When revenue teams are structured to compete, instead of align
We say we’re one team.
We say we’re donor-centered.
We say collaboration is a core value.
We even have slides with overlapping circles to prove it.
But, if we’re honest, many revenue teams are still operating with separate scoreboards.
Major gifts has its targets.
Planned giving has its pipeline.
Campaigns have their countdown clocks.
Marketing has its metrics.
We all serve the same mission but success is measured differently, reported separately, and occasionally celebrated as if we’ve just won entirely different championships.
No one calls it competition
We prefer language like “ownership,” “portfolio integrity” or “strategic focus.”
But incentives have a quiet way of revealing what we truly value.
This isn’t about personalities. It’s about structure.
When KPIs are siloed, credit is portfolio-based, and timelines compete, collaboration becomes something we applaud in meetings and quietly negotiate afterward.
We attend the same meetings.
Reference the same strategic plan.
Use the same donor names.
Then we return to our dashboards and dashboards, by design, are personal.
A common scenario
A long-standing major donor expresses interest in including the organization in their estate plans. The legacy team is looped in (sometimes early, sometimes later than ideal). Strategy is adjusted. Conversations evolve. Credit becomes a topic of discussion.
No one is trying to undermine anyone.
But the structure makes it complicated.
When revenue lines are measured independently, cross-portfolio opportunities can feel less like shared success and more like shared territory. Over time, these small tensions shape behavior.
When performance is measured individually, collaboration becomes optional.
When revenue is reported separately, credit becomes guarded.
When recognition follows short-term wins, long-term strategy can feel invisible.
And invisibility influences investment.
Organizations deeply committed to long-term impact sometimes struggle to align around long-term funding strategy.
Revenue streams designed for long-term sustainability like legacy and endowment don’t always flourish in systems that prioritize immediacy.
Urgency gets applause.
Longevity gets a thoughtful nod.
And then urgency gets the budget.
It’s not difficult to predict which one fits more neatly into a quarterly report.
This isn’t an argument against campaigns or major gifts. Urgency matters. Short-term wins keep programs funded and teams motivated.
But when urgency becomes the dominant lens, sustainability can quietly slip to the margins.
Donors notice
From a donor’s perspective, the organization is one entity. Internally, it can feel like multiple areas having separate conversations, characterized by—
- different timelines,
- parallel priorities, and
- sometimes even parallel proposals.
None of this stems from bad intent. It comes from design.
Coexistence is not the same as alignment. Alignment requires —
- intentional architecture
- shared KPIs that reward collective outcomes
- integrated planning before donor strategy is finalized, not after overlap is discovered
- recognition systems that value long-term commitments alongside immediate revenue
- leadership modeling shared ownership instead of portfolio protection
Collaboration cannot live only in values statements
It has to be demonstrated through incentives.
Included in metrics.
It must define the success that leads to celebration.
Because even the most collegial teams will default to the structures around them.
If those structures reward individual performance over collective outcomes, coexistence becomes the norm, polite, professional, well-intentioned coexistence, but not alignment.
And alignment is what sustainability requires.
This isn’t just a critique. It’s a question worth asking—ideally before the next strategic planning meeting: If collaboration is truly the goal, are we designing for it?
The future of fundraising will not be built by adjacent teams working respectfully side by side.
It will be built by aligned teams willing to rethink metrics, credit, and what we celebrate.
One mission.
One strategy.
And perhaps — one shared scoreboard.
Rhonda Sogren is the Associate Director of Legacy and Planned Giving at North York General Foundation and Co-Chair of the CAGP GTA Education Committee. With over a decade of fundraising experience, including eight years dedicated to legacy gifts, she is passionate about elevating diverse voices in philanthropy and advancing culturally inclusive approaches to estate and legacy planning. Rhonda frequently presents and writes on the intersection of culture, identity, and giving. rhonda.sogren@nygh.on.ca
