The fundraising stand is quiet.
Then a potential donor approaches.
Two fundraisers believe the person was theirs to approach. A disagreement begins. Words are exchanged. Voices become louder.
Suddenly, a conflict between colleagues is happening in front of the very people they are supposed to be engaging.
Conflict is inevitable in face-to-face fundraising. Targets, competition, rejection, long hours and different personalities can create tension even within strong teams.
The real test is not whether conflict happens.
It is how the team handles it when it does.
Conflict Is Normal. Public Conflict Is the Problem.
Face-to-face fundraising can be intense. Fundraisers work under performance pressure, experience rejection throughout the day and often share relatively small working spaces for hours at a time.
Add individual targets, commission structures and different personalities, and disagreements are hardly surprising.
But a disagreement becomes something more serious when it begins affecting the donor experience.
Fundraisers arguing at the stand, criticising one another in front of the public or visibly refusing to cooperate not only damage their own working relationships. They can change how people perceive the organisation they represent.
The fundraising stand is a public-facing workplace. Professionalism therefore matters even when colleagues disagree.
Small Arguments Are Not Always About Small Things
Conflict may begin with something as simple as:
“That was my donor.”
“You keep approaching people on my side.”
“Why am I always placed in the difficult position?”
But the real issue may have been developing for weeks.
Perhaps someone believes the rotation system is unfair. Maybe a fundraiser feels another colleague receives preferential treatment. Perhaps individual targets have created unhealthy competition.
This is why repeatedly telling people to “get over it” rarely solves anything.
Unresolved frustration has a habit of returning.
Protect the Donor Experience First
When disagreement happens during fundraising hours, the first priority should not be deciding who is right.
It should be protecting the professionalism of the stand.
If a fundraiser is already engaging a donor, allow that interaction to continue. The disagreement can be addressed privately afterwards.
Walking away from an argument temporarily does not mean ignoring the issue. Sometimes it simply means recognising that the fundraising stand is not the place to resolve it.
The donor should never become an audience—or worse, a participant—in an internal team dispute.
Don’t Turn Two People’s Conflict Into the Whole Team’s Conflict
One disagreement can quickly spread.
Someone tells a colleague what happened. Opinions are offered. People choose sides. Previous frustrations are added to the conversation.
Before long, the original problem has become a team problem.
Not every conflict needs an audience.
Where possible, the people directly involved should address the matter with the appropriate leader rather than recruiting colleagues to support their side.
Strong teams can support one another without turning every disagreement into a group battle.
The Team Leader Should Listen Before Judging
Conflict at the stand is one of those moments when leadership becomes particularly important.
The leader’s responsibility is not simply to identify a winner and a loser.
Sometimes two people genuinely experienced the same situation differently. Sometimes one person has information the other does not. And sometimes the argument everyone can see is only a symptom of something much bigger.
Instead of:
“You always do this.”
bring the conversation back to:
“What happened? What was our agreement? What needs to change going forward?”
One attacks a person.
The other addresses behaviour and creates room for a solution.
Good conflict management requires accountability, but accountability does not require humiliation.
Sometimes the System Is Creating the Conflict
This is something leaders should pay particular attention to.
When the same conflict keeps happening, the problem may not simply be difficult personalities.
If fundraisers repeatedly argue over prospects, are approach rules clear?
If there is constant disagreement about positioning, is the rotation system understood?
If commission repeatedly causes tension, does the incentive structure unintentionally encourage people to compete against their own teammates?
If people believe there is favouritism, are leadership decisions being explained consistently?
Before labelling people “difficult”, leaders should sometimes ask:
Are we dealing with a people problem—or is our system helping to create the problem?
Clear expectations cannot prevent every disagreement.
But unclear expectations can create conflicts that never needed to exist.
Competition Should Never Destroy the Team
There is nothing wrong with wanting to perform well.
Healthy competition can raise standards and bring energy to a fundraising team.
But when colleagues begin seeing one another as obstacles rather than teammates, something has gone wrong.
People stop sharing ideas. Fundraisers become protective over prospects. Someone else’s success begins to feel like your loss.
Individual performance matters.
So does collective trust.
A strong fundraising culture should celebrate excellent individual performance without creating an environment where people have to undermine one another to succeed.
Resolve the Issue, Not Just the Argument
Stopping an argument is not the same as resolving conflict.
People can become quiet and still remain angry.
Where an issue matters, there eventually needs to be a conversation about what happened, what contributed to it and what needs to change.
Sometimes a rule needs clarification.
Sometimes communication needs improvement.
Sometimes one person needs to take responsibility.
Sometimes both do.
The goal is not to determine who “won” the argument.
The goal is to make it possible for people to work together professionally again.
Beyond the Pitch
A strong fundraising team is not one that never disagrees.
It learns how to disagree without destroying trust, professionalism or the donor experience.
Because at a fundraising stand, people are always watching.
They see how we approach donors.
They see how we represent the organisation.
And sometimes, they see how we treat one another when things become difficult.
How a fundraising team handles conflict is also part of how it represents the cause.
Continue Beyond the Pitch
Face-to-face fundraising is about much more than approaching donors and meeting targets. It is also about communication, leadership, resilience, teamwork and learning how to navigate the human realities of the job.
If you work in fundraising—or lead people who do—my book Beyond the Pitch: The Art of Face-to-Face Fundraising explores the lessons, challenges and realities that exist beyond the fundraising conversation.
📘 Find my books on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/author/kgalalelontumelang
🌐 Read more on Reflections in Motion:
https://reflectionsinmotion.blog
Work With Me
I also work with fundraising teams and organisations around face-to-face fundraising, fundraiser development, communication, team leadership and practical training informed by frontline experience.
For training, workshops, speaking or collaboration enquiries:
📧 lelon@reflectionsinmotion.blog
🌐 https://reflectionsinmotion.blog
Join the Conversation
What causes the most conflict in face-to-face fundraising teams—and what have you found actually works when resolving it?
Share your experience in the comments. Someone else in the fundraising sector may be dealing with exactly the same challenge.