University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

(USC Thesis Other)

Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY

1

Readiness Factors Influencing the Ability of Institutions of Higher Education to Align the
Budget with Organizational Goals: An Evaluation Study of a College
by
William H. Eargle, Jr.

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 2020

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The dissertation journey has been filled with a lot of hard work and great satisfaction.
Hard work from the many hours of effort needed to produce a quality product and great
satisfaction knowing the findings and solutions contained in the dissertation will be of substantial
benefit to the college that is the focus of the evaluation study. The success of the work effort
would not have occurred without a tremendous support team which I acknowledge and extend
gratitude and thanks.
I express gratitude to the chair of my dissertation committee, Dr. Stowe, for her
continuous support, constructive feedback, gentle nudging and always being there when needed.
She along with Dr. Canny and the other two members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Picus
and Dr. Malloy, provided invaluable insight and recommendations for revision and change to
dissertation content and format proving to be essential for a successful conclusion to the
dissertation project. I knew when the team was formed that the selected committee members
would be challenging, but fair, helping me produce the best possible product. Thank you again
for being there for me in so many ways.
I applaud the Rossier School of Education that created the Organizational Change and
Leadership program in its present format. The inclusion of the dissertation instruction with
course material beginning with the initial course, rather than waiting until completion of all
courses to begin writing the dissertation, was key to finishing and doing so in a reasonable time
frame. I thank the professors who provided guidance and mentoring along the way. Their
instruction along the way was critical to the dissertation’s development through to completion.
I am so appreciative of all members of Cohort Eight. They are such an awesome group
and I have enjoyed getting to know each of them. What a diverse group with a common link; a
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 3

daily desire to learn and be greater than you were the day before. People of different ethnicities,
genders, both young and old, and many persons of color leading to high quality group
discussions and decision-making. There was even a senior citizen (that would be me!) older than
the other students and professors alike who was welcomed into the program with open arms by
fellow students and professors.
Further, I acknowledge the president of the College of Goodness (pseudonym) and
chairman of the board of trustees who gave me the opportunity to perform an evaluation study of
the college’s readiness to align the annual budget with organizational goals. I likewise
acknowledge them along with other college leadership and staff for agreeing to be interviewed
which provided the essential data necessary for the development and finalization of the
evaluation study.
Most importantly I recognize the support provided by my family over the course of the
program. They lifted me up during times I felt discouraged and encouraged me to forge ahead
when the finish line seemed out of reach. They scarcely complained during times I sought
seclusion in my home office to complete a course assignment or prepare the next installment of
my dissertation study. This is particularly true of my wife Kathy, who gave up many Friday date
nights as I prepared for a Saturday morning class. She also allowed me time on other weekdays
to complete readings, written assignments or tests in preparation for Saturday and mid-week
classes. So Eargle family break out the travel bags. It is now time to hit the road!

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 4

Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................2
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................9
List of Figures ...............................................................................................................................10
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................11
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................................12
Organizational Context and Mission .........................................................................................13
Importance of Addressing the Problem .....................................................................................14
Purpose of the Project and Questions ........................................................................................15
Methodological Framework ........................................................................................................16
Organizational Performance Goal .............................................................................................16
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal .................................................................17
Description of Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................18
Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................................19
Importance of Clear, Concise and Meaningful Goals in a SMART Format ............................ 19
Linkage Needed Between Budget and Goals ........................................................................... 20
Lack of Public Funding to Private Colleges ............................................................................. 21
Alignment of Budget with Goals Provides for the Efficient Use of Scarce Resources ............ 22
Current Budgetary Process Needs to be Analyzed ................................................................... 22
Culture of Change ..................................................................................................................... 23
Cost of Change .......................................................................................................................... 23
Budgetary Methodologies ......................................................................................................... 24
Performance-based budgeting. .............................................................................................. 24
Corporate performance management. ................................................................................... 25
Incremental budgeting. ......................................................................................................... 25
Zero-based budgeting. ........................................................................................................... 26
Spreadsheet application. ....................................................................................................... 27
Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influences ..............................................................27
Knowledge Influences .............................................................................................................. 27
Procedural knowledge. .......................................................................................................... 28
Conceptual knowledge. ......................................................................................................... 31
Motivational Influences ............................................................................................................ 32
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 5

Expectancy value. ................................................................................................................. 32
Self-efficacy. ......................................................................................................................... 33
Organization Influences ............................................................................................................ 33
Cultural model. ..................................................................................................................... 34
Cultural settings. ................................................................................................................... 35
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context .................................................................................................38
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 39
Sampling Strategy, Size and Timeline .......................................................................................41
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................42
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 42
Informal interviews ............................................................................................................... 42
Formal interviews. ................................................................................................................ 42
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................................... 43
Research Question Number One ............................................................................................... 43
Research Question Number Two .............................................................................................. 44
Themes ..........................................................................................................................................45
Research Question Number 1 ................................................................................................... 48
Theme 1 - Need for increase in procedural knowledge to develop SMART goals. ............. 49
Theme 2 – Need an increase in procedural knowledge to align annual budget with
organizational goals. ............................................................................................................. 51
Theme 3 - Need to analyze and make maximum use of the current budgetary system. ...... 52
Theme 4 – Need for increase in self-efficacy to lead effort to align budget with goals. ...... 54
Research Question Number Two .............................................................................................. 55
Theme 5 - Need to develop an organizational culture accepting of change. ........................ 55
Theme 6 – Need to implement a goal-based budgeting system. ........................................... 56
Theme 7 - Need to provide funding for budgetary system enhancements and
implementation of goal-based budgetary process ................................................................. 58
Solutions and Recommendations ................................................................................................60
Theme 1 - Increase Knowledge to Develop SMART Goals Through eLearning and
Job Aids .................................................................................................................................... 60
Theme 2 – Increase Procedural Knowledge by Assessing Prior Staff Knowledge Using
Kirkpatrick and Designing Training to Fill Gaps ..................................................................... 61
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 6

Theme 3 - Determine Staff’s Understanding of the Current Budgetary System Using
Kirkpatrick and Provide Training to Fill Gaps ......................................................................... 61
Theme 4 - Assess Levels of Self Efficacy Using Kirkpatrick and Act to Close
Gaps .......................................................................................................................................... 63
Theme 5 - Assess Employees’ Willingness to Accept Change Using Kirkpatrick
and Conduct .............................................................................................................................. 64
Theme 6 – Communicate to Employees Plans to Convert to a Goal-Based System
and Assess Willingness to Change Using Kirkpatrick ............................................................. 65
Theme 7 - Prepare Budget Justification for Trustees Supporting Needed Enhancements
to Budgetary System ................................................................................................................. 66
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................67
References .....................................................................................................................................69
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria for Interview ....................81
Research Questions ......................................................................................................................81
Participating Stakeholders ..........................................................................................................81
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .................81
President Stakeholder ..................................................................................................................82
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 82
Chief of Staff Stakeholder ...........................................................................................................82
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 83
Chairman of the Board of Trustees Stakeholder ......................................................................83
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 83
Chief Financial Officer Stakeholder ..........................................................................................84
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 84
Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Initiatives Stakeholder ............85
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 85
Vice President for Academic Affairs Stakeholder ....................................................................86
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale ............................................. 86
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ..................... 86
Interview Protocols, Documents and Artifacts .........................................................................87
Interview Protocols ................................................................................................................... 87
Interview Procedures ................................................................................................................ 87
Documents and Artifacts .......................................................................................................... 89
Appendix B: Interview Protocols ...............................................................................................90
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 7

Introductory Narrative .............................................................................................................. 90
Knowledge ................................................................................................................................ 90
Motivation ................................................................................................................................. 91
Organization .............................................................................................................................. 93
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................94
Member Checking ..................................................................................................................... 94
Triangulation ............................................................................................................................. 94
Peer Review .............................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability .........................................................................................97
Appendix E: Ethics ......................................................................................................................98
Organization Under Review ..................................................................................................... 98
Relationships at Goodness ........................................................................................................ 98
Potential Bias ............................................................................................................................ 99
Qualitative Review ................................................................................................................... 99
Additional Ethics Considerations ........................................................................................... 100
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................101
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 101
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ................................................................... 102
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................................. 103
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................................... 104
Critical behaviors. ............................................................................................................... 104
Organizational support. ....................................................................................................... 105
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................................... 105
Learning goals. .................................................................................................................... 105
Training program. ............................................................................................................... 106
Evaluation of the components of learning .......................................................................... 107
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................................... 108
Evaluation tools .................................................................................................................. 108
Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................................. 109
Appendix G: Example of Annual Budget to Goal Alignment ...............................................115
Appendix H: Levels 1 and 2 ......................................................................................................116
Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 Assessment ...........................................................................118
Appendix J: Final Course Report ............................................................................................120
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 8

Appendix K: Pre-Training Knowledge Check ........................................................................122
Appendix L: Post-Training Knowledge Check .......................................................................123
Appendix M: Self-efficacy Motivation Pre-test .......................................................................124
Appendix N: Self-efficacy Motivation Post-test ......................................................................126
Appendix O: Pre–Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change ..........................................128
Appendix P: Post-Meeting on Accepting Change ...................................................................129

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 9

List of Tables
Table 1 Key College Stakeholders Goals .................................................................................................................... 17
Table 2 KMO Influences and General Literature by Influence ................................................................................. 130
Table 3 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................................................................... 132
Table 4 Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations .................................................................... 134
Table 5 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................................................... 135
Table 6 Sampling Strategy, Size and Timeline ........................................................................................................... 41
Table 7 Mapping of Themes to Research Questions and KMO Principles ................................................................. 46
Table 8 Interview Protocol Questions and Interrelationships ................................................................................. 137
Table 9 Chart of Interview Hours ............................................................................................................................. 139
Table 10 Triangular Budget to Goals Validation Methodology............................................................................... 140
Table 11 Triangular SMART Goal Validation Methodology .................................................................................... 141
Table 12 KMO Influence gaps and Evaluation Tools ............................................................................................... 142
Table 13 Potential Schedule of Events to Close ....................................................................................................... 144
Table 14 Training/Meeting Recommended Attendance ......................................................................................... 145
Table 15 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ................................................... 146
Table 16 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................................................ 148
Table 17 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................................................... 149
Table 18 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .................................................................... 152
Table 19 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ................................................................................ 154

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 10

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the College of Goodness ................................................................................... 40
Figure 2. Alignment of Annual Budget to Goals ........................................................................................................ 155
Figure 3. Impact of Goal Alignment on Annual Budget ............................................................................................ 156

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 11

Abstract
The purpose of the study was to evaluate a college’s readiness to align its annual budget with the
goals of the organization. The establishment of clear, concise, and measurable goals and
aligning annual budget resources to these goals are key to helping ensure available financial
resources are used to achieve organizational goals in the most efficient and effective manner
possible. The failure to establish an alignment is problematic for several reasons. It reduces the
possibility of achieving the goals and in the highly competitive world of college recruiting it
leaves open the difficult question of whether the budgets of institutions are being used
effectively. The study focused on knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences
affecting a college’s readiness to successfully achieve the alignment of the annual budget to
organizational goals. A qualitative method of data gathering, and analysis was employed
including the assessment of stakeholder’s current performance using individual and focus group
interviews, an analysis of documents identified through the interview process, and a review of
information on the college’s webpage. The results of the study show there are knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps impeding the college’s readiness to establish an alignment
between the annual budget and organizational goals. The findings are presented along with
recommendations and solutions to close each gap. Some of the solutions include the need to use
budgeted funds to make possible budgetary process improvements. The college should be
successful in its overall alignment effort if leadership is confident in their ability to lead and a
culture of change can be established among the college’s learning community.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 12

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Institutions of higher education need to be in a position of readiness to establish an
alignment between the annual budget and organizational goals. Failure to establish goals and
achieve alignment with the budget is problematic for several reasons. Locke and Latham
(1990) and Gibson (2009) asserted the failure to establish goals and align the budget with the
goals reduces the possibility of achieving them. Hanushek (1997) stressed the failure to
establish goals and tie the budget to the goals leaves open the question of whether the higher
education institution’s budget is being used effectively. The fiduciary responsibility to use
budgeted funds in an efficient and effective manner is tantamount to institutional survival
during current periods of scarce financial resources (Al-Hosaini & Sofian, 2015; Astin, 1997;
Beamer, 2011; Briqa'an & Alqurashi, 2012; Bufan, 2013; Lalli, 2011; and Stillman, 2009).
There are reasons the alignment between an organization’s annual budget and goals is not
occurring at institutions of higher education.
Once organizational goals have been established, the primary reason for an institution of
higher learning not aligning an annual budget with goals is the continued use of the line-item
budgeting process solely to control administrative line-item costs such as salaries and travel, not
to align the budget with goals (Loeb, 2008). Many budgetary systems in institutions of higher
education are set up to only ensure funds are spent in compliance with spending rules, not to
also ensure the annual budget is aligned to address goals (Loeb, 2008). The simplicity of the
line-item budgetary process is one of its misguided attractions.
Line-item budgeting, the most widely used budgeting approach in schools and other
organizations because of its simplicity and control orientation, presents little useful information
to decisionmakers on goal achievement (Allison, 2015). Instead of aligning an annual budget
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 13

with key performance goals, such as improved retention and graduation rates, or construction of
a capital facility, line-item budgeting is used to focus solely on controlling line-item budget
expense categories (Allison, 2015). Other researchers have examined the limitations of line-
item budgeting. Johnson (2003), for example, asserted under line-item budgeting, justifications
for fund expenditures are not explicit, and often not intuitive, because they present proposed
expenditure amounts only by cost category, not goals.
Some software vendors are making efforts to expand the capabilities of their
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) budgeting packages to not only control costs, but also align
funding and expenditures with organizational goals. These COTS packages are commercially
available off-the-shelf solutions developed and then adapted to satisfy the needs of a variety of
users (think Microsoft Word and TurboTax), instead of commissioning the development of a
custom-made system built uniquely for one user, the purchasing organization (Bartel & Finster,
1995). The College of Goodness (pseudonym), the focus of this evaluation study, has one of
these COTS budgetary system packages offering an upgrade option (Jenzabar, n.d.).
A college’s readiness to align its annual budget with organizational goals is the focus of
the evaluation study. The College of Goodness (Goodness) is the center of this evaluation study
to determine if the college is in a position of readiness to establish goals in a strategic,
measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) format and align them with the
annual budget to help ensure goal attainment.
Organizational Context and Mission
The College of Goodness is a private nonprofit four-year postsecondary college located
in the eastern half of the United States. According to the college’s website its mission is to
challenge and nurture students for lifetimes of service and leadership through intellectual
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 14

transformation, social development, a culture of physical well-being, and personal growth. Key
college stakeholders for the purpose of this study are the president; chief of staff; chairman of
the board of trustees; chief financial officer; vice president for institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives; and the vice president for academic affairs. Piland and Bublitz (1998)
recommended faculty be included when goals are established and decisions are made including,
in this instance, alignment of portions of the budget with goals. Faculty play a key role in the
transfer of knowledge to students.
The faculty promotes excellence in all forms of teaching, research, and scholarship
leading to fulfillment of the college’s mission. The total number of faculty at Goodness is 110.
Seventy are full-time and the remaining 40 are adjunct faculty. The ratio of students to faculty
is 14:1. Goodness offers approximately 30 majors, 35 minors, and 30 area concentrations. In
addition, it provides an honors program, a Reserve Officer Training Corps program, as well as
pre-professional programs in law, medicine, and nursing. Goodness has a very diverse student
body.
It is important for the college to gather and study detailed information about students
and its diverse student body to determine possible ways diversity can best serve the learning
experience for all students (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). College enrollment in 2019-
2020 is 1,157 students. The ethnicity breakdown of these students is White/non-Hispanic 55%,
African American 30%, Hispanic/Latino 5%, two or more ethnicity identifications 3%, and
unidentified 7%. The gender division is 53% male and 47% female (CollegeSimply, n.d.)
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to evaluate Goodness’ ability to be in a position of readiness to establish
an alignment between the annual budget and organizational goals for a variety of reasons. Al-
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 15

Hosaini and Sofian (2015) and Briqa'an and Alqurashi (2012) reported higher education is
conducting daily business without having adequate planning and goal setting, clear visions for
the future, or a good budgetary process to respond to issues facing universities and other
educational institutions. Establishing goals and aligning budgetary resources to the goals are
keys to helping ensure available financial resources are used to achieve organizational goals
(Al-Hosaini & Sofian, 2015; Briqa'an & Alqurashi, 2012). The alignment of the budget to goals
is critical to achieving long-term strategic goals, i.e., capital investments, which depend on
multiple years funding.
Furthermore, Steven (2007) advised most organizations use budgets because they
provide a framework for strategic direction and operational control. Eckerson (2009) stated the
development of this framework is critical to an organization’s ability to establish goals and
successfully use them as a benchmark to achievement. Leadership uses this process in an
organization to define its strategy, incorporate direction, and make decisions on allocating its
budgetary resources (Eckerson, 2009).
Lalli (2011) emphasized a budget needs to be aligned with established goals to ensure
limited financial resources are used efficiently and effectively in meeting goals. Astin (1997),
Lalli (2011), and Stillman (2009) advocated for an efficient allocation of budgetary resources
achieved through aligning the annual budget with an institution of higher education’s goals to
(a) help keep tuition costs down, (b) ensure student success through increased retention and
graduation rates, and (c) have success in recruiting new students.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the degree to which Goodness is ready to
establish an alignment between the annual budget and organizational goals. The study is
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 16

focused on knowledge, motivation and organization (KMO) influences affecting Goodness’
readiness to successfully achieve the alignment of the annual budget to organizational goals.
Key college stakeholder questions to guide the evaluation study to address knowledge,
motivation, and organization elements are:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to Goodness being in a
position of readiness to align the annual budget with goals of the organization?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
Methodological Framework
A qualitative method of data gathering and analysis was used for the study. The
stakeholder’s current performance was assessed using (a) individual and focus group interviews,
(b) an analysis of documents identified through the interview process, and (c) a review of
information on the college’s webpage. Research-based solutions were considered for
recommendations and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
A systemic problem-solving approach was used to help evaluate performance towards
achieving organizational goals. This approach, the Clark and Estes' (2008) gap analysis
framework, was used by evaluators to identify knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps
impeding Goodness’ readiness to establish an alignment between the annual budget and
organizational goals. Actions were recommended to close identified gaps.
Organizational Performance Goal
The global organizational performance goal of Goodness is to evaluate its readiness to
establish an alignment between the annual budget and organizational goals. The initial phase of
the project was by February 2020 to
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 17

goals. The second
and final alignment phase was by June 2020 for the key college stakeholders to identify barriers
to readiness they want to address and develop action plans for successfully overcoming them.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The key college stakeholders’ goals are shown in Table 1 (p. 17). As previously noted,
key college stakeholders for purposes of this study are the president; chief of staff; chairman of
the board of trustees; chief financial officer; vice president for institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives; and the vice president for academic affairs.

Table 1
Key College Stakeholders Goals

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 18

Description of Stakeholder Groups
A description of key stakeholders and the contribution each makes to the achievement of
the organization’s global goal of being in a position of readiness to establish an alignment
between the annual budget and organizational goals are provided below.
1. The college president is pivotal to the success of the organization. He is responsible for
the organization and administration of the college. He makes policy recommendations
to the board trustees on all matters affecting the college and recommends additions or
changes in personnel. He submits an annual budget and administers the board approved
budget. He also has authority to exercise broad, discretionary power along lines
established by the board of trustees (Svcc.edu, 2020).
2. The chief of staff works behind the scenes to solve problems, mediate disputes, and deal
with issues before they are brought to the president. The chief of staff is a confidante
and advisor to the president acting as a sounding board for ideas (President's Office,
2020).
3. The board of trustees and its chair are pivotal to the success of the organization. The
board has fiduciary responsibility for the governance of the college, serving to oversee
and shape its broad policies. It approves the college’s strategic direction and annual
budgets directed towards the achievement of goals (Board of Trustees, 2020).
4. The chief financial officer oversees and enhances financial management of the college
which includes resource allocations, financial strategy, capital plans, debt management,
cash flow optimization, and financial information systems. The chief financial officer’s
business responsibilities encompass treasury, budget, accounting systems, the audit, and
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 19

accounting oversight of the endowment. She also is a key advisor to the president on
financial and non-financial strategic issues (Tennessee.edu, 2020).
5. The vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives is responsible
for formatting goals and leading the development, implementation, and assessment of a
strategic plan, working cross-departmentally to identify opportunities for expansion and
growth aligned with the college’s mission ("Education Strategy and Planning Manager,"
n.d.).
6. The vice president for academic affairs (provost) is the chief academic officer of
the college and has responsibility for its academic and budgetary affairs. The vice
president for academic affairs collaborates with the president in setting overall academic
priorities for the college and allocates funds to carry these priorities forward
(Ohlone.edu, 2020).
Review of the Literature
A review of literature relevant to the problem of practice involving the college’s
readiness to establish goals and align the annual budget with the goals was performed. The
review covered literature of most significance in identifying the knowledge, motivation and
organization influences in need of addressing for Goodness to achieve its global organizational
goal of being ready to establish an alignment between the annual budget and organizational
goals. The results of the review are provided below. Table 2 (p. 130) provides a list
summarizing the KMO influences and the general literature associated with each.
Importance of Clear, Concise and Meaningful Goals in a SMART Format
It is important to have performance goals developed in a clear, concise, and meaningful
format capable of being mapped to the budget. Lawlor (2012) and Clark and Estes (2008)
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 20

discuss the critical need for the availability and quality of goals. Lawlor (2012) stated one way
of developing quality goals is through using a SMART format defined as goals that are specific,
measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Both Lawlor (2012) and Clark and Estes
(2008) found it would be impossible for an organization to know whether it is succeeding or
failing in achieving a goal without setting clear and measurable goals defining expectations.
Matthews (2007) based on an intensive study asserted managers can clearly outline their
expectations by being strategic and setting goals in a SMART context. Matthews (2007)
showed the probability of achieving designated goals increases by up to 70% when SMART
goals are established. Goal commitment also increases when goals are established in a SMART
format.
Haughey (2015) and Walesh (2003) found through SMART goal setting project
managers and their teams are more committed, have increased motivation, and improved group
cohesion. Haughey (2015) and Walesh (2003) report under SMART goal formatting there is an
increased sense of worth among employees, because progress can be quantified, enabling
workers to measure progress in achieving the goal. It is important to recognize the skills needed
for goal attainment.
Linkage Needed Between Budget and Goals
Ruhl and Hartman (1994) emphasized management needs to understand how the budget
can be useful for planning and control purposes but stated an organization may need
encouragement to stretch its thinking to include linking the budget to organizational goals. A
linkage enhances the ability of leadership to respond to current and future issues affecting
stability and long-range growth. Briqa'an and Alqurashi (2012) advised colleges are conducting
daily business without having clear visions of the future, prior planning, or a good mechanism
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 21

to respond to issues they face. Markgraf (2016) reported organizations need short-term,
medium-term and long-term planning to stay competitive.
Al-Hosaini and Sofian (2015) stressed to remain competitive the education sector in
general, and particularly higher education, needs to match goals to the vision and mission of the
university, re-align annual budgets, and monitor outcomes in both the short and long term. The
need to stay competitive is particularly true of Goodness which resides with about 100 other
colleges and universities (Colleges and Universities, n.d.) in a state that is relatively small in
terms of geography and population. The college’s accounting, budgetary and planning staffs
need to be able to develop a framework providing for the inclusion of goals tied to the budget.
An organization needs to be in a position of readiness to align its annual budget to goals.
Iselin, Mia, and Sands (2008) reported on the need for a well-coordinated planning
process tying the budget to goals of the organization. A study of multi-perspective goal setting,
performance reporting, and organizational performance by Iselin et al. (2008) reaffirm the
importance of organizations aligning budgets with short- and long-term goals.
Gibson (2009) asserted higher education’s annual budget plan needs to be tied to longer
term goals, because the annual budget is merely the short-term action plan that carries the
organization toward reaching its long-term goals. These long-term goals are included in the
organization’s strategic planning document (Holwick, 2009). Furthermore, Gad (2012) stated
long term capital budgeting and goal setting are vital to organizations. Budgetary controls help
to ensure financial resources are used in an efficient and effective manner.
Lack of Public Funding to Private Colleges
Goodness is a small, private nonprofit institution of higher education. Beamer (2011)
and State Higher Education Executive Officers (2008) stated the lack of public funding from the
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 22

state combined with narrow support from a constituent base and alumni have a negative impact
on the availability of funds needed for a small private college to run the institution. Beamer
(2011) asserted a narrower constituent and alumni base for a small private college presents a
disproportionate financial challenge when compared to colleges and universities with a larger
base of support. This results in the need to use funds in the most efficient and effective way
possible, further incentivizing aligning the annual budget with performance goals of the
organization. The lack of increased revenue from other sources leads to higher tuition costs.
Alignment of Budget with Goals Provides for the Efficient Use of Scarce Resources
Bufan (2013) stated budgetary control functions, incorporated into aligning the budget
with organizational goals, provide a means for helping to ensure scarce funding resources are
used effectively and are expended for priorities of the institution. The budgetary controlling
function Bufan (2013) explained compares costs, revenues and actual performance with the
budget, so progress can be reviewed, problems identified and, if necessary, corrective measures
applied. The lack of public funding to private colleges can result in a shortage of funds needed
to run the institution (Bufan, 2013). There are several budgetary methodologies Goodness may
want to consider for adoption to better position itself to align the annual budget with
organizational goals.
Current Budgetary Process Needs to be Analyzed
Organizations wishing to align the annual budget to goals need to analyze their current
budgetary software to determine if it has the capacity to successfully accomplish the alignment.
Stair and Reynolds (2014) explained the skills of a systems analyst are needed to successfully
perform this analysis and make necessary changes to the budgetary system. Kendall (2011)
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 23

confirmed a systems analyst is needed to study the existing budgetary process, reflect on needed
changes, and customize computer applications to provide the customer (the college) with the
ability to align the annual budget to goals of the organization.
Culture of Change
Alexander (2000) stated changes may be needed to the organization’s financial system
to align the annual budget to performance goals. Change in higher education is challenging.
Chandler (2015) and Swanger (2016) found certain factors are commonly experienced by staff
as key triggers for resistance to change. These include the nature of faculty culture, a sense of
territory, friction between functional divisions, resource allocation, traditions, leadership,
communication, the power of unions and individual idiosyncrasies (Chandler, 2015, Swanger,
2016).
Christensen and Eyring (2011) asserted challenges to change can be overcome by the
strength of every university. This strength is a pattern of continuous innovation focused on the
university’s unique mission—without needless concern for either tradition or what other
institutions are doing (Christensen & Eyring, 2011).
Cost of Change
Glykas (2013) asserted business process management change comes at a cost and this
cost needs to be analyzed against benefits derived. Glykas (2013) provided a methodology for
determining these costs through mathematical modeling of decision-making support systems
using cognitive maps. This was done in an effort to generate transparent graphical models of
complex systems that are useful for decision making (Glykas, 2013).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 24

Budgetary Methodologies
It is important to choose a budgeting process addressing both current and future needs
(Bourgeois, 2014). Five different budgetary methodologies are identified and discussed. They
include performance-based budgeting, corporate performance management, incremental
budgeting, zero-based budgeting and use of an interim spreadsheet interface between the current
budgetary system and organizational goals.
Performance-based budgeting. The performance-based budgeting methodology uses
key performance indicators to measure success. These indicators ensure the maintenance of
university operating standards, encourage individual colleges and universities to work on
inadequacies, and promote competitiveness among departments (Aydiner, Tatoglu, Bayraktar,
& Zaim, 2019; Chen, Wang, & Yang, 2009).
Lindway (2017) stated under performance-based budgeting a university sets goals, and
makes budgeting decisions based on performance relative to these goals. Lindway (2017)
asserted for institutions of higher education this means basing funding decisions more on
outcomes such as the success of college graduates in their field of study post-graduation,
instead of inputs such as the number of students enrolled.
There are many compelling advantages to performance-based budgeting. Robinson
(2007) asserted basic performance-based budgeting can improve aggregate fiscal discipline
resulting in savings to the institution. A 2005 California study in which the purpose was to
provide best practices for possible implementation by California found “performance budgeting
reduced expenditures by two percent per capita on average,” a major win for any university
(Alderette, 2007, p. x). Performance-based methodology is also applied to an individual’s work
accomplishments in an organization.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 25

Stiffler (2006) stressed performance management is used to better execute strategy in an
organization by tying outcomes to employee performance. Stiffler (2006) stated it presents
a unified approach for aligning, measuring, rewarding, reporting, and analyzing the performance
of an organization and its people. However, performance-based budgeting has a variety of
challenges.
One key risk of performance-based budgeting models is rash conclusions could make a
university’s weakness even weaker. The administration needs to inquire why a unit did not
meet its goal before penalizing an organization’s budget for not meeting performance
expectations (Lindway, 2017; Robinson & Last, 2009).
Corporate performance management. This area of business intelligence involves
monitoring and managing an organization's performance according to key performance
indicators. In the case of an institution of higher learning this includes such key indicators as
student to teacher ratios, student attendance and course completion rates, dropout and four- and
six-year graduation rates, one year retention rate support, and spending per student headcount
(Jackson, 2019; McFarland, n.d.; Reilly, 2016; Singh, 2016).
Incremental budgeting. In incremental budgeting a certain amount of new funds are
added to the previous period's budget in order to allow for slight increases to existing programs.
As a result, there is very little funding left for new programs. Allen Schick and also Aaron
Wildavsky have written extensively about incremental budgeting. Frank (1998) reviewed
works by Schick and reported the results in the journal American Review of Public
Administration. Frank (1998) stated that Schick in his work The Budget Process asserted the
federal government is imprisoned in old priorities and because of a lack of funds for
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 26

discretionary spending is unable to forge new directions. Further, Schick believed deficits and
the growth of entitlements reduced the amount of funding available for new programs (Frank,
1998).
Wildavsky (1982) in On the Uses of Adversity in Higher Education stated generally the
worse the funding stringency, the better the disposition to seek analysis (even taking some
programs off the untouchable list) and doing something about it. Organizations, including those
in higher education, must be below the level required to keep past activities going before
politically painful alternatives are considered (Wildavsky, 1982). However, incremental
budgeting is not without its drawbacks. Board (2014) stated while incremental models are
common, the perceived disadvantages are especially relevant for institutions (such as Goodness)
focused on controlling costs and growing in strategic directions.
Zero-based budgeting. The zero-based methodology facilitates the incorporation of
top-level strategic objectives into the budgeting process by tying them to specific functional
areas within the organization. Pyhrr (2012) stated unlike the incremental budgetary process,
areas within the organization start over each year with a base of zero and need to fully justify
any funding request for the new year. Under the zero-based budgetary process costs are
grouped and measured against previous results and current expectations, enabling management
to allocate funds by current need instead of by historical expenditures. Pyhrr (2012) advised
zero-based budgeting has the potential for being a key decision-making tool for leadership.
Pyhrr (2012) stated funding under zero-based budgeting is reset to zero each year and
managers need to show the effectiveness of their existing program to be considered for funding
in the new year, giving newcomers an equal opportunity for funding. However, Pyhrr
acknowledged zero-based budgeting has major problems. Pyhrr emphasized it can be very
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 27

time-consuming as managers must justify every budget element, rather than modify an existing
budget, leaving only limited time to lead current projects and concentrate efforts on developing
new budget activities. Managers with long-term projects, i.e. research and development, capital
improvements may feel threatened by a process appearing to favor short-term projects with
immediate results at the expense of those with a payout of longer duration (Pyhrr, 2012).
Spreadsheet application. Initially Goodness could consider use of a simple
spreadsheet application to report on goals status. Goodness, because of its relatively small size
and budget, could create an interface between the current budgetary system software and a
spreadsheet application, such as Excel or Google Sheets to initially align organizational goals to
the annual budget (Coombs, Hobbs, & Jenkins, 2005; Irish, 2019).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) identified three factors influencing performance success. These
include knowledge, motivation and organization or KMO influences. Goodness employees
making statements are identified using the pseudonyms Stevens, Grant, Bold, Guy, Redd,
White, and Brown.
Knowledge Influences
The knowledge influences in Table 3 (p. 132) represent the complete list of knowledge
influences and the associated knowledge type for each. There are potentially four knowledge
types important to Goodness in recognizing skills needed to successfully achieve the college’s
global organizational goal to be in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with its
goals. Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) described these types of knowledge as factual,
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Factual or the “what” factor is defined as discrete,
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 28

isolated content elements. Conceptual knowledge, a “why” factor, refers to the knowledge of,
or understanding of concepts, principles, theories, models, classifications, and more. Procedural
or the “how” factor refers to the knowledge of how to perform a specific skill or task.
Metacognition is “cognition about cognition,” “thinking about thinking," “knowing about
knowing," becoming “aware of one's awareness” and higher-order thinking skills (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011).
Two of these knowledge types, procedural and conceptual, are identified in the three
knowledge influences present at Goodness. The list is based on the most frequently mentioned
knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during informal and formal interviews
and supported by the literature review. Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) suggested
declarative knowledge about something is often necessary to know before proceeding further to
classify or identify, as is the case for developing and reviewing performance goals for accuracy
and completeness. The first knowledge type identified is procedural.
Procedural knowledge. The first knowledge influence is the procedural need for the
vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff and the vice
president for academic affairs and department chairs to have procedural knowledge about how
to develop organizational goals in a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound
(SMART) format capable of being aligned with the annual budget. The second knowledge
influence is the procedural need for the chief financial officer and vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and their staffs to know how to align the annual budget
with organizational goals.
Need to have knowledge about how to develop SMART goals. The vice president for
institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff and the vice president for academic
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 29

affairs and department chairs need to possess procedural knowledge about how to develop goals
in a SMART format for Goodness to be in a position of readiness to align the annual budget
with organizational goals. Goodness’ strategic plan contains numerous short- and long-term
goals, however constrained by goal format and/or limited budgetary and human resources to
implement.
Gibson (2009) reported goals in a strategic plan benefit from clear, concise, and
meaningful goals, like those in a SMART format. Increased specificity enhances the ability to
regularly monitor goal progress and facilitates the alignment of organizational goals with the
annual budget (Hosaini & Sofian, 2015). Lunenburg (2011) added goals are more effective
when they are time-bound, as deadlines serve as a time-control mechanism and increase the
motivational impact of goals.
Discussions by Lawlor (2012) and Clark and Estes (2008) highlight the critical need for
the availability of high-quality goals. Lawlor (2012) and Clark and Estes (2008) found it would
be impossible for an organization to know whether it is succeeding or failing in achieving a
performance goal without setting measurable goals that clearly define expectations.
Furthermore, Ballard (2013) added a small college (like Goodness) needs to set key
performance indicator goals in a clear, concise and meaningful format and work towards
attaining them.
Haughey (2015) and Walesh (2003) reported when goals are set defining expectations
project managers and their teams are more committed, have increased motivation, and improved
group cohesion. Matthews (2007), based on an extensive managerial study, found the
probability of achieving designated goals increases by up to 70% when goals are set in a
SMART format.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 30

Need to have knowledge about how to align the annual budget with organizational
goals. The chief financial officer and staff and the vice president for institutional effectiveness
and strategic initiatives and staff need to possess increased procedural knowledge about how to
accomplish the annual budget to goals alignment for Goodness to be in a position of readiness
to align the annual budget with organizational goals. Discussions by Ruhl and Hartman (1994)
and Tighe (2003) further stressed the importance of aligning the budget with organizational
goals. Ruhl and Hartman and Tighe reported the impactful need for a linkage between the
budget process and organizational goals and strategies.
Budgetary controls help to ensure goals are met and financial resources are used in an
efficient and effective manner. Bufan (2013) advised aligning the annual budget with
organizational goals provides a means for helping to ensure scarce funding resources are used
effectively. Bufan asserted when costs, revenues, and actual performance are aligned with the
annual budget, goal progress can be reviewed, problems identified and, if necessary, corrective
measures applied. Tighe (2003) agreed it is important for organizations to align annual budgets
with goals to demonstrate whether goals are being reached.
Briqa'an and Alqurashi (2012) asserted colleges are conducting daily business without
having clear visions of the future, prior planning, or without a good mechanism to respond to
issues they face. Al-Hosaini and Sofian (2015) emphasized to remain competitive higher
education needs to match goals to the vision and mission of the university, re-align annual
budgets, and monitor outcomes in both the short- and long-term.
A study of multi-perspective goal setting, performance reporting, and organizational
performance by Iselin et al. (2008) reaffirmed the importance of organizations aligning budgets
with short- and longer-term goals. Gibson (2009) confirmed higher education’s annual budget
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 31

plan needs to be tied to long-term goals, because the annual budget is merely the short-term
action plan that carries the organization toward reaching its long-term goals.
An example of aligning the annual budget to an organizational goal, in this case, an
increase in Year 1 student retention, is in Appendix G (p. 138). The example visually shows
how funds are directed from the annual budget to provide funds for attainment of the goal.
Further, the example shows once the funds are aligned with the goal, they are discouraged from
using the goal-designated funds for general expenses of the college. Research shows fewer
funds are needed to accomplish a well-defined goal (SMART) when they are allotted in this
manner (Lalli, 2011; Matthews, 2007) generating an unanticipated resource to fund other goals.
Conceptual knowledge. The chief financial officer and staff need a conceptual
understanding of how to (a) maximize use of the current off-the-shelf (COTS) budgetary
systems software, (b) analyze the system for possible change, and (c) identify possible ancillary
systems to support the alignment process for the college to be in a position of readiness to align
the annual budget with organizational goals. Whether Goodness is ready to align the budget
with organizational goals depends to a large extent on the capabilities of the COTS budgetary
software and possible ancillary systems to support the effort. An analysis of the budgetary
system is needed to make this determination and modify the system, including the acquisition of
ancillary systems, as may be appropriate.
Stair and Reynolds (2014) asserted an analysis needs to be made of the current
budgetary system to determine its capabilities. Stair and Reynolds (2014) explained system
analysis type skills are needed to identify and make necessary enhancements to the budgetary
system to link the annual budget to organizational goals. These conceptual skills are acquired
through education in a university, on the Internet, and on the job (Clark & Estes, 2008).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 32

Kendall (2011) also advocated for an analysis of the existing information system for
possible revision to allow for the desired level of reporting. Kendall (2011) advised the analysis
needs to address any ancillary systems needed to supplement the current COTS software
application, such as a dashboard and key performance indicator budgetary software. This
would help the organization make maximum use of the institution’s information technology,
thus, enabling Goodness to be in a position of readiness to align the budget with organizational
goals (Kendall, 2011).
Motivational Influences
This section includes a review of the motivational influences pertinent to achievement of
the organizational goal of being in a position of readiness to align Goodness’ annual budget
with its goals. Table 4 (p. 134) is the list of motivational influences and their validation and
priority status based on the most frequently mentioned motivational influences for achieving the
stakeholders’ goals. The influence data collected during informal and formal interviews are
supported by the literature review and supported by the literature review including Clark and
Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) who suggested motivation is a key to goal attainment. The two
motivational influences identified are the expectancy value obtained from the work effort and
the self-efficacy belief of Goodness’ leadership and staff they can successfully complete the
task.
Expectancy value. College leadership needs a sense of value from the work effort for
Goodness to be in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with organizational goals.
Eccles and Wigfield (2002) and Eccles (2006) asserted to put forth an effort to achieve a goal
one needs to believe the goal has value and have a high expectancy for success. Hence, college
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 33

leadership and budgeting and planning staffs should perceive establishment of a goal-based
process and budgeting system based on goal achievement is valuable and worthwhile, and it is
likely they will be successful at reaching the goals.
Self-efficacy. College leadership needs to possess confidence in its their ability to
successfully perform the alignment for Goodness to be in a position of readiness to align the
annual budget with organizational goals. Self-efficacy is a critical attribute for those involved
in the budgeting and goals setting effort if the alignment is to be successful.
Pajares (1996) asserted an individual’s beliefs about themselves and their abilities to
learn or perform at desired levels are critical elements to motivation. Bandura (1993) stated the
beliefs people have about themselves affect their day-to-day functioning. Peterson (2000)
advised optimism can be a highly beneficial psychological characteristic linked to perseverance,
goal achievement, and physical health. Agbor-Baiyee (1996) added the higher the sense of self-
efficacy of an academic leader, the more confidence they have in their ability to lead academia.
Organization Influences
This section includes a review of the organizational influences pertinent to achievement
of the organizational goal of being in a position of readiness to align Goodness’ annual budget
with its goals. The organizational influences in Table 5 (p. 135) represent the list of
organizational influences and their validation and priority status based on the most frequently
mentioned motivational influences for achieving the stakeholders’ goals. The influence data
collected during informal and formal interviews are supported by the literature review,
including Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011) who suggested the organizational models
and settings are keys to goal attainment.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 34

One cultural model and two cultural settings are identified as influencing the ability of
Goodness to be in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with organizational goals.
These include the need to (a) establish a goal-based budgeting system, and (b) allot adequate
financial resources.
Cultural model. Cultural model influences are impacted by organizational theory.
Rueda (2011) explained cultural models are the shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works or ought to work. They are dynamic rather than static
traits, and are expressed through cultural practices (e.g., behavior, artifacts, rules) in specific
contexts (Rueda, 2011). Hofstefe (1983) asserted management and organizations are culturally
dependent under a cultural change model. They are culturally dependent because managing and
organizing do not involve tangible objects, but rather intangible symbols such as unspoken rules
of conduct, social standards, and dress, which have meaning to the people who are managed or
organized (Hofstefe, 1983). The cultural model influence identified and listed in Table 5
(p. 135) is Goodness’ need to have an institutional culture accepting of change.
As discussed in the general literature, change is stagnated in higher education. Swanger
(2016) stated for decades the United States’ higher education system has been identified as the
worldwide model for universities. According to Swanger (2016), attaining a degree from a U.S.
college or university was held in higher regard than a degree from a university within a
student’s own country. Swanger (2016) reported many within the academy of higher education
continue to rest on the reputation of their institutions regardless of any external pressure for
change. Ann Kirschner wrote necessity for change in higher education has been thwarted
because
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 35

“universities have been protected by the prestige of their brands and lack of any real
competition” (cited in Swanger, 2016, p. 25). The adoption of a culture accepting of change is
one of the key ingredients for success.
Christensen and Eyring (2011) asserted the positives for institutions of higher education
to have a culture accepting of change. Christensen and Eyring (2011) stated the strength of
every university is a pattern of innovation that is continuous and focused on the university’s
unique mission without needless concern for either tradition or what other institutions are doing.

