Self-actualisation

We fundraisers are giving as much to our supporters as they are giving to us.

Does all our focus on the needs and inspiration of the donor mean we need to be deferential? Does it mean that we’re subservient to our donors? At their beck-and-call? Doffing our caps and saying ‘thank you’ a hundred times? 

No.

We talk about ‘donors as partners’, and should think about them that way, but what does that mean?

If a supporter has made several contributions, been a regular giver for a year or so, become a ‘corporate partner’ or whatever, I suggest that they have become ‘partners’ with the us, the charity, in meeting the need that they want to be met, and we want them to meet.

In any ‘partnership’, both parties have responsibilities. Expectations of each other. Unless they are giving just to, ‘make the problem go away’.

The definition of a partnership is:

“A relationship that is more than just transactional – one person cares about, supports, and provides value to the other and vice versa.”

I am going to argue here that, for many, (but by no means all), of our donors that is an equal partnership.

(Clearly, you need to be reasonably sure that the relationship is more than transactional. If you have no way of finding out you shouldn’t even think about this. You will simply damage the relationship by taking them by complete surprise.)

Let me give you some examples.

1 – Quite soon after I joined the NSPCC as Appeals Director a child was killed because one of our Inspectors falsified his records.   

The charity went into meltdown. Effectively the NSPCC had killed a child.

Of course, like everyone else, I was devastated. I also saw a fundraising opportunity. I, as Appeals Director, wrote to every one of our supporters. (In my 30 years at the NSPCC I can’t recall it ever being appropriate for me to write to our supporters. This time it was.) The gist of the letter was:

• A child has died because of the failure of the NSPCC.

• This is what we have done, immediately.

• This is what we are doing, with urgency, to work to ensure it won’t happen again.

• Meanwhile I would ask you to consider making an additional gift to help us, the NSPCC, through this very difficult time for all of us.

The response was extraordinary. At the time the best response we had ever had from an Appeal.   

But why?   

2 – Emma Harrison

Emma is a self-made millionaire. She has a great family, a great job and a grand house. She and her family have the best holidays. She and her family have all they could possibly want.

So, what does she do in her spare time? She gives £1m to the NSPCC, and then goes around the country, speaking at dinners and inspiring other millionaires to do the same thing.

Why?

3 – The Duke of Westminster (on the right of this photo) was Chair of our Centenary Appeal. He drove the length and breadth of the country attending events and giving talks.

(He told me one story about when he’d driven several hundred miles to attend an event. He was a couple of hours early and, very tired, took a nap in his Aston Martin. A police officer knocked on the car window. “I’m the Duke of Westminster.” “Of course you are, sir, and I’m the Queen of Sheba.”)   

People said he could give the whole target himself.   

Why didn’t he? 

4 – The Full Stop Appeal Board

We started with a ‘Steering Committee’. Its first meeting was in a small room at the Berkeley Hotel in London at 8 o’clock in the morning. Eight extremely wealthy and influential people turned up. Most knew each other, smiled and kissed each other on both cheeks.

They then gave our CEO, Jim Harding, an hour of provocative, challenging and downright rude questions. They gave him no quarter.   

At 9 o’clock they stood up, smiled, again kissed each other on both cheeks and went about their business.

On the drive back to the office Jim was both totally exhausted and distraught.   

“So, that’s it then, isn’t it? We can’t possibly continue after that.”   

“Of course we can, and must. Eight powerful multi-millionaires don’t come to a meeting at 8 o’clock in the morning just for the blood sport of killing you. They want to be sure we know what we’re doing before they put their own name to it.”

There was no other reason why they would get up at 6 o’clock to get dressed for an NSPCC meeting at 8 o’clock, was there?

5 – A Development Board

A new client wants to set up a ‘Development Board’. Most Development Boards I know of (and I may well be wrong) help the fundraising staff with their fundraising.   

I have suggested that the CEO identifies a project costing £200k p.a. say, for the Development Board, with them knowing that if they succeeded the project would continue, but if they failed it would close. The decision would be theirs alone. No pressure.

This sense of jeopardy will be hugely significant and inspiring.   

Success would bring a sense of achievement. Having worked their socks off to pay for the project will make them feel they ‘own’ the project. They’ll want to visit it and be inspired by the people working there. And take their friends to show them, proudly, the work they were making possible.

Failure? Staff redundant? Children in need not helped? They’d be raiding their own piggy banks first.   

And, crucially, they mustn’t be let off the hook.

Not:

“Thank you so much for what you’ve done. We’re hugely appreciative. You mustn’t in any way feel bad that it wasn’t possible. Don’t worry; we won’t let children suffer.”

But:

“This is so difficult. You know that this project was only possible if you could find the money to fund it. Despite your very best efforts, you can’t. So the project will have to close. We’re as disappointed as you must be.”

Remember; we are always saying that the job of fundraisers is to connect donor to cause. This should work both ways.

Why?

So, what is it that drives committed supporters to go far beyond what most charities would consider ‘normal’?

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

You’ll be aware of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. At the orange segment, people get their emotional needs from family, love and friends. Many, if not most, people are perfectly happy just with this, assuming they can find it (which most, me being a cynic, can’t).

At the green level some, just some, people get the additional needs they have from their work; success, respect, recognition, status and pride.

And that’s as far as most people get. And most of them are content with that. Good people with a happy family that can get esteem and recognition through their work.

But some yearn for something more. Something that makes a difference to the world. Self-actualisation.   

Maslow describes this as, “The desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”

I suggest that this is what drives many charity supporters, and that understanding that can change our behaviour towards them. (And so enable us to raise more money for the cause.)

Going back to my examples

1 – Supporters didn’t want ‘their charity’ to go under, and so not to be able to help cruelly treated children. This wasn’t about a child in need. It was that their charity was in crisis, and they wanted to help us. They were our ‘partners’. So they gave, and truly felt they’d help save the NSPCC. Not children; the NSPCC.

2 – Emma Harrison wanted to change the world.   

3 – The Duke of Westminster wanted to give his time and energy, not just his wealth. That would have been too easy.

4 – The Full Stop Appeal Board started with just six people who, after six monthly ‘Steering Group’ meetings (where most people dropped away one-by-one), decided to take responsibility for raising £250m, something far ahead of anything done in the UK before. (Or since.) Not helping the staff; taking total ownership themselves. Just six of them.

None of them would have taken the decision lightly. Many discussions with their partner and family. Sleepless nights.   

“It’s never been done before. Why do I think I can help make it real? Why on earth would I take on a responsibility as big as this, which will have a huge impact on my family life, and where failure could seriously damage my entire professional career?”

Because each had passion and determination. And each knew that, if and when they were successful, it would be the greatest achievement of their life, and which they would take to their deathbed.

Of course, this is an extreme scenario. But the principle holds true for every person I’ve mentioned above, and huge numbers of others. I’ve talked about specific examples that I, myself, have been a part of. The Development Board is work in progress.

But no-one will have been aware of the 80-year-old, passionate about the cause, who scrimps and saves until they have £400, proudly to give to the cause of ending cruelty to children.   

Or the long-serving Church Army officer, whom I met at a mid-level donor reception, who earns £45,000 a year (2024 numbers) and gave half of it to the NSPCC.

They will have experienced exactly the same self-actualisation as the Duke of Westminster.

Remember. We, as fundraisers, are uniquely placed to help many of our donors be, “more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”

In short, you are doing as much for them as they are doing for you. So treat them as equal partners.

(First published by UK Fundraising, January 2024)

⟶ About Giles

⟶ Services

⟶ Back to overview