University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Raising Tenure: A Case Study of Fundraiser Retention in Higher Education
by
Kristin Green

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

A dissertation submitted to the faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Kristin Green 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kristin Green certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Courtney Malloy
Wayne Combs
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California 2022

iv

Abstract
The role of a fundraiser is critical to the success of the university by facilitating philanthropic
support to scholarships, programs, and infrastructure. However, universities consistently struggle
to engage and retain fundraisers resulting in high turnover. The purpose of this study was to
uncover critical factors that influenced the retention of higher education fundraisers to
recommend interventions that reduce turnover and contribute to overall fundraising success.
Through the lens of knowledge, motivation and organization outlined by Clark and Estes (2008)
and the job embeddedness model which focuses on links, fit, and sacrifice as predictive factors
of retention (Jiang et al., 2012), the following research questions were explored. First, what
knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with Oakview University
and second, what cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity? The population
studied were fundraisers at a single large public university in the Southeastern United States.
Fundraisers are defined as individuals who spend most of their time identifying, qualifying,
cultivating, and soliciting donors. This inquiry utilized a qualitative case study methodology with
semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Out of 49 employed fundraisers at the
institution, 10 were randomly selected to participate. The document analysis examined 21 exit
interviews collected from 2011 to 2021. The themes extracted from the document analysis and
the interviews included a distinctly different tone, approach, and perceived locus of control
between fundraisers more likely and those less likely to voluntarily stay with the organization.
The collaborative networks built, and the ability to navigate a multitude of important
relationships was also a consistent finding. It is recommended that the institution may lengthen
tenure of the fundraisers by facilitating opportunities for fundraisers to build extensive networks
of peers and university partners, frame career conversations around meaningful work, invest in

v

academic leadership as a valued member of the fundraising team and invest in foundation
partnerships, tools and processes that enable fundraisers to collaboratively do their best work.
These recommendations are for the specific institution studied with the suggestion of expanding
this research to other higher education institutions to further inquire about the themes and
findings and test soundness on a larger scale.

vi

Dedication
To the selfless love of my husband. You continue to be my greatest source of wisdom.

vii

Acknowledgements
This journey would not have been possible without a strong community of support. It has
truly taken a village to accomplish this educational milestone and I will be forever grateful for
the patience, love, and kindness I was shown along the way.
Thank you to my family for your unconditional love, understanding, and sacrifice
through this journey. I have been blessed beyond measure to have you in my life and am grateful
for your wisdom and encouragement. I sincerely hope that my lessons learned on this path will
have a lasting and positive impact.
To Dr. Kathy Stowe, my dissertation chair, you were my guiding light! After every
conversation with you, my path was clearer, brighter, and more inviting. Dr. Courtney Malloy,
Dr. Wayne Combs, and Dr. Carey Regur, thank you for sharing your time and immense talents! I
appreciate each of you for your helpful guidance and genuine interest in my success.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to classmates Rebecca Wolf and Sergio
Saenz for graciously pausing their many priorities to immerse themselves in my study and serve
as interview facilitators. Your genuine inquiry, love for learning, and excellence in all that you
do shines brightly! It was an honor to be part of the dynamic and talented change champions of
Cohort 15 with you!
To my colleagues, mentors, and leaders of “Oakview University”, thank you! Our
organization is remarkable because of your creativity, grit, passion, and people centric approach.
I am so proud to share a piece of your wisdom through this study and can’t wait to continue to
learn and grow with you!

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1

Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................2

Related Literature .................................................................................................................2

Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................4

Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................5

Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................6

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .....................................................................7

Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework ..................................................7

Definitions............................................................................................................................8

Organization of the Project ..................................................................................................9

Chapter Two: Review of Literature ...............................................................................................11

Predictors of Engagement and Retention in the Workplace ..............................................11

Higher Education Fundraising Role ...................................................................................16

Fundraising Engagement and Retention Strategies Through a Knowledge,
Motivation and Organization Factor Lens .........................................................................24

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................30

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................31

ix

Chapter Three: Methodology .........................................................................................................33

Research Questions ............................................................................................................33

Overview of Design ...........................................................................................................33

Research Setting.................................................................................................................34

The Researcher ...................................................................................................................35

Data Sources ......................................................................................................................36

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................39

Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................40

Ethics..................................................................................................................................41

Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................42

Documents Analysis Materials ..........................................................................................42

Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................43

Findings..............................................................................................................................45

Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................71

Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................75

Discussion of Findings .......................................................................................................75

Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................81

Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................86

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................87

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................88

References ......................................................................................................................................90

Appendix A: Document Review Guide .......................................................................................102

Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................................104

x

List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources ....................................................................................................................34

Table 2: Tenure of Employees on Exit Date ..................................................................................43

Table 3: Reasons for Leaving ........................................................................................................43

Table 4: Interview Participants ......................................................................................................44

Table 5: Participant Engagement and Intent to Stay ......................................................................45

Table 6: Participant Reflection Tendencies ...................................................................................49

Table 7: Finding Summary for Research Question One ...............................................................72

Table 8: Finding Summary for Research Questions Two .............................................................73

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1: Job Embeddedness .........................................................................................................16

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................31

1

Chapter One: Introduction
In 2019, Americans gave nearly 450 billion dollars to nonprofit organizations. Of that
amount, 14% or nearly 65 billion went to educational entities with nearly 50 billion given to
higher education (Giving USA Foundation, 2020). Fundraisers are the facilitators and key drivers
of this impactful giving to higher education and belong to a dynamic and developing profession
(Mack et al., 2016; Skinner, 2019). The unique individuals that perform this role enter the
profession with limited education and training (Breeze, 2017; Counts & Jones, 2019; Mack et al.,
2016; Shaker & Nathan, 2017), yet facilitate highly impactful gifts that drive community impact
and college rankings (Gnolek et al., 2012; Morse & Brooks, 2020). Due to the relationship nature
of the fundraising role, the longer a fundraiser remains with the organization, the deeper and
more meaningful relationships with donors become, resulting in more frequent and larger gifts
(Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Hayashida, 2014; McDonald et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2010).
However, turnover plagues the higher education fundraising industry leaving organizations with
deficient fundraising results (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Croteau & Wolk; Hayashida, 2014; Green,
2019).
Referred to as a talent crisis (Green, 2019), the higher education fundraising industry has
experienced substantial turnover (Barden, 2020; Burk, 2013; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Thomas,
2010) while simultaneously realizing above average growth in demand for fundraisers (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2018). A national study conducted by Bell and Cornelius (2013) found that
50% of development directors, a fundraiser generally in charge of a unit or team, plan to leave
their organization in the next two years. The evidence also highlights that entry level fundraisers,
classified as fundraisers under 30 in non-management roles, are staying 16 months in their
position (Burk, 2013). These poor tenure rates have remained steady over the last decade (Green,
2

2019). In a relationship-based business, high turnover is detrimental to the success of the
fundraising organization resulting in decreased financial resources to institutions of higher
education (Hayashida, 2014). The purpose of this study was to uncover the critical factors that
influence the engagement and retention of the fundraisers at one large public university to
recommend interventions that reduce turnover and contribute to overall fundraising success.
Organizational Context and Mission
Oakview University, a pseudonym, mirrors the national problem of retaining and
engaging fundraisers. This large public research institution of higher education is located in the
Southeastern United States. Oakview University Advancement supports the mission of the
university to conduct innovative scholarship, creative activity, basic and translational research,
and deliver a world class educational experience through facilitating relationships with donors,
alumni, and friends to increase philanthropic support throughout the university. This support,
made possible by fundraisers and their supporting teams, is critical to the university and fuels
transformations in support of the university mission.
After recently completing a successful capitol campaign, new executive leaders,
including an interim President of the University and CEO of the foundation, are preparing for the
next transformational chapter. This study took place at a time where fundraisers have been
conducting business in a predominately virtual environment due to a worldwide pandemic. This
new way of approaching work, including virtual donor and team visits, has significantly
impacted the approach to fundraising and the effects of this shift were reflected in the narrative
of the study.
Related Literature
3

Employee retention is a top global challenge across all industries (Schwartz et al., 2014).
With employee engagement and well-being directly correlated to organizational performance
(Buckingham & Coffman, 1999), many organizations have invested significant resources
focused on enhancing the employee experience to increase engagement and lower turnover
(Garr, 2012; Shaw et al, 2005). There are many factors beyond the attractiveness of higher
salaries and elevated titles from other organizations that significantly contribute to the high
turnover of fundraisers (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Breeze, 2017; Burk, 2013; Dale, 2013; Green,
2019). The literature emphasized the important role of a leader in the retention of their
employees (Bake, 2019; Mensah, 2018) and discussed the concept of job embeddedness which is
the strongest predictor of employee retention (Jiang et al., 2012; Ma, 2018). Job embeddedness
includes the concept of fit or how well the job culture suits the employee, critical links
comprised of social connections, and sacrifice or the positive attributes an employee must give
up if they leave their place of employment (Jiang et al., 2012). Additionally, emerging literature
in engaging employees emphasized the importance of leveraging data analytics to place
resources more strategically in areas of high return (Lee, 2018; Rombaut, 2020).
Researchers cite many reasons that fundraisers leave their role including poor managers
(Joslyn, 2019; Sargeant & Day, 2018), limited resources (Joslyn, 2019), tremendous pressure
(Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Joslyn, 2019), and lack of training (Joslyn, 2019; Nyman, 2018). This
lack of industry knowledge is a theme in the challenges fundraisers face. Fundraisers historically
fall into the profession without a traditional career path and enter the profession with a deficit of
industry specific knowledge (Breeze, 2017; Farwell et al., 2020; Shaker & Nathan, 2017).
Specifically, 52% of major gift fundraisers joined the profession with no prior experience
(Breeze, 2017) and only 16% of fundraisers learned their craft in a classroom (Shaker & Nathan,
4

2017). This is due, in part, to the lack of breadth and depth of fundraising in academia. While the
industry has seen a rise in fundraising academic programs (Counts & Jones, 2019; Nathan &
Temple, 2017), academic scholars, from a variety of disciplines with an interest in fundraising
agree that the academic contribution to the fundraising profession is insufficient (Mack et. al,
2016). Researchers recognize the complexity of the fundraiser role and in addition to fundraising
specific knowledge, they also suggest skill development in leadership (Counts & Jones, 2019;
Nyman, 2018; Sargeant & Day, 2018), emotional intelligence (Nyman, 2018; Shaker & Nathan,
2017), self-motivation (Farwell et al., 2020), and more for fundraisers to become proficient in
their role. The lack of fundraising specific knowledge in academia creates a limited pipeline, a
workforce that is unsure of their fundraising skills, and that is unprepared for the unique
demands of fundraising (Burk, 2017). Additionally, the availability of training in the industry is
also lagging (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Sargeant & Day, 2018) and cited as a top reason
fundraisers leave their organization (Joslyn, 2019). This is in alignment with the research that
shows training has a significant impact on an employee’s decision to stay in the industry (Hong
et al., 2012).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Private philanthropy has become increasingly important to continue operations and
launch university transformations to stay competitive and relevant (Speck, 2010; Webb & Webb,
2018). Yearly contributions to support higher education have seen a decade of growth in the
United States and, in 2019 alone, rose over 6% to an all-time high of $49.6 billion (Kaplan,
2020). This transformational giving, defined as noteworthy gifts that have significant impact on
the institution (Burkhardt, 2007), is important because college rankings include key metrics such
as faculty salaries, class size and financial resources, (Morse & Brooks, 2020) all which can be
5

elevated through private funding. In addition, alumni giving to institutions, directly driven by
fundraisers, accounts for 3% of the U.S. News and World Report Rankings (Morse & Brooks,
2020). Regardless of identified flaws, this ranking system has many benefits including attracting
better qualified students and fueling organizational goal setting (Gnolek et al., 2012).
Additionally, fundraising has an impact on student access to higher education and continued
success within the institution with 22% of major gifts funding student scholarships (Taylor,
2018). Given the importance of philanthropic funds entering the organization, the effectiveness
of fundraisers is critical to the success of the institution.
Research shows that trust built over time between the fundraiser and the donor is a
critical factor that drives transformational fundraising success (Croteau & Wolk, 2010;
McDonald et al., 2011; Thomas, 2010). According to a 2017 study of 44 fundraisers, Alborough
suggested that the primary donor relationship is with the fundraiser, not the institution or
beneficiary of the gift. Increased retention of fundraisers, giving way to time enhanced
relationships, has the power to positively impact the quality of donor relationships and drive the
transformational fundraising that fuels university success.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Oakview University has several key stakeholder groups with an interest in enhancing
engagement and retention among fundraising staff including academic leadership, donors, and
the fundraisers themselves. In the context of this study, academic leadership refers to the
university president as well as deans and directors of colleges, units, and programs. This
constituent group serves as highly collaborative partners in the fundraising process and may
participate by setting vision, articulating a case for support, instilling donor confidence, or
making the ask for funds (Hodson, 2010; Hunt 2012). While many academic leaders feel ill-
6

equipped to fundraise and are generally not trained in the craft before assuming their role, this
task has become a prevalent and important part of their responsibilities (Hunsaker & Bergerson,
2018; Hodson, 2010; Masterson, 2017). A consistent fundraising partner is helpful in developing
the fundraising acumen of academic leadership and ultimately in raising funds to support their
mission and goals (Masterson, 2017; Hunt, 2012).
Donors are primarily individuals, often with a strong affinity to the university, that invest
in specific programs and initiatives. Gifts take time to close as fundraisers systematically move
the relationship along the donor cultivation cycle, a widely adopted cyclical model which
includes steps in identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship (Hartsook & Sargeant,
2017; McCarthy, 2017; Nicoson, 2010). This cycle repeats as smaller donations, that are
stewarded well, increase to significant gifts over time (Harrison, 2018). As a key holder of a
donor relationship, fundraiser retention at an institution influences the effectiveness of creating a
meaningful long-term relationship with donors (Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Hayashida, 2014;
McDonald et al., 2011; Thomas, 2010).
Interchangeable with the term development officer or major gifts officer, a fundraiser
strategically facilitates relationships between constituents and the institution with the goal of
securing philanthropic dollars in support of the institution’s mission (Breeze, 2017). Oakview
University currently employs approximately 170 staff with 49 fundraisers. Of these 49
fundraisers, 61% are female and 14% are people of color, compared to the industry statistics of
73% female and 12% people of color (Nathan & Temple, 2017). In addition to raising money,
38% have management responsibilities of other fundraisers or program managers.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
7

Purposeful sampling occurs when specific people are chosen to be part of a study based
on criteria that positions them to best inform the study (Maxwell, 2013). For Oakview
University, the participants are fundraisers, specifically defined as at least 60% of their
responsibilities include identifying, cultivating, or soliciting prospects, defined as potential
donors. They must be actively working a portfolio of donors or managing individuals that hold
significant portfolios. From the 49 fundraisers at Oakview university that meet the criteria, 10
were randomly selected to participate in a 60-minute interview hosted by interview proctors.
Recruitment was conducted by the researcher by emailing the entire population to inform them
of the impending study and to introduce the interview proctors. Individual emails were then sent
by the interview proctors to invite participants that were randomly selected.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
Oakview University mirrors the national problem and finds it challenging to retain and
engage an effective fundraising team. Staffing and retaining a high performing advancement
team is a significant challenge and a top priority as the institution is ramping up for the next
transformative fundraising campaign. The purpose of this needs analysis was to discover drivers
of retention for fundraisers at Oakview University to suggest interventions that may lengthen the
overall tenure of fundraisers. This study critically examined retention factors through identifying
the knowledge, motivational and organizational gaps that affect tenure. The following questions
guided this study.
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?
Overview of Theoretical and Methodological Framework
8

The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized to evaluate the problem
of excessive turnover in higher education fundraising. The purpose of a gap analysis is to
uncover the human causes of the performance gap, as the result of knowledge, motivation, or
organization factors. In the context of this study, the gap analysis explored knowledge,
motivation, and organization factors that negatively impact retention.
This study used a qualitative case study methodology with document analysis and semi-
structured interviews. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested utilizing a qualitative study, a
systematic inquiry into a defined subject, to learn more about a particular organization and
positively impact changed based on the results. Oakview University was the single and bounded
organization studied which appropriately qualifies this research as a case study. As a common
interview method in qualitative studies, a semi-structured interview outlines a select number of
questions intended for everyone but allows room to ask follow-up questions or dive deeper into
interesting topics at the interviewer’s discretion (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The validity of the
study was strengthened by clarifying the bias of the researcher, sharing transcripts with
participants for accuracy and to verify intended communication, and using rich descriptions,
including negative findings, in the results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). With limited empirical
research in the fundraising field (Mack et al., 2014), seeking to openly understand the social
perspectives of fundraisers through the method described above further refined the frame of
which the problem of retention can be understood.
Definitions
Key concepts explored through this study include retention, engagement, talent management,
development officer and transformational giving.
9

1. Employee retention is measured by the rate at which people stay with the organization
instead of finding employment elsewhere (Beynon, 2015). Turnover or attrition ratios are
common measures.
2. While ambiguous in nature, engagement is a desired state of an employee and generally
refers to an enthusiastic and organizationally motivated employee (Macey, 2008).
3. Talent management is a systematic process that seeks to attract, develop, engage, and
retain mission critical talent in an organization (Davies & Davies, 2010).
4. Interchangeable with the term fundraiser, a development officer strategically facilitates
relationships between constituents and the institution with the goal of securing
philanthropic dollars in support of the institution’s mission (Breeze, 2017).
5. Transformational giving consists of significant gifts that impact the course of institutions
(Burkhardt, 2007). Many universities are striving to attract these gifts to transform the
experiences and offerings available.
Organization of the Project
This study is arranged into five chapters. Chapter One discussed the problem of
fundraiser retention in higher education from a macro level and micro level as it relates to the
stakeholders at Oakview University. A summary of the relevant literature was presented along
with the research questions and the methodological framework. Chapter Two reviews the
literature relevant to the study. Topics include the challenges and strategies of employee
engagement and retention in the general workforce followed by the historical and current
engagement and retention practices in higher education fundraising. This section concludes with
the presentation of a conceptual framework that will guide the study. Chapter Three outlines the
design, setting, collection methods, validity, and reliability of the study with comments on ethics
10

and the researchers positionality. Chapter Four presents the findings and analysis of the data
collected. Chapter Five concludes with a discussion of the results and recommendations for
practice and future research.

