For most donors, you really do NOT want to give an accounting of the direct value you’ve provided, and instead want to focus on the indirect/long-term/global values that you’re providing.
You’re afraid that this will lead to perverse incentives, correct? Signaling instead of focusing on real impact?
Inviting them to working sessions, though, is confusing. Either they contribute value in these sessions, and you’d want them there even without the donation, or they detract and you’re wasting your time and their money by having them there.
This looks like one of those cases where ignoring desiderata that are hard to measure leads to a skewed decision. The downsides are salient, the upsides are something fuzzy tribal romantic something. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter is sufficiently motivating for the counterfactual to be no donor rather than an uninvolved donor. Some people want inclusion. I want to include all these excellent people, but resources/logistics don’t allow it. Their donating fixes that problem.
Probably the source of our disagreement is what an organisation is supposed to be. Here’s a helpful distinction: the tribe and the hunting party. The hunting party is lean, maximizing, exclusive and goal-oriented. The tribe is broad, satisficing, inclusive and process-oriented.
It’s easy to find a hunting party, but hard to find a tribe. It strikes me that I’m leveraging this need for a tribe to bolster my hunting party. You may have a point that this is a bad idea. On the other hand, there is evidence that hunting parties with tribal characteristics are more effective. This distinction might not be as useful as our culture might suggest.
So I still think it’s worth a try, though I appreciate your warning, and I’ll keep it it mind.
You’re afraid that this will lead to perverse incentives, correct? Signaling instead of focusing on real impact?
Honestly, I was warning against LOSING the signaling (and self-signaling) value that donors get from their donations. There’s a lot of people who donate to various causes (even yours) based on fairly vague and optimistic beliefs about the actual activities that they’re funding and the relationship between their money and the final outcomes. Disillusioning them by making them more involved in day-to-day operations could well hurt their feelings and your revenue.
ETA: Despite my warnings, I do think that experimenting and trying different types and mixtures of employee/volunteer/customer/vendor/donor/grant-recipient relationships is awesome, and I look forward to hearing how it works.
You’re afraid that this will lead to perverse incentives, correct? Signaling instead of focusing on real impact?
This looks like one of those cases where ignoring desiderata that are hard to measure leads to a skewed decision. The downsides are salient, the upsides are something fuzzy tribal romantic something. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter is sufficiently motivating for the counterfactual to be no donor rather than an uninvolved donor. Some people want inclusion. I want to include all these excellent people, but resources/logistics don’t allow it. Their donating fixes that problem.
Probably the source of our disagreement is what an organisation is supposed to be. Here’s a helpful distinction: the tribe and the hunting party. The hunting party is lean, maximizing, exclusive and goal-oriented. The tribe is broad, satisficing, inclusive and process-oriented.
It’s easy to find a hunting party, but hard to find a tribe. It strikes me that I’m leveraging this need for a tribe to bolster my hunting party. You may have a point that this is a bad idea. On the other hand, there is evidence that hunting parties with tribal characteristics are more effective. This distinction might not be as useful as our culture might suggest.
So I still think it’s worth a try, though I appreciate your warning, and I’ll keep it it mind.
Honestly, I was warning against LOSING the signaling (and self-signaling) value that donors get from their donations. There’s a lot of people who donate to various causes (even yours) based on fairly vague and optimistic beliefs about the actual activities that they’re funding and the relationship between their money and the final outcomes. Disillusioning them by making them more involved in day-to-day operations could well hurt their feelings and your revenue.
ETA: Despite my warnings, I do think that experimenting and trying different types and mixtures of employee/volunteer/customer/vendor/donor/grant-recipient relationships is awesome, and I look forward to hearing how it works.