The Fund Raiser

Evaluating the Resumes of Fund Raisers

Article tools

Printer friendly	E-mail article	Subscribe	Order reprints
	Discuss any Chronicle article in our forums
Latest Headlines First Person The Rejection Letter I Wish I Could Send If we had to make up a story for why you might be interested in our position, then interviewing you was too risky. Peer Review Hirings and Firings The new law school at the University of California at Irvine gets some high-profile hires ... and other appointment news. Ms. Mentor Does This Make Me Look Old? Advice on how best to dress, and act, when you look as young as your students. Career News Gone, and Being Forgotten Why are some of the greatest thinkers being expelled from their disciplines? Resource Salaries: Faculty | Administrative Presidential pay: Private | Public Financial resources: Salary and cost-of-living calculators Career resources: Academic | Nonacademic Library: Previous articles by topic | by date | by column Career Talk, Ms. Mentor, and more... Landing your first job On the tenure track Mid-career and on Administrative careers Nonacademic careers for Ph.D.'s Talk about your career Blogs

By Mark J. Drozdowski

Of the many tasks required of a development professional, serving on search committees ranks among my favorites. It's not that I enjoy frittering away hours in meetings, during which we discuss primarily the most convenient time to meet next. No, I simply get a charge out of reviewing résumés to see how colleagues in my field (or those hoping to join it) present themselves.

After a decade of extensive -- albeit informal -- research, I have devised the following handy guide to help anyone evaluating résumés of fund raisers.

Underqualified vs. Overqualified

At the most basic level, we review résumés to determine whether candidates fit the profile we have in mind. That profile includes such variables as years of experience, fund-raising results, types of employers, average tenures, and education. Often we'll find candidates who appear grossly underqualified or overqualified.

Typically, the underqualified are people with insufficient experience or with years of work in the wrong field; applicants whose current position falls a few rungs below the one you're trying to fill; and, my favorite, recent graduates who feel a calling to serve their alma mater, despite having no record of achievement whatsoever. In all of these cases, these folks assume you'll take a leap of faith.

I give some of them credit for optimism, especially if they acknowledge their relative lack of experience or knowledge while asking for consideration nonetheless. Others simply appear brazen or foolish, dismissing stated requirements as if mere technicalities ("I've been a florist for 17 years but fund raising seems like fun ..."). As for the recent grad who hubristically argues that his semester of guiding admissions tours enables him to represent the college to top philanthropic prospects, I'd tell him to check back in a few years or, for now, to give enrollment services a ring.

The overqualified present a different set of issues, equally troubling. With significant experience, why would professionals seek a mid-level position? If we're recruiting a director of major gifts, someone with five to seven years of fund-raising experience, and we receive a résumé from a sitting vice president of advancement with 25 years in the field, it raises obvious questions. Who craves downward mobility? Did that person misread the ad? Is he losing his job and becoming desperate to find alternate employment? Is he relocating and willing to take anything in the area before finding a more appropriate position? That's when the cover letter needs to be convincing, answering questions sure to arise. Too often, though, the letters offer generic "look what I can do for you" statements requesting an interview. Next.

Inputs vs. Outcomes

Fund-raising résumés focus primarily on either inputs or outcomes. An input-oriented résumé will describe duties and quantify activities, but not results. "As assistant director," it'll say, "I worked closely with faculty and submitted dozens of proposals to leading foundations." So what? Did any succeed? Another favorite is "implemented new phonathon strategies designed to maximize giving." Well ... did they? Often candidates present themselves this way to avoid the ugly truth -- they haven't brought in much money. If I see a résumé describing every position with inputs, I move on.

A "results" résumé will emphasize what the individual accomplished -- that is, how much money they have raised. "While director of the annual fund from 1996 to 1999," it might state, "I improved our giving rate to 18 percent from 10 percent and increased total giving to $1.1-million from $650,000." Now we have a clear sense of what this person accomplished and can evaluate her in relation to the goals we'll expect her to reach.

