That is the question i've been thinking about this week after a few unrelated conversations.
First up were the comments from outgoing NSPCC Fundraising Director Giles Pegram who was lamenting the calibre of candidates for his replacement. He was particuarly riled that a number of candidates failed to mention donors or children in their interviews and said:
“There are people who regard fundraising as a process you go through
and they have no sense of the relationship with the donor or the end
result for the beneficiary.
“I think it is very sad indeed that people like that can get very senior positions.”
Personally I think Giles should name and shame the candidates so no other charities are lumbered with these snake-oil salesmen like fundraisers.
Secondly, I was at a leaving do for a colleague and we were recounting some of our recruitment disasters over the years.
Some of the people we employed came with impressive looking C.V's, a track record of supposed fundraising success and they interviewed really well, but when they started it was quickly apparent that they were as useful as a chocolate teapot.
Inevitably when we tried to move them on (as an aside, why does it seem take so long to get rid of under performers?) they ended up at another unsuspecting victim charity often in a better position and with a nice pay increase. We laughed at the misfortune of the next charity and gave a sigh of relief that they'd gone.
However, it is the sector at large that loses out and untold millions must be lost every year by charities who recruit unsuitable people.
How can we stop it happening?
Should we have a blacklist of bad fundraisers? What would the criteria be?
Should we promote more evidential qualifcations like the CFRE that certify someone's fundraising successes?
Any other ideas?
Would love to hear your views...
As a bonus:
This is what Seth thinks about recruitment.
Also, read (at the bottom of the page) what Tom Peters says about the three 'E's' of recruitment.