So, Your Board Hates Your Development Director…

Nonprofit development directors have an average tenure of just 16 to 18 months. Replacing one can cost an organization well into six figures once you account for recruiting, onboarding, lost productivity, and the disruption to donor relationships.

We know these numbers. We talk about them often.

What we don't talk about nearly enough is why this keeps happening.

Too often, we attribute turnover to poor performance, unrealistic fundraising goals, a lack of qualified candidates, or burnout. Certainly, each of these plays a role from time to time. But when nearly every organization seems to be cycling through Development Directors every year or two, it stops looking like an individual problem and starts looking like a systemic one.

I believe we've been asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking, "Why can't we keep a development director?" perhaps we should be asking, "What conditions are we creating that make it difficult for development directors to succeed?"

After nearly fourteen years working in nonprofit fundraising, I've come to believe that one of the greatest barriers to fundraising success isn't a lack of donors, a weak economy, or even limited organizational resources.

One of the greatest barriers to fundraising is the relationship between the board of directors and the development director.

That relationship is one of the most important partnerships within any nonprofit organization. When it's healthy, fundraising becomes strategic, collaborative, and sustainable. When it isn't, organizations find themselves trapped in an expensive and exhausting cycle: hire a development director, pin the organization's fundraising hopes on them, grow frustrated when results don't materialize quickly enough, replace them, and repeat.

Meanwhile, donor relationships are interrupted. Institutional knowledge walks out the door. Staff morale suffers. Board members become increasingly skeptical of fundraising, and the next development director inherits an even more difficult situation than the last. Basically, everyone loses.

The unfortunate irony here is that this conflict is rarely a result of bad intentions.

Most board members genuinely want the organization to thrive. They care deeply about the mission, volunteer countless hours in board and committee meetings, and take their fiduciary responsibility seriously.

Likewise, most development directors are deeply committed to the organizations they serve. They want to build meaningful relationships with donors, strengthen fundraising systems, and help their organizations grow for the long-term.

Both groups want the same outcome. So, why do they so often end up working against one another instead of together?

Because they frequently misunderstand each other's role.

Boards hire Development Directors expecting them to "fix fundraising." Development directors arrive expecting the board to embrace fundraising as a shared leadership responsibility. Both expectations are understandable (even if the former is a bit unreasonable).

Neither, on its own, is enough.

Until we fundamentally rethink the relationship between nonprofit boards and development directors, I don't believe our sector's fundraising challenges, or our turnover rates, will improve in any meaningful way.

The good news is that I don't think this relationship is broken beyond repair. In fact, I think the solution is surprisingly straightforward.

But first, we need to understand how we got here.

Development Directors Are Hired for Their Expertise, Then Asked to Defend It

When a nonprofit hires a finance executive, most board members don't spend the next year explaining how they think the accounting system should work.

When they hire an attorney, they generally don't second-guess legal strategy because they've watched a few courtroom dramas or once signed a contract.

When they hire a human resources professional, they don't typically offer opinions on employment law because they've managed people before.

They hired an expert to do a job, and they trust that person's expertise.

Fundraising is different.

Almost everyone has donated to a nonprofit. Most people have attended a gala, responded to a direct mail appeal, or made an online gift. Because giving is familiar, fundraising feels familiar. And because fundraising feels familiar, many people assume they understand how it works.

That assumption creates a dynamic that few other nonprofit executives experience.

Board members who would never tell the CFO how to structure a budget often feel more than comfortable telling the development director how to cultivate a donor. Executives who trust their communications team to manage the organization's brand may question a fundraising strategy after attending a single fundraising event or reading an article about major gifts.

None of this usually comes from ego or bad intentions. It comes from something much more understandable.

We've all experienced philanthropy from the donor's perspective. Far fewer people have experienced what it takes to build a sustainable fundraising program that consistently generates revenue year after year across individual giving, major gifts, foundations, corporations, planned giving, stewardship, communications, prospect research, and volunteer engagement.

Those are two very different experiences.

And when organizations fail to recognize that distinction, trust begins to erode before the development director has even had the opportunity to demonstrate what they're capable of.

And sometimes, if we're being frank, it really does start to feel like the board hates the development director. Not personally, necessarily, but the development director is often the person delivering news the board doesn't want to hear: that fundraising takes time, that the organization needs to invest more money in development, that board members need to participate, that a pet fundraising idea probably isn't going to work, or that the revenue goal isn't realistic. The development director becomes the person constantly saying, "Yes, but..." in a room full of people who desperately want fundraising to be easier than it is. Over time, that can turn healthy scrutiny into frustration, and frustration into distrust.

