7 Mistakes Executive Directors Make When Hiring Their First Development Director
Most of us in the nonprofit community are familiar with the statistics about the short tenure of senior development staff. Is this rapid turn-over the result of all development folk being restless climbers? I don’t think so.
The reason development directors move around has more to do with unrealistic expectations, and the short length of their “honeymoon” period, than with the draw of greener pastures. Of course, sometimes the fit just isn’t right, or an offer no development professional could refuse comes along.
Here’s my list of hiring mistakes you do have some control over:
1. Hiring a Development Director when what you really need is a development coordinator/administrative assistant. You can’t hire a professional fundraiser with a track record of success and then expect her to do her own data entry. Too many nonprofits go from zero development staff to advertising for a director level person, without considering the support and tools a seasoned fundraiser requires.
2. Assuming that salary and benefits are what a Development Director will cost you. One of the most prepared candidates I’ve worked with provided the prospective employer with a list of the expenses she anticipated — in addition to her salary and benefits — during her first year of employment. These expenses included the costs of membership in professional associations, the cost of an outside consultant to do grant research, the cost of laptop to allow her to work remotely, the cost of attendance at AFP’s annual conference, and so on. You get the picture?
3. Not budgeting enough for fundraising expenses. It costs money to raise money. It really does.
4. Expecting the DD to raise her own salary in the first year. Even the most seasoned professional has a learning curve. If your programs are complex, or your new hire hasn’t worked in your field, she’ll need time to be able to effectively engage funders and donors. Be realistic about the foundation upon which your new DD has to build. If you’ve never raised major gifts from indivduals, it is going to take time for your DD to help grow that capacity.
5. Assuming that “Development Directors” is a generic term. Don’t expect your new DD to be all things to all people — she is going to be fiercely talented in some areas, and not so strong in others. To make a good hire, you need to know where you are going as an organization, the strategies you are employing to get you there, and what areas of fundraising you want to strengthen and grow.
6. Thinking that once you hire a DD, you can wash your hands of fundraising. If you hire an effective development professional, you should expect to be more engaged in fundraising, not less. The difference is in how your time will be spent. You should find yourself spending much less time on details, and much more making direct asks for large amounts of money.
7. Not including your board in the hiring process. I don’t know of a single nonprofit that can rely solely on grant funding in today’s economy. Raising money from individuals requires your board’s active involvement, and therefore your board needs to be engaged in the hiring process. If you hire a DD who doesn’t work well with your board chair or your development committee members, you’ve just hired the wrong person for your organization.
June 27th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I would expand on Number 5. It may be that the organization needs particular fundraising strengths more immediately than others. For example, if the organizational Rolodex is full but programs are not well positioned for the community-at-large or for the foundation, it’s important that the DD have very strong marketing skills. By contrast, if the agency relies heavily on grants and has no solid relationships with donors, it may be more important to get a person who leads with donor and board relations skills.
Ideally a DD can hit the ground running with the strongest skills deployed towards the more pressing goals. He or she can develop the others over time. I’ve seen organizations hire a person who was very good but not best suited for the immediate priorities.