University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

(USC Thesis Other)

Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 1

Institutional Advancement in Higher Education: Managing Gift Officer
Performance and Turnover
by
Lorri Grubaugh

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May, 2019

Copyright 2019 Lorri Grubaugh
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family for their support and their faith in my ability
to finish what I started. John gave me space, made me dinners, and helped me through various
technical challenges. My adult children, DJ and Summer, took it as a given that I would excel
and gave me a reason to model perseverance. My mom never complained when I had to decline
invitations and was a great listener when I needed to vent. Their combined love gave me the
strength I needed to see this through.
Looking back on the past three-and-a-half years, I have much to be thankful for,
especially the people who contributed to my learning; my personal and professional growth; and
to the completion of this study.
Many thanks to Dr. Helena Seli, my dissertation chair, who always found time for me
despite her busy schedule. I also thank Dr. Allison Muraszewski and Dr. Doug Lynch for
serving on my committee and stretching my thinking about this topic and this study.
I am grateful to all the faculty of the OCL program and the LDT program. You were an
inspiration over these past eleven semesters.
My colleagues have my gratitude for their willingness to participate in my study and for
their support of me as I pursued my degree. I respect them immensely and admire their desire to
excel. A very special thank you to Karen Juday, a fellow student and professional colleague who
stepped in to conduct my interviews.
Many thanks to cohort six for your intellect, drive, and sense of humor. I look forward to
interacting with you as we all progress in our careers. A special shout-out to Casey and Jannah,
who were both with me for an extra year of curriculum. I value your friendship immensely. In
all sincerity, I am not sure I could have done it without you!
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................2
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................5
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................6
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................7
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ...........................................................................................8
Organizational Context and Mission ...............................................................................................9
Importance of Addressing the Problem .........................................................................................10
Organizational Performance Status ................................................................................................10
Organizational Performance Goal ..................................................................................................11
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal .......................................................................11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................................12
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................................13
History and Growth of Higher Education Fundraising .....................................................13
Professionalization of the Field and the State of Research ................................................15
Factors Related to Fundraising Outcomes ........................................................................16
Education and Professional Development .........................................................................19
Gift Officer Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ..........................................20
Knowledge Influences .......................................................................................................20
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................24
Organizational Influences .................................................................................................28
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Gift Officers’ Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context .................................................................................................................36
Data Collection and Instrumentation .............................................................................................40
Surveys ...........................................................................................................................................41
Interviews ......................................................................................................................................41
Findings..........................................................................................................................................43
Knowledge Findings ..........................................................................................................43
Motivation Findings ...........................................................................................................49
Organization Findings ........................................................................................................59
Recommendation for Practice: The Program ................................................................................72
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 4

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................76
References ......................................................................................................................................78
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Survey and Interview ........90
Appendix B: Protocols ..................................................................................................................93
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness ..............................................................................98
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability ...........................................................................................99
Appendix E: Ethics .....................................................................................................................101
Appendix F: Recommendations for Practice ..............................................................................103
Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ...................................................118
Appendix H: Evaluation Instrument for Role Play Exercises .....................................................132
Appendix I: Interview Protocol for Program ..............................................................................133

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goal 12
Table 2: Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences of Gift Officer Performance 35
Table 3: Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Self-Efficacy 50
Table 4: Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Attributions 51
Table 5: Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Value 52
Table 6: Frequency of Response to Items Related to Donor Engagement Opportunities, Vision
for Fundraising, and Leadership’s Involvement in Fundraising 59
Table 7: Frequency of Response to Items Related to Human Capital Management 60
Table 1F: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 100
Table 2F: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 104
Table 3F: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 109
Table 1G: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcome 117
Table 2G: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 119
Table 3G: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 121
Table 4G: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 124
Table 5G: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 126

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 6

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 37

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

ABSTRACT
This qualitative case study examined the experience, perceptions, and beliefs of professional
fundraisers in a higher education setting to understand the factors that affect gift officer
performance. It is an evaluative study modified from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis
and utilized their knowledge, motivation and organizational influences framework to identify
what contributes to or obstructs performance. The study data was derived from interviews with
eight gift officers in the Western University College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences (WULAS). A
survey of WULAS gift officers that gleaned eleven responses served to triangulate the interview
data. The findings identified strengths and gaps in WULAS gift officer knowledge and
motivation as well as the organizational constructs that impede gift officer performance at
WULAS. A key knowledge finding was that experienced gift officers demonstrated procedural
knowledge of how to ascertain donor interests and align interests to giving priorities, while less
experienced gift officers only demonstrated declarative knowledge. A key motivation finding
was that gift officers intrinsically value their role but want to be acknowledged for their
contribution to the educational mission. The study includes a set of recommendations supported
by theoretical and empirical evidence to address gaps and impediments. A key recommendation
was the incorporation of opportunities for gift officers to reflect on their donor interaction, self-
assess their outcomes, and identify areas for improvement. Another salient recommendation was
to implement human capital management strategies such as strategic on-boarding, professional
development, and recognition programs. The desired outcome of implementing the
recommendations was measurable improvement in WULAS gift officer experience and
performance.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 8

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Low to average performing gift officers dominate higher education advancement, with
high performers in short supply across institutions (Grabau, 2006; Megli, Barber & Hunte,
2014). Meanwhile, the need to raise funds to close budget gaps, maintain prestige, and ensure
access is increasingly important in a climate of higher costs and decreasing state and federal
support for institutions of higher education (Drezner, 2011). An overall shortage of talent in the
field of fundraising and an increased demand for gift officers exacerbates the problem while also
contributing to high turnover in the field (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Haggerty, 2015; Iarrobino,
2006; Reed, 2013; Sales & Samuel, 2007; Thomas, 2010). It takes two-and-a-half to three years
for fundraisers to reach their full productivity within an organization, but many gift officers leave
organizations before or just after they become most effective (Grabau, 2006; Reed, 2013), which
threatens donor relationships and slows the flow of philanthropic income (Croteau & Wolk,
2010; Horstman, 2006; Iarrobino, 2006; Oliver, 2007; Reed, 2013; Sales & Samuel, 2007;
Schwinn & Somerfield, 2002). Furthermore, there is instability in the fundraiser role, with half of
development directors reporting an intention to leave their current positions in two years or less
and a median vacancy of six months (Bell & Cornelius, 2013). Higher pay, better titles, and
availability for career growth drive most gift officers to leave their posts (Thomas, 1996), but
others are looking to leave the profession entirely (Bell & Cornelius, 2013). As higher education
becomes more dependent on philanthropic support (Drezner, 2011; Proper & Caboni, 2014),
organizations need to develop high performers on their fundraising teams by implementing
programs to train and strategically manage fundraising talent (Education Advisory Board, 2010;
Education Advisory Board, 2014; Education Advisory Board, 2016; Megli, Barber & Hunte,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

2014). These strategies should positively impact performance, which is also linked to lower
turnover (Lawler, 1967; Haggerty, 2015).
Organizational Context and Mission
The Western University College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences (WULAS, a pseudonym)
Office of Advancement is the fundraising function for the liberal arts college within an elite
private research university located in an urban setting in the western United States. Over 10,000
undergraduates and graduate students enroll at WULAS each year, and there are over 70,000
living WULAS alumni. The dean of WULAS began her tenure in 2016 and leads 35 academic
departments and nearly 50 institutes and centers within WULAS. The mission of Western
University and WULAS prioritizes the enrichment of students in its educational and research
enterprise, while also stating its commitment to broader contributions to society in the
professions, technology, and the arts. The university, including WULAS, is largely dependent
on tuition to fund annual operating costs, but the university’s mission acknowledges the ongoing
partnership and financial support of alumni and donors and their importance to the school’s
ability to serve its students. During a recent fundraising campaign, the liberal arts college of the
university garnered support in the hundreds of millions from over 21,000 donors, including
alumni, parents, and friends of the university. With the success of the campaign comes an
expectation for continued success in fundraising and an aggressive fundraising goal set for the
next five years.
The WULAS Office of Advancement employs people in a variety of roles across the
advancement function, including major gifts, annual fund, alumni relations, corporate and
foundation relations, stewardship, event management, operations, research, and communications.
There are approximately 40 individuals working in the department, 17 of whom are responsible
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 10

for soliciting funds from individuals. Ten of these are major gift fundraisers, who are responsible
for raising gifts of $100,000 to $1,000,000; five are annual gift officers, who are responsible for
raising gifts under $100,000; and two are principal gift officers, who are responsible for gifts of
$1,000,000 or more.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to address WULAS fundraising performance for two reasons. First,
WULAS is expected to meet its fundraising goals. Second, the WULAS dean formulated an
ambitious academic vision for the college that requires significant private support. According to
Proper and Caboni (2014), fundraising provides “a ‘margin of excellence,’ enabling institutions
to offer programs and services (including scholarships) they otherwise could not” (p. 5).
Furthermore, fundraisers manage the donor relationships, and due to the time and effort involved
in securing gifts of significance, their exodus is potentially disastrous and puts institutional goals
at risk (Iarrobino, 2006). Evaluating the organizational performance toward developing and
retaining high performing gift officers will provide information to enhance the WULAS
advancement function.
Organizational Performance Status
The current performance of WULAS Advancement is not enough to meet the fundraising
goal of $85 million per year required to fund the academic plan. For the past two years, results
were well short of goal. In addition, more than half of the WULAS gift officers did not meet
their individual performance goals in fiscal year 2017-18. This is complicated by the
department’s high turnover of gift officers, which has resulted in a relatively new staff, with
eleven of the current staff having less than three years tenure and only two having four or more
years of tenure.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Organizational Performance Goal
It is WULAS’ goal that by 2021, the advancement division will consistently meet its
annual fundraising goal of $85 million per year. The fundraising goals are set by the dean of the
college according to the needs of the academic plan and in consultation with the vice dean of
advancement. The dean and the vice dean agree that increases in individual donor contributions
are needed to meet the new annual goals. Gift officers are focused on developing new
relationships as well as nurturing the existing relationships to further additional philanthropy.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
Western University College of Letters, Arts and Sciences has many stakeholder groups,
but three are particularly relevant to this study: gift officers, members of the school’s academic
leadership, and prospective donors. The 17 gift officers on the WULAS advancement staff
comprise the first critical stakeholder group and are directly responsible for managing
relationships between individual philanthropists and the university. Academic leadership and the
funders themselves are additional critical stakeholders. Academic leaders, most of whom hold
tenured faculty appointments, set the funding priorities and often directly interact with potential
donors. In addition, faculty leaders need to frame the funding priorities into a compelling case
for philanthropic support to help achieve their goals as well as to further the organizational goal.
The third critical stakeholder group is donors whose philanthropy makes the organizational goal
possible.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 12

Table 1

Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of Western University states that alumni and donors are important members of the
university’s collegial community and provide needed financial support, guidance, and service to
students.
Organizational Performance Goal
By the end of 2021, WULAS Advancement will meet its annual fundraising goals of $85 million
per year.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By the end of 2021, 90% WULAS gift officers will meet their annual performance goals.

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which the WULAS Office of
Advancement is meeting its fundraising goals. While a complete performance evaluation would
focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes this analysis focused on the 17 gift officers in
WULAS Advancement. The analysis focused on knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to achieving the organizational goal.
The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What is the gift officers’ knowledge and motivation related to their ability to meet their
individual annual performance goals?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and gift officers’
knowledge and motivation?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

Review of the Literature
This section reviews the history and current state of the non-profit sector, characteristics
of the fundraising profession, and factors related to fundraising outcomes. Following the
literature review, the WULAS major gift officer role is examined. Next, the theories pertaining
to knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are explained. Following the theoretical
overview, the WULAS major gift officer knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
are delineated. The conceptual framework completes this chapter.
History and Growth of Higher Education Fundraising
There is a long history of impactful philanthropy to higher education in the United States
that dates to the colonial era. Philanthropy in the United States has its roots in European
traditions, with educational fundraising beginning in 1641 when colonists traveled to England to
seek support for Harvard College (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Philanthropists, such as John
Harvard, Elihu Yale, Nicholas Brown, Henry Rutgers, Charles Tufts, and John D. Rockefeller,
were instrumental to the founding of American institutions of higher education. In 1862 the
Morrill Act passed, which provided government funds for the land-grant colleges. Following its
passage, higher education fundraising became prevalent with wealthy donors contributing at
every stage (Bernstein, 2013). Early philanthropy included support for access to higher
education for women and African Americans. John D. Rockefeller provided important funding
for Spelman College in 1881, although not without criticism for the heavy focus on vocational
training (Worth, 2002). Philanthropy was also instrumental in funding the social sciences, which
increased the stature of sociology, psychology, and anthropology departments on campus. The
sciences also were shaped by philanthropy, for example, the term molecular biology was first
used in a 1938 Rockefeller Annual Report. The higher education fundraising campaigns
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 14

prevalent today were formulated on the model developed by the YMCA in the late 1800’s
(Worth, 2002).
Over the last four decades, philanthropy has been recognized as increasingly important in
higher education with public schools bolstering their development efforts and an overall increase
in competition for philanthropic dollars. In the middle of the last century, there was a growing
realization that securing private funds was critical for higher education. This was the impetus for
The Campus Green, a seminal work which identified and organized the existing research and
suggested a path to add to the body of knowledge (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). In 2014,
Institutional Advancement: What We Know was published as an intended successor to The
Campus Green and is evidence of philanthropy’s increasing importance to higher education
(Proper & Caboni, 2014).
The increased costs of education and the decrease in state and federal funding to higher
education have made private funding as critical to public schools as it is for private (Simic,
2002). According to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (2016), changes in state
finances have led to an average of 34% decline in state funding over the decade preceding this
report. State funded research universities responded with increased tuition and expense
reductions without compromising their missions. However, this is not viable for the long-term,
and educational institutions must find new sources of revenue from public and private sectors to
maintain their mission of providing education and conducting research. This mission is
especially critical because public research universities enroll top students from all backgrounds
and educate 3.8 million students every year. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences
(20166) deemed philanthropy imperative to sustain programs and continue to ensure access,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

without disproportionately raising tuition. As philanthropy has become more important in higher
education, the profession has evolved and responded in turn.
Professionalization of the Field and the State of Research
With the recognition of the importance of philanthropy to higher education came a
simultaneous interest in increasing scholarship around fundraising. Proper and Caboni (2014)
found many weaknesses in the research base, which is dominated by dissertations done by
practitioners and led by dissertation chairs with no expertise in the field. They suggested that
systematic research is needed for “fundraising to move along the continuum of professions and
for the study of higher education to begin to develop a more robust understanding of a critical
and under examined function” (Proper & Caboni, 2014, p 46). Mack, Kelly, and Wilson (2016)
noted the dearth of a body of research-based knowledge is at least in part responsible for the lack
of degree programs around fundraising and suggested that universities create academic programs
to address the shortage of fundraising professionals. Mack et al (2016) interviewed fifteen
scholars representing business, marketing, public relations, and non-profit administration who
published scholarship on fundraising between 2008 and 2014. They found that the scholars did
not agree on where fundraising should reside or what fields provide an appropriate theoretical
basis, with most respondents making a case for their own discipline. However, the scholars
concurred that more research in the field is needed and that educational options for fundraisers
need to be expanded. More than half thought nonprofit management was promising but too broad
and several asserted that a multidisciplinary approach is needed.
While a body of research is important, scholars have made a case for fundraising to be
recognized as a profession. Caboni (2003) asserted that, despite the lack of a robust body of
research, fundraising meets recognized aspects of a profession such as professional associations,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 16

codes of ethics, a period of training, and professional autonomy. He argued for professional
status, pointing out that fundraisers typically work their way up to the gift officer position,
receiving on-the-job training along the way. In addition, he noted the professional codes of
ethics developed by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) and the
Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), as well as a certification for fundraisers offered
by AFP. Bloland and Tempel (2004) asserted that fundraising is an emerging profession with a
growing body of literature based in behavioral and social science. However, they recommended
that the bottom line be mitigated by a stronger focus on the ethical aspects of the work in order to
bolster the profession’s reputation. Caboni (2010) investigated norms in fundraising and found
evidence of self-regulation, a hallmark of professionalization. Three rigid norms emerged
including no tolerance for institutional negligence, the misuse of gifts, or the misuse of
institutional resources, and institutional negligence. While the research on fundraising is
nascent, it does provide insight into the field and influences on fundraising.
Factors Related to Fundraising Outcomes
Many factors relevant to positive fundraising results are outside the influence of
advancement staff and are instead tied to institutional characteristics such as finances and
prestige. Proper, Caboni, Hartley, and Willmer (2009) conducted a study seeking to understand
how advancement staff can efficiently and effectively raise funds and found that older schools
with larger endowments raise more money than newer institutions with small endowments. The
study used data from a survey of private, non-profit colleges conducted by the Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education and the Council of Independent Colleges for the 2004 –
2005 academic year, which garnered 274 responses. Data from the Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) supplemented the data. Although the researchers included
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 17

advancement strategies such as communications plans, thank you letter policies, and the level of
influence of the head of advancement as variables of interest, the only factor within the
immediate control of the institution positively associated with total dollars raised was the size of
the staff. Till (1999) found that endowment size is correlated with fundraising success, along a
link between the institution’s “wealth, prestige, and quality” (p. 24) and higher per student
expenditures and fundraising success.
Several factors that are within the control of institutions and their advancement divisions
are linked to strong fundraising outcomes. Chung-Hoon, Hite, and Hite (2007) conducted a
survey that studied two constructs: relational embeddedness, which measures the strength of a
donor’s social connection to a college or university; and formal structural interaction, which
considers the donor’s integration with the school, such as employment or volunteer
appointments. The researchers found that sustained donor engagement and increased fundraising
is related to the complexity and strength of the relationships and interactions between top donors
and the institution. In addition, the high performing schools also had large advancement staffs
and were confident in their ability to be competitive in securing philanthropic support. McCown
(2000) found that presidential involvement, volunteer boards purposefully created to meet
fundraising objectives, clear institutional vision, the use of capital campaigns, accurate donor
data, involved donors, personal engagement, and the strategic management of prospective donors
are all correlated with greater fundraising performance. Schanz (2012) analyzed the fundraising
data of 22 public universities from 2006 to 2009, a time when many schools experienced
fundraising declines. Interviews with the head of development from the two top fundraising
schools and the two lowest fundraising schools were conducted to increase the understanding of
what factors can impact results. Schanz found that the schools most successful in securing
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 18

annual gifts and high alumni participation rates had several factors in common, including an
established development office, strong leadership, robust alumni engagement, and transparency
in communicating that decreased state support had led to funding gaps. The role of university
leadership also emerged as critical to fundraising.
University and college presidents have broad responsibility for fundraising, including
setting the vision, leading the advancement team, and partnering with gift officers. Satterwhite
and Cedja (2005) interviewed presidents and chief development officers at schools that recently
completed fundraising campaigns. They found that university presidents impact fundraising
success by their leadership in four areas including: articulating a vision, creating a strategic plan
that supports the vision, working with external constituencies, and building capable teams. Other
relevant presidential activities were effective management of internal constituents, holding
fundraising activities, and allocating resources. Lasher and Cook (1996) developed a model for
fundraising based on the idea that fundraising is a social exchange with the president as the
primary driver, but complemented by fundraising staff, volunteer leadership, and other academic
leaders. The model was developed using data from interviews with presidents, chief
development officers, and document review. The final model revealed that presidents and their
fundraising teams need interpersonal skills such as the ability to articulate a vision and inspire
stakeholders but are subject to dynamic forces such as the reputation of the institution and
society’s view of higher education. Slinker (1988) surveyed 46 four-year colleges, 23 that
received awards recognizing advancement success from CASE as well as 23 random CASE
members. The study found that presidents believe advancement is a priority and identify
“leadership; participation; motivation and encouragement; articulation of goals, policies, and
direction; and strategically positioning the institution” (p. 86) as key aspects of their role.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 19

University presidents are crucial to successful fundraising, as are gift officers and the
organizational factors that impact their effectiveness.
Education and Professional Development
Professional development is widely recognized as a factor in educating and retaining
fundraising talent. According to Smith (2010), professional development of gift officers should
go beyond orientation and on-boarding. A thorough examination of the fundraiser shortage in
the context of Jewish organizations led to recommendations for a comprehensive strategy to
develop and retain fundraisers that included partnership with the AFP Certified Fundraising
Executive program as well as the implementation of in-house training utilizing professionally
developed curriculum (Sales & Samuel, 2007). Haggerty (2015) recommended expanding
formal education and training programs as a primary way to combat the fundraiser shortage, also
noting that financial resources should be allocated to education because gift officers need to
acquire considerable knowledge around organizational needs and donors.
The literature on fundraising and its persistent issue with retention points to human
capital management (HCM) as a means of increasing retention. Stahl (2013) suggested that
grant-making foundations invest in human capital in the non-profit sector. She pointed to three
important areas of investment: programmatic, including courses, workshops, retreats, and
coaching; management, such as experienced mentors for emerging leaders; and structural, such
as policies, career pathways, and sabbaticals. Croteau and Wolk (2010) suggested that career
paths should be formalized with entry level positions and progression outlined and based on
milestone achievement, and that performance reviews should be used as an opportunity to
discuss professional development that focuses on “outward mobility” (p. 3) as well as upward
mobility. This included the assertion that employees should be encouraged to discuss areas they
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 20

want to learn more about and should be allowed to explore those areas. Croteau and Wolk
(2010) further asserted that management positions should not be the only avenue to career
progress in fundraising, because not everyone has potential to be an effective manager, nor does
everyone want to pursue management. Furthermore, fundraisers are often promoted to
management based on outstanding individual performance but are ill-prepared for their new
responsibilities. To combat this, formal training and discussion groups for managers should be
incorporated as well as manager transitions that allow rising leaders to gradually assume
responsibility for budget, programs, and people (Croteau & Wolk, 2010).
Gift Officer Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Gap analysis developed by Clark and Estes (2008) is a research-based method of
improving organizational performance by assessing the shortfall between organizational goals
and performance in relation to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) resources
needed to achieve the goals. This study used an adaptation of gap analysis to an evaluation
study. The purpose of the evaluation was to understand gift officer’s capacity to achieve the
organization’s goals, and through recommendations, support gift officer capacity. Gaps and
assets were identified in the gift officers’ knowledge, motivation, and their experience within the
organization’s culture and context. The following sections describe the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influencers of gift officer performance that were considered in this study.
Knowledge Influences
To thrive in our dynamic, information-based economy, organizations need
knowledgeable workers who are adept at problem solving and navigating change (Clark & Estes,
2008). High-performing individuals are crucial to organizational success, and efforts to improve
human performance are a powerful means for organizations to be competitive with the caveat
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 21

that improvement efforts must be focused on performance that adds value (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The WULAS Office of Advancement is focused on meeting its fundraising goals by 2021, but
the gift officers are not performing at the level needed to meet the goal. This section will outline
knowledge influences relevant to gift officer performance.
There are four knowledge categories in Krathwohl’s (2002) revision of the Bloom
taxonomy: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002).
This study examined WULAS gift officers’ knowledge with a focus on procedural and
metacognitive knowledge types. The ability to assess donor interests and connect them to
funding priorities was a procedural knowledge influence considered in this study. The ability to
facilitating strong relationships with donors was a second procedural knowledge influence. The
metacognitive knowledge influence considered in this study was the ability to align
communication style and demeanor with that of a prospective donor.
Gift officers need to know how to assess donors’ interests and connect them to
funding priorities. The ability to assess a prospective donor’s philanthropic interests and align
them with the institution’s priorities is important to the WULAS gift officers’ capacity to meet
their goals. For example, WULAS gift officers may utilize interview techniques to uncover a
prospective donor’s philanthropic priorities and gift-making capacity then align these with
academic priorities and specific funding opportunities that are within the donor’s financial reach.
Examples of this form of procedural knowledge are the required tasks of building relationships
(Chung-Hoon, Hite & Hite, 2007; Knowles & Gomes, 2009; Nyman, 2016) and evaluating and
soliciting prospective donors (Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Education Advisory Board, 2016;
Hawkins, 1995).
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 22

Fundraisers believe that evaluative skills are an important factor for success in their field
(Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Education Advisory Board, 2016; Nyman, Pilbeam, Baines &
Maklan, 2016). In a survey of 1,200 gift officers, Education Advisory Board (EAB) researchers
identified that gift officers need to prioritize potential donors by understanding their ability to
make a gift and by ascertaining the likelihood they will act on that ability (EAB, 2016). In
addition, the researchers found that creating ask strategies for prospective donors is a key skill.
Ask strategies are plans to solicit an individual for a “specific amount for a particular project
based on all available intelligence” (p. 18). Similarly, a qualitative study of 16 highly successful
major gift officers found that gift officers uncover prospective donor philanthropic priorities and
align them with institutional goals to satisfy the aspirations of both parties (Nyman, Pilbeam,
Baines & Maklan, 2016). The gift officers accomplished this by establishing solid relationships
within their organization, understanding their prospective donors, and articulating inspirational
goals. A national survey conducted in 1997 prompted gift officers to think about the
characteristics of capable fundraisers. Cognitive skills including listening, motivating donors,
and solicitation were among the top responses (Duronio & Tempel, 1997). While the study was
conducted 20 years ago, it is a seminal work that established a baseline understanding of the gift
officer role that is still relevant today. These studies demonstrate that an accurate assessment of
a prospective donor is important for WULAS gift officers’ performance.
Gift officer need to know how to facilitate strong relationships with donors. A
model for fundraising that was created by synthesizing classic marketing principals highlights
the importance of relationships (Knowles & Gomes, 2009). At the heart of the model is the need
for major gift officers to know donors on a deep level, including their core values and ideals. In
return, gift officers share information about the organization. The ideas included in the model
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 23

are supported by a 2007 study by Chung-Hoon, Hite and Hite, who surveyed advancement staff
from public universities in the United States. Schools demonstrating strength in both social and
formal donor engagement had better results in endowment, alumni donor participation rates, and
undesignated cash gifts. Additionally, a qualitative study of highly successful gift officers found
that relationship building is paramount (Nyman, 2006). Successful gift officers build solid, long-
lasting relationships with donors and their inner circle of influencers, including family members,
friends, and advisors, then bring the conversation between donors and the institution into
alignment (Nyman, 2016). Each of these studies demonstrates that procedural knowledge to
build enduring relationships is a key influencer of WULAS gift officers’ ability to meet their
stakeholder goal.
Gift officers need to modulate communication strategies to align with potential
donors. Successful gift officers need to know how to align their communication style and
demeanor with the communication style and demeanor of prospective donors to facilitate
meaningful connections with potential supporters. For instance, WULAS gift officers need think
about how they will communicate with a prospective donor, assess their communication style
during the conversation, and change their style to mirror their partner’s style should it be
necessary to facilitate connection. This process is concurrent with Baker’s (2006) definition of
metacognition, which described it as a mindful regulation of thinking. Several studies identified
knowledge and skills that support the need for metacognition in relation to communication and
strategy development (Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Education Advisory Board, 2016; Hawkins,
1995; Miller & Seagren, 1992).
Because outstanding communication skills are considered a key attribute for gift officers,
having metacognitive knowledge around communication norms and use of language is important
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 24

(Education Advisory Board, 2016; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Hawkins, 1995). The EAB (2016)
study previously described found that high-performing fundraisers need “the ability to change
language depending on the audience” (p. 10) and alter behavior to put others at ease. The study
cites examples, such as having cultural awareness when speaking to people from diverse
backgrounds and using different styles when meeting with an elderly alum as compared to
meeting with a busy professional. This ability to code-switch will be useful for fundraisers
moving forward as the prospective donor pool becomes more diverse (Education Advisory
Board, 2016). The Duronio and Tempel (1997) study foreshadowed the EAB results, with
communication skills dominating the top traits fundraisers observe in their high-performing
colleagues. Finally, a survey of college and university presidents found that presidents consider
verbal skills, writing skills, and strategic planning among the most important attributes of gift
officer candidates (Hawkins, 1995). These studies demonstrate that metacognitive knowledge of
communication style is a key influencer of WULAS gift officers’ ability to reach their
fundraising goals.
Motivation Influences

Along with knowledge, motivation is another cause of gaps in performance and is an
important aspect of the gap analysis process developed by Clark and Estes (2008). Without
motivation, even the most knowledgeable people do not perform well (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). There are three indicators of motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental
effort. Active choice is choosing to work toward a goal. Persistence equates to staying on task.
Mental effort is how hard an individual works toward a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Motivational principles such as self-efficacy, attributions of success or failure, value for a task,
goals setting, goal-orientation, and emotions contribute to whether individuals choose to engage
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 25

with tasks and invest the necessary persistence and mental effort (Rueda, 2011). This study will
consider three motivational influences pertinent to the WULAS performance goal: self-efficacy,
attribution, and expectancy value.
Gift officer self-efficacy. Belief in oneself is at the core of Albert Badura’s self-efficacy
theory and underpins motivation and behavior (Pajares, 2006). Furthermore, people act, persist,
and apply effort when they believe it will bring about positive results. There are four influences
on self-efficacy: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasions, and
physiological reactions (Pajares, 2006). Mastery is simply the idea that success increases
confidence, while vicarious experiences is the idea that observation of successful peers increases
one’s own confidence. Social persuasion is when others encourage self-belief, and physiological
reactions are the impact of emotions and mood on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is foundational to
motivational theory and the tenants of active choice, persistence, and mental effort. In addition,
self-motivation is a key component of success in fundraising (Kozobarich, 2000). Therefore, it
is prudent to explore the concept as it emerges in studies of gift officer beliefs and perceptions.
Areas of high self-efficacy are demonstrated by gift officers, including a desire for
challenging goals (Beem, 2000); high levels of personal satisfaction among gift officers
(Lanning, 2007); high confidence in interpersonal skills (Lanning, 2007), and high regard for
mentorship (Lanning, 2007). Gift officers desire challenging fundraising goals (Beem, 2000),
which aligns with self-efficacy theory in that confident individuals set difficult goals for
themselves (Pajares, 2006). Gift officers report high levels of personal satisfaction as they
witness the impact of their work on their institutions (Lanning, 2007). This aligns with the
positive effect of mastery experiences as well as the influence of positive mood on physiological
reactions and self-efficacy. Many gift officers express that strong interpersonal skills help them
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 26

in their fundraising role, which indicates high self-efficacy for this ability. Lastly, Lanning’s
(2007) study also found that nearly half of the respondents reported that mentorship is important
to developing competence in fundraising while a quarter reported that experience is critical.
These responses speak to the importance of mastery experiences as well as vicarious experiences
on self-efficacy.
Gift officer attributions. Attribution theory states that an individual’s beliefs about the
causes of their success or failure impact their decisions regarding how, or if, they choose to
continue engaging in tasks (Weiner, 1974). Attribution theory has three dimensions: stability,
locus, and control. Individuals may perceive causality of their results as either stable or unstable.
Further, causality may be perceived as internal to the individual or the result of an external force.
Finally, individuals have perceptions about whether they can control the causes of their successes
and failures (Weiner, 1974). For instance, a WULAS gift officer who is unable to meet
fundraising goals could attribute this failure to lack of ability, an internal and potentially
uncontrollable cause. The gift officer may additionally attribute this shortcoming to a lack of
training or experience, which can be remedied and is therefore controllable and changeable.
However, she may believe that she is simply not cut-out to be a gift officer, an example of a
stable, uncontrollable attribution. Alternatively, the gift officer may attribute her success or lack
of success to the quality of the prospective donors or a weakness in the organization’s case for
support. Both are external, uncontrollable, and either stable or changeable. According to this
theory, gift officer motivation is positively influenced when they attribute their success to their
own efforts.
Gift officers may attribute their success or failure to myriad factors, including strong
leadership (Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005), institutional reputation (Lasher & Cook, 1996), adequate
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 27

resources (Proper & Caboni, 2009; Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005), quality of portfolio (Education
Advisory Board, 2015; Grabau, 2010), and competency (Education Advisory Board, 2016).
Satterwhite and Cedja (2005) interviewed presidents and chief development officers to uncover
beliefs about attributes of success for fundraising. Developing a vision for fundraising,
communicating with external constituents, and forming fundraising teams were cited as
“monumentally important to development” (p. 338). In addition, employment of a large
advancement staff has shown to increase philanthropic support (Proper & Caboni, 2009), and
institutional reputation also influenced fundraising success (Cook & Lasher, 1996). The
Education Advisory Board’s (2015) research on major gift officer performance found that the
capacity and affinity of the prospective donors is foundational, which is backed by Grabau’s
(2010) analysis of fundraising metrics. Finally, the Education Advisory Board’s survey of 1,217
major gift officers found that the highest performers have expertise in planning and executing
solicitations (Education Advisory Board, 2016). This study will examine WULAS gift officers’
attributions for their performance outcomes.
Gift officer value orientation. An individual’s motivation to complete a task is
influenced by whether they believe that can perform the task and if they want to perform the task
(Eccles, 2006). There are four dimensions of task value: intrinsic value, which is enjoyment of
the task; attainment value, which is how well the activity aligns with identity; utility value,
which is how the task benefits the individual; and cost value, which are the resources needed for
the task (Eccles, 2006). It is important that WULAS gift officers have high value for their role,
especially to facilitate retention. Gift officer tenure is linked to performance (Reed, 2015),
which makes retention of WULAS gift officers critical to both the stakeholder and organizational
goals.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 28

Gift officers who report high job satisfaction are more likely to stay in their current
positions (Horstman, 2006; Haggerty, 2015), but intention to stay is also impacted by fundraiser
passion for the organization’s mission (Horstman, 2006), perceived fit with the organization’s
culture (Haggerty, 2015), salary, and opportunity for advancement (Pinder, 2012). Enjoyment is
related to intrinsic value; passion and fit are related to attainment value; and salary and
promotions are related to utility value. While gift officers who report high job satisfaction intend
to remain in their current positions, reports of unattainable goals and lack of resources were
negatively linked to intention to stay (Horstman, 2006). Furthermore, gift officer perception of
how well their skills fit with their job responsibilities was an indicator of whether they would
remain in the profession. Skill alignment is more important than relationships with supervisors
or the organization itself (Haggerty, 2005). Finally, a study of gift officers employed in the
advancement function for a variety of Seventh Day Adventist organizations, found that more
than half of the major gift officers who responded were either seeking a new position or were
open to the possibility (Pinder, 2012). The top reasons cited for leaving were monetary,
opportunities for professional development, and to join an organization with more fundraising
success. This study will evaluate the WULAS gift officers’ value for their role in WULAS
Advancement.
Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivation, organizational influences are one of the three
determinants of performance in the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational
culture encompasses a group’s shared experiences that come to define purpose, beliefs, and
identity (Schein, 2017). Culture manifests in structure and process as well as organizational
values and normed behaviors (Schein, 2017). Clark and Estes (2008) described organizational
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 29

influences as resources, processes, and procedures that must work together to support
organizational goals. Processes govern how groups of people and resources interact toward
organizational objectives, while procedures prescribe how individuals perform tasks. Policies
support both processes and procedures. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational
goal achievement is primarily the result of the calibration and interplay of organizational,
knowledge, and motivational influences. During gap analysis, organizational obstacles such as
insufficient resources or detrimental policies may be identified. Reported organizational
deficiencies must be confirmed and understood in relation to knowledge and motivation
influences. Organizational complexity stems from the unique culture of an organization, the
culture’s effect on how performance problems manifest, and how the culture impacts the
selection of solutions to performance issues (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural models and settings. Schein (2014) defined culture as a learned system of
principles and patterns of behavior acquired as a group solves problems, and which are accepted
as legitimate, taught to new-comers, and over time, become part of the group’s sub-
consciousness. While the cultural model of an organization describes the underlying norms and
values within a group, the climate, or cultural setting, is the expression of the culture (Schneider,
Brief & Guzzo, 1996). The cultural model and the cultural setting are reciprocal in that the
practices guiding the day-to-day work within an organization also contribute to its unique
cultural model. For example, reward systems within an organization, which are part of climate,
clearly demonstrate what the organization values. This in turn contributes to culture as
employees begin to place a high value on behavior that reaps rewards (Schneider, et al., 1996).
Understanding a group’s culture is an important aspect of gap analysis and informs the entire
process through the solution phase (Clark & Estes, 2008). In gap analysis, a cultural profile is
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 30

constructed by interviewing individuals who have been with the group long enough to grasp the
culture, but not long enough for the culture to become an automated aspect of their behavior.
The following sections highlight literature that pertains to the cultural model influences and
cultural setting influences on the WULAS gift officers’ ability to meet their performance goal.
Leaders who participate in fundraising. In higher education fundraising, the
involvement of presidents and other institutional leaders is paramount to fundraising success
(Cook & Lasher, 1996; Nyman, 2016 & Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005). Major gift officers connect
donors with academic leaders to facilitate the exchange of ideas and vision, which are integral
aspects of the fundraising process (Nyman, 2016). Also, gift officers benefit from building
relationships with institutional leaders, which gives them opportunity to educate leadership about
the time investment of major gift fundraising and to influence leadership to be receptive to
donors’ ideas (Nyman, 2016). Furthermore, high status fundraising teams have increased
leverage in gift conversations with potential donors (Cook & Lasher, 1996). While the president
is the driving force of a fundraising campaign, he is not a lone operator, and must rally internal
constituents as members of appropriate fundraising teams (Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005).
Assembling these teams is fundamental to the role of university president (Satterwhite & Cedja,
2005). Likewise, the need to partner with college leadership is paramount to WULAS gift
officers, who are seldom lone-operators in securing gifts. However, the culture and size of
WULAS does not easily facilitate gift officer ability to connect with faculty and college
volunteer leaders, which may be hindering their effectiveness.
Clear vision for fundraising. Higher education advancement requires direction from
academic leadership to be successful (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005 &
Slinker, 1988). A precondition of fundraising success is the university president’s ability to
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 31

formulate a compelling vision and to articulate that message in an appealing manner (Cook &
Lasher, 1006). Similarly, according to Satterwhite and Cedja (2005), the university president’s
top fundraising responsibility is to articulate a strategic plan and convey a vision for the
institution. Presidents acknowledge that their vision is crucial to success in institutional
advancement, and that the case for support must be repeated with conviction (Slinker, 1988).
While the Western University (WU) president is a key player, WULAS gift officer success is
predicated on the WULAS dean’s ability to develop a vision for WULAS that is compelling to
potential WULAS donors. The vision, or case for support, should be available in narrative form
and augmented by specific giving opportunities offered to donors in varying amounts. This
evaluation study will explore gift officers’ perceptions of the WULAS vision for fundraising.
Engagement opportunities for potential donors. Institutions that provide donors and
potential donors opportunities for meaningful engagement are more successful in fundraising
endeavors (Chung, 2007; Dunlop, 2002; McCown, 2000). Major gift officers must focus on
continuously increasing the potential donor’s knowledge, appreciation, and engagement with the
university (Dunlop, 2002). This cultivation process is focused on the individual, not the
institution, and should consider the prospective donor’s ability to not only support the university
financially, but also contribute intellect, skills, and connections, as well as emotional support.
Specific cultivation activities may be large-scale involvement opportunities, such as alumni and
athletic events, supplemented by personalized opportunities created for a donor, including
faculty visits, meetings with scholarship recipients, or donor-hosted receptions (Dunlop, 2002).
Institutions purposeful in engagement efforts performed better in fundraising than
institutions that demonstrated limited, surface-level, and contrived engagement (McCown,
2000). Furthermore, schools that enabled rich relationships and engaged top donors in formal
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 32

