I’ve written for Third Sector about why I think charities should avoid psychometric tests in recruitment.
Article available here (paywall)
I’ve written for Third Sector about why I think charities should avoid psychometric tests in recruitment.
Article available here (paywall)
I don’t watch as many films as I’d like to. I love good films, but I find it hard to find something I’ll genuinely enjoy, and by the time I realise I’m watching a clanger, I’m annoyed at the time and money I’ve wasted when I could have been reading a book instead.
Sadly I find it hard to avoid bad films and, unfortunately, I’ve learned that I can’t trust most film critics.
Before you dismiss me as a curmudgeon, let me present an example: the 2006 festive film The Holiday, starring Jude Law, Cameron Diaz, Kate Winslet and Jack Black.
A combination of being a new parent and feeling Christmassy led me to want to watch something gooey and escapist. The Telegraph describes The Holiday as “a treat that will tickle your romantic fancy”.
But I had to stop watching this film. It made me too angry.
Reason 1: A joke about suicide
Kate Winslet’s character, feeling sad about a romantic rejection, puts her head in the oven before changing her mind. How hilarious!
Reason 2: Dreadful attitudes to sex
Cameron Diaz’s character tells Jude Law’s character that she thinks foreplay is overrated. He replies (paraphrase), “You are fast becoming one of the most interesting women I have ever met.”
His evident delight at the prospect of minimal-effort sex made it clear that he’s a repellent human being and not the kind of dream man that the film is trying to present him as.
Reason 3: Unintentionally hilarious lack of diversity
Later in the film (about halfway through, just before I lost patience and switched off) Law (the implausibly wealthy book editor) says to Diaz (the slightly more plausibly wealthy film trailer editor): “We’re from such different worlds“.
That says it all, really.
The world has moved on, but Hollywood hasn’t
Since 2006, my own understanding of diversity issues has improved significantly. Moreover, many industries, communities and sectors are making great efforts, but sadly, not enough is happening in Hollywood.
As the linked article makes clear, The Holiday isn’t an outlier in terms of representation. My film knowledge is far from encyclopaedic, but other examples include:
Maybe I would have enjoyed The Holiday back in 2006, before awareness of feminism and other diversity issues ruined most mainstream popular culture for me. However, I wouldn’t call myself humourless. I simply expect more effort from comedy writers than jokes which punch down at easy targets.
This is important because if we don’t see diversity, we don’t learn that those who don’t conform to the white, slim, conventionally attractive Hollywood model have interesting stories to tell. We get writers writing boring stories about other writers because they’re the only people they know about. We get crass jokes about suicide and pregnancy that hurt people. And, in a world where we generally don’t discuss sex openly and honestly, women don’t learn that it’s okay to seek their own pleasure and fulfilment, and that a decent partner would want to support this.
Worst of all, films like The Holiday get described as “a treat” by reviewers who don’t seem to care about these types of issues. (This excellent blog post describes many more of the film’s problems in a blow-by-blow account.)
I do like some films
In evidence to prove I’m not an utterly joyless sceptic, I’d like to list some films I’ve enjoyed:
None of these films are perfect; I’m not on an impossible search for perfection in the media I consume. But I do look for an effort to get away from the lazy sexist, racist and otherwise offensive tropes and tell a good story.
A lack of diversity in the fundraising profession also causes harm
It leads to the same ideas being recycled over and over again. It leads to a public increasingly feeling alienated by, and willing to criticise, the charity sector. And it means that we miss out on talented people who don’t think they can be fundraisers because they don’t see anyone who looks like them in the profession.
Things aren’t nearly as bad in fundraising as they are in Hollywood, thank goodness. And I’ve been proud to be part of the movement for change. But I hope this post serves to remind you just why representation matters so much. And maybe I’ll find another half-decent film to watch one day.
I wrote in to the Reasons To Be Cheerful podcast following their episode on paternity leave last week, and Ed Miliband read out my email in this week’s episode. He also generously promoted this blog – which was particularly welcome following my decision to leave social media (and thus have fewer easy avenues for promotion).
The podcast is really interesting and makes many similar points to my blog post on the subject. I recommend it!
I gave birth to my daughter a couple of months ago (hence the hiatus in blogging). I received a generous amount of paid maternity leave, well over the statutory minimum, from my employer (a pregnancy charity). My husband also received six weeks of paid paternity leave from his private sector employer, which is extremely generous in the context of UK statutory provision (two weeks’ leave at statutory pay – approx £145 per week – or at 90% of salary, whichever is lower).
Throughout my pregnancy we had both been looking forward to this extended time together. Now we’re out the other end and he’s returned to work, I’m glad to say that we did enjoy this time immensely. I’d also argue that a long paternity leave provides an essential way to support mothers, fathers, and children, but I haven’t seen this discussed at length within our sector.
My birth plan went out of the window pretty quickly due to various complications, and I ended up having an emergency c-section. I was well cared for in the hospital (where I stayed for three days), but a c-section is full-on surgery and recovering women are advised to rest for six weeks, avoiding lifting anything heavier than the baby.
I also lost nearly a litre of blood, so felt very tired and couldn’t move or do much at all. Having my husband around for the full recovery period meant that I had someone to keep the household running and I could focus entirely on my recovery and looking after our daughter.
Why six weeks of paternity leave is good for the mother
These are some of the benefits I gained from my husband’s paternity leave:
What do charities generally offer in terms of paternity leave?
My cursory survey of other charities’ paternity leave policies indicated that two weeks at full pay tends to be the most generous offer (one fundraiser told me about a charity that provides four weeks at 90% pay, but this appeared to be an outlier).
I don’t think this is enough. I think it’s a shame that our sector lags behind the more enlightened parts of the private sector on this issue.
However, charities can currently be market leaders by providing two weeks of fully paid paternity leave, and additional provision would be costly, so why should they do any more?
In my view, it’s a continuation of outdated social norms that have led to an acceptance that fathers should receive so much less. There does seem to be consensus within the charity sector that mothers deserve better than statutory; many charities offer generous maternity leave packages.
Surely charities (or at least those with sufficient resources) should be leading the way in improving benefits for fathers, as we ought to be (but yet are lagging) with the diversity argument?
Why should charities do more for fathers?
There are many compelling reasons, in my view, why charities should have more generous paternity leave provision:
Obviously, many mothers have partners who do not identify as male, or don’t have a partner at all. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t extend these same paternity leave rights to a nominated secondary carer.
Many fathers would love to have more time with their new children, and new mothers would benefit hugely from this vital additional support in the early weeks. I hope that those charities that can afford it will consider going significantly beyond what is normally offered to fathers.
In my last post I explored some of the career barriers experienced by face-to-face fundraisers. I argued that more attention on this group could help the sector overcome some of the difficulties it faces – particularly related to diversity, talent and negative perceptions. This post examines potential solutions, drawing on suggestions from a number of senior fundraisers who began their careers in face-to-face.
Helping face-to-face fundraisers view fundraising as a long-term career option
Many of the senior fundraisers I spoke to recognised that F2F fundraisers are frequently unaware of the opportunities available in charities – let alone the broader challenges and concerns the sector is facing. One reflected that they may not even know about jobs websites, such as Charity Job, that are familiar to the rest of us.
I heard ideas for straightforward solutions including:
Identifying and retaining talented face-to-face fundraisers
The turnover rate of F2F fundraisers is so high that identifying and developing talent is challenging. One individual observed that the demographic of F2F fundraisers is changing: many are school leavers without degrees, and may have been referred by the Job Centre. How can we nurture and retain the most talented?
Addressing the problem of perception
My last blog post explored some of the perception problems that still affect F2F fundraising as a profession – both internally within charities, and in the public eye. Suggestions for improvement included:
Working with agencies
When working with agencies, there was a feeling among those I spoke to that charities tend to keep the agencies at arm’s length. If we, as charities, are benefiting from the income and donors brought in by F2F, we need to own this relationship and the responsibilities that come with it.
Many senior fundraisers working in the sector today developed their F2F skills within these agencies, rather than charities. Closer working with agencies could therefore encourage more movement of talented individuals into charity roles.
There is obviously a tension here, as the agencies will understandably want to keep their best staff. However, closer working with the charity sector would offer more career options outside of F2F and may encourage those who may have otherwise left fundraising to consider progression.
It’s worth adding that more movement of F2F staff into non-F2F charity roles will provide more internal cheerleaders for the discipline, which can only improve the problems of perception among charity staff. This in turn could benefit the agencies by improving working relationships.
Much of the current negative attitude within charities towards F2F appears to be based on the fact that the market is challenging and is delivering a decreasing return on investment.
However, one individual highlighted the lack of innovation in F2F fundraising, which has generally focused on a regular giving request i.e. signing up for a monthly gift. Why not explore other options, such as awareness campaigns or charity lotteries? More creative, dynamic uses of F2F could broaden fundraisers’ skills and reduce the prevalence of some of the unfair and negative attitudes. Who knows? They could even surprise and delight the public.
Exploring the question of whether F2F fundraisers face a “glass ceiling” has opened up many, many more questions and potential routes for investigation. It’s a complex and fascinating area which I hope others will also be interested in investigating .
F2F fundraisers are the public face of our profession and are representing us every single day; we really ought to make sure they feel valued and can themselves be represented throughout the charity sector.
This is the first of two posts investigating issues related to the career progression of face-to-face fundraisers. In this post, I’ll focus on identifying some of the challenges; the second post will explore potential solutions.
I began my career as a face-to-face fundraiser (in a charity in-house team in 2006-07), and it’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done work-wise. At the time I was young, idealistic, and determined to make a career for myself in charities. As I’ve written about before, however, there was no straightforward way for me to develop my fundraising career from this entry point.
I was curious to know whether other fundraisers had similar experiences and whether the situation has improved over the decade since my time as a street fundraiser. As a member of the IoF’s Expert Diversity Panel, I was also keen to explore whether helping street fundraisers to develop could be a way of addressing some of the diversity issues faced by our industry.
I discussed my thoughts with several senior fundraisers who began their careers within face-to-face fundraising (street or door-to-door, working in-house at a charity or for an external agency). There were no straightforward answers to my questions, but these conversations have helped identify some themes that the fundraising community could certainly explore further.
How did other former face-to-face fundraisers develop their careers?
Several of those I spoke to started out working for an agency, and worked their way up within the company. Some made the sideways move to a charity, but others preferred to stay agency side. One found his way into face-to-face after seeking a career change. Following that, he got a “break” into an office-based charity role thanks to an open-minded recruiter who was intrigued by his CV.
My sample is by no means scientific, but it appears that moving up the ladder may often be easier within an agency than at a charity. Otherwise an ambitious face-to-face fundraiser may be relying on meeting the right person at a job interview who is willing to give them the chance.
Face-to-face fundraising undoubtedly develops relevant skills
Everyone I spoke to was a passionate advocate for the skills and potential of their face-to-face colleagues. They agreed that the work on the “coalface” of fundraising develops skills that could kick-start a long-term fundraising career. It doesn’t teach you everything you need to know about fundraising, but it’s a great starting point.
Flow Caritas’ report in 2014 made a similar argument, setting out a strong case for investing in and supporting street fundraisers as the future of our profession. Rory White, Flow Caritas Founder and Director, wrote that [street fundraising] “can no longer be dismissed as an adjunct to the fundraising profession. It’s actually the source of some of the best and brightest young fundraisers in the sector.”
He was acknowledging a need to defend street fundraisers. Why was there a need to defend them in 2014? And is this need still there?
