Summer is ending. People are returning from vacations. Fall calendars are filling up. And December still feels comfortably far away.

It isn’t.

For organizations whose fiscal year begins October 1, September is quite literally the final stretch. But even for those of us operating on a calendar year, September is the runway to year-end.

And the length and condition of that runway will determine a great deal about where we land on December 31.

I have spent enough years in fundraising to know that very little about a strong December is actually created in December.

December is when much of the money arrives.

The work that makes those gifts possible happens now.

December Is a Result, Not a Strategy

There is a familiar rhythm in fundraising. We work hard all year, arrive at the fall, look at the remaining revenue goal, and suddenly begin talking about “year-end.”

The emails get more urgent. The direct mail packages go out. Giving Tuesday arrives. Major gift officers start trying to get meetings on increasingly crowded calendars. Leaders begin asking, “What else is in the pipeline?”

But by then, many of our options have already narrowed.

September gives us something December does not: time to make choices.

Time to decide which donors need our attention.

Time to strengthen proposals that are not quite ready.

Time to reconnect with someone we have not spoken with since spring.

Time to understand whether the pipeline is real or merely optimistic.

Time to notice that a longtime donor has stopped giving.

Time to make the call before everyone else begins making the call.

That is why I think of September as the runway.

You are not landing the plane yet.

But you had better know where you are going.

Start With the Number

The first question is not complicated:

How much do we actually need to raise between now and December 31?

Not how much is in the annual budget.

Not how much we hope will come in.

What is the remaining number today?

Then look underneath it.

How much of that number is likely to come from direct response?

How much from major gifts?

Foundations?

Churches or institutional partners?

Planned gifts?

Outstanding pledges?

Recurring donors?

Bequests?

Where are you ahead? Where are you behind? And where are you relying on one unusually large gift to rescue the entire forecast?

A development leader should be able to look at the remaining revenue requirement and explain the path to reaching it.

That does not mean every dollar has to be identified.

It does mean the strategy should be more sophisticated than, “We usually have a strong December.”

Look Hard at the Major-Gift Pipeline

September is also the time for one of my least favorite but most useful fundraising exercises:

Look at every major gift opportunity and ask whether it is actually real.

Not:

“Do we know this donor?”

Not:

“They gave us a large gift three years ago.”

Not:

“The CEO knows them.”

Ask:

What has happened in this relationship that makes us believe a gift is likely this year?

Has there been a conversation?

Has an amount been discussed?

Is there a proposal?

Does the donor understand the need?

Do we know who will make the ask?

Do we know when?

Is there an actual next step?

A long pipeline can create a tremendous sense of comfort.

A qualified pipeline creates revenue.

September is when we should know the difference.

And if there are gaps, we still have time to do something about them.

Don’t Forget the People Who Already Love You

The scramble for year-end revenue can make organizations overly focused on finding the next donor while overlooking people who have already demonstrated extraordinary loyalty.

September is a good time to pull several lists.

Who gave last year but has not yet given this year?

Who has given consistently for five, ten or twenty years?

Which donors increased their gifts last year?

Who has been giving monthly for years?

Who attended an event, responded to an advocacy action or met with someone from the organization but has not yet made a gift?

Which donors have significant cumulative giving even if no individual gift has ever crossed your major-gift threshold?

These are not simply names in a database.

They are relationships.

And some of the most important year-end fundraising work may be a phone call that does not begin with an ask at all.

“Thank you.”

“We haven’t talked in a while.”

“I wanted you to know what your support has made possible.”

“How are you?”

Stewardship is fundraising.

We sometimes forget that when the thermometer starts staring back at us.

Talk About More Than Cash

There is another conversation that should begin well before December: how donors can give.

Too many organizations still structure year-end fundraising almost entirely around cash.

But many donors hold their wealth in assets.

Stocks.

Donor-advised funds.

Retirement accounts.

Real estate.

Estate plans.

September is the time to make sure donors know the options available to them and that your own organization knows how to receive those gifts.

• Does your website clearly explain how to make a stock gift?

• Do donors know they can recommend a grant from their DAF?

• Does your development team know whom to call when a donor asks about a qualified charitable distribution?

• Are your longtime donors regularly invited into conversations about planned giving?

