Belonging vs. Usefulness

Part 2: Can we Influence the Organization we Work For?

Tamara Shoop writes “Fundraising By Design” — read it here! This is a continuation of my conversation with Tamara.

Paul Hanson: Here’s a conflict waiting to happen: A nonprofit hires someone who is skillful at influencing donors but the organization doesn’t welcome their influence internally.

Tamara Shoop: I lived through this with boards I’ve worked with. But the truth is, a fundraiser who cannot influence internally is limited in what they can do externally.

We’re the ones closest to how the organization actually lands in the real world. We hear the hesitation, the questions, the confusion, the moments where something doesn’t quite connect. If that insight stays outside the building, it’s wasted.

Paul Hanson: The tension comes from how that influence shows up. Most people would agree that fundraisers are supposed to influence donors. What about our influence within the organization?

The best fundraisers don’t force influence internally.

Tamara Shoop: Great question, Paul!

I had to give this a bit of thought. In my experience, most organizations seem to be very comfortable with fundraisers influencing donors. That’s the expectation. What they’re less comfortable with is being influenced themselves. I know this from lived experience.

If it feels like criticism, it gets shut down. If it feels like alignment – helping the organization be clearer, more compelling, more in sync with what people actually care about – it has a chance.

The best fundraisers I know, and have received the best advice from, don’t force influence internally. They earn it over time by bringing real donor perspective into the room in a way that helps, not threatens.

Because ultimately, we’re not just raising money. We’re helping the organization see itself from the outside – and that can be one of the most valuable (and uncomfortable) forms of influence there is.

Paul: I appreciate that, Tamara. Fundraisers aren’t just raising money, we help the organization have a clear vision of itself – particularly from the donors’ perspective.

Let’s talk more about influence.

The fundraiser is never the highest person in the organization. Even if you are the VP of development, you are not the boss. You work for the CEO and the Board of Directors. So fundraisers never get to just lead “down.” We “lead up” by influencing our superiors; or we “lead across,” influencing our peers and donors; or sometimes we do “lead down,” influencing subordinates or mentees. (I’m leaning on John Maxwell and his book The 360 Leader.)

What have you experienced? Got any advice?

Tamara: Yes, I think this is exactly right. Fundraising is leadership without formal authority most of the time.

We don’t get to rely on the title. We rely on credibility.

And that’s where Maxwell is right – we’re constantly leading up, across and down. That’s not theoretical. That’s just a normal Tuesday.

Leading up, I’ve learned it works best when it doesn’t feel like correction. No one wants to feel managed by the fundraiser. But leaders will listen when you bring something useful – a clearer way to position something, or insight into how it’s actually landing with donors.

Leading across is where a lot of the real work sits. You’re working with people who don’t report to you – principals, program leaders, communications, finance – but their work shapes everything you’re trying to raise money for. So you’re aligning, translating, sometimes gently pushing…all through relationships, not authority.

And leading down, when you have that opportunity, is really about modeling how to navigate all of this without getting reactive or cynical.

If I had one piece of advice, it’s this: Don’t confuse influence with force.

Fundraisers rarely win by pushing harder. We win by being consistently useful – bringing perspective, clarity and a read on what’s actually happening outside the organization.

Paul, I’m really curious about your experience here, especially since you’ve worked in places where the culture felt like a natural fit and others where it clearly didn’t. In the roles where it wasn’t a fit, when did you start to feel that? Was it obvious early on, or something that revealed itself over time?

Paul: Thanks, Tamara. Your wisdom about not forcing influence rings true. Later in my career, I worked on the national fundraising staff of an excellent national healthcare organization. Its roots were in two small agencies that grew and multiplied; mergers and acquisitions followed. The fundraising system reflected this delicate national/local balance. Many colleagues had been with the agency for decades; some had moved from the program side into fundraising. Relationships and stories were primary.

So when I came in with no direct connection to the historic mission, voicing questions and strategic suggestions, I raised the tension level. It was obvious immediately. Whether my ideas were correct or not, I see now I was bringing too much, too soon, too forcefully. No one would say it felt like alignment. I would have done well to remember that they didn’t hire me to lead internal change.

John Maxell reminds pastors that they will never be in a church long enough to have the most influence – so you must learn how to influence the influencers. That would have been a wiser way to go.

Tamara: And in that twelve-year role where it worked – what made it work so well? Was it alignment in values, leadership style, openness to influence…or something else?

I also wonder about this idea of belonging. Did you ever feel a difference between being accepted inside the organization and actually being trusted enough to influence it?

Paul: When I started my long-term position, I was the junior member of the direct fundraising team. I had a roomful of mentors! So I came in “all ears,” ready to learn. Humility was not a quality – it was a fact!

At the same time, I always felt like I was expected to show up as a leader; to speak up, bring up concerns, push into new directions. It’s a relatively small organization, with a culture full of leaders at every level. (In fact, staff who did not speak out were the ones who didn’t quite fit in.)

I worked my way up in seniority and responsibility, and earned trust in the community, as a person and as an employee. Speaking of belonging, I eventually found myself not just “influencing the influencers,” but being asked to help lead institutional change.

Tamara: And because you’ve seen both kinds of environments, what do you think leaders most misunderstand about the role of a fundraiser internally?

Fundraisers desire to be trusted.

Paul: Great question! Thanks for asking. Presidents, vice presidents and board members probably ask one another, “What do people think about what we’re doing?” That intel is already available, if they remember that fundraisers have a finger on the pulse of the organization’s constituents.

When these leaders seek the fundraiser’s input and give them a voice, no one has to make themselves heard. Leadership can listen to the fundraiser, then say “Thank you, keep up the good work. Your insights will help us make a better decision.”

And the wise fundraiser will remember that their superiors know more about the big picture than we can see. Being heard is not the same as being handed the reins.

Bottom line: Fundraisers are individuals who desire to be trusted. It’s our “love language,” if you will. Generally we will do what is required to earn that trust. Leaders can and should trust their fundraisers, and listen to their perspectives. There’s no downside.

---

Tamara says about her career: I’ve been in fundraising for about 15 years, working in major gifts, development leadership and nonprofit strategy. I previously served as Development Director and Major Gifts Officer at Boys and Girls Club, and today I lead a K-12 public schools foundation. What I love most about this work is that it’s really about people!

Here is a link to Tamara’s work on Substack: “Fundraising By Design.”