Negotiation Skills for Nonprofits

"I thought we would have seen results by now." Those seven words can either damage a client relationship... Or build trust. A few weeks into a new client engagement, that's exactly what I heard. The challenge? The results they were expecting were tied to work that wasn't part of our original engagement. My first instinct was to explain everything we'd already accomplished. Instead, I chose to do something different. I listened. I asked questions. And then we had an honest conversation not about scope, but about expectations. We walked through what we were engaged to deliver, why those priorities came first, and what it would take to address the additional work they wanted. By the end of the conversation, we weren't talking about scope anymore. We were talking about priorities, partnership, and outcomes. That conversation reinforced something I've learned by leading Fresh FP&A: Trust isn't built when everything goes according to plan. It's built in the uncomfortable conversations when expectations and reality don't align. As CFOs, we're trained to solve problems. As CEOs, we have to do something even harder: We have to lead through uncertainty, align expectations, and earn trust along the way. Three leadership lessons I'll continue to carry with me: 1️⃣ Listen before you defend. 2️⃣ Clarify before you commit. 3️⃣ Align before you execute. The hard conversations are rarely the ones that weaken relationships. Handled the right way, they're often the ones that strengthen them. ❓How have you turned a difficult client conversation into a stronger partnership?

➝ Why everything you learned about negotiation is actually working against you?  A recent interview with negotiation expert Chris Voss revealed that mastering difficult conversations requires tactical empathy rather than force or manipulation. Yet, many professionals still rely on vague threats or artificial urgency instead of proven negotiation methods. Let's fix that. Use these 5 evidence-based techniques to succeed in hard conversations: 1. Tactical Empathy • Demonstrate understanding without necessarily agreeing. • Focus on deactivating negatives rather than reinforcing positives. • Use a calm, low tone (the "late night FM DJ voice") to defuse tension. • Example: "I understand why you need a higher margin on this deal. Let me explain our constraints." 2. Mirroring • Repeat the last 1-3 words someone said to encourage elaboration. • More effective than asking "What do you mean?" • Helps people recover their train of thought when interrupted. • Example: They say, "This timeline won't work." You respond, "Won't work?" 3. Proactive Listening • Identify and label emotions before they escalate. • Neutralize negative emotions with phrases like "It sounds like this is bothering you." • Anticipate predictable reactions and address them directly. • Example: "This pricing might seem aggressive at first glance. Let me walk you through our reasoning." 4. Hypothesis Testing • Articulate what you think the other person wants. • This encourages correction and provides more information. • Accelerates conversations by revealing true interests. • Example: "It seems like delivery timeline matters more to you than price. Am I understanding correctly?" 5. Red Flag Recognition • Be cautious of artificial urgency or early "win-win" proposals. • Note that vague threats suggest bluffing. • Trust intuitive feelings about dishonesty – they're often accurate. • Example: When they say "We need an answer by end of day," respond with "What specifically happens tomorrow that creates this deadline?" Great negotiations don't happen by chance. They happen by design. Which of these techniques do you already use? What's one negotiation mistake you've learned from? Let's discuss. "The secret to successful negotiations isn't getting what you want. It's diagnosing quickly if there's a deal to be made at all." – Chris Voss ♻️ Repost to empower your network and follow me Amer Nizamuddin for more insights.

The most powerful move in a difficult conversation may be to stop trying to win. A terrorist had demanded $10 million for four months. The negotiators argued, reasoned and pushed back. Nothing worked. Then one negotiator changed his approach. He reflected every grievance back to him. He demonstrated that he had heard the anger, injustice and pain underneath the demand. Then he went silent. After nearly a minute, the terrorist replied: “That’s right.” The $10 million demand was never raised again. Because the money was not the real need. The real need was to feel heard. This happens in workplaces every day. People demand more resources, reject a proposal, challenge a decision or push back on change. We respond to the words on the surface without exploring what is driving them. Before your next high-stakes conversation, ask yourself: What does this person really need? And when someone makes a difficult request, try: “Help me understand what makes you ask.” You are not avoiding the question. You are finding the real one.

Your donor meetings are backwards. You prepare the presentation. Practice the pitch. Perfect the ask amount. Then wonder why it feels transactional. Here's how the best major gift officers flip it: 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀 → What originally sparked your interest in [cause]? → What does success look like to you? → What concerns keep you up at night? → Who else should know about this? → What would make this gift meaningful? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 "We're struggling with X. Based on your experience, what would you do?" 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 Not just what donors say. How they say it. What makes them lean in. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄-𝘂𝗽 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 "I want to think about our conversation. Can we meet again in two weeks?" 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 The conversation is about connection. The folder is homework. The counterintuitive truth: The less you pitch, the more you raise. One MGO changed her approach: Started treating donors like consultants, not prospects. Her close rate went from 30% to 75%. Average gift size doubled. Because donors don't want to be sold. They want to be heard. Your next meeting agenda should be 80% questions, 20% answers. What questions do you wish you'd asked?