institutional roles had the largest number of donors committing to ultimate gifts and more donors
self-initiating gifts (Chung, 2007). To engage potential donors, WULAS gift officers need to
operate within a culture of philanthropy in which funders are welcome to participate in the
academic and programmatic endeavors of the university. While some WULAS donors
demonstrate deep engagement, gift officers struggle to facilitate meaningful connections even
when new and existing prospective donors are eager for opportunity. According to Berbary and
Malinchak (2011), engaging employees results in greater organizational understanding, positive
emotions, increased motivation, and better performance. While donors are not university
employees, engaging them likewise may bring similar benefits.
Best practices in talent and performance management. To positively impact
performance and turnover, organizations need to use best practices in recruiting (Smith, 2012;
Smith, 2010; Education Advisory Board, 2014), on-boarding (Education Advisory Board, 2015;
Booz | Allen | Hamilton, 2008) and managing talent (Beem, 2000; Education Advisory Board,
2010; Zeidenstein, 2012). To address the shortage of fundraising talent, Smith (2010)
recommended a focus on recruiting gift officers that includes knowing the source of current top-
performers, maintaining a pipeline of potential recruits, and tracking turnover, especially of high
performers. In addition, Smith (2010), citing person-organization fit theory, recommends
recruiting individuals whose values are in alignment with the organization. To increase
confidence in hiring, especially non-traditional candidates, he also recommended developing a
competency model and recruiting for the identified skills. The Education Advisory Board (2014)
recommended a broad array of tools to reach and track new candidates, including referrals,
conference attendance, and social media. Once hired, new employees should take part in a
comprehensive on-boarding program that includes incremental goal setting, mentoring, and
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 33

development focused on identified areas for growth (Education Advisory Board, 2015). Well-
developed on-boarding increases productivity, engages employees, lowers turnover, and gets
employees productive faster (Booz | Allen | Hamilton & Partnership for Public Service, 2008).
After employees are integrated into the development operation, implementing strategic
talent management is a cost-effective investment that can yield results in the millions over the
course of a campaign (Zeidenstein, 2012). Zeidenstein calculated the return on investment using
a statistical simulation of two major gifts teams, one with strategic talent management and one
without. Using data from a Rice University Campaign, Zeidenstein ran multiple simulations to
account for the complexity inherent in fundraising. He found that the strategic management
talent team would raise $1.6 million more per year, fully justifying an investment in talent
management. The Education Advisory Board (2010) queried development shops of member
organizations and recommended 18 best practices in performance management, after found that
development leadership failed to plan for staffing, relied to much on metrics, provided too little
feedback, did not support portfolio management, and lacked incentives for gift officers. They
compiled a set of recommendations including: a) hire dedicated performance management staff,
b) establish standards, c) provide tools for transparent reporting, d) maximize gift officer time, e)
focus on strategic portfolio management, f) provide opportunities for career growth, and g)
reward and recognize performance. These recommendations were supported by a survey of gift
officers that found fundraisers want structure in their work, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards
explicitly tied to performance, and regular feedback on their performance (Beem, 2000).
In summary, WULAS gift offices are subject to cultural model and cultural setting
influences that may both help and hinder their performance. Access to leadership, opportunities
for donor engagement, a vision for fundraising, and talent and performance management are the
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 34

organizational influences considered in this study. Table 2 outlines the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences that were evaluated in this study.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 35

Table 2
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences of Gift Officer Performance
Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type
Gift officers need to know how to assess a prospective donor’s
interests and connect them to institutional funding priorities.
Procedural
Gift officers need to know how to facilitate a strong relationship
with donors.
Procedural
Gift officers need to know how to align their communication
style and demeanor with the communication style and demeanor
of prospective donors to facilitate connection.
Metacognitive

Motivational Influences Theory
Gift officers need to be confident in their fundraising abilities.
Self-efficacy
Theory
Gift officers should attribute their success to their own efforts
rather than external, uncontrollable factors.
Attribution
Theory
Gift officers should value the impact their gift production has on
their organization and on their careers.
Expectancy Value
Theory

Organizational Influences Model or Setting
WULAS needs institutional leaders who are accessible and open
to active participation in fundraising processes. Cultural Model
WULAS needs to provide a clear vision for fundraising. Cultural Model
WULAS needs to provide opportunities to engage donors and
prospective donors in campus life. Cultural Setting
WULAS needs to utilize best practices in talent and performance
management. Cultural Setting

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 36

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Gift Officers’ Knowledge, Motivation and the
Organizational Context
Conceptual frameworks underpin research projects, providing a guiding structure
comprised of ideas and theories that form the basis for a study (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). The
conceptual framework for this study was derived from the gap analysis process described by
Clark and Estes (2008), which states that performance problems can be addressed by identifying
and closing stakeholder gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational support. This study’s
conceptual framework describes assumed gift officer knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs derived from higher education and fundraising literature. The researcher’s experience as a
practitioner in the field of fundraising and direct experience with WU helped determine how the
conceptual framework depicts the interactions of the influences amongst themselves and with the
WULAS gift officers. Ultimately, a visual model of these interactions depicts a theory for how
gift officers achieve their performance goals.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 37

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework guiding the design of this study.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 38

The conceptual framework in Figure 1 depicts the interaction between the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences relevant to the Western University Letters, Arts and
Science (WULAS) gift officers’ ability to meet their fundraising goals. The gift officers are
represented in the blue shaded hexagon along with the knowledge and motivational influences
derived from the literature. Specifically, the knowledge influences include procedural
knowledge to evaluate potential donors and connect them to WULAS funding priorities (Duronio
& Tempel, 1997; Education Advisory Board, 2016; Hawkins, 1995), procedural knowledge to
facilitate strong relationships with donors (Chung-Hoon, Hite & Hite, 2007: Knowles & Gomez,
2009; Nyman, 2016), and metacognitive knowledge to facilitate connection by communicating in
a manner suitable to the prospective donor (Education Advisory Board, 2016; Duronio &
Tempel, 1997; Hawkins, 1995; Miller & Seagren, 1992). The specific motivational influences
are self-efficacy theory, which is that belief in oneself motivates action (Pajares, 2006);
attribution theory, which is to what factors gift officers attribute their performance (Education
Advisory Board, 2016; Education Advisory Board, 2015; Grabau, 2010; Lasher & Cook, 1996;
Proper & Caboni, 2009; Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005); and expectancy value, which is the value
the gift officers have for meeting their goals (Haggerty, 2015; Horstman, 2006; Pinder, 2012).
The knowledge and motivational influences are contained in the hexagon to illustrate their
interaction with both the stakeholder of focus, WULAS gift officers, and with each other.
As employees, the gift officers are located within both the green circle, representing
WULAS, and the blue circle representing Western University (WU). This positioning reflects
the interaction of the gift officer knowledge and motivation with the organizational influences
and is indicative of the complexity of the university environment. Similarly, the stakeholder
group including WULAS deans, directors, faculty, and board members are located within in a
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 39

black oval inside the green WULAS circle, and the stakeholder group including the provost and
the president are within a black oval inside the blue WU circle. A black, bi-directional arrow
illustrates the interaction between WULAS leaders and WULAS gift officers. While the gift
officers are influenced by the WU leadership, such as the president and provost, there is little
direct interaction with these stakeholders. The final stakeholder groups are the prospective
donors and the active donors. A solid black bi-directional arrow indicates the many interactions
between gift officers and prospective donors that serve to cultivate their interest and convert
them to active donors. The line with multiple arrow heads represents this movement, which
happens over time, often 18 months or more. Finally, the dotted arrows indicate interactions
between active donors and various members of the university community. The stakeholder
group of focus, WULAS gift officers, is also subject to key organizational influences depicted in
the conceptual model.
The organizational influences are comprised of both cultural models and cultural settings.
Specifically, the key cultural model is the university’s need to provide a clear vision for
fundraising (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Satterwhite & Cedja, 2005; Slinker, 1988). The key cultural
setting is the university’s need to provide opportunities to engage donors and prospective donors
in campus life (Chung, 2007; Dunlop, 2002; McCown, 2000). Another cultural setting is the
need for talent and performance management (Beem, 2000; Education Advisory Board, 2010;
Education Advisory Board, 2014; Smith, 2010; Smith, 2012; Zeidenstein, 2012). Both the circle
representing WULAS and the circle representing WU encompass organizational influences,
because gift officers are influenced by the culture of both organizations and are reliant on both to
achieve their goals.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 40

This dissertation considered the theory depicted in the conceptual framework, which is
when the WULAS gift officers have the necessary knowledge, are motivated, and are supported
in their role by the appropriate culture, they will meet their performance goals. This theory is in
keeping with Clark and Estes (2008), who assert that the interaction of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences determine goal achievement.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This qualitative study used interviews and a survey to answer the research questions. The
use of both methods provided triangulation of data to substantiate the findings by comparing the
resulting data sets (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While this is a qualitative study, a survey to
collect a minimal amount of quantitative data was included. Surveys produce numeric
descriptions of beliefs and opinions (Creswell, 2014), which were used to edify the interview
process and triangulate the data gathered via the qualitative methods described above. The
survey questions are connected to research question two to understand the motivational
influences of gift officer performance, and research question three to understand gift officer
beliefs pertaining to organizational culture and context. Surveys are relatively easy to administer
and provide data quickly (Creswell, 2014), which makes them appropriate for the short
timeframe of this study and to provide a means of triangulating the data. Interviews were the
primary method and are appropriate for understanding how participants perceive their world
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol provided probes for gift officer procedural
knowledge of donor engagement and relationship building as well as probes for metacognitive
knowledge of code switching. In addition, some of the interview questions queried the
participants’ beliefs and perceptions about their role. These methods are discussed in greater
detail below.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 41

Surveys
The survey, which is included in Appendix B, was administered online prior to the
interview stage of the study. Sampling in quantitative studies is generally done to ensure a
representative sample and generalizability of the data (Creswell, 2014). Because the population
size for this survey is small, the entire target population of 15 gift officers was included (there
were two open positions at the time of the survey). Because the main goal was not to generalize
but to understand the participants, the sample served its purpose. The gift officers received an
email asking them to participate in an anonymous, self-administered survey, which took
approximately five minutes to complete. It is important that the survey was anonymous because
the study was conducted in the researcher’s own organization. Although the sample size is
small, participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous and that the
information they provide would not be identifiable. One week after the initial email, a reminder
email was sent to non-respondents and respondents who started but did not complete the survey.
According to Fink (2013), multiple choice surveys are straightforward both in use and in data
analysis due to the consistency in responses. Because this study was conducted in a condensed
time-frame, the survey was short, with 12 multiple choice questions and two open-ended
demographic questions. The survey questions were related to gift officer beliefs about their
goals, their value for their role, their attributions for success, and their impressions of the
department’s culture in relation to their performance. Survey results were analyzed using
descriptive statistics to find patterns to edify the semi-structured interviews that followed.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The interviews were semi-structured and consisted of open-ended
questions with the flexibility to probe for details and explore emerging topics and the unique
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 42

perspective of each participant. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), interviews typically
combine standard questions with open-ended questions and unstructured conversation.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), less structure is best when the researcher presumes
that each respondent will have their own view of the world.
The interview protocol consisted of two questions that were the same for everyone, which
queried years of experience as a gift officer and tenure in their current role. The rest of the
interview was semi-structured and consisted of open-ended questions, which are useful for
eliciting detailed responses desired in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A detailed
interview guide was utilized, which is appropriate according to Patton (2002) because the
researcher is guided by a set of pre-identified influences. However, the interviewer had the
flexibility to ask the respondent to tell her more about topics that came up in the conversation.
Using a detailed interview guide helped expedite data analysis in the tight timeframe provided
for this step of the dissertation. The guide also ensured that each respondent was queried on the
presumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Open-ended questions that
explored the respondents’ procedural and metacognitive knowledge around performance were
included in the protocol. In addition, questions probing for motivational influences were
included, as well as questions that queried respondents’ perceptions of the departmental and
organizational cultures and how the culture influences their performance. According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), interviewees should be selected based on their ability to elucidate the
research questions. In this case, the researcher purposefully recruited eight participants, who
represent the “floor” and “ceiling” of gift officer tenure with WULAS as well as experience in
the role. The interview protocol, including possible probes, is available in Appendix B.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 43

Interview procedures. Each respondent was interviewed once in a 60-minute interview
but was asked if they were open to a second, shorter follow-up conversation. According to
Weiss (1994), one hour is a typical length for studies. With participant permission, a recording
device was used to audio record the interviews for transcription. Participants were informed that
the recording would be transcribed and anonymized. The interviews were formal and took place
in-person in a private library study room. The interviews took place after the survey was
completed and analyzed with descriptive statistics.
Findings
The findings were derived from interviews with a purposeful sample of eight WULAS
gift officers representing the floor and ceiling of experience and tenure. A census survey of the
WULAS gift officers served to triangulate the findings related to motivational and organizational
influences. The following pseudonyms were used for the interviewees: Aaron, Ashley, April,
Barbara, Beverly, Curtis, Debi, and Elizabeth. Aaron, Ashley, and April represent the floor or
experience and tenure. Barbara, Beverly, Curtis, Debi, and Elizabeth represent the ceiling of
experience and tenure. The sampling criteria is in Appendix A. In order to thoroughly address
the research questions, the findings are organized according the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO
framework. The knowledge findings are presented first, followed by the motivation and
organization findings.
Knowledge Findings
This study’s first research question centered on gift officer knowledge related to
fundraising performance. The interviews sought to uncover whether the WULAS gift officers
know how to productively work with donors and if they reflect on how their donor interactions
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 44

impact their performance. The following section presents findings related to each of the
knowledge influences that guided the study.
More experienced WULAS gift officers demonstrated the ability to ascertain donor
interests and align interests to giving opportunities. The findings from the interviews support
that WULAS gift officers believe that ascertaining a prospective donor’s interest in the
university is key to their role. All eight of the interviewees talked about the importance of
uncovering prospective donor interests. Ashley, who is a relatively novice gift officer stated,
“when you’re with a donor, you’re really focused on their interests.” Similarly, Debi, who is at
the ceiling of both tenure and experience among the gift officers asserted that she knows how to
get at a prospective donor’s interests. She said, “You’re being informed by whatever the donor
is providing you. And if they aren’t providing what you need, then you have the intuitive sense
to know how to essentially extract that information.” Gift officers at both the floor and ceiling of
the role remarked on using conversations with prospective donors to get at their interests,
however, when asked to describe a first meeting with a prospect, three of the more experienced
gift officers described specific tactics they use to assess interest. Their responses to the
behavioral interview items suggest that they have procedural knowledge, or, in other words, that
they know how to accomplish this goal when they are in conversation with a prospect. For
instance, Elizabeth articulated the following series of questions she poses to donors:
Would you be interested in learning more about X, Y, Z? If I invited you to an event that
showcased the work that’s being done in this particular area, would you be interested in
attending? If I introduced you to this particular faculty member, would you be interested
in sitting down and having a meeting with this faculty member or professor?
These questions demonstrate that Elizabeth has procedural knowledge of how to ascertain
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 45

interest. Likewise, Beverly, who also has considerable experience, remarked that she queries
prospective donors about “what their relationship” has been with the college and “how they see
that changing.” In contrast, in response to the behavioral interview items gift officers at the floor
of tenure and experience did not describe how they apply this knowledge. For instance, April
simply said, “You’re really against another person, trying to figure out their passions and where
that aligns within WULAS and your goals and metrics.” She did not remark on what she does to
get at the information. This suggests that the less experienced gift officers may not have
sufficient procedural knowledge of tactics to ascertain interest. Furthermore, four gift officers,
all of whom have at least four years of experience in gift officer roles, went a step farther and
described how they specifically ascertain interest in philanthropy. For example, Beverly said,
“One of the questions I like to ask is, how did you learn to be philanthropic or generous in life?”
Likewise, Debi stated that she uses questions to get at a prospective donor’s motivation for
making a contribution. Knowing how to gain understanding of a prospective donor’s interest in
philanthropy is key to the gift officer role because a gift officer’s primary function is to secure
philanthropic support.
After ascertaining interests, gift officers need to know how to connect identified interests
to giving opportunities. All eight of the interviewees talked about making these links, however,
four of the gift officers demonstrated a deeper understanding of how to strengthen connections.
For instance, April, who has less experience as a fundraiser described her role as “match-
making,” but followed that with a vague desire to create connections with donors without
describing how she might do that. In contrast, Curtis, who has the most experience as a
fundraiser said, “And so it's really figuring out what that connection is, if there's maybe some
synergistic opportunities to work together, and then setting up some concrete next steps for a
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 46

next visit or what we might do after this.” Similarly, Elizabeth remarked that after discovering a
donor interest, she will tell them what the college is “doing in that area” and say, “Let me
introduce you to some of the leaders in this area.” In this way, both Elizabeth and Curtis
described methods to deepen connections via subsequent steps. Again, the gift officers with
more experience gave responses to the behavioral interview items that indicated a more
sophisticated understanding of connecting donors to opportunities.
WULAS gift officers know how to build relationships with prospective donors.
Across the board, the gift officers believe that relationship-building is central to their role. One
interviewee asserted that “relationship building is the crux of what we do.” and another said,
“That's the thing I love about this job because you're really bonding with these donors and you're
really formulating a relationship that doesn't only surround dollars.” These sentiments, which
illustrate gift officer belief in relationship building, were echoed among the gift officers at both
the floor and ceiling of the role. In addition, all eight described donor relationships that had
deepened over time with interviewee descriptions of texting donors, meeting extended family,
and developing friendships with donors.
In terms of procedural knowledge, six of the eight interviewees described specific
procedural knowledge that they use to establish and strengthen relationships. Techniques that
emerged in the interviews included being transparent about the gift officer role, being in touch
regularly, sharing personal information with the prospective donors, and purposefully
introducing prospective donors to other leaders within the university in order to strengthen the
institutional relationship. In describing the importance of transparency, April stated:
I've learned in the past few years to be very up front about who I am and what I do. I try
to put philanthropy or fundraising in my introductory emails and reiterate that's what I do
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 47

in my first qualification visit. Otherwise, it can be very awkward. I feel like anybody
who meets with you after knowing what you do is actually on the path to being a donor.
In this manner, April begins the relationship with transparency. Debi echoed this process stating,
“I'm a particularly transparent person. I think that just makes things easier for all parties
involved.” Other interviewees provided examples of procedural knowledge around institutional
relationship building. Ashley, the gift officer with the least experience, shared a story about
introducing a prospective donor to a program manager:
It was really a great meeting because not only did the university benefit with a gift, the
donor really enjoyed her time with the program manager. The program manager really
appreciated the funding. It was a win-win. So that's really one of my proudest memories
of my time here.
Curtis, who had the most experience as a fundraiser, offered additional support for this tactic,
stating, “And knowing that it's not nine times out of ten about me. It's usually putting a volunteer
leader in front of it, or a program person, or an expert or something like that.” Curtis’ statement
reflects his knowledge that the donor relationship goes beyond the gift officer as an individual to
the gift officer as a conduit to a relationship with the organization.
WULAS gift officers are strategic in their communication choices. All eight of the
interviewees articulated to varying degrees an ability to plan their approach to prospective
donors based on their constituency type. Six of the eight pointed out that they use different
communication tactics with parents of current students versus alumni. Elizabeth, Barbara,
Beverly, and Aaron specifically stated that communication with parents is centered on the
student experience. Beverly expanded beyond parents and noted tactics for several other
constituencies:
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 48

With retired people, you have to give them three plus hours. With a professional person,
to the point. Quick, quick. With a parent, it’s about the student and their experience. If
the parent is already a philanthropist, it’s maybe a little swifter. With the alumni, it’s
about bringing them back to what they felt like as students.
Beverly demonstrated that she plans her approach to prospective donors and selects tactics
according to constituency type. However, while the gift officers revealed critical thinking skills,
Beverly (a more experienced gift officer), April (a gift officer with less experience), and Aaron
(at the floor of both experience and tenure) took it a step farther and noted the ability to monitor
and adjust their approach. Beverly said gift officer need to be “this chameleon who can adjust to
whatever their need is.” It is this ability to adjust that stands out as metacognition. Likewise,
April discussed flexibility in communication tactics based on gender, age, and interests. She
concluded with, “You just have to be able to read the person and figure it out.” Finally, Aaron
stated, “I think when you first start, you’re like, ‘Wait, I should have asked them at this point. I
should have asked him for money at this point. We should have started talking about
philanthropy at this point.” This demonstrates an ability to self-correct based on what the gift
officer is learning from a specific prospective donor. These three gift officers all differ in their
tenure and experience, which indicates that being at the floor or ceiling of either measure did not
contribute to stronger metacognitive knowledge around communication choices.
In summary, the WULAS gift officers know what they need to do in order to be
successful in their role. However, there were gaps in their knowledge base that present
opportunities for improvement. At every level, they demonstrated an ability to build
relationships with donors and, as individuals, they described tactics they personally use to
deepen and broaden donor relationships across the institution. The gift officers also understand
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 49

that they need to uncover donor interests and align them with giving opportunities, but the more
experienced fundraisers described specific strategies they use to accomplish this goal. Finally,
some of the gift officers actively reflect on their performance and adjust tactics. These findings
suggest that gift officers would benefit from sharing their relationship building tactics with each
other to add to their repertoire of skills. In addition, the less experienced gift officers need to
understand how to implement strategies that uncover donor interests. Lastly, opportunities to
reflect would benefit gift officer who may not chose to do so on their own.
Motivation Findings
The study’s first research question also focused on motivational influences on gift officer
performance. Findings were derived from gift officer responses to interview questions designed
to evaluate gift officer self-efficacy, value orientation, and attribution of success or failure.
Seven questions in the gift officer survey triangulate the interview findings related to motivation,
including questions aligned with self-efficacy; attribution of success or failure; and value for the
gift officer role. The survey data is presented prior to the interview findings.
Survey data related to gift officer self-efficacy, attributions, and value. The survey
was sent to all 16 gift officers who were employed by WULAS Advancement when the survey
was administered. Eleven gift officers responded. Three of the respondents had less than three
years of tenure with WULAS Advancement. Seven of the respondents had five or more years of
experience in advancement irrespective of organization.
Two survey items were developed to ascertain gift officer self-efficacy, or confidence.
The items asked gift officers to respond using a four-point likert scale and the results are
displayed in Table 3. The first item stated, “I am confident that I can meet my annual
performance goal.” Most respondents agreed with the first item. The second item stated, “I am
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 50

confident that WULAS Advancement can meet its annual campaign-extension goals.” In this
case, seven gift officers disagreed while only four agreed.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 51

Table 3

Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Self-Efficacy

Survey Item Response Count

Item 1: I am confident that I can meet my
annual performance goal.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
3
6
1
1

Item 2: I am confident that WULAS
Advancement can meet its annual
campaign-extension goals.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
0
4
6
1

Responses to three survey questions related to attribution theory suggest that gift officers
believe that successful performance depends upon the effort they put into the role. However,
they also believe that dynamic factors outside their control impact their performance. Gift
officer responses to the survey items related to attribution are shown in Table 4.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 52

Table 4
Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Attributions
Survey Item Response Count

Item 3: My fundraising outcomes are
correlated with the amount of effort I put
into my role.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4
3
4
0

Item 4: My fundraising outcomes are
influenced by situational factors outside
my control.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

3
7
1
0
Item 5: Situational factors that influence
fundraising outcomes at WULAS may
change over time.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
5
6
0
0

The survey included three items related to the value gift officers have for their role.
Again, they responded using a four-point Likert scale and the results are displayed in Table 5.
Item six stated, “I care about the initiatives for which I am raising funds.” All 11 agreed with the
statement with seven strongly agreeing. Item seven stated, “My work as a gift officer is
personally gratifying.” Ten gift officers agreed with the statement with only one disagreeing.
Item eight stated, “Achieving my future career aspirations depends on my ability to meet my
performance goals.” Again, ten agreed and only one disagreed. These results suggest that gift
officers value their role, both because it is fulfilling and because their success will positively
impact their career progression.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 53

Table 5
Frequency of Responses to Survey Items Related to Gift Officer Value
Survey Item Response Count

Item 6: I care about the initiatives for
which I am raising funds.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
7
4
0
0

Item 7: My work as a gift officer is
personally gratifying.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

5
5
0
1
Item 8: Achieving my future career
aspirations depends on my ability to meet
my performance goals.

Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

6
4
1
0

WULAS gift officers are confident in their fundraising ability but are ambivalent
about the WULAS team goal. Each of the gift officers expressed belief in their ability to
perform the functions of the fundraiser role. The quantitative survey results supported this as
well with nine out of eleven respondents agreeing that they will meet their personal goals.
Further evidence emerged in the interviews. Elizabeth asserted that she would meet her annual
goals, and April stated, “I don’t know why I can read people, I just feel like I can.” Beverly
commented that she is “likeable,” can make “connections,” and can develop “deep, meaningful
relationships.” In addition, the gift officers all made comments that indicated an increase in
confidence with either experience or tenure. Elizabeth asserted, “I’ve refined my skill in asking
the right questions of prospects. That’s definitely something that I’ve been able to improve with
experience.” Likewise, Curtis, who is at the ceiling of both experience and tenure described
being nervous early in his career when speaking to high-stakes prospective donors, but said he
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 54

gained confidence over time. She acknowledged that she had the right skill-set when she came
to WULAS, and quickly learned the culture and program elements in order to be successful.
When asked about his goals, Curtis related his ability to reach his goals to confidence in the
worthiness of the program he represents, the commitment of the leadership, and the reputation of
the university. He added that he feels “blessed from that perspective.” Curtis was the only gift
officer who attributed his confidence to the organization, which may be because he exclusively
raises funds for an institute within WULAS and works closely with that institute’s leadership and
programs. That noted, Curtis and Elizabeth, who are experienced gift officers, each reflected on
their growth and acknowledged an increase in confidence over time. Gift officers at the floor of
experience and tenure also pointed to experience in bolstering confidence. Ashley noted that
experience made her “more comfortable talking about the gift” and Aaron stated that experience
gave him “more confidence and more know how” in fundraising.
Although the gift officers expressed confidence in their abilities, the survey showed that
they were less confident that the overall annual goal of $85 million would be realized. Gifts that
count toward the annual goal come from a variety of sources both within WULAS and from the
university at large. These sources include the WULAS chief development officer who manages
a portfolio of the highest capacity donors; the WULAS corporate and foundation relations team,
who raise funds from institutional donors; faculty members who participate in their own
fundraising; and gift officers who work for WU advancement but often raise funds for the
college. Seven out of eleven of the WULAS interviewees said they disagreed that WULAS
would reach its goal, with one strongly disagreeing. The other four said they agreed that the
team would make goal but zero strongly agreed. This sentiment was confirmed during the
interviews by several gift officers. Elizabeth attributed some of her concern to the prospective
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 55

donor pool being “pretty cold” and also stated:
I’m not sure that we have all the prospects that we need to really reach these huge
financial goals, especially if we’re relaunching the campaign. I think that’s something
that I’ve expressed to my supervisor and to other team members, and that’s kind of a
common feeling. It’s a question mark.
Elizabeth’s statement reflects that she does not feel the team will fail, but rather she is unaware if
the prospect pool will have the capacity to meet a large goal. Debi also expressed concern about
expectations based on the prospective donor pool and felt that this was “overlooked” when the
goal was set. In general, the gift officers are confident, but are unsure if the overall goal will be
met, primarily because they do not believe the prospective donors have the capacity to make
large enough contributions. In addition, the gift officers identified factors beyond their control
that impact the ability to reach challenging goals.
WULAS gift officers believe that factors outside their control impact their
fundraising results. The interview findings suggest that the gift officers believe they possess
the skills they need to be successful at securing philanthropic support for the college, but they
also pointed out barriers that could impact their results. The interview responses of the two gift
officers at the floor of tenure and experience illustrate this finding, with one noting that if a gift
officer is not experiencing success, he should realize it is because he has not “necessarily done x,
y, or z” and the other expressing that there are “some external factors that play a part in your
success.” Notably, four of the interviewees pointed out that fundraising became more difficult as
a result of recent controversies at the university. Three of the interviewees said that results
depend on having the right prospective donors, three noted that the decentralized structure of
WU impacts results, and one asserted that fundraisers need strong programs and internal partners
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 56

to be successful. Barbara, who has considerable experience as a fundraiser, but less tenure at
WULAS, stated:
It’s having clear expectations and goals, but then knowing that in this line of work we
can’t control everything. We can’t make people write checks. We can’t make them
return phone calls, so again, just doing the best we can to work within those parameters,
so just being realistic too about these are generally the metrics and the goals but knowing
that there are a lot of factors we can’t control.
This statement suggests that Barbara believes that her inability to demand that people engage in
philanthropy should be considered in evaluating metrics. On the other hand, Aaron shared that
while “external factors play a part” he has a “go-getter attitude” and asks for help with barriers.
Curtis, the most experienced of the interviewees, stated:
A lot of times you have to be really persistent, and you have to follow up, and you have
to overcome a lot of barriers, and you have to be willing to kind of go outside your
comfort zone and close that gift.
Both Aaron’s and Curtis’ statements suggest that they believe there are obstacles, but gift
officers can overcome them and be successful. Other interviewees who pointed out obstacles did
not also remark that they could overcome them through their own efforts. For instance, Beverly
said, “the only reason you would fail is because your people aren’t the right people” and
Elizabeth noted that a gift officer will not be a high performer if their portfolio “doesn’t have the
load capacity to yield lots of large gifts.” Their belief that external factors impacts results was
corroborated by the survey, in which all eleven respondents agreed that results are influenced by
situational factors outside of their control.
WULAS gift officers care about WULAS, believe they create value for the college,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 57

and want to be acknowledged for their contribution to organizational goals. All the gift
officers spoke positively about their role and the value they bring to the organization, the donors,
or themselves. The survey results bolstered this assertion in that every respondent agreed that
they care about the initiatives for which they are raising funds and all agreed that the work is
personally gratifying. During their interviews, both Elizabeth and Barbara described the
personal satisfaction they feel, with Elizabeth noting that “universities are such dynamic, fun
places to work” and Barbara explaining that raising funds for higher education is “fascinating”
and affords the opportunity to “work with a lot of different faculty members and raise money for
all different types of initiatives.” In addition to personal satisfaction, Elizabeth stated that she
values “helping people achieve their philanthropic goals.” Beverly echoed his sentiments,
describing fundraising as “a wonderful experience” and “a privilege,” going on to say, “You’re
coming into people’s lives and you’re asking them to change someone else’s.” These statements
demonstrate that the gift officers are gratified by their work and their role in helping both the
donors and the recipients of philanthropy. In addition, the gift officers believe they are
contributing to organizational goals. In speaking about her contribution to organizational goals,
Debi stated:
We’re responsible for maintaining a steady stream of support and trying to build a
pipeline to make sure that there’s sustained support year over year and that means
constantly finding new people with greater potential to really have a more significant
impact at the university. I mean, I feel really good about the work that we do.
Her statement illustrates her belief that she is impacting WULAS by helping the college find and
maintain resources. Beverly shared similar thoughts, noting that she “develops deep, meaningful
relationships” and that “those have longevity.”
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 58

Although all the gift officers shared analogous beliefs in valuing their work, several
shared thoughts that suggest they feel somewhat disconnected from the organizational mission
and priorities. Elizabeth said that she is focused on her annual goals and went on to say,
“Unfortunately, it becomes less about making a difference in the world in the work that I do.”
Likewise, although April stated that she is “driven by how meaningful” the work is, she does not
want her role to “become a sales job.” She went on to state:
At the end of the day, I’m doing this because I really believe in higher education, that it
very much changes people’s lives. I don’t ever want to lose sight of that. Sometimes I
think on our side, being away from campus and not always having direct interaction with
students or faculty, you can lose sight of that. I think that would help us. It would help
drive us if we had more interaction like that.
These statements suggest that both Elizabeth and April are mission-driven, but that they feel
detached from the mission due to the nature of goal-based fundraising and the lack of interaction
with the faculty and students who benefit from philanthropy. Similarly, the two gift officers who
raise funds exclusively for the institute within WULAS described a disconnect from the larger
organizational goals. Curtis shared that he is “very proud” of his work, but went on to state, “I
just wish there was a way that we could be a bigger contributor to the college priorities and
vision as a whole.” Similarly, Aaron expressed confusion if his goals “count” and shared that “it
doesn’t make you feel good.” These statements suggest the gift officers believe WULAS
fundraising priorities and the institute’s fundraising priorities are at odds, which potentially could
lead to gift officers not feeling valued by the organization. Overall, the gift officers have value
for their work, but do not always feel connected to or acknowledged for their role in furthering
the educational and research mission of the college.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 59

In summary, the findings suggest that WULAS gift officers are motivated to perform
well. They demonstrate confidence in their own ability to perform but are uncertain about the
team’s ability to reach the aggressive departmental goal. Furthermore, they believe that their
performance is subject to external influences outside their control. The gift officers care about
WULAS and believe they are furthering the educational and research mission. However, the
findings also demonstrate that they would like to be recognized for their contribution and to feel
connected to mission.
Organization Findings
This study’s second research questions pertained to the interaction of the organization’s
culture and gift officer knowledge and motivation. The organizational findings were ascertained
via interview questions designed to understand gift officer understanding of WULAS
organizational culture. Findings were triangulated with the survey results and presented in
alignment with the organizational influences that guided the study. The survey results are reports
first, followed by the findings from the interviews.
Survey data related to gift officer perception of organizational culture. The gift
officer survey included six items related to organization culture. The data from these questions
are presented below. First, items assessing gift officer beliefs about donor engagement
opportunities, the vision for fundraising, and leadership’s involvement in fundraising are
presented. Next, items related to human capital management are discussed and presented.
The survey results suggest that most of the gift officers believe that the WULAS
organizational culture supports their fundraising efforts. The gift officers were asked to respond
to three items related to culture that are displayed in Table 6. Item nine asked gift officers to
consider engagement opportunities available to donors and prospective donors. All eleven
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 60

respondents believe that WULAS provides these opportunities. Item ten stated, “WULAS has a
clear vision for fundraising.” A majority agreed, with four disagreeing with the statement. Item
11 stated, “WULAS leaders are willing partners in fundraising.” Only three disagreed while
eight agreed.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 61

Table 6

Frequency of Response to Items Related to Donor Engagement Opportunities, Vision for
Fundraising, and Leadership’s Involvement in Fundraising

Survey Item Response Count

Item 9: WULAS provides opportunities
for donors and prospective donors to
engage with the campus community.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

1
10
0
0
Item 10: WULAS has a clear vision for
fundraising.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

1
6
4
0
Item 11: WULAS leaders are willing
partners in fundraising.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1
7
3
0

Gift officer beliefs related to human capital management were also queried in the survey,
with the results presented in Table 7. The results suggest that WULAS gift officers feel that their
performance is supported by their supervisors. However, the gift officers were split on how they
feel about professional development opportunities with five indicating satisfaction and six
indicating dissatisfaction. The last item queried their perception of how their time is allocated,
with three gift officers responding that they spend too much time on activities not directly related
to fundraising. The variety of responses to these items suggest that the gift officers have
disparate points of view on how well they believe the organization supports their performance
and their development.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 62

Table 7

Frequency of Response to Items Related to Human Capital Management

Survey Item Response Count

Item 12: The feedback I receive from my
supervisor helps me improve my
performance.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

3
6
2
0
Item 13: I am satisfied with the
opportunities for professional
development I have at Western
University.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

0
5
6
0
Item 14: In my role I spend too much
time on activities not related to
fundraising.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2
1
7
1

Faculty are generally open to partnering with gift officers to further philanthropic
conversations with prospective donors, but gift officers need agency and guidance in
managing faculty relationships. Findings from both the interviews and the survey indicate that
the WULAS gift officers successfully partner with faculty, but there is considerable variation
within this experience and in how the gift officers manage faculty relationships. Several gift
officers spoke about the impact of faculty on donor conversations. Elizabeth commented, “If we
need them to meet with a prospective donor to make a case, to build a relationship, to provide
some inspiration to a prospective donor around the work they’re doing, they are helpful.”
Barbara pointed out that faculty “can have a huge impact in really securing a gift.” In speaking
of an institute director, Aaron said, “I have direct access to Steven. He knows me, he knows me
by name. If I see him we can have a conversation. There’s a lot more communication there.”
These comments speak to the accessibility of the faculty and their willingness to engage with
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 63