Barriers to progression
Everyone I spoke to agreed that face-to-face fundraisers face barriers to long-term career development within charities. These included:
The fundraisers I spoke to also shared examples of excellent practice in helping face-to-face fundraisers progress in their careers. However, these examples mainly appeared to be due to the admirable work of passionate individuals, and therefore, presumably, if these people move on, their good work may well leave with them. I could not find evidence of systemic charity sector initiatives to help develop face-to-face fundraisers.
Has the situation changed in recent years?
I heard a range of opinions about how attitudes towards face-to-face fundraisers, and the discipline, have changed.
There was a general feeling that face-to-face is more recognised as a career path than it used to be. The increased focus on regulation and compliance in recent years has probably helped, through making it a more professional and accountable channel.
However, many charities appear to be more sceptical about the financial viability of face-to-face. The market has shrunk, with insufficient agencies to meet demand, and ROI has decreased. Agencies operating on tight margins are also less able to invest in staff development or innovation.
I was not able to gain a broad picture of the demographics of face-to-face, but one respondent made an interesting comment. He has observed that face-to-face fundraisers were initially middle-class – often university students or recent graduates (like me) – but this has changed in recent years. Now, the people on the street or knocking on doors are often school leavers, and may have been referred by the job centre. There is undoubtedly talent within this pool of people, but there may be additional challenges involved in helping them stay within fundraising, or the broader charity sector.
Why is this a problem?
“So many ideas that come out of London-based charity offices simply fail – because they exist in a London bubble. The lack of diversity (and diversity of thought) can be overwhelming… If you’re a street fundraiser who knows what will work in Oxford Street, what will work in Skegness, and what will work in Mansfield…you’re far more likely to understand how ‘the person on the street’ thinks, rather than if you’ve only ever relied on consumer insight or creative agencies.”
We already know that there’s a diversity problem in fundraising, and that this affects our ability to do the best job possible. The fundraisers I spoke to generally agreed that more attention on face-to-face fundraisers could help the situation, although it won’t be easy as the issue links to many broader and complex challenges faced by the sector. To me, however, it appears that we’re missing opportunities to do things better.
In my next blog post I will explore potential solutions to these challenges.
I hear it from fundraisers more frequently than I’d like:
“I’m terrible at maths!”
“Maths really isn’t my strong point.”
For some reason, it’s socially acceptable to claim to be bad at maths. However, this is particularly worrying when it comes to fundraising, given that we deal with numbers every day.
Dyscalculia is a real problem for some people; however, if you have ever made the above statements yourself, the more likely scenario is a lack of confidence working with numbers.
Do you hear your colleagues in Finance say things like “oh, I’m terrible with words. I can barely read”? No. (I hope not, anyway.)
It would make it difficult for anyone to take them seriously. Similarly, statements such as “I’m bad at maths” will damage your credibility. And if you have any position of authority within your organisation, those looking to you as a role model will also adopt this attitude.
We can’t ignore the gendered aspect of this problem
When considering the above, it seems to me no coincidence that fundraisers are predominantly female. If they have a degree, based on my observations it usually appears to be in an arts subject as opposed to STEM.
Moreover, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a male fundraiser state that they’re bad at maths.
There’s a potent cocktail at play here, comprising anxiety, lack of confidence, eagerness to please by participating in supposedly harmless banter, and gendered expectations. The good news is that I don’t think this is a difficult problem to overcome.
Fundraisers don’t need to know high-level maths
Luckily, you don’t have to be a maths genius to do well in fundraising. All you need is some basics. Here is a list of some maths skills / maths-related pointers that I think all fundraisers need to know:
This has broader implications
This is not a problem confined to fundraising, or to charities. Others have written about these attitudes have a negative impact on business and, worryingly, how they can affect our children.
After all, our female-dominated, often feminist-identifying workforce would rail against T-shirts like these, wouldn’t it? Let’s not perpetuate these harmful stereotypes through our own actions and attitudes.