Your First Visit With A Prospective Donor: What Can Go Right and What Can Go Wrong If a prospective donor agrees to meet you, it's a remarkably positive sign. It means they are wiling to consider supporting your organization. That's increasingly difficult to do these days, especially with those who have no apparent history with your organization. Unless you have misled them or been unclear as to who you are and how you work. If you have, you have to continue in that role. That's why those who befriend donors find it so difficult to turn the conversation toward support. If you've played it straight, the first meeting should be about finding out why they took the meeting. Chances are there is some history with your organization or some affinity with its mission or those it seeks to support. You can do that by establishing yourself as a philanthropic facilitator not a transactional fundraiser. In your own words you make clear: I'm here to hear what's important to you. I'm listening for a match between your interests and our service aspirations. If I can, I'll follow up with some ideas to suggest what that potential match could look like. If an idea resonates with you, I will offer you ways of learning more about the project and the people who will bring it to life or do my best to respond to yours. I'll preview my purpose before each visit and ask permission to take the next step. If you propose something we can't do or isn't strategic for us, I will let you know. I don't want to take your money then disappoint you. If you lose interest, please let me know why and what I can learn from it. If you're enjoying the process and becoming more enthusiastic about the idea, I will ask permission to put a draft proposal in front of you and we'll enter into a negotiation that will produce an agreement satisfactory to both. Written agreements show we seek a partnership not just a gift. The agreement will specify: The use of funds The projected impact The timeline for implementation The means of monitoring progress How we will keep you informed Your ongoing role with our organization What can go wrong? You go into pitch mode You overstate what your organization has done or can do You don't demonstrate respect and interest by your failure to listen You fail to hear what is being said because you listening for what you hope to hear You don't have a process like the one outlined above so you just wing it The prospect wonders or worries, "What's going on here." You cause the prospect to conclude, "I wouldn't enjoy working with this person." The prospect begins to think less of the organization because of the way you conduct yourself You raise the hopes of the prospect hoping to go back to the organization to see if it can back up what you made up You realize you are representing an organization that wants money but can't demonstrate how it will produce impact and isn't really interested in building community

Many donor conversations focus on what we want from them. These 5 questions focus on what matters to them: 1. "What first connected you to our mission?" (Reveals their personal story and values alignment) 2. "Of everything we do, what resonates most with you?" (Identifies which aspects of your work they value most) 3. "What impact would you most like to see your support create?" (Uncovers their vision and aspirations) 4. "How would you prefer to stay connected with our work?" (Respects their communication preferences) 5. "Who else in your life might find meaning in this work?" (Opens doors to their network naturally) The magic happens in the follow-up: "Tell me more about that..." Then, you can mirror: "It sounds like you're saying that..." These questions transform transactional interactions into relationship-building conversations. They signal that you value the person, not just their wallet. I've seen these questions uncover major gift opportunities, reveal passionate volunteers, identify board prospects, and most importantly—build authentic relationships that last. What's your go-to question when speaking with donors?

Navigating difficult conversations…we know the terrain well in supply chain and sustainability —complex stakeholder relationships, competing priorities, and tough tradeoffs that demand honest dialogue. The first quarter of 2025 has been challenging for some clients and colleagues. Behind every successful initiative lies countless challenging conversations.I wanted to share this list that captures what I've learned (often the hard way) about handling challenging discussions: 1. Lead with empathy - acknowledge feelings before diving into issues 2. Stay calm - pause and breathe when tensions rise. Cooler heads prevail. 3. Prepare but remain flexible - rigid scripts rarely survive contact with reality 4. Ask genuine questions - "help me understand your perspective" 5. Give authentic appreciation - recognize effort before suggesting changes 6. Own your emotions - acknowledge feelings without manipulation 7. Respect others' viewpoints - validation doesn't require agreement. You can disagree and still find a happy path. 8. Be specific - vague criticisms like "you always" rarely help 9. Collaborate on solutions - problem-dumping without brainstorming fixes nothing 10. Set clear boundaries - know what you can and cannot commit to 11. Listen actively - not just waiting for your turn to speak. Read this again… 12. Apologize sincerely when needed - take responsibility, not half-measures. Accountability helps build trust. 13. End with concrete next steps - clarity prevents misunderstandings. Playing back throughout tough conversations with key points and actions shows active listening and understanding. 14. Reflect afterward - what worked? what could improve? In my experience leading global teams, the conversations I've handled poorly weren't failures of strategy—they were failures of approach and understanding context. For example, a recent negotiation with a supplier facing severe capacity constraints could have deteriorated into finger-pointing. Instead, by focusing on understanding their challenges first (point #4) and collaborating on creative solutions (point #9), we found a path forward and workable compromise. Staying calm helped too ;) What's your experience? Which of these principles has been most valuable in your leadership journey? Or is there a 15th point you'd add to this list? ___________ 👍🏽 Like this? ♻️ Repost to help someone ✅ Follow me Sheri R. Hinish 🔔 Click my name → Hit the bell → See my posts. #SupplyChain #leadership #sustainability