11

Chapter Two: Review of Literature
This review explores literature that applies to the problem of low retention and
engagement in higher education fundraising. With limited empirical research in the fundraising
field (Mack et al., 2014) and only recent emerging literature on fundraisers themselves (Breeze,
2017; Dale, 2017), this review will first examine the predictors of retention and engagement in
the general workplace. Second, the fundraising role in higher education and the individuals who
perform this role will be explored. Third, current fundraising engagement and retention strategies
and best practices will be presented through the Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework
with a focus on the knowledge, motivation and organization factors effecting fundraiser
engagement and retention. This chapter will conclude with the presentation of a conceptual
framework that considers engagement and retention research in pursuit of fundraising success.
Predictors of Engagement and Retention in the Workplace
The engagement and retention of employees in the workplace, achieved through a variety
of methods, has clear and measurable benefits to organizations including increased performance
(Berger, 2014, Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Zak, 2017). Utilizing a significant study
conducted by the Gallup organization that included thorough interviews of over 80,000
managers, Buckingham and Coffman (1999) found that organizational performance is directly
correlated with employee engagement and well-being. In a more recent study, Zak (2017) found
that organizations with a high trust culture yield stronger applicant pools, enhanced employee
engagement and better performance. Additionally, Berger (2014) concluded that strong internal
communication leads to enhanced employee engagement and strengthens organizational
performance. There is a clear competitive advantage for investment in employee retention
initiatives.
12

Considering people as a critical component of an organization’s success, many scholars
research the predictors of retention to positively effect engagement strategies (Grissom, 2012;
Jiang, 2012; Naz et al., 2020; Pandita & Ray, 2018; Presbitero, 2016; Shaw et al., 2006, Steiner
et al., 2020; Wassem, 2019). This section explores prevalent themes in the employee retention
literature including managerial and social relationships, values alignment and culture, and
training and development. Note that these themes do not include pay. As specifically mentioned
in a study conducted with 30,000 participants by Steiner and colleagues in 2020, pay was not
found to be a key indicator of workplace engagement. The following sections will outline the top
drivers of employee engagement that leads to retention.
Values Alignment and Culture
A key predictor of employee engagement and retention is the alignment of organizational
values and culture to the personal values of the employee and the degree to which those values
feel supported in the workplace (Presbitero, 2016; Steiner et al., 2020). A 2016 study, which
included the analysis of 258 surveys from an organization, found that the compatibility between
the employee and the company’s values are a critical factor in retention of employees
(Presbitero, 2016). On an international scale that crosses industries, the Deloitte Global Human
Capitol Trends 2020 survey cited that one of the biggest drivers in creating belonging, a top
human capital issue in 2020, is that employees feel aligned with the organization’s purpose,
mission, and values (Denny et al., 2020). Additionally, Naz and colleagues (2020) studied the
correlation between supportive work environments and employee retention and found a positive
relationship. Their study suggested, among other strategies, that organizations should promote
idea sharing and creating a caring and helpful environment. To communicate the culture and
values, Kashyap and Verma (2017) noted the importance of investing in the employer brand and
13

communication of that brand to reduce turnover intentions of employees. As shown in the studies
above, investment in culture and ensuring alignment of organizational values is a strong driver of
retention. Next, the personal relationships that create this culture will be discussed as another
driver of retention.
Managerial Relationships and Social Networks
The strength of relationships in the workplace predicts retention (Goh & Lopez, 2016;
Pandita & Ray, 2018; Steiner et al., 2020). Several scholars identify managers as the key
relationship (Goh & Lopez, 2016; Pandita & Ray, 2018; Steiner et al, 2020) while others add
teammates and other colleagues as critical relationships that inspire retention (Cascio &
Boudreau, 2011; Shaw et al., 2005). Steiner and colleagues (2020) conducted a study with over
30,000 participants in the global energy business that found perceived supervisor support is a
strong predictor of turnover. This is echoed by Pandita and Ray (2018) who found managers play
a key role in facilitating engagement. Additionally, a health-care study focused on nurses found
that managers play an important role in acclimating new employees into new environments and
significantly impact engagement and retention (Goh & Lopez, 2016). Another study, which
included over 30,000 employees, looked specifically at turnover of those with managers who
were identified as good and those identified as poor when those managers invited employees to
assist in decision making (Grissom, 2012). It was inadvertently found that turnover was lower
when effective managers involved employees in decision making however, when studying
employees with an ineffective manager, turnover was higher when these managers invited
employees to participate in the decision-making process. This showed that skills and abilities,
not just the technical know-how of managers, are important to successful engagement.
14

Beyond the manager relationship, employee turnover has a direct impact on the social
networks within the organization and the productivity of remaining employees. In testing 38
locations of a restaurant chain, Shaw and colleagues (2005) found that performance declined
when employees left, and those disruptions were even more apparent when turnover was
relatively low. Furthermore, the exit of certain employees can cause a ripple effect and inspire
other employees to leave (Cascio & Boudreau, 2011). When an employee connects with the
organization, retention, and the ability to attract new talent into the community increases
(Pandita & Ray, 2018). As shown by Blume and colleagues (2010) in a meta-analysis of 89
empirical studies, supportive work communities have benefits beyond retention and are a
predictive factor for successful training and development. In addition to relationships with
superiors and social networks, training and development is another predicative factor for
engagement and retention.
Training and Development
Investment in the training and development of employees, both traditionally and
nontraditionally, positively impacts engagement and retention while including other residual
benefits. In a study performed in the textile industry, Wassem (2019) found that an investment in
the development of knowledge, attitude, and skills of an employee positively impacts retention.
However, training and development does not need to take the traditional classroom approach or
have a significant cost associated with it to add value to the organization and employee. An
international study with over 1,000 responses from six different industries, including higher
education, found that consulting employees on organizational decision-making not only builds
trust but positively impacts the knowledge regarding their job and can reduce training and
development costs (Khalid, 2018). Beyond acquisition of knowledge or transfer of training, the
15

investment in talent development initiatives has a wide reach into other important engagement
factors. In a systematic review of 29 talent development articles, Hedayati and Li (2016)
discovered four themes in the literature including emphasis on career development, the influence
of culture on talent-related activities, the relationship between talent development and the
attraction and retention of employees and issues of diversity. As noted by Simpson and
colleagues (2015) in a training and development industry journal, investments in training and
development must be strategic in nature and forward both organizational and individual goals to
ensure optimal value.
Job Embeddedness
Combining many of the concepts discussed, including investment in culture, social
networks and training, job embeddedness is a construct that was developed by Mitchell and
colleagues in 2001 and is cited as one of the best predictors of employee turnover (Jiang et al.,
2012). This construct includes three different dimensions including links, the extent to which
people have links to other people or activities, fit, how an employee’s job and community fits
with their values, and sacrifice, what an employee must give up if they leave the organization
(Mitchell et al., 2001). It is important to note that job embeddedness goes beyond the
organization and considers the links, fit, and sacrifice in the employee’s surrounding community.
The original study looked at 177 grocery store workers and 208 hospital employees and analyzed
eight dimensions including job embeddedness, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job
alternatives, job search behavior, intentions to leave, voluntary turnover and job satisfaction.
This study supported the validity of the model by illustrating that job embeddedness predicted
voluntary turnover more accurately that previous approaches including using the construct of job
satisfaction as a measure. Further research on the job embeddedness model was conducted in
16

2012 by Jiang and colleagues. Their meta-analytic study drew on 65 independent samples and
concluded that job embeddedness negatively related to turnover even when controlled for job
satisfaction, affective commitment and job alternatives and predicted retention more than job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Additionally, Jiang and colleagues found that an
employee with high job embeddedness was 48% more likely to stay with the organization
compared to someone with low job embeddedness. Ma and colleagues (2018) offer practical
strategies rooted in the job embeddedness model to engage and retain staff. This model (see
figure 1) suggests purposeful strategies in recruitment, selection, and enculturation to support fit,
positive interactions, team cohesion and community ties to support links and benefits, pay and
comfort to support sacrifice. With an understanding of the predictors of retention, organizations,
including those who support higher education fundraising, can strategically invest in the
relationship with their employees to positively effect business results.
Figure 1
Job Embeddedness

Higher Education Fundraiser Role
The higher education fundraiser role is part of a developing profession (Mack et al., 2016
& Skinner, 2019) with a lackluster reputation (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Joslyn, 2019; Meisenbach
et al., 2017) that supports the solicitation of philanthropic gifts to transform colleges and
17

universities (Speck, 2010; Webb, 2018). The unique individuals that perform this role enter the
profession with limited education and training (Breeze, 2017; Counts & Jones, 2019; Mack et al.,
2016) and continue to be ill-prepared when promoted to management roles (Burk, 2013; Joslyn,
2019; Sargeant & Day, 2018). This leads to challenges in hiring, retaining and engaging
fundraisers in higher education (Bell & Cornelius, 2013; Breeze, 2013; Joslyn, 2019; Thomas,
2010). This section will explore the progress fundraising has made as a profession, describe the
fundraising role and the people that fill the role, discover their educational journey, and
ultimately uncover the turnover challenges that plague the industry.
Fundraising as a Profession
Fundraisers belong to an emerging profession that is struggling to overcome reputation
challenges. The fundraising profession has many characteristics of a profession including
professional organizations and a generally accepted code of ethics (Bell & Cornelius, 2013). This
code of ethics, established in 1981, was a major milestone that signaled a maturing profession
(Skinner, 2019). With over 12,000 pages of higher education fundraising industry periodicals
analyzed published as far back as 1957, Skinner noted the shift from building the field to articles
on improving practices, education, and research. In 1981, the same year as the adoption of the
code of ethics, articles began to highlight the need for educational pathways to the profession.
According to a survey of just over 500 higher education fundraisers, the desire from the
workforce for fundraising to be more professionalized continues (Shaker & Nathan, 2017). This
same survey found many fundraisers desired additional training, formal credentials and greater
enforcement of ethical principles which also simultaneously works to improve the profession.
Despite the promising accomplishments of the profession, the reputation of the profession
remains dismal.
18

Fundraisers have a negative reputation issue cited by many scholars (Bell & Cornelius,
2013; Joslyn, 2019, Meisenbach et al., 2017; Shaker & Nathan, 2017). In a study of over 1,000
fundraisers, Joslyn (2019) noted that fundraisers were isolated by a lack of understanding of the
profession. Bell and Cornelius (2013) also noted a lackluster reputation of the industry which
was based on the survey responses of 2,700 executive directors and development directors.
Meisenbach and colleagues (2017) noted the occupational stigma associated with being a
fundraiser in their qualitative study of 31 former and current fundraisers. There is agreement
among scholars that the negative reputation influences the validity of the profession and the
public perception of fundraisers and their profession. Shaker and Nathan (2017) suggested a need
for a greater societal understanding of the fundraising profession to bolster the talent pipeline.
Despite this negative perception, headway has been made in introducing the profession to a
younger generation. In a case study of 110 graduates who participated in a summer internship
program with University Development at the University of Michigan, results indicated a
heightened interest of recent graduates and early career professionals in the fundraising
profession (Strickland & Walsh, 2013). Consistent with an emerging profession, there is an
opportunity for general education about the role of a fundraiser. Bell and Cornelius (2013)
suggested promoting the fundraising profession as a rewarding career to become more favorable
in the public eye. To accomplish this, there must first be an understanding of the modern-day
fundraiser role.
Fundraiser Role and Demographics
The role of the fundraiser is to partner with academic and advancement leadership to
facilitate prospect and donor relationships that lead to philanthropic support of the institution.
Scholars describe the fundraising role as a high stakes’ role rooted in relationship building
19

(Alborough, 2017; Daly, 2013; McDonald et al., 2011). Daly (2013) described the role of a
fundraiser as a high-stakes position that carries out a diversity of tasks to best support the
philanthropic arm of the organization. Alborough (2017) commented that the fundraisers hold
the primary relationship with the donors, even above the donor’s relationship with the
organization. Additionally, trust was found to be an important factor between donor and
fundraiser (McDonald et al., 2011). This complex fundraising role is responsible for raising
important funds for colleges and universities.
Philanthropy leads to gifts that transform institutions and affects the success of an
institution. Webb (2018) presented a pair of case studies studying two Virginia institutions of
higher education that explored large gifts to the university and found the purpose of mega gifts is
to transform the institution. Echoing this research, Speck (2010) commented that philanthropic
gifts to the university are necessary to transform the institution and an important part of funding
a modern university. The US News and World Report college ranking system includes 17
measures to assess quality of the institution (Morse & Brooks, 2020). While some measures, like
Alumni Giving Rate, directly tie to the fundraising team success, many measures including
faculty resources and financial resources per student are bolstered by the fundraising success of
an institution.
While there is room for more research on fundraisers themselves (Dale, 2017; Jones &
Castillo, 2017), there are a few studies completed that provide generalizations about the people
who fill fundraising roles (Breeze, 2017; Jones & Castillo, 2017 and Shaker et al., 2020). In a
study of over 1,200 major gift fundraisers distributed by UK’s Institute of Fundraising, results
showed that fundraisers are more likely to donate, have formative experiences of helping
behavior and possess higher levels of trust (Breeze, 2017). Shaker and colleagues (2020) echoed
20

that fundraisers are generally more charitable with their time and money than the average person
in a study including over 1,600 fundraisers. While Jones and Castillo (2017) also found that
fundraisers generally give time and money to non-profits, the study noticed that they chose to
give to organizations that would benefit them in some way, either personally or professionally. In
this same small qualitative study with three participants, Jones and Castillo proposed that more
research must be conducted with a reciprocal exchange framework to understand the motivations
and aspirations of fundraisers.
Beyond understanding general qualities of the people that fill the fundraising role, it is
important to understand the diversity represented in the fundraising workforce. Shaker and
Nathan (2017) concluded that 9% of fundraisers are in the minority after surveying over 500
higher education fundraisers. This is congruent with the Council of Advancement and Support of
Education’s (2017) findings of under 10% higher education fundraisers are in the minority. The
Association of Fundraising Professionals, a professional association of non-profit fundraisers,
claimed 89% of their members are Caucasian (AFP Compensation and Benefits Study, 2016 as
cited in Dale, 2017). Yet another study noted the percentage of Caucasians as low 88% (Nathan
& Temple, 2017). Though some studies show the diversity numbers in fundraising more dyer
than others, overall, scholars and practitioners agree that diversity in the fundraising workforce is
significantly lagging (Council of Advancement and Support of Education, 2018; Espinosa et al,
n.d; Green, 2019; Shaker & Nathan, 2017). To further explore the lack of representation in the
workforce, the talent pipeline and educational pathways into the field must be examined.
Fundraiser Education and Preparedness
With limited formal education opportunities (Counts & Jones, 2019; Mack et al., 2016)
and an ill-defined pipeline into the profession, fundraisers are not prepared when they enter the
21

field or advance into fundraising leadership. This section will explore the dearth of academic
pathways, challenges with the fundraiser talent pipeline and the continued struggle of educating
fundraisers after joining the profession.
New fundraisers rarely train in an academic setting prior to joining the workforce. In a
study with 15 scholars representing multiple disciplines, an agreement could not be reached on
the best academic home for the fundraising profession which limits the effectiveness of empirical
research to support academic programs (Mack et al., 2016). In 2017, Shaker and Nathan
analyzed 508 surveys given to higher education fundraisers and found that only 16.7% had
learned their craft through formal academic training. However, this study included a pool of
alumni from the Lilly School of Philanthropy which may skew the results toward more formal
education. Similarly, a British study of major gift officers found that only 28% held a
professional designation and approximately 8% had a diploma in fundraising (Breeze, 2017). To
better understand educational opportunities for fundraisers, Counts and Jones (2019)
systematically reviewed the academic programs available in the United States. This study
uncovered 47 higher education fundraising programs, two of which were undergraduate majors,
three were undergraduate minors, and six were master’s degrees with the majority, 77%,
classified as certificates. These limited opportunities to gain a formal education in fundraising is
reflected in a study of 508 higher education fundraisers where the majority gain their knowledge
from industry best practice instead of a focus on theory or research (Shaker & Nathan, 2017).
Additionally, the collaboration of academics and practitioners is extremely limited, as found in a
recent case study exploring the benefits of this type of partnership (Jones and Daniel, 2019).
With limited opportunity to formally learn the profession, many are entering the field with little
or no knowledge.
22