Christensen and Eyring (2011) cites Harvard as an example of an institution following this path
to success. Harvard steadily advances, without thought of any “ladder” or gathering of would-
be competitors, sensibly and realistically climbing its own mountain. On a landscape that needs
institutions of many types, it is the one Harvard trait other institutions of higher education
should emulate (Christensen & Eyring, 2011).
It is essential for the institution of higher learning to adopt a culture receptive to change,
as Alexander (2000) stated changes are almost certainly needed in the organization’s budgetary
and financial processes to achieve an alignment of the annual budget with its goals. The
development of this change culture is challenging though; Alexander (2000) stated, as higher
education has not been historically open to invocation and change. However, smart change is
necessary for survival in the competitive arena of higher education (Al-Hosaini & Sofian,
2015). Rhyneer (2019, para. 4) added, “If colleges don’t make bold decisions, the market will
make them for us.”
Cultural settings. Rueda (2011) explained cultural settings are a specific work setting
where they are developed, and models play out - i.e., classrooms, cafeterias, administrative
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 36

offices, homes and so forth. The first cultural setting to be discussed is the need to have a goal-
based budgeting process.
Need to have a goal-based budgeting process. The line-item budgeting approach is currently
used by the College of Goodness. The line-item system is the most widely used budgeting
approach for institutions of higher education, because of its simplicity and control orientation.
However, under this approach proposed expenditure amounts are accounted for by cost category
- i.e., teacher salaries, travel and so forth, not by organizational goals (Allison, 2015; Johnson,
2003). A goal-based budgeting process makes funding decisions based on goals of the
organization.
The organization’s goals, often key performance indicators for an institution of higher
education such as retention and graduation rates, cost spent on average per student, and more,
measure the “vital signs” of an organization providing an insight into its performance and
highlighting opportunities for improvement (Reilly, 2016). There are many compelling
advantages to a goal-based process. Four advantages are highlighted.
The first advantage is a goal-based system can improve an organization’s aggregate
fiscal discipline, resulting in an enhanced capacity to make “fiscal space” for new spending
initiatives without commensurately increasing aggregate expenditures (Robinson, 2007). The
second is illustrated by a 2005 California study of best practices in other states which found
“performance budgeting reduced expenditures by 2 percent per capita on average,” a major win
for any university (Alderette, 2007). The third is an efficient allocation of budgetary resources
achieved through aligning the annual budget with an institution of higher education’s goals
helps keep tuition costs down, ensures student success through increased retention and
graduation rates, and helps in the recruitment of new students (Lalli, 2011). The last is a goal-
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 37

based system motivates leadership to show there is a collective commitment to the strategic and
efficient use of its budgetary resources (Bandura, 1997). The goal-based system can be
supplemented with ancillary systems to help achieve desired results.
Few (2006) asserted ancillary systems such as an information dashboard enables
business leaders, including those in higher education, to gain ready access to information on the
progress of goal attainment from a data warehouse. A dashboard provides a visual display of
the most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives; consolidated and
arranged on a single screen so the information can be monitored at a glance (Few, 2006). The
second cultural setting discussed is the need for adequate funding to make any needed process
and system changes to put Goodness in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with
organizational goals.
Provide adequate funding for alignment. The lack of public funding, combined with
limited support from the base of constituents and alumnus, increases the need for a private
college, such as Goodness, to use the entirety of tuition and fees to cover the operating costs of
the institution (Beamer, 2011; State Higher Education Executive Officers, 2008). When this
occurs funds for budgetary system enhancements and training to achieve Goodness’
organizational goal of aligning the budget with performance goals may not be available.
Additionally, funds may be needed to assist in the implementation of the goal-based system.
Student learning outcomes can also be negatively impacted by inadequate funding.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 38

Student learning goals suffer if funds are used almost exclusively for the support of
operating costs because student outcomes - i.e., retention and graduation rates - are stagnated
(Bipartisanpolicy, 2018). The ability to raise additional funding through tuition and fees is
limited by the competitive market for new students, because these costs are already much higher
than public institutions of higher education. According to Beamer (2011) and State Higher
Education Executive Officers (2008) this differential exists because of governmental support for
public colleges and universities. Since public colleges and universities receive state subsidies,
they can more readily discount tuition and fees charged to their students (Beamer, 2011).
Tuition and fees at private colleges are significantly higher than similar costs at public
schools of higher education. Ma, Baum, Pender, and Bell (2015) at The College Board reported
for the year 2015-2016 the average costs of tuition and fees nationwide to attend a public in-
state four-year college was $9,410, while similar costs for a private college were more than
three times the amount at $32,405. Out-of-state tuition and fees at public institutions of higher
learning were also considerably less than private schools at $23,893. Beamer (2011) advised a
narrower constituent and alumnus base for a small nonprofit private college also presents a
disproportionate financial challenge when compared to colleges and universities with a larger
base of support.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
Fundamental to the study plan is the creation of a conceptual framework including the
interaction of the stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation and the organizational context.
Robitaille and Maxwell (1996) said a conceptual framework is the study of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform research. It is primarily
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 39

a model of what is available to study, and what happens with the objects of the study – i.e.,
knowledge influences, motivation influences (Maxwell, 2012). It is a tentative theory of the
phenomenon one is investigating in which the function is to inform the rest of the research
design. A conceptual framework helps the researcher assess and refine goals, develop realistic
and relevant research questions, and select appropriate methods (Maxwell 2012).
Conceptual Framework
A visual conceptual framework for the College of Goodness is shown in Figure 1 (p.
41). The outer concentric circle represents Goodness’ organization, including the cultural
model and settings impacting Goodness’ effort to achieve its stakeholder and organizational
goal of being in a position of readiness to align its annual budget with organizational goals. The
inner concentric circle, because of its positioning in the larger organization circle, shows its
contents are impacted by influences from the outer circle. Knowledge and motivation
influences for key stakeholders are equally imbedded in the inner concentric circle, and impact
one another, but their sphere of influence does not reach outside the circumference of the inner
boundary. The arrow pointing to the organizational and stakeholder goals shows once gaps
identified through the KMO gap analysis process are resolved, the organization can successfully
reach its stated goals. Text on the development of a conceptual framework was provided by
Meriam and Tisdale (2016) and Maxwell (2013).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 40

College of Goodness
Cultural Models – (adopt a
culture receptive to change)
Cultural Settings - (need for a goal-based
budgetary process, lack of public funding and
limited private resources)

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework for the College of Goodness

Knowledge and Skills
(develop SMART goals,
tie budget to goals,
analyze and maximize
use of current budgetary
and financial systems)
Motivation (self-efficacy
beliefs)

By February 2020 key college stakeholders will
identify knowledge, motivation and organization
influences impacting Goodness’ readiness to align
its budget with organizational goals.

By June 2020 key college stakeholders will
identify barriers to readiness the stakeholders
want to address and develop action plans for
overcoming the identified barriers.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 41

Sampling Strategy, Size and Timeline
The sampling strategy, sample size, and projected timeline are shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Sampling Strategy, Size and Timeline

Table 6 (p. 41) provides a summary of the sampling strategy, population size and
projected timeline for completion of the data collection effort. A census method of sampling
was used during the formal phase of the data collections effort where each person in the
universe was interviewed. This approach was possible because Goodness, the focus of the
evaluation study, is a small, non-profit institution of higher education with reduced numbers of
staff performing tasks relevant to the study. In addition, purposeful sampling was employed
during the initial, informal phase of the data collection effort, where participants interviewed
were purposefully identified in advance as being information rich allowing for the most
effective use of time both for the researcher and the interviewee. Documents chosen for review
were identified during the data collection interview sessions and remained small. Last, the start
and end date of the data collection effort went as planned.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 42

Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data Collection
The influence data were collected during informal and formal interviews and
supported by the literature review, including Clark and Estes (2008) and Rueda (2011)
who suggested the organizational models and settings are keys to goal attainment. A
semi-structured qualitative interview approach was used as the instrument for data
collection.
Informal interviews. The first step in the data collection process was to meet
informally with select Goodness leaders and staff on site. The purpose of the informal
interviews was to build rapport with respondents and gain their trust, as well as to
understand their situation and setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013). The
study’s informal meetings occurred during a visit to Goodness on July 23-24, 2018.
Participants selected for interviews during the informal phase were purposefully
identified in advance as being information rich allowing for the most effective use of
time both for the researcher and the interviewee.
The informal visit and meetings helped form the basis for the sampling strategy –
i.e., purposeful, census, implemented during the formal interview phase. The names of
persons in each stakeholder group were identified and persons selected to be asked to
participate in qualitative interviews held during the formal phase of the study. Interview
protocols also began to take form during the informal visit.
Formal interviews. The formal phase of the data collection effort using written
interview protocols occurred during an onsite visit to Goodness on September 15 -20,
2019, with four follow-up interviews held through the period ending October 5, 2019. A
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 43

decision about which documents and artifacts to examine was made during the formal interview
process. Observations and survey methods were not employed to collect data during the study’s
formal phase, because the small number of participants in each stakeholder group provided the
opportunity to interview all persons from these groups.
Instrumentation
The semi-structured interview question format was used to collect data using the
qualitative approach, because this format allowed respondents to provide more information
including feelings, attitudes, and understanding of the subject (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Different semi-structured interview protocols were developed for each respondent type (Weiss,
1994a). This interviewing approach addressed aspects of the two research questions (Weiss,
1994a, 1994b). The questions were:
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to Goodness being in a
position of readiness to align the annual budget with goals of the organization?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
Research Question Number One
Question number one (RQ1) was addressed through qualitative, semi-structured
interviews with the president; chief financial officer; the vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and their staffs; and the vice president for academic
affairs. These interviews provided valuable information concerning whether the stakeholder has
the knowledge (K) and motivation (M) needed to place Goodness in a position of readiness to
align the budget with the goals of the organization (O; Clark & Estes, 2008). This interview
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 44

format was used because of the small population size of potential individuals to be
interviewed, and the format provision allowing respondents to provide more
information, including feelings, attitudes and understanding of the subject (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017).
Research Question Number Two
Question number two (RQ2) was addressed through qualitative semi-structured
interviews of the president and chief of staff; chairman of the board of trustees; chief
financial officer and staff; the vice president for institutional effectiveness and staff; and
the vice president for academic affairs. These interviews provided valuable information
concerning the interaction between organization culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation. The interviews helped determine the effect of organization
culture and context on stakeholder knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 45

Themes
The study’s seven themes were based on data collected during the interview phase and
the review of relevant documents. These seven themes are mapped in Table 7 (p. 46) to show
the research question prompting the data collection effort and each KMO identification. The
results showed four themes (1, 2, 3, and 4) were mapped to RQ1 and three themes (5, 6, and 7)
mapped to RQ2. The names of individuals interviewed during the study’s qualitative data
collection process were identified using the pseudonyms Stevens, Grant, Bold, Guy, Redd,
White, and Brown.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 46

Table 7
Mapping of Themes to Research Questions and KMO Principles
Themes RQ 1 RQ 2 KMO Identification

1. Need increase in
procedural knowledge
to develop SMART
goals

PK

Procedural
Knowledge (PK)

2. Need increase in
procedural knowledge
to align annual budget
with goals

PK

Procedural
Knowledge
3. Need to know how
to analyze and make
maximum use of
current budgetary
system

CK Conceptual
Knowledge (CK)
4. Need increase in
self-efficacy to lead
SE Motivation self-
efficacy (SE)
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 47

effort to align annual
budget with goals

5. Need to develop a
culture accepting of
change

CM Organization and
cultural model (CM)
6. Need to implement
goal-based budgetary
system

CS Organization and
cultural setting (CS)
7. Need to provide
funding for budgetary
system enhancements
and implementation of
goal-based budgetary
process
CS Organization and
cultural setting

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 48

Research Question Number 1
Four themes were identified as a result of questions asked under the broad
expanse of RQ1. They included two procedural knowledge factors to increase an
individual’s acquired knowledge in developing organizational goals in a SMART format
and aligning the annual budget with organizational goals. In addition, one conceptual
knowledge gap was identified for the need to analyze the current budgetary system for
possible change and ensure maximum use of the system. One motivational factor, a
needed increase in self-efficacy to lead the effort to align the budget with goals, was also
addressed. Data showed no motivational gap existed in the expectancy value to be
obtained from the work effort.
In regard to not finding a gap in the expectancy value, the results and findings of
the study showed, with adequate procedural knowledge, leadership and staff felt the
work effort had value. Grant said, “Staff (in the office of the chief financial officer)
could successfully complete the budget to goals alignment and attach value to the
effort.” Guy stated, “Aligning the annual budget with goals makes a lot of sense.” Redd
followed by saying,
I think that would be a great value because what that would in turn do, is by looking at
the budget and aligning it our performance goals, I think it would get everyone more
involved in the entire overall budgeting process and performance process.
Brown also felt the effort would provide more accountability to the process.
There was a belief among those responsible for achieving the annual budget to goals
alignment the effort had great value and would add greater accountability to the
budgeting process.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 49

Theme 1 - Need for increase in procedural knowledge to develop SMART goals. A
procedural knowledge gap was identified. The results and findings of this study showed for the
college to be ready to align the annual budget with organizational goals leadership needed
training on the development of organizational goals in a SMART format. All three Goodness
leaders interviewed, involved in goal development at the college, expressed support for creating
organizational goals in a format that was quantifiable, relevant, and regularly measured.
However, there was a hesitancy by two of the three leaders to follow the precise format called
for in SMART guidelines,
Specifically, in speaking of the need for SMART goals at Goodness Grant, who was an
ardent supporter of following the prescribed format, said|
I think we would have to set more quantifiers. And what I've seen, and I have not been
involved in great detail with their strategic plan and their goals and their tactics. But I
think you have to put more quantifiers. Some folks look at those things more globally, a
smaller institution, you really have to get to the brass tacks sometimes. And you have to
pay attention I think a little more because resources are a little more limited and you
really got to measure and honestly have what I call real direct to dialogue.
Grant asserted in a smaller institution between six to eight key performance indicators
are needed for limited resources to be used in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Grant has valuable experience working with colleges of various size adding credence to her
comments about the need for specific and measurable goals, especially at smaller institutions of
higher education such as Goodness.
Stevens asserted, “Goals need to be quantifiable, relevant and regularly measured –
YES.” and later added:
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 50

If you don't measure, then you don't value. I've learned a long time ago if you value it
you have to measure it. And if you measure it, it's telling the world that you value it,
and that's sort of our logo.
However, Stevens believed it may not be as important for goals to be “time-
bound.” Research by Lunenburg (2011) found goals are more effective when they are
time-bound, as deadlines serve as a time-control mechanism and increase the
motivational impact.
Bold responded, “Yes, we use smart goals in our office and in the strategic
planning process. We aren’t specifically calling them “SMART” goals, but they follow
that idealist.”
A review of Goodness’ strategic plan, provided on October 15, 2019, showed
enhanced training in the development of SMART goals would be needed for those at
Goodness responsible for goal setting in order for the college to be ready to align the
annual budget with organizational goals. This is because the increased specificity
provided by SMART goal setting, including the “T” or time bound component, enhances
the ability to regularly monitor the status of goal progress (Lawlor, 2012; Lunenburg,
2011), and facilitates the alignment of organizational goals with the annual budget
(Hosaini &Sofian, 2015).
There was an abundance of goals in the strategic plan, so many in fact it was not
possible to determine specifically which goals Goodness hoped to achieve within a
given time frame given constraints on financial and human resources. Goodness needs
to follow Grant’s assertion that in a smaller institution between six to eight key
performance indicators are needed for limited resources to be used in the most efficient
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 51

and effective way possible. Further, Goodness needs to be in a position of readiness to align
these goals with the annual budget so goal progress can be followed to completion.
There was one activity in the strategic plan where the budget was specifically aligned
with the goal; the successful effort to improve student retention rates. This alignment was
positioned because a separate budgetary resource, made available by a gift treated as a
restrictive endowment, was the source of funding. A detailed plan had reportedly been
developed for activity implementation providing a means of monitoring efforts to achieve the
goal.
Theme 2 – Need an increase in procedural knowledge to align annual budget with
organizational goals. The results and findings of the study identified the presence of a
procedural knowledge gap. In order for the college to be in a position of readiness to align the
budget with organizational goals the chief financial officer and vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and their staffs need procedural knowledge about how to
accomplish the alignment. All seven persons interviewed supported gaining the knowledge
needed to align the budget with organizational goals.
Gray said about aligning the budget with organizational goals, “I think it makes a lot of
sense. We do not currently do it.” Brown believed it would result in a more efficient
use of available resources. Guy concluded aligning the budget with goals would help
better track goals to completion. Grant and Redd commented the budget is not currently
aligned with goals but thought gaining knowledge about how to align the annual budget
with goals of the organization would be very beneficial to the college in helping it use
budgeted funds more like a business.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 52

Bold thought the effort to align the annual budget with goals would be well
received by faculty and staff. She stated, “Some [faculty and staff] would be very
excited. Any time we can give our people more tools and understanding of budgeting,
the budget and decision making becomes more transparent.” Stevens added, “They
[faculty and staff] must understand the shared vision, and they must see how they have a
role to play in achieving those goals.” Providing procedural knowledge to faculty and
staff on how to align the budget with goals and explaining their role in goal
accomplishment improve the chances of a transparent, successful annual budget to goals
alignment.
Theme 3 - Need to analyze and make maximum use of the current
budgetary system. A conceptual knowledge gap was identified. The results and
findings of this study obtained from RQ1 showed Goodness’ readiness to align the
budget with organizational goals depends to a large extent on the capabilities of the
college’s commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) budgetary system to support the effort. Staff
in the office of the chief financial officer need to acquire the conceptual knowledge
necessary to analyze the budgetary system for why it performs in certain ways in
controlling the budget and learn to maximize the system’s capacity. The two people
interviewed in the college’s office of the chief financial officer were in favor of
maximizing use of the current budgetary system to help achieve the needed budget to
goals alignment.
Grant said,
Goodness’ budgetary and financial system has capacity our people are not trained for
and utilizing. They would need a lot more training. This institution, they have not put a
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 53

lot of money into training people how to use the COTS software. They upgraded, but I'll
say staff is probably using the tip of the iceberg from the budget module side and use it
for tracking, how to track appropriately. So, it would definitely take, they need training
on the tools.
Staff in the office of the chief financial officer need to be fully trained on the use of the
COTS budgetary system so its capabilities can be maximized increasing the possibility of a
successful alignment.
Redd stated training would be helpful in learning the full capabilities of the current
budgetary and financial system used by the college. Redd asserted in follow up interviews he
believes he knows how the current system can be used to establish the alignment and provided
examples of how it could be done. Staff in the office of the chief financial officer agreed they
needed to learn of the full potential of the COTS budgetary system and determine through
analysis how the system can be used to align the annual budget with organizational goals. The
COTS system may possess untapped functionally beneficial to aligning the annual budget with
organizational goals. Training needs to be provided to assess this capability.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 54

Theme 4 – Need for increase in self-efficacy to lead effort to align budget
with goals. A self-efficacy motivational gap was found. The results and findings of the
study showed a high probability college leadership would need to increase their levels of
self-efficacy to be able to lead Goodness to a position of readiness to align the annual
budget with organizational goals. Interviews with leadership showed the gap was the
result of difficulties caused by low levels of motivation by some faculty and staff as a
result of their continued ear Goodness would close. This is a fear shared by other small,
private colleges similar to Goodness.
Stevens added, “It is crucial that the fear of closure, bankruptcy or massive budget
reductions be eliminated or significantly mitigated.” It is apparent fear of the college
closing needs to be adequately addressed if leadership is to be confident in their ability
to lead the effort to align the annual budget with goals.
Bold stated, although the fear of closing has not been eliminated, she believed
positive actions have occurred. Bold stated,
The recent growth of the college as well as the resulting financial and enrollment
stability has given the staff confidence in the direction of the college. Therefore, this
process has a feeling of “what are the next steps” versus “what is the next disruption.”
However, as disruptions are discussed and planned, this may change.
An action to help sustain these positive feelings has been included in the
college’s strategic plan. Brown said, “There is a goal in the college’s strategic plan goal
set for 2019 - 2022 to build institutional pride and eliminate the culture of survival.”
This action, if fully implemented, should help efforts to create a culture of change at
Goodness.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 55

Research Question Number Two
Three themes were identified as a result of questions asked under the broad expanse of
RQ2. The themes addressed the need for a culture of change at Goodness, the implementation
of a goal-based budgetary system, and the need for adequate funding to provide for necessary
changes to the budgetary system and for conversion to a goal-based system
Theme 5 - Need to develop an organizational culture accepting of change. The lack
of a culture that embraces change at Goodness resulted in a cultural model gap. When this
occurs innovation and opportunities for growth are suffocated. Some of these lost opportunities
at Goodness include such innovations as going green, renovating sports facilities, turning the
college gymnasium into a recreation center, and creating spaces where a diverse student body
could congregate.
The results and findings of this study showed innovative change at Goodness, despite its
many advantages, faces significant challenges. Stevens stated turning non-believers of the new
process into believers would be challenging and added:
Most people are not born-believers in change – they become believers as they see the
positive results of change. The key to getting faculty and staff on board is
communication. They must understand they have a role to play in achieving those goals.
Change at Goodness will be challenging but communicating to faculty and staff how
they have a role to play in achieving organizational goals will help to ease any resistance to
change.
Stevens added, “If fears of the college closing or experiencing large budget reductions
can be mitigated or eliminated, increased opportunities for innovative change may result.”
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 56

If fears of the college closing can be lessened or eliminated it would increase opportunities for
change and raise leaders’ confidence they can successfully lead the effort of aligning the
college’s annual budget with organizational goals.
Bold stated,
I am not sure if Goodness is relying on the reputation of US higher education to resist
change. The necessity for change isn’t coming because of lack of change from external
competition, but rather the changing demographics of the United States in that the
number of college age students is shrinking. I do not know why higher education
didn’t evolve to the changing internal demographics more quickly, but we were slow.
The two factors affecting college enrollment numbers are not mutually exclusive.
The need for change is the result of changing demographics in the United States, the
falling birth rate, and the resulting external competition for the shrinking numbers of
college age students.
Theme 6 – Need to implement a goal-based budgeting system. The college
does not have a goal-based budgeting system, thus resulting in a cultural setting gap.
The system utilized by Goodness is a line-item budgeting process used solely to control
administrative line-item costs such as salaries and travel, not to align the budget with
goals. This is not only true in the case of Goodness, but across similar institutions of
higher education. The line-item system is set up to make certain funds are spent in
compliance with spending rules, not to ensure the annual budget is aligned to address
goals.
Redd in explaining how funds are allotted to department chairs said,
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 57

There's travel, conference dues and fees, office supplies, printing costs. I'm actually
working now to try to consolidate it, but I have about 60 or so different object codes that
I could use to designate if I wanted to be more specific on certain items.
Redd’s response confirmed the budgetary software is currently being used to only
control line-item costs. His reply that other accounting object codes are available for use is
meant to convey the possibility there may be ways through use of these other codes to align the
budget with goals.
Grant asserted a small college like Goodness needs to keep its eye on the pot of
resources and track whether the funds are being used to achieve the goals of the institution.
Grant said,
Some of the best institutions I've seen do a really good job of making sure they're
directing funds and truly moving the needle the way they are wanting to move the
needle. Is this pot of resources really moving that needle at all? And they’re sometimes
hard conversations to have, but you have to have that. Constantly looking to see how
they’re performing. You have to have that kind of dialogue.
It is necessary for a college or university to align budgets with meaningful goal to
provide the opportunity for school leadership to consistently gauge if the funds are being used
effectively.
Stevens advocating for the importance of goals stated, “Goals need to be quantifiable,
relevant and regularly measured.” Goodness, a small, private college with limited financial
resources needs to implement a goal-based budgeting system that allows it to monitor how the
annual budget is being used to reach organizational goals and how the institution is performing
overall.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 58

Theme 7 - Need to provide funding for budgetary system enhancements and
implementation of goal-based budgetary process. The need for adequate funding at
Goodness resulted in a cultural setting gap. The results and findings of this study
showed the lack of public funding, combined with limited support from the base of
constituents and alumni, increases the need for a small, private college to use much of its
tuition and fees to cover the operating costs of the institution. When this occurs funds
for budgetary system enhancements and training to achieve Goodness’ organizational
goal of being in a position of readiness to align the budget with its goals may not be
available.
One option for providing the necessary budgetary system to align the annual
budget with organizational goals is to purchase a more recent version of the budgetary
software used by Goodness. The current vendor for the commercial-off-the-shelf
(COTS) budgetary software package used by Goodness has a more advanced COTS
version available as an upgrade to the existing software. The newer system provides for
an enhanced goal-based budgetary capability, among other improvements. Another
option is to purchase an ancillary system and pair it with the current COTS package to
improve budgetary reporting. Grant was in favor of the latter. She said,
I would probably look at an ancillary third-party simple tool to be used for the actual,
the building and the designing of the strategic planning documents along with creating
the dashboard and running the reports straight out of that third-party system. I would
probably buy a third-party package to do all of that detail.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 59

If third party simple tools, working with the current budgetary system, would provide needed
functionally they could be an interim solution until a financial system package meeting
Goodness’ needs could be acquired.
Brown said, “Any decision to fund an updated budgetary system package or possible
ancillary systems would not be made until a new chief financial officer is hired by the college.”
Further, Brown advised the new hire would then need time to get acclimated to the position,
probably a year, before system enhancements are considered for funding. Depending on the
prior small college budgeting experience of the new chief financial officer, the proposed one
year waiting period to upgrade the budgetary system could possibly be reconsidered and
reduced.
In addition, funds may be needed to implement a goal-based budgetary system. This
would possibly consist of the cost of hiring a management consultant to assist in the
implementation effort and the cost of ancillary systems, such as data dashboards, to retrieve
essential data for use by leadership in directing the short- and long-term academic affairs of the
college. Grant, Guy, and Bold agreed an information dashboard would be a worthy addition to
the college’s current management tools by allowing access to existing data.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 60

Solutions and Recommendations
Solutions and recommendations to address each of the seven themes are
provided.
Theme 1 - Increase Knowledge to Develop SMART Goals Through eLearning and
Job Aids
A recommendation rooted in information processing theory was selected to close
the procedural knowledge gap associated with the need to increase knowledge about
developing SMART goals (McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006; Mayer,
2011). Procedural knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to
perform the skill is available or known (Clark et al., 2004). This suggests the solution to
address this knowledge gap is to provide learners with eLearning training on the
development of SMART goals, and a concept map or similar visual organizer supporting
their learning requirement (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Further, Matthews (2007), based on her intensive managerial study, showed the
probability of achieving designated goals increases by up to 70% when they are clear
and measurable. Conversely, the implication to the stakeholders if SMART goals are
not developed is impediment of the ability to meet organizational goals and align them
with the annual budget, because of a lack of goal context - i.e., “What am I trying to
align the funds with?” The recommendation then is to (a) provide eLearning training on
the development of SMART goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Lawlor, 2012) and (b) develop
a visual organizer in the form of a job aid with prompts and a decision flowchart to
assist staff in developing clear, concise and meaningful goals aligned with the annual
budget (Clark & Estes, 2008).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 61

Theme 2 – Increase Procedural Knowledge by Assessing Prior Staff Knowledge Using
Kirkpatrick and Designing Training to Fill Gaps
A recommendation rooted in information processing theory is selected to close this
procedural knowledge gap (McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006). Information learned
meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge of budgeting and goal formation is stored
more quickly and remembered more accurately (McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006; Paas,
Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003). This suggests prior knowledge when linked with
new learning through assessment and training provides the level of knowledge needed for staff
to be in a position of readiness to link the annual budget with organizational goals. The
implication to the stakeholders, if not attained, is the possible failure of Goodness to be in a
position of readiness to align the annual budget with goals.
The recommendations are to (a) assess, using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
evaluation model, the prior knowledge of the chief financial officer and vice president for
institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and their staffs for aligning an annual budget
with organizational goals and (b) design training to fill knowledge gaps. The level of
knowledge is assessed prior to training through use of a participant survey entitled “Pre–
Training Knowledge Check – How to Align the Annual Budget with Organizational Goals”
(Appendix K, p. 145). A similar level 2 post-training survey is found in Appendix L (p. 146).
Theme 3 - Determine Staff’s Understanding of the Current Budgetary System Using
Kirkpatrick and Provide Training to Fill Gaps
A recommendation rooted in information processing theory was selected to close this
knowledge gap. Conceptual knowledge is the “why” something happens and refers to the
knowledge of, or understanding of concepts, principles, theories, models, and classifications
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 62

(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011; McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006). This suggests
the chief financial officer and staff could be educated to acquire the conceptual skills
necessary for them to complete the task (Clark & Estes, 2008).
The chief financial officer and staff need the ability to analyze Goodness’ COTS
budgetary software to determine if the system supports the planned alignment of the
annual budget to Goodness’ goals. The chief financial officer and staff need to make
maximum use of the COTS system’s capabilities. The chief financial officer should also
consider the acquisition of ancillary systems such as a data dashboard, to assist in
retrieving needed information from existing databases.
The COTS software vendor’s system analysts are a prime resource for
information regarding the capabilities of the system (Jenzabar, n.d.). The implication to
the stakeholders if system knowledge is not maximized, is the goal of being in a position
of readiness to align the annual budget with goals may not be attained.
The recommendations are to (a) assess, using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) evaluation model, the prior knowledge of the chief financial officer and staff to
analyze a budgetary system, (b) acquire through training the conceptual knowledge and
skills needed to analyze the current budgetary system, (c) supplement system
knowledge, as needed, by consulting with Goodness’ commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
software vendor’s system analysts, and (d) make maximum use of the current system
including acquiring needed additional ancillary systems to aid in the alignment.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 63

Theme 4 - Assess Levels of Self Efficacy Using Kirkpatrick and Act to Close
Gaps
A recommendation rooted in self-efficacy theory was selected to close this
motivation gap. Pajares (2006) reported learning and motivation are enhanced when
learners have positive expectancies for success. This suggests a rise in motivation to
accomplish the task is generated if leadership and staff gain increased confidence in Goodness’
financial viability and in their own ability to successfully reach the organizational goal.
Bandura (1993) found beliefs people have of themselves affect their day-to-day
functioning. Peterson (2000) reported optimism can be a highly beneficial psychological
characteristic linked to perseverance and goal achievement, and physical health. Agbor-Baiyee
(1996) asserted the higher the sense of self-efficacy of an academic leader, the more confidence
they have in their ability for academic leadership.
Self-efficacy is a key motivating factor in the success of the effort to align the annual
budget to organizational goals. The implication to stakeholders if self-efficacy at the leadership
level is not present is Goodness’ efforts to be in a position of readiness to align its
organizational goals with the annual budget may fail. The recommendation then is for leaders,
during formal training with faculty and staff, to (a) highlight the existing positive financial
outlook for the college, (b) point out how learning and training are useful in theirs and the
students’ lives and (c) make it clear individuals are capable of learning what is being taught or
can perform a task. The level of knowledge is assessed prior to training through use of a
subject-specific Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, (2016) adapted level 1 participant survey form
entitled “Self-Efficacy Motivation Pretest” (Appendix M, p. 147). A similar level 2 post-
training assessment is found in Appendix N (p. 149).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 64

Theme 5 - Assess Employees’ Willingness to Accept Change Using Kirkpatrick
and Conduct
A recommendation rooted in emotions and organizational behavior was selected to close
this cultural model gap. Lord and Kanfer (2002) report a positive emotional environment helps
to alleviate anxiety. To create the desired environment for change Goodness should perform an
assessment of the current environment for change and conduct, for example, employee meetings
to listen to the affected group views on a pending change and answer their questions. The
implication to stakeholders, if a desirable environment is not created at Goodness to foster
change, is the college’s efforts to be in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with
goals can result in failure.
The recommendation then is to create a desired environment for change by conducting
employee meetings on the subject “Are You Ready to Accept Change?,” and assessing the pre-
and post-meeting readiness to accept change. The pre-meeting assessment is performed using a
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) adapted level 1 pre-meeting survey entitled “Pre – Meeting
Questionnaire on Accepting Change” shown in Appendix O (p. 151). The post-meeting
assessment is accomplished using the level 2 post-meeting survey entitled “Post – Meeting
Questionnaire on Accepting Change” included in Appendix P (p. 152). Both surveys use a
Likert scale analysis to determine effectiveness of the training effort (Allen & Seaman, 2007).
The questionnaires are completed anonymously by each meeting attendee to form the basis for
the meeting’s discussions and gauge receptivity to the change effort.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 65

Theme 6 – Communicate to Employees Plans to Convert to a Goal-Based System
and Assess Willingness to Change Using Kirkpatrick
A recommended solution rooted in expectancy value theory was chosen to close this
cultural setting gap. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) asserted rationales provided to the
learner community that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or
learning can help develop positive values among those affected by the change. This suggests
Goodness needs to share with learners the advantages accruing to the school and the individual
as a result of adopting a goal-based budgeting process.
The expectancy value to Goodness includes the advantages of (a) goal-based systems
can improve an organization’s aggregate fiscal discipline resulting in an enhanced capacity to
make “fiscal space” for new spending initiatives (Robinson, 2007); (b) two percent per capita
reduction in expenditures on average, a major win for any university (Alderette, 2007); (c) an
efficient allocation of budgetary resources achieved through aligning the annual budget with an
organization’s goals helps keep tuition costs down, ensures student success through increased
retention and graduation rates, and helps recruit new students (Lalli, 2011); and (d) a goal-based
system motivates leadership to show there is a collective commitment to the strategic and
efficient use of its budgetary resources (Bandura, 1997). In addition to acquiring a new resume-
enhancing skill of learning to implement and sustain a goal-based approach to budgeting, a
more efficient use of financial resources through adoption of a goal-based budgeting approach
should ease faculty and staff fears of the college closing.
The recommendation then is for Goodness leadership to conduct employee meetings
providing the positive rationales of implementing a goal-based budgeting process to the learner
community highlighting the importance and utility value of the task to both the college and the
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 66

individual. It is also recommended Goodness assess the pre- and post-meeting readiness to
accept change using a Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) adapted level 1 pre-meeting survey
entitled “Pre – Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change” (Appendix O) (page) and similar
level 2 post- meeting survey entitled “Post – Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change”
(Appendix P).
Theme 7 - Prepare Budget Justification for Trustees Supporting Needed Enhancements
to Budgetary System
A recommendation rooted in information processing system theory was chosen to close
this cultural setting gap. McCrudden, Schraw, and Hartley (2006) advocate ensuring
individuals identify and understand the key points of a request is important to gaining
acceptance. This suggests having the best chance of approval for a budget request to Goodness’
board of trustees for necessary budgetary system enhancements, and implementation of a goals-
based process, needs several components. The request should: (a) inform how the proposed
effort furthers the work of aligning the annual budget with goals of the organization, (b) identify
the metrics project implementers plan to use in monitoring results, and (c) describe the method
and frequency of reporting to the board on project progress. The implication to stakeholders of
funding not being provided to make potential system modifications and implement a goal-based
budgeting process is the effort to align the annual budget with organizational goals may fail.
The recommendation then is to provide a clear and concise budget justification to the
board to fund tasks associated with potential modifications to the budgetary system and process.
The justification needs to include metrics for use by staff in monitoring progress on the work
effort and identifies to the board the method and frequency of reports - initially not less than
quarterly - on the project implementation status.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 67

Conclusion
The evaluation study of the College of Goodness was performed to determine the
college’s readiness to align its annual budget with goals of the organization. A school’s
inability to align its annual budget with organizational goals reduces the possibility of achieving
its goals and, in the highly competitive world of college recruiting, leaves open the difficult
question of whether the annual budget is being used effectively (Lalli, 2011).
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework used in the evaluation of the
College of Goodness identified seven knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
impeding readiness to establish an alignment between its annual budget and goals. The data
used in identifying the influence gaps was gained through qualitative interviews with Goodness
leadership and staff.
The gaps restricting Goodness from being in a position of readiness to align the annual
budget with its goals included the need to (a) increase procedural knowledge in order to (i)
develop SMART goals and (ii) achieve the alignment; (b) analyze and optimize use of the
current budgetary system; (c) increase self-efficacy to lead the alignment effort; (d) develop an
organization accepting of change; (e) implement a goal-based budgetary system; and (f) provide
sufficient funding to make necessary system enhancements and implement a goal-based
budgetary process. Solutions and recommendations were offered on how to close each of the
seven influence gaps. In each instance, where training was proposed to help fill the gap, use of
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) four-level training evaluation model was recommended.
Goodness leadership recognized the need for clear, concise, and meaningful goals, but
the existing goals at Goodness were not framed in a SMART format. The literature review
showed the establishment of clear, concise, and measurable goals and the alignment of annual
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 68

budget resources to these goals are key to ensuring that available financial resources are
optimally allocated to achieve organizational goals. The format shown to best frame clear,
concise, and meaningful goals is one that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-
bound (i.e., SMART) (Lawlor 2012; Matthews, 2007).
Strategic plans also benefit from clear, concise, and meaningful goals, like those in a
SMART format (Gibson, 2009), and the number of key indicators in the plan should be
minimized in order to maximize results. The existing strategic plan developed by Goodness
contained an abundance of non-specific goals, so many in fact that it was impossible to
determine which goals Goodness hoped to achieve within a specific time frame given
constraints on financial and human resources.
Success in establishing and achieving goals is contingent on the quality of the goals
themselves, not the quantity (Burton & Merrill, 1991). Goodness needs to follow Grant’s
assertion that smaller institutions of education should focus on a maximum of six to eight key
performance indicators for limited resources to be used in the most effective way (Reilly, 2016).
Once goals are established, the problem of practice that leads to schools failing to align
their annual budgets with goals is the line-item budgeting system used by Goodness and many
institutions of higher education. The sole objective of line-item budgeting is controlling funds
by cost category, travel, salaries, etc. instead of monitoring goal progress to completion (Loeb,
2008). In the case of Goodness, adoption of the recommended goal-based budgetary system
will provide for fund control and the capacity to align the budgetary system with its broader
organizational goals. Goodness needs to make funds available, where necessary, for
implementation of the goal-based system and for enhancements to the current budget system to
provide for this alignment.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 69

References
Agbor-Baiyee, W. (1997). Passion for academic leadership: An investigation of the factors
that motivate and provide satisfaction for college and university presidents.
Alderete, J. C. (2007). Budget practices and state expenditures: Lessons for California.:
Public Policy Instit. of CA.
Alexander, L. (2000). Higher education accreditation concepts and proposals. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions.
Al-Hosaini, F. F., & Sofian, S. (2015). A review of balanced scorecard framework in higher
education institution (HEIs). International Review of Management and
Marketing, 5(1), 26-35.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality
progress, 40(7), 64-65.
Allison, G. S. (2015). Financial accounting for local and state school systems: 2014 edition.
NCES 2015-347. National Center for Education Statistics.
Astin, A. W. (1997). How “good” is your institution's retention rate? Research in Higher
Education, 38(6), 647-658.
Aydiner, A., Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar, E., & Zaim, S. (2019). Information system capabilities
and firm performance: Opening the bill box through decision-making performance
and business-process performance. International Journal of Information
Management, 47, 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.12.015.
Ballard, P. J. (2013). Measuring performance excellence: Key performance indicators for
institutions accepted into the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 70

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bartel, T., & Finster, M. (1995). A TQM process for systems integration: Getting the most
from COTS software. Information Systems Management, 12(3), 19–29.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07399019508962982.
Beamer, S. A. (2011). Private vs. public higher education budgeting. Planning for Higher
Education, 40(1), 7-11.
Bipartisanpolicy.org. (2018). Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/03/BPC-Higher-Education-Rising-Costs-Stagnant-
Outcomes.pdf.
Board, E. A. (2014). Optimizing institutional budget models: strategic lessons for aligning
incentives and improving financial performance.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods.
Bourgeois, D. (2014). Information systems for business and beyond. The Saylor Foundation.
Bourne, M., Franco, M., & Wilkes, J. (2003). Corporate performance
management. Measuring Business Excellence, 7(3), 15–21.
doi:10.1108/13683040310496462
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 71

Briqa'an, A. M. A., & Alqurashi, A.A. (2012). Governance and role of universities in the
face of challenges. Paper presented at the International Scientific Conference,
Lebanon.
Bufan, I. D. (2013). The role of managerial accounting in the management process. Anale.
Seria Ştiinţe Economice. Timişoara, 19(19), 73-76.
Chandler, N. (2013). Braced for turbulence: Understanding and managing resistance to
change in the higher education sector. Management, 3(5), 243-251.
Chen, S. H., Wang, H. H., & Yang, K. J. (2009). Establishment and application of
performance measure indicators for universities. The TQM Journal, 21(3), 220-235.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of
higher education from the inside out. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Clark, P., Thompson, J., & Porter, B. (2004). Knowledge patterns. In Handbook on
ontologies (pp. 191-207). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Incorporated.
Consiglio, C., Borgogni, L., Di Tecco, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2016). What makes
employees engaged with their work? The role of self-efficacy and employee’s
perceptions of social context over time. Career development international, 21(2),
125-143.
Coombs, H., Jenkins, E., & Hobbs, D. (2005). Management accounting: principles and
applications. Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 72

Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory.
Denzin, N. K. (2007). Triangulation. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology.
Drucker, P. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
Eckerson, W. W. (2009). Performance management strategies. Business Intelligence
Journal, 14(1), 24-27.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide: A step-by-step guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fink, A. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide: A step-by-step guide. Sage
Publications.
Frank, H. A. (1998). Who bears the lifetime tax burden?.
Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with
beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental
Psychology, 42(4), 698.
Gad, S. (2012, November 15). Capital budgeting: The importance of capital budgeting.
Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/university/capital-
budgeting/importance.asp
Ghosh, S., & Mukherjee, S. (2006).
Gibson, A. M. (2009). Budgeting in higher education. General Conference Department of
Education.
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction (4th ed.; pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Glykas, M. (2013). Business Process Management. Berlin: Springer.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 73

Goodness College Graduation & Retention. (2018, September 27). Retrieved from
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/goodness-college/academic-life/graduation-
and-retention/#chart-graduation-rate-first-full
Gurin, P., Dey, E., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory
and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 330-367.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance:
An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
Haughey, D. (2015). SMART goals. Retrieved from http://www.projectSmart.co.uk.
Holwick, J. W. (2009). Assessment of Institutional Strategic Goal Realization: A Case Study.
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
Infoentrepreneurs. (2018). Budgeting and business planning. Retrieved from
https://www.infoentrepreneurs.org/en/guides/budgeting-and-business-planning/
Irish, E. (2019, April 23). Reach any goal this year with a spreadsheet, a calendar, and the
SMART system. Retrieved from https://zapier.com/blog/smart-goals/
Iselin, E. R., Mia, L., & Sands, J. (2008). Multi-perspective strategic goal setting,
performance reporting and organizational performance. Journal of Applied
Accounting Research, 9(2), 76-96.
Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2009). Impact of corporate
strengths/weaknesses on project management competencies. International Journal of
Project Management, 27(6), 629-637.
Jackson, T. (2019, February 06). Key performance indicators for schools & education
management. Retrieved from https://www.clearpointstrategy.com/key-performance-
indicators-in-education/
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 74

Jenzabar, Inc. (n.d.). Finance. Retrieved from https://www.jenzabar.com/jenzabar-one-
finance
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, F. (2003). Financial accounting for local and state school systems: Chapter 3.
Kendall, K. E. (2011). Systems analysis and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs:The four levels.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training
evaluation. Association for Talent Development.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Participants in a focus group. Focus groups: A
practical guide for applied research (4th ed.; pp. 66-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lalli, W. R. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of budgeting (Vol. 562). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Lawlor, K. B. (2012). Smart goals: How the application of smart goals can contribute to
achievement of student learning outcomes. Developments in Business Simulation and
Experiential Learning, 39.
Lendway, P. (2017, August 11). How higher education can practice better budgeting.
Retrieved from https://www.fels.upenn.edu/recap/posts/1162
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 75

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Loeb, S. (2008). Funding student learning: How to align education resources with student
learning goals. School Finance Redesign Project, Center on Reinventing Public
Education: University of Washington.
Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. Emotions in the
workplace: Understanding the Structure and Role of Emotions in Organizational
Behavior, 1, 5-19.
Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Goal-setting theory of motivation. International Journal of
Management, Business, and Administration, 15(1), 1-6.
Ma, J., Baum, S., Pender, M., & Bell, D. W. (2015). Trends in College Pricing, 2015. Trends
in Higher Education Series. College Board.
Markgraf, B. (2016). Short-Term, Medium-Term & Long-Term Planning in Business. Hearst
News Paper.
Martin, L. L. (2002). Budgeting for outcomes. AHBW Khan, Budget Theory in the Public
Sector, Quorum Books, London, 246-260.
Matthews, G. (2007). The impact of commitment, accountability, and written goals on goal
achievement. Paper presented at the 87
th
Convention of the Western Psychological
Association, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Does styles research have useful implications for educational
practice? Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 319-320.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 76

McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance
instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.
McDonald, M. (2014). Small US colleges battle death spiral as enrollment drops. Bloomberg
Business, 14.
McFarland, J. (n.d.). Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. Retrieved January 01,
2019, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp
McKinney, D. (1999, May). Impact of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software on the
interface between systems and software engineering. In Proceedings of the 1999
International Conference on Software Engineering (IEEE Cat. No. 99CB37002) (pp.
627-628). IEEE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. NIDA, 147.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load
measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational
Psychologist, 38(1), 63-71.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5, 339-367.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K.
(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 77

method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and
Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55(1), 44.
Piland, W. E., & Bublitz, R. F. (1998). Faculty perceptions of shared governance in
California community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 22(2), 99-110.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pyhrr, P. A. (1977). The zero-base approach to government budgeting. Public Administration
Review.
Pyhrr, P. A. (2012). Zero‐based budgeting. In Handbook of budgeting (pp. 677-696).
Reilly, M. (2016). Key performance indicators for schools & education management. Clear
Point Strategy.
Resnik, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research & why is it important. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences, 1-10.
Rhyneer, M. (2019, October 11). No, Your College is Not an Exception. Retrieved October
28, 2019, from https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20191006-A-Crisis-in-
Enrollment.
Robinson, M. (Ed.). (2007). Performance budgeting: linking funding and results. Springer.
Robinson, M., & Last, M. D. (2009). A basic model of performance-based budgeting.
International Monetary Fund.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 78

Robitaille, D. F., & Maxwell, B. (1996). The conceptual framework and research questions
for TIMSS. Research questions and study design. TIMSS Monograph, 2, 4-43.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Conversational partnerships. Qualitative interviewing:
The art of hearing data (3rd ed.; pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rubin, I. (1989). Aaron Wildavsky and the demise of incrementalism.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ruhl, J. M., & Hartman, B. P. (1994). Linkages between organizational goals, strategies, and
the budget process. Journal of Accounting Education, 12(3), 227-244.
Shelton, C., & Department of the Air Force. (2010). Business process reengineering with
commercial off-the-shelf software. Retrieved from
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA530534
Singh, H. (2015). Project management analytics: A data-driven approach to making rational
and effective project decisions. FT Press.
Sonteya, T., & Seymour, L. F. (2012). Towards an understanding of the business process
analyst: An analysis of competencies. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, 11(1), 43-63.
Stair, R. M., & Reynolds, G. W. (2014). Principles of information systems. Australia:
Course Technology Cengage Learning.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2008). State Higher Education Finance Early
Release FY 2008. Retrieved from.
www.sheeo.org/finance/shef/SHEF%20FY08%20Early%20Release%202.pdf
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 79

Steven, G. (2007). P1-management accounting–performance evaluation. Financial
Management.
Stiffler, M. A. (2006). Performance: Creating the performance-driven organization.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Stillman, M. (2009). Making the case for the importance of student retention. Enrollment
Management Journal, 3(2), 76-91.
Swanger, D. (2016). Innovation in higher education: Can colleges really change. Report of.
Tighe, T. (2003). Learn to manage “by the number”: Tying measurable numbers to
performance goals is the way to demonstrate that you are reaching them. (Strategic
Thinking).
Venuti, E. K. (2004). The going-concern assumption revisited: Assessing a company's future
viability. The CPA journal, 74(5), 40.
Walesh, S. G. (2003). Smart goals. Managing and leading: 52 lessons learned for
engineers (pp. 15-21). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.
Weiss, R. S. (1994a). Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994b). Preparation for interviewing, Chapter 4: Interviewing, and Chapter 5:
Issues in interviewing.Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative
interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6(1), 49-78.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Achievement motivation. The Corsini Encyclopedia of
Psychology, 1-2.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 80

Wigfield. A., Cambria. J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement
outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1-35.
Wildavsky, A. (1964). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Wildavsky, A. (1982). On the uses of adversity in higher education. The Review of Higher
Education, 6(1), 83–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1982.0033.
Yan, J. J., Hung, M. L., Chiang, T. Y., & Yang, Y. S. (2006). Robust synchronization of chaotic
systems via adaptive sliding mode control. Physics Letters A, 35

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 81

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders and Sampling Criteria for Interview
Research Questions
1. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to Goodness being in a position
of readiness to align the annual budget with goals of the organization?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and stakeholder
knowledge and motivation?
Participating Stakeholders
Goodness’ key stakeholders were the focus of the sampling and recruitment narrative
under the qualitative research approach. The president of Goodness, chief of staff, chairman of
the board of trustees, chief financial officer and staff, vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff, and vice president for academic affairs were
interviewed. They were vital stakeholders for purposes of this study because of the wide range
of authority they held.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The sampling strategy used for the qualitative approach is comprehensive sampling
under the broader category of purposeful sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). As
previously stated, comprehensive, purposeful sampling that includes all relevant leaders in the
study is a perfect fit for Goodness which is a small, private college. If the named stakeholders
suggested others to be interviewed, purposeful sampling in the form of snowballing was
employed. Snowball sampling provides contact information of other school leaders to interview
as part of the data collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Since the Goodness study was
a phenomenological case study multiple interviews of the stakeholders occurred on four
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 82

occasions(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015; Palinkas et al., 2015). The population focus and interview
criterion and rationale for each shareholder is provided.
President Stakeholder
The population focus for the president stakeholder under the qualitative approach is the
first sampling methodology to be discussed.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college’s budgetary process and establishment of
performance goals. This criterion helps answer research question number one.
Criterion 2. Knowledge of strategic initiatives and related planning documents used to
initiate and track progress to project completion. This criterion helps answer research questions
number one and two.
Criterion 3. Understanding of the interaction between organizational culture and
context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation. This criterion helps answer research
question number one.
The number of employees in the president’s office who (a) have an understanding of
knowledge and motivation related to being able to establish goals and align the budget with the
goals, and (b) possess an awareness of the interaction between organizational culture and
context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation, is one employee.
Chief of Staff Stakeholder
The population focus for the chief of staff stakeholder under the qualitative approach is
the second sampling methodology to be discussed.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 83

Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college’s budgetary process. This criterion will help
answer research question number one.
Criterion 2. Knowledge of Goodness’ pressing issues and strategic initiatives. This
criterion will help answer research questions number one and two.
Criterion 3. Understanding of the interaction between organizational culture and
context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation. This criterion helps answer research
question number one.
The number of employees in the president’s office, in addition to the president, who (a)
have an understanding of knowledge and motivation related to being able to establish goals and
align the budget with the goals, and (b) possess an awareness of the interaction between
organizational culture and context and stakeholder knowledge and motivation, is one employee.
Chairman of the Board of Trustees Stakeholder
The population focus for the chairman of the board of trustees under the qualitative
approach is the third sampling methodology to be discussed.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college budgetary process to be able to recognize ways
the budget can be made to align with the goals of the college. This criterion will help answer
research question number one.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 84

Criterion 2. A fiduciary responsibility for the governance of the college, serving to
oversee and shape its broad policies. This criterion will help answer research questions number
one and two.
Criterion 3. Approval of the college’s strategic direction and annual budgets directed
towards the achievement of goals. This criterion will help answer research questions number
one and two.
The number of board members who (a) have the needed knowledge of overall
accounting and budgeting functions to successfully place the college in a position of aligning
the budget with the college’s organization goals, and (b) understand organizational culture and
context of the institution, is one employee.
Chief Financial Officer Stakeholder
The population focus for the chief financial officer stakeholder under the qualitative
approach is the fourth sampling methodology to be discussed.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college budgetary process to recognize ways the budget
can be made to align with the goals of the college. This criterion helps answer research
question number one.
Criterion 2. Experience working with higher education accounting software to
understand the capability of accounting software to align and report on funds budgeted and
spent towards meeting organizational goals. This criterion helps answer research question
number one.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 85

Criterion 3. A minimal of three years working in higher education finance to fully
understand the nuances between accounting and budgeting in higher education and the business
sector. This criterion helps answer research question number one.
The number of employees in office of the chief financial officer with the needed
knowledge of accounting and budgeting functions to successfully place the college in a position
of aligning the budget with the college’s organization goals is two.
Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness and Strategic Initiatives Stakeholder
The population focus for the vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic
initiatives stakeholder under the qualitative approach is the fifth sampling methodology to be
discussed.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college goal setting n process to identify alternative
ways the budget can be made to align with the goals.
This criterion helps answer research question number one.
Criterion 2. Awareness of strategic planning documents currently being used by the
college to track short- and long-term goals. This criterion helps answer research question
number one.
Criterion 3. Knowledge of how to develop clear, concise, and meaningful
organizational goals in a strategic, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART)
format described by Lawlor (2012). This criterion helps answer research question number one.
The total number of employees in the office of the vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives who have the needed knowledge to develop clear, concise,
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 86

and meaningful organizational goals in a SMART format described by Lawlor (2012), and to
successfully promote aligning the budget to the organization goals, is three employees.
Vice President for Academic Affairs Stakeholder
The population focus for the vice president for academic affairs stakeholder under the
qualitative approach is the sixth sampling methodology to be discussed.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Knowledge of the college goal setting process to be able to identify
alternative ways the budget can be made to align with the goals. This criterion helps answer
research question number one.
Criterion 2. Awareness of strategic planning documents currently used by the college
to track short- and long-term goals. This criterion helps answer research questions number one
and two.
Criterion 3. Knowledge of how to develop clear, concise and meaningful
organizational goals in a SMART format described by Lawlor (2012). This criterion helps
answer research questions number one and two.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The total number of employees in the office of the vice president for academic affairs
with the needed knowledge to develop clear, concise, and meaningful organizational goals in a
SMART format described by Lawlor (2012), and to successfully promote aligning the budget to
the organization goals, is one employee.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 87

Interview Protocols, Documents and Artifacts
Interview Protocols
A qualitative semi-structured, protocol was used for interviews. Merriam and Tisdale
(2016) advise this is the best choice because interviewing in qualitative investigations is more
open-ended than structured. Less-structured formats assume the individual respondents define
the world in different ways. Thus, questions fell in the middle between structured and non-
structured and were open-ended to provide for a free flow and deeper level of information. All
questions led to achievement of the stakeholder global performance goal of being in a position
of readiness to align the annual budget with goals of the organization.
The questions asked were taken from the six types described by Patton including
experience and behavior, opinion and values, feeling, knowledge, sensory, and
background/demographic questions (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016; Patton, 1980). The four
question types authored by Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher, and Sabshin, including hypothetical,
devil's advocate, ideal position, and interpretive questions, were also considered (Merriam &
Tisdale, 2016). Each question type being used in the interview process is described in Table 8
(p. 137). The question type shown in Table 8 is connected to the conceptual framework
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016) shown in Figure 1 (p. 40), the KMO influence
(Clark & Estes, 2008), and the research question. The position title of the respondent is also
provided.
Interview Procedures
A visual displaying those to be interviewed, the time frame, the projected number of
interviews, average interview time and total number of anticipated interview hours are shown in
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 88

Table 9 (p. 139). The first step in the interview process was to meet informally with Goodness’
leaders and staff with whom qualitative, formal interviews are planned. The in-person informal
meetings occurred on July 23-24, 2018. The purpose of the informal interviews was to build
rapport with respondents and gain their trust, as well as their understanding of the situation and
setting (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013).
The second step of the interview process, after a rapport was established and
Institutional Review Board approval received, was to conduct on-site formal interviews with the
president; chief of staff; chairman of the board of trustees; chief financial officer and her staff;
the vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and his staff; and the
vice president for academic affairs. The vice president for institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives also currently serves as the vice president for academic affairs. Interviews
were conducted with him in both capacities.. The recordings of on-site interviews were
preceded by verbal consent confirmation by the respondent. In addition, notes were taken to
record highlights of the interview and follow-up questions for respondents were listed. The
recordings and transcriptions were destroyed when no longer needed for purposes of writing the
dissertation. Written notes were locked in a file cabinet and shredded after they were no longer
needed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013).
The third step was the collection of documents and artifacts. This step was in third
position, because the interviews revealed the existence of documents and/or artifacts useful to
determine the readiness of Goodness to align the budget with performance goals of the
organization. These documents and/or artifacts served as a springboard to other questions and
data collection efforts. The documents and artifacts were particularly useful to current
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 89

researchers because they are authentic, meaning they have not been previously altered by other
researchers (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bowen, 2009; Maxwell, 2013).
The fourth step included additional one-time or multiple formal interviews of selected
respondents to clarify information provided previously. Additional interview questions were
asked based on new information, including documents and artifacts, collected from other earlier
interviews, not previously considered. Clarification of remarks and confirmation of potential
findings were also addressed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013).
Documents and Artifacts
Documents were collected as part of the data collection effort (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Bowen, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). They included the following:
• A web link to the budgetary software operating manual or a copy of the manual from
Goodness’ chief financial officer. The need for the manual was connected to the
knowledge factor of the conceptual framework. The knowledge factor was to
analyze the budgetary software to determine if the capacity existed to align the
annual budget with goals of the organization and help attain Goodness’ global
performance goal.
• A link to or representative pages from Goodness’ strategic plan.
• Budgetary reports produced from the budgetary software - a copy of various
budgetary reports from Goodness’ chief financial officer. The need for the reports
was connected to the knowledge factor of the conceptual framework.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 90

Appendix B: Interview Protocols
This study used a variety of types of questions gained from Strauss, Schatzman, Bucher,
and Sabshin and also Patton (1981) as cited in Merriam and Tisdell (2015).
Introductory Narrative
It was explained to the participant the purpose of the study was to determine the
college’s readiness to align its annual budget with the organization’s performance goals and
they had been selected to be interviewed because of their role as a key Goodness stakeholder.
The participant was advised a pseudonym, the College of Goodness, would be used for the
name of the college and all data were confidential. In addition, it was stated individual files
containing this information would be locked and filed. The participant was told they could
decide not to answer any questions and withdraw from the study at any time. To facilitate
notetaking, they were asked to give permission for the interview to be recorded and thanked for
their agreement to participate.
The following list contains a nonrandom sampling of questions asked of some, if not all,
of the persons being interviewed. The questions identified under the KMO factors of
knowledge, motivation and leadership provided a means to answer the research questions
forming the basis of this study.
Knowledge
1. Tell me about your major job responsibilities.
2. What are your specific job responsibilities for formulation and approval of the budget
and how is the budget developed?
3. What are your specific job responsibilities for development of organizational goals and
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 91

how are the goals developed?
4. Please share how the strategic plan is developed by the college.
5. What changes would have to be made to the current planning process to enable it to
align goals with the budget?
6. Please tell me about your role in controlling the college’s budget.
7. Describe how the college’s budgetary software is used to control the budget.
8. Please share your opinion whether current CFO staff has the necessary skill set to make
changes to the budgetary process to provide for the alignment of the budget with
performance goals.
9. How does the budgetary process in place at Goodness control funds provided through
the annual budget?
10. What changes would have to be made to the current budgetary process to enable the
commercial-off-the-shelf software financial software used by the college to control costs
by organizational goals?
11. What additional training would be needed for staff to use the commercial-off-the-shelf
financial software to align budgets with performance goals and track them through to
completion?
Motivation
1. What actions do you think would help motivate you to successfully develop and
maintain a strategic plan and do you think you would be successful in the work effort?
2. Suppose you were asked to accumulate annual budget costs by performance goals of the
organization, i.e. graduation rates, student satisfaction, etc. How would you respond to
that?
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 92

3. What actions do you think the college needs to take so stakeholders have the necessary
knowledge about and are motivated to develop a strategic plan containing short-and
long-term goals of the organization?
4. How do you think staff would react to being asked to acquire new skills enabling them
to align performance goals with the budget and why do you feel this way?
5. Please share your opinion whether you have the necessary skill set to develop
performance goals in a specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time bound or
SMART format.
6. What actions do you think would help motivate you to successfully develop
performance goals in a clear, concise and measurable or SMART format and what value
would you attach to it?
7. Please provide your opinion whether you believe you would be successful in developing
goals in a clear, concise and measurable or SMART format.
8. How would you respond to an effort by the college to tie performance goals of the
organization, i.e. graduation rates, student satisfaction, etc. to the annual budget?
9. How do you think college stakeholders would respond to an initiative to develop a
unified strategic planning document containing short and long-term goals of the
organization and why do you feel this way?
10. Would you attach value to the task and believe you would be successful in achieving it
and why do you think this?

