Sy Lesh's

You Know You're A Grant Writer If...

Traits of a Grant Writer

Irreverent Thoughts on Grant-Writing Relationships

by Sy Lesh
Director of Grants
Westchester Community College

I was recently asked by a wanna-be grant writer what he should know in order to participate in this profession. He was not impressed when I went through the litany of how one finds funding agencies and the basic elements of a proposal. He wanted to know the underside (underbelly?) of grant writing and what he should really know that no “how-to” book ever explains. So I have prepared the following list of characteristics that every grant writer should have.


A grant writer should be somewhat of a gambler – taking chances that what you produce will hit a jackpot somewhere. (I’ll bet my life on this!)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a masochist – resubmitting proposals after being rejected over and over again. (One mo’ time.)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a diplomat – standing by silently while someone else takes the credit for a successful proposal you wrote. (I’m biting my lip because it itches.)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a squirrel – saving every scrap of paper on which notes are written just in case they might be useful someday. (You never know.)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a miser – hoarding information and materials and refusing to share them because you know you will never get them back. (I lost it!)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a gangster – threatening people with dire consequences if they don’t give you the information you need. (Talk or else!)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a hermit – keeping to oneself because you’re not invited to participate in other agency activities. (All alone by the telephone.)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a rhinoceros – so that the insults you receive bounce off your hide. (See if I care.)

A grant writer should be somewhat of an idiot – asking for clarification on what appear to be innocuous requirements. (Can the deadline be extended a week?)

A grant writer should be somewhat of a … but alas, I have depleted my storehouse of knowledge. Help!

Return to Top

• Schizophrenia so you can support both sides in an argument.

• Amnesia to forget all the snide put-downs of your work.

• Carpal tunnel syndrome so it looks like you're struggling to find just the right word.

• Bladder problems for the appearance of always being in a hurry.

• Hemorrhoids for that look of concern.

• Whooping cough to hide your laughter at the nonsense going on around you.

• Scarlet fever for that sweaty look of working very hard.

• Toothache so you have an excuse for yelling at people.

• Tennis elbow so you don't have to do any heavy lifting.

• Paper cut so you can wave your hand around without offending the person you want to offend.

• Schistosomiasis (look it up!) for that pale/ashen look of a martyr.

But enough - with all of these ailments you can probably get medical leave and won't have to write grants!

Return to Top

This article, by Seymour Lesh, was written for the community college level. Many of you at the K-12 level will, however, probably relate to many of Sy's thoughts!

Some Irreverent Thoughts on Grant-Writing Relationships in Community Colleges: Things They Never Taught You
or
Machiavelli, You Were Right!

by
Sy Lesh

Most programs and workshops aimed at training people to become grants developers/writers, ignore several significant aspects of this initiative, namely, the internal and external politics involved in the process. In grantsmanship workshops and training programs, a potential grants writer either is presumed to know what the political situation is on his/her campus or the topic is deemed too institution-specific to warrant discussion. In a few instances, mostly when a person has been working in an institution and is promoted (or demoted) to grants writer, he/she knows what the internal politics are. But for most new grants writers, they may be stepping on land mines they didn't know existed. That is, despite excellent training and preparation, a knowledge of funding sources, a high level of writing ability, and strict adherence to the work ethic, he/she may fail because of a lack of sophistication about the unwritten rules and ambiguous relationships within their organizations.

This paper addresses some of these potential pitfalls. It is based upon the personal experiences of the author and the opinions of other grants people he has talked with; it does not purport to be based upon objective research, and should not be considered as the final word on the subject. 

The relationships between grant writers and academic administrators, between grant writers and faculty, and between grant writers and staff, are tenuous at best, and much like the weather in Montana, if you hang around a few minutes, it will change.

This paper will focus on faculty and administrators, since staff members, who often make salaries below the poverty level, have good and sufficient reasons for being antagonistic toward everyone.

I propose five tenets that seem to be universally prevalent, some examples of how they are manifested, and some indications of how one may deal with them.

Tenet 1: All college personnel do not have the same commitment to fostering the college's mission. 

This is important for a grant writer to understand especially when you try to convey the idea in proposals that everyone on campus is pulling together and going in the same direction. For example, administration calls for a new beginning, a new direction, a new long-range plan. Committees are formed and faculty and staff are recruited to serve on them - this is known as participatory democracy (by administrators), and is thought to be the solution to eliminating the seemingly endless negative feelings of faculty and staff toward administrators.

Faculty, while usually attending these meetings and participating in the writing of recommendations, nevertheless feel that the recommendations will never be implemented and that this is merely another administrative ploy to get them to do things they don't want to do - work longer hours, teach more students, get less money, feed into the pet projects of administrators, etc. Faculty's complaints are then registered with the union representative who will bring a grievance against the school.

Administrators, on the other hand, feel that faculty are taking advantage of their benevolence, that they don't show their appreciation for everything that administrators have done for them. So there develops a "We'll show them!" attitude on the part of administrators, and everything that faculty members propose thenceforth is summarily turned down, no matter how innocuous, and administrators do what they had always wanted to do anyway. 

Staff, who, as noted above, are grossly underpaid, resent the time off, salaries and other perks of both faculty and administrators.

The issue sometimes becomes one of "turf," i.e., "What do I have to give up and what will I get in return?" "Is it worth it to me?" "How will it affect me in the future?" "Farnsworth just got a new Pentium, when do I get mine?" etc.

A grants writer must recognize these positions and not assume that faculty will work in harmony with staff or administrators and vice versa. Tread softly and carry a big eraser. 

There is a rule of thumb that I developed to describe what really happens on campuses: 

• 25% of the people on campus do all of the work. This figure may go down (I've seen campuses where only 10% do all of the work), but it will never go up. 
• 25% don't do anything. They have a knack of seeming busy and involved but they never turn out any work. If you press them on it, they get angry and tend to threaten you. 
• 25% do the work, but do it too late. 
• 25% do the work, but get it wrong.

Tenet 2: There is a pervasive and permanent state of hostility between faculty and administration which has existed long before the grants writer came aboard and which will probably continue long after he/she leaves. 

Faculty and administrators have co-existed in a permanent state of distrust for so long that it has become second nature for one group to distrust the intent of the other. It is manifested in a "them vs us," "management vs worker" position which is only reconciled on issues which are basically unimportant or which do not impinge on one or the other's turf. It is often difficult to get faculty interested enough in a project to sit down with you to write a grant proposal, but they will turn out en masse and full of intense passion to defeat a proposal put forth by administration. 

Issues such as release time, new offices, larger class size, quality of students, etc., become stumbling blocks and tend to polarize faculty and administration. A grant writer must understand that these issues exist and find a way around them without making enemies of one side or the other. 

This could be tricky, and the grant writer risks getting called "wishy-washy" and afraid to take a stand, e.g., "If your not with me you're against me!" A friendly relationship with the faculty union rep and with each department and curriculum chair can go a long way toward alleviating potential troubling situations. A little subtle bribery can also alleviate potential stumbling blocks. 

Tenet 3:  Many college administrators are lazy. 

There is a school of thought among administrators that posits the view that the problem will go away or someone else will handle it if you don't do anything. This is often a (surprisingly) correct position, however, it doesn't help the grant writer who is seeking funds to deal with the problem.

Try to get an administrator to fill out a form, read an important document, meet a deadline, get a price on an item, give you some data they already have on hand, etc. "It's not my job!" "I don't fill out those forms!" "I don't have enough time!" "You want me to take work home?" These are some of the answers you get, although top-level administrators are more likely to comply than lower-level administrators since these activities are usually part of their jobs.

An administrator may say to you, "I can't approve this training proposal because there is no space available for the training!" And you ask (yourself) "But isn't it your job to find appropriate space for new programs?" 

Or the head of a unit (Student Aid, Admissions, Registrar, Student Health, Purchasing, etc.) keeps your memo asking for information on his/her desk for more than a month until you have to go there in person to ask for it. Then this conversation may occur:

You: "Why didn't you send me back that form? I told you I needed it two weeks ago."

Unit Head: "I've been too busy. I'll get to it right away." 

You: "Too busy? You only have to fill out your name and address and sign it!"

Unit Head: "What's the big rush, anyway?" 

A veteran grant writer needing a form filled out will hand carry it to the designated form filler-outer and stand in front of his/her desk until it is filled out. When they say "Leave it here I'll get to it soon," warning bells should go off in your head and you say to yourself "Not on your life!" And you say to the subject "I can't, the messenger is waiting outside to take it to Washington!" 

Tenet 4:  Some faculty members hate each other. Some administrators hate each other. Some faculty members hate administrators. Some administrators hate faculty members. A veritable love-in of hate. 

In these circumstances, a grant writer must know which people on campus not to invite to the same meeting. Sometimes this is not possible and then the grant writer will have to play mediator and peace-maker, not roles for which we were trained.

A grant writer, while not responsible for the antagonism, must take on the onus of responsibility as if he/she was responsible. In the right situation, losing your temper and yelling at everyone sometimes shocks them and brings them to their senses. At other times you may be able to play one off against another to get what you want (study your Machiavelli).

Tenet 5:  Secret deals are made (among administrators, among faculty, and between faculty and administrators), that have a direct impact on what a grant writer can do.

This is an area where subtle bribery often takes place. "If you do (something), I will see that you get (something)." Unaware of these deals, the grant writer is astonished at the amount of seemingly unfounded negative feelings there exists toward a proposal.

The only way around this particular issue is to make your own secret deals, do your own bribery, e.g., "I will write in funds for a computer for you if you agree to support the proposal." Or "I'll get you two release time courses instead of one if you agree to direct the proposed project." Not subtle, but effective. What really works is if you can legitimately get them more money; they will follow you to hell if you can.

As an aside on the bribery issue, I get a lot of free supplies and equipment from various sources. I stock up on some items that I can use throughout the year, e.g., office supplies. I make sure that lower-level staff (hidden away in closets and alcoves on campus) get first crack at these items - I make many friends this way because usually no one gives them anything or even knows they are there - and yet they often control the flow of paperwork. I can call in favors, e.g., "Look, Margaret, I need your boss to fill out this form right away, will you get him to do it?" "Sure, no problem. Oh, by the way, when are the new pens coming in?" 

Several other tenets and ideas have just popped into my mind, but I'm afraid I'm getting carried away, and will stop now before real damage is done. 

Return to Top