If the first time you mention these options is December 27, you have waited too long.

I will write much more about this later in September because I believe asset-based giving is becoming increasingly important to how we think about fundraising.

But for now, the question is simple:

Have we made it easy for donors to give in the way that works best for them?

Assign the Relationships Now

Year-end fundraising is not the responsibility of the development department alone.

September is when I want to know who else is going to help.

Which donors should hear from the CEO?

Which relationships belong with board members?

Who needs a program leader?

Where could a volunteer or longtime supporter make an introduction?

Which donors simply need a personal thank-you?

Assign those relationships now.

It is much easier to ask a board member in September to reconnect with someone they know than to send an emergency email on December 18 saying, “Can you call five people by Friday?”

Leadership engagement works best when it feels relational.

Not transactional.

And Decide What You Are Not Going to Do

This may be one of the most important year-end decisions.

Every good idea does not need to happen between now and December.

Fall has a way of becoming crowded with new campaigns, special appeals, events, reports, board meetings and “quick ideas” that are rarely quick.

September is a good time for development leaders to protect their teams.

• What truly drives revenue?

• What strengthens donor relationships?

• What can wait until January?

• What are we doing simply because we have always done it?

Our teams cannot execute a disciplined year-end strategy if we simultaneously hand them seventeen new priorities.

Focus is a fundraising strategy, too.

September Gives Us the Gift of Time

By November, donors are busy.

By December, everyone is busy.

September gives us something precious: room.

Room to think.

Room to analyze.

Room to correct.

Room to call someone before we need something from them.

Room to make an ask thoughtfully rather than urgently.

Room to discover that the year-end plan has a hole in it while there is still enough runway to fix it.

That is why I do not think September is the beginning of year-end fundraising.

It is more important than that.

September is when we determine what kind of year-end we are going to have.

So before we launch another campaign or write another appeal, I would ask every development team to sit down with its numbers, its pipeline, and its donors and answer three questions:

Where are we?

What will it take to get where we need to go?

And what needs to happen now—not in December—to get us there?

December will arrive soon enough.

Use the runway.

Technically, fall has not fully arrived. The calendar still gives us a little room. But everyone knows the pace is about to change.

Meetings come back.

Donor conversations get more serious.

Campaign timelines get tighter.

Leadership starts asking more pointed questions.

The year-end plan moves from “we are working on it” to “what exactly are we doing?”

That shift matters.

By Labor Day, I do not think every detail has to be perfect. Fundraising never works that way. Donors surprise us. Results shift. Opportunities appear. A message that looked strong in August may need a sharper edge in October. Some things should remain flexible because the work is alive.

Read more

That may sound dramatic, but I mean it.

A year-end plan can look perfectly reasonable until you put it next to the actual people who have to execute it.

The campaign calendar looks good. The donor segments make sense. The stewardship ideas are thoughtful. The leadership touches feel important. The reporting needs are real. The meetings are necessary enough. The new idea might help. The additional version might make the appeal stronger.

Individually, each piece can be defended.

Together, they may be too much.

That is where teams get into trouble.

Not because the plan is foolish. Not because the people are unwilling. Usually the problem is that leaders have added up the work without adding up the capacity required to do it well.

Read more

We want to be careful with donors. We do not want to sound pushy. We do not want to presume too much. We do not want to make someone feel like all we see is their capacity.

Those instincts can come from a good place.

But sometimes, in the effort to be gentle, we become vague.

We talk around the need. We hint at the opportunity. We bury the ask under too much explanation. We use language that sounds warm but does not actually tell the donor what we are inviting them to do.

And then we wonder why the response is soft.

A clear ask can be one of the most respectful things we offer a donor.

It says, “Here is the opportunity. Here is why it matters. Here is what your gift can help make possible. Here is the amount we are inviting you to consider.”

That kind of clarity does not force the donor. It helps the donor decide.

I have never believed that fundraising is begging. I believe fundraising is invitation. But an invitation should be clear enough for the person receiving it to understand what is being asked. We are connecting donor to their deepest heart projects. We are asking them to do what is already in their heart to do. But, our offer—our clear offer—has to be before them.

