by Dr. Kevin Dean, President & CEO, Tennessee Nonprofit Network
Losing a great Director of Development can feel like losing a wheel of your car while you’re driving. Or, perhaps more accurately for nonprofits, it’s like watching your meticulously crafted budget spontaneously combust while your board asks, “But why aren’t we hitting our numbers?!” And in the nonprofit world, a top-tier development professional is about as rare and valuable as front-row seats at a Taylor Swift concert. They’re the alchemists who turn heartfelt pleas into tangible impact, the maestros who conduct the symphony of philanthropy, and frankly, the reason you can keep the lights on and stop raiding the petty cash jar for paperclips.
But here’s the kicker: while we lament how hard it is to unearth these fundraising unicorns, we often trip over our own feet in keeping them. We treat them less like strategic partners and more like the office workhorse, burdening them with expectations that would make Hercules blush, offering resources that amount to a half-chewed pencil, and demonstrating a general lack of understanding of what it actually takes to get people to part with their hard-earned cash. It’s a recipe for disaster, and it’s why the average tenure for a Director of Development can feel shorter than a goldfish’s memory.
So, if you’re actively trying to ensure your Director of Development updates their LinkedIn profile within the first two weeks, you’ve come to the right place! This handy guide will walk you through the most effective strategies to ensure their rapid departure. Want to waste more money in the hiring process? Do these ridiculous things below to be guaranteed failure!
1. The “Welcome Aboard, Now Hit That Impossible Target Yesterday” Gambit
How to do it: Hire your new Director of Development, give them a limp handshake and a slightly stained welcome packet, and then immediately drop a fundraising goal on their lap that would make Midas himself sweat. We’re talking numbers so ambitious they make your previous year’s total look like a rogue coin found under the couch. Oh, and here’s the artisanal twist: expect them to hit it within their first 90 days, with absolutely no time to build a single meaningful relationship, grasp your mission’s labyrinthine nuances, or even locate the emergency chocolate stash.
Example: “Welcome aboard, Alex! Thrilled to have you. Just to reiterate, we need to raise $5 million this quarter. Yes, I know our total last year was $1.2 million, but I’ve got a really good vibe about this. Get out there and make it rain… preferably without using actual rain.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: This is a guaranteed way to send your new hire spiraling into an existential crisis faster than you can say “grant proposal deadline.” Fundraising, at its core, is a deeply human endeavor built on trust and relationships. Expecting someone to waltz in and magically conjure millions out of thin air without any pre-existing connections or deep understanding of your donor base is like asking a barista to pull a perfect espresso shot with no beans, no machine, and no caffeine-addicted customers. It screams, “We have no earthly idea how fundraising actually works, and we view you as a magic ATM with a pulse.” It sets them up for glorious failure, eroding their confidence faster than a sugar cookie in a glass of milk, and making them question their life choices before they’ve even unpacked their desk plant.
2. The “Solo Show: You’re the Entire Circus, Including the Elephants” Masterclass
How to do it: Congratulate your new Director of Development on their impressive title, then subtly (or, for maximum impact, with a bullhorn) imply that they are now solely responsible for all things fundraising. Need a donor report? That’s them. Planning a gala that costs more than a small car? Them. Grant writing that requires the linguistic precision of a poet and the scientific accuracy of a rocket scientist? Also them. Social media appeals that go viral for all the right reasons? You guessed it, them. And remember, you, the Executive Director, are far too busy with “high-level strategic synergy initiatives” to actually help with fundraising, even though it’s arguably one of your primary reasons for existence.
Example: “Sarah, I’m so relieved we have you now! I can finally offload all these fundraising tasks. Oh, and about that major gift prospect, Mrs. Henderson? You handle it. I’m tied up with board meetings all week, mostly discussing new fonts for our letterhead.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: Fundraising is a team sport, not a solo, grueling triathlon where only one person gets to collapse at the finish line. A Director of Development needs support, whether it’s an administrative assistant who can tell the difference between a donor’s name and their giving history, a marketing wizard to craft compelling stories, or the active participation of the Executive Director and board members in donor cultivation. When you transform them into a one-person army, you’re overloading them and signaling that fundraising isn’t a priority for the entire organization, just a chore for that person. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual scope of the role and leads to burnout, mistakes that make you cringe, and ultimately, a frustrated and ineffective development leader who’s probably plotting their escape during their “lunch break” (which is actually just them frantically replying to emails).
3. The “Professional Development? Is That a New Streaming Service?” Approach
How to do it: When your Director of Development meekly asks about attending a cutting-edge conference, joining a prestigious professional association, or taking a specialized course on the latest fundraising trends, balk at the sheer audacity of the cost. Explain that the budget is tighter than a pair of skinny jeans after Thanksgiving dinner, and frankly, they should already know everything they need to know. After all, you hired them for their expertise, right? Conveniently ignore the undeniable data from our 2021 Nonprofit Compensation Survey Report, which clearly states that development staff are among the least professionally developed in nonprofits – probably because they’re too busy being one-person armies (see point 2).
