Ethics: Words Have Weight

The terms and phrases embedded in our professional vocabulary have become second nature. But as we speak the language of philanthropy, how can we best align our words with ethical practice?

“He has deep pockets and short arms.” The room erupted with laughter. But I cringed as the words left his mouth.

The setting was an internal strategy meeting attended by university academic leaders and a few members of our advancement team. The off-hand comment was fleeting but underscored an undercurrent that I sensed only a few months into my role at the institution: Donors were seen as a source of money and little more.

This wasn’t the only warning sign, but it served as a clarion call. From our terminology to our job titles, I soon began seeing these attitudes reflected in the organizational culture.

Terms like “solicitation” put a transactional frame around our sector and its purpose. With rising understanding of donor psychology, wide availability of data trends and algorithms, and an increasing reliance on artificial intelligence, it is becoming seamless to leverage these resources for behavior manipulation.

Now is the time we reckon with the transactional terms and phrases adapted from sales and marketing. We must seek to strengthen the important trust between our organization and those who seek to make a difference.

Our words, terminology, even the job titles commonly used for philanthropic sector professionals often conflict with the ethical and relational culture that organizations strive to promote. Professional titles like physician, accountant, engineer, financial advisor, and lawyer embody things like trust, confidentiality, expertise, and ethics. However, the title “fundraiser” doesn’t fully describe our profession and responsibilities. A title like “major gift officer” may check the boxes for human resources but fails in so many other regards.

Like other leaders in our sector, I recognize that the professional body of knowledge hasn’t kept pace with changing norms. This is further complicated by the fact that the sector lacks a common core of training and credentialing that is typical for the trust-based professions cited above.

The closest we can claim includes approaches by organizations concerned with reinforcing public trust in our profession. The AFP Global Code of Ethical Standards is an enforceable code of ethics that enables fundraising professionals to self-identify and self-regulate professional expectations. There are also well-known credentials such as the CFRE, ACFRE, CAP^®, and certificates such as those offered by The Fund Raising School at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

In addition to AFP, several other associations include acceptance of ethical standards as a condition for membership, such as the Association of Philanthropic Counsel, Association for Healthcare Philanthropy, and The Giving Institute. However, these are also elective—meaning these memberships and associations are not legally required in order for fundraisers to work with donors, access sensitive information, or negotiate gift terms. Even more concerning, these safeguards are not commonly understood by individuals outside the nonprofit sector.

Also, sadly, these credentials, certifications, memberships, and standards are not required by most nonprofit organizations. Even state registration requirements for nonprofits and solicitors are not strictly enforced.

The Power of Language in Shaping Culture

The words and terms we use influence perceptions and actions within organizations and among donors. Consider a common sector term, “resource development.” For some organizations, this is simply the description used for any work undertaken to secure gift, grant, sponsorship, and event revenue.

Words don’t just give voice to one’s mindset and beliefs; they also evoke images of what people hope to create with others and how they expect others to behave.

—James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge, 7th edition

Dig a bit deeper on the connotation of the term, and it’s clear: The emphasis is not on building relationships or aligning outside financial support with mission. The emphasis is quite literally on the organization’s self-interest to develop financial resources.

Many common terms in the sector are fraught with similar challenges. The philanthropic sector has yet to fully grapple with the complexity of donor-centered fundraising or community-centric fundraising. We continue to define and prioritize donors based on their financial value. Even the public has difficulty understanding how a “nonprofit” can justify overhead expenses when their motivation isn’t profit, but the greater good. We’re not doing ourselves—or the sector—any favors.

I’m not advocating for a wholesale abandonment of the terms and phrases we commonly know and understand. I’m challenging us to be more deliberate in how we use language and be mindful of our responsibility to reflect a shift in culture, norms, and the underlying philosophy of connecting philanthropy to achieve social impact.

Each day, I challenge myself to justify terms I use. I’ve already shifted the ways I define modes of giving. For annual or monthly giving, I prefer the term “sustaining.” For larger gifts that make a meaningful short-term impact on mission, I prefer the term “impact giving” over “major giving.” And for gifts that have a long-lasting impact on an organization and the community it serves, I like the term “transformational.”

I am encouraged to see others begin to question the words we use. I’m not alone when I favor “philanthropy” over “fundraising,” or think in terms of the “social sector” or “impact sector” rather than the “nonprofit sector.”

When I tend to talk about “constituents” and “stakeholders” rather than donors and their giving status or strata, others understand my meaning and appreciate the inclusive connotation. But old habits are hard to break. A simple scan of the above paragraphs demonstrates this dilemma.

There are other ways I’ve adjusted my terms and language. I try to avoid words like “prospect,” “suspect,” “solicitation,” “acquisition,” “lead generation,” and “net worth.” These terms are not evil, but for me, they don’t reflect my view of the work. But more importantly, these terms reflect what I believe is an ethical implication of language.

The Ethical Implications of Language

Our language is self-sabotaging public trust and donor retention. This issue is critical as we address the attrition trends our sector is discovering through the Fundraising Effectiveness Project and the annual reports released by GivingUSA.

When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.

—Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning

Language choices can either support or undermine ethical practices and trust. This is a lesson that we learned during the COVID-19 pandemic. As social distances increased, so did our reliance on digital communication. This shift to virtual interactions highlighted the importance of thoughtful, clear, and respectful language.

I don’t know of any seasoned philanthropic professional who would use the terms “suspect” or “solicit” in an external conversation. These terms create barriers and define motives.

Provide guidance on tone, voice, and word choice. Provide options and examples to help team members consider the language they use for describing the philanthropic process.