Think about how strange it would be to invite someone to dinner without telling them when, where, or what the occasion is. You might sound polite, but you have not really extended an invitation they can respond to.

The same thing happens with donors.

“We hope you will consider supporting us” may be true, but it does not always carry enough meaning.

“Your gift will make a difference” may be sincere, but it may not be specific enough.

“We need your help” may be honest, but it may not tell the donor what help looks like.

A clear ask gives shape to generosity.

It does not have to be harsh. It does not have to be transactional. It does not have to ignore the relationship.

In fact, the best clear asks are deeply relational because they are rooted in what the donor cares about and what the organization understands about the moment.

Clarity sounds like:

Because of your longtime commitment, I hope you will consider a gift of $7,000.

To help make this work possible before the year closes, would you consider a $1M gift.

Given what you have shared about why this mission matters to you, I wanted to invite you to give $300,000.

That is not pressure. That is respect.

Vague fundraising often creates more discomfort, not less. The donor has to do extra work to understand the invitation. The fundraiser has to keep circling back. The conversation becomes foggy when it could have been honest.

Clarity gives everyone room to breathe.

It also protects the relationship from hidden expectations. If the organization is hoping for a significant gift but never says so plainly, disappointment can build in silence. The fundraiser may feel let down. The donor may never know what was actually needed. That is not fair to either side.

A kind ask does not manipulate.

A kind ask does not guilt.

A kind ask does not pretend the relationship is only about money.

But it does tell the truth.

It tells the donor what is possible, what is needed, and how they can be part of it.

Especially at year-end, donors are receiving many invitations. The kindest thing we can do is not make ours harder to understand.

Be warm.

Be grateful.

Be thoughtful.

And then be clear.

Donors deserve that.

🖤Vila-Sheree

The gap is right there. The clock is right there. The donor lists are right there. Every week matters. Every message matters. Every projection gets more attention than it did a few months earlier.

I understand that pressure. Anyone who has carried a revenue goal understands it.

There is a point in the year when the math becomes very real. You know what has come in. You know what is still needed. You know which donors have not yet responded. You know where the team is strong and where the plan is thinner than you would like.

That kind of urgency can sharpen a strategy.

But it can also shrink one.

That is the part I watch for.

Because when pressure gets loud, organizations can start talking to donors from a smaller place. The message narrows to the gap. The campaign becomes about closing the year. The case for support starts sounding more like institutional need than mission invitation. The donor is asked to help the organization finish strong, but not always invited into the larger reason finishing strong matters.

There is nothing wrong with being honest about need. I believe in honesty. If the organization needs revenue, say that with integrity. Pretending otherwise does not serve anyone.

But donors need more than our pressure.

They need the mission.

They need the vision.

Read more

I understand the appeal.

The team is busy. The calendar is tight. There are emails to write, mail pieces to finalize, lists to review, donor conversations to prepare, and leadership messages to coordinate. At some point, efficiency is not just helpful. It feels necessary.

But efficiency has a limit.

Because one year-end message cannot carry every donor relationship well.

Read more

That makes sense. The final months of the year matter. Donors are often more attentive. Leaders are looking at the gap between where revenue is and where it needs to be. There may be donors who could give more, and the organization has every right to invite them into something meaningful.

I believe in bold asks.

I do not think we should apologize for inviting people to be generous. If the mission matters, then the invitation should be clear. Donors with capacity should be asked to consider gifts that reflect both their ability and their connection to the work.

But before asking a donor to stretch, I would pause and ask one question:

Have we prepared the relationship for this invitation?

That question matters.

A stretch ask should not come out of nowhere. It should feel like the next faithful step in a relationship that has been tended with care.

That does not mean the donor will always say yes. They may not. But even if they decline, the ask should make sense. It should feel grounded in what they care about, what they know, and what the organization has helped them understand.

If the ask feels surprising in the wrong way, that is worth noticing.

Sometimes the number is too high. Sometimes the timing is wrong. Sometimes the donor has the capacity but not the trust. Sometimes they trust the organization but do not yet understand the opportunity. Sometimes they care about the mission but have not been stewarded in a way that makes a larger gift feel natural.

Before a bigger ask, I would want to know whether the donor has enough context.

• Do they understand what the organization is trying to do?

• Do they know why this moment matters?

• Have they heard anything meaningful since their last gift?

• Do they see how their giving connects to the larger mission?

• Have we given them a reason to believe a larger investment would matter?

These are not complicated questions, but they are easy to skip when pressure is high.

We look at the donor’s giving history. We look at their capacity. We look at what we need. Then we start building the ask.

But donors are not math problems.

A larger gift is often an emotional, relational, and values-based decision. The donor may need to feel closer to the work before they can consider doing more. They may need a conversation, not just a proposal. They may need to hear gratitude before they hear ambition. They may need to be invited into the vision before they are asked to fund it.

This is especially true at year-end, when donors are receiving a lot of requests.

A stretch ask has to be more than a bigger number attached to a familiar message.

It should carry a stronger reason.

• Why this donor?

• Why this amount?

• Why this moment?

• Why this work?

If the team cannot answer those questions, the donor may not be ready, or the organization may not be ready to ask well.

That is an important distinction.

Sometimes we say a donor is not ready when the truth is that we have not done enough to prepare them.

We have not followed up after the last gift. We have not shared impact in a way that connects to their motivation. We have not had the conversation that would help us understand what they care about now. We have not made the case clearly enough for why a larger gift would be meaningful.

Then year-end arrives, and we hope the season itself will create readiness.

It might.

But I would not build a strategy on hope.

Before you ask a donor to stretch, ask whether the relationship has been stretched in the right ways first. Has the donor’s understanding grown? Has trust deepened? Has the connection become stronger? Has the invitation been prepared by more than urgency?

If yes, ask boldly.

If not, do not necessarily abandon the ask. But be honest about what may need to happen first.

Maybe the next step is a thank-you call.

Maybe it is a briefing.

Maybe it is an impact update.

Maybe it is a smaller but clearer invitation.

Maybe it is a conversation that helps the donor see the need before hearing the number.

The goal is not to make fundraising timid. It is to make it thoughtful.

A stretch ask can be a beautiful thing when it is offered with care. It can help a donor step more fully into the mission. It can deepen the relationship. It can make work possible that would not happen otherwise.

But the ask should honor the relationship, not simply test it.

Before year-end gets loud, look at the donors you hope will stretch.

Then ask whether the relationship is ready to hold the invitation.

That question may change not only the ask amount.

It may change what you do next.

🖤Vila-Sheree

The dates were on the calendar. The campaign had a name. People knew the general goal. A few meetings had happened. There may have even been a document somewhere with bullets, timelines, and owners.

But the actual plan lived in one person’s head.

That person knew which donors needed special handling. They knew why one segment should be treated differently from another. They knew the backstory behind the match. They knew which leader had promised to make calls, which board member needed extra context, which donors were warm, which ones were sensitive, and which parts of the campaign were still not fully settled.

Everyone else had pieces.

That is a dangerous way to enter year-end.

Read more

Not a vague year-end check-in.

Not one of those meetings where everyone gives an update, nods earnestly, and leaves with the same unanswered questions they came in with.

I mean a real decision-making meeting.

The kind where leaders tell the truth about where things stand and make the choices that will keep the fall from becoming one long scramble.

Because once September starts moving, the room changes. The calendar gets tighter. Donor conversations become more pointed. The campaign has to move from idea to execution. Leadership wants numbers. Teams want direction. Every open question starts costing more than it did a month before.

Read more

That is not a criticism. It is just true.

In June, there still feels like there is time. In July, people are in and out. Someone is on vacation. Someone else is covering. A meeting gets moved. A decision gets pushed. A campaign idea is still “being shaped.” A donor list still needs “one more look.” A stewardship plan is “almost there.”

And then August arrives.

The fall is not fully here, but it is close enough that the room starts to feel different. The questions get sharper. The deadlines feel nearer. The year-end conversation moves from theoretical to real.

This is the moment when leaders need to be honest about what is still unclear.

Because if we drag summer confusion into fall, it will not become lighter.

It will become heavier.

The campaign idea that was vague in July will not magically become clear in September. The donor segment no one reviewed will not become easier to sort once appeals are already moving. The stewardship plan that never got finished will not suddenly feel less urgent when solicitation season begins.

Loose ends have a way of becoming knots.

And fall is not kind to knots.

I have a lot of sympathy for how this happens. Fundraising teams are often carrying more than people realize. Summer is not actually slow for everyone. There are reports to finish, donor conversations to maintain, campaigns to review, staff vacations to navigate, and planning work that has to happen while regular work continues.

So yes, some things slide.

The question is not whether anything slid. Something probably did.

The better question is what we are going to do about it before the pace changes.

I would not let a team walk into fall with vague priorities and call that flexibility. Flexibility is useful when the direction is clear. When the direction is unclear, flexibility can become a very polite word for drift.

And drift is costly.

It shows up in too many meetings. Too many revisions. Too many “just checking” conversations. Too many people trying to solve the same uncertainty from their own corner of the work.

One person thinks the year-end campaign is about urgency. Another thinks it is about gratitude. Another thinks it is about a funding gap. Another thinks it is about a hopeful vision for the year ahead. Those may all be connected, but if the team has not named the center, the message will start to wobble.

The donor will not see the internal confusion.

They will feel it.

They will feel it in a message that tries to do too much. They will feel it in a late ask that does not quite match what they heard earlier. They will feel it in a follow-up that seems rushed or generic because the stewardship work did not happen when there was still space.

That is why August is such a useful month. It gives us a chance to stop pretending that everything will sort itself out later.

Later is almost here.

So I would call the question now.

What are we still unclear about?

Are we clear on the offer?

Are we clear on who needs a thank-you before they need another ask?

Are we clear on which donors need a personal touch?

Are we clear on what leadership is actually doing, not just generally supporting?

Are we clear on what the team can do well?

Are we clear on what we are not adding?

That last one matters. Fall has a way of attracting extra work. Every idea sounds useful when the stakes are high. Every audience sounds like it deserves a special plan. Every report sounds important. Every message sounds like it might help.

But a team cannot do everything well just because the season is important.

At some point, clarity has to become a form of protection.

Protection for the team.

Protection for the donor experience.

Protection for the strategy.

Protection from the kind of avoidable chaos that everyone later calls “just year-end.”

Some chaos is part of the season. I know that. Donors surprise us. Results shift. Opportunities appear. Something always changes.

But not all chaos is inevitable.

Some of it is the result of carrying unanswered questions too long.

A good August reset does not have to be dramatic. It does not need a fancy agenda or a retreat title. It can be a plain conversation with the right people in the room.

Here is what we know.

Here is what we do not know.

Here is what must be decided before fall.

Here is what we have capacity to do well.

Here is what we are going to stop pretending we can add.

That kind of conversation can save a team weeks of churn.

And it can make the donor experience feel more thoughtful because the organization is not trying to make decisions under the loudest possible conditions.

Do not drag summer confusion into fall.

The fall will bring enough pressure of its own.

We do not have to carry extra.

🖤 Vila-Sheree

I know that sounds a little harsh, but I mean it.

There is something comforting about seeing the whole plan laid out. The email dates. The mail drops. The reminder messages. The social posts. The leadership note. The match announcement. The final-week push. It looks organized. It looks serious. It looks like the team is ready.

And sometimes it is.

But sometimes the calendar is hiding the real problem.

The organization has planned when it will talk to donors, but it has not decided clearly enough what it is asking donors to believe, feel, understand, or do.

That is where year-end gets dangerous.

Because a big calendar cannot save a weak offer.

It can only repeat it more often.

And repetition is not the same as clarity.

When I say offer, I do not simply mean the ask amount or the deadline or whether there is a match. Those things matter, but they are not the whole invitation. The offer is the heart of what we are putting in front of the donor.

Read more

It tells us when the campaign begins. It tells us when the appeal should drop. It tells us when the reminder goes out and when the final push begins. It gives us clean dates, which can make the plan feel settled.

But the calendar does not know the donor.

It does not know who gave generously three months ago and still has not been thanked in a way that feels personal.

It does not know who made a first gift after an event and never really heard why the work mattered beyond that room.

It does not know who is loyal but tired.

It does not know who is quiet because they are gone and who is quiet because the relationship needs a little warmth before the next invitation.

That is the part the calendar cannot tell us.