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS ARE The Only ExecutiveS Held Accountable for Results They Don't Directly Control

Fundraising is unlike any other function within a nonprofit organization.

Every executive relies on collaboration to some degree, of course. The CFO needs department heads to manage their budgets. The Communications Director depends on program staff to share stories. The CEO relies on the leadership team to execute the organization's strategic plan.

But development directors operate under a fundamentally different set of conditions, because the success of a fundraising program depends on nearly every corner of the organization.

It depends on the CEO building authentic relationships with major donors and articulating a compelling vision for the organization's future. It depends on board members opening doors, making introductions, participating in cultivation efforts, thanking donors, and making philanthropy a visible leadership priority. It depends on program staff delivering measurable outcomes and compelling stories of impact. It depends on the communications team telling those stories effectively and consistently. It depends on the finance team producing accurate financial reports and demonstrating sound stewardship of donor investments. It depends on operations creating systems that allow donors to have a positive experience every time they interact with the organization.

And, of course, it depends on donors choosing to give.

A development director influences all of these things, but they directly control very few of them.

Think about that for a moment.

Imagine asking a finance executive to balance the budget without the authority to influence spending decisions.

Imagine asking a marketing director to increase brand awareness without any influence over the organization's messaging.

Imagine asking an HR director to improve employee retention while having no say in hiring practices, compensation, workplace culture, or professional development.

We would immediately recognize those expectations as unreasonable.

Yet this is exactly how most nonprofits structure fundraising.

We ask development directors to produce revenue that depends on dozens of people making dozens of decisions every single day, many of whom they do not supervise and cannot direct. Then, when fundraising falls short of expectations, we often ask one person to explain why.

This isn't just unfair, it's ineffective.

It places responsibility on the individual while ignoring the system that produced the outcome.

The most successful development directors I've worked with all share one characteristic: they understand that fundraising is not something they do for an organization. It's something they help an organization learn to do together.

They're less like salespeople and more like conductors. A conductor doesn't play every instrument in the orchestra. They create alignment. They establish rhythm. They help talented people perform at their best in service of something larger than themselves.

A development director's role is remarkably similar. They develop strategy. They coordinate efforts. They coach board members. They partner with the CEO. They help program staff understand what donors care about. They build systems for stewardship and accountability. They create opportunities for philanthropy to flourish.

But they cannot perform every part alone.

When organizations expect them to, failure becomes almost inevitable.

And that's where I believe many boards unintentionally make their biggest mistake…

They hire a development director believing they have hired someone to do fundraising. In reality, they have hired someone to lead fundraising.

Those are two very different mandates

Fundraising Is Not a Department, It's a Leadership Function.

One of the biggest misconceptions in the nonprofit sector is that hiring a development director transfers ownership of fundraising from the CEO and the board to the development department.

It doesn't. It transfers leadership of the fundraising strategy.

Ownership should never leave the executive office or the board room.

That distinction matters because it fundamentally changes how organizations think about fundraising.

Too often, boards celebrate hiring a development director as though they've finally "checked the fundraising box." They assume they've brought in the expert, and now fundraising can become someone else's responsibility. They expect regular reports, revenue projections, and new donors, while their own role gradually shifts from active participant (well, if they ever were) to passive observer.

But that isn't how fundraising works.

At its core, fundraising is about relationships. And relationships cannot be delegated.

A board member's relationship with a longtime supporter cannot be handed to a development director simply because they're now on staff. A CEO's credibility with a major donor cannot be outsourced. A program director's passion for the mission cannot be replicated by someone who wasn't there to witness the work firsthand.

The development director can help cultivate those relationships. They can develop strategies, prepare talking points, coordinate meetings, provide coaching, identify opportunities, and ensure thoughtful stewardship.

But they cannot become every donor’s main point of contact. Nor should they.

The organizations that consistently outperform their peers in fundraising don't do so because they hired a superstar development director. They do so because fundraising has become part of the organization's culture.

The board understands that philanthropy is one of its core governance responsibilities. The CEO recognizes that fundraising is one of the most important parts of their job. Program staff understand that the stories they share help donors connect with the mission. Communications staff recognize that every newsletter, annual report, and social media post contributes to donor confidence. Finance demonstrates stewardship through transparency and accountability.

Everyone understands that fundraising belongs to all of them. The development director helps strategically bring those efforts together.

I've often heard board members say, "I'm not comfortable asking people for money."

I understand that. And in fact, I think it's one of the greatest myths in nonprofit governance that every board member needs to become an expert solicitor.

