Roles consultants play in successful fundraising interventions

FROM T H E FIELD

Roles Consultants Play in Successful Fundraising

Interventions Kathleen Fletcher

This article draws on previous research by the author in which the long-term effectiveness of technical assistance grants in fundraising was studied. Successful and unsuccessful interventions by fundraising consultants in that earlier study are compared using several descriptions of the role of the consultant from organizational development literature. This comparison helps define the roles played by successful consultants in fundraising interventions and provides a number of suggestions for both organizations and consultants as to how to make such interventions successful.

UNDFWSING consultants often play an important role in helping organizations increase their revenue from donative sources F such as foundations, corporations, associations, and individ-

uals. Yet, until recently, there was virtually no research into what made some fundraising interventions more successful than others. In particular, there were no theory-based conclusions about what roles consultants should play in order to successfully increase a nonprofit organization’s fundraising capacity.

In preparation for an exploratory study on the long-term effectiveness of foundation grants that paid for fundraising consulting interventions, 1 was unable to find research literature that focused on fundraising consulting. After completing the study, however, I consulted organizational development and business management literature to determine whether the viewpoints of experts about the role of the consultant would help me understand why some of the interventions I had studied were successful and others were not. My goal was to develop further my own set of suggestions to both organizations and consultants about what roles consultants should play in order to be successful in helping organizations build their fundraising programs.

67 NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 6 , no. 1, Fall 1995 Q Jossey-Bass Publishers

68 F L E T C H E R

Projects were judged

unsuccessful ij they produced plans that the organizations never follow ed or if they failed to produce an effective Zong-

tern fundraising strategy

Because I consulted the literature after the study rather than before, the literature review served to explain behavior already judged to be successful or iansuccessful rather than to set up mea- surable criteria by which to judge success or failure. Despite the somewhat backward methodology, the results of comparing the behavior of the consultants, in the successful and the unsuccessful interventions with reference to the consultant roles prescribed in the literature did indeed provide useful insights on how to succeed in fundraising interventions.

To provide context for Ithe discussion of consultant roles, I first briefly describe the results of the original exploratory study of the long-term effectiveness of one foundation’s technical assistance grants in fundraising. I then describe the roles consultants should play according to several sources from organizational development literature and compare the behavior of the successful and unsuccessful consultants from my original study according to those roles. Finally, I draw conclusions about the roles that fundraising consultants should play and make suggestions for practitioners to increase the probability that a fundraising intervention will be successful.

Review of the Original Research Findings The original research was an exploratory study of twenty fundraising interventions supported by small (from $2,500 to $9,000) grants from the San Francisco Foundation (Fletcher, 1992). Organizations receiving grants ranged from $32,000 to over $2 million in annual operating budgets and represented a variety of fields of service: arts, social services, education, and environmental advocacy. The study sought to define the long-term success or failure of the grants and to identify factors related to whether the grants were successful in increasing the fundraising capacity of the organizations. The organizations that had received grants were studied three to five years after they had received the <assistance funded by those grants.

The results showed thai fourteen of the twenty consulting interventions were successful according to the definition of success that evolved from the study. Consultations were judged successful if the organization judged them a success and if they did at least one of the following: increased the skill1 level of the organization’s staff and volunteers in fundraising, increased the income generated by fundraising activities, led to adoption of a successful income-generating strategy, led to a strengthening of the development function within the organization, or produced a plan the organization then followed to develop fundraising capability Projects were judged unsuccessful if they produced plans thalt the organizations never followed or if they failed to produce an effective long-term fundraising strategy. Three of the twenty projects were judged to be full failures in which no positive effect of the grant could be identified. The remaining

ROLES C O N S U L T A N T S P L A Y I N S U C C E S S F U L F U N D R A I S I N G I N T E R V E N T I O N S 69

three were partial failures in that each consultation, while it did not fulfill the criteria for success, still had at least one positive effect on the organization’s fundraising program.

The study compared the successful with the unsuccessful consultations on a variety of factors: type of planning done, developmental stage of the organization, what the consultant did for the organization, board involvement in fundraising, budget size, type of organization, reasons for seeking the grant, source of the idea for the grant, presence of development staff, process for choosing consultants, degree of consultant contact with the board, action after the end of the grant, and changes in board and staff since the grant. Fac- tors that appeared to be related to long-term effectiveness included developmental stage of the organization, organizational readiness to use the assistance, lack of turnover in the executive director position, a history of board involvement in fundraising, and the appropriateness of the match between the consultant and the organization. Bud- get size, type of organization, source of idea for the grant (staff or board), process for choosing consultants, and presence of development staff did not appear to be related to success.