Example: “A $500 conference on major gift fundraising? Susan, that’s a lot of dough. Can’t you just Google that information? We really need to focus on direct program costs, like that new ergonomic stapler for the accounting department.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: The fundraising landscape is less like a placid pond and more like a perpetually churning ocean. Best practices change faster than TikTok trends, new technologies emerge with the regularity of pop-up ads, and donor expectations shift like sand dunes in a desert storm. Denying your Director of Development opportunities for professional growth is like sending a knight to battle with a plastic spork. It stifles innovation, prevents them from learning new strategies that could significantly boost your organization’s coffers, and sends a clear message that you don’t value their growth, their profession, or their ability to evolve beyond what they learned in their last job. Furthermore, it makes them feel undervalued and stagnant, leading them to quietly update their resume and seek out organizations that actually invest in their staff, rather than treating them like a static, all-knowing fundraising oracle.
4. The “No Authority, Just Fundraising Quotas (and Maybe a Gold Star for Trying)” Rule
How to do it: Demand that your Director of Development raise mountains of money, but consistently exclude them from strategic discussions, program planning, or any decisions that impact how that hard-won money is spent or how your mission is actually delivered. Treat them as an order-taker for fundraising, not a strategic partner who possesses actual insights into donor motivations and the financial implications of organizational choices.
Example: “We’ve decided to launch a new, incredibly ambitious program next quarter that will require an additional $500,000. Just wanted to let you know so you can go out and raise it. No, we don’t need your input on the feasibility of funding it, or how to even explain it to someone outside this room.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: A Director of Development is more than just a glorified money-grabber; they’re a critical bridge between your noble mission and your generous donors. They need to understand the organization’s strategic direction, the profound impact of your programs, and your genuine financial needs to effectively articulate your case for support. When you deny them a seat at the decision-making table, you’re undermining their ability to do their job effectively and essentially blindfolding them. They become glorified beggars rather than strategic partners, and it becomes incredibly difficult for them to answer donor questions or build long-term, trusting relationships when they’re kept in the dark about critical organizational decisions. It screams a lack of trust and respect for their expertise and the very important role they play.
5. The “Budgeting? Oh, That’s for the Grown-Ups” Exclusion
How to do it: Develop your annual budget in a secluded, top-secret bunker, then present it to your Director of Development as a non-negotiable decree from on high. Don’t even think about asking for their input on realistic fundraising projections, the actual costs associated with proper donor stewardship (because thank you notes just magically appear, right?), or the resources truly needed to achieve the fundraising goals you’ve just magnanimously handed them.
Example: “Here’s the budget for next year. We’ve allocated X for programs, Y for admin, and you, my friend, will need to raise Z amount. Any questions? Good, now get to it. And try not to break anything on your way out.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: Fundraising goals should not, under any circumstances, exist in a vacuum. They need to be directly tied to the organization’s authentic financial needs and strategic plan. By excluding your Director of Development from the budgeting process, you’re not only potentially creating fundraising goals so unrealistic they belong in a fantasy novel (see point 1 and 6), but you’re also divorcing fundraising from financial reality. They can’t effectively fundraise if they don’t understand the true, nitty-gritty costs of your programs, the organization’s actual financial health, or precisely where donor dollars will actually make the biggest, most impactful difference. It makes their job harder, less strategic, and ultimately less effective, as they struggle to connect donor gifts to concrete financial needs. It also demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the interconnectedness of budgeting and fundraising – they’re like two sides of the same very important coin.
6. The “Outrageous Fundraising Goals (Again, But Now With More Fear)” Trap
How to do it: This is a subtle, yet exquisitely painful, variation on point one. Instead of just an impossible initial goal, this involves a continuous, relentless escalation of targets with absolutely no corresponding increase in resources, staff, or strategic support. Every single year, the number goes up, sometimes exponentially, even if the previous year’s target was barely met (or, more likely, missed spectacularly). It’s the fundraising equivalent of telling someone to run a marathon, then adding another marathon every time they cross a mile marker.
Example: “You raised $1.5 million last year? Excellent! That means this year, we’re setting the goal at $3 million. I know you can do it!” (No, they absolutely cannot, not without more staff, more resources, and perhaps a direct line to a philanthropic fairy godmother, none of which you are providing.)