Limited educational opportunities create an industry talent pipeline with limited
experience which creates challenges for the hiring authority and organization. In a United
Kingdom study, 52% of major gift fundraisers, categorized by those who have raised more than
one million pounds, joined the profession with no prior experience (Breeze, 2017). To combat
this challenge, researchers Bell and Cornelius (2013) call for a diverse and robust pipeline of
skilled fundraising professionals. As echoed in their study, more than half of 2,700 directors and
executive directors of development surveyed indicated a limited supply of credible candidates in
their hiring pools likely leading to a median time of six months to replace the person leaving. On
a positive note, Green (2019) studied the lack of significant growth in the fundraising industry
and concluded that new talent is better prepared today than they were in the past. However,
significant challenges to filling fundraiser positions with adequately prepared individuals remain
(Green, 2019). With limited availability of formal education in the classroom, some universities
are investing in comprehensive internship programs or in-house training programs to prepare the
next generation of fundraisers and spark their interest in the profession. The University of
Michigan has seen a steady growth of interest in their internship program and reported that 33%
of their participates are currently working in a fundraising role (Strickland & Walsh, 2013). As
an additional benefit rooted in social exchange theory, in this study of 110 interns, Strickland &
Walsh found that the students involved in the program were more likely to give to the university
and prepared to be more engaged alumni. Once individuals become fundraisers the next hurdle is
learning to become leaders as they advance their career.
When the career opportunity arises, fundraisers are not sufficiently prepared to manage
and lead fundraising teams (Burk, 2013; Joslyn, 2019; Sargeant & Day, 2018). According to
Burk (2013), half of fundraising leaders begin their role with no prior management training. In
23

uncovering the factors leading to a lack of preparedness Sargeant and Day (2018) found that
merely 33% of managers have access to the transformational tool of mentoring and only 47%
have access to professional leadership training. Joslyn’s 2019 study also highlighted many
impediments to leadership success including minimal career advancement resources and overall
lack of support from senior leaders and other constituents. With a lack of industry knowledge
entering the profession and limited education opportunities as fundraisers advance in their career,
the strength of the talent pipeline for qualified fundraisers and leaders is alarming. Adding to the
challenge of a weak pipeline is significant turnover in the fundraising profession.
Turnover of Higher Education Fundraisers
Scholars agree that fundraiser turnover is high, specifically in entry level positions (Bell
& Cornelius, 2013; Breeze, 2013; Joslyn, 2019; Thomas, 2010). An overwhelming majority of
development directors who currently manage staff have identified turnover as an impediment to
the success of a nonprofit (Breeze, 2013). To demonstrate this phenomenon, Bell and Cornelius
(2013) conducted a survey with 2,700 director and executive director of development
participants that voiced a “revolving door” of fundraising professionals. In organizations with
over ten million-dollar budgets, which best aligns with higher education fundraising, it was
found that 38% of development directors expected to leave their job within two years (Bell &
Cornelius, 2013). Similarly, Joslyn (2019) found that over half of fundraisers say they will leave
their current role within the next two years with 30% planning to leave fundraising all together.
Additionally, an article written by a fundraiser from the University of Washington and published
in an industry journal claimed that the average tenure for a fundraiser is 18-24 months (Thomas,
2010). However, not all studies found extreme turnover numbers. In a study done by Shaker and
Nathan in 2017, 508 higher education fundraisers spent a mean of four years in each fundraising
24

job. This statistic is consistent with the medium number of workers who stay with an employer
which is 4.1, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). While turnover is overall
high in the fundraising profession, the statistics become increasingly alarming with entry level
fundraisers of a younger generation.
Entry level fundraisers with no management responsibility have the highest level of
turnover. Labeled as job hoppers, with over 21% leaving a job in the last year, millennial
turnover due to lack of engagement costs the US economy over $30 billion annually (Gallup,
2016). This cost is also prevalent in the fundraising industry as illustrated by a study that found
that entry level fundraisers in non-management roles, generally comprised of employees from
the millennial generation, only stay 16 months at an institution (Burk, 2016). Additionally, Burk
found that the cost to replace a non-management fundraiser is nearly $50,000 or 117% their
annual salary and may not fully account for the opportunity cost of lost revenues from donors.
This section discussed the progress fundraising has made as a profession, the fundraising
role and the people that fill the role and their educational journey. With the significant turnover
challenges also discussed, leaders must understand and invest in retention and engagement
strategies to mitigate the risk of constant turnover in a relationship-based business. The next
section will explore retention and engagement strategies for higher education fundraisers.
Fundraising Engagement and Retention Strategies Through a Knowledge, Motivation and
Organization Factor Lens
The Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework examined the human causes of the
performance gap, as the result of knowledge, motivation, or organization factors. In the context
of this study, the gap analysis will explore knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that
support the engagement and retention of higher education fundraisers. Through the knowledge,
25

motivation and organization framework, Clark and Estes discussed the importance of creating
achievable stretch goals. The difference between the current state of the organization and these
goals creates the gap that is thoughtfully analyzed to create solutions in the knowledge,
motivation, and organization categories, which assist in realizing organizational success. After
evaluating solutions, organizations must begin the process again to continue to thrive in a
changing environment.
As engagement and retention in the fundraising industry is addressed, a thorough analysis
of the gaps and solutions framed in knowledge, motivation and organization would prove helpful
in creating impactful recommendations. The higher education fundraising industry is challenged
with a limited supply of experienced fundraising talent coupled with an intense demand (Bell &
Cornelius, 2013). The limited research that is available on this problem of practice has started to
show that there are other factors beyond the attractiveness of higher salaries and elevated titles
from other organizations that significantly contribute to the high turnover of fundraisers (Bell &
Cornelius, 2013; Breeze, 2017; Burk, 2013; Green, 2019). Utilizing Clark and Estes’s (2008)
model can enhance this research by examining the problem with a specialized lens looking at the
knowledge, motivation and organizational factors that affect individual fundraisers and hinder
organizational performance.
Knowledge
In a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) approached knowledge from four
lenses ranging from simple to more complex. These four lenses were factual knowledge, or basic
facts and information, conceptual knowledge, or theory in the field, procedural knowledge, or
understanding of skills involved with the methods of the tasks and metacognitive knowledge, or
26

the ability to reflect and adjust. These lenses will be used to approach the knowledge construct in
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model.
Literature specific to the fundraising industry highlights the importance of knowledge to
engagement and retention. As discussed above, there are limited opportunities for a formal
education in fundraising (Counts & Jones, 2019) so organizations carry the burden of educating
the workforce. However, these opportunities to heighten knowledge on the job are limited and a
lack of investment in professional development can result in turnover (Burk, 2013; Green, 2019;
Joslyn, 2019). There are opportunities to attend conferences and seminars but Green (2019)
claimed that this alone cannot prepare fundraising leaders with the skills needed to be successful.
In a survey of over 1,000 fundraisers conducted by Harris Insights and Analytics, it was found
that 61% percent of fundraisers who left their job cited poor access to training, or relevant
knowledge acquisition, and 34% of current fundraisers note the same (Joslyn, 2019). Joslyn’s
2019 study showed that organizations that do not invest in adequate resources in professional
development and conversations around career path lead to disengagement and ultimately
turnover. Beyond the effects of turnover, professional development is critical to attract top talent
to the organization. According to Burk (2013), 71% of managers believe that highlighting
professional development offerings is the most helpful benefit to communicate when recruiting
talented employees. As shown, investment in supporting and enhancing the knowledge of
employees combats turnover. Next, the motivational factors of Clark and Estes’ (2008) model
with be explored in the context of the fundraising field.
Motivation
Goals and expectancy outcome are two factors rooted in motivation that will be explored
in the context of fundraising. Clark and Estes’ (2008) claimed that motivation will be enhanced if
27

employees have clear, current, and challenging goals. In the context of fundraising goals
generally refer to dollars raised, donor contacts, proposal submitted and more. Expectancy
outcome is the belief that a certain behavior will lead to a certain outcome (Clark & Estes, 2008).
For example, if a fundraiser reached certain fundraising targets, they would receive a bonus or
advancement in their career. Critically looking at goals and expectancy outcomes in the context
of motivation will provide more insight into the retention and engagement of fundraisers.
The literature reveals that fundraisers are motivated by clear goals (Grabowski, 2016;
Joslyn, 2019) and a clear career path (Barden, 2020 & Burk, 2013). Fundraisers have a desire to
maximize the resources coming into the organization for organizational gain and the personal
gain of meeting their fundraising targets (Mc Loughlin, 2017). However, unreasonable goals are
a key reason fundraising professionals leave (Joslyn, 2019). In a case study published in CASE
Currents, an industry magazine, Grabowski (2016) contributed the success of the University of
Cincinnati Foundation lowering the turnover rate from 25% to 4% to a bonus system that
focused on clear goals.
Once goals have been met, fundraisers expect to be rewarded with a career path forward.
With a critical look into motivating fundraisers, Barden (2020) found that a motivating factor for
fundraisers is the ability to see a career path. In an in-depth study of fundraisers, Burk (2013)
found that career advancement opportunities top the list for reasons why loyal fundraisers stay
with 98% agreeing that this was a relevant factor. In the same study, 78% of fundraisers cited
limited career advancement opportunities as their reason for leaving. With clear goals that lead to
advancement opportunities, fundraisers are more motivated to stay with their organization.
Lastly, organization factors that lead to retention and engagement will be explored.

28

Organization
Organization factors include cultural models and settings that impact the employee
experience. Cultural models are the beliefs and values of a company or industry that occur
naturally while cultural settings are the tangible representations of those models (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001). Organizations that work to improve their organizational culture, with an
emphasis on openness to change and action orientation, are more adaptive to external
environments and have a better chance of survival (Costanza et al., 2016). This section highlights
the importance of purposeful investment in an organization’s cultural models and settings and
uncovers why specifically building the relationship between employees and their managers can
lead to organizational success.
While the definition of and approach to talent management varies (Meyers et al., 2020),
scholars agree the investment in enhancing the employer/ employee relationship can serve as a
competitive advantage for organizations (Hans-Gerd et al., Pandita & Ray, 2018; Stahl, 2013). In
an extensive meta-analysis, Pandita and Ray (2018) commented that organizational culture
unifies all talent management initiatives and illustrated that good talent management practices
should include performance management, total reward strategies, learning and talent
development programs and career management and planning. Claiming to be the first study to
explore human resource structures in non-profits, Hans-Gerd and colleagues (2012) argued the
importance of investing in a strategic human resources effort that integrates with organizational
strategy. Stahl (2013) expanded on this idea and argued that specifically in the social sector,
funders can enhance effectiveness of the organization they support by investing in talent
management initiatives for the organization. While the investment in talent management
29

programs is shown to have positive results, companies must be aware of which strategies will
most effectively drive employee retention.
Social exchange theory plays a significant role in framing the study of employee
engagement and retention and is influential in the literature of workplace behavior (Choi, 2020;
Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Social exchange theory views
relationships as a series of exchanges where individuals drive to maximize reward and minimize
cost (Blau, 1964 & Homans, 1958). The aspect of social exchange theory that most aligns with
the study of workplace behavior is a focus on the relationship between management and the
employee, based on fulfillment of commitments and the building of trust over time (Cropazano
& Mitchell, 2005). In an analysis of 206 surveys completed by public sector workers, Gould-
Williams and Davies (2005) found that, in alignment with social exchange theory, positive
exchanges in the work environment resulted in reciprocal responses. Specifically, an employee
with greater trust in management will predict reciprocal responses of enhanced commitment,
greater motivation, and retention. A more recent study further illustrated the relevancy of
viewing engagement as mutually beneficial relationships and exchanges. In a 2020 study of 143
subagencies from 15 executive branch departments, Choi concluded that organizations offering
flexible or teleworking opportunities have less turnover. In alignment with the social exchange
theory, when an organization offers flexible arrangements, employees will reciprocate this value-
add opportunity with their commitment to the organization. To create these positive exchanges,
companies must thoughtfully find ways to add value to the full employee experience.
To further create a positive culture that promotes engagement and retention,
organizations must focus on supporting fundraisers to achieve success by ensuring meaningful
collaboration and effective communication across the organization. Sargeant and Shang (2016)
30

focused their study on 25 nonprofits that experienced rapid growth to uncover common practices
in successful institutions. In addition to citing the importance of a learning culture, their study
found investment in organizational structure and culture that support the fundraising team
important to success. Part of this support comes from academic leadership who partner with
fundraisers to raise funds for their vision and programs. Fundraising has become an important
part of the job description for university leaders including presidents and academic deans
(Hodson, 2010). However, these populations have little exposure to the profession and how to
partner with development professionals prior to assuming their role (Hunt, 2012). In a study on
the impact of presidential turnover during a fundraising campaign, Nehls (2012) commented on
the importance of both the institution of higher education and industry organizations to offer
more fundraising training for academic leaders. With opportunities to better collaborate and
communicate with prepared critical partners for success, the enhancement of cultural models and
settings in the fundraising industry will help drive fundraiser engagement and retention.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is the culmination of the reviewed literature, constructs and
theories and informed by the researcher’s prior knowledge to create a visual guide to the problem
of practice (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This section presents the conceptual
framework for studying engagement and retention in higher education fundraising.
The conceptual framework (see figure 2) depicts the concentrated focus on a fundraiser’s
engagement and retention, shown in the center of the circle, as a driver for transformational gifts.
As the primary relationship holder with a donor (Alborough, 2017), a fundraiser’s increased
tenure paves the way for more impactful philanthropy (Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Hayashida, 2014;
McDonald et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2010). Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation and
31

organization factors drive engagement with tested strategies to fill the gap in organizational
deficiencies. The multiple lines represent the variety of touchpoints and drivers that can add
value to the fundraiser’s engagement with the organization. Based on the social exchange theory,
the more value an organization gives to an employee, the more that employee gives back to the
organization in the form of tenure and productivity. In this context, productivity equates to
dollars raised. Job embeddedness, the strongest predictor for retention, which evaluates links, fit
and sacrifice (Jiang et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001), encapsulates this entire employee
experience and serves as an additional driver for employee retention and engagement.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

Conclusion
This case study was designed to explore tangible strategies that enhance fundraiser
engagement and retention to better serve Oakview University and other institutions of higher
education. Chapter One introduced the problem of fundraiser retention in higher education as it
32

relates to stakeholders from Oakview University and provided a framework for the study.
Chapter Two discussed relevant literature from both the general study of engagement and
retention and literature specific to the nonprofit and fundraising fields. In this section, proven
predictors of retention were highlighted, and the fundraising profession was explored. Building
on these concepts, a conceptual framework that utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) model and the
Job Embeddedness model (Jiang, 2012) was introduced and will serve as an anchor for the study.
Chapter Three will dive deeper into the design, setting, and collection methods of the study at
Oakview University with a conversation on ethics and the researcher’s positionality.

33

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter will provide a comprehensive description of the research methodology used
to explore engagement and retention of higher education fundraisers at Oakview University. The
study design and methods for data collection and analysis are explored along with comments
about the researcher, ethics, and other notable influences on the study. The purpose of this case
study and needs analysis was to discover factors that predict retention to inform the Oakview
University’s leadership, and external practitioners, of research-based solutions to prolong
fundraiser tenure in institutions of higher learning.
Research Questions
This study examined retention factors of higher education fundraisers through identifying
the knowledge, motivational and organizational gaps that affect tenure. The Clark and Estes’
(2008) gap analysis framework guided the following research questions:
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?
Overview of Design
This inquiry utilized a qualitative case study methodology with semi-structured
interviews and document analysis. A qualitative study is an appropriate approach to study a
defined population where the researcher desires to find meaning in the context of the experiences
of the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A semi-structured interview allows the researcher
to purposefully explore relevant themes uncovered during the interview for a richer
understanding of the experiences most impactful to participants, as related to the research
questions. All study participants worked at Oakview University during data collection, which
34

classifies this research as a case study and positions it to uncover practical recommendations to
enhance the engagement and retention of Oakview University fundraisers.
Document analysis is a review of relevant documents to inform the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). This study systematically reviewed exit interview notes of fundraisers captured
by the Human Resources Department at Oakview University from 2011 to 2021. Names and
other identifiers were masked prior to receiving the exit interview notes to uphold the
confidentiality of departed employees. Exit interviews capture the closing remarks of employees
as they depart an organization and may include comments related to employee engagement and
retention (Carvin, 2011). Uncovering past themes of why fundraisers left Oakview University
provided useful data points in answering the research questions. As depicted in Table 1, the
document analysis and qualitative interviews sought to answer both research questions.
Table 1

Data Sources

Research Questions
Qualitative
Interview
Document
Analysis
RQ1: What knowledge and motivation factors influence
fundraisers to be engaged with Oakview University?
X X
RQ2: What cultural components of Oakview University inspire
longevity?
X X

Research Setting
Oakview University is a large public research institution located in the southeastern
United States with a student population of over 40,000. This university employs over 15,000
faculty and staff with approximately 50 frontline fundraisers who regularly interact with donors
to raise money for student scholarships, university programming and infrastructure.
35

With a large and diverse group of fundraisers, Oakview University provided an ideal
population to explore the research questions of this study. Every fundraiser at the institution has
a learning history, can speak to their personal motivation in the workplace and comment on
organizational culture. 10 fundraisers were randomly selected from the 49 available to interview.
Amid a worldwide pandemic, all interviews were conducted via video chat in alignment with
university policy and to ensure all participants were comfortable contributing to the study.
The Researcher
While qualitative research is intended to seek the understanding of only the participants’
meaning and experiences, a researcher is a key instrument of the data collection process
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Using an onion analogy, Saunders (2019) described the importance
of understanding the layers of assumptions individual researchers hold as they approach their
work as those frames have the power to shape the methods chosen and how the results are
interpreted and presented. It is critical to identify and communicate the researcher’s positionality
to reduce bias and deepen understanding through the research process (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
The researcher has spent nearly a decade working in fundraising within higher education
and is currently part of a team that is focused on elevating the philanthropic impact to better
support university goals and aspirations. While fundraisers in the organization do not have direct
reporting lines to the researcher, the researcher’s role on the leadership team can significantly
influence organizational structure and allocation of resources, qualifying the role as a position of
power. This position of power may cause participants to limit answers provided in an interview
(Burkholder et al., 2019). To mitigate, interview proctors were used to randomly select
participants, conduct the interview, and transcribe the interview before the researcher received
36

the written data. The identity of all participants was further masked from the researcher, and in
turn the organization, by giving each participant the opportunity to review transcripts for any
personal identifiers prior to finalizing the transcript for the researcher. The researcher’s genuine
intentions were to benefit the participants and the industry by utilizing this information to create
a more engaging workplace.
Data Sources
Data was collected through a document analysis of exit interviews from 2011 to 2021 and
qualitative interviews of 10 current Oakview University fundraisers. The document analysis and
interview analysis were performed simultaneously.
Document Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) discussed the importance of verifying the authenticity of the
documents used in the document analysis. The documents analyzed were requested from the
Human Resources department at Oakview University Advancement. The representative of the
Human Resources department that the researcher partnered with has been with the department
for over 10 years and verified the authenticity of the documents and ensured all available exit
interview documents were located.
Participants
The exit interview notes analyzed reflected conversations with fundraisers who
voluntarily left the organization within the past ten years. A fundraiser is specifically defined as
someone who actively worked a portfolio of donors while employed and at least 60% of their
responsibilities included fundraising activities such as identifying, cultivating, or soliciting
prospects. Titles of these roles include Assistant Director of Development, Associate Director of
Development, Director of Development, Sr. Director of Development, and Assistant Vice
37

President of Development. Exit interview notes from fundraisers who did not voluntarily leave
the organization were not considered as this study focuses on fundraisers who have the choice to
stay or leave. To protect the anonymity of former employees, Human Resources provided all exit
interview notes with no names or employee identifiers associated with the information.
Instrumentalization
The Document Review Guide (see Appendix A) was used to capture relevant themes and
the researcher’s comments. The identifying number is arbitrary and only used to identify the
number of exit interview notes analyzed. The only identifier notated is the approximate tenure of
the employee at Oakview University. This tenure has been categorized into four large windows
of less than one year, one to five years, five to 10 years and greater than 10 years to further
protect the anonymity of former employees.
Data Collection Procedures
While analyzing the exit interview data, the researcher identified comments related to the
reason for leaving and identified statements related to links, fit, and sacrifice as outlined by the
Job Embeddedness model (Jiang et al., 2012). Verbatim notes were translated from the exit
interview document and the researcher’s comments were notated.
Qualitative Interview
A series of qualitative interviews were used to explore both outlined research questions.
A semi-structured interview format, which begins with a select number of questions and allows
flexibility to dive deeper into interesting topics at the interviewer’s discretion (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) was utilized. The following section will explore the interview participants,
instrumentation, and data collection procedures.