Staff and board members who were interviewed attributed the success of their technical assistance grants to several factors: choosing a good consultant, maintaining a strong staff effort to implement the consultant’s recommendations, being open to receive help and act on it, having committed volunteers, getting the help at the right time for the organization, and learning that fundraising is an integral part of organizational development. Reasons for failure cited by staff and board members of the six organizations with unsuccessful consultations included the following: the concept was wrong, organizational issues needed addressing first; the board was unwilling to follow through with the plan; there was a mismatch between the needs of the organization and the product that the consultant could deliver.

From this study of the long-term effectiveness of twenty fundraising consultations, a number of conclusions were drawn: (1) To a high degree, the consultations studied had a positive long-term effect on the organizations. (2) Most of the consultations were significant organizational development interventions and led to a higher level of functioning in both fundraising and other areas. (3) Reasons for failure of the consultations usually involved lack of readiness among the organizations. (4) Successful consultants had strong expertise in organizational development as well as fundraising. ( 5 ) Meeting the short-term goals of the grant was not as important for long-term effectiveness as setting up a process for growth. (6) The organizations did not change overnight; the consultations only got the process started. Organizations must continually build on the foundations laid by the consultations. (7) Plans produced by consultants who then provided no further help were not successful. (8) Major-gift consultations where the boards were not ready to be involved in solicitation were

70 FLETCHER

~ ~

The tasks carried out by the

consultants studied can be cornpured with Argyris’s three primary tasks

when translated into fundraising

language

not successful. (9) Plans produced by consultants sometimes took years to implement but still served as important guidelines for build- ing the organizations’ fundraising capacity

Role of the Consultants in the Successful and the Unsuccessful Interventions

Since the original purpose of the study was exploratory in nature and focused on developing criteria for the long-term success or failure of technical assistance grants in fundraising, the role of the consultant was not studied in great detail. Following the original research, however, I consulted with several professors in organizational development and business administration to identify highly respected experts who had addressed the role of the consultant. For the purposes of this article, I discuss the work of six of these experts and compare their writings on the role of the consultant to the actual behavior of the successful and unsuccessful consultants in the original study

Tasks of the Intervenor Argyris (1970) discerned three primary tasks of the intervenor: compile and produce comprehensive, valid, and useful information; help the client make informed and responsible choices while resisting the pressure to let the client turn decision making over to the intervenor; and help the client internalize the course of action so that people develop a sense of ownership and responsibility for the choice and its implications. With respect to fundraising, this viewpoint suggests that the consultant’s primary tasks in fundraising interventions are to compile information and produce a realistic assessment of the organization’s fundraising capacity, help the organization make appropriate choices about fundraising methodologies and resist pressure to impose a consultant-created plan on the organization, and help the organization develop ownership of any fundraising plans and a sense of responsibility for their implementation.

The tasks carried out by the consultants studied can be compared with Argyris’s three primary tasks when translated into fundraising language (see Table 1). This analysis shows that, with a few exceptions, the consultants judged to be successful by the study’s criteria also fulfilled Argyris’s three primary tasks. By contrast, only half of the consultants in the unsuccessful interventions produced a realistic assessment of the client’s fundraising capacity (Task l), and none of the unsuccessful consultants resisted the pressure to impose their own plans onto the organizations, nor did they help the organizations develop ownership of the plans or responsibility for their implementation (Tasks 2 and 3 ) .

Contrasting a successful intervention with an unsuccessful one illustrates the ways in whiclh Argyris’s primary roles were and were not carried out. A legal aid program for immigrants, which had relied on two supporting law schools for 80 percent of its funding, con-

R O L E S C O N S U L T A N T S PLAY IN S U C C E S S F U L F U N D R A I S I N G I N T E R V E N T I O N S 71

Table 1. Frequency of Interventions in Which Three Primary Tasks of the Fundraising Consultant Were Fulfilled

Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Intervention Type Valid Information Client Choice Client Ownership ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Successful (N = 14) 13 (.93) 13 (.93) 12 (B6) Unsuccessful (N = 6 ) 3 (SO) 0 0

Note: Parenthetical figures are percentages Source: Based in part on Argyris, 1970.

tracted with a consultant to help them diversify their funding base. The consultant concentrated on educating and empowering the organization and made clear that she was not going to raise money for the program. She provided training for the board and staff, helped design solicitations, reviewed proposals, coached the executive director on how to approach donors, and facilitated a lengthy and rigor- ous process of goal and priority setting. She succeeded in getting the executive director to “buy in” and recognize the need for board development. In Argyris’s terms, she assessed the situation realistically, helped the organization make choices, and helped the organization develop ownership of the fundraising process.

