Do the Word

AA gets a great send-up in a Wired Magazine piece by Brendan Koerner. It’s a lengthy piece but well worth the read for many reasons, not the least of which is Koerner’s discussion of something that still puzzles scientists about AA–and something, I would add, that nonprofit executive directors would do well to heed:

To begin with, there is evidence that a big part of AA’s effectiveness may have nothing to do with the actual steps. It may derive from something more fundamental: the power of the group. Psychologists have long known that one of the best ways to change human behavior is to gather people with similar problems into groups, rather than treat them individually. The first to note this phenomenon was Joseph Pratt, a Boston physician who started organizing weekly meetings of tubercular patients in 1905. These groups were intended to teach members better health habits, but Pratt quickly realized they were also effective at lifting emotional spirits, by giving patients the chance to share their tales of hardship. (“In a common disease, they have a bond,” he would later observe.) More than 70 years later, after a review of nearly 200 articles on group therapy, a pair of Stanford University researchers pinpointed why the approach works so well: “Members find the group to be a compelling emotional experience; they develop close bonds with the other members and are deeply influenced by their acceptance and feedback.”

Note especially that last line as you ask yourself:

• Are you drawing your donors together into groups?
• If so, are those groups focused on giving donors the opportunity to articulate their experience…or to admire and appreciate your experience?

We regularly take groups from around the world to South Korea to participate with North Korean defectors in the projects they’re undertaking in an effort to transform their homeland. They stay in the homes of North Korean defectors in order to hear their stories and live a little of their life. They launch Gospel flyers via giant hot air type balloons into North Korea. They teach in our Underground University that equips NKs to serve the underground NK church in South Korea, China, North Korea, and around the world.

And some of the most intense time these visitors have is in their discussion time with each other between each of the activities.

Earlier this week I got an email from one of our past guests–one who had experienced real trauma on the trip as he was overwhelmed with the reality of NK defector life, so much so that he had dropped out of participating with our organization altogether. He noted offhandedly that he and his wife had just returned from a vacation with another of the families he had met on the trip two years ago.

He then asked me for an update on the situation in NK so that he could post it on his blog and mobilize his network to get involved.

Writes Koerner:

Addiction-medicine specialists often raise the concern that AA meetings aren’t led by professionals. But there is evidence that this may actually help foster a sense of intimacy between members, since the fundamental AA relationship is between fellow alcoholics rather than between alcoholics and the therapist. These close social bonds allow members to slowly learn how to connect to others without the lubricating effects of alcohol. In a study published last year in Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, Tonigan found that “participation in AA is associated with an increased sense of security, comfort, and mutuality in close relationships.”

Makes me wonder whether the most effective reaction strategy for lapsed donors may be a camping trip with a current donor rather than a letter that says, “We haven’t heard from you in a while, and we’re concerned…”

“Have they fruit?” Mr. Wesley asked of his would-be preachers. Could those who were seeking ordination show anything for their service? Was there at least one person who had found faith through the word they proclaimed? A single person whose spiritual practices had been enlivened by what they taught? A hungry person who found bread? A homeless person who found shelter? Was there any sign that the ministry exercised by this person was waking the world to the dream of God?

Make sure to check out the rest of Nathan Kirkpatrick’s powerful piece at Faith & Leadership.

After you do, please take his question one step further.

Writes Kirkpatrick:

Imagine the discussion that would ensue at the next administrative board or church council meeting if the question were asked, “Havewe fruit?” Imagine the conversation if the topic at the meeting became, “What evidence is there? What can we point to that demonstrates that the community in which we live is better, healthier and more faithful because of the presence of our church? Are our ministries making any kind of difference to our neighbors? Is the Spirit, through us, actually changing lives, deepening faith, seeding hope in this neighborhood? Or are we just taking up space on a corner in town, an antiquated placeholder on this block?” I imagine a lively scene as a congregation deliberates and discusses its missional role in its own context, all the while answering the question, “Have we fruit?”

My experience has been that most nonprofits are increasingly adept at asking the question of themselves, if not answering it.

But it is an exceedingly rare nonprofit that asks this question related to its donors.

On the one hand, there is perhaps no more measured “fruit” in nonprofitdom than metrics related to giving.

But what about metrics related to our donors’ understanding of the cause and their ability to act upon it knowledgeably and comprehensively, both through us and on their own?

The paradigmatic example of doing this well remains Atul Tandon, who led World Vision to ask and answer this question–and who thus demonstrated, as World Vision exploded with growth during his tenure, that asking about and measuring more than money is what yields a bumper financial crop:

We perform donor surveys once a year on key questions: Are you more aware of the poor? Is your time with World Vision enabling you to serve the poor better? Is your walk with Jesus Christ changing because of your walk with the poor? The critical question is, Have you changed the way you spend your money and your time? In 2003, 59 percent of our donors said they had changed the way they thought about and spent money and time. Today, that number is up to 76 percent. God has been faithful.

Sadly, as Tom from the Agitator notes today in quoting a piece by Tom Ahern, few of us are even surveying our donors, let alone thinking about measuring any kind of donor fruit other than dollars:

Tom talks about a recent fundraising conference where 150 attendees were asked if they conducted donor satisfaction surveys. Tom says not a hand went up. He goes on to discuss how lousy nonprofits are at holding on to donors.

So I like Nathan Kirkpatrick’s idea for a “lively scene”, and yet I want to propose something more, though I suspect it will initially draw blank stares from your board more than animated chatter. But let us persevere in this line of questioning, if only at first because Atul Tandon has demonstrated its efficacy:

Have our donors fruit?

In 1998, a Robert Redford movie introduced the term “horse whisperer” into common parlance.

In 2010, we are well past due for introducing the term “donor whisperer” into not only our fundraising vocabulary but our practice as well.

First, a quick turn to Wikipedia to get our term on the table:

A horse whisperer is a horse trainer who adopts a sympathetic view of the motives, needs, and desires of the horse, based on natural horsemanship and modern equine psychology. The term goes back to the early nineteenth century when an Irish horseman, Daniel Sullivan, made a name for himself in England by rehabilitating horses that had become vicious and intractable due to abuse or accidental trauma.

Sullivan kept his methods secret, but people who managed to observe him noticed that he would stand face to face with the troubled horse. They seemed to think that he must be saying something to the horse in a way the horse could understand and accept because the horses were quickly gentled by his mysterious techniques.

No less mysterious today: A development officer who adopts a genuinely sympathetic view of the motives, needs, and desires of the donor.

Lesson one for aspiring donor whisperers:

Listen more than you talk.

Gail Perry’s Guidestar piece on increasing donations by 39% by calling (or, better yet, notes Gail, having board members call) to thank donors is a great post. But the best part of the post comes midway down the text and will be missed by many readers:

If your board members are adventurous, they can ask the donor why he/she chose to make this gift. They can pull out the donor’s story—and the donor will be even more pleased and honored.

For tips on effective listening, check out Simon Sinek’s recent post on the subject:

At its most effective level, however, listening goes far beyond simply paying attention. Becoming a “good listener” is a skill that requires practice. At this level, listening means trying to find meaning in what you hear. It is not simply about concentrating on what is being said to you; it is the active pursuit of understanding.

Trying to find meaning in what you hear–that’s a profound command for those of us working with donors. Sinek suggests that one of the best practices in enabling us to find meaning in what we hear is asking specific questions:

Don’t simply ask, “What do you mean by that?” after every statement someone makes. That’s frustrating for the person talking to you and it still relies on them to find the right words. Ask questions specific to the things they say. For example, if someone says, “I want to be a doctor,” instead of asking why they want to be a doctor, ask them what kind of doctor they want to be. When they answer, ask them what it is about that specialty that interests them. Very quickly you will get a much clearer picture of the kind of person this is and what their strengths are just from listening closely and asking pointed questions.

I like to do role playing with executive directors and development directors. One of my favorite role plays is “Call the donor”. I play the donor, and the ED or DD places the call. Since they’ve previously received coaching from me on asking questions to donors, they try to put that into practice right away. Challenge is, when I-as-donor respond, no matter what I say, the ED/DD will usually respond by saying, “Great, great. That’s great.”

Why does this happen?

Nerves, likely. Lack of practice is undoubtedly part of it.

But I think an even more likely explanation is that we lack a deep and abiding curiosity in our donors. We aren’t prepared to encounter them as fascinating people who are on a journey to make meaning, working out certain things in their life as they seek to make a difference in and for themselves, the world, God, their families, and those they meet.

If we felt that way, we’d ask questions quite naturally. And we’d listen intently to what our donors say in reply.

This is why nearly as long as I’ve been in fundraising, I’ve chosen not to start a thank you call by saying thank you. Instead, I say, “Hi, Mrs. Jones. Eric Foley at Seoul USA. Just wanted to let you know we got the check you sent in the mail. And I had to ask: What were you thinking???”

Seriously. That’s exactly what I do. This causes the person to laugh nervously at first, but I’ve never had anyone hang up or be offended.

I have, however, had nearly two decades and counting of fascinating conversations with donors as a result.