As year-end approaches, we spend a lot of time sorting donors. By giving level. By recency. By channel. By likelihood to respond. By ask amount. That work matters. I believe in using the data well.

But before we get too deep into solicitation planning, I would add another question to the table.

Who needs stewardship before the ask?

Read more

It just shows up, suddenly loud, as if it has not been on the calendar the whole time.

One minute people are trying to get their fall rhythm back. The next minute everyone is asking about year-end appeals, donor lists, match language, projections, final-week emails, board calls, and what else can be done before December 31.

And yes, there is always a lot to do in November.

But year-end does not really start there.

By the time November arrives, many of the most important things have already happened or not happened.

The donor was thanked well, or they were not.

The first-time giver was welcomed, or they were simply added to the next list.

The loyal donor heard something meaningful before the ask, or they mostly heard from the organization when money was needed.

The offer was clarified early, or someone is now trying to make vague urgency sound compelling with three days left before the draft is due.

That is why I think we should be honest about this: November does not create the year-end season. November reveals what we prepared.

A donor does not receive a year-end appeal in a vacuum. They bring the whole relationship with them when that message arrives. They remember, even if quietly, whether the organization has been present. They know whether communication has felt thoughtful or generic. They feel whether the ask is part of a relationship or the organization suddenly reappearing with a deadline.

That matters.

A good appeal can do a lot. Strong writing matters. Clear timing matters. A good match can help. A compelling story can move people.

But even the best year-end message is stronger when it lands in a relationship that has been tended.

A thank-you in August can shape a gift in December.

A personal update in September can make a November ask feel less abrupt.

A clear conversation with a donor before the campaign can do more than another reminder email at the end of the year.

This is not complicated. It is just easy to neglect because everything else feels more urgent.

The internal work matters too.

I have seen teams get to year-end and realize they are still debating the thing that should have been decided months earlier. What is the real offer? Who is the audience? Is this about sustaining the work, expanding it, responding to a need, or closing a gap? What exactly are we asking donors to make possible?

When those questions are still unresolved late in the season, the work gets harder for everyone.

The writer is trying to solve a strategy problem with language.

The fundraiser is trying to prepare donor conversations without enough clarity.

The operations person is trying to build lists around decisions that keep shifting.

The communications team is trying to make the message feel clean when the direction underneath it is still muddy.

That is how a campaign becomes frantic.

Not because people are not working hard. Usually, people are working very hard. That is what makes it so frustrating. The effort is there. The urgency is there. The commitment is there.

What is missing is the clarity that should have come earlier.

I do not think early preparation means pretending it is December when it is August. Nobody needs fake urgency. Fundraising teams have enough real urgency without manufacturing more.

What we need is earlier honesty.

Are we clear on the offer?

Are we clear on who needs stewardship before the ask?

Are we clear on what leadership will actually do?

Are we clear on what the team can execute well?

Are we clear on what we will not add, no matter how tempting it becomes later?

Those questions can save a team.

They can save donors too.

Because when the organization is clearer, the donor experience is better. The message feels more grounded. The ask feels more connected. The follow-up makes more sense. The campaign does not feel like a sudden burst of institutional need. It feels like an invitation with a reason behind it.

That is what I want year-end to feel like.

Not a scramble.

Not a panic dressed up as strategy.

Not a final-quarter attempt to make up for months of thin stewardship.

A clear invitation, held by a team that has done the work early enough for the donor to feel it.

So no, year-end does not start in November.

It starts in what we decide now.

It starts in who we thank now.

It starts in the relationships we tend before the pressure rises.

November will come.

The question is whether we will arrive there prepared, or whether we will ask November to do work that August should have done.

🖤 Vila-Sheree

I understand why people want to. By August, everyone is ready to talk about the fall. The calendar starts filling up again. Vacation messages slow down. Meetings return. And all of a sudden, year-end does not feel like some faraway thing. It feels like a person standing in the doorway, clearing their throat.

So the temptation is to move on.

Let’s get the appeal calendar together. Let’s confirm the segments. Let’s talk about the match. Let’s make sure leadership knows who they need to call. Let’s get the work moving.

All fair.

But before I would let a team run straight into year-end planning, I would ask them to sit with summer for a minute.

