push back" are significant contributors to revenue strategy failures. The board believes its work to be done once the plan is approved regardless of whether that plan is realistic or achievable. Unfortunately, the CEO/ED and team may not have incrementally educated the board around fundraising culture and goals and, equally unfortunate, the executive either lacks the ability or authority to question unrealistic goals.

What's next in the quest?

Major gifts or not, all charity fundraising organizations can bolster their philanthropic and mission IQs by ensuring they have a well-informed staff and, by association, volunteer force. It is only with a fundamental understanding of why funds are raised (case for support) can the diverse methods for raising those funds be appropriately understood and then explored for change including bolstering existing methods, editing or discontinuing poor performing methods and adding new ones.

Major gifts success in non-institutional charities does not have to be a myth: educate your staff and board (and in that order) in philanthropy and mission. Develop any new programs-but especially a major gifts program-in the context of the size, scope and capacity for start-up investments for a specific organization. Remember that no single person can create a culture. And finally, plan well and plan far, far ahead.

Nickey Alexiou is a strategic planning and governance consultant to NFPs as principal of 9Doors Facilitation.