# Different interpretations of stewardship cause "culture clashes" in charities

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/07/03/different-interpretations-stewardship-cause-quotculture-clashesquot-charities/
- Published: 2009-07-03T19:59:07+01:00
- Author: Howard Lake

![](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/files/images/news/Relationshipmarketing_1246651506.
gif)

Delegates at the Institute of Fundraising’s National Convention today heard that
different concepts of stewardship of donors are generating “culture clashes” between
different types of fundraisers.

This development was presented jointly by Gordon Michie, director of development
at telephone fundraising agency Relationship Marketing, and author of a white paper
in 2007 and survey in 2008 on stewardship, and Sarah Wheeler, development and individual
giving manager at Cystic Fibrosis Trust.

In the “All things to all men: different types of fundraising stewardship” session,
Wheeler argued that stewardship is “all things to all men and therefore nothing 
to any of them”.

## Advertisement

 [⌊Posthub advert. You create the campaign. We'll handle the postal journey. Get started at post-hub.co.uk.⌉](https://fundraising.co.uk/ads/posthub-20261007-300x250/)

She outlined three types of culture clash:

• A clash of stewardship ideologies

• A clash of stewardship definition

• A clash between fundraisers and other charity staff over the need for stewardship
in the first place.

She gave an example of a clash of ‘ideology’ between herself as a proactive steward(
a major fundraiser) and a passive steward (a donor service manager).

A donor had given £200 and asked that this should be restricted to a specific element
of a project. She believed that this would not be a cost effective use of the donation
given the staff time it would take up to meet the necessary reporting back.

Wheeler said: “I spoke to the donor services manager, who was processing the donation,
and asked him if he would go back to the donor and ask her to consider making the
gift less tightly restricted – explaining how this would ensure her gift would go
further.

“If at the end of the conversation she still wanted her gift to be restricted we
would do so.

“He refused to even have the conversation with the donor. In his view the donor 
had already expressed their wishes that the gift be restricted and we should respect
those wishes.

“We had a clash because we were both applying the principles of ‘stewardship’ but
at different levels. He passive, mine proactive.

“Passive stewardship had made things less flexible and ironically removed the opportunity
to build a deeper level of understanding with a supporter.”

Michie said that he wasn’t surprised that this kind of clash occurs “if fundraisers
persist in referring to different degrees of relationships with their donors by 
the same name”.

He agreed with Wheeler that discussing stewardship with other fundraisers is like“
trying to compare apples and pears but not even realising there are pears in the
fruit basket”.

The Relationship Marketing Stewardship Survey report can be downloaded from

www.relationshipmarketing.org.uk

 * **[Thanks… for nothing?](https://fundraising.co.uk/2009/08/05/thanksfor-nothing/)**(
   5 August 2009)
 * **[What happens if we treat supporters like customers?](https://fundraising.co.uk/2010/06/28/what-happens-if-we-treat-supporters-customers/)**(
   28 June 2010)
 * **[To thank or not to thank Felicity Donor…](https://fundraising.co.uk/2010/07/28/thank-or-not-thank-felicity-donor/)**(
   28 July 2010)