Abilities vs. Positions

Some candidates focus on their abilities or areas of knowledge, while others emphasize the positions they've held. The former tactic commonly appears when the job in question requires a wide range of talents. For instance, someone with 20 years in the field might categorize his experience under headings like "major gifts," "planned giving," "corporate and foundation relations," "campaign planning," and "advancement management." He might also add sections on communications or alumni affairs. This method demonstrates the applicant's various areas of knowledge, putting those qualities ahead of the specific places employed and titles held (listed separately). Position-based resumes, on the other hand, will present a chronological account of institutions and responsibilities.

Résumés presented according to abilities tend to focus on outcomes ("Here's what I've learned"), while those featuring positions normally relay inputs ("Here's what I've done").

Tailored vs. Generic

In the cover letter, some applicants speak specifically to the advertised position and your institution, while others will send the same generic letter in a widespread job search. Of course we're more compelled by the tailored one. I always chuckle, though, when I see a customized "objective" in the résumé itself: "My goal is to obtain the position of associate director of major gifts at Bluegrass University." What luck! Landing that job is this person's aim in life, and it's finally come open. Won't he be disappointed if he doesn't get it? It's like waiting your whole career to become head football coach at Notre Dame and ... um, never mind.

Higher-Education Fund Raiser vs. Nonprofit Fund Raiser

This one's a tough call. Higher-education jobs attract some seasoned fund raisers with no experience in colleges per se, but with many years of development work in other industries. Does knowledge of the mechanics of fund raising hold constant across the range of nonprofit groups? Do such candidates possess an appropriate understanding of how colleges and universities operate and the numerous ways in which a donor can interact with the academy? Should we prefer someone committed equally to the development profession and to higher education as a venue? Or can we argue persuasively for a career fund raiser who supports nonprofit groups broadly and wants to apply his or her talents to a college, at least temporarily?

I've always held that, everything else similar, we should favor folks who've spent at least the majority of their careers in higher-education advancement. Our product is different from that of a museum or hospital or social-service agency, as are our audiences. Would a Toyota dealership hire a sales associate who has sold Fords and Hondas over someone who's sold food products? Probably. Even though we could assert that "sales is sales," each field (or product) has its unique nuances. That's simply my prejudice.

Bounders vs. Barnacles

We find applicants who leap from job to job after two or three years and those who've remained at one place for 10 or more years. Bounders can offer a wide range of perspectives on how different institutions operate. But we naturally call into question his or her commitment to staying at our college for a significant time, despite the candidate's assurances. It's like getting engaged to someone who's gone through three messy divorces -- why should you assume this marriage wouldn't end the same way?

The barnacle, on the other hand, has demonstrated tenacity and loyalty. But he knows only one way of doing things. And why does he suddenly seek change? Perhaps he's not enamored of the new leadership. Perhaps he's burned out or bored. Maybe his family situation mandates relocation to your region. Whatever the case, investigation is necessary, but I always prefer the barnacle to the bounder.

Pithy vs. Prolix

I've no idea what the ideal vita length might be, but I have a sense of what's appropriate. Some applicants capture their experiences in one page, maybe two, while others feel the need to reveal every excruciating detail of their lives, professionally and personally. A recent example droned on for seven pages, in small type, offering an "addendum" to belabor the issue. Some find it necessary to tell us they're single, don't smoke, like to travel, play six instruments, have visited nine countries and are fluent in pig Latin. Bully. Usually these are the folks who focus on inputs, here distracting us with minutiae so we overlook their lack of fund-raising success. If you can't sum up your experiences in three pages or less, hire an editor.

Straightforward vs. Hyperbolic

Fund raisers tend to choose one of two styles to present their credentials: They describe their experiences in plain, unadorned English, or they engage in puffery and bombast. The straightforward types might not entertain as much, but at least you can understand them.

Exercises in hyperbole, amusing as they are, fail to persuade me. If an applicant tells us she's a "gifted facilitator," or an "inspiring leader," or even a "skilled manager," I assume she's attended one too many Tony Robbins seminars. Less obnoxious but equally fuzzy are "results-oriented" (who's not?), "team builder" or "team player," and "problem solver." One candidate told us he's a "tireless motivator." I'm not sure what that means, but I can assure you I don't want a tireless motivator watching my back.

Stick with simple action words like "managed," "created," "organized," and "designed," and check the thesaurus at the door.

So that's my unofficial classification of résumés. I can't wait for the next batch to arrive.