In contrast, a food distribution program hired a consultant who worked for a firm specializing in fundraising events to produce a plan that would help them build their funding base. The plan she developed was based on an expensive special event and large donations from major donors. While it might have been appropriate for a large, well-established organization, it was inappropriate for this grass-roots organization. According to the executive director, the plan was mostly boilerplate and completely useless. He asked for and got the consultant’s firm to refund half the money. This consultant did not fulfill any of Argyris’s roles; there was no reliable assessment, no client choice, and no client ownership.

Roles of the Consultant: Lippitt and Lippitt (1986) According to Lippitt and Lippitt (1986), an essential part of the consultant’s job is to explore the readiness of the client system to devote time, energy, and the committed involvement of appropriate people to the process of change. They further postulate eight distinct roles for consultants, stressing that the particular role assumed by the consultant varies with the particular client situation and the phase of the consulting relationship. In the order of most consultant-centered to most client-centered, these roles are as follows:

Advocate: The consultant attempts to influence the client’s choice of goals and means or the methodology underlying the client’s problem-solving behavior.

The particular role assumed by the consultant varies with the

particdar cZient situation and the

phase of the consulting

relationship

72 FLETCHER

Information specialist: The consultant provides special knowledge services and assumes a directive role until the client is comfortable with a particular approach.

Trainer-educator: The consulkant creates learning experiences or acts as a direct trainer-educatalr for the client.

Joint problem solver: The consultant collaborates with the client to solve a problem; consultant and client act as peers.

Identifier of alternatives and linker to resources: The consultant iden- tifies alternative solutions, establishes criteria for selection, and links the client to resources but does not participate in the final selection among alternatives.

Fact finder: The consultant functions as researcher through interviews, questionnaires, obz,ervations, analysis of records, or administration of tests.

Process counselor: The consultant transfers diagnostic skills to the client so the organization can better perceive, understand, and act on events.

Objective observer: The consultant stimulates the client toward insights but communicates no personal beliefs or ideas and takes no responsibility for the worlk or the outcome.

Putting this scheme into the language of fundraising consultations to nonprofit organizations, I restate these roles as follows:

Advocate: The consultant brings his or her own model of fundraising and attempts to apply it with little regard to organizational readiness or appropriateness for the organization.

Information specialist: The consultant brings special expertise to accomplish a specific task and directs the client until the organization is comfortable with the approach.

Trainer-educator: The consultant teaches the client how to carry out a particular fundraising function.

Joint problem solver: The con.sultant involves the client in analysis and decision making, working as a peer with the client.

Identijer of alternatives and linker to resources: The consultant iden- tifies alternative fundraising strategies but does not participate in decision making.

Fact finder: The consultant researches the organization’s situation through a formal fundraising assessment (interviews, review of materials, and so on).

Process counselor: The consultant teaches the client how to assess the organization’s fundraising situation, thus transferring diagnostic skills to the client.

Objective observer: The consultant asks questions, lets the client come to his or her own decision, and communicates no personal beliefs or ideas.

The roles played by the consultants studied can be compared with Lippitt and Lippitt’s ei,ght roles when translated into fundrais-

ROLES C O N S U L T A N T S P L A Y IN S U C C E S S F U L F U N D R A I S I N G I N T E R V E N T I O N S 73

ing language (see Table 2). This analysis shows that the most successful consultants used a combination of information specialist (Role 21, trainer-educator (Role 31, and joint problem solver (Role 4), whereas only one-half of the unsuccessful consultants used those roles. In addition, the process counselor role (Role 7) was played by over one-half of the successful consultants but by none of the unsuccessful ones. One-half of the unsuccessful consultants played the hands-off role of identifier of alternatives (Role 5), but only two of the successful consultants did so, suggesting that some degree of involvement in decision making may be important for successful interventions.