Why it’s problematic behavior: Continually setting outrageous fundraising goals without providing the necessary tools or support is a surefire way to induce chronic stress, soul-crushing anxiety, and eventual, spectacular burnout. It’s like telling someone to climb Mount Everest in flip-flops, while simultaneously juggling flaming torches. It sends the crystal-clear message that you value the raw, arbitrary number on a spreadsheet far more than the intricate process, the dedicated effort, or the actual well-being of your staff. It creates an environment of constant, unbearable pressure, leading to a desperate focus on quantity over the priceless quality of donor relationships, and ultimately, a rapid turnover rate among development professionals who simply cannot sustain such an unsustainable, and frankly, ludicrous pace. They’ll be checking job boards faster than you can say “unrestricted gift.”
7. The “Hoard Key Funders and Donors Like They’re Your Personal Beanie Babies” Move
How to do it: You, as the Executive Director or a particularly possessive board member, have a few “special” donors or foundations that you consider “yours,” like treasured childhood toys. You actively, and often passive-aggressively, prevent your Director of Development from interacting with them, even when it’s glaringly obvious these donors could provide significant, game-changing support. You schedule clandestine meetings without their knowledge, conveniently “forget” to share key information from conversations, and generally treat these relationships as off-limits, like a secret candy stash.
Example: “Oh, don’t you worry your pretty little head about the Smith Foundation, I handle them personally. Just focus on the smaller donors for now, the ones who give enough for a pizza party. No, you don’t need to know what we discussed, it was just ‘general philanthropic musings’.”
Why it’s problematic behavior: This is a classic power play that not only completely undermines your Director of Development but also borders on self-sabotage. It fragments donor relationships into awkward silos, completely stifles any hope of a unified, strategic fundraising approach, and sends a clear message that you possess a profound lack of trust in your development professional’s abilities. Major donors are often the very oxygen of an organization, and denying your Director of Development access to them is akin to crippling their ability to build comprehensive, long-term relationships and secure truly significant gifts. It creates an inefficient, chaotic, and often embarrassing fundraising environment, leading to massive missed opportunities and a deeply frustrated development professional who feels their hands are tied behind their back with velvet ropes. Ultimately, it prioritizes ego and a misguided sense of control over effective, strategic fundraising.
8. The “Don’t Pay Them Competitively (Because Passion Pays the Bills, Right?)” Penny-Pinching Play
How to do it: Offer a salary that’s so significantly below market rate for a Director of Development it makes local fast-food chains look generous, justifying it with vague, warm-fuzzy statements about being a “nonprofit” or how “everyone here is just so passionate about the mission.” Conveniently ignore the inconvenient realities of cost of living, student loan debt, and the undeniably high demand for skilled, experienced development professionals.
Example: “We can offer $45,000 for this Director of Development role. I know other organizations pay more, but we offer the invaluable reward of making a difference! And also, our office has free stale coffee!” (While simultaneously expecting them to conjure millions from thin air and work 60-hour weeks.)
Why it’s problematic behavior: While genuine passion for the mission is undoubtedly a powerful motivator in the nonprofit sector, it doesn’t, unfortunately, pay the rent or buy groceries. Development professionals, especially the truly great ones, possess highly sought-after, complex skills that are incredibly transferable to many, far more lucrative industries. If you don’t pay them competitively, you’re essentially signing up for one of two unenviable outcomes: you’ll either attract less experienced candidates who will learn on your dime (and probably leave), or you’ll inevitably lose your top-tier talent to organizations that actually recognize and fairly compensate their immense value. Underpaying your Director of Development sends a crystal-clear message that you don’t truly value their expertise, their tireless efforts, or their critical contribution to the organization’s financial health. It leads directly to disengagement, a constant, discreet search for better opportunities, and ultimately, a predictably high turnover rate. They’ll be gone faster than free pizza at an all-staff meeting.
The Grand Finale: Watch Them Walk (Preferably with a Spring in Their Step)
If you follow these tried-and-true methods with diligent precision, you’ll be well on your way to losing your Director of Development in record time. They’ll be gone before you can say “end-of-year appeal,” leaving you back at square one, frantically searching for another elusive unicorn in a field that suddenly looks overwhelmingly full of very ordinary horses.
The unvarnished truth is, retaining a great Director of Development isn’t rocket science, but it does require genuine effort, unwavering respect, and a fundamental understanding of what it actually takes to build a sustainable, thriving fundraising program. It means treating them as the indispensable strategic leaders they are, enthusiastically investing in their professional growth, generously providing them with the necessary support and resources, and empowering them to do their absolute best work. Because when you lose a Director of Development, you’re not just losing a person; you’re losing momentum, priceless donor relationships, institutional knowledge, and ultimately, the financial lifeblood of your organization. So, unless your ultimate goal is to perpetually flounder in the fundraising deep end, perhaps consider doing the exact opposite of everything gleefully outlined above. Your mission (and your executive director’s increasingly stressed facial tics) will most certainly thank you for it.