Your major donor just called and listed out all of their frustrations. You won't like what they had to say. It wasn't about money. It wasn't about competing priorities. It wasn't about the economy. It was about you. "They never told me what my gift accomplished," they said. "I gave $25,000 and got a form letter thank you. Then nothing for eight months." "When I finally called to ask about impact, they couldn't give me specifics. Just vague statements about 'helping the community.'" "I realized they didn't see me as a partner. They saw me as an ATM." ‼️ The organizations losing major donors aren't victims of donor fatigue. They're victims of donor neglect. ‼️ Your major donors don't leave because they can't afford to give. They leave because you can't afford to care. Pull up your major donor communications from the last year. For each donor over $10,000, ask: 👉 Did they receive specific impact reports tied to their gift? 👉 Did someone call them personally within 3-5 days? 👉 Did they get invited to see their impact firsthand? 👉 Did you ask for their input on organizational direction? If you answered "no" to any of these, you've got a problem. The most successful major donor programs I work with treat donors like investors, not transactions: 👉 They provide quarterly impact reports with specific outcomes. 👉 They invite donors to strategic planning conversations. 👉 They offer behind-the-scenes access to programs and leadership. 👉 They ask for advice, not just money. Your major donors aren't leaving because they don't care about your mission. They're leaving because you don't care about them. Fix your relationship problem before you blame donor capacity. Because in fundraising, how you treat donors after they give determines whether they'll give again.

"Is there funder etiquette?" A nonprofit leader asked me that question during a recent conversation about the changing philanthropic landscape. At first, the question caught me off guard. Not because I hadn’t thought about it, but because it put words to something I’ve heard in countless conversations with nonprofit leaders. For years, leaders have told me about how they’ve walked away from interactions with funders feeling ignored, dismissed, or simply left without a response. Her next comment got to the heart of the issue: "Too often I leave conversations with funders feeling less confident than when I started." That shouldn't happen. So I asked the other nonprofit leaders in the room to share their experiences. While every story was different, the themes were remarkably consistent. Leaders described spending hours preparing proposals, following up after meetings, and investing in relationships, only to be ghosted. Others talked about the cognitive exhaustion of trying to build authentic relationships while also raising the money needed to keep their organizations going. The frustration wasn’t really about hearing "no." It was about the uncertainty of not knowing where they stood, whether to follow up, or if silence meant “not now,” “never,” or simply an email that had been overlooked. This matters for reasons that go well beyond courtesy. Every hour a nonprofit leader spends decoding silence is an hour they aren't spending serving students, educators, and communities. And when leaders don't feel safe being candid with funders because of the power imbalance in these relationships, everyone loses. We can't solve hard problems if people feel they need to manage our perceptions instead of telling us what they really need. I've come to believe that every interaction between a funder and a nonprofit leader should leave that leader with one thing: More clarity than when they started. At NewSchools, we certainly don't get this right every time. But we try to hold ourselves to a few simple principles: 1) Clear is kind. Be transparent about your process, communicate decisions promptly, and don't leave people guessing. 2) Respond quickly—especially when the answer is no. A timely "no" is often more valuable than a delayed "maybe." If there is a path to future partnership, explain what you'd like to see. If there isn't, be honest about that too. 3) Never ghost people. Priorities change. Budgets shift. Strategies evolve. That's part of philanthropy. But every proposal represents someone's mission, their team, and countless hours of work. Every leader deserves the dignity of a response. One nonprofit leader captured what we're all striving for better than I could: "It should feel more like we are on the same team." I couldn't agree more. We're all in this work because we want to create more good in the world. That starts long before we make a funding decision. It starts with how we show up for one another.

A principal tells you, “We don’t have budget for this.” You’ve heard it before. You brace yourself. You’re ready with a response like: “Actually, Title I funding can cover this…” “Other districts your size found budget by reallocating…” “But what if I told you this actually saves money?” These aren’t bad responses, but when you jump to solving the objection, you miss an opportunity. Because most of the time, budget isn’t the real issue. Instead of reacting, try this: Pause. Instead of rushing in, give them space. Silence makes people elaborate. Ask a follow-up. “Got it, when budget is tight, how do you prioritize what gets funded?” Dig deeper. “What’s taking priority right now?” “What’s your process for securing additional funds?” Shift the conversation. Instead of proving why they can buy, uncover what’s stopping them from wanting to buy. Most objections aren’t walls, they’re just hesitations that haven’t been explored yet. Handling objections isn’t about pushing harder. It’s about understanding better.