Many times it happens to serve as a consultant and fundraiser with heavy really important that directors who want to have always done it their way. The task of the consultant fundraiser since lived an ethical dilemma: to do always what is best "according to the consultant" for the nonprofit organization (at the risk of losing the job because they do not agree with the client) or accept the the client suggests, in order to guarantee the customer academic life? Obviously, between these two whites and blacks, there are many gray, but to open a debate, I asked this question to Paul Celli (colleague and member of the Central Ethics , as well as a professor at the University Master Fund Raising education "for the Professional Practice Fund Raising " ). He answered in writing. Here it is.

In your message you have identified a theme of "hot" for the profession of, namely the dilemma between accelerating and braking, to say and not say, approve and disapprove, and not to point to point ... ..
You actually have the dubious (legitimate) that mediate between your position and that the Director may "mess" a little 'our philosophy.

I can assure you it is not. In fact our work is a work of mediation, because while the theory or philosophy can be immutable and untouchable, we deal with the practical operations, and this is by definition flexible, results-oriented, willing to compromise to avoid the block and help to move forward.

In our work we deal with sustainability organizations, which means to find money (economic sustainability) but also suggest approaches that can satisfy the Director that the staff, so that no one is excluded and everyone enthusiastically give their contribution ( organizational sustainability).

The value of our work is the result ("what") and the "how" to get it. The 'why' are of course fundamental, but we are not in a position to challenge them.

This speech, which I'm doing does not diminish the importance of core values; the other hand, are shared by the observation that normally occur at times but with different nuances.
We as consultants, given the sensitivity of the matter, we care more and check the compatibility (not coincidentally) of our system of values ​​than the organization they work for.
If it were not for this compatibility would not accept even the office.

Without this step, the rest are often important nuances, but it is not our task to enter into the merits rather than raise money we would otherwise, in fact, philosophy.
For the purpose of our work (which is operating) it is enough to smooth out any sharp edges and help the organization to find feasible paths.

I do not know if I've responded.

Hello, you soon.

Paolo.

PS
I wish it was not the term "mediation" to take on a connotation here a while 'negative. In reality, what we do is collect all the instances, ideas, suggestions, and compose them in a framework consistent with the principles of fund raising and the task that we have received from the organization.
In this sense, not only did not "lose" anything, but rather gain in effectiveness.