Traditional Fundraising vs. Transformational Giving, Part II: Why Traditional Fundraising is so Appealing

Posted on November 17, 2010 by Pastor Foley

What makes traditional transactional fundraising (ttf) so appealing when compared to Transformational Giving (TG)? I mean, the very premise of TG–that “followers become something different than they were before the encounter”–is so much more appealing and ennobling on the face of it than the premise of ttf, that we enter into relationships for the sake of furthering objectives we find personally valuable.

Liberty University’s Dr. Michael R. Mitchell, author of Leading, Teaching, and Making Disciples, suggests that the transactional is always more appealing than the transformational because anyone can do it and it’s much easier to succeed at: transactional results, after all, are entirely within the power of the two people effecting the transaction.

[A]nyone can function as a transactional leader, providing information, direction, assistance, and skills that influence others to go somewhere or do something different than they had been previously (p. 12).

But transformation? That is outside of the control of the transactors. That requires humility and submission to God, and following His leading. And even on our best days, we can’t force it to happen.

But ttf can be forced on our bad days, with the right combinations of brochures, websites, relationship skills, and persuasion, transactions can happen anytime we can cobble together a transaction both sides consider fair.

We like transactions, in other words, because they depend wholly on us and on our skills.

Transformation, on the other hand, can only happen when God permits. And that scares the pants off of us, because we’re not entirely convinced that He has the best interests of our organization at heart.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Traditional Fundraising vs. Transformational Giving, Part I: A Definition

Posted on November 15, 2010 by Pastor Foley

It’s been a while since we discussed the differences between traditional transactional fundraising (ttf) and Transformational Giving (TG) on this site, and I fear that when we fail to remind ourselves of the difference we can lull ourselves into thinking that we are engaged in TG when in reality we are still practicing ttf for all intents and purposes.

So I was delighted to be able to garner some new insight into the difference as I was reading Leading, Teaching, and Making Disciples by Liberty University’s Dr. Michael R Mitchell. He writes about leadership proper rather than fundraising, but there’s a one-to-one carryover, for sure:

As a result of James MacGregor Burns’s classic volume, Leadership, it is common today to distinguish between “transactional leadership,” where an exchange occurs, and “transformational leadership,” where change occurs (Burns, 1978). In transactional leadership, an exchange between the leader and the follower facilitates the fulfillment of an objective or the accomplishment of a task, enabling an alteration in location, information, or even product. In transformational leadership, a substantive change occurs in the nature or character of either the followers or the organizations of which they are a part (p. 11).

Adds Mitchell, Jesus’ own transformational leadership was characterized by an “insistence his followers become something different than they were before the encounter” (p. 11).

Do you insist that your donors-as-followers or church members become something different than they were before their encounter with your organization? Do you measure it?

Do you ask them about it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What Non-Profit Leaders Owe Their Donors-As-Followers

Posted on November 12, 2010 by Pastor Foley
  1. Mutual accountability.
  2. A relationship centered on transforming the donor-as-follower in relation to the cause.

That’s my short answer to the question posed in the title of this post. Those are the two things that non-profit leaders owe their donors-as-followers. (Oh–if you haven’t yet read the previous post, Nonprofits Have Followers, Not Donors, please do so. It’ll help you make a lot more sense out of this current post.)

Liberty University’s Dr. Michael R. Mitchell fills out this thought in his must-read for nonprofit execs and fundraisers (please don’t waste your time reading fundraising books, for heaven’s sakes), Leading, Teaching, and Making Disciples:

Followership is more than a position of submission. It is a commitment to change, a willingness to be transformed into the image, style, and behavior of the leader. Following may simply indicate trailing behind another or even adhering to the directions of someone who can point the way to a desired location. Followership, on the other hand, implies a condition of relationship and accountability. The invitation of Jesus to follow him offered a transformation of life and lifestyle that involved more than just shadowing him from town to town and miracle-to-miracle, observing and not participating. Many people followed him, but only a few chose to accept his invitation to followership and discipleship.

“Observing and not participating”–doesn’t that describe the donor file of most nonprofits? (Heck, it describes the constituency of most churches!) We act as if we’re in this state of affairs because observing and not participating is the donor’s preference.

Two comments here:

  1. Have we modeled any other viable path of possibility for the donor? I mean, more than pray ‘n’ give ‘n’ sign up for the newsletter? When donors ask, “What can I do?“, do we have a robust answer that represents the heart of our ministry? Or is it an ill-defined side unmarked rabbit trail for the bold?
  2. What does it say about us as leaders that we are willing to accept observing and not participating as a legitimate means of involvement in the cause? Jesus “began to do and to teach” (Acts 1:1), not “do and advertise”, “do and promote”, or “do and solicit”.

The moment we accept the appellation, “leader”, we owe more to our followers–yes, followers, because that’s what leaders have, even when they prefer not to recognize that ethical responsibility–than solicitation, receipting, and reporting.

We owe them mutual accountability and a platform for transformation that we staff at the heart of our ministry.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment