Yes, 80% is Good Enough: Why Perfectionism Hurts Your Grant Writing Success

One of the most persistent traits I have observed in charities that are going broke is a certain steadfast focus on what I like to call "inappropriate perfectionism." I suppose that sort of perfection would work in fields where you have unlimited time to complete a task. In grant writing, however, it can lead to institutional suicide.

General Colin Powell, for example, teaches that military leaders need to take action even if they only have 80% of the information they need to make a decision.  The problem, as he sees it, is that if they wait for the other 20% they will be in danger of losing the opportunity before them. 

In a similar way, I think it is a mistake to try to obtain anything like 100% perfection in your grant applications.  This level of perfectionism takes up too much time that might be applied - more profitably - to other worthwhile objectives, including applying to other funders for grants.

In my experience, I really don't gain all that much more from the funder with that extra 20% of perfection I've built into my grant application.  As long as I have all the elements that the funders are requesting in their application guidelines, then I'm typically better off spending my time writing some additional new grant applications.

One problem with setting 100% perfection as your standard is that you become tempted to simply recycle existing, already perfected material.  Although this seems like a smart idea on the surface, in my experience it leaves you with a grant that often displays little attention to the articulated needs of the funder. You have, in a sense, given them the perfect answer for someone else's grant application.

The folks that read grant applications for a living seem to develop an odd sixth sense that lets them know when an old grant has simply been recycled for a new audience.  They can detect recycling through the consistency of your message and the way you highlight (or de-emphasize) key elements of your proposal.

If you are willing to work a little harder, I think you can create a fresh and convincing message without driving yourself nuts with perfectionism.  

Standards of Excellence: How to Work Effectively with Your Proofreader

I know that I have a tendency to be hard on proofreaders and their idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, my success as a grant writing consultant would have been impossible without the help of the very picky people who seem to delight in triumph every time they catch me in an error or spelling mistake. 

 

Plain Language Tips: Proofreading

Overtime, I have developed some rules I apply to working with proofreaders, rules that help them, and me, be more effective. 

1. I save the proofreading for last. This means that before I involve a proofreader, I need to be personally confident that I have done everything I can to make the document perfect. This means reviewing the document after I have had a good rest.  
2. I try to involve the client in the proofreading too. In every charity, there is generally at least one person who seems quite content to go over the application in great detail. 
3. I use the on-line tools available through Microsoft Office. Using these tools, I can quickly review the grammar and spelling in the document. I can also recover from my bad habit of using the same word twice in a row. 

I turn to the proofreader for help only after I have followed through on these three basic steps listed above. 

Believe it or not, there is still plenty of work for them to do. The proofreaders now have final responsibility for making sure that the document is correct in all aspects.

1. The proofreader makes sure that we are using correct English grammar, exact spellings of words, and conventional English usage. 
2. The proofreader is also responsible for double checking the spacing between words and between sentences. 
3. The proofreader is also tasked with making sure that the document displays perfect internal consistency. This means that the same concept is identified and spelled the same way throughout the document no matter where it is used. A similar level of perfect internal consistency must occur in titles, headings, and the table of contents. Even the captions under the photos we use need to be perfectly consistent in style and size.
4. The proofreader checks that we have actually answered the questions posed by the federal government or the private foundation. To facilitate this aspect of their job, I include the questions I am responding to in the next to final draft of the narrative. This way, the proofreader can compare my responses to the specific requests of the federal government. I have won lot of money because of proofreaders who managed to make me aware that my answer was completely off-base or inappropriate simply by pointing out that I misread the question. After the proofreader has done their job, I remove the questions from the final draft. This gives the grant readers the impression that we just magically got all the answers right. 

All in all, a professional proofreader is a necessity and worth every penny that you invest in their efforts. If you need the services of a professional proofreader yourself, then do not hesitate to send me an e-mail atjohn.drew@drdrewguaranteedgrants.com and I will make sure to connect you to an outstanding professional.

  

Knowledge of People is Power: Using Teamwork to Improve Your Grant Writing

As a graduate and undergraduate student, I thought of academic/intellectual production as a lonely, solitary occupation. However, when I wrote -- and later published -- my doctoral dissertation, I quickly learned that being a successful political scientist meant that I would have to get really good at working with small groups of people, highly skilled people. While my name was on the final product, I benefited from the assistance of a number of editors, proofreaders, research assistants, and mentors.

In a similar manner, I like to stress that grant writing is not a solitary exercise - it is in fact a team sport.

In my experience, it is not always the best charities or institutions that win the most lucrative grants. Instead, success goes to those folks who manage to pull together a broad range of information and produce a conforming document under the pressure of a tight deadline. In most cases, the grant writer is dependent on the accounting office for budget information, the executive director's office for goals and vision, the program administrators for day-to-day expertise, clients for practical insight, staff members for fresh versions of their resumes, and even the funder's own administrators regarding the details of the application.

In this context, I think the best grant writers have a knack for managing small, temporary workgroups. One of my secrets of success is to pay attention to the temperaments of the people involved in the process.

In Lao Tzu's book, The Art of War, the author writes there is a place for everybody when you are planning a military campaign.  He says that those who are impulsive and full of courage should be given the honor of leading the charge. He says that those who are naturally cautious and careful are better employed at logistics and planning. The challenge is to size up your group and make intelligent assignments quickly.

At the start of the grant writing process, I like to leverage the excitement and enthusiasm of the most outspoken proponents of the grant. I encourage them by rapidly creating a complete A-Z grant application that puts their biggest and best ideas into a rational, conforming framework.  I encourage them to shoot for the stars, apply the latest research, and compile their most inspirational wish list.

As I near completion of the project, however, I like to encourage the voices of the project pessimists, the ones who may have been indifferent, or actively opposed, to writing the grant in the first place. Frequently, I have found that those who were most resistant to even trying for the grant can be quite helpful in polishing up and perfecting it at the end of the process. I like to leverage the naysayers by encouraging their criticism, asking for their harshest observations, and implementing their most realistic perspectives.

One of the advantages of this approach, by the way, is that the most aggressive grant optimists have, in all probability, lost interest in the project and are moving on to fresh endeavors.

Accordingly, I think it is important to stress that grant writing is more of a team sport than a form of solitary contemplation. There is a lot of money to be made by paying attention to your team's personalities, strengths, and weaknesses.