I recently had my sixth lunch in five months with a donor I hope will make a big gift from his estate. He is an older gentleman, a bit lonely, and he moves closer to signing paperwork for a bequest each time we talk. He’s clearly interested in the organization I’m raising money for: He has donated to us for more than 20 years. And we know from our background research that he is financially able to make a substantial gift. But each time he comes close to making a decision about his contribution, he sets a future lunch date.
There’s something else, too. He has been overt in his desire to meet with me. Over lunch, the conversation quickly turned personal. He began commenting on my appearance and recounting stories of other “pretty girls.” I redirected the discussion to his history with the organization. He said he wasn’t ready to make a gift decision. Maybe in a few months — and a few more lunches.
This is not my first experience with a donor using his position to win companionship. The power dynamic between donors and the fundraisers assigned to them is akin to the arrangement between manager and employee: My career success is partially measured by dollars raised, leaving my fate, to an extent, in donors’ hands.
There were times earlier in my career — I’ve worked in the profession for a decade — when I would have bit my lip and suffered through this kind of harassment because my confidence was weak and my tenacity for wrapping up a gift deal outweighed my sensitivity to this behavior. It was easier not to sound an alarm, particularly when the donor was a VIP or had a close relationship with my supervisor. These days, I feel obligated to raise awareness of these incidents of opportunistic chauvinism in our field.
Many of my colleagues have had similar experiences. Nearly two-thirds of the 66 female frontline fundraisers at organizations big and small who agreed to answer questions in an informal survey I conducted said that donors had crossed the professional line with them because of gender or appearance. This was particularly the case with young fundraisers assigned to raise money from individuals rather than corporations and foundations.
Of those women who indicated feeling discomfort as a result of relationships with some of their donors, nearly 50 percent continued to work with the donors, either by their choice or at the request of a supervisor. The premium on winning a gift or maintaining the donor’s relationship with the organization outweighed the need to establish professional protocol or send the message that treating staff members this way is unacceptable. It’s a delicate, often uncomfortable discussion a lot of charity leaders don’t want to have.
Many of the fundraisers in my survey said they didn’t think the donors intended to make them feel uncomfortable. Nor had many of the fundraisers reported incidents of harassment to their supervisor. While their hunch about the donors’ intentions may be true, it’s problematic when fundraisers must compromise their integrity and self-respect to maintain peace or obtain a gift.
Nonprofits must reinforce training and policies on harassment with continuous discussion and a consistent response to sticky situations posed by donors.
Other fundraisers suggested that this chauvinism is simply characteristic of older generations, including those into which most of our major donors fall. This theory may be valid, but it hardly seems reasonable to endure harassment on the premise that times will one day change.
Women who’ve experienced donor advances commonly told me how unprepared they were to deal with the situation. Though they believed their supervisors would have supported them if they had raised the issue, they hadn’t discussed how to keep themselves safe during meetings with contributors — many of which take place in the donor’s home — or how to respond to this type of behavior.
While some unfortunate encounters are unavoidable, as with my most recent one, managers and staff members can take the right steps to establish a clear professional line between donors and fundraisers, send a message that harassment won’t be tolerated, keep the lines of communication on this topic open, and prioritize staff safety and comfort over reeling in a big gift.
The first step nonprofits must take is to state clearly to everyone that the organization won’t tolerate harassment, even when seemingly harmless. I’ve worked on development teams where sexually harassing behavior is dismissed through humor: “Oh, he sure loves working with you.” By joking about a serious issue, managers condone this type of behavior and its underlying motives. Would we respond similarly if a co-worker or manager was making inappropriate moves on a staff member? Within any healthy organization, such violations would be taken very seriously. A policy of nontolerance should begin at the highest levels of leadership, and staff members and volunteers will take the cue.
Navigating the relationship with donors should also be a key part of the orientation process a nonprofit offers to new fundraisers. Managers often just send bright-eyed gift officers out the door to start cultivating relationships, leaving it to their discretion and sparkling personalities to handle challenging interpersonal scenarios. Since getting a meeting with a donor feels like an incredible triumph, and any forward momentum feels one step closer to obtaining a gift, new staff members can find themselves getting far into the gift-seeking process before they realize the need to set (or reset) clear professional boundaries.
How do fundraisers go about establishing boundaries? By making their role in the organization clear from the very first donor meeting. Every fundraiser has her or his own way of characterizing the job to the donors they meet. The way I describe my job depends on the donor and my organization’s current needs, but I always make my goals for our meeting and (with luck) future meetings clear.
Nonprofits must reinforce training and policies on harassment with continuous discussion and a consistent response to sticky situations posed by donors. In weekly or biweekly one-on-one meetings with fundraisers about progress in winning gifts, managers should also have frank conversations about any relationships where harassment or other interpersonal violations may be a threat. In cases where staff members feel uncomfortable, charities should always reassign the donors to other people. In some cases, harassers will be so problematic that the only approach is to simply stop seeking any more big gifts from them.
Because philanthropy often comes from the heart, a fundraiser’s interactions with donors will always be quite personal. Fundraisers needn’t hide the genuine interest in others that makes them good at their jobs. But fundraisers with strong social intelligence and sound strategies will be able to do so in a healthy way.
While incidents of harassment may not be frequent, bringing them into the open and shifting the standard to zero tolerance allows fundraisers the freedom to let go of a relationship in favor of their dignity and comfort. After my sixth lunch with the donor who was getting too friendly, I asked a male colleague to take over the relationship. The donor may make that large estate gift eventually, but it will not be at my emotional expense.
Arminda Lathrop has worked as a fundraiser at several universities and other nonprofits and now works as a fundraising and management adviser to an array of groups, especially those working in Uganda.