Since assessing a client organization’s situation is intrinsic to fundraising intervention, most consultants were also fact finders (Role 6). However, a review of the consultations shows that the unsuccessful consultants were more likely to have fulfilled the fact finder role badly by inaccurately assessing the organizations’ situations in order to fit their prescribed methodology rather than look objectively at the true situation and adjust their methodology accordingly.

It is noteworthy that only the unsuccessful consultants played the advocate role (Role l), bringing their own models and recom- mending changes in the organizations that would bring them into line with the models rather than creating models appropriate for the organizations. Even in cases where the consultant seemed right (according to established fundraising methodology) but the client refused to implement the plan, it can be argued that if the consultant had not played the advocate role, he or she could have better molded the established methodology to organizational readiness or could even have backed off from the stated goals of the consultation and insisted that organizational development come first.

One more interesting finding from the analysis is that none of the consultants played the objective observer role. This seems logi- cal since fundraising consultants come in not as pure process coun- selors but as experts in their fields, whose ideas and beliefs the client

Table 2. Frequency of Eight Consultant Roles Played in Fundraising Interventions

Intervention Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Successful ( N = 14) 0 13 (.93) 13 (.93) 12 (.86) 2 (.14) 11 (.79) 8 (S7) 0 Unsuccessful ( N = 6) 6 (100) 3 (.50) 3 (.50) 3 (.50) 3 (.50) 5 (.83) 0 0

Note: Role 1 = advocate, Role 2 = information specialist, Role 3 = trainer-educator, Role 4 =joint problem solver, Role 5 = identifier of alternatives and linker to resources, Role 6 = fact finder, Role 7 = process counselor, Role 8 = objective observer. Parenthetical figures are percentages. Source: Based in part on Lippitt and Lippitt, 1986.

Only the unsuccessful Consultants played the

advocate role

74 FLETCHER

organizations expect to hear. Most people who have worked with fundraising consultants agree that they are seldom reticent about expressing their ideas or opinions in their areas of expertise.

The ways in which twal interventions proceeded provide a contrast between success and failure in carrying out the roles described by Lippitt and Lippitt. A consultant for a social services agency serving Hispanics was brought im to help the organization develop foundation and corporate suppalrt. He helped the staff research and write grants, held a training session for the board, computerized their fundraising efforts, and left them with a system in place for seeking foundation funds. He successfully carried out the roles of information specialist and trainer-educator without falling back on the advocate role.

In contrast, a consultant to a recreational program serving dis- abled people organized a f.ace-to-face membership drive using the organization’s volunteers, who grudgingly went along the first year but were quite resistant when they were asked to participate the next year. The staff felt uncomfortable pressuring the volunteers, who gave so much in other ways, to do this kind of fundraising. They decided to drop the approach after two years. The consultant erred by insisting on an approach that made sense to her but did not take into account the reluctance of the volunteers and staff. The consultant acted as the advocate of her approach regardless of the willingness of the organization to use it.

Roles of the Consultant: Steele (1975) Steele (1975) also articulated a list of common roles that consultants play in organizations with which they work. His list includes the following:

Teacher: The consultant teaches, and clients are the students. Student: The consultant learns from the situation and models the

learning role for the client. Detective: The consultant discovers evidence and fits i t together to

develop an accurate picture of the client system. Barbarian: The consultant violates comfortable but limiting norms,

brings up difficult issues and helps groups deal with them, and questions accepted ways of thinking.

Clock: The consultant’s scheduled visits force the client to get assigned work done before the next visit.

Monitor: The consultant olbserves the client in action and provides an independent view of how the client operates.

Talisman: The consultant’s presence provides a sense of security and legitimacy that allows th.e client to experiment in areas where he or she might not act without support.

Advocate: The consultant advocates the values and principles of the field.

Ritual pig: The consultant serves as an outside threat that must be killed off (fired or resisted) in order for the client to develop

ROLES CONSULTANTS PLAY I N S U C C E S S F U L FUNDRAISING INTERVENTIONS 75

enough sense of solidarity and potency to examine the organization and initiate change.

Translating Steele’s list of consultant roles into fundraising language, I restate these roles as follows:

Teacher: The consultant teaches the organization about fundraising in general and about specific methods of fundraising.

Student: The consultant learns from mistakes, learns what works and what does not, and models learning for the client.

Detective: The consultant puts evidence together to make an assessment of where the organization is regarding fundraising readiness and what it needs to do.

Barbarian: The consultant gets the organization to see it must change to be successful in fundraising, for instance, develop its board, invest resources in fundraising, and hire a development director.

Clock: The consultant gets the organization to carry out assigned work between consultant visits.

Monitor: The consultant watches the staff and board and provides feedback, often becoming an adviser to the executive director.

Talisman: The expertise of the consultant provides a sense of security to try new things and legitimizes movement toward change.

Advocate: The consultant promotes responsible fundraising, adher- ence to mission, respect for donors, and so on.

Ritual pig: The consultant provides something that is ultimately rejected but without which the organization would not have moved into new ways of thinking and new ways of raising funds.

Steele’s roles, translated into their fundraising equivalents, can be compared with the behavior of the consultants studied in the original research (see Table 3 ) . This comparison shows that all or most of the consultants played the roles of teacher (Role l), detective (Role 3 ) , and advocate (Role 8). Differences between successful and unsuccessful consultants come in the roles of barbarian (Role 4), monitor (Role 6 ) , and talisman (Role 7). The fact that more successful than unsuccessful consultants played these roles suggests that successful fundraising intervenors are able to gain the trust of the client organizations, which allows the consultants to become advis- ers who can help move the organizations toward change. This obser- vation is borne out in the study since the unsuccessful consultants were not, in fact, able to bring about change through their interventions whereas the successful ones were.

The analysis further shows that the unsuccessful consultants failed to play the student role, that is, they failed to learn from their mistakes and model learning for the client. This finding suggests that playing the student role is an important component of a successful fundraising consultant’s approach. In other words, the willingness to assess situations as they develop and change course when circum- stances so indicate is important for a successful intervention.

Successful fundraising

intervenors are able to gain the

trust of the client organizations

Tab

le 3

. Fr

eque

ncy

of N

ine

Con

sulta

nt R

oles

Pla

yed

in F

undr

aisi

ng In

terv

entio

ns

Inte

rven

tion

Type

1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

~~

~

Succ

essf

ul

(N =

14)

14 (1

00)

6 (3

6)'

12 (.

86)

9 (5

4)

14 (1

00)

12 (

36

) 13

(.93

) 14

(100

) 1 (.

07)

Uns

ucce

ssfu

l (N =

6)

6 (1

00)

0 6

(100

) 1 (.

17)

3 (.

50)

2 (.

33)

1 (.

17)

6 (1

00)

3 (.

50)

Not

e: Ro

le 1

= te

ache

r, Ro

le 2

= st

uden

t, Ro

le 3

= d

etec

tive,

Role

4 =

bar

baria

n, R

ole

5 =

cloc

k, R

ole 6

= m

onito

r, Ro

le 7

= ta

lism

an, R

ole

8 =

adv

ocat

e, R

ole

9 =

rit-

ua

l pig

. Par

enth

etic

al fi

gure

s are

per

cent

ages

. '!G

7 of

the

wcc

essf

il! co

nsu!

tatio

nr,

ther

e w

ere

insu

ffic

ient

data

to ju

dge

whe

ther

or n

ot th

e co

nsul

tant

s pla

yed

the

stud

ent r

ole.

The

refo

re N

= 7

for t

his i

tem

onl

y.

Sour

ce: B

ased

in p

art o

n St

eele

, 197

5.

ROLES C O N S U L T A N T S PLAY I N S U C C E S S F U L F U N D R A I S I N G INTERVENTIONS 77

In general, the unsuccessful consultants played fewer roles than did the successful ones. The nature of the consultations found unsuccessful in the study helps to explain why this is true. The consultants in three of the unsuccessful cases created fundraising plans almost in isolation from the organizations, having little contact with staff or boards except to gather the information they used in their plans. Since none of these plans was ever implemented, there was little opportu- nity for the consultants to play the roles related to teaching the organizations about fundraising, providing feedback, or moving the organizations toward change. In two other unsuccessful interventions, the purpose of the consultations was to develop major giving programs, and both failed in part because of lack of board readiness to be involved in this kind of solicitation. The consultants were trying to move ahead with major gifts without sufficient organizational development and thus ran into resistance to change, making the barbarian and talisman roles virtually impossible to play.

One of the most interesting roles played by four consultants was ritual pig. The one ritual pig consultation that was judged successful in the study involved a direct-mail campaign for an environmental organization promoting alternatives to pesticides. Although the campaign brought good results, the organization’s staff decided later that they were not a big enough organization to continue direct mail as a major strategy. Instead, they turned to a mail program that stressed sales of products (for example, pamphlets about various alternatives to pesticides) rather than donations. However, staff felt that the consultation was very successful because it allowed them to try out direct mail, which they could not have afforded to do without the technical assistance grant, and then later adapt the methodology to their own realities.