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 93

Organization
1. What actions do you think the college needs to take to be ready for its mission and
vision for the future to be expressed in terms of performance goals and why do you feel
this way?
2. What do you think the college needs to do to ensure staff is ready to develop SMART
goals and align the budget with those goals?
3. Please share your thoughts on whether you believe faculty and leadership are ready to
support innovative change in the college-wide budgeting process enabling it to align the
budget with performance goals and track the goals to completion.
4. How do you think leadership and faculty at Goodness would react to being advised the
college was undertaking an effort to develop a comprehensive strategic plan containing
short-and long-term goals of the organization?
5. What actions do you think the college needs to take to be ready to align the budget with
performance goals?
6. What performance goals would you like the college to include in its enterprise strategy
document to achieve in the next 5 years, 10 years?
7. Please share your opinion whether the college would support implementing a goal-based
budgeting system and what would it take to get there?
8. What actions would the college need to take to provide necessary funding to implement
a goal-based system?

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 94

Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
Plans helped ensure the creditability and trustworthiness of collected data. These plans
included member checking, triangulation, and peer review.
Member Checking
One method used is called member checking, also known as respondent validation. This
validation process solicited participants at Goodness to give feedback on the validly of any
preliminary or emerging findings. This validation process helped rule out the possibility of
misinterpreting the meaning of data leading to incorrect assumptions and conclusions (Creswell
& Creswell, 2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). Written drafts of preliminary or
emerging findings were provided to participates with an adequate lead time for response.
Discussions were held to clarify any differences of opinion arising.
Triangulation
The second method used to strengthen the internal validity of the study, is called
triangulation. Denzin (2007) proposed four types of triangulation: the use of multiple methods,
multiple sources of data, multiple investigators, or multiple theories to confirm emerging
findings. For this study the multiple sources of data approach were used (Creswell & Creswell,
2017; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
A discussion of how this triangulation occurs is provided below. This process validates
the ability of the budgetary system to align the budget to performance goals and develop goals
in a format that was clear, concise, and meaningful, so progress could be measured toward
completion of a goal (Lawlor, 2012).
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 95

Five sources of data were used in the triangulation methodology to validate results as
shown in Table 10 (p. 140) and Table 11 (p. 141). In Table 10 the triangular budget to goals
validation process was described as: (1) information gathered through interviews with the chief
financial officer and staff on capabilities of the budgetary system software to align budgets with
performance goals was compared to the budgetary software operating manual, (2) the budgetary
software operations manual was compared to actual budgetary reports, and (3) the actual
budgetary reports were tied to information initially provided through interviews with the chief
financial officer and staff on the budgetary system’s capabilities. Any differences resulting
from these comparisons were reconciled with the responsible participants.
In Table 11 the triangular SMART goal validation process was described as: (1)
information gained from interviews with the vice president for institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives and staff on the current format of performance goals was compared to
guidance maintained by Goodness on the development of goals, (2) goals contained in
Goodness’ strategic plan were compared to the actual goal format shown on the college’s
website for the desired outcome measures of various academic programs, and (3) the actual goal
format shown on Goodness’ website for the desired outcomes of various academic programs
was tied to information gained from interviews with the vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff. Any differences noted from these comparisons
were reconciled with the responsible participants.
Peer Review
The third strategy employed is called peer examination or peer review (Creswell &
Creswell, 2017; Merriam & Tisdale, 2016; Maxwell, 2013). Peers are considered those
knowledgeable about the topic and the methodology review that are on your level. The
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 96

dissertation study in its draft stages was sent to experts in the field for review and validation.
As was true with member checking, written drafts of preliminary or emerging findings were
provided for review. However, rather than sending them to participants as was true with
member checking, they were sent to peers in the field of study for examination and comment.
The peers, who accepted this review role, were accounting and budget directors at the federal
agency where I worked prior to retirement in 2010.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 97

Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
This study only used a qualitative approach to obtain needed data through interviews
with stakeholders and their staff and through a review of documents. Validity and reliability
apply only to quantitative approaches for obtaining data.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 98

Appendix E: Ethics
Resnick (2011) says many different professions have ethical standards for behavior that
appeal to their aims and goals. These standards, Resnick advised, help members of the
discipline coordinate their actions or activities and establish the public's trust. The researcher is
no exception. Ethical norms serve the aims and goals of research and apply to people who
conduct scientific research, or other scholarly or creative activities (Resnick, 2011). These are
the norms that guide us in our research efforts at the university.
Organization Under Review
The organization under review in my dissertation was the college of Goodness, a small,
liberal arts college located in the eastern part of the United States. The problem of practice
addressed was Goodness’ readiness to link annual budgets to its performance goals. There were
no concerns about employer/employee relationships and the effect such arrangements may have
had on research subjects. To prevent any biases in my research, participants were asked to
review the results of qualitative interviews and review the findings with peers.
Relationships at Goodness
I have relationships with key leaders at Goodness. These included a friendship with the
former chairman of Goodness’ board of trustees. Glesne (2011) stated researchers often have
friendly relations with research participants and, in some instances, the relationship is one of
friendship. If this is the case, Glesne (2011) notes ethical dilemmas can result because you may
gain access to information given in the context of friendship rather than researcher. Individuals
with whom I have friendships were not asked to provide any information not open to others.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 99

However, if this had occurred, the data would have been expunged (Glesne, 2011). In addition,
it was made clear before the interview process began participation was voluntary.
Potential Bias
The fact I have current friendships with leaders at the school and possess extensive
experience in the field of budgeting and goal setting could lead to bias (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Potential bias was overcome by ensuring there was consistency in the findings,
explaining the assumptions and theory underlying the study, triangulating data, describing in
detail how the study was conducted and how the findings were derived from the data and
finally, by showing the findings of the qualitative portion of the study were externally valid by
asking participants to review findings while in draft form and arranging for a peer review
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study used a qualitative interview approach.
Qualitative Review
The qualitative review segment of the study at Goodness consists of interviews with the
school’s president; chief of staff; chairman of the board of trustees; the chief financial officer
and staff; the vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff; and
the vice president for academic affairs. During this phase of the study I was in the role of a
research instrument collecting the data.
Research subjects were provided with necessary information concerning the purpose of
the study and the reason for the interview and were told participation was voluntary. Subjects
were advised of their rights to privacy including the confidentiality of data collected and their
anonymous participation and asked to grant permission to record information gathered.
Pseudonyms were used for the name of the college, and for other names that are unique to the
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 100

college under review. Data were secured in a locked cabinet that is shared. Verbal informed
consent was requested from research subjects before beginning the interview (Glesne, 2011;
Krueger & Casey, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Additional Ethics Considerations
Everything possible was done to ensure the research did not harm the safety, dignity, or
privacy of the people surveyed, or the people with whom they work, conduct research, or
perform other professional activities (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin,
2012).
● Research subjects were given enough information to make informed decisions about
participating in the study (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
● Individuals, groups, or cultural materials were not exploited. Further, my debt to the
societies in which the research subjects work was recognized, as well as any obligation
to reciprocate with people studied in appropriate ways (Glesne, 2011; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 101

Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Introduction
An implementation and evaluation plan were developed in consideration of the college’s
stakeholder goals and the New World Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model.
Implementation of efforts to close influence gaps. Goodness’ stakeholder goals are
shown in Table 1(p. 17). By February 2020 key college stakeholders identified knowledge,
motivation and organization influences impacting Goodness’ readiness to align its annual
budget with organizational goals. The first goal was realized when the study was completed in
February 2020. Table 12 (p. 142) shows the various influence gaps identified in the study with
recommended actions to close each gap. Table 13 (p. 144) includes a potential schedule of
events to close each gap. Table 14 (p. 145) lists the groups of Goodness employees relevant to
the gap closure process who should attend each training event. The second stakeholder goal
was to identify barriers to readiness the stakeholders want to address and develop action plans
for overcoming them. The completion date for this goal was June 2020. The June 2020 date
requires a decision by the key Goodness stakeholder group no later than February 2020 to allow
time to complete corrective action plans. The key stakeholder group accomplished the
following:
1. February 2020 - Identified KMO influence gaps
2. February 2020 – Identified KMO influence barriers to be addressed
3. June 2020 – Develop plans to eliminate barriers
Evaluation plan. The model used to frame this implementation and evaluation plan
was the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) based on the original
Kirkpatrick Four Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 102

prescribes evaluation plans starting with the goals of the organization and working backwards
and, by doing so, the “leading indicators” bridging recommended solutions to the organization’s
goals are both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Further,
the reverse order of the Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other actions. The
first was the development of solution outcomes focused on assessing work behaviors. Second,
the identification of indicators learning occurred during implementation. Lastly, the emergence
of indicators showing organizational members were satisfied with implementation strategies.
Designing the implementation and evaluation plan this way forces connections between the
immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal buy-in to ensure success
(Kirkpatrick &Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
The College of Goodness (Goodness) is a private, nonprofit four-year postsecondary
college located in the eastern half of the United States. Its mission is to challenge and nurture
students for a lifetime of service and leadership through intellectual transformation, social
development, a culture of physical well-being, and personal growth. Goodness and other
institutions of higher education need to be in a position of readiness to establish an alignment
between the annual budget and organizational goals to help ensure its mission inspired goals are
met. Further, failure to establish goals and achieve alignment with the budget raises questions
of concern about whether the college is using its budget effectively.
The global organizational performance goal of Goodness is to evaluate its readiness to
establish clear, concise and meaningful organizational goals, and align the annual budget with
these goals. The initial phase of the project is by February 2020 for key college stakeholders to
identify knowledge, motivation and organization influences impacting Goodness’ readiness to
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 103

align its annual budget with organizational goals. The second and final alignment phase shown
in Table 1 (p. 17) is June 2020 for the key college stakeholders to identify barriers to readiness
the stakeholders want to address and develop action plans for overcoming the identified
barriers.
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which Goodness was ready to
establish organizational goals and align its annual budget with these goals. The study focused
on KMO influences affecting Goodness’ ability to be ready to successfully achieve the
alignment of the budget to organizational goals. The desired outcome was for the college to put
itself in a position of readiness to align the annual budget with goals of the organization.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 15 (p. 146) shows the Level 4: Results and leading indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for Goodness. If the
internal outcomes are successfully met, as expected, as a result of the training and
organizational support for Goodness’ staff involved in aligning the budget with organizational
goals, then the external outcomes should also be realized.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 104

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus were the chief financial officer and vice
president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and their staffs and vice
president for academic affairs and department chairs responsible for being ready to prepare
performance goals and make necessary changes to the budgetary system process to align the
budget with organizational performance goals. The board of trustees, who must approve
funding for the effort, is also a stakeholder of focus.
The first critical behavior is the chief financial officer and staff need to identify
necessary changes to the budgetary system process for Goodness to be positioned to align the
annual budget with performance goals. The second critical behavior is the vice president for
institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff and the vice president for academic
affairs and department chairs must be prepared to create performance goals in a SMART format
so goals can be successfully tracked and met. The third critical behavior is the board of trustees
must provide financial resources to make funds available for (a) any identified system changes
to the budgetary system process, and (b) implementation of a goal-based budgetary system to
ensure Goodness is ready to successfully align the annual budget with organizational goals.
The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table
16 (p. 148).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 105

Organizational support. The critical behaviors and required drivers monitored for
performance improvement are premised upon implementation of recommendations at the
organizational level. In this case, as shown in Table 17 (p. 149), for the stakeholder to achieve
their goals of being ready to align the annual budget with organizational goals the organization
would need to (a) embrace the need for change in aligning the budget with organizational goals,
(b) support the implementation of a goal-based budgetary process, and (c) allot needed financial
resources to make funds available to provide for any necessary changes to the budgetary
software process and start-up of the goal-based system.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. The following lists what the chief financial officer, the vice president
for institutional effectiveness and the vice president for academic affairs stakeholder group need
to know and be able to do after the learning event or implementation of the program in order to
perform the critical behaviors listed above.
• Understand how to develop goals in a SMART format that can be mapped to the budget.
(D)
• Follow steps to tie the annual budget to the college’s goals. (D)
• Analyze the current budgetary system for needed change to provide for the alignment.
(C)
• Value the work effort to align the budget with goals. (V)
• Indicate confidence in their ability to successfully complete the work effort. (C)
• Value change to the budgetary and planning processes. (V)
• Understand how to develop a goal-based budgetary process. (D)
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 106

• Exhibit confidence in obtaining adequate financial resources in support of work efforts.
(C)
Training program. The learning goals listed in the previous section are achieved using
a blended training program including asynchronous and synchronous methods. The learners
consist of the president; chief of staff; chairman of the board of trustees; the chief financial
officer and staff; vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff;
and the vice president for academic affairs and department chairs.
SMART goals development training is provided to the vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and staff, and the vice president for academic affairs and
department chairs. This procedural knowledge is transferred asynchronously by using
eLearning training videos providing instructions for developing goals in a SMART format.
Synchronous discussions are led by the vice president for institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives and the vice president for academic affairs regarding how Goodness’ goals
can be developed using the SMART format approach. Each training participant is given a job
aid with decision flowcharts providing step-by-step instructions for developing SMART goals.
The total time for completion is 720 minutes (12 hours) over a two-day period.
Training on how to align the annual budget to organizational goals is provided to the
chief financial officer and vice president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives
and their staffs. This procedural knowledge is transferred using asynchronous in-person
sessions. The sessions focus on assessing the degree of prior knowledge held by learners
regarding their capacity to align the budget with goals. Level 1 pre and level 2 post training
knowledge checks are asynchronously administered as part of the training. Information gleaned
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 107

from Level 1 Pre-Knowledge Training Checks are incorporated into the design of the
synchronous group training. The total time for completion is 480 minutes (8 hours).
In addition, conceptual knowledge training is provided synchronously to the chief
financial officer and staff to help them (a) understand and make maximum use of the budgetary
system and (b) analyze the current budgetary system for change. The training is conducted by
system analysts representing the COTS vendor whose software is currently being used by the
college. The total time for completion is 960 minutes (16 hours).
Motivational training sessions are held with all stakeholders to gauge their level of self-
efficacy as a prelude to successfully placing Goodness in a position of readiness to align the
annual budget with goals of the organization. Self-efficacy level 1 pre and level 2 post
assessments are completed by session participants. The training makes it clear individuals are
capable of learning what is being taught or can perform a task. It also points out how learning
and training will be useful in theirs and the students’ lives. The total time for completion is 480
minutes (8 hours).
Traditional forms of assessment, testing and synchronous training are provided to
leadership at Goodness to close the cultural model gap for the need to accept of change. Level 1
pre-meeting questionnaires to gauge a planned participant’s receptivity to change are completed
asynchronously for the course addressing the question, “Are You Ready to Accept Change?” A
post meeting level 2 evaluation is prepared asynchronously to assess the impact of the training
on participants’ acceptance of change. The total time for completion is 480 minutes (8 hours).
Evaluation of the components of learning. It is often necessary to demonstrate and
evaluate declarative and procedural knowledge as a precursor to applying the knowledge to
solve problems. Learners need to value training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 108

knowledge and job skills. However, they must realize the significant role motivation and
confidence plays in their ability to succeed. They must apply their knowledge and skills and be
committed to using them on the job. As such, Table 18 (p. 152) lists the evaluation methods
and timing for these components of learning.
Level 1: Reaction
The list in Table 19 (p. 154) provides the methods used to determine how the
participants react to the learning event(s).
Evaluation tools. Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluations at
level 1 and level 2 provide feedback on the quality of the training and what has been learned.
Participants can provide feedback on the venue, accessibility of materials, topics covered, and
the quality of the presenters. Evaluation taking place immediately following the program
focuses on the learning component. It seeks to understand the degree individuals understood
the knowledge and skills taught and gauges the extent they can put into practice the things
learned. Evaluation at this level takes the form of event attendance, observation, quality of
instructional content, content specialists and speakers, and pre- and post-test surveys of training
participants.
Approximately four weeks following the final training session a combined levels 1, 2, 3,
and 4 evaluation is performed. With this evaluation tool individuals are asked questions
concerning the knowledge presented during training sessions, and whether they have been able
to transfer knowledge learned to behavior on the job. Inquiry is also made regarding benefits
accruing to themselves and/or the college as a result of the change. As part of the level 4
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 109

evaluation, individuals are asked how the change has positively impacted them, the department
where they work, other departments, and the college.
While formative evaluations, including those at levels 1 and 2, explore the quality of the
training and networking/mentoring events, the final evaluation rooted in levels 3 and 4 seeks to
also understand the level at which individuals trained were able to implement the desired
change. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) it is insufficient to evaluate only
behavioral changes and results to an organization in a quantifiable way. Feedback also needs to
be gathered and analyzed to improve future iterations of trainings and workshops. See
Appendix I (p. 141) for an example of intended feedback questions planned for levels 1, 2, 3,
and 4.
The Final Course Report (Appendix J, p. 143) contains a simplified report for tracking
success in completing the training. The report includes data on the number and names of
trainees who successfully completed a course. Evaluation tools are prepared covering each
KMO influence gap. Table 12 (p. 142) contains a listing of each gap and the relevant
evaluation tools.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Peter Drucker famously said, “What gets measured gets managed” (Drucker, 1954) or
as Goodness’ Stevens said, “If you don't measure, then you don't value. And what you value
needs to be measured.” This is the primary reason one of the keystones for this dissertation
effort - for a college to be ready to align its annual budget with performance goals - is its ability
to measure the organization’s goals through to completion. The goal format selected for
reaching this achievement destination is identified by the acronym SMART, meaning a goal is
specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 110

Each change effort leads to a plan of action and identifies work tasks needed to place the
college in a position to succeed. Implementation of the plan is greatly dependent on measuring
progress to the point of task completion in support of the “what gets measured gets done”
management philosophy. Creating a firm set of evaluation tools, such as those discussed in
previous sections, helps to ensure the necessary steps towards achieving results, which include
an evaluation of stakeholder reactions, transfers in learning, and changes in behavior. Collected
in both formative and summative measures, the data gathered throughout the training sessions is
used not only to increase the likelihood of achieving desired results, but also provides needed
feedback for crafting future iterations of training programs occurring within the organization.
Data gathered during efforts to implement a goal-based budgetary system process and gain
funding for desired budgetary system changes is also used to track progress to a successful
completion.
Metrics are used in the analysis of training. They include, but are not limited to, such
factors as increases in declarative knowledge, confidence, motivation, self-efficacy, changes in
behavior, and the degree to which results are meeting organizational expectations (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). The same bundle of metrics is used to measure non training events.

The learning goals, referenced above, are derived from the stakeholder goal of placing
the college in a position of readiness to align its annual budget with organizational goals.
Metrics gathered in data collection touch on declarative and procedural knowledge related to
KMO factors influencing the ability of the college to reach its readiness goal. Level 1 and 2
feedback and data will be available immediately followed by information on levels 1, 2, 3 and 4
four weeks later.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 111

As the integrated plan suggests, three of the efforts identified to close influence gaps
provide for subject-specific level 1 pre and level 2 post-test surveys important to the
development of course material and getting immediate feedback on the quality of the learning
experience. These include the ability to align the annual budget with organizational goals,
heighten leadership’s self-efficacy and increase the acceptance of change. In addition, data
from exit ticket evaluations consisting of open-ended questions are accumulated and merged
with pre and posttest information. Two of the influence gap closure training efforts, the
creation of SMART goals and the ability to analyze the current budgetary system for possible
upgrade/change and make maximum use of the system, involve Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) compliant, levels 1 and 2 evaluations. Participants who complete each course are given
certificates of completion indicating their noteworthy accomplishment. Examples of levels 1
and 2 formative feedback assessments are found in Appendices H (p. 139), and K (p.145)
through P (p.152).
Levels 3 and 4 evaluation data, completed four weeks from the end date of the training,
are gathered using observation, Likert Scale analysis, and open-ended evaluations included
under Appendix I (Page number). As data from the four levels are received and analyzed course
content is modified/corrected and finalized for future training presentations. The true level 4
result for the organization, the college of Goodness, is to be in a position of readiness to align
the annual budget with goals of the organization. A review of the data shows the benefits of
training to help close KMO influence gaps as follows:
• Goodness could benefit from formatting organizational goals in a textbook SMART
format. Although some of the organization’s 16 goals in the strategic plan contain
elements of a SMART goal format, none are textbook Smart goals readily tracked
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 112

through to completion. The number of potential employees from the office of the vice
president for institutional effectiveness and strategic initiatives, and vice president for
academic affairs and department chairs, benefitting from learning more about SMART
goal development is 11 employees.
• The number of individuals in the office of the chief financial officer in need of training
to align the annual budget to organizational goals and analyze the current budgetary
system and maximize its capabilities is 3 individuals.
• College stakeholders, department chairs and other administrative staff and the college
itself would benefit from an increased commitment to change. The number of
individuals in need of training including all stakeholders and department chairs is 20
individuals. Two training sessions will be held consisting of 10 persons each event.
• Self-efficacy of college leadership to bring about change would be enhanced at all levels
through meeting with potentially affected members of the college community to hold
“Self-efficacy Motivational Training” to help alleviate their concerns.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model is used to plan, implement and evaluate
recommendations for the college to optimize achieving the stakeholder goal of being in a
position of readiness to align the budget with the goals of the organization. The KMO Gap
Analysis Model plays a key role in identifying knowledge, motivational and organizational gaps
needed to be closed for the process to be successful.
Planning begins with the level 4 desired outcome of creating performance goals in a
SMART format that could be easily aligned with the annual budget. The evaluation performed
at level 3 identifies required drivers to promote critical behavioral changes needed in support of
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 113

the new goal formatting process, such as the need for staff to receive training on how to create
goals in a SMART format. Level 3 also identifies metrics for use in monitoring progress
toward goal achievement such as tracking the number of staff completing needed training until
all complete the course successfully.
Level 2 answers the question, “What does the trainee need to know and be able to do
after the learning event or implementation of the program?” It provides the basis for the
instructor's lesson materials and method of teaching. Level 1 is the final step in the process. It
is the reaction of the trainers’ methods used to determine how the participants react to the
learning event. Did the trainee feel a connection with the instructional material and its
presentation? What effects did the learning environment play in the process?
The four-level process may initially be more time consuming, but proper planning on the
front end promotes a higher level of learning and greater achievement of desired results in a
shorter amount of time. Failure to identify the result in the beginning could result in your
ending up someplace else, because you do not know where you are going. Knowing your
destination by starting with level 4 makes the trip more enjoyable with fewer dead ends and
detours. The value of integrating implementation and evaluation is made clear by the ability to
implement and evaluate each stage of implementation and make needed adjustments as the
learning process proceeds, rather than waiting for an end that might never come.
The training initiative is also expected to demonstrate to stakeholders their expectations
were satisfied. This is called the “return on expectations.” Key stakeholders at the college
acknowledge the importance of aligning the annual budget with performance goals. They
recognize the alignment has little or no risk and provides the ability to track goals through to
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 114

completion. Further, stakeholders realize there are no additional costs associated with its
implementation.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 115

Appendix G: Example of Annual Budget to Goal Alignment
Appendix G offers a hypothetical example of an annual budget to goal alignment.
Assume from Figure 1 (p. 40) that the College of Goodness establishes a key performance goal
for FY 2020 to increase the retention rate for first year students to 65%. Information in Figure
2 (p. 155) indicates the effort to increase the retention rate is funded from several sources in the
annual budget, including instructional teacher salaries for $50,000, online technology for
$175,000, professional services for $50,000, and library salaries for $25,000. These funds are
assigned to the effort, and as shown in Figure 3 (p. 156) are no longer available for the general
use of the college. The effort of aligning the budget with organizational goals significantly
increases the possibility of goal attainment that is on schedule, and at or under budget. A more
effective monitoring of goal progress to completion also occurs, as status reports are used to
compare work accomplished to date with funds expended.
As shown in Figure 2, (page 155) Goodness not only met the hypothetical goal of 65%
retention but exceeded it! This approach to funding can improve an organization’s aggregate
fiscal discipline resulting in an increased ability to make “fiscal space” for new spending
initiatives without commensurately increasing aggregate expenditures (Robinson, 2007).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 116

Appendix H: Levels 1 and 2
Course: _______________________________
Levels 1 and 2
Date(s) of Training __________
Instructor(s) ___________________

Directions: Thank you for attending today’s training session. The college appreciates your
commitment and willingness to be trained in subjects that are important to growth of the school.
We also hoped you found personal value from the learning experience. To help ensure the
quality of future workshops, please respond to the following ten items. You also can provide
additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops at the conclusion of this feedback
form. These feedback forms are anonymous. Please circle the number in the column that
best corresponds to your knowledge level of the subject described.

1. (L1) The venue and presentation style were conducive to your learning. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

2. (L1) The training was worth your time spent. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

3. (L1) How satisfied were you with the session content?
o Very Unsatisfied
o Unsatisfied
o Satisfied
o Very Satisfied

4. (L2) The instruction and course materials enhanced my learning experience. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 117

5. (L 2) What were the biggest strengths of the training? (Open ended)
Your answer

6. (L2) What areas in the training need improvement?
Your answer

7. (L2) From what you learned, what do you plan to apply in your job?
Your answer

8. (L2) What support might you need to apply what you learned?
Your answer

9. Please provide additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops on this or other
subjects.
Your answer

Name and Date (optional)
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 118

Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 Assessment
Course: _______________________________
Levels 1,2,3 and 4 Assessment
Date(s) of Training __________
Instructor(s) ___________________

Directions: Thank you for taking the time to complete this course reflection. Your feedback is
important as we consider the impact of this course on furthering your growth and that of the
college. You also could provide additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops or
activities at the conclusion of this feedback form. These feedback forms are anonymous.
Please circle the number in the column that best corresponds to your knowledge level of
the subject described.

1. (L1) Looking back taking this course was a good use of my time. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

2. (L1) Looking back, how could this program be improved?

3. (L3) How have you used what you learned in training on the job?

4. (L4) I have received support in order to apply what I learned successfully. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

5. (L4) My supervisor and I determined how I would apply what I learned after training.
(Check one)
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly agree

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 119

6. (L4) Describe any challenges you are experiencing in applying what you learned to your work,
and possible solutions to overcome them.

7. (L4) I have seen an impact in the following areas as a result of applying what I learned (check
all that apply):

o Increased quality of goals lead
o Increased ability to track goal progress
o Increased level of goal attainment
o Improved productivity of staff
o Increased personal confidence
o Increased customer satisfaction
o More efficient use of budgetary resources
o Stronger relationships with my clients
o More respect from my peers
o Better organization in my work
o Other (please explain):

8. (L4) My efforts have contributed to the mission of this organization. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

9. (L1) I will recommend this program to my co-workers. (Check one)
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

10. Please provide additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops or activities.

Name and Date (optional)

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 120

Appendix J: Final Course Report
Final Course Report

College of Goodness

Course name: __________________________
Dates of training: ______________________
Instructor: We R. Wright____
Syllabus:

• No. of trainees ____
• No. of trainees successfully completing the course ____

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 121

Names of those successfully completing:

1.___________________________
2.___________________________
3.___________________________
4.___________________________
5.___________________________
6.___________________________
7.___________________________
8.___________________________
9.___________________________
10.___________________________
11.___________________________
12.___________________________
13.___________________________
14.___________________________
15.___________________________
16.___________________________
17.___________________________
18.___________________________
19.___________________________
20.___________________________

Signed:

_________________________________ Date: _________
Training Coordinator

_________________________________
Print Name
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 122

Appendix K: Pre-Training Knowledge Check
Pre – Training Knowledge Check
Course – How to Align the Annual Budget with Organizational Goals
Level 1
Name __________________________
Date ___________________________
Instructor(s) _____________________

Directions: Thank you agreeing to complete this pre-training knowledge check. It will be
of great assistance to us in the course design for How to Align the Annual Budget with
Organizational Goals. This information is being gathered as research has shown
information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more
quickly and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning
(McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006). The college appreciates your commitment and
willingness to learn more about aligning the annual budget with organizational goals and
its ability to help the college use its budgeted funds in the most efficient and effective way.
Please circle the number in the column that best corresponds to your knowledge level
of the subject described.

Knowledge
Very
Low

Low

Medium

High
Very
High
Has working knowledge of the current
budgetary system
1 2 3 4 5
Can maximize use of current budgetary
system
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how to set up budgetary
controls in the current budgetary system
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how to develop goals in a
SMART format
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how budgeted funds could be
aligned with organization’s goals using
current version of budgetary software
1 2 3 4 5
Has mastery of the current budgetary system’s
reporting capabilities
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how spreadsheet applications can
be interfaced with other systems to create
reports
1 2 3 4 5
Has ability to create new, innovative solutions
to technological challenges
1 2 3 4 5
Confidence level to complete task successfully 1 2 3 4 5
Expect alignment will be of value to you and
the college
1 2 3 4 5

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 123

Appendix L: Post-Training Knowledge Check
Post – Training Knowledge Check
Course – How to Align the Annual Budget with Organizational Goals
Level 2
Name __________________________
Date ___________________________
Instructor(s) _____________________

Directions: Thank you agreeing to complete this post-training knowledge check. It will be
of great assistance to us in the course design for How to Align the Annual Budget with
Organizational Goals. This information is being gathered as research has shown
information learned meaningfully and connected with prior knowledge is stored more
quickly and remembered more accurately because it is elaborated with prior learning
(McCrudden, Schraw, & Hartley, 2006). The college appreciates your commitment and
willingness to learn more about aligning the annual budget with organizational goals and its
ability to help the college use its budgeted funds in the most efficient and effective way.
Please circle the number in the column that best corresponds to your knowledge level
of the subject described.

Knowledge
Very
Low

Low

Medium

High
Very
High
Has working knowledge of the current
budgetary system
1 2 3 4 5
Can maximize use of current budgetary system 1 2 3 4 5
Understands how to set up budgetary
controls in the current budgetary system
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how to develop goals in a SMART
format
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how budgeted funds could be
aligned with organization’s goals using current
version of budgetary software
1 2 3 4 5
Has mastery of the current budgetary system’s
reporting capabilities
1 2 3 4 5
Understands how spreadsheet applications can
be interfaced with other systems to create
reports
1 2 3 4 5
Has ability to create new, innovative solutions to
technological challenges
1 2 3 4 5
Confidence level to complete task successfully 1 2 3 4 5
Expect alignment will be of value to you and the
college
1 2 3 4 5

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 124

Appendix M: Self-efficacy Motivation Pre-test
Self-Efficacy Motivation Pre-test
Course: _______________________________
Level 1
Date(s) of Training __________
Instructor(s) ___________________

Directions: Thank you for enrolling in today’s training session. The college appreciates your
commitment and willingness to be trained in subjects that are important to growth of the school.
We also hope you find personal value from the learning experience. You are requested to
complete the nine-question survey below as a pretest to the training to gauge the level of
confidence you have in your ability to complete assigned tasks. A posttest survey will also be
administered. You can provide additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops at
the conclusion of this feedback form. These feedback forms are anonymous. Please check the
circle in the column that best corresponds to your knowledge level of the subject
described.

1. I believe I am capable of learning what is being taught and can perform a task.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

2. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o
o Strongly Agree
3. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
o
4. In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 125

5. I believe I can succeed at almost any endeavor to which I set my mind.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

6. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

7. I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
o
8. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

9. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

Name and Date (optional)

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 126

Appendix N: Self-efficacy Motivation Post-test
Self-Efficacy Post-test
Course: _______________________________
Level 2
Date(s) of Training __________
Instructor(s) ___________________

Directions: Thank you for enrolling in today’s training session. The college appreciates your
commitment and willingness to be trained in subjects that are important to growth of the school.
We also hope you find personal value from the learning experience. You are requested to
complete the nine-question survey below as a posttest to the training to gauge the level of
confidence you now have in your ability to complete assigned tasks. You can provide
additional feedback or suggest topics for future workshops at the conclusion of this feedback
form. These feedback forms are anonymous. Please check the circle in the column that best
corresponds to your knowledge level of the subject described.

1. I believe I am capable of learning what is taught or can perform a task.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

2. I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I have set for myself.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

3. When facing difficult tasks, I am certain I will accomplish them.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

4. In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that are important to me.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 127

5. I believe I can succeed at almost any endeavor to which I set my mind.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

6. I will be able to successfully overcome many challenges.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree
7. I am confident that I can perform effectively on many different tasks.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

8. Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very well.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

9. Even when things are tough, I can perform quite well.
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

Name and Date (optional)

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 128

Appendix O: Pre–Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change
Pre – Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change
Course – Are You Ready to Accept Change?
Level 1
Name __________________________
Date ___________________________

Directions: Thank you agreeing to complete this post-training on Are You Ready to Accept
Change? This information is being gathered as research has shown it is important to create an
environment at Goodness that fosters desirable behaviors for change (Tuckerman, 2009). The
college appreciates your commitment and willingness to learn more about accepting
organizational change at the college. Please circle the number in the column that best
corresponds to your agreement level to the question asked.

Questions
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. I believe that the change will benefit the
organization.
1 2 3 4
2. I am aware of the reasons why change is needed.
1 2 3 4
3. The scope of the proposed change is
appropriate and achievable.
1 2 3 4
4. The senior managers are committed to the
change.
1 2 3 4
5. The managers will support the staff during the
change.
1 2 3 4
6. I have the opportunity to discuss the change
with my line manager.
1 2 3 4
7. I think that the change will be beneficial for me.
1 2 3 4
8. The communications I have received so far
about the change have been useful.
1 2 3 4
9. I understand how I can provide feedback on the
change.
1 2 3 4
10. I think there is enough consultation with staff on
the changes.
1 2 3 4
11. I feel that I have the necessary skills and
knowledge to make this change work.
1 2 3 4

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 129

Appendix P: Post-Meeting on Accepting Change
Post– Meeting Questionnaire on Accepting Change
Course – Are You Ready to Accept Change?
Level 2
Name __________________________
Date ___________________________

Directions: Thank you agreeing to complete this post-training on Are You Ready to Accept
Change? This information is being gathered as research has shown it is important to create
an environment at Goodness that fosters desirable behaviors for change (Tuckerman,
2009). The college appreciates your commitment and willingness to learn more about
accepting organizational change at the college. Please circle the number in the column
that best corresponds to your agreement level to the question asked.

Questions
Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. I believe that the change will benefit the
organization.
1 2 3 4
2. I am aware of the reasons why change is needed.
1 2 3 4
3. The scope of the proposed change is
appropriate and achievable.
1 2 3 4
4. The senior managers are committed to the change.
1 2 3 4
5. The managers will support the staff during the
change.
1 2 3 4
6. I have the opportunity to discuss the change
with my line manager.
1 2 3 4
7. I think that the change will be beneficial for me.
1 2 3 4
8. The communications I have received so far
about the change have been useful.
1 2 3 4
9. I understand how I can provide feedback on the
change.
1 2 3 4
10. I think there is enough consultation with staff on
the changes.
1 2 3 4
11. I feel that I have the necessary skills and
knowledge to make this change work.
1 2 3 4

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 130

Table 2
KMO Influences and General Literature by Influence
Knowledge Influences General Literature

Vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic
initiatives and staff and the vice
president for academic affairs and
department chairs need to know
how to develop goals in a specific,
measurable, achievable, relevant,
and time-bound or SMART format
capable of being aligned with
budget.

(Lawlor, 2012; Matthews, 2007; Haughey, 2015;
Walesh, 2003; Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011;
Krathwohl, 2002).
Chief financial officer and staff
need the ability to align the budget
to organizational goals.
(Haughey, 2015; Walesh, 2003; Bufan, 2013;
Infoentrepreneurs.org., 2018; Venuti, 2004; Gibson,
2009; Ruhl & Hartman, 1994; Briqa'an & Alqurashi,
2012; Hosaini & Sofian, 2015; List of colleges and
universities, n.d.; Iselin, Mia, & Sands, 2008; Gad, 2012;
Rueda, 2011; Krathwohl, 2002; Holwick, 2009;
Markgraf, 2016).
Chief financial officer and staff
need the ability to analyze the
current budgetary system for
needed change and maximize its
use.
(Stair & Reynolds, 2014; Kendall, 2011; Rueda, 2011;
Krathwohl, 2002; Shelton, 2010).
Motivational Influences General Literature

Employees need an expectation of
value from the work effort.

(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Pajares, 1996; Eccles, 2006).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 131

Organizational Influences

General Literature

Cultural Model

Need to develop a culture
accepting of change.

(Alexander, 2000; Christensen & Eyring, 2011;
Swanger, 2016; Yan, Hung, Chiang, & Yang, 2006;
Rueda, 2011; Hofstefe, 1983; Chen, Wang, & Yang,
2009).

Cultural Settings

Need to establish a goal-based
budgetary system.

(Robinson & Last, 2009; Allison, 2015; Lawlor, 2012;
Johnson, 2003; Loeb, 2008; Robinson, 2007; Lindway,
2017; Coombs, Hobbs, & Jenkins, 2005; Irish, 2019;
McKinney, 1999; Işik, Arditi, Dikmen, & Birgonul,
2009; Stiffler, 2006; Reilly, 2016; Aydiner; Tatoglu,
Bayraktar, & Zaim, 2019; Bartel & Finster, 1995,
Bourgeois, 2014; Jackson, 2019; McFarland, n.d.).

Need for adequate funding. (Beamer, 2011; State Higher Education Executive
Officers, 2008; Ma, Baum, Pender, & Bell, 2015;
Glykas, 2013).

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 132

Table 3
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Verified,
High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

The vice president for
institutional effectiveness
and strategic initiatives and
staff, and the vice president
for academic affairs and
department chairs need to
know how to develop
clear, concise and
meaningful goals in a
SMART format capable of
being aligned with the
budget. (P)*

HP

Y

Procedural
knowledge
increases when
declarative
knowledge
required to
perform the skill
is available or
known (Clark et
al., 2008).

Provide eLearning
training on how to
produce clear,
concise and
meaningful goals.

Provide job aid with
a decision flowchart
for developing clear,
concise and
meaningful goals
aligned with the
budget.
Chief financial officer and
vice president for
institutional effectiveness
and strategic initiatives and
staffs need to know how to
align the budget to
organizational goals. (P)*

V

Y Information
learned
meaningfully and
connected with
prior knowledge
is stored more
quickly and
remembered
more accurately
because it is
connected with
prior learning
(McCrudden,
Schraw, &
Hartley, 2006).
Assess the degree of
prior knowledge on
how to align the
budget with
organizational goals
and design training to
fill identified
knowledge gaps.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 133

Note: *Indicates knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations:
(D)eclarative; (P)rocedural; (C)onceptual; (M)etacognitive

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Verified,
High
Probability
or No (V,
HP, N)

Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Chief financial officer and
staff need to know how to
analyze and make
maximize use of the
current budgeting, assess
the need for system
revisions, and identify
ancillary systems needed in
the alignment process.
(C)*
V Y

To develop
mastery,
individuals must
acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when
to apply what
they
have learned
(McCrudden,
Schraw, &
Hartley, 2006).
Establish through
qualitative interviews
knowledge the
learner has acquired
to enable them to
analyze the current
budgetary system for
change.

Supplement
knowledge by
consulting with
commercial-off-the-
shelf software vendor
and providers of
ancillary budgetary
systems.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 134

Table 4
Summary of Motivational Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence

Validated as
a Gap
Verified,
High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle
and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation

College leadership, and
staff in the office of the
chief financial officer
and vice president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives and
the vice president for
academic affairs and
department chairs need
a sense of value from
their work effort. (EV)*

N

N

Learning
and
motivation
are enhanced
if the learner
values the
task (Eccles,
2006).

The recommendation
is for training
materials and
activities to be
relevant and useful to
the learners,
connected to their
interests, and based on
real world tasks.

College leadership and
staff in the office of the
chief financial officer
and vice president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives
need to possess
confidence in their
leadership ability to
successfully align the
budget with goals.
(SE)*

HP

Y

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

The recommendation
is for leaders to point
out how learning and
training will be useful
in theirs and the
students’ lives.

Make it clear
individuals are
capable of learning
what is being taught
or can perform a task.
Note: *Indicates knowledge type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: EV –
Expectancy Value; SE – Self-Efficacy

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 135

Table 5
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Organization
Influence

Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

College
leadership needs
to be accepting
of a culture of
change to align
the budget with
goals. (CM)*

Y

Y

Create an
environment
that fosters
desirable
behaviors (Lord
& Kanfer,
2002).

The recommendation is
to conduct traditional
forms of assessment and
testing
• Multiple choice
• Frequency
counts/duration
• Observable checklists
Need to
implement a
goal-based
budgeting
system. (CS)*

Y Y Provide
rationales that
include a
discussion of
the importance
and utility value
of the work or
learning can
help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
The recommendation is
to provide rationales
about the importance
and utility value of the
task

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 136

Organization
Influence

Validated as a
Gap
Yes, High
Probability, No
(Y, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation

The board of
trustees needs to
allot adequate
financial
resources to
achieve
Goodness’
organizational
readiness goal
of aligning the
budget with
performance
goals. (CS)

Y

N

Help
individuals
identify and
understand
important points
(McCrudden,
Schraw, &
Hartley,
2006).

The recommendation is
to create a budget
containing justifications
for budget process and
system change that
aligns with the goals of
the organization and
develop a quarterly
report that shows if
Goodness met each
metric.

Note: *Indicates organization type for each influence listed using these abbreviations: Cultural
Setting – CS, Cultural Model - CM

able. Sampling Strategy, Size and Timeline

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 137

Table 2
Interview Protocol Questions and Interrelationships
Question Type
Tie to
Conceptual
Framework -
Figure 1
KMO
Identification
Research
Question
No. Respondent

Experience and Behavior

Knowledge
and Skills

K

1

Chief financial
officer, the vice
president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic
initiatives and
their staffs, and
the vice president
for academic
affairs

Motivation,
Cultural
Models and
Settings

M and O

1 and 2

Chief financial
officer and vice
president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic
initiatives and
their staffs; vice
president for
academic affairs;
the college
president; chief
of staff; and
chairman of the
board of trustees

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 138

Question Type
Tie to
Conceptual
Framework -
Figure 1

KMO
Identification

Research
Question
No.

Respondent

Feeling

Motivation

M

1

Chief financial
officer and vice
president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic
initiatives and
their staffs; vice
president for
academic affairs;
the college
president; chief
of staff; and
chairman of the
board of trustees

Hypothetical

Cultural
Models and
Settings

O

2

College
president; chief
of staff; and
chairman of the
board of trustees
Ideal Position Cultural
Models and
Settings
O 2 College
president; chief
of staff; and
chairman of the
board of trustees

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 139

Table 3
Chart of Interview Hours

Interview
Dates
No. of
Initial
Interviews
Additional
Interviews
Total
Interviews
Average
Interview
Time
Total
Anticipated
Hours
Informal
Interviews
07/23/18–
07/24/18 5.00 5.00 1.00 5.00
Formal
Interviews
Chief
financial
officer and
focus group
with staff
9/16/19-
9/17/19 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 4.00
Vice
president for
institutional
effectiveness
and strategic
initiatives
and focus
group with
staff
9/16/19-
9/17/19 3.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 6.00
Vice
president for
Academic
Affairs 10/8/19 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00
Goodness
president
and chief of
staff
9/16/19 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.25 3.75
Chairman of
the board of
trustees
10/03/19 3.00 1.00 4.00 1.50 6.00
Total 16.00 8.00 24.00 26.75
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 140

Table 4
Triangular Budget to Goals Validation Methodology
Validation
Step
Source of Data Source of Data Comparison

1

Information gathered from interviews
with chief financial officer and staff

Budgetary software operating manual

2

Budgetary software operating manual

Actual budgetary reports

3

Actual budgetary reports

Information gathered from interviews
with chief financial officer and staff

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 141

Table 5
Triangular SMART Goal Validation Methodology
Validation
Step

Source of Data Source of Data Comparison

1

Information from interviews with vice
president for institutional effectiveness
and strategic initiatives and staff

Goals contained in Goodness’
strategic plan

2

Goals contained in Goodness’
strategic plan

Actual goal format on Goodness’
website for outcomes of various
education programs

3

Actual goal format on Goodness’
website for outcomes of various
education programs

Information from interviews with vice
president for institutional effectiveness
and strategic initiatives and staff

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 142

Table 6
KMO Influence gaps and Evaluation Tools
Knowledge Influences on Staff Evaluation Tool

College vice president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic initiatives and
staff and the vice president for academic
affairs and department chairs need to know
how to develop goals in a SMART format
capable of being aligned with budget.

Appendix H: Levels 1 and 2 Assessment
Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Assessment
Appendix J: Final Course Report

College chief financial officer and staff
need the ability to align the budget to
organizational goals.

Appendix K: Level 1 Pre-Training Knowledge
Check
Appendix L: Level 2 Post-Training Knowledge
Check
Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Assessment
Appendix J: Final Course Report

Chief financial officer and staff need the
ability to analyze the current budgetary
system for possible upgrade/change and
make maximum use of the system.

Appendix H – Levels 1 and 2 Assessment
Appendix I - Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Assessment
Appendix J: Final Course Report

Motivational Influences on Staff Evaluation Tool

Employees need an expectation of value
from the work effort.

No gap found.

Stakeholder self-efficacy
•
• Appendix M: Motivation Pre-test – Level 1
• Appendix N: Motivation Post-test – Level 2
• Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Assessment
Appendix J: Final Course Report

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 143

Organizational Influences on Staff Evaluation Tool

Cultural Model

Need to develop a culture accepting of
change

Appendix O: Pre-change Meeting
Questionnaire
Appendix P: Post-change Meeting
Questionnaire
Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 Assessment
Cultural Settings

Need to establish a goal-based budgetary
system

The recommendation is for Goodness leadership
to provide the positive rationales of goal-based
budgeting to the learner community about the
importance and utility value of the task to both
the college and the individual. The final
evaluation tool is a determination if the goal-
based approach to budgeting results in a more
efficient use of Goodness’ financial resources.
The assessments will gauge the effectiveness of
meetings to explain the goal-based approach.

Appendix H: Levels 1 and 2 Assessment
Appendix I: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Assessment
Appendix J: Final Course Report

Need for adequate funding for
enhancements to the current budgetary
system to be in a position of readiness to
align the annual budget with organizational
goals.
The recommendation to close this gap is to
provide for funding the potential need for
changes in the budgetary system and adopt a
goal-based budgetary process.

Also, prepare a data driven clear and concise
budget justification to the board of trustees for
funding that:
A) informs how the proposed effort furthers the
work of aligning the annual budget with
organizational goals,
B) identifies the metrics project implementers
plan to use in monitoring results, and
C) describes the method and frequency of
reporting to the board on project progress.
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 144

Table 7
Potential Schedule of Events to Close

1, 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.*
Develop
SMART
Goals
Learn to Align
Budget with
Goals
Analyze and
Maximum
Current
Budgetary
System*
Increase Self-
efficacy
Develop Culture
of Change
Implement Goal-
Based Budgetary
System*
Provide
Needed
Funding for
Events 3 and 6

Level 1
Evaluation
Level 1 Pre-
knowledge
Check
Level 1
Evaluation
Self-efficacy
Level 1 Pre-
Assessment
Level 1 Pre-
meeting
questionnaire
Level 1
Evaluation

eLearning
Training
12 hours
over 2 days
Training on
How to Align
Budget to Goals
8 hours on 1
day
Training on
How to
Analyze and
Maximize
Current
Budgetary
System 16
hours over 2
days
Self-Efficacy
Training
8 hours 1 day
Meetings on
“Are you ready
for change?”
8 hours 1-day
Est. 8 meetings
Goodness leadership
provides positive
rationales of goal-
based budgeting to
learner community
4 hours 1/2-day Est.
6 meetings
Prepare a data
driven clear
and concise
budget
justification to
the board of
trustees. 24
hours
preparation, 1-
hour
presentation

Level 2
Evaluation
Level 2 Post-
knowledge
Check
Level 2
Evaluation
Self-Efficacy
Level 2 Post-
assessment
Level 1 Post-
meeting
questionnaire
Level 2 Evaluation

Level 1, 2,
3, and 4
Evaluation
(4 weeks
out)
Level 1, 2, 3,
and 4
Evaluation (4
weeks out)
Level 1, 2,
3, and 4
Evaluation
(4 weeks
out)
Level 1, 2, 3,
and 4
Evaluation (4
weeks out)
Level 1, 2, 3,
and 4 Evaluation
(4 weeks out)
Level 1, 2, 3, and 4
Evaluation (4 weeks
out)

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 144

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 145

Table 8
Training/Meeting Recommended Attendance

Activity

President

Chief of
Staff

Board of
Trustees

Vice
President for
Institutional
Effectiveness
and Strategic
Initiatives and
Staff

Vice President
for Academic
Affairs and
Department
Chairs

Chief
Financial
Officer and
Staff

SMART
Goals
Training
X X X X X

How to Align
annual
Budget with
Goals
X X

Analyze
System and
Maximize
X

Self-efficacy X X X X X X

Are You
Ready for
Change?
X X X X X X
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 146

Table 9
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes

1. Increased skill sets by chief
financial officer and vice
president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic
initiatives staff and vice
president for academic affairs
and department chairs
commensurate with aligning
the budget with organizational
goals.

Number of training sessions held
to provide needed skill sets.

Solicit quarterly report of training
taken by employees from the
offices responsible for the work
effort of aligning the annual budget
with organizational goals.
2. Adoption of a performance
goal in a SMART format.

Number of performance goals
developed in a SMART format.
Review format of proposed
organizational goals for
compliance with SMART format
prior to finalization of the goals.
3. Increase in self-efficacy of
leadership and staff.

Positive/negative feedback from
leadership and staff.
Compare annual survey results.
4. Reduction of internal
barriers to change and
innovation.
Number of identified barriers
eliminated.
Solicit quarterly report on the
elimination of identified barriers to
change.
Internal Outcomes
5. Learned knowledge that is
transferable to other work
efforts.
Number of staff rotations to new
assignments in cross pollination
effort.
Obtain quarterly report from the
college's human resources office on
the number of rotational
assignments.

6. Sustained achievement of
performance goals.
Percentage of performance goals
successfully completed on time.
Track the progress to completion
status of short- and long-term
goals.

7. Willingness to take on work
efforts previously thought to
be too difficult.

Number of new assignments
undertaken previously thought
too difficult.
Create list of deferred work
initiatives previously thought to be
too difficult to proceed that have
now been scheduled for
implementation.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 147

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)

8. Implementation of new,
advanced ways to conduct the
college's business.

Number of new, advanced ways
the college has chosen to conduct
business.

Solicit quarterly report on the
number of new, advanced ways the
college has chosen to conduct
business.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 148

Table 10
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing

1. The chief financial
officer and staff need
to identify necessary
changes to the
budgetary system
process to provide for
the alignment of the
budget to
organizational goals.

The number of
budgetary system
changes identified.

The team lead will
request the chief
financial officer to track
the number of budgetary
system changes
identified.

The chief financial
officer shall report
to the team lead
weekly until all
needed changes
have been
identified.
2. The vice president
for institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives
and staff and the vice
president for
academic affairs and
department chairs
must be prepared to
create organizational
goals in a specific,
measurable,
achievable, relevant,
and timebound, or
SMART format so the
goals can be
successfully tracked.

The total number of
vice president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives
staff and the vice
president for
academic affairs and
department chairs that
do and do not have the
proper skill set to
create organizational
goals in a SMART
format.
The team lead will
request the vice
president for
institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives and
the vice president for
academic affairs to track
the total number of staff
that do and do not have
the proper skill set to
create organizational
goals in a SMART
format.
The vice president
for institutional
effectiveness and
strategic initiatives
and the vice
president for
academic affairs
will report to the
team lead weekly
until the number of
staff not possessing
the proper skill set
to create
organizational goals
in a SMART format
is reduced to zero.

3. Board of trustees
must make funds
available for
necessary system
changes to the
budgetary system
process to ensure a
successful alignment
of the budget to goals.
The amount of
funding made
available by the board
of trustees compared
to identified need.
The team lead will work
directly with the board
of trustees on an
ongoing basis to attain
the necessary funding.
The team lead shall
advise the chief
financial officer as
soon as financial
resources are made
available to make
necessary changes
to the budgetary
system process.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 149

Table 11
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors

Method(s)

Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.

Reinforcing

1. Team meetings with chief
financial officer and vice
president for institutional
effectiveness and strategic
initiatives and staffs and the
vice president for academic
affairs to establish goals and
time frames.

Weekly 1,2,3
2. Chief financial officer team
meetings with staff to
establish and review goal
status and time frames and
discuss problems in need of
resolution - Precursor to all-
inclusive team meeting.

Weekly 1,2,3
3. Vice president for
institutional effectiveness and
strategic initiatives team
meetings with staff to
establish and review goal
status and time frames and
discuss problems in need of
resolution - Precursor to all-
inclusive team meeting.

Weekly 1,2,3
4. Vice president for academic
affairs and department chairs
team meetings with staff to
establish and review goal
status and time frames and
discuss problems in need of
resolution - Precursor to all-
inclusive team meeting.
Weekly 1,2,3

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 150

Method(s)

Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, and 3

5. Job aid for use in
developing performance goals
in a SMART format.

Ongoing

1,2,3
6. Establish through
qualitative interviews the
knowledge the learner has
acquired to enable them to
analyze the current budgetary
system for change.

One-time 1,2
7. Regular review of job-aid
on how to align the budget
with organizational goals.

Quarterly 1,2
8. Team lead meeting with
board of trustees to discuss
need for financial resources.

Quarterly, or, if needed,
emergency on-line meeting to
discuss financial need.
3
Encouraging

9. Collaboration and peer
modeling during team
meetings.

Weekly 1,2
10. Feedback and coaching
from team lead and
supervisors.

Ongoing 1,2
11. Identification of how the
enhanced skill sets will
improve future career
opportunities.

Ongoing 1,2
Rewarding

12. Public acknowledgement,
such as a mention at all-hands
meetings, when team
performance hits a
benchmark.

Quarterly 1,2,3
READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 151

Method(s)

Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, and 3

13. Schedule consistent time
for individual and team
meetings for staff training and
oversight.

Quarterly

1,2
14. Conduct whole
organization meetings to
communicate the vision,
mission and goals, and
individual and team
accomplishments.
Monthly 1,2,3

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 152

Table 12
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing

Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using multiple choice quizzes

In the asynchronous portions of the course
during and after video demonstrations

Knowledge checks using think-pair-share during
in person-interviews with chief financial officer
staff

Periodically during synchronous portions of
the workshop and documented via
observation notes
Knowledge checks using ticket-out-the-door
student responses to a specific prompt for a short
period of time.

Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshop at the end of morning and
afternoon sessions
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Demonstration in groups and individually using
the job aids to successfully perform the skills.

Periodically during the synchronous think-
pair-portion of the workshop
Seek feedback from peers during group sharing

Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshop

Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey asking participants about their level of
proficiency before and after the training

Before and after skill assessments during
asynchronous portions of the workshop
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Provide instruction through positive role models,
guided practice and immediate targeted feedback
on progress in learning and performance

Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshop
Provide materials and activities relevant and
useful to the learners identifying a connection to
how the enhanced skill sets will improve future
career opportunities

Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshop

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 153

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing

Survey items using scaled items and open-ended
questions

In the asynchronous portion after completion
of training
Discussions of skill sets needed to do the job

Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshops.

Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item

In the asynchronous portion before and after
training is provided
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Create individual action plans with short- and
long-term goals
During the asynchronous portion of the
workshop after completion of the workshop

Partner with a coworker in a spirit of comradery During the synchronous portion of the
training continuing after completion of the
training

Discussions on the need for organizational
change
Periodically during the synchronous portion
of the workshop

Commitment survey upon course completion During the asynchronous portion of the
workshop after completion of the workshop

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 154

Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing

Engagement

Course evaluation survey.

In the asynchronous portion after completion of
the workshop.

Participation by attendees.

Performed through observation during the
synchronous portion of the workshop.

Completion of in-class course assignments.

Periodically during the synchronous portion of
the workshop after completion of a course
assignment.
Summative evaluations. Periodically after completion of training units
during the asynchronous portion.

Relevance

Class feedback (How are we doing? Do you
feel connected?)

Periodically during the synchronous portion of
the workshop.

Pulse check.

Periodically during the synchronous portion of
the workshop.
Customer Satisfaction

Formative evaluations.

Periodically after completion of training units
during the asynchronous portion.

Course evaluation surveys.

During the asynchronous portion of the
workshop after completion of the workshop
and again several weeks after.

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 155

Result
= 68%

Realized Year I Student Retention Rate = 68%

Figure 2. Alignment of Annual Budget to Goals

READINESS FACTORS INFLUENCING THE ABILITY 156

College of Goodness
PROGRAM & SUPPORT BUDGET
FY2020
Academic Affairs Budgeted 1/
Increase
retention
of 1st
Year
Students
Revised
Account
Balance
Instruction $300,000

$300,000
Salaries $2,500,000 $50,000 $2,450,000
Adjuncts $250,000

$250,000
Summer School $90,000

$90,000
Online Expenses $200,000

$200,000
Academic support $400,000

$400,000
Salaries $600,000

$600,000
Library

$75,000

$25,000 $50,000
Salaries $100,000 $100,000
Total Instruction $4,515,000

$4,515,000
Administrative Affairs $500,000

$500,000
Salaries $400,000

$400,000
Enrollment Management $115,000

$115,000
Salaries $450,000

$450,000
Campus Technology $1,200,000 $175,000 $1,025,000
Professional Services $250,000 $50,000 $200,000

1/ Budgeted amounts are
artificial.

Figure 3. Impact of Goal Alignment on Annual Budget

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences within leadership development: a study of a business unit in a prominent technology company

PDF

The role of middle manager alignment in achieving effective strategy execution: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of the Social Justice Anchor Standards in the West Coast Unified School District: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership in an age of technology disruption: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Establishing the presence of Georgetown University's School of Continuing Studies in the Russian Federation: a gap analysis

PDF

Universal Wellness Network: a study of a promising practice

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

Organizational agility and agile development methods: an evaluation study

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

The role of higher education in bridging workforce skills gaps: an evaluation study

PDF

An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college

PDF

Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Eargle, William Homer, Jr. (author)

Core Title Readiness factors influencing the ability of institutions of higher education to align the budget with organizational goals: an evaluation study of a college

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/22/2020

Defense Date 04/21/2020

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

Tag adequate funding to implement change,alignment,Budget,budget methodologies,budgetary systems,conceptual framework,conceptual knowledge,cultural model,cultural setting,culture of change,efficient use of scarce resources,expectancy value,fear of shuttering,focus group interviews,formal interviews,goal-based budgetary system,informal interviews,knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences,measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound or SMART goals,metacognition,OAI-PMH Harvest,performance goals,private funding,procedural knowledge,protocols,public funding,qualitative interviews,readiness,research questions,self-efficacy to lead,strategic plan,strategic planning

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney L. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email bill.eargle@gmail.com,eargle@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-285331

Unique identifier UC11673137

Identifier etd-EargleWill-8299.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-285331 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EargleWill-8299.pdf

Dmrecord 285331

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Eargle, William Homer, Jr.

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