• Techies: People who have a lot of experience with technology will be able to use this knowledge to better connect with major gift prospects.  They might also have qualifications to research, schedule, communicate, and document gifts efficiently.
• Intellectual Capacity: You don't just want someone with traditional book smarts.  Seek out a candidate who is a problem solver and can think quickly on their feet.
• Communication: A Major Gifts Officer will have to talk to many different people frequently.  Therefore, it is essential that the individual can express themselves clearly.  This includes both written and verbal communications.  The ability to ask open-ended questions will be key to performing their tasks.
• Team Player: A lot of the work in this position is independent, but you still want someone who can work effectively with all different types of people.  There needs to be transparency and an attempt to engage co-workers.  Remember: No one owns a donor.

• "Susan G. Komen Top Officials Resign As Backlash Gains Steam:" The Huffington Post
• "Supporters Rally Around Planned Parenthood:" The Superior Telegram
• "Head Of Susan G. Komen Defends Decision On Planned Parenthood:" The Los Angeles Times
• "Komen Apologizes, Reverses Decision:" The NonProfit Times
• "Komen Senior VP Quits:" The NonProfit Times

• Nonprofits that don't let board members know that fundraising is one of their responsibilities;
• Nonprofits that don't train the board in successful fundraising techniques; and,
• Nonprofits that don't recruit new members that have experience with giving and fundraising

I recently joined a committee that funds social services projects in the city in which I live. At one of our meetings the committee was discussing setting our funding guidelines. I’ve been a part of the grant writing process for many years and have seen the result of some of the stranger and more involved funding questions.

Maybe it was just my revenge on the funders but I realised quickly that funders and nonprofits do not always speak the same language. The intention behind a funding guideline does not always translate into the intended results. Here are a couple of examples that came to my mind. I’d love to hear from you if you have any other examples.

Example #1 – Leverage

In order to receive funding a nonprofit must use a funders gift to leverage additional financial support from other funders.
Funder Intention: Their perspective on leverage is that it increases their giving power. They can say that with a gift of $500 it was turned into a gift of $1,500.
Nonprofit Result: More partners does not always equal better results. Sometimes a project is best run independent and additional partners just add cost and red tape. Many nonprofits are seeking initial funding to get the project started. This also means that they have to have a process in place to track and report to a group of funders which can mean additional work and administration. More partners does not always equal better service.

Example # 2 – Sustainable Funding

This is the concept that a nonprofit must show that they have a plan for how the project will be funded after the initial contribution runs out.
Funder Intention: The idea is that the funder is providing the start up funds for a program that the organization does not have the capacity yet to fund. They see themselves on the cutting edge of a new solution or kind of assistance.
Nonprofit Result: A nonprofit will wait until they are a year away from putting this project in their annual budget. The result is that it is not a new idea but one they have been hoping to run for a while but have been forced to put off until the organization grows to meet a sustainable funding model. This can also commit a nonprofit to a project that turns out to not work as it was originally intended.

• Develop and implement an annual strategic plan for public and private new business development.
• Leverage internal and external data to lead the process of priority-setting and strategic decision-making.
• Build a professional and trusting relationship with key IREX clients.  This kind of networking is crucial to advance the goals of the organization.
• Tap strategic high-level contacts to gather business intelligence, identify partnering opportunities, and strengthen international recruitment.
• •Personally reach down and across the organization to gather information that would support marketing and facilitate strategic conversations (e.g., about client systems, regions, countries, and programs).
• Provide guidance and set expectations for field staff support in the new business development process.

• 15+ years of progressive leadership experience in new business development for an international development organization.
• Significant personal contacts globally within USAID, State Department, and other USG agencies.  Non-USG and private sector sources are also a plus.
• Excellent leadership skills in the areas of communication, decision making, facilitation, supervision, and planning.
• International development experience in one or more of the following technical areas preferred: basic education, civil society strengthening, media development, youth development, conflict resolution, and gender.

• Decide which e-mail clients are a priority.  According to CampaignMonitor, Microsoft Outlook was one of the most popular clients as of June 2011.  Gmail, Yahoo! Mail, and Apple Mail were also near the top of the list.
• Use tables for your layout, not cascading style sheets (CSS).  There are a lot of e-mail clients that are not able to read CSS.
• Since you won't be relying on CSS, your team can use the old-school style of formatting: Putting tags for color, font, decoration, margins, etc., directly on links, paragraphs and images.  You can put styles into the header, but leave them out of the e-mail body.
• Avoid using Javascript, Flash, video, or anything a 1999 web browser couldn't handle.  The message here: Code like it's 1999.