38

Participants
Purposeful sampling occurs when specific people are chosen to be part of a study based
on criteria that positions them to best inform the study (Maxwell, 2013). For Oakview
University, the participants were all fundraisers, specifically defined as at least 60% of their
responsibilities include identifying, cultivating, or soliciting prospects, defined as potential
donors, and they are all actively working a portfolio of donors or lead someone that does. This
study interviewed 10 of the 49 fundraisers at Oakview University by random selection. Random
selection is an appropriate method when generalizability is the goal and there are many
participants (Maxwell, 2013). Recruitment of these individuals started with an email from the
researcher as there were already existing relationships between the researcher and the target
audience. To protect the anonymity of participants, the introduced interview proctors completed
the recruitment process.
Instrumentation
The Interview Protocol (see Appendix B) included 13 core questions and related probing
questions which were designed to clarify and gain a greater understanding of the answer
provided (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These 13 core questions were accompanied by three
categorizing questions and two concluding questions. Using the question types presented by
Patton (2002), the questions sought to understand the background, opinions/values, and
feelings/emotions in pursuit of uncovering the perceptions of participants that drive behavior.
Utilizing a variety of question types assisted with the clarity and intentionality of the interview
questions to solicit meaningful responses focused on the research questions. As the strongest
predictor of retention, job embeddedness includes the concepts of fit, critical links and sacrifice
39

(Jiang et al., 2012). The questions were designed to explore the different areas of job
embeddedness to gain a rich understanding of the factors that may cause an employee to leave.
Data Collection Procedures
Each interview, scheduled for one hour, was conducted via video chat over a five-week
period. Due to university policies during a worldwide pandemic, virtual interviews were most
feasible when interviewing university employees. With the interviewees consent, sessions were
recorded to ensure accuracy of information captured and allow space for the interviewer to focus
on the interview versus taking verbatim notes (Weiss, 1994). Transcriptions were automatically
generated and reviewed by participants for accuracy. As suggested by Patton (2002), additional
notes were taken on non-verbal interviewer observations when reviewing the recording
immediately post interview.
Data Analysis
During the 10 scheduled interviews, the interview proctor notated observer comments, or
key insights, information of interest and thoughts about the interaction (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). When the transcript became available, the interview proctor reviewed it for accuracy and
shared it with the participant for their review and edits prior to presenting the final transcripts to
the researcher. 10 interviews were initially scheduled for this study and 10 interviews were
completed to reach saturation. Saturation is the point in research when no new insights are
collected with additional interviews and general themes and ideas are repeated (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Once all information was gathered, the researcher discussed all themes with a
talent management colleague in the field of higher education fundraising prior to presenting
findings.

40

Credibility and Trustworthiness
The credibility and trustworthiness of the study refers to the accuracy and truthfulness of
the findings presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the relational nature of qualitative
research and the unintentional biases researchers bring to their approach, strategies must be
employed to enhance the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. The credibility of this
study was intentionally strengthened by interviewing a random sample, an interview protocol,
and findings peer review, utilizing interview proctors, clarifying the bias of the researcher,
triangulation, and using rich descriptions, including negative findings, in the results (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Given the researcher’s relationships with most members of the target population, the
participants were chosen randomly by the interview proctors and identifying information
remained protected through the process. To lessen any bias of how the questions are structured
and worded, the interview protocol was tested with two peers in the industry that were outside of
the target population. The final themes gathered were discussed with a colleague in the higher
education fundraising industry. Additionally, the researcher expressed positionality in the study
and clearly communicated bias to participants prior to their acceptance to participate.
Triangulation is when data is collected through multiple channels (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). In this study, a document review and qualitative interviews were conducted to triangulate
or compare the findings for accuracy. Member checking is sharing themes with participants to
determine accuracy (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This was accomplished by sharing the
transcripts with participants. Lastly, the findings were expressed through rich descriptions and
direct quotes to transparently express how the data collected leads into the findings and to ensure
the transferability of findings to other contexts. While the strategies explored above enhanced the
41

credibility and trustworthiness of this study, a purposeful review of ethics is a foundational
measure needed to conduct a study.
Ethics
The IRB approval process, which was completed prior to the commencement of any
research, is in place to review potential risks participants may face in participating in the study
and ultimately protect them from harm (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In compliance with the IRB process, the following notable issues related to consent were
identified.
1. While the researcher does not have direct oversight of fundraisers, a power dynamic is
present because they are a leader at the executive table who has influence on
organizational structure and the ability to allocate resources. This position at the
institution creates a notable power dynamic that influences the study.
2. Every effort, including the absence of identifiers, was made to maintain the
confidentiality of participants. However, the knowledge gained through the study may
influence organizational decisions. Participants were made aware of this potential effect.
3. In alignment with recommendations from Creswell and Creswell (2018) consent was
asked of all participants by giving a notice detailing the study, identifying risks, and
guaranteeing confidentiality prior to their participation. Participants were also expressly
asked for their permission to record interviews.
4. To enhance data protection, data collected remained strictly confidential with every
effort made to eliminate key identifiers. Recordings were stored on the interview
proctor’s computer and destroyed once the transcription was completed.

42

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the significant factors that influence engagement
and retention of fundraisers at one public university and to recommend interventions that reduce
turnover and contribute to the overall success of the fundraising operation. The analysis was
rooted in Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework which focuses on knowledge,
motivation and organizational factors effecting engagement and retention. The Job
Embeddedness Model (Jiang et al., 2012), a predictor of retention focused on employee links, fit
and sacrifice was also considered. The following research questions guided this study:
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?
This chapter presents the data collected and key findings from a document analysis of 21
exit interviews and qualitative semi-structured interviews of 10 Oakview University fundraisers.
Chapter Five will present recommendations for practice based on the findings presented below.
Document Analysis Materials
A document analysis of 21 exit interview notes collected from 2011 to 2021 was
conducted. The documents contained notes, either handwritten or typed, that a Human Resources
representative at Oakview University took during an exit interview of fundraising professionals.
Over 81% of the fundraisers leaving had been with Oakview University between one and five
years. Table 2 shows the complete spread of tenure for the employees whose exit interview was
analyzed. The categories selected appeared on the exit interview document with no additional
information given to subdivide categories further.

43

Table 2
Tenure of Employees on Exit Date

Tenure at Oakview University Number of Employees
< 1 Year 0
1–5 Years 17
6–9 Years 2
> 10 Years 1
Unknown 1

The exit interview data contained a variety of reasons employees left Oakview
University. Career advancement, career change, and actively being recruited away were the top
reasons employees cited for leaving. Some additional reasons included goal misalignment,
family reasons and the negative environment. Table 3 highlights an exhaustive list of reasons an
employee directly expressed that they left.
Table 3
Reasons for Leaving
Reason for Leaving Frequency
Career Advancement 6
Career Change 5
Actively Recruited Away 4
Goal Misalignment/ Not Experiencing Success 3
Family Relocation 2
Negative Environment 2
Position Eliminated or Reduced 2
Internal Relationship Challenges 1
Retirement 1

Participating Stakeholders
The study population included 49 fundraisers at Oakview University. Out of the 49, 10
were randomly selected to participate in semi-structured interviews. The identities of the
participants were masked from the researcher and continue to be protected in the presentation of
findings. Mirroring the population, the sample had a diverse range of experience and tenure at
44

Oakview University. Only two participants had less than five years of fundraising experience,
two had five to 10 years of experience, three had 10 to 15 years of experience and three
participants had over 15 years of total fundraising experience. Most participants have been with
Oakview University for less than five years however, two participants had tenure ranging from
five to 10 years and two participants had tenure ranging from 10 to 15 years. Table 4 provides an
overview of fundraising experience and tenure of the interview participants.
Table 4
Interview Participants

Tenure at Oakview University Fundraising Experience
Participant #1 < 5 10–15
Participant #2 < 5 10–15
Participant #3 10–15 15+
Participant #4 < 5 5–10
Participant #5 < 5 < 5
Participant #6 < 5 15+
Participant #7 10–15 10–15
Participant #8 5–10 5–10
Participant #9 5–10 15+
Participant #10 < 5 < 5

To communicate findings more effectively, fundraisers were generally categorized by
their intent to stay with Oakview University. To categorize fundraisers into different levels of
intent to stay, transcripts were analyzed for clues pointing to each participant’s anticipated tenure
with the institution. Participants were generally direct with their comments on intent to stay due
to an interview question that asked about their anticipated tenure with the institution. Three
participants mentioned the desire to retire from Oakview University while two indicated they
were seriously considering opportunities outside of Oakview University. Table 5 provides
interview support for each participant on their assessed intent to stay. To further protect the
45

identity of participants, the letter representing each participant in Table 5 has no connection to
the participant number in Table 4.
Table 5
Participant Intent to Stay

Intent to Stay Interview Support

Participant A

More Likely

“My hope is that I will retire from this position.”
Participant B Moderately
Less Likely

“My long-term career aspirations are not in
development…but the pay is good…and the flexibility”
Participant C Less Likely

“I started applying for [other] positions back in November”
Participant D More Likely

“I just got here and am not willing to pack up.”
Participant E More Likely

“My goal is to hopefully be of value until I retire.”
Participant F Moderately
More Likely
“We hope we’re in this current situation for a long time, but
things can change. I also need to think about my family and
my personal goals.”

Participant G Moderately
More Likely
“Being here is where my family is…there is only so much
you can do in Tampa Bay in this field.”

Participant H More Likely “[My spouse and I] feel pretty good about this being where
we stay”

Participant I More Likely “I can see myself living here and working here until I retire.”

Participant J Less Likely “I have thought about leaving. I’ve been approached, and
had conversations, and so I’m considering [leaving] now.”

Categorizing participants by intent to stay gives the frame to better interpret interview
data and present themes. Based on the information gathered from a document analysis of 21 exit
interviews and 10 interviews of current employees, themes are described in the following
sections.
Findings
46

Based on Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Model, the themes consider knowledge,
motivation, and organization factors that impact fundraiser engagement and longevity with the
institution. Additionally, the links, fit and sacrifice factors represented in the Job Embeddedness
Model (Jiang et al., 2012) are also considered.
Overall, fundraisers more likely to stay with the institution had a distinctly different
mindset and approach to their work. Generally, these fundraisers took ownership of any
knowledge, motivation and organizational roadblocks and embraced them while those less likely
to stay with the institution constantly looked to place ownership of any challenges elsewhere.
The following sections detail the findings as related to the two research questions of the study.
Research Question One Findings: What Knowledge and Motivation Factors Influence
Fundraisers to be Engaged with Oakview University?
The first research question explores the knowledge and motivation factors that influence
engagement at Oakview University. Sparked from Krathwohl’s (2002) model, theme one,
focused on knowledge, comments on the factual, conceptual, and procedural understanding of
the university as well as reflection. Motivation is explored in theme two and three which focus
on career goals, career advancement and career success.
Theme One: Building Strength of Institutional Knowledge Through Networks and Reflection
The self-directed intentionality of building internal and external networks and dedication
to reflection positively impacts the strength of institutional knowledge. The personal framing of
building institutional knowledge was significantly different between fundraisers more likely to
stay and fundraisers less likely to stay with the institution. Those more likely to stay purposefully
built and continuously maintained strong networks to enhance factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge while others relied on the organization to create connections and provide
47

learning opportunities. Reflection tendencies and the understanding of the concept and practice
of reflection also varied with anticipated length of tenure.
Networks. All fundraisers who were more likely to stay with the institution explained the
importance of creating a network of peers to enhance their learning and ultimately success on the
job. One participant, who has been a fundraiser at Oakview for over 10 years and is more likely
to stay, said, “you realize that the more connected you are to the people you work with across the
university, as many connections you can establish and build relationships, it helps you be more
proficient in your job.” Likewise, participant H, who has been a fundraiser at Oakview for less
than five years expressed, “It’s good for me to know my colleagues, faculty and leadership
within the college because I will need to go to them and have follow up conversations about
what they are doing or what they want to do.” Participant E commented that, “as long as you
keep [meeting with your community partners] in your regularly ongoing schedule, then you’ll
start to gain a repository of knowledge.” This narrative of the personal ownership needed to learn
through connections differed drastically with fundraisers who were less likely to stay.
Fundraisers with lower anticipated tenure focused outwardly for their knowledge
deficiencies. Participant C plainly said, “I wish I had someone that I could go to who had that
institutional knowledge and so could tell me this is exactly who you need to go to.” This
participant also commented on the burden of learning how to build your network all by yourself.
Another participant expressed dissatisfaction when they approached their manager for training
and the manager’s response was “well, you should already know how to do this.” It appeared that
their manager did not want to take responsibility for their learning. Two other participants with
lower intent to stay brought up past organizational programming that was no longer meeting their
needs. Participant J mentioned the discontinued mentor program that “help[ed] [them] reach
48

across college lines” while participant B said, “we used to have a lot more opportunities to learn
about what was going on in other areas of the University.” The contrasting frame of waiting for
the organization to provide the opportunity, held by employees more likely to stay, versus
seeking the opportunity to obtain knowledge yourself, held by employees less likely to stay, was
prevalent in the interview responses as well as the exit interview notes.
This theme of different mind sets when it comes to knowledge acquisition also permeated
in the exit interview data. One employee who left for family reasons and, “would not have left
otherwise”, gave the highest mark for training opportunities and cited the opportunity to cross
train with different departments as “helpful.” In contrast, an employee that left for a poor role fit
commented on the desire to have “more mentoring or shadowing from colleagues whose
performance were considered successful.” Additional exit interviews of employees who changed
careers mentioned that new-hire orientation, continuing training and mentoring and professional
development could all be improved, and comments were made on the lack of thoroughness of
initial training when joining the organization. Regarding knowledge, the person retiring
suggested that their “successor be a master of all things department related, someone who thrills
at meeting new people and [who is] alert for possible serendipitous connections.”
Overall, those who are more inclined to stay with Oakview University tend to constantly
seek informal learning opportunities and spend time on meaningful reflection. These fundraisers
are self-directed, purposefully build internal and external networks and take ownership of their
personal learning journey.
Reflection. The intentional time spent reflecting in pursuit of gaining knowledge
moderately correlates with intent to stay. When prompted, seven out of 10 participants stated that
they participate in reflection. Of those seven participants, five seemed to strongly grasp the
49

concept of reflection and expanded with purposeful examples. Participant A has a daily habit of
reflection. They shared that they “got into the habit of going for a nice long walk around the
neighborhood at five o’clock every day, so [they] pretty much reflect every day during the
walk.” Participant F has a different approach and reflects for an elongated period by
disconnecting and “shutting off their phone for a couple of days every summer and winter.”
Trends emerged with those fundraisers with anticipated longer tenure versus those with
anticipated shorter tenure on the topic of reflection. 80% of the participants who highly
participate in intentional reflection are anticipated to stay longer with the organization while
most of the participants who moderately participate or do not participate in intentional reflection
have an anticipated shorter tenure with Oakview University. Table 6 highlights the participant
reflection tendencies in relation to their assessed tenure with the organization.
Table 6
Participant Reflection Tendencies
Intent to Stay Intentional Reflection
Participant A More Likely High
Participant B Moderately Less Likely High
Participant C Less Likely Low
Participant D More Likely Low
Participant E More Likely Low
Participant F Moderately More Likely High
Participant G Moderately More Likely Moderate
Participant H More Likely High
Participant I More Likely High
Participant J Less Likely Moderate