The other three organizations where the consultants played a ritual pig role were judged to be partial rather than full failures in the study. In each case, the plan developed by the consultant was judged a failure by the client and thus rejected, but the involvement with the consultant stimulated the organization to find new ways of fundraising that better fit its situation. For example, a plan created for a substance abuse recovery program was too sophisticated for the organization and never implemented, but working with the consultant helped the organization’s board decide to give up a county contract on which they had become almost totally dependent. They went on to seek alternative contracts and a more diversified funding base. Thus, the consultant was a provocateur of change even though the product of the consultation did not meet the criteria for a successful intervention in the study.

Models of Consulting Schein (1987) set forth three models of helping that define the role of the consultant: expert, doctor-patient, and process consulting. In the expert model, the client decides what the problem is, what kind

78 FLETCHER

The difference between the

successful and unsuccessful

doctor-patient consultations was

in the accuracy of the diagnoses

of help is needed, and to whom to go for help. The client gives the problem to the consultant, who then owns the problem. In the doctor-patient model, the client relies on a consultant to find out what is wrong and recommend how to fix it. The client is dependent on the consultant but the client owns the problem. In process consulting, the client shares in the process of diagnosis and is actively involved in generating the solution. The client owns the problem throughout the entire process. Schein stated that process consulting puts the emphasis on helping others help themselves, not on solving problems for them or giving them expert advice. He also stated that a consultant must be able to use each of the three models at the appropriate time and switch roles when needed.

Translating these three models into fundraising language, I define the expert model as one in which the organization has decided on a particular fundraising strategy and calls in an expert in that strategy to carry it out for the organization. Examples of such strategies from the study include direct-mail campaigns and a capital campaign feasibility study. In the doctor-patient model in fundraising interventions, the organization calls in a consultant to assess what fundraising strategies are needed and relies on the consultant to create a plan with little input from the organization other than answer- ing the consultant’s questions. In process consulting in fundraising, the consultant works closely with staff, board, or both and involves them in the diagnostic and planning processes to a much greater degree than in the other two models.

The twenty consulting interventions studied can be characterized using these redefinitions of Schein’s three models (see Table 4). The results of this analysis are both dramatic and suggestive. All six of the unsuccessful and only two of the successful interventions used the doctor-patient model, in which the organization is not intimately involved in the diagnostic process (except to give information to the consultant). Further conl.ent analysis showed that the difference between the successful and the unsuccessful doctor-patient consultations was in the accuracy of the diagnoses. The strategies and plans produced by the unsuccessful “doctor” consultants were neither realistic for the organizations’ respective stages of development nor ultimately accepted by staff and board members.

In one of the two successful doctor-patient consultations, the consultant was hired by an all-volunteer support organization for a community-based dance company to help them develop a fundraising program. The group knew very little about fundraising strategies and had been surviving on grass-roots events such as raffles and car washes. The consultant produced a how-to manual for them, which included such things as lists of possible funding sources, sample budgets, sample letters of intent, general information on getting grants, and delineations of tasks necessary for seeking funding. This manual left the group much better educated about fundraising and much more able to implement different strategies than they were before the

R O L E S CONSULTANTS PLAY I N SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING INTERVENTIONS 79

Table 4. Frequency with Which Three Models of Consulting Were Used in Fundraising Interventions

Intervention Type Expert Doctor-Patient Process Consulting

Successful ( N = 14) 3 (.21) 2 (.14) 9 (.64) Unsuccessful (N = 6) 0 6 (100) 0

~ -~

Note Parenthetical figures are percentages Source Based in part on Schem, 1987

consultation. The consultant’s diagnosis of the situation was accurate, and what she produced for the organization was appropriate and effective.

The comparison of the consultations studied with Schein’s models shows that the majority of successful interventions used the process consulting model. In fact, for the type of small technical assistance grants represented in this study it may be that process consultation is the model most likely to lead to successful results. Process consulting involves the client organization in assessment and planning and, if effective, empowers the organization to continue to build its fundraising capacity beyond the consulting period. The process consulting style is not as important if the organization knows what it wants (a direct-mail campaign, feasibility study, and so on) and interviews potential providers based on its own diagnosis, therefore using Schein’s expert model of consulting interventions. How- ever, most of the organizations in this study knew only that they needed to strengthen their fundraising programs, find new sources of funds, and increase staff and board expertise. They therefore needed the diagnostic skills of the consultant, and results of the analysis using Schein’s models suggest that a process orientation to diagnosis is important.