They don't.

Some board members are exceptional at opening doors. Others are gifted storytellers. Some build deep relationships over time. Others excel at thanking donors, hosting gatherings, introducing prospective supporters to the mission, or providing professional expertise that strengthens organizational credibility.

Every board member has a role to play. The role just isn't identical for every board member.

One of the greatest mistakes organizations make is reducing board fundraising to a single question:

"Who is willing to ask for money?"

However, a much better question is:

"How can each board member meaningfully contribute to building a culture of philanthropy?"

Those are entirely different conversations.

One produces anxiety, while the other produces ownership.

And when boards begin to see fundraising as leadership rather than solicitation, something remarkable happens. Development directors stop carrying the weight of the entire organization's revenue on their shoulders. Instead, they become what they were actually hired to be: a strategic leader helping the entire organization build meaningful relationships that inspire generosity.

Fundraising Doesn't Operate on 18-Month Timelines

Even if a development director is highly skilled and fully supported by their board and CEO, fundraising still takes time.

Major gifts often require one to three years of thoughtful cultivation before a donor is ready to make a transformational investment. Foundation relationships are built over multiple conversations, multiple grant cycles, and often multiple years. Individual giving programs don't become sustainable overnight. Donors rarely begin by making four- or five-figure gifts. They start with a small contribution, engage more deeply with the organization, and gradually increase both their investment and their trust.

Relationships are the product, and revenue is the outcome.

Yet many organizations unintentionally evaluate fundraising as though the opposite were true.

Boards want to see results quickly, particularly when budgets are tight or financial pressures are mounting. That's understandable. They have a responsibility to ensure the organization's financial health.

But when fundraising success is measured in quarterly snapshots rather than long-term relationship growth, development directors often find themselves chasing immediate revenue instead of building sustainable philanthropy.

The irony is that organizations frequently drive out their development directors just as the relationships they've spent the last year cultivating are beginning to mature. The next person inherits the pipeline, starts over with donor relationships, and the cycle repeats itself.

No one would plant an orchard and expect fruit six months later. But that's usually how we evaluate fundraising.

So, How Do We Fix It?

This one is tough. There isn't a single solution, but I believe there are three fundamental shifts every nonprofit should make.

First, boards need to stop viewing fundraising as the responsibility of the development department and start viewing it as a leadership responsibility shared across the entire organization. Hiring a development director doesn't eliminate the board's role in philanthropy. It makes that role even more important.

Second, organizations need to give development directors the authority, resources, and time necessary to succeed. Fundraising strategies should be measured over years, not months. Success shouldn't be judged solely by dollars raised today, but by the strength of the relationships and systems being built for tomorrow.

Finally, both boards and development directors need to invest in the relationship itself. Development Directors shouldn't assume boards understand fundraising simply because they serve on a nonprofit board. Likewise, boards shouldn't assume Development Directors can succeed without their active partnership. Trust, like donor relationships, is built through communication, shared expectations, and mutual respect.

When those things are present, fundraising changes.

It becomes less reactive and more strategic. Less transactional and more relational. Less about one person's performance and more about an organization's collective commitment to its mission.

Development directors stop feeling like they're carrying the entire weight of the organization's revenue on their shoulders. Boards stop wondering why fundraising isn't working. And donors experience what they've wanted all along: a mission-driven organization united around a common purpose.

Perhaps the nonprofit sector doesn't have a development director retention problem after all. Perhaps what we really have is a leadership problem.

The encouraging news is that leadership problems can be solved. But only if we're willing to stop asking how to find better development directors and start asking how to become better partners to the ones we already have.

The Question Every NONPROFIT Board Should Ask

The next time your organization starts wondering whether it's time to replace the development director, pause before posting the job description.

Ask a different question.

Has the board embraced fundraising as one of its core responsibilities? Has the CEO made donor relationships a leadership priority? Has the organization invested in the systems, staffing, and culture necessary to support philanthropy? Have expectations been realistic, and has success been measured over an appropriate timeline?

Or have we expected one person to solve an organizational challenge?

Sometimes a change in leadership is the right decision. There are development directors who aren't the right fit, just as there are CEOs, board members, and staff who aren't the right fit. But if your organization has cycled through multiple development directors over the past decade, it's worth asking whether the problem is really the individuals you've hired, or whether the system they're entering was never designed to help them succeed.

The organizations that raise the most money aren't necessarily the ones with the most charismatic development directors. They're the ones where the board, CEO, staff, and development director all understand that fundraising is not someone's job.

Development is everyone's responsibility.