Specific barriers to self-reflection included time and difficulty of the task. Participant E
cites time as a barrier and stated, “days are busy so it’s hard to take time to reflect” while
Participant H, who does take time to reflect, commended it is “hard to carve out time to do it.”
Participant C said, “it’s a real challenge for me to reflect, I need to do more of that, but it’s just
50

hard…no one teaches us how to reflect.” While Participant D did not give a specific reason, they
commented that “I probably have never been that self-reflective.”
Theme Summary. The approach to learning and reflection was distinctly different based
on intent to stay. Fundraisers more likely to stay took ownership of their learning through
purposefully building professional networks and actively seeking the information they need to be
successful on the job. In addition to gathering the information needed, fundraisers who were
more inclined to stay were also more likely to utilize reflection as a tool to better understand
their work environment.
Theme Two: Collaborative Work and Career Advancement with Meaning
Fundraisers seek meaning in their work and career advancement and are more inclined to
stay when they collaborate to set goals, understand how their metrics connect with the success of
their work and view career growth as a journey of greater reach and impact.
Collaborative Work with Meaning. Fundraisers more inclined to stay spoke positively
about their goals, worked collaboratively to set them, and saw a distinct connection between the
goals created and their work. Conversely, fundraisers less inclined to stay spoke negatively about
their goals, did not have a role in setting them and did not see a connection between their goals
and their role as a fundraiser.
Fundraisers rated as more likely to stay spoke positively about metrics. Participant I
specifically mentioned a collaborative relationship with their leadership team to discuss metrics
quarterly. Participant H, another fundraiser with an intent to stay longer, acknowledged metrics
but quickly moved to express “that’s not what necessarily drives [their] day to day.” This alludes
to metrics being positioned as a conversation starter to guide strategic planning and not the only
focus of a fundraiser’s position. Participant E, another fundraiser more likely to stay, referenced
51

an even bigger goal that is not part of individual metrics but a new University aspiration by
commenting, “I want us to move into AAU!.” This comment shows ownership of a lofty
institutional goal that was recently set by the University President.
Fundraisers with a moderate anticipation of staying or those who overall less likely to
stay had a solemn tone and were far more skeptical when speaking about their goals. Participant
G mentioned they did have clear goals but also commented that “they have no rhyme or reason.”
Both Participant G and Participant J expressed their dissatisfaction with their lack of input in
creating goals with Participant J relinquishing all ownership by expressing, “I have goals that
someone else set for me.” Fundraisers who have exited the organization also had many
comments to share about goals.
Nearly 40% of the exit interviews analyzed mentioned the misalignment or
miscommunication of goals and many fundraisers ultimately left Oakview University because of
that disconnect. One fundraiser mentioned, “the CEO was not clear on the direction of [their]
department” while another said, “the expectation for [their] position changed after [they were]
hired.” In Exit Interview Eight, another fundraiser felt that “campaign metrics began to
compromise what [they were] hired to do” and the person from Exit Interview 19 even said that
“personnel were not told about goals required” and left feeling overwhelmed and lost.
Fundraisers tend to stay longer when they are part of the goal setting process and clearly
understand how the work that they are doing aligns with the overarching goals of the University.
Meaningful Career Advancement. Fundraisers who intended to stay longer highly
valued relevance and meaningful experiences as their career advanced. Comments regarding
career advancement opportunities were split in the exit interview data. Seven employees who
exited the organization commented negatively on promotional opportunities compared to five
52

employees who commented positively on promotional opportunities. However, the theme on this
topic points to the way fundraisers who anticipate a longer tenure framed their conversation
when asked about career advancement.
Fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure spoke about their career opportunities in terms
of the projects they have worked on, the impact they have had, and the learning along the way.
Participant F was thrilled to have their “fingerprints on a few more projects” in their current role
and commented on the fulfillment of witnessing projects break ground after all the hard work to
get them started. Similarly, Participant A shared with delight, “I could tell you so many stories
over the years, just about really exciting projects that we got funded.” Some of the document
analysis interview data even commented on the meaningful experiences they had the opportunity
to be involved with. Exit interview 12 noted, “[Oakview University] gave me an opportunity to
work on very large gifts…the size and complexity of which I very well might not see often in the
rest of my career.”
Comfortable in their role, Participant E stated, “I’m at the point in my career where I’m
not looking to job hop or really push myself up the ladder. I prefer to do a good job and then
have my bosses recognize that and elevate me.” Also focusing on the journey and not the
destination, Participant H shared their career path:
For a time, I really embraced that I was not achievement based. I really loved that about
myself. But then as I gained years of experience and mentored people, this shifted where
I do see myself as a leader, but I still don’t have that desire to achieve in the general
capitalistic construct of getting to a next level.
Participant I rooted on relevance as how they navigated their career by expressing, “I feel very
relevant and when I start to feel irrelevant, it will probably be the time for me to go.” They
53

further expressed that “every five to seven years [they] want to try something different.” Both
Participant D and Participant A spoke about utilizing a diversity of their talents along their career
journey. Participant D celebrates not being “pigeonholed” in one area while Participant A
expressed the desire to constantly practice and use their skills learned along the way.
On the contrary to this mindset, Participant F warned that “others want the position
before they have it and then they don’t do the things necessary to be very good at their current
position.” Essentially, those solely focused on title and salary advances may not gather the
necessary skills to be an effective fundraiser. Participant F believed “it was a tremendous growth
for [their] career to get that frontline experience.” The only interview comment on salary and
title promotion came from Participant C, someone less likely to stay. During the interview they
repeated, “there is no growth” and expressed dissatisfaction that they had not received a raise or
promotion in five years. This participant felt lost and did not see a clear path to promotion.
Several fundraisers who left the organization also commented on the lack of promotional
opportunities. One employee rated promotional opportunities low and would have liked a
“greater commitment to developing talent and promoting from within” while another noted, “no
promotional opportunities” and a third said, “[they were] ready to move up the chain with no
opportunities.”
While promotional opportunities may influence a fundraisers tenure with the
organization, the fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure interviewed focused on their
relevance and the meaningful growth opportunities experienced along their career path. It is
important to note that these fundraisers did not anchor to title advancement or salary growth in
expressing their thoughts.
54

Theme Summary. Fundraisers with an intent to stay longer are motivated by relevance
and meaning in their day-to-day work and across the span of their career. In the interviews and
captured within the document analysis data, fundraisers pointed to the importance of setting
goals collaboratively to ensure relevance. For fundraisers with an intent to stay longer, the theme
of relevance and meaning expanded into their narrative of career development as their focus was
rooted in the projects and opportunities they had along their career journey and not the traditional
milestones of salary increases and title bumps that were present in the narrative of the fundraisers
who were less likely to stay with Oakview University.
Theme 3: Importance of Organizational Tools
The effectiveness of organizational tools, including the customer relationship software
and other systems and processes available to fundraisers directly affect their ability to experience
success. All fundraisers at Oakview University agree that the organizational tools and systems
have room for improvement. Participant H commented that “[they] really like every aspect of
[their] job apart from the database that [they] have to deal with.” They go on to call it “the worst
data base [they] have ever experienced” and use terms like “detrimental”, “awful” and
“unfriendly” to describe it. Beyond the database, Participant B generally commented that “[they]
don’t have all of the tools that [they] need to be successful to meet new expectations” while
Participant J expressed frustration with the change they keep experiencing as they are asked to
use different systems. Other systems or processes that were noted as negatively affecting a
fundraisers success were the “shockingly rudimentary” gift agreement and gift processing
systems mentioned by Participant H and the desire for some “paperwork to go away to better
assist with success” mentioned by Participant E. Participant E also expressed that, “we need a
little bit more staff to help with the load and taking some of the ancillary things off the plate that
55

sometimes just take away from what you really are there to do.” This participant continued to
talk about the extreme importance of having strong internal relationships because alumni and
donors can view the speed of a response to an answer, or ability to solve a situation internally as
a direct reflection on the fundraiser’s effectiveness.
Several fundraisers also commented on the strength of the donor pipeline. Participant E
said, “we, as development officers, need some help in pipeline building and projecting.” Further
expanding on this challenge Participant B said, “we don’t have enough data to back up the new
expectations that are being put in place [and] we don’t have the prospect pool to meet new
expectations.” Participant G shared that they constantly question the research they are getting
and expressed that they are not receiving any help on strengthening their portfolio.
Conversely, Participant F did not comment on limiting processes and structures but
instead expressed that they did not feel held back and “the structure of [their] team is more suited
to continue to fundraise and build really good relationships and have some success.” Overall,
most fundraisers at Oakview University pointed to tools or system structures that impeded their
success as a fundraiser.
Research Question One Summary
Interview participants and the document analysis revealed key themes regarding
knowledge and motivation factors that impact fundraiser engagement and tenure. Theme one
explored how fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure proactively acquire knowledge through
seeking networks and information while those with shorter anticipated tenure were more reactive
to the information presented. It was also noted that fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure
tend to have a deeper understanding of reflection and, on average, spend more time reflecting on
their work. Focused on motivation, theme two presented that a fundraiser’s connection to and
56

understanding of goals and metrics is critical to tenure. Overall, the presence of relevance and
meaning in the work fundraisers perform and on their career journey was very important. Lastly,
theme three, also rooted in motivation, noted that the tools and resources available to a fundraiser
play an important role in a fundraiser’s motivation and overall engagement and tenure with the
workplace.
Research Question Two Findings: What Cultural Components of Oakview University
Inspire Longevity?
The second research question, explored the organization components in the Clark and
Estes (2008) model and the links, fit and sacrifice measures in the job embeddedness model
(Jiang et al., 2012), explores the organization factors that influence engagement at Oakview
University. Theme one focuses on the value-add interactions between employees and managers
while theme two explores meaningful collaboration and communication. Findings three and four
explore the three factors of the Job Embeddedness Model (Jiang et al., 2012), links, fit and
sacrifice. Theme three, rooted in the importance of links, explores social and industry
connections. Finally, theme four, discovered through questions on fit and sacrifice, discusses the
key retention anchors of mission focus, trust, innovative growth, flexibility, and geographic
location.
Theme One: Manager ’s Profound Impact on Employee Engagement
Direct managers who are accessible, lead with trust, support, and advocate for their
fundraisers have a profound impact on employee engagement. During the interviews,
participants were asked to comment on both current and past supervisor relationships to identify
qualities that led to their engagement as a fundraiser. The four distinct qualities of accessibility,
57

trust, support, and advocacy emerged. Additionally, some of these themes were also reflected in
the exit interview data.
Accessibility. The accessibility and responsiveness of a manager is important to
fundraising professionals. With comments like “my manager is always very accessible” from
Participant D, many of the fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure spoke highly of the
accessibility of their manager. Participant F describes their leader’s accessibility as having “jet
fuel behind [them] to continue to get going.” They specifically referenced a challenge they were
working through and were very “appreciative” that despite their leader’s busy schedule, they
took 30 minutes to work through it. Through all the recent culture changes, Participant A
“appreciates how responsive [their] leadership has been” and feels like they have their ear. Even
though Participant A’s leader is “very, very, very, very busy”, they are “always available for a
call” and will “try to help as best as possible.”
Conversely, Participant J, who is categorized as a fundraiser that is less likely to stay, is
frustrated with the relationship with their manager expressed through comments like, “I’m not
important enough to return phone calls to” and “the leadership we have now, they don’t care…I
don’t feel like I matter.” This frustration seemed to be rooted in the lack of accessibility further
illustrated by the “short meetings” where the interaction is generally, “doing good, keep it up,
bye.” Exit Interview 12 expressed disappointment with their leadership situation by expressing
“their leader never encouraged/ listened to suggestions.” This lack of accessibility and
responsiveness may have contributed to their decision to leave.
Trust. Trust and the ability to genuinely support the autonomy of a fundraiser was
another emergent theme. Every participant mentioned some form of trust in their narrative.
Participant E directly said, “trust between myself and my superior is very important.” Many
58

fundraisers appreciated this trust in the form of autonomy including Participant A who
commented, “I like for [my manager] to be there when I need them, but then when I don’t need
them at that minute, I can pretty much work on my own.” Similarly, Participant H said, “she is
the type of manager that I really like, which is hands off until she needs to be hands on.”
Participant D also has a lot of autonomy with their manager and is given significant latitude and
support to make decisions even when their manager may advise differently. Participant D shared,
“[my leader] lets me be the leader that I am but gives me the support and encouragement that I
need.” Participant F adds that they feel respected because their manager knows that if they are
coming to them, it likely needs their attention, and they will give it. Participant G who is only
moderately more likely to stay, warns:
I have a lot of autonomy, which is good until it comes down to the point where they’re
trying to do any sort of reviews, and then all of a sudden it’s why is this, why is this, why
is this? So, I wouldn’t say that the autonomy or freedom that has been given to me is
something that I always enjoy.
Additionally, Participant C who shared a challenging experience with their former manager
expressed in disgust that they “wanted to read every email written.” This participant values trust
but admittedly did not have that with their former supervisor.
Support. Fundraisers with a longer anticipated tenure consistently described their
supervisors as supportive while those with a shorter anticipated tenure commented on the lack of
support. Participant I shared that their manager is “extremely supportive of [their] efforts.”
Describing many supervisors at Oakview University Participant E said, “They’ve all been
supportive as best that they could be supportive, with what resources they had…they were all
great bosses and I learned something from each and every one.” Participants G and A also used
59

the word “supportive” to describe positive management relationships. Regarding leadership at
Oakview University, Participant B, a fundraiser moderately less likely to stay, used supportive in
a negative connotation expressing that “management is not as supportive or knowledgeable as
the previous administration.” Participant C, a fundraiser less likely to stay, used it negatively
expressing they had a “really awful manager [that was] not supportive.” Additionally, Exit
Interview 15 commented that the least rewarding aspect of the job was seeing fellow employee’s
being looked down upon or underappreciated. This “didn’t happen a lot, but when it did it was
extremely disheartening.”
Advocate. Lastly, fundraisers look to their manager to break down barriers that stifle
their success. Participant H admiringly commented, “she’s probably our behind the scenes
advocate and even protector more than we know.” They continued to express, “that’s also
usually a good quality I’ve found of those bosses when they stand up for our time and things we
gripe about.” One reason Participant D was left a previous institution was because their direct
supervisor “didn’t have a seat at the favorite table.” This occasionally created unwelcomed
roadblocks and dampened their success as a fundraiser. Two exit interviews also expressed the
importance of advocating for the team. Exit Interview 10 positively noted, “my supervisor does
stand up for her team” and Exit Interview 15 admired that their leader “always went out of their
way to make things right.” Participant C, a fundraiser less likely to stay. commented that their
“old manager was never going to fight to have growth in the department” which likely added to
their disenchantment with the organization.
All participants and most of the exit interview documents spoke about their relationship
with their manager. Participant H made the direct connection that the only job they did not like,
which was not a Oakview University, was when their “direct supervisor was incredibly toxic”
60

which made for a lot of “cringe worthy” moments at work. Fundraisers more likely to stay, like
Participant E, remarked on the tradition of positive leadership at Oakview University with the
comment, “The leaders that I’ve reported to in my 10 plus years at [Oakview University] all have
been fabulous…they are great people.” Participant A has also experienced a tradition of positive
leadership at Oakview University and stated, “I’ve had at least five supervisors since I’ve been at
this role, and I’ve found all of them to be very supportive.” As shown through the comments on
leaders past and present, the qualities of accessibility, supportiveness, trust, and ability to
advocate have an impact on the engagement of fundraisers.
Theme Two: Collaboration and Communication
Fundraisers have an extensive and diverse network of collaboration partners that must be
strong to facilitate their success. Communication with and between these networks is an
important factor in facilitating engagement in fundraisers.
Collaboration. Collaboration partners may include deans, central services, community
partners, college partners and many more. Participant A said, “[they] almost exclusively
collaborate” and Participant I commented that “very little of my work is done by just me…I
cannot do my job without collaborating.” Specifically, Participant I “relies a lot on colleagues
who are the experts” and used the Gift Planning and Legal teams as examples. Other participants
added faculty, other fundraisers, the Business Office, Communications team, the Corporate and
Foundations team, Alumni Relations team and Annual Giving team as other collaboration
partners. Participant H sums it up by saying “we are constantly pulled into different types of
meetings with different people within the university.” Participant E eloquently describes the
benefit to collaboration:
61

I really do value the people that I work with and the people I depend on across the
university to be successful in my role. So, I really spend a lot of time cultivating
relationships with my peers, so that when I need some assistance or I need a quick
response to something, I can count on them to bring that to me so that I bring value to the
alumni or friends of the university that I serve.
Overall, fundraisers at Oakview University had many positive comments regarding the
direction of collaboration. Participant B said, “People are open to [collaboration], and we all
want to work together.” Newly employed Participant D commented, “I’m walking into a pretty
supportive environment with good teammates, good colleagues across the spectrum.” Participant
C sums up the value of collaboration by mentioning, “it’s important that we are collaborative,
and we show a united front and we’re all one big happy family, one big team.” Both Participant
B and C specifically cited the metrics that have recently been put into place to encourage cross
college and department collaboration. Many of the employees exiting Oakview University also
had positive comments about the collaborative atmosphere. Exit Interview 16 noted, “If you have
questions or need some assistance, most people were responsive and eager to assist.” In
agreement, Exit Interview 3 commented, “The most rewarding aspect for me was the opportunity
to work with a great team of people” and Exit Interview 18 expressed, “University Advancement
peers were generally a joy to work with.”
There were also examples of poor collaboration. Exit Interview 4 said, “the least
rewarding aspect of employment were the silos and lack of collaboration outside the silos.” Exit
Interview 19 also commented on the siloed structure. Participant J, someone less likely to stay at
Oakview University, mentioned the Business Office as a roadblock and expanded on the
frustration collaborating with that office. They also added that the organization was “cliquey”
62

and “siloed.” Even Participant D, someone more likely to stay, mentioned, “internal procedures
that make [their work] a little bit difficult” and pointed to partners in Gift Receipting and those
who establish fund purposes. Participant C and Participant G spoke about others being
“protective of their donors.” Participant C commented that others, “don’t want to share”, while
Participant G said this unwillingness to collaborate, “puts you off and slows you down.” Most
agree that collaboration is critical to success but putting collaborating into practice across a
complex university can be a challenge.
Communication. Most fundraisers with a longer anticipated tenure commented on the
complexity of communicating in a higher education environment and believed the
communication structures at Oakview University could be improved but were acceptable. “It’s
just huge,” said Participant H, “it’s the largest university I’ve ever worked for by far…the
communication is fine, it’s just one big place.” Participant A mentioned, “universities are big
complex organizations” and further expressed, “everything might not be communicated
instantaneously, but I would say important things are communicated soon enough so that they’re
relevant.” Participant F mentioned the constant focus on communication and said, “we’re always
trying to figure out the best way to make sure everyone is on the same page with anything we are
working on.” Similarly Participant E said, “we can always enhance communication…the more
information we have about what’s happening in the college, the more we can share with our
donors.” Participant A commented on the increased communication because of the pandemic.
They said, “I actually felt like our communication was really great all through the pandemic” and
spoke positively about maintaining this as they evolve to a hybrid model after the pandemic.
Through their comments on communication, fundraisers less inclined to stay and those
leaving the organization appeared to have more challenges with the information flow. Participant
63

B said, “[they] feel like communication that’s important doesn’t necessarily get to where it needs
to be.” This participant also mentioned that “[Oakview University] is so big that it’s hard to
communicate properly.” Participant J discussed navigating fragmented information. They said,
“sometimes communications are on time and sometimes you have to dig around for more
information…sometimes you only get half the story and not getting the whole view.” Out of 21
exit interviews, 10 of them specifically mentioned that communication could have been
improved. Some comments were general such as, communications, “can be better” or “needs
improvement” while others offered suggestions for improving. Exit Interview 18 suggested,
“better communication of what’s done right or well within a unit instead of concentrating always
on what wasn’t completely achieved” while Exit Interview 12 said, “communication between
department happens only during formal meetings.” This former employee may have left due to
the growth in the department and lack of personal touch points in such a large organization.
One consistent area for improvement mentioned by fundraisers on both sides of the intent
to stay spectrum, was the need for better communication between foundation and academic
leadership. Participant A brought up a past perspective and said, “historically there has been
minimal communication between the foundation and other departments outside of the [Oakview
University] foundation.” They mentioned that this communication is on a path of improvement
with new leadership in both spheres. Participant E said, “more communication between higher
ups, the leadership, would be helpful” while Participant G said the central foundation doesn’t
“have good communication and understanding with the deans.”
One of the most influential collaboration partners for fundraisers based in a college or
unit is the dean. One fundraiser who is more likely to stay with Oakview University is thrilled
with their relationship with the dean and comments, “we have a very dynamic outward facing
64

dean and [they] help me do my job in almost every way…it’s been a joy to work with [them] and
have someone to help me fundraise, in essence.” Participant J appreciates the autonomy they
have with their dean, and Participant I is thankful to capture some of the time of their very busy
leader. While one of the employees who exited the organization did not wish to continue in
higher education fundraising, they did leave with the appreciative comment that, “the dean was a
great advocate for the team.” Another interesting dynamic to consider is the relationship of the
dean with other campus leaders that may need to collaborate to attract philanthropic support.
Participant F was thankful for the increased collaboration between foundation leadership and
their college/unit leadership. From experience, Participant F continues to explain the importance
of this crucial dynamic:
Alignment between the [executive] leadership impacts me. If you have people above you
on the chart, who don’t see eye to eye, or you’re getting mixed messaging, that can be a
real challenge. In the past, I had to make a decision whether I listened to my [college/unit
head], or my VP, as they were butting heads. It’s a no win for you.
On this same note, engaged Participant E commented that “more communication between higher
ups, the leadership, would be helpful.” Participant C expressed concerns about their dean not
talking to other deans around the university which can negatively impact their work.
Additionally, Exit Interview 8 said, “there were problems when Foundation demands conflicted
with Dean’s expectations.”
Theme Summary. Successful collaboration and the desire to build and expand their
professional network is noted as a critical element to a fundraiser’s engagement and tenure. As
explored in the comments above, fundraisers also have patience for the complexity of
65

organizational communication but find most success when foundation leadership and academic
leadership communicate well.
Theme Three: Social and Industry Connections
In a decentralized organizational structure, fundraisers purposefully create social
connections with work colleagues, both inside and outside of work hours, and industry
colleagues to form strong links within their work. At Oakview University, most fundraisers
represented a college or a unit and physically sat among those college or unit teams and
commented on the siloed nature of their position. “It is very siloed, and you stay within your
college, and that’s your social network”, Participant G noted. Participant F admitted that they are
naturally “more connected over here with our other [teams within the unit].” Participant H said,
“I think it can be tough for fundraisers specifically to feel a sense of community at times…we
sometimes perceive ourselves to be on an island.” Similarly, Participant A describes their
experience in their role as “solitary” as no one around them has a similar role. However, despite
their physical location, fundraisers purposefully forge meaningful relationships with other
fundraisers, across the sector and within the community.
Social Connections. Fundraisers set aside time and placed value on building their
internal fundraiser network. Participant B “usually grab[s] lunch just informally with a couple of
colleagues probably a few times a month because [they] think it’s important to just have that
rapport and build that camaraderie at work.” Participant D, a leader in the organization, also
spoke of the importance of informal meetings and grabbing lunch or getting together after work
for more casual interactions. This was echoed by Participant F who enjoys social connections
because there is “less tension” and people are “a little more relaxed” in the work environment.
Speaking highly of investing the time socially Participant F said, “it will be good for us to learn
66

about each other and just be more comfortable in general with each other.” Participant H, who is
relatively new to the team, visits other offices once a week to be present among other fundraisers
and form relationships. They expressed appreciation for the “extensive onboarding” at Oakview
University where they had meetings scheduled with 26 different people the first week and had
the opportunity to be part of a social group of other fundraisers that started around the same time.
It is noteworthy that Participant G, who is only moderately more likely to stay said,
“there isn’t much socialization with [central] development officers.” This participant seemed to
have a small group of other small unit fundraisers they interact with but a general feeling of
being on the outside was present. They used the word “cliquey” to describe the social network
that they were not a part of. It is also important to note that Participant C, with shorter anticipated
tenure, mentioned having a “best friend” at work and other strong relationships which is counter
to employees who tend to stay longer at organizations.
Overall, fundraisers spoke very highly of their colleagues. Participant A boasted about
“great relationships with colleagues,” while Participant B expressed, “I love most of my
colleagues” and “everyone that works in the foundation, for the most part, is awesome to work
with.” Furthermore, Participant H added, “I enjoy people that are motivated with their job and
there’s a lot of them, so that’s good.”
Industry Connections. Many fundraisers also commented on the links, or networks, they
had with fundraisers at other institutions. Participant C raved about a summer institute they
attended and saw it as “a really great way to connect and build bonds with other fundraising
professionals throughout the country.” This group of individuals had a profound impact on this
fundraiser shown through their sentiment of, “I think there have been times when I probably
would’ve left fundraising altogether, except for some of these wonderful people and some
67

mentors that I have there.” Participant F also mentioned connections made at conferences by
sharing, “a lot of people I’ve connected with from conferences, I still will stay in touch with if I
have a question on how a situation we have and how they had a similar situation.” Participant B
sees conferences as “a good place to build a network” and “stays in contact regularly” with peers
met through these opportunities. Beyond conferences, Participant I socializes with other
fundraisers in other nonprofits. “I have two different types of groups that I have peers that are in
similar roles than I am”, they expressed.
Theme Summary. Social connections, or links, both inside and outside of the
organization, are important to fundraisers and exist in many capacities. While fundraisers with
both long and short anticipated tenure commented on the value of networks and participated in
them, those fundraisers who are have longer anticipated tenure speak more positively about their
relationships at Oakview University.
Theme Four: Retention Anchors at Oakview University
In addition to directly and meaningfully contributing to the university mission,
fundraisers desire a healthy environment of trust and innovative growth in their place of
employment. Fundraisers also value the flexibility given and the geographic location of Oakview
University.
Impact. Regardless of the assessed anticipated tenure in their role, all fundraisers have a
sense of pride for being an active contributor to the mission of the university. Participant G said,
“the thing that I’m most proud of, is seeing the difference that it can do, and the lives that it can
impact with the students.” Also taking ownership of the impact their role has, Participant B
shared, “having the opportunity to support our students definitely gives me a great sense of
pride.” Expanding, Participant B noted, “a career in philanthropy is always rewarding because
68

you’re helping people who might not have opportunities without the generosity of donors.” Yet
another fundraiser that noted their connection to the mission, Participant A stated, “it’s nice to
feel like I’m part of something bigger that I think is positive that in my own small way, I’m
helping to move something along…I believe so much in higher education.”
It is important to note that the fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure had a stronger
tone towards importance of their role when asked what they would lose if they left. Participant E,
who is more likely to stay, said, “So if I’m not able to now work to raise funds to help students
go to school then I would lose a piece of something that I’ve come to value very much as part of
my identity.” Participant I said, “If I left my job tomorrow, I would have to do something else to
replace that lifelong learning that I really love…Monday I could be solving literacy issues, so it’s
such a wide variety of area I get to interact with and learn every day…I would miss that.”
Fundraisers with shorter anticipated tenure were more concerned with leaving more tangible
benefits like pay. Participant B, who is moderately less likely to stay, said the “pay is good” and
keeps them around while Participant C, who is less likely to stay, commented on the benefit of
all of the saved vacation they have.
Trust. An employee’s trust in the organization to do the right thing and inversely the
organization’s trust in the employee to do the right thing were important to fundraisers when
choosing the best fit institution. Participant I mentioned the importance of the organization
holding donor intent in high regard and insuring that “you’re going to do with their money what
they want you to do.” If the organization is not going to deliver on this, Participant I mentioned it
would be a “violation of my values and my core” and immediately disengage them from the
organization. Using a past employer as an example, Participant D pointed to a time where a gift
69

was not properly counted and that was “the beginning of the end” of the relationship with that
employer.
Fundraisers also desire to be trusted in their role. Half of the participants directly
mentioned trust as an important factor like Participant I who said, “if I did not feel that I could
trust the institution and feel valued and feel supported…I wouldn’t be here.” Managers can also
show trust through granted autonomy which was mentioned by four participants with comments
like, “I value autonomy” from Participant D and “I like autonomy” from Participant H. When
trust or autonomy are not present, disengagement and shorter tenure follows. Participant A left
their last employer because the supervisor did not grant autonomy and micromanaged. Part of the
reason the employee from Exit Interview 10 left was because they “felt their decisions were
double checked” and their “supervisor did not completely release control.” Overall, trust was
expressed as an important factor in engagement.
Innovative Growth. The opportunity to be part of a larger team that is moving in a
positive direction is something fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure value and look for in an
institution. Participant F details their experience at Oakview University and the importance of
innovative growth:
If I was coming to a place that was just like, keep it the way it is and try not to screw
anything up, I’d have to leave. That’s just not me. I get to have my fingerprints on
helping us reach our potential a little bit more than maybe some places that I’ve seen, or
I’ve been before. Thinking about things in different ways, maybe being a little bit more
innovative. I certainly feel like that’s very supported here. Striving toward excellence, not
being satisfied with where we stand.
70

Participant E is “very proud of the things that [Oakview University] has accomplished in a very
short period of time.” They continue to say, “we still have a lot of potential to do more, so that’s
what I’m proud of working at Oakview University.” Similarly, Participant A is “satisfied” with
the accelerated pace of growth at the university. Participant D was “extremely excited” to join
Oakview University to “take something that was already working well” and “make that an even
better place.”
There must be opportunities to keep fundraisers engaged. Participant I shared that they
left the organization after they had done what they were hired to do because “it was time to move
on.” One exited employee said the least rewarding aspect of their role was they did not have the
opportunity to be creative. Participant H commented, “I certainly don’t like things that are not in
any way related to the progress and advancement of the college that can bog people down.”
Flexibility. Many fundraisers pointed to flexibility as an important benefit of working for
Oakview University. Participant H passionately said, “it’s insane to me if you’re productive that
you are required to come into an office.” They didn’t mind coming into the office once or twice a
week but were not interested in working for an institution that required significantly more.
Participant B said, “the flexibility is great” and also expressed that, “if they made us come back
to work every day, I would 100% look for another job.” Participant C and J also mentioned the
Importance of flexibility in their work. While the majority spoke favorably of flexibility, one
participant expressed dissatisfaction with the shift in the work environment commenting, “I don’t
do well with the work from home model.”
Location. Geographic location surfaced as another important attribute of Oakview
University. Located in a large metropolitan area, many fundraisers choose the location first and
then their role at the university. Participant I said, “coming to this job was a personal decision
71

more than a professional decision” due to the desire to live in the area. Participant C, “came to
the city to be closer to family” and Participant F would hesitate to leave their spouse’s family
who resides in the same city. They commented, “the personal and family setup [they] have here
is amazing.” Participant H also set their sights on the city before they found employment and
commented, “I think that far more people should be deciding for themselves where they want to
live.” Oakview University is the only large public institution of higher education in the city
making the other employment options in this specific field limited. Participant J expressed this
by saying, “there is only so much you can do in [this city] in this field.” They continued to say,
“so either you stay in this field, or you move on to something else if it is important to be in this
location.”
Theme Summary. The engagement factors that fundraisers most prominently discussed
in relation to their place of work at Oakview University included impact, trust, innovative
growth, flexibility, and geographic location.
Summary of Findings
There was a distinctly different tone, approach, and perceived locus of control between
the fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure and those with shorter anticipated tenure at
Oakview University. As noted throughout this chapter, the collaborative networks built, and the
ability to navigate a multitude of relationships, was a constant across all the themes. Knowledge,
motivation, and organization factors were present in the data analyzed. It was found that
fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure gained knowledge through complex networks and
better leveraged reflection on their quest. Motivation was heightened with collaborative goal
setting, effective tools, and a distinguished meaning in their work. Table 7 summarizes the
themes rooted in research question one.
72

Table 7
Findings Summary for Research Question One
Theme
Number
Factor
Addressed
Theme Context

1

Knowledge

Building Strength of
Institutional Knowledge
Through Networks and
Reflection

The self-directed intentionality of
building internal and external
networks combined with the
intentional time spent reflecting,
positively impacts the strength of
institutional knowledge.

2 Motivation Collaborative Work and
Career Advancement with
Meaning
Fundraisers seek meaning in their
work and career advancement and are
more engaged when they collaborate
to set goals, understand how their
metrics connect with the success of
their work and view career growth as a
journey of greater reach and impact.

3 Motivation Importance of
Organizational Tools
The effectiveness of organizational
tools and systems available to
fundraisers directly affects their ability
to experience success.

In exploring the second research question rooted in organization factors, it was found that
a fundraiser’s relationship with their manager and colleagues is highly important along with the
working relationship between their manager and college/ unit leadership. Expanding on
organization in the links category, it was noted how fundraisers must be intentional about
creating meaningful relationships. Regarding fit, fundraisers were looking for a direct tie to the
mission along with the presence of trust and innovate growth in their working environment.
Finally, it was found that the people who work at Oakview University, flexibility and geographic
73

location are all important benefits to fundraisers. Table 8 summarizes the themes rooted in
research question one.
Table 8
Findings Summary for Research Question Two
Theme
Number
Factor
Addressed
Theme Context

1

Organization

Manager’s Profound
Impact on Employee
Engagement

Direct managers who are accessible,
supportive, lead with trust and
advocate for their fundraisers have a
profound impact on employee
engagement and tenure.

2 Organization Collaboration and
Communication
Fundraisers have an extensive and
diverse network of collaboration
partners that must be strong to
facilitate their success.
Communication with and between
these networks is an important factor
in facilitating engagement and
lengthening tenure in fundraisers.

3 Links Social and Industry
Connections
In a decentralized organizational
structure, fundraisers purposefully
create social connections with work
colleagues and industry colleagues to
form strong links within their work.

4 Fit/
Sacrifice
Retention Anchors at
Oakview University
In addition to directly and
meaningfully contributing to the
university mission, fundraisers desire
a healthy environment of trust and
innovative growth in their place of
employment. They also value the
flexibility and geographic location of
Oakview University

Based on the findings outlined in this chapter, the next chapter will explore recommends for
practice.
74

75

Chapter Five: Recommendations
As the need for philanthropic giving in higher education rises (Speck, 2010; Webb &
Webb, 2018), attention to retaining and engaging the workforce that cultivates strategic
relationships to facilitate giving is critical to success. Oakview University, a large public
research institution in the Southeast United States, experiences the challenge of retaining
fundraisers and served as the subject of this case study. Through a document analysis of 21 exit
interviews and semi-structured interviews of 10 current fundraisers at Oakview University, the
following research questions were explored:
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?
Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization factors, which drive
engagement with tested strategies to fill the gap in organizational deficiencies, drove the inquiry
and framed the results and recommendations. These factors were augmented with the job
embeddedness model, the strongest predictor for retention, which evaluates links, fit and
sacrifice (Jiang et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2001) as additional factors that drive employee
retention and engagement. Rooted in these models, this chapter contains a discussion of the
results from the study highlighted in Chapter Four and presents recommendations for practice
and future research.
Discussion of Findings
The following section highlights the most notable findings from the Oakview University
case study. The first part focuses on the knowledge and motivation findings explored in research
76

question one while the second part focuses on the organization findings which was the focus of
research question two.
Research Question One Findings: What Knowledge and Motivation Factors Influence
Fundraisers to be Engaged with Oakview University?
Three prominent findings emerged from exploring research question one which
investigates the knowledge and motivation factors that influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University. The notable trend which emerged from looking at knowledge acquisition
was that fundraisers more likely to stay with Oakview University take responsibility for their
learning compared to fundraisers less likely to stay who place the ownership of learning
elsewhere. Two motivation findings surfaced including the importance fundraisers place on the
opportunity to contribute to meaningful work and access to tools and processes that efficiently
assist in the success of their efforts.
Finding One: Fundraisers with Longer Anticipated Tenure Take Responsibility for Their
Learning
Researchers agree that the academic study of fundraising and formal training available is
limited (Breeze, 2017; Counts & Jones, 2019; Mack et al., 2016; Shaker & Nathan, 2017), which
has led to fundraisers pursuing other ways to learn their craft (Farwell et al., 2020). Due to the
complexity of the institution, the multifaceted role of a fundraiser and overall limited formal
training available at Oakview University, this study found that the knowledge needed for success
at this institution was gained through intentionally building and learning from strong networks.
Fundraisers more likely to stay engaged with the organization took ownership of finding and
building a network and were intentional and tenacious in the internal networks they created.
77

In alignment with the research that cites the lack of training as a reason fundraisers leave
their role (Joslyn, 2019; Nyman, 2018), many of the fundraisers with shorter anticipated
retention, or those who have already left the organization, pointed to a lack of training. However,
those fundraisers who were more likely to stay with the organization did not celebrate the inverse
of a plethora of training available but instead had a narrative of taking ownership of their
learning and purposefully built relationships with leaders, campus partners and peers to actively
enhance their knowledge of the institution and fundraising. Among the myriad of skills
researchers suggest fundraisers strengthen, self-motivation was highlighted by Farwell and
colleagues (2020) and was accentuated in the themes collected in this study.
Finding Two: Above Formal Career Paths, Fundraisers are Motivated by Meaningful Work
Fundraisers interviewed in this study who were more likely to stay with Oakview
University found joy in the experience of their daily work and highlighted meaningful
opportunities that intertwined with their goals and purpose. This aligned with Clark and Estes’
(2008) claim that motivation is enhanced if employees have clear, current, and challenging goals.
It is noteworthy that fundraisers more likely to stay in the study did not acknowledge a
purposeful career path, title, or salary as part of their career development narrative. The only
individuals in the study who mentioned these ideas were the fundraisers less likely to stay. While
current research in the higher education fundraising industry suggests formal career pathing as a
motivating factor for fundraisers (Barden, 2020; Croteau & Wolk, 2010), the results of this study
suggest that career conversations that anchor on title and salary advancements are not a strong
motivation factor and may disengage fundraisers if promises of career advancement are broken.
As Burk (2013) expressed in her research, 98% of loyal fundraisers stay due to career
advancement opportunities and 78% of fundraisers cited limited career advancement
78

opportunities as their reason for leaving. This research at Oakview University suggests that
career advancement remains an important factor but should focus on the value of projects and the
meaningfulness of the work fundraisers are engaged in. While title and salary increases may
follow excellent work, these findings suggest that title and salary advances should not be at the
forefront of the conversation.
Finding Three: Fundraisers are Motivated by Efficient Tools and Processes that Enable Great
Work
Clearly expressed throughout this study, fundraisers desire effective tools and processes
to facilitate their best work as fundraisers. Roadblocks, in the form of inefficient tools or difficult
processes were passionately expressed as a hindrance to reaching the full potential of their work
and has dampened motivation. The literature told us that one of the main reasons fundraisers left
their role was limited resources (Joslyn, 2019). This is not surprising as more emergent literature
in the general employee engagement space points to the importance of leveraging data analytics
to place resources more strategically in the areas of high return (Lee, 2018; Rombaunt, 2020).
This directly aligns to fundraising work as the more effectively fundraisers can leverage data on
potential donors and the faster they can navigate internal processes, the more successful they will
be in their work. Ultimately, fundraisers have a desire to maximize the resources coming into the
organization for organizational gain and the personal gain of meeting their fundraising targets
(Mc Loughlin, 2017).
Research Question Two Findings: What Cultural Components of Oakview University
Inspire Longevity?
Research question two focuses on the cultural, or organizational, components that inspire
longevity. Three distinct findings focused on organizational constructs are outlined in this
79

section. Findings one and two focus on the importance of relationships in the fundraising role
including a complex network of partners and colleagues, the critical relationship with a
fundraiser’s direct leader and the importance of the relationship between executive fundraising
leadership and academic leadership. The final finding focuses on the importance of an
organization having clear goals with forward momentum to inspire longevity with the institution.
Finding One: High Connectivity and Meaningful Collaboration With Colleagues and
Managers are Key to Successful Retention.
At Oakview University, fundraisers embellished on countless relationships that enable
successful fundraising work. From key internal partners like the Gift Processing team and the
Gift Planning team to professional colleagues both inside and outside of the organization and the
critical role of their direct manager, engaged fundraisers gushed on the importance of these
relationships and some even directly said that their success hinders on them. The literature is
clear that the strength of relationships in the workplace predict retention (Cascio & Boudreau,
2011; Goh & Lopez, 2016; Pandita & ray, 2018; Shaw et al., 2005; Steiner et al., 2020) and this
is strongly reflected in the findings of the study. While fundraisers with shorter anticipated
tenure spoke of some key relationships that were important to them, the narrative of fundraisers
more likely to stay took stronger accountability for building these relationships and increased the
value and importance of them.
Several scholars identify managers as the key relationship (Goh & Lopez, 2016; Pandita
& Ray, 2018; Steiner et al., 2020) and others emphasized the important role of a leader in the
retention of their employees (Bake, 2019; Mensah, 2018). Even the fundraising literate cites that
fundraisers leave their role due to poor managers (Joslyn, 2019; Sargeant & Day, 2018). Key
attributes that this study uncovered as important qualities of a manager include someone who is
80

accessible, supportive, leads with trust and an advocate for their fundraiser. Similarly, Zak
(2017) spoke of trust, and Steiner and colleagues (2020) pointed to perceived supervisor support
as strong predictors of retention. At Oakview University, fundraisers with longer anticipated
tenure spoke highly of their manager, both on the fundraising side and/or academic side, while
many of the fundraisers with shorter anticipated tenure gave statements of discontent with those
relationships.
Finding Two: A Positive Relationship Between Fundraising Leadership and Academic
Leadership Facilitates Greater Fundraiser Engagement.
As shown in multiple findings, fundraisers must actively build and maintain relationships
with individuals across the university to experience success. An additional relationship, less in
the span of control for the fundraiser, is the critical relationship of executive fundraising
leadership and academic leadership. Essentially, the relationship between the two individuals
that the fundraiser reports to, generally an Associate Vice President or Sr. Associate Vice
President for Development and their respective college dean or program director, is critical.
Unfortunately, as shown in this study and in the literature, these two parties are not always in
direct alignment, yet the misalignment can be detrimental to success.
While fundraising has become an important part of the job description for university
leaders (Hodson, 2010), in general, academic leadership has had little exposure to the profession
(Hunt, 2012). Fundraisers are motivated by clear goals (Grabowski, 2016; Joslyn, 2019) so the
more proactive executive fundraising leadership can be in building relationships with the
academic leadership, the greater chance of clearer goals and greater engagement.
Finding Three: A Clear Vision With Big Ideas and Forward Momentum is Critical to
Engagement.
81

This study found that fundraisers more likely to stay with the institution clearly
understood the mission, goals and aspirations of the university and were engaged by their active
and direct role in setting goals in anticipation of achieving new heights. This aligns with the
literature that reveals employees are engaged by clear goals (Grabowski, 2016) and are more
engaged with an active role in setting those goals (Khalid, 2018). Additionally, these fundraisers
with longer anticipated tenure expressed their values alignment with the mission and purpose of
Oakview University, something that is key to engagement in any organization (Denny et al.,
2020). As shown with some of Oakview’s employees less likely to stay, those who have already
left and outlined in the literature, it is important to note that unreasonable goals that the
employee does not believe to be attainable will ultimately hinder engagement in the organization
(Joslyn, 2019). Fundraisers with longer anticipated tenure believe it to be an exciting time to be
part of Oakview University due to the anticipated growth on the horizon and the ability to
influence processes and structures to better support fundraising goals. Even though all the pieces
are not in place, the fundraisers more likely to stay gave grace and were thankful to be a part of
the positive change ahead.
The following section will present recommendations for practice based on the six
findings discussed in this section.
Recommendations for Practice
The purpose of this study was to recommend solutions for practice to help improve the
engagement and retention of fundraisers in higher education. In this section, four
recommendations for practice, rooted in knowledge, motivation, organization, and job
embeddedness, will be discussed.
82

Recommendation One: Facilitate Opportunities and Set Expectations for Fundraisers to
Build a Network of Peers and University Partners
Truly engaged fundraisers learn through a community of peers and university partners.
The first recommendation is to embrace and grow the format of learning through community
relationships by facilitating collision spaces and encouraging collaboration opportunities among
fundraising staff, advancement partners and university partners. This could be in the form of
purposeful networking time before or after meetings, encouraging casual coffee chats and
lunches among team members or pairing a new employee with a mentor that can help them
identify which relationships should be invested in as they begin their new role. These
relationships not only elevate learning but the strength of them facilitates retention (Goh &
Lopez, 2016; Pandita & Ray, 2018; Steiner et al., 2020).
A focus on constantly investing in internal networks will assist with the onboarding of
new fundraisers by accelerating their time to productivity and keep longer tenured fundraisers
abreast of the new talent and other potential collaborative partners that have joined the
organization. Furthermore, for early career professionals or those new to the industry, the
organization must communicate the importance of building networks as a key part of finding
success in the role and set expectations to invest time in and ownership of building those
networks. Managers should strategize with new employees on which relationships to form and
recognize time well spent in these spaces. This recommendation supports the construct of
knowledge because supportive work communities have benefits beyond retention and are a
predictive factor for successful training and development (Blume et al., 2010). Additionally,
when organizations promote idea sharing and create a helpful environment, success and learning
83

follows (Naz, 2020). Links, part of the job embeddedness model which is a predictor of
engagement and retention (Jiang et al., 2012), are also enhanced with this recommendation.
A focus on learning networks among the team will help elevate collaboration and
productivity in the organization and help to attract new talent if this learning culture is
communicated during the talent acquisition process. Most fundraising managers believe that
highlighting professional development offerings helps attract talent (Burk, 2013) and research
shows there is a positive relationship between talent development and attracting candidates
(Hedayti & Li, 2016). Therefore, offering meaningful and results driven growth through learning
networks may be attractive to prospective employees. It also may better resonate with successful
fundraisers as time is spent focused on the area of greatest impact instead of in the classroom.
Classroom training that does occur should be utilized as a springboard for building new and
enhancing existing relationships.
Recommendation Two: Frame Career and Engagement Discussions Around Meaningful
Work
As shown through the findings of this study, fundraisers are more likely to stay with the
organization when motivated by meaningful work. Fundraisers more likely to stay clearly
expressed their connection to the mission of the university and were able to articulate their
significant role in helping their unit and the university grow. These fundraisers were focused on
their impact when measuring career advancement and this phenomenon was consistent whether
they advanced their career at Oakview University or a different institution. It is recommended
that Oakview University focuses on impact when discussing career opportunities.
Many scholars have researched predictors of employee retention and do not include
salary as a top driver of engagement (Grissom, 2012; Jiang, 2012; Naz et al., 2020; Pandita &
84

Ray, 2018; Presbitero, 2016; Shaw et al., 2006, Steiner et al., 2020; Wassem, 2019). However,
the norm in the fundraising industry and present in the minimal literature available, is the desire
to map out career paths which usually anchor a conversation on available title levels and pay
bands (Barden, 2020; Croteau & Wolk, 2010). This recommendation suggests following the
widely studied general employee engagement research and place less of an emphasis on career
mapping a path with formal titles and salaries and instead find value add projects and work,
supported by an environment of trust, that appeal to a fundraiser’s individual skills and
opportunities for growth. Advancing in title and salary should be seen as an outcome of
meaningful and successful work, not as the goal to reach toward.
Anchoring to the important role of a manager in engagement (Goh & Lopez, 2016;
Pandita & Ray, 2018; Steiner et al., 2020) and the attributes in a manager of trust and support
found in this study and in the literature (Naz et al., 2020; Pandita & Ray, 2018)the
recommendation is to involve managers in meaningful conversations with their employees that
focus on value-add tasks that both motivate the employee and add to the success of the
university. It is recommended that these conversations focus on establishing meaningful goals
that align with mission driven work, understanding what motivates the individual employee, and
identifying gaps in the employee’s skill and ability that prohibits them from experiencing the
greatest success in their role. The onus must be on the employee to constantly learn, fill
identified gaps and further connect with available networks in pursuit of the organizational
mission. Managers must assist in facilitating action items, championing ideas, and removing
barriers that surface in these conversations. When employees are provided an avenue, like these
conversations, to effect organizational decision making, trust and engagement with that
organization will strengthen (Kahlid, 2018).
85

Recommendation Three: Invest in Academic Leadership as an Extension of the
Fundraising Team
Academic leadership play a pivotal role in the fundraising success (Hodson, 2010; Hunt
2012). Deans and program leaders hold the key to the vision of the college or program and
choose how to appropriate their time and investment in building relationships with key
stakeholders for philanthropic gain.
The literature recommends more fundraising training for academic leaders (Nehls, 2012),
but Oakview University has not invested significant time or resources in this space. However,
many fundraisers at Oakview University have forged positive working relationships with their
dean as a fundraising partner and have been able to effectively facilitate a positive relationship
between academic leaders and the executive fundraising team.
In the pursuit of greater fundraiser engagement and organizational success, is suggested
that executive fundraising leadership invest significant time and resources in building
relationships with each dean or program leader. While training is an option, it is suggested to
find a variety of purposeful opportunities for academic leadership, fundraising leadership, and
fundraisers to come together to collaborate on meaningful work toward a common goal.
Expectations must be set from the president of the university and part of evaluations and metrics
to ensure philanthropy in a priority.
Recommendation Four: Invest in Foundation Partnerships, Tools, and Processes that
Enable Fundraisers to Experience More Success in Their Work
Most fundraisers who participated in the study, regardless of anticipated tenure,
referenced the roadblocks of tools and processes to fundraising success. Research question two,
finding one, pointed to the importance of building relationships with critical partners such as Gift
86

Processing and Gift Planning, which are both central services located in the foundation to help
facilitate a fundraiser’s success. This emphasis on building relationships was a way to navigate
the complicated tools and processes that exist to support fundraisers. The fundraising literature
briefly indicated that some fundraisers left due to limited resources (Joslyn, 2019) and the
general literature explored for this study indicated the importance of leveraging data analytics to
invest resources in places of high return (Lee, 2018; Rombaunt, 2020). While more research is
needed to better understand this phenomenon, the theme highlighted in many interviews was too
prevalent to ignore.
The recommendation is to further explore meaningful ways to equip fundraisers with the
tools they need for success and efficient processes for additional time to focus on the most value-
added activities. The organization may want to consider more purposeful collaboration space
between fundraisers and their supporting roles so both parties can better understand the purpose,
challenges, and constraints of each other’s’ work.
Limitations and Delimitations
Every study has limitations and delimitations to consider that should be openly discussed
for the benefit of the reader and future researchers (Locke et al., 2010). The limitations of this
study, or phenomenon outside of the researcher’s control, include the quality of exit interview
data, participant’s choice to participate and the truthfulness of respondents. The exit interview
data utilized in the document review is predominantly in note form from a Human Resources
manager that is no longer with the organization. Most of the documents were legible with only
minor comments that could not be deciphered however, the context and tone were missing.
Another limitation is the participant’s willingness to participate. Due to the power structure
between the researcher, a leader in the organization, and participants, participants may not want
87

to express their thoughts and opinions on their personal engagement and retention. Furthermore,
if participants do interview, the truthfulness of the responses cannot be verified. Due to the
highly personal nature of the questions combined with the researcher being strongly connected to
the work environment, answers may be surface level and not express the whole truth.
Delimitations are constraints of the study based on choices the researcher makes in
designing the study. In this study, the choice to study one institution, conduct interviews over
video chat and randomly select participants from a group of 49 fundraisers are identified as
delimitations. The engagement and retention of fundraisers is a national problem (Barden, 2020;
Burk, 2013; Croteau & Wolk, 2010; Green, 2019; Thomas, 2010), yet only one organization at a
single point in time was studied. Foundation leadership, geography, size of the institution, among
other factors, could have a significant impact on the experience of the fundraisers studied. The
interviews in this study were conducted via video chat due to current university policy. While
convenient for recording the interview, the ability to build rapport and gather subtle cues in body
language and communication may have been missed without the opportunity to interact with
each participant in person. Lastly, the decision was made to randomly select participants from
the 49 fundraisers in the organization despite the many different categories of fundraisers. These
categories include managers vs non managers, level of gifts generally solicited, ethnic
background, years of experience, tenure at Oakview University and more. While it may be
helpful to understand each of these categories or demographics, for the purpose of this study and
to reduce selection bias, fundraisers were chosen at random.
Recommendations for Future Research
The primary delimitations, or constraints of the study based on researcher choices, were
the decisions to study one institution in one specific moment in time. Oakview University has
88

many qualities that make it unique including the size of the institution, demographics served,
geographic location and age of the establishment. Furthermore, the moment in time was unique
due to the recent addition of several fundraising leaders, including the CEO, an interim
university president serving at the helm of the institution and the recent experience of a global
pandemic. Many of these factors were discussed in the interviews, especially the location of the
institution, new leadership, and the shift in flexibility expectations due to the pandemic. The field
can benefit from further research that compares other institutions of various sizes, geographic
locations, outlook on workplace flexibility and differing in stages of the organizational or
campaign lifecycle.
Conclusion
A fundraiser holds the primary relationship with donors to the institution (Alborough,
2017) who have the financial capacity and affinity with the institution to make transformative
philanthropic gifts to higher education and the communities served (Croteau & Wolk, 2010;
McDonald et al., 2011; Thomas, 2010). With opportunity costs magnified by the time it takes for
donors to create trust with new fundraising staff, the engagement and retention of fundraisers is
critical to the success of any institution of higher learning (Mack et al., 2016; Skinner, 2019). As
outlined in Chapter One, this study took a critical look at the engagement and retention factors of
higher education fundraisers through the lens of knowledge, motivation and organization
outlined by Clark and Estes (2008) and the job embeddedness model which focuses on links, fit,
and sacrifice as predictive factors of retention (Jiang et al., 2012). Chapter Two explored the
comprehensive research on employee engagement along with the limited research on higher
education fundraising as a profession. Chapter Three outlined the approach of the Oakview
University case study which consisted of a document analysis of 21 exit interviews from the last
89

10 years and 10 confidential interviews that masked the identify of current fundraising
professionals. Chapter Four outlined seven themes gathered from the data collected which
resulted in four recommendations for practice. The results of this study suggest Oakview
University could benefit from facilitating opportunities for fundraisers to build extensive
networks of peers and university partners, frame career conversations around meaningful work,
invest in academic leadership as a valued member of the fundraising team and invest in
foundation partnerships, tools and processes that enable fundraisers to collaboratively do their
best work. There is still significant research to be done on this relatively emerging field (Bell and
Cornelius, 2013) and many aspects of this study should be replicated at other institutions to
further explore the engagement and retention drivers for higher education fundraisers as the
pursuit of even more philanthropic resources for colleges and universities continues.