A further perspective on Schein’s model is provided by Goodstein (1978). In writing about consulting in human services, he noted that organizations in the third sector often hire consultants as content specialists to help with a specific issue. If more generic issues emerge over time, the consultants must attempt to change their role from content to process consultation, which is not easy to do. For Good- stein, it is critically important for both the client and the consultant to be aware of what role the consultant is playing at any given moment in time.

Assessment of the consultations using Goodstein’s insight showed that the successful consultants changed from content specialists to process consultations as the interventions proceeded. This was especially true of the three successful consultations that can be defined as fitting Schein’s expert model. Successful fundraising consultants came to the situations not only with technical know-how

80 FLETCHER

Successful fundraising

consul tan ts came to the situations

not only with technical hnow-

how but also with the skills

to adapt a particular

fundraising strategy to a

particular client

but also with the skills to adapt a particular fundraising strategy to a particular client. The unsuccessful consultants did not make the switch from content specialist to process consulting.

Client-Consultant Relationship Kellogg (1984) focused on the nature of the client-consultant relationship, noting that research has shown that successful interventions are associated with successful client-consultant relationships, whereas projects with unsatisfactory results are often associated with unsatisfactory client-consultant relationships. Through content analysis of interviews with twenty consultants, in which each consultant was asked to descrilbe one positive and one negative consultation that he or she had experienced, Kellogg attempted to trace the development of the client-consultant relationship and isolate those characteristics that distinguish successful from unsuccessful consultations. Among the sewn consistent characteristics she identified, three relate directly to the role of the consultant: (1) frequent exchange between client aind consultant of objective information and facts relevant to the project; (2) effective feedback, that is, the exchange of subjective and evaluative information from the consultant, with the client willing, to accept information directed at chang- ing and improving the situation; (3) respect for the client by the consultant.

Kellogg also found that a “proper fit” between the consultant and the client separated the positive from the negative cases. She suggested that the selection process (client selecting a consultant) should be seen as a matching process (client and consultant choosing each other) and that consultants may be wise to choose not to work with certain clients.

Analysis of the distribution of Kellogg’s three client-consultant relationship factors among the interventions studied (see Table 5 ) showed that frequent exchange of objective information, effective feedback from the consultant to the organization, and respect for the client by the consultant characterized all of the successful interventions, but one or more of the three factors was lacking in the unsuccessful consultations In three unsuccessful interventions, consultants seemed to create fundraising plans in isolation, without frequent exchange of information with the clients. Lack of effective feedback from consultant to client was evidenced by the organizations’ resistance to implementing the consultants’ suggestions in five of the unsuccessful consultations. (In the sixth, the organization implemented the consultant’s suggested methodology at first but abandoned it later.) In addition, respect for the organization was lacking in two of the unsuccessful consultations, as evidenced by the consultants’ statements when they were interviewed for the study.

Kellogg’s finding that a proper fit between the consultant and the client separated successful from unsuccessful consultations was also borne out by my study. Staff interviewed in three of the unsuccess-

ROLES CONSULTANTS PLAY IN SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAJSING INTERVENTIONS 81

Table 5. Frequency of Three Client-Consultant Relationship Factors in Fundraising Interventions

Intervention Type Frequent Exchange EIfcctive Feedback Respect for Client

Successful (N = 14) 14 (100) 14 (100) 14 (100) Unsuccessful (N = 6) 3 ( S O ) 1 (.17) 4 (.67)

Note: Parenthetical figures are percentages. Source: Based in part on Kellogg, 1984.

ful projects stated specifically that the consultant was mismatched with their organization, that is, he or she did not have experience working with organizations of a similar developmental level. In the other three unsuccessful projects, it can be argued that the consultants might have produced more realistic plans had they been better matched with the organizations. As Kellogg suggests, it might have been wiser for the consultants in the unsuccessful projects to choose not to work with those clients.

