Others are less inspirational in their tone, presenting development as merely a career field. There is a consensus that development is not a mature profession, like medicine or law, but perhaps an emerging profession. Some writers express concern that development's advancement as a profession not lead its practitioners to become arrogant or alienated from their institutions. Authors who see the development officer as a Salesman, operating independently, tend to de-emphasize the importance of other players. The development officer's relationship to the president is especially critical and must be based on good personal chemistry as well as a common understanding of their respective roles.
Fund raising is the one area in which trustees go beyond policy-making to play active roles.
For this reason, the development officer is often closer to the trustees than anyone else on campus except the president. Most authors see the development officer in a Catalyst or Manager role with regard to the trustees and emphasize the need for appropriate boundaries to the development officer's influence with the board. The literature is divided on this point. Some authors argue that development goals should be based on institutional priorities determined only by academic leaders. Others, particularly those who view the development officer as an institutional Leader, say that he or she should be involved in institutional planning.