Read more

Moving campaigns forward. Moving donors closer. Moving revenue toward goal. Moving teams through deadlines, board requests, budget conversations, leadership expectations, and all the small decisions that make the work possible.

There is always something to move.

That part is easier to underestimate because protection does not always look productive from the outside. It may look like slowing something down. It may look like saying no. It may look like holding a boundary, asking another question, or refusing to let urgency make every decision.

But some things in fundraising are too important to be sacrificed just because pressure gets loud.

Strong leaders know what those things are.

They protect donor trust.

That sounds obvious, but it is tested constantly. Donor trust can be strained by overpromising, unclear communication, rushed stewardship, weak follow-up, careless personalization, or asking too often without enough relationship in between.

Read more

They assume that to be kind means to avoid hard conversations, soften every message until the point disappears, or keep giving people more time even when the work needs a decision.

But that is not kindness.

That is avoidance dressed in a nicer outfit.

Real kindness does not require a lack of clarity. In fact, some of the kindest leaders I know are also some of the clearest. They do not leave people guessing. They do not let confusion linger for weeks. They do not make their teams decode what matters. They say what is true, what is needed, and what comes next with enough care that people can actually receive it.

In fundraising, this matters because the work already carries so much pressure.

Goals are public. Deadlines are real. Donor relationships are delicate. Internal expectations can shift quickly. Teams are often trying to move strategy, relationships, communications, data, stewardship, and revenue at the same time.

When clarity is missing, that pressure grows.

People start filling in the blanks. They make assumptions about priorities. They wonder if something has changed. They spend emotional energy trying to interpret tone, silence, or half-decisions. Eventually, the lack of clarity becomes its own burden.

A kind leader does not add to that burden by being vague.

Clear leadership says, “This is the priority.”

It says, “This is what we are not doing right now.”

It says, “I know this is disappointing, and this is still the decision.”

It says, “Here is where I need more from you.”

It says, “Here is what success looks like.”

It says, “You are valued, and this still has to change.”

That last one may be the hardest.

They worry that being direct will sound harsh or that naming a problem will damage the relationship. So they soften the message until it becomes difficult to understand.

The person leaves the conversation unsure whether anything serious was actually said. The leader feels like they addressed it. The issue continues.

That is not kind to the person. It is not kind to the team. It is not kind to the mission.

Clarity gives people something to work with.

It tells them where they stand. It helps them understand what is needed. It gives them a fair chance to adjust, improve, prepare, or make a choice.

And when clarity is delivered with respect, it can actually build trust.

The same is true with donors.

We can be warm and still be clear about what the organization needs. We can be gracious and still make a direct ask. We can listen well and still hold boundaries. We can thank donors deeply and still explain why unrestricted support matters, why timing matters, or why a particular opportunity is urgent.

Kindness does not require us to make the work smaller than it is.

It requires us to treat people with dignity while telling the truth.

That is not always easy. Some days, clarity costs something. It can cost comfort. It can cost approval. It can cost the temporary peace that comes from not naming what everyone already feels.

But unclear leadership costs more.

It costs time. It costs trust. It costs focus. It costs people’s confidence that the work is being led with enough steadiness.

So yes, be kind.

Be generous with people. Assume good intent when you can. Listen before you decide. Make space for context. Remember that people are carrying more than what you can see.

But do not confuse kindness with leaving people in the fog.

You can be kind and still be clear.

In fact, the people you lead may need both from you at the same time. I don’t know about you, but I am always working to strike that balance.

TL;DR

Kindness and clarity are not opposites. Fundraising leaders can care deeply about people while still naming priorities, expectations, decisions, and needed change. Vague leadership may feel softer in the moment, but clarity delivered with respect is often the kinder choice.

🖤 Vila-Sheree

They are hard because too many decisions were delayed until the work became urgent.

The campaign direction was left open too long. The audience was not confirmed. The offer stayed vague. The budget question was not answered. The approval path was unclear. The donor strategy was discussed several times but never fully decided.

Then the deadline moved closer, and suddenly everything had to happen at once.

This is one of the quiet ways pressure builds in fundraising. It does not always come from a lack of effort. It often comes from delayed decisions.

When decisions are not made at the right time, the cost does not disappear. It simply moves downstream.