Organizations can instead use language to showcase their commitment to honesty, empathy, and fostering strong relationships with stakeholders. Building these practices now will go far in reaffirming trust and the importance of a philanthropic relationship that exists beyond a financial motive.

Practical Recommendations

Internal Language Audits

You can develop a regular process to review and refine organizational language. But lead where you are. If you’re embedded within a large organization, try modifying your own language and attitudes. For those in a position to lead up or drive wider change, you have an opportunity and responsibility to act.

Most organizations have clearly stated mission and vision statements. Many of these organizations have also taken the time to go a step further and identify organizational values. These values guide how they interact with their communities, program recipients, donors, partners, sponsors, and internal audiences. These values can help align language with practice.

Start by identifying the common terms and phrases used in describing the philanthropic process, both internally as well as externally. After compiling this list, spend time assessing how these terms and phrases correspond with organizational values. Mark the terms that are problematic or need further reflection. Use this list for discussion among staff, leaders, and key stakeholders. This thoughtful discussion would also be useful for sector leaders to convene in a group forum, like an AFP chapter meeting.

A key element in this step is developing terms and phrases that will replace the ones that don’t align with organizational values.

Development

Setting a course for terms and phrases that differ from the current philanthropic sector norms will require a well-defined rationale, ongoing training, and consistent reinforcement.

Each organization has its unique norms around language and terminology. For example, famed Texas grocery chain H-E-B matches language with how it views employees by calling them “partners.” This simple term, used consistently, helps outsiders know how H-E-B is different. It also helps reinforce a commitment that aligns terminology with treatment. But the most critical piece is ensuring that terminology preferences are embedded in the new employee onboarding process and reaffirmed through ongoing training.

Once you have identified the list of words and phrases that need revision, begin by checking training materials, key organizational knowledge bases, and documents. Develop a plan to transition language and find ways to reinforce the preferred language. This process should be slow and intentional.

Public Communication Strategies

Many organizations have taken time and effort to develop brand standards and guidelines. These standards include the use of logos, colors, fonts, and promotional materials. Some go a step further and develop a brand guide that provides specific references for writing, image use, even audience personas.

You can use a similar approach when developing messaging and resources to guide public communication strategies. Go beyond suggesting a specific writing style guide like APA. Provide guidance on tone, voice, and word choice. Provide options and examples to help team members consider the language they use for describing the philanthropic process.

At the very least, include a statement within the existing brand standards and style guide that specifically advises on the role of philanthropy and the preferred terms used to describe it in a way that reflects the organizational values.

Policies and Procedures

Organizations don’t have to start from scratch. Equipped with your list of terms and an internal language audit, assess policies and procedures related to board onboarding, training, and ongoing expectations. Revise those documents as needed and look to make your leadership development practices reinforce a deliberate culture change.

You may also find success by integrating the Donor Bill of Rights into gift agreements or weaving a code of ethics into policy and procedures, which allow organizations to reaffirm their position and strengthen their resolve when it comes to accountability.

From a personal perspective, having transitioned to full-time consulting, I have standardized all agreements to clearly state that all work will be conducted in concert and compliance with the Donor Bill of Rights and AFP Code of Ethical Standards.

Performance

Job titles should reflect the importance of language, and job descriptions should reflect the work, what is measured, and what is valued. Further, professional development and promotion pathways should underscore the importance of a career dedicated to professional ethics.

Overall, hiring practices should acknowledge the immense value in employing professionals who are members of organizations with an enforceable code of ethics. You can make it a requirement for employees to obtain credentials that depend on ongoing professional education and compliance with ethical practice. You can also ensure that certification and membership are part of the professional development process. Align these expectations with tenure or promotion eligibility. Then, when ethical boundaries are crossed, your organization will have recourse to utilize the enforceable code.

You should also align job responsibilities with individual accountability. Only licensed professional engineers can sign, seal, and deliver engineering plans. There are very specific requirements in place before physician assistants and nurse practitioners are permitted to issue prescriptions. Because of the importance of individual and organizational trust and reputation, it’s logical that entry-level nonprofit professionals also have similar thresholds they must cross before they are empowered to independently negotiate a donor gift or sign gift agreements.

Take this further by writing job descriptions and performance measures that go beyond visits, proposals, and solicitations. Instead, value donor engagement, measure donor retention, and celebrate more than revenue development.

Moving from Transactional to Transformational

Trust plays such an important role in setting the stage for transformation over transactions. When stakeholders trust, they are more likely to be open about their personal passions. Language is what helps build and maintain trust.

Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.

—David H. Maister, Charles H. Green, and Robert M. Galford, The Trusted Advisor (20th anniversary edition)

By focusing on building meaningful relationships with stakeholders through language, you are in a better position to understand donor passions and align them with organizational mission. Using this approach can transform the donor experience from a financial transaction to an impactful partnership. I call this process “strategic stewardship.” It begins with a firm organizational understanding of the mission, what’s needed to make a difference (financial and otherwise), and the outcome achieved by meeting those organizational needs.

The work of strategic stewardship requires understanding how to engage the heart, head, and hands of a donor in a meaningful way. These elements are unlocked by working to understand a donor’s passion or interests, then helping identify ways to help them make an impact. This is achieved through gifts of time, talent, and treasure, which vary in type, size, and frequency.

Development consultant Kay Sprinkel Grace calls the ongoing exchange the “infinite loop.”

I encourage you to be deliberate about your language choices and aim to foster a more ethical and trustworthy philanthropic environment.

I encourage you to be deliberate about your language choices and aim to foster a more ethical and trustworthy philanthropic environment. Your effort will encourage others to do the same.

Your words have weight. Take time to calibrate your words to demonstrate ethical practice.