“At the very time that the sophistication of managerial technology and information systems increase, polls inform us that (i) the public’s confidence in the ability of public and private organizations to perform effectively is decreasing, and (ii) the confidence of the public in professionals who provide services and manage institutions is also steadily decreasing.” [1]
No, this was not written in 2022. It was not even written in the 21st century. It was written by Harvard educator Chris Argyris in 1980, citing a study done in 1978 by the National Opinion Research Corporation. But it could have been in today’s morning news. He goes on to say:
“There are no doubt several factors contributing to these trends. I should like to focus on one set of these factors that is crucial. I refer to the inability of organizations to discuss risky and threatening issues, especially if these issues question underlying or organizational assumptions and policies…the problem is that discussing or writing up risky issues is unacceptable.”
Over the last half century working with not-for-profit institutions and organizations, I have observed that such “undiscussables” constitute the most threatening issues confronting fundraising staffs in both large institutions and small organizations.
Here are examples of undiscussables that undermine the progress of a not-for-profit organization.
Ego
Example: The chairman of the board of a national U.S. conservation organization was a globally recognized developer of resorts. He had an autocratic my-way-or-the-highway management style. He instructed the director of development to draft a letter that would be sent with his signature to major corporations (among whom he was well known) asking for a contribution of $1,000. The development director knew that this was a bad strategy that would generate disappointing results, but he followed instructions. The letter was drafted, edited, approved and sent to several hundred corporations. Not one dollar was received in response. The board chair’s conclusion was not that the strategy was wrong, but that the organization could not raise any money in the corporate community because its case for support was not strong enough.
Example: The VP Development at a college had cultivated a million-dollar campaign gift from a major prospect. When he believed it was time for a formal ask, he enlisted the college’s president and chair of the board of trustees to visit the prospect to make the ask. In recognition of his gift, the president and board chair were to offer to name the great hall in a new student center in his honor. The board chair and the president decided to make the call by themselves. They returned from their visit, announcing that their visit was successful and that he would make the million-dollar gift. In the debrief with the VP, they were tentative as to whether they had offered to name the great hall for the donor, or the entire center. The VP asked them to clarify that in their next conversation with the donor. Two years passed without contact with the donor by the board chair or president. During this period, the VP maintained contact with the donor, and one day he received a short personal note from the donor saying that he had enjoyed his relationship with the VP but was so put off by the institution’s leadership that he planned to ask for his gift back. There was now a new president at the college. He and the VP immediately got on a plane to visit the donor to mend the fence and save the gift (which they did).
The boss wants only good news
Example: The president of a multi-campus university was a charismatic charmer who attracted top corporate leadership and global political figures to the university. He could not, however, tolerate any constructive feedback. There was a capital campaign underway. Regular meetings of the president, campaign staff, and campaign consultant were held to review progress with major prospective donors. The president had agreed to visit several top-level prospects, however, weeks passed without any action to set up visits with his prospects. To break the logjam of inaction by the president the campaign director and consultant devised a form for prospect review which showed dated entries for the “last action” and “next action.” The intent was to avoid saying outright that the president had not done something he should have done but still demonstrate that no action had been taken. When that didn’t work, the consultant agreed to talk to the president’s second in command to urge him to bring the inaction to the president’s attention. The consultant met with the second in command. When he returned from the meeting, he was visibly shaken, saying that when he brought up the subject of the president’s inaction the second in command didn’t even acknowledge the question had been asked and continued as if the consultant had not uttered a word of it.
Obstructive Leadership
Example: A college had a fundraising information management software that was so antiquated that when they shopped for a new system they could not find anyone who could do the conversion of their data. But, the VP Development and the VP for Business Affairs did their due diligence and found a third party that could do the conversion to the software/hardware combination that they selected. They spent months researching systems and references, had received approval from the president, and did not anticipate controversy when they went to the board with their request for funds to buy the chosen system. They did not consider board politics and did not do any lobbying of individual board members prior to the meeting. It was a bad decision. The meeting with the board committee deteriorated into tirades by old timers on the board who could not fathom why a small college would need to spend so much money on managing information about donors and prospects. The knockout punch was delivered by a wealthy business owner who stood up and pulled a little hand-held calculator out of his pocket and proclaimed: “I run my whole company with nothing but this!” The staff went back to the drawing board.
Example: A marketing director for a small dance company applied for the Executive Director position but didn’t get the job because the board members wanted someone with prior executive direction experience. The marketing director was charismatic with significant experience in New York City. The incoming ED was totally intimidated by him, even though the marketing director was content to stay in his current position. From day one, the new ED undermined the marketing director by withholding information for publications until the last minute, not providing basic resources, and making personal interactions unpleasant, while communicating pleasantries in the written record. This is a common organizational scenario, where the primary undiscussable hiring requirement is that the person being hired does not constitute a threat to the person they report to. It is a recurring undiscussable scenario which contributes to mediocre achievement in many organizations.
Example: A candidate for the position of Director of Development (DOD) at a prestigious eastern U.S. university arrived for a day of interviews. Recruited by an executive search firm, he was scheduled to interview with the VP Development, and with the directors of development of each of the colleges of the university who would report to him and also to the deans of their colleges. He was also scheduled to meet with each of the deans of the university’s colleges.
The candidate had substantial experience with the university environment, and was a quick study learning about the realities of an organizational environment during such an interview process. He learned that the VP was relatively new, and that she had (in a short time) renovated the workspace to eliminate all private offices, creating an atmosphere of tension and uncertainty. During the day, an interview with one of the college development directors was abruptly cancelled. The candidate learned later that the college development director was also a candidate for the university DOD job, and that he had some sort of mental breakdown just before the interview. The candidate also learned that the dean of the medical school also had a vacancy for the DOD job, that he had taken a liking to the candidate and had communicated to the VP that he wanted the candidate for the medical school job.
In the exit interview with the VP at the end of the day, the candidate was stunned to be offered his choice of two positions: the university DOD position, and the medical school DOD position, one of which reported to the other. The candidate could not wait to get out of there, no matter how prestigious the university was. He told the VP he couldn’t be considered for a position when doing so would cause one of his reports mental anguish. This scenario was replete with undiscussables.
The “great resignation”
The average tenure for a development officer is generally considered to be 18 months. It has been that way for decades. It is my contention that the undiscussables are the biggest contributing factor to this fact. Philanthropy Daily reported that “The Underdeveloped Study,” an important and extensive study by CompassPoint and the Eveleyn and Walter J. Haas Fund, captures the reasons for turnover: unrealistic expectations, lack of investment in fundraising tools and systems, unengaged leadership and board, and a poor culture of philanthropy.”[2]It is underlying “undiscussables” that manifest themselves in the reasons cited as part of this study. Every organization has them but it’s never too late to make positive change. Start by asking:
Spanning a 45-year career, Donald Keel has held executive roles at various post secondary institutions and has led fundraising campaigns in both nonprofit and corporate environments. Contact him at donskeel@me.com.
Home page photo by Marquise Kamanke on Unsplash.
[1] Public Administration Review, May - June, 1980, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1980), pp. 205-213.
[2] Philanthropy Daily, 2-3-2020.