The team pays for it later in compressed timelines, rushed writing, unclear donor experiences, frustrated approvals, and avoidable stress. What could have been handled thoughtfully in July becomes urgent in October. What could have been decided in a planning meeting becomes a late-night revision. What could have been a strong donor conversation becomes a scramble to prepare.

The delay may have felt harmless at the time. It rarely is.

Read more

The calendar can be full. Appeals can be moving. Meetings can be happening. Donor lists can be pulled. Proposals can be drafted. Events can be planned. Reports can be updated.

From the outside, it may look like momentum.

But activity is not the same as direction.

This is one of the harder truths of fundraising leadership because “busyness” can be reassuring. When people are working hard, it feels like the organization is doing what it should be doing. There is visible effort. There are tasks to point to. There are updates for leadership.

Sometimes a team is busy because the work is well organized and moving with purpose. Other times, a team is busy because the strategy is thin and everyone is trying to make up for that thinness through activity.

That second kind of busyness is exhausting.

Read more

A donor may ask, “How much of my gift goes to programs?” But underneath that question may be a deeper concern about trust.

A board member may ask, “Can we just do one more campaign?” But underneath that question may be anxiety about revenue.

A team member may ask, “What is the priority?” But underneath that question may be exhaustion from too many things changing at once.

It is easy to answer the words we hear. Sometimes that is enough. But some of the most important leadership moments happen when we slow down long enough to listen for the question underneath the question.

That is where better conversations begin.

A donor who asks about overhead may not really be looking for a percentage. They may be asking whether the organization is careful, responsible, and honest with money. They may want reassurance that their gift will matter. They may be trying to understand whether the organization is worthy of a deeper investment.

If we answer only with a number, we may miss the opportunity to build trust.

A better response might still include financial clarity, but it should also speak to what the donor is really trying to understand. How does the organization make decisions? How does it steward resources? What does it take to do the work well? Why should the donor feel confident?

That kind of answer moves the conversation beyond defense and toward trust.

The same thing happens inside organizations.

When a leader asks for another appeal, the stated question may be tactical. Can we get something out quickly? Can we reach more donors? Can we close the gap?

But the deeper question may be about confidence. Are we doing enough? Do we have a plan? Are we going to be okay?

If fundraisers respond only to the tactic, they may end up creating more activity without addressing the fear underneath it. Sometimes the better leadership move is to name what is driving the request and bring the conversation back to strategy.

What are we trying to solve?

Is another campaign the best way to solve it?

What would this add, and what would it take away?

Listening for the deeper question does not mean overcomplicating every conversation. I have had to learn to do this so many times in my career. You have to ask the right questions to get to the root of what is really being asked.

It does not mean turning every donor meeting into therapy or every staff discussion into a long process. It simply means paying attention to what the question may be carrying.

Sometimes people ask about process because they need clarity.

Sometimes they ask about results because they need confidence.

Sometimes they ask for more because they do not yet trust that enough is happening.

Sometimes they resist a decision because something important has not been explained.

When we listen better, we lead better.

Fundraising is full of surface questions. What should we send? Who should receive it? What amount should we ask for? How often should we follow up? What did the donor say? What did the report show?

Those questions matter. But often, the real work is underneath them.

The question behind the question may be about trust, timing, readiness, fear, capacity, or clarity. And once we understand that, our answers become more useful.

TL;DR

People do not always ask the thing they are really asking. Donors, leaders, and teams often bring deeper concerns underneath practical questions. Better listening helps fundraisers respond to what is actually being asked, not just the words on the surface.

🖤 Vila-Sheree

The thank-you that takes too long.

The donor who was supposed to receive a follow-up call but never did.

The new donor who gave once and then disappeared into a general communication stream.

The segment no one has reviewed in months.

The data issue everyone knows about but no one has time to fix.

The lapsed donor strategy that keeps getting pushed to “later.”

None of these things usually cause an immediate crisis on their own. That is part of the problem. Because they are not loud, they are easy to overlook. They sit quietly in the system until enough time passes and someone realizes the donor experience has weakened.

This is the fundraising work nobody owns until it breaks.

Unclear ownership creates quiet risk

In many organizations, there are pieces of donor relationship work that everyone agrees are important but no one clearly owns.

Read more