Conclusion: Roles That Fundraising Consultants Should Play

In my original study, I made several suggestions for consultants based on the results of the analysis of successful and unsuccessful interventions: (1) Consultants should ensure that they have experience that is relevant to the level of development of the organizations that hire them. (2) Consultants should be aware that fundraising interventions require a great deal of organizational development work; therefore, their skills must range beyond the technical aspects of fundraising to an understanding of how organizations grow and develop. ( 3 ) Consultants should set clear goals with the organizations so that both parties are aware of what is expected. In addition, if they are developing strategies based on board participation, they should determine each boards readiness to become involved in fundraising before proceeding.

Blending the study’s results with business and management literature on consulting suggests a number of role expectations that organizations should have of fundraising consultants. First, consultants should assess organizational readiness for any fundraising strategy or program. Included in this analysis is an assessment of the organization’s stage of development and an exploration of the willingness of staff and board to devote time, energy, and financial resources to the process of change. The consultant should look specifically at fundraising history, amount of money and staff time invested by the organization in fundraising, current board make-up and board member involvement in fundraising, size and nature of the

82 FLETCHER

Working closely with, not just

getting information

from, staff and board is a key

factor for success

current donor base, a diversity of funding sources, and number of volunteers available to help with fundraising. The consultant should act as a fact finder, providing objective feedback to the organization’s staff and board about their fundraising readiness.

Second, consultants shlould involve the organization in analysis, planning, and decision ma king. Working closely with, not just getting information from, staff and board is a key factor for success. It is important for the organization to own the problem and for the consultant to help the organization help itself,

Third, consultants should bring their specific fundraising expertise to the situation and direct the client until the organization is comfortable with the approach. In directing, however, the consultant should act as a coach, teaching the organization how to carry out specific fundraising strategies rather than doing it for them. A consultant directing a major-gift effort, for instance, should not only implement one campaign but also leave behind a model for the organization to produce its own major-gift program in the future.

Fourth, consultants must adapt established methodologies for all fundraising strategies to thle specific client organizations with which they work. This means that the consultant must be in a student role, learning the organization’s constraints and how they affect the way a particular fundraising methodology can be implemented in any particular situation.

Fifth, consultants should be involved in the early implementation stages of plans they help create. This allows the consultant to model behavior for the organization and to prepare it to carry on when the consultation is over.

Sixth, consultants should be able to change from a content to a process orientation as organizational development issues arise. They should communicate frequently with the client, exchanging both objective and subjective information, and help the organization accept information directed at change.

Seventh, consultants must respect the organizations that hire them. One way this respect is shown is through the careful con- sideration that consultants give as to whether there really is a fit between themselves and the organizations. If the fit is not there, the consultant should choose not to work with that organization.

The overall message, deduced from both my research and the literature, is that Organizations that hire fundraising consultants should consider the organizational development and process skills as well as the fundraising expertise and experience of those they interview. In searching for the right match between organization and consultant, staff and board should think about their organization’s level of development and ask questions of the consultant that elicit information about how the org,anization may need to change in order to accomplish its fundraising goals. Those who hire consultants should look for indications of a teaching or coaching orientation, a willingness to become involved in at least the initial stages of implementa-

R O L E S C O N S U L T A N T S PLAY IN S U C C E S S F U L FUNDRAISING INTERVENTIONS 83

tion, and an ability to adapt established methodologies to the idio- syncrasies of the particular organization. If these qualities are pre- sent, the likelihood of success in the fundraising intervention will be increased.

KATHLEEN FLETCHER is a researcher and consultant in nonprofit management. She serves as director of community programs for the Insti- tute of Nonprofit Organization Management at the University of Sun Francisco.

References Argyris, C. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science

View. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley 1970. Fletcher, K. “A Study of the Long-Term Effectiveness of Technical

Assistance Grants in Fund Raising.” Unpublished manuscript, Nonprofit Sector Research Fund, Aspen Institute, 1992.

Goldstein, L. Consulting with Human Service Systems. Reading, Mass.:

Kellogg, D. M. “Contrasting Successful and Unsuccessful OD Con- sultation Relationships.” Group and Organization Studies, 1984, 9

Lippitt, G., and Lippitt, R. The Consulting Process in Action. San

Schein, E. Process Consultation. Vol. 2. Reading, Mass.: Addison-

Steele, E Consulting for Organizational Change. Amherst: University

Addison-wesley 1978.

(2), 151-176.

Diego: University Associates, 1986.

Wesley, 1987.

of Massachusetts Press, 1975.

Documents

Roles consultants play in successful fundraising interventions