Tough Love for Donors #2 ??????
Most donors want what’s best for the organizations they support. They trust the board and staff leadership to stay the course defined by their mission statement. As I hinted last week, there is a vocal minority who want the money they give to advance their own purposes, whatever strain it puts on the organization. Attempts to steer the boat from shore rarely go well. ??
?Some funders have a concept that they are purchasing power with your organization when they donate. It’s as though their gift (whatever the size) has made them a majority shareholder. Generous contributions are an “investment” in the mission and our collective future, but the analogy ends there. ?Hopefully, the orgs we work for have honed their mission down to the most optimal approach to the issue they address. That mission is the North star, and no funder should be allowed to take us off course. I've heard this defined as "mission drift" or "mission creep."
Funders who require you to swing out of your lane shouldn't be indulged.
I’ve experienced donors and institutional funders asking me to compromise privacy policies and/or build programs outside the stated mission while dangling cash like it’s a golden carrot.
???Evaluate these quid pro quo statements, explicit or implied, carefully. ??
?If you compromise, you’ll regret it. You’ll create a monster of entitlement and diminish the integrity of the organization.
领英推荐
?? Maybe announcing that 7 figure gift to the board or staff is tempting. ??
?? BUT??
You have agency here. Stand your ground.
I’ve mentioned a couple requests above that prospective funders have made throughout my career that would’ve compromised the mission I was supporting. Luckily, in both cases, I was backed up by leadership who agreed we shouldn’t engage under those terms.
Have you had to address funders offering gifts or threatening to withdraw unless action is taken to conform the organization to their own personal value system? How did you respond? Let me know!
?