Tony Martignetti began a conversation yesterday with his provocative videocast. In it, he complained that too many consultants don’t do the hands-on work. He felt too many offer only “tip-sheets” and brief recommendations. And that doesn’t help the organization get ahead.
I thought it was an interesting conversation. So I’m continuing it here. I’d love your input.
I’ve spent more time as a staff member than as a consultant. Years, in fact. During that time I’ve seen consultants (both fundraising and other) who were enormously helpful. And I’ve seen those who may have caused damage. The most helpful consultants, in my experience, did roll up their sleeves. At least to the extent of training, not just telling, staff.
When I began to work in development, the marketing director and I rebuilt the entire giving program. Fundraising had been board-led, with one staff member writing grants. Since neither of us were experts at that point, one of the smartest things we did was bring in consultants. Two of them, actually, working as a team. One focused on outward-facing work. He talked generally, and attempted to translate his political fundraising experience to a nonprofit. It was helpful, in a big picture, theoretical way.
The other was the geeky numbers guy. He sat with me and taught me about lists and segmentation and tracking results. This was before we had computers. He had me create a simple paper form to keep our records. I could tell you how each mailing performed from that day on. His hands-on work made a huge difference, because knowing where we were kept us pointed in the right direction. He had a measurable impact on our work.
They also pointed us to a professional copywriter. But we didn’t use the copywriter for long. Because a print newsletter taught me to write copy. Jerry Huntsinger had a fabulous newsletter back then. He mailed it once a month. And I couldn’t wait to get it. That $75 a year investment paid huge dividends for my organization. (You can read more from him on SOFII now). He and I never spoke. He hasn’t a clue who I am. But he started me down this path.
Now you don’t have to wait for a monthly newsletter in the mail. There’s a wealth of experience you can access online. As someone who loves to learn, I’m always reading. And I’m very grateful to the consultants and others who share their knowledge this way.
But what’s a consultant supposed to do? There is no one answer. There may be as many as there are organizations. A consultant can be anything from interim staff to a way to add a public gloss to your internal efforts. Your consultant can train you or step in to persuade the board to follow your advice. It depends on the needs of the organization. A consultant can even help you figure out what those needs are!
My personal bias is for working hands-on. (What, you figured that out?) But that’s a reflection of my personality, not a slap at other ways of working.
Here’s what I think it comes down to:
- Knowing what you need. (Even if knowing what you need is what you need to know.)
- Clarity about roles from the beginning.
- A common understanding of goals for the work.
- Integrity on both sides.
What do you think? Please give me your thoughts in the comments.
Tony Martignettit says
December 9, 2014 at 10:23 pmThanks for keeping the convo going! I don’t like to see orgs on methadone maintenance, hooked on a subscription and unable to move to the next level. You did. (Mr. Huntsinger’s fee was very reasonable, by the way.) My concern is that many don’t when consultants practice at arm’s length.
Mary Cahalane says
December 9, 2014 at 10:31 pmPerhaps it comes down to definitions. Education and training are important. Sometimes, they’re available in books, or through webinars. They can be very valuable, especially if the person using them is motivated. Do we call the author a consultant, or something else? Does it matter?
I’ve more problems with flesh and blood consultants who provide little value. The ones who provide lots of flash, a pronouncement or two and a big invoice.
Each organization has unique needs. I think a good consultant uses those first meetings to assess whether they’re the right person to fill the need.
Mike Mella (@mikemella) says
December 12, 2014 at 12:50 pmI don’t see how any organization can ever be “hooked on a subscription.” They’re free to work with whomever they wish – or not. If a consultant’s services aren’t working for an organization, they can end that relationship and find someone whose services do.
The fact that some consultants make a living using this model is proof that it works for some organizations.
Mary Cahalane says
December 12, 2014 at 12:56 pmThanks, Mike. Yes, so long as what’s promised matches what’s delivered, I agree.
The Other Bottom Line says
December 10, 2014 at 1:01 amWhat a great conversation you started here Mary!
I’m fairly new at this and have only had a handful of clients. For one, I acted as their bum-in-a-seat development person.
For another, I walked them through the process of understanding their fund development history by helping them consolidate their data and then analyzing it, identifying opportunities for donor moves management and drafting a 3-5 year strategy for them.
Another, I’ve facilitated the strategy and implementation of a 3 month $125 K fundraising campaign between a non profit and two corporate sponsors.
For each client, as stated above, I used the first meeting to assess whether I would be a good fit for them.
Thanks for this thought-provoking post!
Diana
Mary Cahalane says
December 10, 2014 at 9:06 amThanks for commenting, Diana!
Clay Myers-Bowman says
December 10, 2014 at 9:23 amIn my work as a consultant, I’ve done just about everything you mention. Recently (past 4 years or so) it seems more and more potential clients either don’t want to pay or can’t afford to pay for me to do anything more than an occasional training, strategy session, drafting LOI’s or minor editing of direct mail pieces. Long gone are the clients who engaged me for an entire year.
So in my consulting experience, it’s been harder and harder to get hired to do any “hands-on” development work. And in one instance, even though I was willing to drastically reduce my fee and do the work for what they were offering, they hired a 20-something recent college grad instead. We’ll see how that goes for them.
Mary Cahalane says
December 10, 2014 at 9:50 amThose are great points, Clay. I’ve found some of the same. And no offense to the 20 something, but it’s not often smart to opt for inexperience at a low price.
Marlene Oliveira (@mo_flow) says
December 11, 2014 at 3:32 pmMary, great conversation! I think that it’s up to each individual consultant, trainer, coach, etc., to offer what we can in whatever way we are most able/proficient – with, as you say, integrity and the intention of truly helping. I believe that the ways that we can help are only limited by our imagination (which should not be limited) and we need to trust nonprofit clients to access the services and offerings most suited to their own needs and resources. If they don’t like what we offer, they can buy from one of our wonderful colleagues. They are smart enough to make those decisions. 🙂
I really don’t see what problem there can possibly be with a wide spectrum of approaches at a range variety of price points – especially not for the organizations we’re trying to serve!
Mary Cahalane says
December 11, 2014 at 3:42 pmThanks, Marlene! So glad you chimed in. It really does come down to clear expectations and integrity, doesn’t it?
Marlene Oliveira (@mo_flow) says
December 11, 2014 at 3:52 pmDefinitely! Frankly, we’re running businesses, so we need to find profitable models – if we’re really helping them, our clients want us to stay in business and grow. If we prioritize integrity, quality and meeting the actual needs of our clients and customers, everybody wins.
Mary Cahalane says
December 11, 2014 at 3:53 pmYou said that perfectly. And that’s no surprise!