WULAS gift officers. Curtis, at the ceiling of experience in fundraising, indicated that
leadership was the main reason he took that job working for the institute within WULAS. He
stated about the director:
One of the reasons I took the job was because within the first 15 minutes of meeting him,
on a whim I would have written him a check had he asked me to, and I knew that he
would have that impact on 90% of the people. So when he’s donor-facing, he’s
incredibly effective.
In contrast, when asked how leadership supports his work, Ashley, at the floor of experience and
tenure remarked that “it’s more the other way around; how can we support their work.” This
indicates a difference in perception of the role of faculty, perhaps based on having less
experience working in advancement.
According to the gift officers, managing faculty relationships is required in their work.
Elizabeth pointed out that it is important to manage expectations to ensure that faculty know that
“just because we met with this person one time doesn’t mean they’re going to write us a check
for $1 million tomorrow.” In her interview, April said faculty need to know that a meal with a
donor does not automatically mean a large gift is coming. In addition, both Elizabeth and
Barbara remarked on being respectful of faculty time. On the other hand, Beverly and Debi
discussed the valuable relationships faculty have with potential donors. Beverly said, “When
they think back to a student in their classroom and will remember, ‘Oh, right. That kid came
from a wealthy family,’ and they’re able to give you real information, that’s helpful.” On a
similar vein, Debi noted that faculty meet with contacts without alerting WULAS advancement,
adding that these meetings would have been more fruitful “had there been discussion prior” and
that gift officers are more equipped than faculty to “surface more valuable information” about a
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 64

prospective donor’s inclination to be supportive. These comments suggest that while faculty are
valued partners, it takes effort on the part of the gift officer to maximize their impact. One of the
gift officers, who has also been a member of the faculty, saw things somewhat differently. She
feels there is a perceived roadblock between gift officers and faculty that is “definitely an
obstacle for us.” She suggests that gift officers need more interaction with faculty. Likewise,
she believes gift officers need to work on faculty perception of advancement:
Faculty can be an obstacle and you have to right away show them that you are intelligent.
You’re not just someone sitting there and taking people out to lunch. I think that’s an
idea that faculty have of us. I’ve heard that jokingly a few times in non-work interactions
with faculty.
Together with comments from the other gift officers, April’s insights shed light on the role of
faculty in advancement and the role of the gift officer in cultivating relationships with faculty.
The WULAS gift officers lack a comprehensive case for support. Universities
embarking on fundraising campaigns or initiatives often identify fundraising priorities during an
academic planning process that brings forward strategies to advance the university and improve
its ability to serve students or further research. The priorities are framed into a case for support,
which is a compelling narrative about the priorities that gift officers share with prospective
donors verbally and via collateral such as brochures. A case for support typically includes
specific funding opportunities that align with academic priorities. For instance, if the university
is interested in improving access for underserved students, the case may include giving
opportunities such as scholarship endowment for first-generation students, programmatic funds
to support the students, and perhaps capital funds to create space on campus for first-generation
student cohorts. Interview responses indicate that the WULAS gift officers are familiar with
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 65

several aspects of the college’s case for support and find it compelling. However, they also
expressed the need for a complete vision. Beverly shared that WULAS is “trying to be the
liberal arts college of the 21
st
century that every other university will want to model themselves
after.” She went on to say, “It’s both incredible and overwhelming all at the same time.” Curtis
expressed similar excitement and stated:
It’s not just about how these priorities benefit the students and the college, but how we
are having a societal impact, both locally and globally. I think that is what’s going to
make us a player on a much bigger stage.
These statements indicated shared enthusiasm for the case for support, however, they also
indicated that a completed case was unavailable. April shared that they were “hoping to get it
next week” and explained that the case was “coming together” describing it as “one of the
biggest problems or obstacles” for the gift officers. Aaron also spoke about the lack of a
complete case, saying, “From my knowledge, there’s not a case, it’s not fleshed out fully and
everyone’s waiting on it.” While the gift officers were able to articulate several WULAS
research and educational priorities, the interviews revealed a lack of clarity as well as the lack of
a document to reference or give to prospective donors. Elizabeth, Debi, and Curtis elaborated on
the need for specific giving opportunities that align with the priorities in the case for support.
Debi shared that “it would be helpful just to have a better sense of what giving opportunities are
available at different levels.” Elizabeth shared a similar thought:
I think the case needs more discrete giving opportunities, so people can understand what
a gift might look like in support of this case and one of the areas within the case and have
there not be any confusion about how do I support this particular area and the giving
opportunities. That would be helpful.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 66

Elizabeth’s response indicated that while WULAS has a broad vision for fundraising, it lacks
specific ways to engage donors around philanthropy. Overall, the gift officers understood many
of the college priorities and were able to explain them but expressed frustration that the case for
support was incomplete and lacked tangible opportunities to facilitate philanthropy.
WULAS has many engagement opportunities but could benefit from an increased
use of boards and volunteers to assist fundraising. According to their interview responses,
WULAS gift officers believe they have many options for engaging prospective donors with the
college. This was corroborated by the survey, in which all eleven respondents agreed that the
college provides engagement opportunities for donors. According to Debi, “there’s never a
shortage of activity or good things happening at the university.” Likewise, April shared that
“we’re kind of spoiled for choice” and Ashley said, “There’s lots of opportunities to become
engaged at WU and sometimes that’s overwhelming in itself.” She went on to add, “It’s trying
to figure out the right fit for each donor because no donor is the same as the other.” Along with
the abundance of opportunity, the need to personalize engagement was a common theme among
the gift officers. Elizabeth noted that she does “small customized tours” for prospective donors
or engages them “through a meeting with a faculty member,” while Beverly said, “It’s really
about connecting them back to the university, back to that memory, back to their student’s
experience, back to the network.” Debi’s remarks were similar, “I always, as much as possible,
try to create any opportunity for them that I think would be meaningful or comfortable.” These
comments speak to the wide variety of tactics available to gift officers to help them connect
donors to the university in a personalized manner. Curtis, in speaking about the institute he
represents, was an outlier in the group and shared that board service is a key to his success and
that board members provide access to “a huge referral base of prospects and donors” enabling
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 67

her to meet her goals. Elizabeth and Barbara both remarked on their lack of access to board
members and volunteers. Elizabeth noted that WULAS does not have “an institutionalized
mechanism” for referrals, stating:
As a board member or a committee member, you know that we’re going to be reviewing
a list of names and that you’re all responsible for reaching out to a handful of people to
open doors for us and make introductions and to help us in our fundraising efforts.
Similarly, Barbara noted that in previous organizations she had a “closer connection with a select
number of board of trustees who would really help.” She added, “I think having access to those
type of higher-level relationships would help, especially in the major gift work.” These
comments highlight a key involvement opportunity for donors that allow them to become
partners in the fundraising endeavor and provide additional opportunity for gift officers to forge
relationships with a prospect pool that might otherwise be out of reach. Overall, the gift officers
are happy with the engagement tools at their disposal, but several identified the use of volunteers
as a missed opportunity.
Key components of human capital management are inconsistently implemented by
WULAS Advancement. The interviews and survey yielded responses related to several aspects
of human capital management, including on-boarding, performance standards, back office
support, supervisor support, career paths, and professional development. The experiences and
beliefs among the gift officers varied within each of these topics. For instance, Debi, who has
considerable tenure in the department, described her on-boarding as an “obstacle” adding that
“because my position was a bit vague and new, it just became ‘that’s something that you can
do.’” This reflects the lack of clear expectations when she joined the department. In contrast,
Ashley described clear goals from the onset, “There were very clear metrics, which I really
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 68

valued, because as someone who was new to the institution and new to this specific type of
higher education fundraising, specifically liberal arts, I felt that was really helpful.” Curtis, the
most experienced of the gift officers relayed that he was given time and flexibility to get up to
speed, saying “it was a collaborative, iterative process we went through.” April commented on
training that was provided to help her transition to a gift officer role. On the other hand, Aaron
characterized his on-boarding this way:
I don’t recall there being really an on-boarding process as far as being a gift officer. It
was more of welcome to the university. I would say I’m not sure that my supervisor
really prepared me to be like a high performing gift officer.
These comments speak to the varied experiences of the gift officers. While some important on-
boarding processes took place, the gift officers did not remark on a comprehensive process to
maximize newly-hired gift officer performance.
One area where the gift officers did agree was that a set of performance standards were
provided, but again, there was variation in how they perceive the goals. Debi explained that her
goals are determined by prospective donor wealth ratings that are largely provided by vendors:
You’re telling me that this is what my goals should be based on this information, when I
can tell you from experience that we need to recognize that this information is credible to
some degree, but that there are definitely these other nuances that we have no idea about.
Her comment indicates that she believes her goals are not based on the reality of the prospective
donors she is tasked with engaging. On the other hand, Elizabeth remarked that her goals are
“pretty fair and standard” but went on to say that she does not feel motivated by his monetary
targets. April explained that her supervisor “tries to stay realistic” with expectations and that she
is fine with stretch goals “as long as there’s honesty between us and our supervisor.” As a group,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 69

the gift officers all acknowledged having goals, but they were only sometimes motivated by the
metrics.
Overall, the gift officers feel supported in their work by their supervisor but expressed
some frustration with back office support. These findings were supported by the survey in which
nine of the 11 respondents agreed that the feedback they receive from their supervisor is helpful.
Ashley noted that she and her supervisor “check-in often” and he appreciates the clarity he
receives each week in terms of what he is expected to accomplish. Barbara expressed a “great
rapport” with her supervisor who she believes “understands strengths and weaknesses” and
adjusts expectations accordingly. These comments speak to supervision being personalized to
the gift officers and where they are in their professional development. The interview data also
showed the gift officers believe their supervisors care about them both personally and
professionally. Elizabeth noted that her supervisor “cares about my professional growth and
career development,” adding, “She provides a lot of emotional support.” Curtis expressed
similar beliefs, noting that his supervisor asks how he is on a personal level and that there is “a
nice balance” of support. Similarly, Debi remarked that her supervisor is “always available and
attentive.” Together these comments point to a group of gift officers who are valued and
supported personally and professionally. On the other hand, the interview data shows some
frustration with back office support. While the survey data did not fully support this finding,
three gift officers agreed with the statement that they spend too much time on non-fundraising
related activities. In the interview Beverly stated, “Look, the major gift team should definitely
have an assistant. We don’t have one because we have a biz intel team.” Curtis expressed
similar dissatisfaction:
In similar roles that I’ve held in other organizations at this level, there’s been additional
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 70

administrative support that isn’t here. So there is a larger percentage of time that I spend
on administrative duties than I’m accustomed to, so I think that’s one of the things that
can get in the way, specifically in terms of being donor-facing.
Both Beverly and Curtis’s comments indicate that the structure of WULAS Advancement, which
pools administrative, data, and prospect research support, is an obstacle. In addition, several gift
officers commented on the efficacy of the pooled support they receive. April called out
difficulty in finding “institutional knowledge,” noting that this can slow down the gift process.
She also remarked that the information from the pooled resources are good, but slow, stating,
“Today I needed some background information, some background research for a phone call that I
ended up having at seven o’clock in the morning, and I wasn’t able…in fact, I’m still waiting to
get the information.” Similarly, Barbara remarked on receiving faulty information from the
research pool but added that these are “minor obstacles.” On the other hand, Debi, who has the
most tenure of the interviewees, believes there has been improvement in back office support,
saying, “I definitely feel like we’re in a much better place now.” Together these comments point
indicate some dissatisfaction with the quality and timeliness of information provided by the pool,
but Debi’s comment notes that the organization has improved back office support over time.
The last aspect of human capital management covered in the interviews and survey is
professional development. In the survey, only five respondents indicated that they are satisfied
with their professional development opportunities at WULAS Advancement. However, the
interview data suggests the gift officers find the available training useful, but they would prefer
additional options. Nearly every interviewee spoke in positive terms about the university’s
training center for advancement employees across the campus. Beverly commented, “I’ve
grown. I’ve learned” and stated, “The university is very generous and wants to develop us
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 71

professionally.” Likewise, Barbara said of the training center, “There’s a wide-ranging array of
different professional development opportunities, which I found very helpful. It really just added
to my work experience, and so I’ve enjoyed them.” These comments suggest that the
university’s training center is well-received by the gift officers. April also took advantage of the
center as well as attending a conference when transitioning to gift officer work. She remarked,
“It’s on-the-job training that’s been most helpful,” adding, “I feel much more prepared now
because I’ve been able to put these schools into practice with actual people.” Two of the gift
officers with the least experience and tenure concurred that they are supported in attending
outside conferences as well as the university’s training center, but Aaron added, “I don’t think
this is the case with the major gift officers.” This was supported by several gift officers,
including April who said, “It doesn’t feel like we’re encouraged to go to conferences or
trainings.” Similarly, Barbara stated, “In terms of conferences and things of that nature offsite,
that doesn’t appear to be encouraged as much in our area, oddly.” Curtis also offered evidence
of a lack of professional development saying, “I think there could be a lot more professional
development offered.” He went on to offer specific suggestions for more senior gift officers
related to working with intergenerational wealth. Together these remarks indicate that WULAS
Advancement encourages the use of in-house training but does not support conference
attendance for all the gift officers.
In summation, the findings pertaining to organizational culture suggest that the gift
officers believe that WULAS supports them by providing opportunities to engage prospective
donors with the college. However, the findings also suggest that increasing opportunities for
board service may increase fundraising performance. For the most part, the gift officers believe
faculty are actively supportive of fundraising. Conversely, the findings show that an articulated
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 72

case for support is unavailable, but the gift officers expressed positive attitudes about their
perception of the developing case. Lastly, the findings suggest that strategies for human capital
management are inconsistently implemented in WULAS Advancement.
Recommendations for Practice: The Program
Introduction and Overview

The purpose of this modified gap analysis evaluative study was to provide a data-driven
set of solutions and recommendations to further the stakeholder and organizational goals. The
analysis of interview and survey data uncovered several impediments to performance as well as
opportunities. Recommendations to address these were derived from the reviewed literature and
further substantiated with theoretical principles and empirical evidence. The recommendations
were compiled into a program that is described in the following section. In addition, Appendix F
provides a detailed account of each recommendation and its alignment with the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational findings from this study. Appendix F also provides the empirical
or theoretical evidence used to support each recommendation.
The program described below was developed using the Kirkpatrick New World (2016)
model of evaluation to ensure that the gift officers obtain the required knowledge and
motivation, and that the organization maintains the critical drivers for stakeholder success. In
keeping with the Kirkpatrick model, a plan to evaluate the recommend program was
predetermined and includes methods to monitor and evaluate outcomes, behaviors, learning, and
reaction. Appendix G provides details of the implementation and evaluation plan, including the
outcomes that were determined to be the leading indicators of the program’s success, such as
increased funding for priority projects. In addition, Appendix G outlines and describes how to
support and monitor the critical behaviors and behavioral drivers necessary to achieve the
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 73

outcomes; the specific learning goals associated with the behaviors, and recommendations to
ascertain gift officer reactions to the program elements.
Program. To achieve the organizational and stakeholder goals of meeting the
fundraising expectations, the following leading internal indicators need to be achieved:
improved gift officer planning for each prospective donor, increased number of substantive
interactions between gift officers and prospective donors, and increased percentage of gift
officers meeting monetary goals. Achieving these internal indicators will lead to the following
external indicators being accomplished: academic priorities receive necessary funding, increased
number of donors giving to academic priorities, and deeper engagement of donors in the
WULAS community.
The internal indicators are supported by a set of four critical behaviors. First, gift officers
need to establish and nurture meaningful relationships with donors and prospective donors.
Second, gift officers need to create cultivation and solicitation strategies that align donor
passions with academic priorities. Third, gift officers need to strategically use engagement
opportunities to further gift conversations in a timely manner. Fourth, gift officers need to
present gift proposals to prospective donors that are in alignment with donor expectations. These
behaviors will be supported by required drivers to reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor
behavior. To reinforce the behaviors, gift officers will practice articulating aspects of the case
for giving. In addition, they will participate in training for relationship building. The gift
officers also will work with their peers to develop strategies and assess the efficacy of the
strategies. There are two required drivers to encourage the behavior: the gift officers will
participate in reciprocal shadowing opportunities and provide feedback to each other; and the gift
officers will interact with their supervisor in one-on-one meetings to acknowledge success,
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 74

identify areas for improvement, and set intermediary goals for improvement. Rewarding drivers
include reviewing and celebrating closed gifts, illustrating impact of philanthropy on the
academic mission, publicly recognizing closed gifts, and promoting gift officers based on
productivity. Finally, there are two drivers to monitor the critical behaviors. First, the number
and dollar amount of gifts directed to the giving priorities will be tracked by gift officer. Second,
the number of donor interactions that increase engagement with the college.
A program is recommended to address the internal and external indicators, the critical
behaviors, and the required drivers. The program addresses the main findings from the gap
analysis and provides interventions. For instance, the findings demonstrated that new gift
officers need to learn how to assess donor interests, thus the program provides training for gift
officers to observe and practice this skill. This training intervention aligns with an
organizational recommendation to develop a case map with giving opportunities that will support
gift officers’ efforts to connect donors to opportunities that align with those interests. In
addition, the findings show that not all of the gift officers have metacognitive knowledge of their
performance, so the program recommends opportunities for guided reflection that will help gift
officers self-assess and identify areas to improve their overall performance as well as improve
their cultivation and solicitation plans for specific donors. Other interventions are meant to
increase collective efficacy, which was identified as a gap in the findings. The recommendation
is for departmental leadership to increase transparency of information related to the overall goal
in order to improve the group’s confidence by sharing a plan to reach the departmental goal and
regularly updating the group on progress. Finally, the program provides for human capital
management aimed at increasing productivity. The findings demonstrate that human capital
management strategies are inconsistent, so the recommendation includes refined on-boarding and
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 75

methods for continuous improvement. It also includes support for gift officer motivation through
recognition of achievement and group shares on how philanthropy impacts the WULAS mission.
This recommendation addresses gift officer motivation gaps from the findings.
The program will be implemented throughout the year in a series of one-on-one meetings,
gift officer group meetings, gift officer training sessions, and departmental staff meetings.
Agendas for one-on-one meetings between gift officers and their supervisor will include
intermediate goal setting and assessment of progress toward intermediate and annual goals. In
addition, one-on-one meetings will focus on identifying and acknowledging areas of strength as
well as areas for further development. A modified schedule of one-on-one meetings will be
developed for new gift officers during an extended period of on-boarding lasting six months.
During on-boarding, gift officers will include a focus on short-term goals around establishing
faculty relationships, acquiring knowledge of the case for giving, and activity goals around
creating new relationships with prospective donors. This aspect of the program will allow new
gift officers to experience success by achieving realistic, short-term goals as they develop the
relationships within their portfolio of prospective donors. After the on-boarding period, gift
officers will transition into a prescribed annual work plan and be supported with monthly goals.
An annual calendar of gift officer group meetings and group trainings will be established
with meetings scheduled bi-weekly and training scheduled every four weeks. Group meetings
will include discussion around prospective donor strategy development. Discussion will center
on group brainstorming for donor engagement and identifying possible gift opportunities from
the WULAS case for giving that may resonate with the prospective donor being reviewed.
Group meeting agendas will also include closed gift post-mortems, recognition of closed gifts,
and gift impact share outs. The monthly group training agendas will include review of the case
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 76

for giving job aid and practice in articulating the case with opportunities for the gift officers to
reflect on the experience and provide peer feedback. Role play exercises will be incorporated
into the group trainings quarterly and will include strategy development, feedback, and
reflection. The group trainings will also address how to best utilize the administrative and donor
support services within WULAS and WU central advancement.
Departmental all-staff meetings will be used to motivate and recognize gift officers.
Each quarter the agenda will include discussion around the departmental goals and a share-out of
an overall plan that uses a detailed gift pyramid to illustrate a path to reach the collective goal,
including progress toward that goal. In addition, gift officers will be recognized for the gifts they
have secured since the last departmental meeting.
Another recommendation is the creation of an emerging leaders board to be managed by
the gift officer team. This will provide an additional opportunity for donors to become engaged
with WULAS. Furthermore, active volunteers can be encouraged to assist gift officers in
expanding the prospective donor pool via referrals and introductions.
The program will also include semi-annual prospective donor visit shadowing that will
include either gift officers with their supervisor or with a peer. The schedule will be monitored
by the supervisor to ensure that shadow visits are done two times per year for gift officers with
tenure and more frequently for newly on-boarded gift officers. Shadowing experiences will be
enhanced via purposeful reflection initiated by a list of suggested topics to debrief the visits.
Conclusion
This study examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on gift
officer performance, which impacts the ability of the college to achieve crucial elements of its
strategic plan to improve liberal arts and science education and research. It was necessary to
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 77

understand the strengths and impediments to gift officer performance to support their
achievement of fundraising goals and garner funds to bring the strategic plan to fruition. The
findings revealed areas for improvement and growth in supporting gift officer performance and a
program was devised to address these opportunities.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 78

References
Anderman, E. & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/attribution-theory/.
American Academy of Arts & Sciences (2016). Public research universities recommitting to
Lincoln’s vision: An educational compact for the 21st century. Retrieved from
https://www.amacad.org/LincolnProject.Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/ metacognition/
Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2013). 2013 Diversity & inclusion summit. Arlington,
VA: Association of Fundraising Professionals.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/
metacognition/.
Bell, J. & Cornelius, M. (2013). Underdeveloped: A national study of challenges facing
nonprofit fundraising. Retrieved from Compasspoint website:
https://www.compasspoint.org/sites/default/files/documents/UnderDeveloped_CompassP
oint_HaasJrFund_January%202013.pdf
Beem, M. (2000). Fundraising in the balance: An analysis of job performance, appraisals and
rewards. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(2), 164-
171.
Berbary, D. & Malinchak, A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. The Public Manger, Fall, 55 – 59.
Bernstein, A. (2013). Funding the future: Philanthropy's influence on American higher
education. Lanham, MD, USA: R&L Education.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 79

Bloland, H. & Tempel, E. (2004). Measuring professionalism. New Directions for Philanthropic
Fundraising, 43, 5-20.
Booz | Allen | Hamilton & Partnership for Public Service. (2008). Getting on board: A model for
integrating and engaging new employees. Retrieved from:
https://www.opm.gov/WIKI/uploads/docs/Wiki/OPM/training/Getting_On_Board__A_M
odel_for_Integrating_and_Engaging_New_Employees-[2008.05.12].pdf
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Bowman, N. (2010). Cultivating future fundraisers of color at historically black colleges and
universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(3), 230-234.
Brittingham, B., & Pezzullo, T. (1990). The campus green: Fundraising in higher education.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: School of Education
and Human Development, The George Washington University, 1990.
Buckingham, M. & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Caboni, T. C. (2003). Toward professionalization: Fund raising norms and their implications for
practice. The International Journal of Educational Advancement, 4(1), 77-92.
Caboni, T. (2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors.
Journal of Higher Education, (81)3, 339-365.
Chung-Hoon, T., Hite, J., & Hite, S. (2007). Organizational integration strategies for promoting
enduring donor relations in higher education: The value of building inner circle network
relationships. International Journal of Educational Advancement, (7)1, 2-19.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 80

Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Council for Aid to Education. (2016). Colleges and universities raise record $40.30 billion in
2015. Retrieved from http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE_2015_Press_Release.pdf
Council for Aid to Education. (2017). Colleges and universities raise $41 billion in 2016.
Retrieved from http://cae.org/images/uploads/pdf/VSE-2016-Press-Release.pdf
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. (2017). Pay check: Results of the 2016
CASE compensation survey. Retrieved from the Council for the Advancement and
Support of Education website:
http://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Benchmarking_and_Research/Surve
ys_and_Studies/CASE_Compensation_Survey.html
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Chapter 8: Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (pp. 151-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Croteau, J. D. & Wolk, H. G. (2010). Defining advancement career paths and succession plans:
Critical human capital retention strategies for high-performing advancement divisions.
International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 59-70.
Denler, H., Wolters, C. & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Denning, S. (2005). The leader's guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative (Vol. 269). John Wiley & Sons.
Dowd, A.C. & Taing Shieh, L. (2013). Community college financing: Equity, efficiency, and
accountability. NEA 2013 Almanac of higher Education. National Education Association.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 81

Drezner, N. (2011). ASHE higher education report [monograph]. Philanthropy and Fundraising
in American Higher Education 37(2), 1-155.
Duronio, M. & Tempel, E. (1997). Fund raisers: Their careers, stories, concerns, and
accomplishments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dunlop, D. R. (2002). Major gift programs In M. J. Worth (Ed.), New strategies for educational
fund raising (pp. 88-104). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from http://www.
education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Editors. (2014). The case for diversity. Currents, July/August. Retrieved from
http://www.case.org/Publications_and_Products/2014/JulyAugust_2014/The_Case_for_
Diversity.html
Education Advisory Board (2000). The high performing development organization: Maximizing
staff productivity and morale. Retrieved from: www.advisory.com/plc/publications
Education Advisory Board (2015). Making meaning of metrics: Leveraging accountability and
analytics to enhance fundraiser productivity. Retrieved from
http://www.eab.com/research-and-insighs/advancement-forum/studies/2016/making-
meaning-of-metrics
Education Advisory Board (2016). Gifted and talented: What makes a top fundraiser in the age
of venture philanthropy? Retrieved from http://www.eab.com/research-and-
insights/advancement-forum/studies/2015/gifted-and-talented
Education Advisory Board (2017). The donor investor imperative: Engaging academic partners
for transformational ideas and impact. Retrieved from https://eab.com/research-and-
insights/advancement-forum/studies/2017/donor-investor-imperative
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 82

Giving USA (2017). Highlights: An overview of giving in 2016. Retrieved from Giving USA
Website: https://store.givingusa.org/products/giving-usa-2017-report-
highlights?variant=37727126089
Fink, A. (2013). Chapter 2: The Survey Form. In How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide
(5
th
ed.) (pp. 29–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Glass, J.C., Jr., & Jackson, K.L. (1998). Integrating resource development and institutional
planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice (22)8, 715-739.
Grabau, T. (2010, July). Major gift metrics that matter. Retrieved from http://www.bwf.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/00090978.pdf
Glass, J.C., Jr., & Jackson, K.L. (1998). Integrating resource development and institutional
planning. Community College Journal of Research and Practice (22)8, 715-739.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Grubb, W. N. & Badway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California Community Colleges. Contract, 3, 0392.
Haggerty, A. L. (2015). Turnover intentions of nonprofit fundraising professionals: The roles of
perceived fit, exchange relationships, and job satisfaction (Order No. 3704156).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global. (1685483389).
Hall, H (2007, August 9). Fund-raising frenzy. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved from
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Fund-Raising-Frenzy/178185
Harrington-Lueker, D. (2004). The lay of the land: What factors affect giving today? Currents.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 83

Hawkins, F. (1995). An analytical study of the selection of development officers for institutions
of higher education (Order No. 9721868). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304226276)
Hentschke, G. C. & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. University of
Southern California Urban Education, Spring/Summer, 17–19.
Horstman, A.J. (1997). The revolving door: Predicting turnover (intent to stay) among
fundraisers in the nonprofit sector (Order No. 3249861). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304948007).
Horstman, A.J. (1997). The revolving door: Predicting turnover (intent to stay) among
fundraisers in the nonprofit sector (Order No. 3249861). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304948007).
Iarrobino, J. D. (2006). Turnover in the advancement profession. International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 6(2), 141-169.
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Knowles, P. & Gomes, R. (2009), Building relationships with major‐gift donors: A major‐gift
decision‐making, relationship‐building model. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 21(4), 384-406.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41, 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lanning, Paul I. Jr. (2007). Developing expertise in higher education fundraising: A conceptual
framework. University of the Pacific, Dissertation - Pacific Access Restricted.
https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2372
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 84

Lasher, W. F., & Cook, W. B. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher education. The
Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33-51. Retrieved September 13, 2016, from Project
MUSE database.
Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication
(Vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mack, C., Kelly, K. & Wilson, C. (2016). Finding an academic home for fundraising: A
multidisciplinary study of scholars’ perspectives. International and Voluntary Sector
Journal of Nonprofit Marketing, (21)3, 180-194.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McCown, P.L. (2000). A comparative case study of institutional advancement program
effectiveness within selected institutions of the coalition for Christian colleges and
universities (Order No. 9967829). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (304651166).
McGoldrick, W.P. & Robell, P.A. (2002). Campaigning in the new century. In M.J. Worth
(Ed.), New strategies for educational fund raising (pp. 135–151). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
McKeever, B. (2015). The nonprofit sector in brief: Public charities, giving, and volunteering.
Retrieved from Urban Institute website:
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/72536/2000497-The-Nonprofit-
Sector-in-Brief-2015-Public-Charities-Giving-and-Volunteering.pdf
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 85

Megli, C., Barber, A., & Hunte, J. (2014, December). Optimizing fundraiser performance.
Retrieved from http://www.bwf.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/December2014.pdf
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to Think like an Adult. Core Concepts of Transformation Theory.
In J. Mezirow, & Associates (Eds.), Learning as Transformation. Critical Perspectives
on a Theory in Progress (pp. 3-33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. & Seagren, A. (1992). Characteristics of development officers: implications for fund
raisers curriculum. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Netherton, R. (2002, July/August). Advancement's paycheck: results from CASE's 2002
comprehensive salary survey. Currents, (28)6, 14-21.
Oliver, J.L. (2007). Individual factors that contribute to the turnover of fundraisers employed at
institutions of higher education (Order No. 3295894). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Test; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304841717).
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Chapter 4: Fieldwork and observation. In How to use qualitative methods in
observation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pinder, J. (2012). Development professionals at religiously based nonprofit organizations. SAGE
Open, 2(3), 1-10. doi:10.1177/2158244012458519
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 86

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Proper, E. & Caboni, T. (2014). Institutional advancement: What we know. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Proper, E., Caboni, T.C., Hartley, H.V. & Willmer, W.K. (2009). More bang for the buck:
Examining influencers of fundraising efficiency and total dollars raised. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(1), 35-41.
Reed, A. (2013, June 13). The tenure problem: How can we make major gifts productive if gift
officers keep leaving? Retrieved from http://www.eduventures.com/2013/06/the-tenure-
problem-how-can-we-make-major-gifts-producutive-if-gift-officers-keep-leaving/
Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sales, A. & Samuel N. (2007). Developing the developers. Retrieved from
http://www.brandeis.edu/cmjs/pdfs/DevelopingtheDevelopers-20071.pdf
Salkind, N.J. (2013). Tests and measures for people who think they hate tests and measures (2
nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Salkind, N.J. (2013). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 87

Satterwhite, C.R., & Cedja, B. (2005). Higher education fundraising: What is the president to
do? International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 333-342.
Schanz, J. M. (2012). Differences in university fundraising: The role of university practices and
organization (Order No. 3549421). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1283387356).
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schraw, G. & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schwinn, E. & Sommerfeld, M. (2002, April 18). Revolving-door dilemma. Chronicle of
Philanthropy. Retrieved from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Fund-Raising-
Frenzy/178185
Schwinn, E. (2002, July 25). Keeping donors in the fold. Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved
from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Fund-Raising-Frenzy/178185
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
Simic, C. (2002). Institutionally related foundations in public colleges and universities. In M.J.
Worth (Ed). New strategies for educational fundraising (pp. 221 – 234). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Slinker, J.M. (1988). The role of the college or university president in institutional advancement
(Order No. 8907818). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(303593840).
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 88

Smith, Z. (2012). Measuring recruitment and hiring effectiveness: Strategies for building a high
performing team. In J.D. Croteau (Ed.), Effective Measures (pp. 31 – 44). Washington,
D.C.: The Council for Advancement and Support of Education.
Smith, Z. (2010). Assessing educational fundraisers for competence and fit rather than
experience: A challenge to conventional hiring practices. International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 10(2), 87-97.
Stahl, R. M. (2013). Talent philanthropy: Investing in nonprofit people to advance nonprofit
performance. The Foundation Review, 5(3), 35-49.
Thomas, C. (2010). Retaining educational fundraisers: Reducing turnover by investing in human
capital management. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 99 – 107.
Till, J. M. (1999). Correlates of fund-raising effectiveness in public four-year institutions of
higher education (Order No. 9924654). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (304531260).
Wagner, L., & Ryan J.P. (2004). Achieving diversity among fundraising professionals. New
Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2004(43), 63-70.
Weiss R.S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Worth, M. (2002). New strategies for educational fund raising. Westport, CT: Praeger
Zeidenstein, D. (2012). Making the budgetary case for strategic talent management: Calculating
the opportunity costs of under-investment in a simulated major gifts team. In J.D. Croteau
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 89

(Ed.), Effective Measures (pp. 11 - 20). Washington, D.C.: The Council for Advancement
and Support of Education.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 90

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Survey and Interview
Participating Stakeholders
Gift officers working in the WULAS Office of Advancement were the primary
stakeholders for this qualitative study, which considered gift officers at the “floor” (minimal
experience and tenure) and “ceiling” (high experience and tenure) of the frontline fundraiser role.
Specifically, the study considered the entire population of WULAS gift officers but analyzed the
data in two categories: 1) WULAS gift officers with less than two years of tenure with the
organization and 2) WULAS gift officers with two or more years of tenure with the organization.
Participants with less than five years of experience as fundraisers and participants with more than
five years of experience were among the interview participants. These differentiators allowed
the researcher to understand knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that were
significant to the performance of junior gift officers in relation to that of the more experienced
gift officers. In addition, the gift officers with greater tenure provided an understanding of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that contributed to their decisions to stay in
the WULAS Office of Advancement.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The only criterion for the survey sample was that participants were
currently employed as gift officers in the WULAS Office of Advancement. Surveying these
stakeholders was necessary to understand gift officer knowledge, motivation, perceptions of
organizational influences, and perceptions about performance.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 91

Although this study sought a level of insight into a small population, a survey was used
primarily for triangulation and to inform the interview process. The survey probed for gift
officers’ beliefs and perceptions. The survey was sent via email to the entire population of 16
WULAS gift officers, followed by a reminder. The researcher secured access to this population
from the vice dean for advancement.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion for the interview sample was participants currently
employed as gift officers in the WULAS Office of Advancement. Interviewing these
stakeholders was necessary to understand gift officer knowledge, motivation, perceptions of
organizational influences, and perceptions about performance.
Criterion 2. The second criterion for the sample was predicated on the participants’
tenure. A selection of participants with less than two years of tenure with the WULAS Office of
Advancement was included as well as a selection of gift officers with more than two years of
tenure. This provided an understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences at play at the “floor” and “ceiling” of the gift officer role. Additionally, this
contributed to understanding gift officer performance and the reasons they extend their tenure
with WULAS to two years and beyond.
Criterion 3. The third criterion for the sample was predicated on experience as a gift
officer, regardless of organization. A selection of the participants had less than five years
combined experience in a gift officer role, and others had combined experience of more than five
years in a gift officer role. This provided additional information to understand the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences at play at the floor and ceiling of the WULAS gift
officer role.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 92

Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
This project is a case study, which is a method used to explore constrained systems
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016), thus the study sample was drawn from the within the WULAS
Office of Advancement. Interviews gather rich and detailed information to shed light on the
research questions (Maxwell, 2013), therefore interviews were paramount in this study.
Purposeful samples use criteria established to select participants who are best able to contribute
to an understanding of the research questions (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). In this study the
researcher recruited eight gift officers meeting the criteria, with three at the “floor” and five at
the “ceiling” of gift officer tenure and experience. This approach provided the variation needed
to gain an understanding of WULAS gift officers’ perceptions and experience. The researcher
personally requested the participation of each gift officer for the interview process and offered to
share the study findings.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 93

Appendix B: Protocols
Survey Protocol
Instructions

Thank you for taking this survey about your experience as a gift officer in the Western
University College of Letters, Arts and Sciences Office of Advancement. Your feedback will be
very valuable. This survey should take approximately 5-10 minutes and your answers will be
completely anonymous.

1. I am confident that I can meet my annual performance goal. Strongly Agree, Agree,
Disagree, Strongly Disagree
2. I am confident that WULAS Advancement can meet its annual fundraising goals. Strongly
Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
3. My fundraising outcomes are correlated with the amount of effort I put into my role.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
4. My fundraising outcomes are influenced by situational factors outside of my control.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
5. Situational factors that influence fundraising outcomes at Western University may change
over time. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
6. I care about the initiatives for which I am raising funds. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
7. My work as a gift officer is personally gratifying. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
8. Achieving my future career aspirations depends on my ability to meet my performance goals.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
9. WULAS provides opportunities for donors and prospective donors to engage with the
campus community. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 94

10. WULAS has a clear vision for fundraising. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly
Disagree
11. WULAS leaders are willing partners in fundraising. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
12. The feedback I receive from my supervisor helps me improve my performance. Strongly
Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
13. I am satisfied with the opportunities for professional development I have at Western
University. Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
14. In my role I spend too much time on activities not related to fundraising. Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
15. How many years of experience do you have as a frontline fundraiser in your career? 0 to 3; 4
to 7; 8 to 11; 12 or more
16. How long have you been a member of WULAS Advancement in a frontline fundraiser role?

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 95

Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed for this project. The purpose of the project is to
understand gift officer experiences and beliefs to better inform management practices to support
gift officer performance and improve the gift officer experience. Our interview should take
approximately one hour, but please let me know if you need to take a break. I would like to
record the interview to make sure I capture everything you have to say. The recording will be
transcribed and then erased. The transcription will be anonymized, and any identifying
information will be redacted. The transcription will then be provided to the principal
investigator who will keep it on a secure, password protected personal computer. Do I have your
permission to record? I would also like to take a few notes as we talk. Is that okay with you?
Let’s begin.
1. Have you been a frontline fundraiser here in WULAS Advancement for less than two years?
2. How many years of experience do you have as a frontline fundraiser?
3. Why did you decide to pursue frontline fundraising in higher education?
4. When you came into your role at WULAS Advancement, did you feel equipped with the
skills needed to face the challenges of the role?
a. Possible probe: how does that differ from how you feel now?
Based on your experience, what do you see as being the specific qualities or skills necessary to
become a high performing fundraiser?
5. If a gift officer has those attributes and skills, will they necessarily be successful in their
role? Why or why not?
6. When you joined WULAS Advancement how did your supervisor prepare you to meet your
performance goals?
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 96

7. How does your supervisor support you now?
8. What are the obstacles to meeting your performance goals?
Let’s switch gears a bit here and talk about how you perform the duties of your job.
9. Please walk me through a first visit with a potential donor.
10. Think about a prospect you’ve been working with for the last three to six months. Please
describe how the relationship you have with that person has changed from your first meeting
to now.
a. Possible probe: how has the prospect’s relationship with the university changed?
11. How have your interactions with prospects changed as you have gained experience as a gift
officer?
12. Please describe what, if anything, you do to vary how you personally communicate or
connect with prospective donors from various constituencies.
a. Possible probe: how might your communication differ when talking with a parent
versus an alum?
b. Possible probe: how might that differ from how you communicate with an alum
who is an entrepreneur?
c. Possible probe: how might that differ from how you communicate with a retired
alum)?
13. Suppose I was a colleague or friend thinking about becoming a frontline gift officer. How
would you interact with me?
Now I would like to talk for a little while about WULAS Advancement.
14. Tell me about the case for giving.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 97

a. What would you change in the case, if anything, to make it more effective for
your role?
15. How do the academic leaders, such as the deans, faculty, institute directors, support your
work?
16. How do you engage donors with the university?
17. Do you think there are more effective ways to engage donors than are available to you?
a. Possible probe: How might you change donor engagement protocol at WULAS?
18. What factors do you feel contribute to your ability to meet your annual performance
goals?
a. Possible probe: You’ve told me a lot about what the organization does (or you
do) to facilitate your performance. Now, what about what factors you (or your
department brings) bring to the table?
19. How do you feel about your contribution to the goals and aspirations of the college?
20. Do you have opportunities for professional development here at WULAS?
a. Possible Probe: how useful have the opportunities been?
Thank you very much for your time. Would you be open to an additional, short conversation in a
few weeks if needed for clarification or additional detail? Again, thank you, and as a token of
my appreciation, please accept this gift card.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 98

Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Researchers are obliged to consider and mitigate the specific threats to credibility and
trustworthiness within their studies (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Because the
research is the instrument in qualitative studies, researcher bias and reactivity are significant
threats to credibility (Maxwell, 2013). These were both pertinent to this study, where the
researcher is a member of the organization being studied. Another concern is internal
generalizability, described by Maxwell (2013) as how well the findings add to the understanding
of the research setting. This was an important credibility concern in this organization-based case
study.
Specific strategies appropriate to this study were used to minimize threats and increase
the trustworthiness of the study. First was triangulation of data. This study used multiple
methods, which according to Maxwell (2013) works to validate evidence and reduce single
method bias. Secondly, participant interviews were not conducted by the researcher. Another
IRB certified student in the Rossier School of Education was trained to conduct the interviews.
This reduced but did not eliminate reactivity. In addition, the use of a detailed, peer-reviewed
interview guide contributed to reducing reactivity. The final strategy was the use of
comparisons, which Maxwell (2013) suggests increases internal generalizability. Although this
was a single-site case study, the purposeful sample allowed for comparisons of gift officers using
both tenure and experience. This speaks to Maxwell’s (2013) concern for diversity of people in
the research setting, which also increases internal generalizability.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 99

Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
Establishing validity and reliability is important to ensure that data collection instruments
measure what they purport to measure and do so consistently (Salkind, 2016). There are
different ways to establish reliability such as test-retest, which is when the same test is
administered at different times. Internal consistency, which is ensuring that a single construct is
being examined, may be established using parallel forms of a test (Salkind, 2016). The
constraints of the study made it difficult to assess reliability. This case study used a survey
instrument newly developed for this small group of stakeholders and the study was conducted in
a condensed timeframe. In addition, the survey was created by the researcher to answer the
study’s research questions. Triangulating the data sets provided a means of establishing
reliability of the survey instrument. Both the interview protocol and the document review were
established using the same research questions and to understand the same constructs as the
survey instrument.
Validity, that the instrument measures what it intends to measure, is another important
consideration. Face validity is concerned with appearances such as when survey items appear to
relate to a study’s research questions (Salkind, 2013). In this case, the items were carefully
constructed and reviewed by peers to establish face validity. Content validity is achieved when
items are wholly representative of the ideas in the research questions (Salkind, 2013). To check
for content validity, each item was aligned to the research questions pertaining to motivational
and organizational influences. In addition, the conceptual framework informed the item creation
to ensure that the relevant constructs of self-efficacy, attribution theory, and value theory, as well
as organizational culture, were reflected in the survey instrument. The items were reviewed by
peers in relation to the research questions and feedback was incorporated in the final instrument.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 100

Because the target population is small, the researcher was able to garner close to 100 percent
participation in the survey, which provided a level of confidence in the results to edify and
validate the interview and document review process. In this way, the research established
content validity as well as construct validity, which is happens when a test’s results correlate to
an expected behavior in alignment with the underlying construct (Salkind, 2013). Lastly,
criterion validity, which is when a participant’s survey results are aligned with other criteria
(Salkind, 2013), can also be established using triangulated data.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 101

Appendix E: Ethics
The researcher is the instrument for data collection and analysis in qualitative research
(Merriam & Tisdale, 2016), creating a relationship between the researcher and the participant
that is a source of ethical concerns (Glesne, 2012). In this project the researcher was both the
principal investigator and is employed by the organization of focus. Ethical considerations were
paramount because some of the participants were in the researcher’s reporting line. For this
reason, a peer who has completed the university’s requirements for research conducted the
interviews.
Research participants were informed that their participation in the study was voluntary,
that they could withdraw from the study at their discretion without any retribution, and that their
interactions were confidential (Glesne, 2012). Prior to each interview, the interviewer asked for
permission to audio record the interview. The interviewer also provided details about the
purpose of the study that allowed the gift officers to make an informed decision regarding their
participation. Because the researcher was embedded in the research setting, confidentiality was
of concern and participants did not identify their names during the interviews. The survey
portion was anonymous, protecting the identity of the participants. Any information that could
identify the participants was altered for added assurance of confidentiality. The interviews were
transcribed and anonymized prior to analysis by the researcher. In addition, the study was
submitted to the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB), and
satisfied IRB protocols. No monetary incentives were used to recruit participants, but a copy of
the completed dissertation was offered to each participant. Following data collection, a five-
dollar Starbucks gift card was given to each participant to thank them for their time and their
willingness to talk about how they perceive their role in the organization. Study data, including
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 102

survey results and interview transcriptions are stored on a private password protected personal
computer.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 103

Appendix F: Recommendations for Practice
Table 1F
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Knowledge Influence

Principle and Citation
Context Specific
Recommendation

Gift officers need to know
how to assess a prospective
donor’s interests and connect
them to WULAS funding
priorities. (P)

To develop mastery,
individuals must acquire
component skills, practice
integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have
learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Effective observational
learning is achieved by first
organizing and rehearsing
modeled behaviors, then
enacting them overtly
(Mayer, 2011).

Feedback that is private,
specific, and timely enhances
performance (Shute, 2008).

Provide training that gives
gift officers the skills and
tools needed to build
relationships with donors to
facilitate information sharing.
The training will include case
study review, demonstration,
role play, shadowing, and
feedback.

Gift officers need to practice
metacognition of their
communications with
prospective donors. (M)

The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006).

Social interaction,
cooperative learning, and
cognitive apprenticeships
(such as reciprocal teaching)
facilitate construction of new
knowledge (Scott &
Palinesar, 2006).

Provide regular training
wherein gift officers practice
metacognition by sharing
communication strategies
before meetings with
prospective donors and
debriefing their
communication strategies
after prospective donor visits.
Training will include the
opportunity for peers and/or
senior gift officers to guide
other gift officers in self-
monitoring of their strategies
and self-assessment of the
results.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 104

It is important that new gift officers learn how to assess donor interests and align
them with funding opportunities, knowledge that also should be reinforced with more
experienced gift officers. The findings of this study showed that less experienced gift officers
need additional knowledge of how to assess prospective donor interests and connect them to
institutional funding priorities. The information processing model provides a framework for how
the gift officers can acquire this skill. Information processing theory provides principles that
support the limitations of working memory and facilitate integrating new knowledge into long-
term memory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The development of expertise happens when
individuals gain new skills, add them to their current repertoire, and understand when to use the
new skills (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). In addition, learning is facilitated by modeling and
practicing behaviors (Mayer, 2011) and receiving timely feedback (Shute, 2008). Training is
needed when learners need to acquire new skills and should include knowledge as well as
practice and feedback (Clark & Estes, 2006). Learning opportunities that follow this principle
integrate opportunities for practice and for skills transfer to real-world contexts. In addition,
providing feedback facilitates the learning. Thus, a recommendation for gift officers to gain this
procedural knowledge is training with role play and feedback to provide tools and develop gift
officers’ skills to assess donor interests and connect them to giving priorities.
Role play develops relational skills needed in the complex sales environment (McDonald,
2006). McDonald implemented a role play exercise into an undergraduate course on sales
management and found that students in courses with role play experience performed better on
course exams. Students were engaged through role play participation as well as through
vicarious learning via the review and discussion of taped role plays. McDonald’s (2006) course
innovation is relevant because there are many similarities between sales and fundraising. In
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 105

addition, the high demand for fundraisers combined with a lack of formal education to prepare
individuals for the role has led scholar-practitioners to recommend an increased focus and
investment in fundraiser training (Bell & Cornelius, 2003; Sales & Samuel, 2007; Smith, 2010).
Based on this research, the recommendation to create fundraiser training that incorporates role
play along with discussion and reflection is further substantiated.
The gift officers should have opportunities for guided reflection of their
performance. This recommendation addresses the finding that the gift officers are inconsistent
in their use of metacognition and reflection of their communications with prospective donors,
which is a practice that should improve their outcomes. Metacognition is a learner’s recognition
of their thinking and how they control their cognitive processing (Mayer, 2011). According to
Baker (2006), learning is enhanced when learners use metacognition. Strategies to promote
metacognition among the gift officers include the encouragement of self-monitoring and self-
assessment by strategizing before and debriefing after donor interactions. In addition, Scott and
Palinesar (2006) state that social and reciprocal learning facilitates the acquisition of new
knowledge, which may be accomplished by having learners tackle new challenges with their
peers. Recommendations following this principle would include training in the form of peer-
group discussions centered on providing feedback on planned and implemented communication
strategies. An additional strategy is to pair learners to encourage self-monitoring and self-
assessment.
In a set of recommendations, the Education Advisory Board (2010) included donor
strategy formulation among key practices for high-performing development organizations.
Specifically, organizations should require gift officers to develop individual donor strategies and
present them to both their supervisors and peers for feedback. In addition, Clark and Estes
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 106

(2006) assert that training should show learners how to make decisions and how to behave to
meet their work goals. This can be accomplished by following the Education Advisory Board’s
(2010) recommendation to use a prospect strategy checklist. The checklist supports
metacognition by serving as a tool and a discussion guide for peer pairings.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 107

Table 2F
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Motivation Influence

Principle and Citation
Context Specific
Recommendation

Gift officers lack collective
efficacy for the fundraising
goal. (Self-efficacy;
collective efficacy)

High self-efficacy can
positively influence
motivation (Pajares, 2006).

Learning and motivation are
enhanced when learners have
positive expectancies for
success (Pajares, 2006).

Create and share a gift
pyramid that illustrates the
path WULAS Advancement
will take to reach its goal.

Gift officers believe that
factors outside their control
impact fundraising results.
(Attribution Theory)

Provide feedback that stresses
the process of learning,
including the importance of
effort, strategies, and
potential self-control of
learning. (Anderman &
Anderman, 2009).

Create a continuous feedback
process in one-on-one
meetings to help gift officers
understand where their efforts
are leading to success and
work together to identify
areas for improvement, set
goals for improvement, and
create strategies for further
development of their skills.

WULAS gift officers’ value
their contribution to WULAS
but want acknowledgement
for their impact on
organizational goal. (Intrinsic
and Attainment Value)
Learning and motivation are
enhanced if the learner values
the task (Eccles, 2006).

Feedback as well as actual
success on challenging tasks
positively influences people’s
perceptions of competence
(Borgogni et al., 2011).
Celebrate closed gifts and
discuss their impact on a
quarterly basis. Encourage
gift officers to debrief the
cultivation and solicitation
process; make connection
between gift production and
WULAS mission.

In order to reinforce gift officer confidence and increase collective efficacy, WULAS
Advancement should provide opportunities for demonstration, shadowing, and feedback,
and review of progress toward departmental fundraising goals. This recommendation
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 108

emerged from the finding that while gift officers are confident in their abilities, they are
ambivalent about the department’s ability to meet the overall fundraising goal. Confidence, or
self-efficacy, are beliefs individuals have about their ability for a task, which affect whether they
chose to engage in a task, persist at the task, and put forth effort in accomplishing the task
(Pajares, 2006). According to Pajares (2006), individuals who have high self-efficacy for a task
are more likely to make a choice to engage with the task, persist at the task, and exert the
necessary mental effort. In addition, individuals who believe they will succeed are more open to
learning and experience increased motivation (Pajares, 2006). When one considers these
principles, it follows that individual performance would benefit from understanding that a
reasonable path to success exists. The recommendation is to provide a gift pyramid that
illustrates how WULAS Advancement will meet its collective philanthropic goal.
Pajares (2006) states that the basis of personal motivation is an individual’s beliefs about
their abilities. Without the belief that their behavior will be productive, people are less likely to
act or to persist. Lanning (2007) found that many gift officers believe that having a mentor is
critical to becoming a high-performing gift officer, leading to the recommended inclusion of
mentoring in fundraiser certification. This aligns with Pajares (2006) who asserts that vicarious
experiences increase self-efficacy. Furthermore, the Education Advisory Board (2015), included
reciprocal shadowing in their fundraiser on-boarding recommendations. From these theoretical
foundations, efforts to provide both vicarious and mastery experiences will increase fundraiser
efficacy and performance. In terms of collective efficacy, Pajares (2006) states that groups also
need to believe in their ability to achieve and that having collective efficacy is a discernable
motivator.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 109

WULAS should reinforce that while external factors influence fundraising
outcomes, gift officers’ own efforts are critical to achieving results. The findings
demonstrated that the gift officers believe that their outcomes are dependent on factors such as
the quality of the prospects and the quality of the program. While these factors do impact
results, it is important to help gift officers understand that effort is connected to their success. To
encourage individuals to connect success to effort, feedback should center on learning, effort,
strategies, and personal responsibility for learning (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Strategies to
utilize this principle include feedback as well as allowing the individual to exercise choice and
control of their development. The recommendation for gift officers is to utilize regular one-on-
one meetings with their supervisor or mentor to explicitly link effort to outcome by illustrating
this with actual metrics from the gift officer and their peers. In addition, one-on-one meeting
agendas will include opportunities to collaboratively identify areas for professional development
and identify new goals and strategies for improvement.
According to Pintrich (2003), achievement is enhanced when people believe they are
responsible for their own success. Because people seek to understand why things happen and if
they can control future events, it follows that they assign attributions for success and failure
(Anderman & Anderman, 2009). There are three dimensions of attribution. The first is locus,
which is whether the source of the happening is from within the individual or external to the
individual. The second is stability, which is the changeability of the cause, and the third is
controllability, which is the person’s belief in their ability to control outcomes. People who
believe their success is linked to their own reliable and internal efforts have more confidence for
future success (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Based on these theoretical underpinnings, it
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 110

follows that strategies that stress internal, stable, and controllable attributions will contribute to
better outcomes.
WULAS Advancement should explicitly link fundraising outcomes to the university
mission to advance education and research. The findings demonstrate that WULAS gift
officers believe they are contributing to the mission, but also need to feel valued for that
contribution. This motivational finding is informed by expectancy value theory, which asserts
that people are motivated for a task when they enjoy it, find it fulfilling, and believe it is in line
with their self-concept (Eccles, 2006). One principle of expectancy value theory is that
individuals are encouraged to value work when they are given reasons that the work is
meaningful and beneficial (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). It follows that demonstrating
enthusiasm for the outcomes of work and debriefing achievement will increase value. Therefore,
the recommendation is to regularly recognize gift officer achievement, draw connections to the
impact of philanthropy on the university, debrief and provide feedback on successful donor
interactions, and implement a recognition program and promotion structure.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that appealing to an individual’s values is a powerful
motivator and that performance can be enhanced by connecting values to achievements. Gift
officers who state that they intend to stay in their current roles value their organization’s mission
(Horstman, 2006). Pinder (2012) found that gift officers seek to leave their organizations
because they want more opportunity for professional development and want to work at a place
that has more success in generating philanthropic investment. In a report of strategies to create a
high-performing fundraising operation, The Advisory Board Company (2010) created a list of
recommendations, including generating regular communications that connect fundraising to the
organizational mission and creating opportunities for fundraisers to interact with the recipients of
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 111

the gifts they raise. These findings and recommendations support the creation of a process to
increase intrinsic and attainment value by connecting gift officer performance to organizational
purpose.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 112

Table 3F
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Organization Influence

Principle and Citation
Context Specific
Recommendation

WULAS faculty are generally
open and accessible to work
with advancement, but gift
officers need agency and
guidance to manage faculty
relationships. (Cultural
model)

Effective change begins by
addressing motivation
influencers; it ensures the
group knows why it needs to
change. It then addresses
organizational barriers and
then knowledge and skills.
(Clark and Estes,
2008).

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
encourage open lines of
communication. (Mezirow,
2000).

Identify key stakeholders
needed in the fundraising
process (associate deans,
chairs, directors, select
faculty).

Equip gift officers to
establish and manage faculty
relationships.

.

WULAS needs to provide a
clear vision for fundraising
via a complete case for
support. (Cultural model)

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
identify, articulate, focus the
organization’s effort on and
reinforce the organization’s
vision; they lead from the
why (Clark & Estes, 2008).

Adults are more motivated to
participate (and learn) when
they see the relevance of
information, a request, or task
(the “why”) to their own
circumstances. They are goal
oriented (Knowles, 1980).

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders help
the organization set clear,
concrete and measurable

Fully articulate the
fundraising vision by
finalizing the WULAS Case
for Giving and its anticipated
impact on the educational and
research mission.

Create a case map that aligns
specific giving opportunities
and dollar goals to the
broader components of the
vision/case for giving.

Define quantitative goals that
align with the vision of the
new initiative and set the time
frame for achieving goals.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 113

goals, aligned with the
organization’s vision. Insure
that the people who work for
you have clear, reasonable
and concrete goals that
identify specific actions to be
completed with specific due
dates (Clark & Estes, 2008).

WULAS needs to increase
the use of boards and
volunteers in fundraising.
(Cultural setting)
Effective leaders know how
to create and manage good
working relationships with
stakeholders (Denning, 2005;
Lewis, 2011).

Organizational effectiveness
increases when leaders
continuously build
relationships (Schein, 2004).

Expand volunteer
opportunities to engage
donors and prospective
donors by creating an
emerging leaders board.

WULAS needs to implement
human capital management
systems. (Cultural setting)

Building the capacity of an
organization is crucial in
improving the institution and
its accountability systems
(Hentshe & Wohstetter,
2004).

Systems, processes and
procedures in an organization
are critical to reduce
uncertainty and anxiety
(Schein, 2010).

Implement human capital
management, including:
improved on-boarding; use of
incremental and short-term
goals; recognition of
performance; training on how
to use available
administrative resources;
professional development,
and career paths.

Provide gift officers agency in managing faculty relationships to further their
fundraising objectives. The findings demonstrate that WULAS faculty are generally supportive
of advancement activities, but that the gift officers need additional agency in managing their
faculty relationships toward increasing philanthropy. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 114

change efforts should start by focusing on influential stakeholders to make sure they understand
the need for change. This should be followed by a focus on obstacles to the change as well as
the knowledge and skills needed for the change. In addition, performance improves when
leaders support the open exchange of ideas (Mezirow, 2000). It follows that WULAS needs to
identify the members of leadership who are pivotal to the fundraising function and that gift
officers should have agency in managing relationships with internal leadership to impart the
importance of philanthropy, discover funding needs, and achieve both fundraising and academic
goals.
Nyman (2016) studied a group of fundraisers who all demonstrated success at securing
gifts of $5 million or more for their institutions. Using qualitative interviews, the researcher
found that fundraisers believe they need to strengthen their internal relationships to educate
leaders on the importance of building relationships with donors. They also need to facilitate
discussions between donors and institutional leaders that allow for long-term collaborative
generation of value. The fundraisers also noted that donors want to engage with university
leadership as they consider philanthropic investment. These findings support the
recommendation that the gift officers should have autonomy in identifying and engaging key
faculty stakeholders and in using communication and educational strategies to facilitate their
participation in the fundraising process.
Support WULAS gift officers by completing a fully articulated case for support to
present to potential donors. This recommendation aligns with the finding that the case for
support is incomplete. Since the interviews, a case book outlining broad funding themes was
completed, but it still lacks specific giving opportunities aligned with the various thematic
priorities. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizations thrive when the stakeholders are
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 115

focused on a common vision aligned with the organizational mission and priorities. In addition,
leaders can facilitate performance by setting goals, objectives, and timelines. This is supported
by Knowles (1980) who asserts that motivation increases when people have goals that are
relevant. It follows that the recommendation is to fully articulate the case for support,
demonstrate its alignment with the university’s mission, create specific giving opportunities, and
define goals for each priority identified in the case.
According to research in educational advancement conducted the Education Advisory
Board (2017) with their academic partners, donors are motivated by outcomes and by ideas that
have impact. They recommend working with faculty to gather information to create a clear case
for academic priorities that also demonstrates measurable results. Furthermore, EAB (2017)
research-driven recommendations include the inclusion of budgets for academic plans that can be
shared with donors via a case for support and individualized donor proposals. The resulting case
for support should outline the problems being addressed, how the university is positioned to
solve the problem, how philanthropy furthers the solution, what steps will be taken, how results
will be demonstrated, and what will be the outcomes for the institution as well as society at-
large. The EAB (2017) research supports the recommendation to augment the current case for
giving with detailed giving opportunities to share with prospective donors.
Provide additional opportunities for gift officers to engage donors in the fundraising
endeavor by establishing an emerging leaders board. This recommendation supports the
finding that gift officer performance would be enhanced by increasing interactions with
volunteers. The ability to initiate and cultivate relationships with stakeholders is a key attribute
of good leaders (Denning, 2005; Lewis, 2011). Furthermore, organizations benefit when
relationships are prioritized, and workers believe their contributions advance organizational
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 116

goals (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Although donors are usually not employees, they are
integral to WULAS. In addition, the findings of this study support the idea that donors who have
high engagement, such as volunteer board membership, are likely to support fundraising not only
with their own philanthropy, but by tapping their own networks. Therefore, the recommendation
is that WULAS should expand its volunteer engagement by forming an emerging leaders
volunteer board.
Chung-Hoon, Hite and Hite (2007) conducted a study to understand the effects of donor
engagement on the quality and depth of donor relationships with the institutions they support and
the effects of engagement on fundraising outcomes. The researchers examined survey responses
from fundraising professionals at 66 institutions who were asked to consider their top ten donors
in answering survey items designed to measure formal and informal institutional engagement.
Fundraising data was secured from the 2002 Voluntary Support of Education report. The study
found schools that connect donors to representatives within the university and provide
opportunity for donors to serve in formal roles, count more long-term, close relationships in their
donor populations. In addition, these institutions had higher endowments, more alumni donors,
and higher unrestricted giving. This supports the recommendation to formally engage donors by
developing an emerging leaders board.
Implement key elements of human capital management to enhance gift officer
performance. This recommendation emerged from the finding that elements of human capital
management, such as on-boarding, performance standards, administrative support, and
professional development are inconsistently practiced in WULAS Advancement. According to
Hentshe and Wohstetter (2004), it is critical that organizations focus on building capacity within
their workforce. In addition, organizations can lessen ambiguity and unease by putting systems
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 117

and processes in place. Therefore, the recommendation is to improve on-boarding, utilize
incremental goal-setting, recognize performance, provide training on how to utilize available
administrative resources, support professional development, and create career paths.
According to the Education Advisory Board (2000), fundraising organizations are
expected to be increasingly reliant on philanthropy and managing performance is an important
tool to increase productivity. Research conducted with their partner institutions identified a set
of barriers to fundraising, including a lack of systems to support performance, an outsized
emphasis on quantitative measures of performance, a lack of timely feedback on performance,
inadequate systems to manage gift officer portfolios, and a dearth of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivators for performance. These findings led to recommendations including the use of metrics
that drive performance, defining career paths, providing adequate administrative resources that
are easy to access, implementing performance coaching, prioritizing recognition of performance,
and using intrinsic motivators such as demonstrating the impact of philanthropy on outcomes.
This research and the subsequent recommendations are in alignment with the recommendation to
consistently implement human capital management strategies at WULAS Advancement.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 118

Appendix G: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The integrated implementation and evaluation plan follows the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), which is focused on program improvement, impactful
learning, and validated outcomes. There are four levels, which are reaction, learning, behavior,
and results. According to this revision, the evaluation plan occurs during program planning and
progresses in reverse from the highest level of evaluation, which is outcomes or results, to the
lowest, which is reaction to the program. First the desired outcomes of a program are identified.
Because outcomes are driven by individual workers, the next step is to define the leading
indicators that serve as observations and measurements of behaviors that will lead to the
expected results. Next, the model requires a focus on the small number of crucial actions that
most impact the desired outcomes and the drivers that ensure these behaviors. After this, the
model calls for drivers to equip and motivate workers. Finally, the program or training is
created, conducted, and evaluated for satisfaction, engagement, and relevance to its participants.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
Embedded in the mission of Western University is the assertion that alumni and donors
are important members of the university’s community and support the university through
philanthropy, service, and guidance. The Organizational goal of WULAS Advancement is to
meet its fundraising goals by developing and retaining high performing gift officers. The
stakeholder goal is that WULAS gift officers will meet their individual goals. This study
examined the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences on WULAS gift officers
and their ability to achieve their goals. The proposed solution is to support gift officers with
ongoing training, continuous improvement loops, human capital management programs, a fully-
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 119

articulated case for giving, increased engagement of internal fundraising partners, and expanded
opportunities for donors to participate in the university community. Together these
improvements should increase the philanthropic productivity of the WULAS gift officers.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 1G outlines the measures and observations that will serve as indicators of
meaningful progress toward the organizational and stakeholder goals. The results and leading
indicators are included as outcomes that can be expected if the program elements are
demonstrated to be successfully implemented using the proposed metrics and methods.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 120

Table 1G
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metrics Methods

External Outcomes

Academic programs
prioritized by the dean have
received necessary funding
Total dollars raised per year

Review of gift reports
disaggregated by academic
priority

Increased number of donors
giving to WULAS priorities

Number of new donors per
year

Review of gift reports

Deeper engagement of donors
in the WULAS community
Number of substantive donor
interactions that include a
member of the faculty

Number of donors serving on
boards
Use the constituent relations
management system to track
the inclusion of faculty
partners

Monitor board membership

Internal Outcomes

Improved planning around
each prospect being
cultivated for a gift

Number of prospects in each
gift officer’s portfolio that
has a strategic plan updated
within the last year

Report that reflects activity in
planning fields within the
constituent relationship
management system

Increased number of
substantive interactions
between gift officers and
prospective donors

Number of substantive visits
per month

Monitor substantive activity
report and work plan report

Increased percentage of gift
officers meeting annual
monetary goals

Dollars raised per year by gift
officer

Monitor existing reports for
closed gifts

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The WULAS gift officers need to consistently perform four critical
behaviors in order to realize the external and internal outcomes. Table 2G outlines the behaviors
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 121

and how they will be assessed. The behaviors include relationship building, strategy building,
engagement, and the presentation of gift proposals.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 122

Table 2G

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)

Method(s)

Timing

1. Establish and
nurture meaningful
relationships with
donors and
prospective donors.

Number of
substantive visits
Substantive activity
report
Monthly
2. Create strategies
that are based on the
alignment of donor
priorities and passions
with WULAS case for
giving
90 percent of
prospective donors
have a strategy
entered in the CRM.
Monitor strategies in
each gift officer
portfolio of donors and
prospective donors.
Monthly
Review strategies in
team and one-on-one
meetings.

Bi-weekly and
monthly
3. Strategically use
engagement
opportunities to
further gift
conversations in a
timely manner.
Number of days since
last interaction with a
prospective donor.
Portfolio reports that
include date of last
interaction.
Monthly
Percent of contact
reports for a donor
that reflect
interactions to
facilitate donor
engagement.

Contact report content Monthly
Number of visits that
include interactions
with faculty.

Contact report content Monthly
4. Present proposals to
prospective donors
that are in alignment
with donor
expectations
Number of proposals
submitted that are in
alignment with
strategy
Proposal report and
work plan report
Quarterly
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 123

Number of proposals
funded
Proposal report and
work plan report
Quarterly

Required drivers. Because the behaviors described above are critical to WULAS
meeting its organizational goal, it is important to include drivers to support the behaviors. Table
3G describes the recommended methods to reinforce learning and encourage its application.
Methods to monitor and reward critical behaviors are also included.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 124

Table 3G
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s)

Timing

Critical Behaviors Supported
Reinforcing

Gift officers practice
articulating aspects of the case
for giving to each other and
providing mutual feedback.
Monthly; at gift officer group
training meeting
1, 2, 3, 4

Training centered on
relationship building that
includes demonstration,
practice, and feedback.

Quarterly; at a gift officer
group training meeting

1, 2, 3

Group meetings where gift
officers support each other in
developing strategies for
individual prospective donors
and in self-assessment of
strategy implementation.
Strategy building will include
the use of engagement with
academic leadership and/or
potential for board
membership.

Bi-weekly at gift officer
regular meeting

1, 2, 3, 4
Encouraging

Reciprocal shadowing
opportunities among gift
officers with feedback.
Monthly for new gift officers,
semi-annually for those with
more tenure
1, 2, 3, 4

Utilize one-on-one meetings
with supervisor to
acknowledge success, identify
areas for improvement, and
set intermediary goals

Monthly at one-on-one
meetings with supervisor

1, 2, 3, 4
Rewarding

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 125

Review and celebrate closed
gifts by discussing impact of
gifts on students, faculty and
programs

Quarterly at a gift officer
regular meeting
2
Publicly recognize closed gifts On-going at departmental
meetings

1, 2, 3, 4
Promote based on productivity

Annually 1, 2, 3, 4
Monitoring

Number of substantive donor
interactions that include
engagement with the college

Annually 1, 2, 3
Number of gifts and dollar
amount of gifts directed to
giving opportunities in the
case for support
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4

Organizational support. There are five key areas where the organization will support
the critical behaviors. First, the supervisor will plan and create an annual calendar of gift officer
group meetings, group training sessions, and one-on-one meetings with agendas that include
drivers across the categories. Second, WULAS leadership will support construction of a job aid
that identifies giving opportunities across the funding priorities and in gift amounts from small to
large. Third, the supervisor will collaborate with leadership to recognize success in group
meetings. Fourth, the supervisor will facilitate human resources processes for promotion when
appropriate. Fifth, the supervisor will create a checklist for reviewing reports to ensure that the
drivers are consistently monitored.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Implementation of the recommendations outlined will result in the
stakeholders’ ability to:
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 126

1. Explain the WULAS case for giving (D)
2. Recall the giving opportunities associated with the case for giving (D)
3. Demonstrate productive interactions with prospective donors (P)
4. Execute visits that build relationships with prospective donors (P)
5. Engage donors with WULAS faculty and academic leadership (P)
6. Execute visits with prospective donors that further philanthropic discussion especially
around the WULAS case for giving (P)
7. Create strategies to move individual donors toward philanthropic investment (M)
8. Reflect on individual prospective donor strategies over course of cultivation cycle and
adjust plans accordingly (M)
9. Create gift proposals (P)
10. Express confidence in ability to secure philanthropic investments (SE)
11. Attribute their results to their own actions (A)
12. Value their contribution to the WULAS mission (V)
Evaluation of the components of learning. The WULAS gift officers need both
declarative and procedural knowledge to perform their role. In addition, metacognition is
required to develop strategies and evaluate what is working and what needs to be adjusted in
furthering prospective donor relationships toward philanthropic investment. Motivation is also
important, and gift officer should value their role in securing donations to further their own
careers as well as the WU educational and research mission. They should be confident in their
abilities, attribute their success to their own efforts, and commit to their goals. It is important to
evaluate each of these components of learning and motivation to ensure that the gift officers are
prepared, will take initiative, and will persist in the core activities of their position.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 127

Table 4G
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Activities

Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks in group training sessions. Every four weeks.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Assessment of relationship building skills
during role play or demonstration

Quarterly
Quality and relevance of feedback during
group strategy sessions

Bi-weekly
Demonstration of ability to progress donors
toward philanthropy during shadow visits

Every six months
Demonstration of ability to engage donors
during strategy sessions

Bi-weekly
Demonstration of ability to create gift
proposals around WULAS case for giving

Monthly
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Discussion around value for philanthropy Bi-weekly group meetings
Reflective discussion on value of annual
meeting/training schedule

Annual gift officer retreat
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Discussion following role play Quarterly
Discussion following shadow visits

Twice a year
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Discussion in one-on-one meetings with
supervisor around intermediate and annual goal
progress
Monthly

Level 1: Reaction
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 128

It is important to incorporate level one assessment in the learning program. This will
ensure that participants are satisfied with their training interactions, are engaged with the
material, and find it relevant to their role (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The methods used
to determine reaction include observation, attendance, interviews, focus groups, and pulse
checks. These are outlined in Table 5G.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 129

Table 5G
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Tools Timing

Engagement

Observation by supervisor

During all group meetings and trainings
Attendance at group meetings and
trainings
On-going

Relevance

Interview After one month of program
implementation during a 1:1 meeting and
semi-annually thereafter

Focus group Annually at gift officer retreat

Customer Satisfaction

Pulse check

Quarterly during group meetings and
trainings
Interview After one month of program
implementation during a 1:1 meeting and
semi-annually thereafter

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. While the program has many
informal learning opportunities, there are instances of formal learning such as role play and the
case for giving job aid. In these learning scenarios, an evaluation tool will be used to assess
learning immediately following the program. A survey developed to assess the role play training
is included in Appendix H. It consists of items to measure learner engagement, relevance, and
satisfaction. For instance, learners will be asked if the setting of the role play contributed to their
learning experience and if what they learned will help them perform their job in the future.
INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 130

Open-ended questions will prompt gift officers to identify the most useful aspects of the exercise
as well as aspects that were a waste of time. In addition, items are included to test for confidence
as well as commitment to apply learning.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. An interview protocol was
developed to capture gift officer assessment of the program and is administered one month
following implementation of the program and semi-annually thereafter. The interview protocol
is included in Appendix I and has items aligned with each of the four levels in the Kirkpatrick
model. Items are included that check for learning of procedural knowledge, such as knowledge
of the giving priorities from the case for support. The interview also checks for metacognitive
knowledge with items centered on strategy creation. Self-efficacy items check for confidence
linked to participation in the program. The interview also probes for gift officer feedback on the
relevance of the program to their work how it might better serve their needs. The final item is
meant to evaluate the gift officers’ anticipated results from their participation in the program.
Data Analysis and Reporting
While all four levels of evaluation are important to ascertain and report, it is especially
important for all stakeholders to be able to view level four outcomes. Individual and team
dashboards will be developed to track individual and group progress toward annual goals for
dollars raised, substantive visits, donor goals, and planning goals. The dashboards will illustrate
monthly progress toward goal and will include an arrow that projects final results if the current
pace is maintained. Dashboards will also be created for level three behaviors. Level two
behaviors will be presented as a skills inventory. Lastly, level one will be presented as tables,
narrative with pop-out quotes, and word cloud illustration.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 131

Summary
The evaluation tools were developed using the New World Kirkpatrick Model. By
starting with level four outcomes and cascading to level three behaviors, level two learning, and
level one reaction, the program is focused on measurable results that are directly aligned with the
stakeholder and organizational goals. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) framework
provided a structure that ensures the gathering and presentation of the most salient formative and
summative data from the program to support the stakeholder and organizational goals. The data
will be used to understand if the program meets expectations, and why or why not (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Ultimately, the data will illustrate the value of the program for increasing
philanthropic support for the college or provide information for additional or divergent
interventions.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 132

Appendix H: Evaluation Instrument for Role Play Exercises
Evaluation instrument developed for use immediately following role play exercise.
Please take a moment to provide anonymous feedback on your participation in the role play
exercise.
1. The setting of the role play exercise contributed to my learning experience.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
2. The structure of the role play exercise contributed to my learning experience.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
3. What, if anything, could be improved in the presentation of the role play exercise?
4. What I learned from the role play exercise will help me perform my job in the future.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
5. What was most useful about the role play exercise?
6. What, if anything, was a waste of time?
7. I would recommend that other gift officer teams participate in a similar exercise.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
8. How could the role play exercise be improved for the future?
9. I feel confident that I will apply what I learned in the role play exercise in performing my
job.
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree
10. Describe one thing you learned that you can immediately apply on the job.

INSTITUTIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 133

Appendix I: Interview Protocol for Program
Interview protocol for use one month after program implementation and semi-annually
thereafter.
1. How does the current calendar of gift officer meetings and one-on-one meetings support
you in performing your job?
2. What content from the past month of gift officer meetings has been most helpful to you in
performing your job?
3. Do you feel more confident in your donor interactions now as compared to xx month(s)
ago? To what do you attribute this feeling?
4. How could we improve gift officer meetings to better support your work?
5. How could we improve our one-on-one meetings to better support your work?
6. How are you applying your knowledge of the case for giving in your work?
7. How are you utilizing the specific giving opportunities in the case for giving in your
work?
8. Describe a strategy you have developed for one of your prospective donors?
9. What outcomes do you see or anticipate as a result of the various interactions you
experience in gift officer meetings and trainings? Our one-on-one meetings?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative case study examined the experience, perceptions, and beliefs of professional fundraisers in a higher education setting to understand the factors that affect gift officer performance. It is an evaluative study modified from the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis and utilized their knowledge, motivation and organizational influences framework to identify what contributes to or obstructs performance. The study data was derived from interviews with eight gift officers in the Western University College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences (WULAS). A survey of WULAS gift officers that gleaned eleven responses served to triangulate the interview data. The findings identified strengths and gaps in WULAS gift officer knowledge and motivation as well as the organizational constructs that impede gift officer performance at WULAS. A key knowledge finding was that experienced gift officers demonstrated procedural knowledge of how to ascertain donor interests and align interests to giving priorities, while less experienced gift officers only demonstrated declarative knowledge. A key motivation finding was that gift officers intrinsically value their role but want to be acknowledged for their contribution to the educational mission. The study includes a set of recommendations supported by theoretical and empirical evidence to address gaps and impediments. A key recommendation was the incorporation of opportunities for gift officers to reflect on their donor interaction, self-assess their outcomes, and identify areas for improvement. Another salient recommendation was to implement human capital management strategies such as strategic on-boarding, professional development, and recognition programs. The desired outcome of implementing the recommendations was measurable improvement in WULAS gift officer experience and performance.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

A methodology for transforming the student experience in higher education: a promising practice study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Pacific Coast University Police Department sworn officer staffing shortages: a gap analysis

PDF

Implementing a digital information management system for advising adult students in professional education programs

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Retaining female field grade officers in the USAF: an evaluative study

PDF

Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The implementation of data driven decision making to improve low-performing schools: an evaluation study of superintendents in the western United States

PDF

The impact of advanced technologies on the workplace and the workforce: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors that facilitate or hinder staff performance during management turnover

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

Curriculum and assessment alignment, instructional practices, and the impact on Hispanic/Latino students advanced placement exam achievement

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Advisor impact on student veterans at a post-secondary institution: an evaluation study

PDF

Lack of Latinx senior executive service members in a federal government agency

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

Asset Metadata

Creator Grubaugh, Lorri Suzanne (author)

Core Title Institutional advancement in higher education: managing gift officer performance and turnover

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/14/2019

Defense Date 02/20/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag advancement,campaign,Development,Fundraising,gift officers,Higher education,major gifts,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Lynch, Douglas (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email grubaugh@usc.edu,lorri.grubaugh@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-134979

Unique identifier UC11675266

Identifier etd-GrubaughLo-7162.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-134979 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GrubaughLo-7162.pdf

Dmrecord 134979

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Grubaugh, Lorri Suzanne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA