Best Practice in Campaigns: A Standard, Not A Checklist
- 21 hours ago
- 3 min read
Best practice is helpful until a campaign hits real life. In health care philanthropy, the difference between “knowing the playbook” and winning often comes down to whether leaders are willing to do the unglamorous work: align priorities, name tradeoffs and show up consistently as partners in the ask. Best practice, in this context, is not a checklist. It is a standard of leadership behavior that creates trust inside the organization and out in the community, so fundraising can move with clarity, confidence and speed. Today’s leaders are surrounded by best practice frameworks. Guidance exists for campaign readiness, governance, structure, staffing models, donor engagement and stewardship. The field has matured. There is shared language, data and precedent. In theory, we know what conditions support campaign success. And yet, campaigns still stall. Quiet phases linger. Boards hesitate. Donor confidence wavers. Internal teams feel stretched thin. Momentum slows, not because leaders ignored best practice, but because they misunderstood what best practice actually requires of them. Campaign management is often treated as a technical exercise. In reality, it is a leadership discipline. Best practice guidelines tell us what should be in place. Leadership judgment determines when, how and whether those conditions are truly present. That distinction matters more than ever.
Campaign management is often treated as a technical exercise. In reality, it is a leadership discipline.
Over the past decade, health care organizations have entered campaigns under increasing pressure. Capital needs are larger. Strategic plans are shorter. Workforce strain is real. Financial uncertainty has become a permanent feature rather than a temporary disruption. In this environment, campaigns are frequently launched not because organizations are ready, but because the need feels urgent, visible or externally driven. Urgency, however, is not readiness. Best practice emphasizes internal capacity before external ambition for a reason. Campaigns magnify what already exists. Strong alignment becomes clearer. Weak infrastructure is exposed. Confident leadership accelerates momentum. Unresolved tension slows everything down. Campaigns do not fix foundational issues; they surface them. This is where leadership judgment matters most. Leaders must decide whether clarity is real or aspirational. Whether alignment is shared or merely assumed. Whether systems are disciplined or simply familiar. Whether boards are engaged in name only or prepared to act differently than they have before. These are not checklist items. They are assessments that require honesty, experience and the willingness to pause when momentum feels politically or emotionally appealing. The most successful campaigns are not those that follow best practice most rigidly. They are those that interpret best practice wisely. Consider alignment with organizational strategy. On paper, this often means ensuring a campaign priority appears in a strategic plan. In practice, it requires philanthropy leaders to understand where strategy is settled, where it is still evolving and where donor engagement can responsibly shape priorities without replacing governance. That nuance is rarely documented, but donors feel it immediately.
The most successful campaigns are not those that follow best practice most rigidly. They are those that interpret best practice wisely.
The same is true of leadership and board engagement. Best practice emphasizes involvement, but it cannot prescribe how much behavior change that involvement requires. Boards that have historically supported philanthropy from a distance do not become active campaign leaders simply because a campaign launches. Executives who value philanthropy conceptually may still struggle to prioritize it operationally. These gaps are not failures; they are signals that leadership work must precede fundraising work. Campaigns reward clarity. They punish ambiguity. They reward organizations that understand their donor pipeline, not just in volume, but in confidence and readiness. They reward teams that can say no to ill-timed asks and yes to disciplined pacing. They reward leaders who recognize when patience will ultimately raise more money than urgency. Campaigns punish rushed goal-setting, misaligned messaging and performative leadership. They punish organizations that confuse visibility with momentum or activity with progress. At their best, campaigns do more than raise funds. They build trust. They strengthen alignment. They clarify priorities. They elevate philanthropy from a department to a leadership function. But only when leaders are willing to treat campaign management not as a formula, but as a responsibility.
About the Authors:
Heather Wiley Starankovic, CFRE, CAP, is a Principal Consultant with Accordant. She can be reached at Heather@AccordantHealth.com or through LinkedIn.
