Are competing motives a better explanation for high turnover?

When deciding among a group of candidates for a fundraising position, it’s easy to be impressed with an applicant’s track record, personality, and charm. We can also be fascinated with personality assessments that explain behavior and pinpoint motivations. From these we try to predict how people might behave in certain situations or with colleagues, such as how effective they might be at developing new relationships or orchestrating the details of a campaign. One area of personality research that I have found to be particularly helpful, implicit motives, has gained prominence in recent decades but has yet to take hold in fundraising..

We can better understand ourselves and our people by clearly distinguishing between implicit motives and explicit goals. This distinction offers a more thoughtful response to the challenges we’re facing in our maturing profession. Could it be that a misalignment between the fundraisers’ explicit goals and implicit motives is to blame for the high turnover in many development offices?

I’ve developed a typology to improve our understanding of the underlying forces we encounter every day in professional fundraising. These three personalities provide a framework for: 1) better informed hiring decisions; 2) more effective coaching; and 3) reduced turnover. I’ve characterized them as I’ll Lead the Way, Let’s Work Together, and How Am I Doing? I introduced all three of these fundraising personalities in detail in The War for Fundraising Talent.

Let’s start by defining implicit motives. These are preferences or tendencies toward an incentive, such as achievement, affiliation, or power; or to avoid threats, such as failure, rejection, or control by others. Most of us are unaware of the implicit motives that influence our behaviors, which are often best understood through others’ observations.

Among fundraising professionals, organizations can observe implicit motives playing out through how we interact with donors, organize events, and participate in collaborative settings. They can note those of us who approach our tasks with strong determination and others who relish relationships as the centerpiece of nearly everything we do. Some of us hope our influence and reputation will afford us a sure path to greater achievements. When we’re tired or lacking confidence, we tend to avoid situations where we might make a mistake. Or we’ll hesitate for fear our requests will be denied—and then there’s the possibility a major donor may have unreasonable expectations in exchange for a generous gift.

That an individual’s implicit motives differ from another doesn’t surprise us. What isn’t always considered is the tension between an individual’s implicit motives and the same individual’s explicit goals. Explicit goals represent everything we might put on paper, communicate to others, and evaluate with our boss. Rarely do we confront the fact that an explicit goal— for example, asking for money—may be at odds with an implicit motive—say, a strong tendency to fear and avoid the possibility of rejection.

In other words, we may want to achieve something for a certain internal purpose or reward, something that fulfills a need, rejuvenates us, or enhances our life. At the same time, we are tasked with certain goals and objectives for our employers. Our instincts and actions can operate independently of each other. If these aren’t aligned—if they’re out of sync—we run into situations like Neil Rudenstine’s experience during his time at Harvard. Alignment can mean we respond to stressors in ways that positively affect our health and well-being. Misalignment is just the opposite. Wired as a Renaissance literature professor, Rudenstine was expected to raise funds, something that didn’t energize him or suit his internal motivation. For him, it might have felt draining, frustrating and full of inner conflict.

Here’s what I’ve observed: A misalignment between explicitly stated goals and implicit motives is a key explanation for high turnover among fundraising professionals. Warring motives with explicit goals, such as the desire to achieve a fundraising goal yet avoid rejection, can thwart even dedicated fundraisers. Our job as a sector is to gain understanding of this conflict so we can help professional fundraisers succeed despite any unconscious ambivalence. I believe this will go far in reducing the turnover that impedes the progress of our nonprofits.

In my two decades of experience with fundraising professionals, I’ve encountered colleagues who tend to gravitate either toward or away from typical fundraising responsibilities. This influences how they plan, how they prioritize their time, and how they interact with donors. By understanding what drives them, we learn how their decisions can affect our fundraising culture. Despite their best intentions, fundraising professionals demonstrate patterns and habits that interfere with their effectiveness.

For example, I’ve always been quick to engage with major donors and solicit their support. However, if my goals included event planning and writing grants, I could always rationalize my time and attention toward those activities I was more comfortable with. As our patterns and habits begin to conflict with the expectations of our supervisors, board members, and others, it’s increasingly likely we will either resign or be terminated. For example, several of my previous board members were fond of an annual golf tournament that rallied the support of our community. My eventual departure was largely a reflection of the misalignment of my job description and my preference for other areas of responsibility; namely, opportunities for meaningful engagement and the thrill of direct solicitation.

Among a long list of implicit motives, three tend to compel us the most: the need for achievement, the need for affiliation, and the need for power. Regardless of our gender, culture, or age, psychologists explain that we all have some measure of these three motivations, with one nearly always in the driver’s seat. As I continue to work with organizational leaders, board members, and fundraising professionals, I’ve developed a sense of where each personality finds the greatest satisfaction—or the greatest frustration—in nonprofit settings.