Crossing the Atlantic for British Quid: a Major Challenge for Fund-Raising Pros

A senior fund-raising position is currently vacant at a leading British university. The university no doubt wishes to attract the best applicants available, yet it instructed a British recruitment agency not to look in the United States. American candidates were not welcome.

Henry Drucker, managing director of the British-based executive-search company Oxford Philanthropic, which advertises in the United States, says, “There’s a lot of resistance to American candidates.” His view is supported by other “headhunters.” It seems that many British universities have had bad experiences with American candidates. Despite strong written applications and impressive track records, the moment American candidates cross the Atlantic Ocean, they allegedly prove to be ill prepared and out of touch at interviews.

Those circumstances are so common that, to avoid wasting everyone’s time, Mr. Drucker telephones applicants and conducts lengthy interviews in the early stages of the search. “I ask them if they have a passport, and if they haven’t got one — and most of them don’t — they’re not serious candidates,” he says.

This is an extraordinary state of affairs. After all, there is so much to be gained by American candidates, who can make a real difference to British charities and, at the same time, enjoy an experience of our British life. And British charities have so much to gain from experienced American fund raisers by exploiting their talent, knowledge, and creativity within a crowded and competitive market place.

But to succeed in the United Kingdom, aspiring American fund raisers must think very carefully about what they are getting into. Any idea of watching the film Four Weddings and a Funeral endlessly — or learning the rules of cricket on the plane over the Atlantic — is not going to be enough.

Perhaps the most significant lesson to be learned is the influence that the “culture of giving” in the United States has, especially when compared with the British attitude toward philanthropy. In the United States, any citizen who itemizes his or her tax return can get a tax break for making a charitable donation of any size and at any time. That’s a great incentive to give.

In the United Kingdom, tax breaks are only available to higher-rate taxpayers who give more than about $400 at one time, or to those who make a legally binding commitment to a charity for at least four years. That situation is changing, however. The government announced as part of its most recent budget plan that beginning next year, all single donations of about $160 or more would qualify for tax breaks.

British history and tradition, however, also conspire against a culture of giving. Although during the Victorian period of the late 19th century some wealthy industrialists chose to pursue a program of “socially responsible giving,” the British generally adopt an attitude that the government, not the community or charity, should provide specific services for society. People who are poor, homeless, or ill, most Brits believe, should receive support from the state. The same applies for educational, arts, and social institutions.

It is therefore hardly surprising that the British need to be persuaded to give in the first place, let alone responsibly or generously. Yes, they might put a few dollars in a collection tin held up by some do-gooder outside a shopping mall, but they have a long way to go before agreeing to a meaningful monthly donation or making provision for a favorite charity in their wills. As a result, the solicitation process can be quite a tortuous one.

It’s not all bleak, though. American-born Elizabeth Duggal, development executive at the British Museum, notes: “The map of giving is changing. The National Lottery here has made a big impact, and the government is being more supportive.” Part of the proceeds of the lottery benefit charity.

What’s more, “cause-related marketing” and other partnerships with businesses are now familiar to, if not already being used by, many of the top 50 charities, and several British charities are considering using direct-response television as a result of the introduction here of digital TV. And the spread of wealth across the middle classes has also created a fertile ground for fund raisers.

Although the parochial attitude of some British non-profit employers clearly is going to limit the number of opportunities available to American fund raisers, William Conner, an American who was appointed director of institutional advancement at the London Business School in March 1997, believes that American fund raisers should seriously consider relocating to Britain.

“This is a land of opportunity,” he says. “You can make a real difference here and do things which are distinguishable. There’s so much to be achieved here.”

Mr. Conner’s bold view is based on the fact that he applies American standards to everything that he does at the London Business School. He sees an enormous challenge to raise the expectations of his (British) volunteer leadership and bring them up to the level expected in the United States.

Not that this is an easy task. American fund raisers who are seriously considering applying for a position in the United Kingdom, or even developing a career here, need to think very carefully about the culture clash.

This can apply even to native British fund raisers who have spent time fund raising in the United States. Fiona Hodgson returned to London after living in Boston for 20 years. She is now the director of development at the London School of Economics, her alma mater. “Having grown up in Britain, I assumed I would naturally understand the culture of giving here,” she says. “It has taken a while to readjust and remember how reticent Brits can be about discussing money. But I do think this is a significant moment in British philanthropy, because fund raising is here to stay and will become more vital to non-profits. It will just take a little while for the culture to catch up.”

The most important thing for American fund raisers to do is “to learn to listen,” says Mr. Drucker, the executive recruiter. “They mustn’t assume they know everything.”

Accounting for the British character is also vital. Margaret Abbott, a former executive director of the Coca-Cola Foundation, in Atlanta, has lived in the United Kingdom for over 10 years. “The British can be very shy and awkward, which can make them appear arrogant and aloof,” says Ms. Abbott. “As a result, it takes much longer to form relationships.”

Lisa Michalski of the American Women’s Club in London, which raises money for Ronald McDonald Homes, says that fund raising here couldn’t be more different from American fund raising. “In the U.S., we are very direct about how much money we want,” she says. “No one is put off by stating the size of donation you require. You just go right to it.

“But in London, it has to be a softer, gradual approach. Lots of chitchat. And even then, Brits don’t always give a direct response when asked for money. Often they say they want to think about it or they just disappear. It can be really frustrating.”

Not that this has necessarily been a problem for Ms. Duggal of the British Museum. “My strength is that I’m an American, and I can get away with more,” she says. “I can afford to be more direct.”

That is no flippant comment. Ms. Duggal has developed a close relationship with the museum’s key board members, and between them and the fund-raising team, more than $160-million has been raised for the museum’s “Great Court” redevelopment.

And despite some hiring hesitancy on the part of British charities, and cultural frustrations on the part of American fund raisers, many opportunities exist. There are over 184,000 charities in the United kingdom, and certainly the top 500 are fast becoming more businesslike, commercial, and adventurous.

As a result, those charities will seek to recruit experienced, talented, creative, and energetic executives. They will want the best. And some of the best can be found just across the pond.

Paul J. Summerfield is the deputy director of development at the London School of Economics.