Am I?
I am always baffled when successful founders tell me that fundraising is the main job of a social sector founder/CEO. It is definitely part of the job, but the main one, seriously?
When asked to elaborate in public, I get a polished response: "Founders are the custodians of the vision, and their job is to ensure the team has the resources they need." But in private? Many freely admit they'd rather be designing and delivering programs - if only fundraising weren't a survival necessity. And if the conversation happens over a couple of drinks? Let's just say they have colourful opinions about the very funders they depend on.
As someone yet to crack institutional funding, I have nothing to add. Kevin Starr is far better positioned to lead the charge on funder reform.
But here is what I do believe: focusing on fundraising makes sense after an organization has a solid program, proven impact, and a growing team. Not at the start. When I founded CoolCoach, I imagined myself as the Chief Program Officer. In my view, program design and delivery should be the priority - because without proven impact, what exactly are we raising funds for?
Naval Ravikant, successful silicon valley founder/investor who has achieved sage like status, often says that founders need to master two things: how to sell, and how to build. When asked which skill to prioritise, he recommends learning to build first. Because getting good at building takes deep focus, and selling can be picked up later. Even Bill Gates once said he'd rather teach an engineer marketing than a marketer engineering. When asked to pick one, Naval picks building. His rationale is pretty simple: there are way too many hustlers and salespeople out there with nothing to back them, and a builder will stand out.
If we translate this to the social sector1 : founders should learn to design programs and learn to fundraise. Following Naval's logic, we should master program design before fundraising. And if we had to pick one? we should prioritise program design. Getting the model right is critical before spending inordinate amounts of time fundraising to scale. In fact, I would argue that mastering program design in the social sector takes longer - because impact takes longer to materialize, and iteration cycles are slower.
Naval also believes that someone skilled in both building and selling will be unstoppable. In Silicon Valley, this often means a founding team with a product whiz and a sales superstar. Over the last two decades, I have met countless social sector founders and founding teams worldwide. I am yet to come across a team that fits Naval's mould.
In my experience, founders are always the ones who deeply understand the social problem they are solving and the solution they are building. But the moment they shift their focus to fundraising, program design suffers. Large teams with stunning resumes get hired, execution improves, yet the impact created rarely measures up.
If we truly want to build impactful solutions to massive social problems, perhaps the answer is not just becoming better fundraisers - but first becoming better builders.
1Naval is not a big fan of non-profits. At least that is what I remember hearing him say on some podcast. I hope he does not take offense to my paraphrasing.
*FRA, short for Frequently Received Advice, is a series of posts on the well-intentioned but often unhelpful advice I have received as I build CoolCoach. In most situations, I wanted to respond, and respond strongly at that, but I always chose to hold my tongue. Partly because I knew it was my frustration coming out, but mostly because I had no indication it would be received or understood. With these posts, I hope to share my perspective.