Keep up with everything happening in The Commons by signing up for the Chronicle’s Philanthropy Today newsletter or our weekly Commons LinkedIn newsletter.
Even the most secular nonprofits can sometimes operate with the intensity and uniformity of a religious cult. There’s often an expectation for everyone, including donors, to align with a set of beliefs and opinions. Differing perspectives are discouraged, albeit subtly, and conformity becomes a measure of one’s commitment to the cause.
Good fundraisers are an antidote to this unhealthy tendency. Their work requires that they venture beyond the boundaries of the organization and build relationships with donors who may or may not fit the mold of whomever the organization would like to envision as their ideal supporter.
With next week’s inauguration, and political tensions likely to simmer throughout the next year, these relationships become all the more important — and more challenging than ever. Yet I have always believed that difficult times are opportunities for fundraisers to shine, to demonstrate their ability to develop and sustain meaningful relationships with donors who have a wide range of beliefs and opinions.
Rather than dodging the possibility of uncomfortable conversations, fundraisers should be encouraged in the coming days to model what they’re often best at — being great conversationalists, boundary spanners, and bridge-builders.
Great Conversationalists
During my hundreds of conversations with fundraisers on the Fundraising Talent Podcast, I often found myself thinking that fundraisers are among the best conversationalists. Unfortunately, far too many are confined to their desks and overly invested in cheap, arms-length tactics.
But our fundraisers need to actually be having conversations — in person, when possible, but also by phone and Zoom. In her book Reclaiming Conversation, author and psychologist Sherry Turkle makes a distinction between “mere connections” and “meaningful conversations.” It is this distinction that I often encourage nonprofit leaders to understand about the work their fundraisers are, or are not, doing. We get ourselves into a lot of trouble when we expect a mere connection — anything that confines a donor relationship to a mailing list — to do what only meaningful conversations can.
Turkle says our over-reliance on mere connections degrades our communication and dehumanizes those we relate to. She reminds us that “face-to-face conversation is the most humanizing thing that we do; it’s where we learn to put ourselves in the place of the other.” Rather than humanizing those on each side of the gift exchange, mere connections don’t allow us to see who our donors really are. Likewise, our donors don’t get the chance to learn about those they’re supporting.
When we resort to mere connections, we’re not owning up to the shallow approach that affords us the efficiency, predictability, and sense of control that we crave in such unsettling times. Turkle reminds us that technology enchants and allows us to forget the messy complexity of authentic relationships.
Without meaningful conversations, it’s easy for fundraisers to fall into the trap of pigeonholing donors into narrow profiles, leading to mistaken assumptions about what resonates most with them or why they choose to give. A limited understanding of donors’ beliefs and opinions also creates barriers for prospective supporters. Organizations that assume they fully understand their donors’ “why” close themselves off to new opportunities to engage a broader, more diverse community of constituents.
Spanning Boundaries
If we were to ask sociologists what makes for a great fundraiser in times such as these, they would suggest we look at boundary spanners — those who have learned to bridge social, ideological, and economic divides and thrive where different perspectives coexist.
Boundary spanning is about connecting across differences, acting as a bridge between groups that might not otherwise interact. In fundraising, this skill can be an invaluable asset: Boundary spanners facilitate communication and enhance understanding and collaboration among individuals and groups with differing backgrounds, beliefs, and social identities. They reduce misunderstandings, establish trust, and facilitate productive conversations among those who might otherwise not find themselves at the same table.
Good ones avoid “in-group bias,” the tendency to favor those who share our views, and strive to build a culture where we understand and appreciate the beliefs and opinions of those who see and experience the world differently than we do. Nonprofit leaders who recognize and support this skill enable their fundraisers to build a more diverse donor network, translating into the organizational resilience necessary for navigating our increasingly unpredictable world.
Bridge Builders
In a college nonprofit management course that I teach, I give a talk on social capital and the differences between bonding and bridging. Bonding and bridging social capital are essential types of connections but serve very different purposes. Bonding social capital refers to the close-knit ties we have with people who are similar to us —family, friends, or colleagues with whom we often share similar beliefs and opinions. These bonds create trust and provide emotional support, reinforcing cohesion within groups.
Bridging social capital, on the other hand, connects us with those outside our immediate circles — people who are very likely to have different beliefs and opinions and who are more inclined to see politics differently. Bridging is essential for expanding our perspectives and creating resilient, adaptable networks. With bridging skills, fundraisers can connect with donors who hold diverse beliefs, ensuring the organization has a wide base of support that reflects the diversity of our communities.
Before my talk, I start a discussion explicitly designed to stir tension. We identify the contrasting views and values of students in the room — say, pro-choice and pro-life — and then talk about the charities that stand in opposition on these views. We discuss what motivates donors to give to each and explore whether a donor to, say, Catholic Charities, might find cause and common ground with Planned Parenthood. I aim to develop their appreciation for the uncomfortable reality that our sector accommodates both, a point explored by several of their assigned texts.
This exercise can be unsettling for the students, and I confess that even as the facilitator it can be unnerving. But this discomfort is precisely the point — it highlights the importance of moving beyond comfort zones to genuinely connect with those who see the world through a different lens.
Fundraisers who are strong conversationalists can become effective boundary spanners, and those who span boundaries can ultimately build bridges. And by bridging divides, fundraisers can bring together a community of supporters that reflects the diversity of society. These skills go beyond affirming what we have in common: They open doors to new opportunities, creating a sense of shared purpose that’s grounded in solidarity rather than religious adherence and conformity.
The Original Third Place
When our politicians in Washington aren’t listening and Walmart just wants to sell us cheap stuff, a lot of us gravitate to nonprofits in search of a place where we can have a voice. The sector is the original third place, despite what Howard Schultz would have you believe about Starbucks. Creating such places makes for a great conversationalist, boundary spanner, and bridge builder.
Keep in mind, this isn’t some line about providing quality customer service and persuading people that they’re always right; we’re not Sears Roebuck. Sometimes our role is to help our donors understand that their beliefs and opinions are wrong. Our voice needs to be heard, too. Unfortunately, thanks in large part to the legacy of late 20th-century direct mail, most of our organizations haven’t earned such a privilege, and we haven’t created places where making such assertions is possible.
Now is the time for organizations to recognize that their fundraisers do far more than raise money. They should not encourage their teams to distance themselves from donors or assume that “mere connections” are adequate to ensure consistent support. During highly polarizing and uncertain times, it’s a high-context conversation — even one that surfaces strong differences in belief or opinion — that keeps our relationships strong.
Editor’s Note: This piece was adapted from an essay that originally appeared on the author’s Substack.
The Commons is financed in part with philanthropic support from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, Einhorn Collaborative, the Freedom Together Foundation (formerly the JPB Foundation), and the Walton Family Foundation. None of our supporters have any control over or input into story selection, reporting, or editing, and they do not review articles before publication. See more about the Chronicle, the grants, how our foundation-supported journalism works, and our gift-acceptance policy.