90

References
Alborough, L. (2017). Lost in translation: A sociological study of the role of fundraisers in
mediating gift giving in non‐profit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1602
Bake, M. (2019). The Importance of Leadership and Employee Retention. Radiologic
Technology, 90(3), 279–281.
Barden, P. (2020). Rethinking employee retention. NonProfit Pro, 18(6), 22–24.
Bell, J., & Cornelius, M. (2013). Underdeveloped: A national study of challenges facing
nonprofit fundraising. Compass Point Nonprofit Services and the Evelyn and Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund, San Francisco, California.
Berger, B. (2014). Read my lips: Leaders, supervisors, and culture are the foundations of
strategic employee communications. Research Journal of the Institute for Public
Relations, 1(1).
Beynon, J. (2015). Investigating the impact of training influence on employee retention in small
and medium enterprises: A regression-type classification and ranking believe simplex
analysis on sparse data. Expert Systems, 32(1), 141–154.
https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12067
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Blume, B., Ford J., Baldwin, T., & Huang J. (2010) Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review.
Journal of management. 2009;36(4):1065–1105. doi:10.1177/0149206309352880
Breeze, B. (2017). The new fundraisers: Who organizes charitable giving in contemporary
society? Bristol: Policy Press.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. New York: Simon and
Schuster, pp. 25–49, 53–65.
91

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). Employee Tenure Summary. Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/tenure.nr0.htm
Burk, P. (2013). Donor-centered leadership: What it takes to build a high-performance
fundraising team. Canada: Cygnus Applied Research, Inc.
Burkhardt, J. (2007). Transformational giving and its relationship to the emerging roles of
public colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational
Advancement, 7(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ijea.2150057
Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H. (Eds.). (2019). Research
Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner (pp. 147–159). Sage
Publications Inc.
Carvin, B. N. (2011). New strategies for making exit interviews count. Employment Relations
Today, 38(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ert.20338
Cascio, & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people financial impact of human resource
initiatives (2nd edition). FT Press.
Choi, S. (2020). Flexible Work Arrangements and Employee Retention: A Longitudinal Analysis
of the Federal Workforces. Public Personnel Management, 49(3), 470–495.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026019886340
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pub Inc.
Costanza, D.P., et al (2016). The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival.
Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 361–381.
Council for Advancement and Support of Education. (2018). Increasing diversity in university
advancement: Lessons from development programs. Retrieved from:
92

https://www.case.org/resources/increasing-diversity-university-advancement-lessons-
leading-development-programs
Counts, T. S., & Jones, J. A. (2019). Fundraiser education in the United States: Analysis of
existing university-based programs and unique training needs. The Journal of Nonprofit
Education and Leadership, 9(4).
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review.
Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Croteau, J.D., & Wolk, H.G. (2010). Defining advancement career paths and succession plans:
Critical human capital retention strategies for high-performing advancement divisions.
International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 99–107.
Dale, E. (2017). Fundraising as women’s work? Examining the profession with a gender
lens. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4).
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1605
Daly, S. (2013). Philanthropy, the new professionals and higher education: The advent of
directors of development and alumni relations. Journal of Higher Education Policy
Management, 35(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2012.727701
Das, B.L. (2013). Employee retention: a review of literature, IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, 14(2), 8–16.
Davies, B., & Davies, B. (2010). Talent management in academies. International Journal of
Educational Management, 24(5), 418–426. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011055983.
93

Denny, B., Hauptmann, M., Mallon, D., Poynton, S., Schwartz, J., Van Durme, Y., Volini, E., &
Yan, R. (2020) The social enterprise at work: paradox as a path forward. Deloitte Global
Human Capital Trends.
Espinosa, L., Turk, J., Taylor, M., & Chessman, H. (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher
education: A status report. Retrieved from the American Council on Education website:
https://www.equityinhighered.org/resources/report-downloads/
Farwell, M., Gaughan, M., & Handy, F. (2020). How did we get here? The career paths of higher
education fundraisers. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 30(3), 487–507.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21397
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
31(1), 45–56.
Gallup. (2016). How millennials want to work and live. Washington, DC: Gallup Press.
Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/reports/189830/millennials-work-live.aspx
Garr, S.S. (2012). Integrated talent management: A roadmap for success. Bersin &
Associates Research Bulletin, https://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights
/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2012/10/integrated-talent-management-a-roadmap
-for-success
Giving USA Foundation, Giving USA 2020 as cited in Jefferies, R. (2020). Crisis Philanthropy
in Education: Lessons from ‘Giving USA 2020’. Alliance of Girls School Australia.
Accessed: https://www.agsa.org.au/news/crisis-philanthropy-in-education-lessons-
from-giving-usa-2020/
94

Gnolek, S., Falciano, V., & Kuncl, R., (2014). Modeling change and variation in U.S. News &
World Report College Rankings: What would it really take to be in the Top 20?
Research in Higher Education, 55(8), 761–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-
9336–9
Goh, Y., & Lopez, V. (2016). Job satisfaction, work environment and intention to leave among
migrant nurses working in a publicly funded tertiary hospital. Journal of Nursing
Management, 24(7), 893–901. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12395
Green, J. (2019). The current and anticipated fundraising talent crisis - A look at factors that
contribute to the lack of growth of our profession. Critical Fundraising (USA) Report,
v1.1. London, UK: Rogare - The Fundraising Think Tank.
Gould-Williams, J., & Davies, F. (2005). Using social exchange theory to predict the effects of
hrm practice on employee outcomes: An analysis of public sector workers. Public
Management Review, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903042000339392
Grabowski, R. (2016). Build a better bonus system: How financial incentives improve employee
retention and performance. CASE Currents. Accessed:
https://www.case.org/resources/outlook-build-better-bonus-system
Grissom, J. (2012). Revisiting the Impact of Participative Decision Making on Public Employee
Retention: The Moderating Influence of Effective Managers. American Review of Public
Administration, 42(4), 400–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011404209
Hans-Gerd Ridder, Erk P. Piening, & Alina McCandless Baluch. (2012). The third way
reconfigured: How and why nonprofit organizations are shifting their human
resource management. Voluntas, 23(3), 605–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-
9219-z
95

Harrison, V. (2018). Understanding the donor experience: Applying stewardship theory to higher
education donors. Public Relations Review, 44(4), 533–548.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.07.001
Hartsook, R., & Sargeant, A. (2017). Major Gift Fundraising. In Fundraising Principles and
Practice (pp. 435–462). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119228974
Hayashida, P. (2014). Hire learning. CASE Currents Magazine, 18‐23.
Hedayati, A., & Li, J. (2016). Understanding talent development and implications for human
resource development: An integrative literature review. Human Resource Development
Review, 15(3), 263–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316655667
Homans, G. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. The American Journal of Sociology, 63(6),
597–606. https://doi.org/10.1086/222355
Hong, E.N.C., Hao, L.Z., Kumar, R., Ramendran, C. & Kadiresan, V. (2012). An effectiveness
of human resource management practices on employee retention in institute of higher
learning: a regression analysis. International Journal of Business Research and
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 60–79.
Hodson, J. B. (2010). Leading the way: The role of presidents and academic deans in
fundraising. New Directions for Higher Education, 2010(149), 39–49.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.379
Hunsaker, R. & Bergerson, A. (2018). The fundraising role of academic deans: A qualitative
study. Philanthropy & Education, 2(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.2.1.04
Hunt, P. (2012). Development for academic leaders: A practical guide for fundraising success.
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
96

Jiang, K., Liu, D., McKay, P.F., Lee, T.W. & Mitchell, T.R. (2012). When and how is job
embeddedness predictive of turnover? A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 1077–1096.
Jones, J. A., & Castillo, E. A. (2017). The fundraiser's journey: A developmentally informed,
grounded theory analysis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 22(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1584
Jones, J., & Daniel, D. (2019). Academic and practitioner collaborations in fundraising
research: A case study of one action research-driven collaboration. Journal of
Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 9(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.18666/JNEL-
2019-V9-I2-9739
Joslyn, H. (2019). Should you counter a fundraiser’s job offer? It depends, say experts. The
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 31(10), 15.
Kaplan, A. (2020). Voluntary Support of Education: Key findings from data collected for the
2018–19 academic fiscal year for U.S. higher education institutions. Retrieved from the
Council for Advancement and Support of Education website:
https://www.case.org/resources/voluntary-support-education-vse-survey-help
Kashyap, V. and Verma, N. (2018). Linking dimensions of employer branding and turnover
intentions. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 26(2), 282-295.
doi: 10.1108/IJOA-03-2017-1134.
Khalid, K., & Nawab, S. (2018). Employee participation and employee retention in view of
compensation. SAGE Open, 8(4). doi:10.1177/2158244018810067
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
(41), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
97

Lee, H. (2018). Managing employee retention and turnover with 21st century ideas.
Organizational Dynamics, 47(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.08.004
Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Spirduso, W. W. (2010). Reading and understanding research.
(3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ma, M. (2018). Keep them on-board! How organizations can develop employee embeddedness
to increase employee retention. Development and Learning in Organizations, 32(4), 5–9.
https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-11-2017-0094
Mc Loughlin, J. (2017). Advantage, meaning, and pleasure: Reframing the interaction between
major‐gift fundraisers and philanthropists. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1600-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1600
McCarthy, C. (2017). Take the collaborative approach to fundraising for student affairs. Student
Affairs Today, 20(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/say.303
McDonald, K., Scaife, W., & Smyllie, S. (2011). Give and take in major gift relationships.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 163–182.
Macey, S. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Mack, C. E., Kelly, K. S., & Wilson, C. (2016). Finding an academic home for fundraising: A
multidisciplinary study of scholars’ perspectives. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(3), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1554
Masterson, K. (2017). What every dean needs to know about fund raising: Tips for the
academic leader and those who aspire to be one on how to cultivate donors. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
98

McDonald, K., Scaife, W., & Smyllie, S. (2011). Give and take in major gift relationships.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 46(2), 163–182.
Meisenbach, R., Rick, J., & Brandhorst, J. (2019). Managing occupational identity threats and
job turnover: How former and current fundraisers manage moments of stigmatized
identities. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(3), 383–399.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21332
Mensah, J.K. (2018). Talent management and employee outcomes: A psychological contract
fulfilment perspective. Public Organization Review, doi:10.1007/s11115-018-040
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyers, M., van Woerkom, M., Paauwe, J., & Dries, N. (2020). HR managers’ talent
philosophies: Prevalence and relationships with perceived talent management practices.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(4), 562–588.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1579747
Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., Lee, T., Sablynski, C., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job
embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6),
1102–1121. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069391
Morse, R, & Brooks, E. (2020). A More Detailed Look at the Ranking Factors. U.S News and
World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-
and-weights
Nathan, S.K., & Temple, E.R. (2017). Fundraisers in the 21st Century. (pp. 4–11). Indiana
University ScholarWorks Repository. https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/13845
99

Naz, L. (2020). A Study in the Relationship Between Supportive Work Environment and
Employee Retention: Role of Organizational Commitment and Person-Organization Fit
as Mediators. SAGE Open, 10(2), 215824402092469-.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020924694
Nehls, N. (2012). Leadership Transitions During Fundraising Campaigns. Innovative Higher
Education, 37(2), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9193-9
Nicoson, D. (2010). Prospect development systems: Empowering artful fundraising. New
Directions for Higher Education, (149), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.383
Nyman, J., Pilbeam, C., Baines, P., & Stan Maklan. (2018). Identifying the roles of university
fundraisers in securing transformational gifts: lessons from Canada. Studies in Higher
Education, 43(7)
Pandita, D., & Ray, S. (2018). Talent management and employee engagement - a meta-analysis
of their impact on talent retention. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(4), 185–199.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-09-2017-0073
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Presbitero, R. (2016). Looking beyond HRM practices in enhancing employee retention in
BPOs: focus on employee-organisation value fit. International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 27(6), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1035306
Rombaut, G. (2020). The effectiveness of employee retention through an uplift modeling
approach. International Journal of Manpower, 41(8), 1199–1220.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2019-0184
100

Sargeant, A., & Day, H. (2018). The wake up call: A study of nonprofit leadership in the US
and its impending crisis, (pp. 37–39)
https://concordleadershipgroup.com/!WakeUpCall_Report.pdf
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2016). Outstanding fundraising practice: how do nonprofits
substantively increase their income?: Outstanding fundraising practice. International
Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 43–56.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1546
Saunders, M. N. (2019). Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory
development. In Research Methods for Business Students, (5
th
ed.). Pearson Education
India.
Schwartz, J., Bersin, J., & Pelster, B. (2014). Global human capital trends 2014: Engaging the
21st-century workforce. New York, NY: Deloitte University Press.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/nl/Documents/humancapital/deloitte-nl-
global-human-capita-trends-2014.pdf
Shaker, G., & Nathan, S. (2017). Understanding higher education fundraisers in the United
States. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4).
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1604
Shaker, G., Rooney, P., Bergdoll, J., Nathan, S., & Tempel, E. (2020). Professional identity and
the determinants of fundraisers’ charitable behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 49(4), 677–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019892089
Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Johnson, J. L., & Lockhart, D. E. (2005). Turnover, social capital
losses, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 594–606. doi:10.5465/
amj.2005.17843940
101

Simpson, J., Schraeder, M., & Borowski, M. (2015). Enhancing the value of training: creating
closer time linkages between training acquisition, application, and compensation.
Development and Learning in Organizations, 29(5), 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-
05-2014-0037
Skinner, N. (2019). The Rise and professionalization of the American fundraising model in
higher education. Philanthropy & Education, 3(1), 23–46.
https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.3.1.02
Stahl, R.M. (2013). Talent Philanthropy: Investing in Nonprofit People to Advance Nonprofit
Performance. The Foundation Review, 5(3), Article 6.
Speck, B. (2010). The growing role of private giving in financing the modern university. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2010(149), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.376
Steiner, C. (2020). Reasons for staying with your employer: Identifying the key organizational
predictors of employee retention within a global energy business. Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 62(4), 289–295.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001820
Strickland, S., & Walsh, K. (2013). Fostering future fundraisers through a model undergraduate
internship program. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(1), 5.
Taylor, Z. W. (2018). Go big and go home: Major gifts, public flagships, and the parlance of
prestige. Philanthropy & Education, 1(2), 54–81. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.1.2.03
Thomas, C. (2010). Retaining educational fundraisers: Reducing turnover by investing in human
capital management. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 99–107.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2010.13
102

Wassem, B. (2019). Impact of capacity building and managerial support on employees’
performance: The moderating role of employees’ retention. SAGE Open, 9(3),
215824401985995. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019859957
Webb, K., & Webb, K. (2018). Can private donations help public universities build bridges
over troubled waters?: Practical lessons for administrators and donors. Public
Organization Review, 18(2), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0365-z
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Zak, P.J. (2017). The trust factor: The science of creating high-performance companies.
AMACOM. Introduction and Chapter 1, pp. 1–29.

102

Appendix A: Document Review Guide
I. Framing
Research Questions:
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?

Predictors of Retention (Based on the Job Embeddedness Model):
1. Fit - How an employee’s job and community fits within their values (recruitment, selection, and enculturation)
2. Links - The extent to which people have links to other people or activities (positive interactions, team cohesion, and
community ties)
3. Sacrifice - What an employee must give up if they leave (benefits, pay, and comfort)

Type of Document: Notes from an exit interview of a fundraiser taken by Human Resources representative.

Goal of Review: Identify themes and trends as to why past fundraisers left Oakview University.

II. Review Notes

Exit
Interview
Number
Tenure at
Oakview
University
< 1 year
1–5 years
6–9 years
> 10 years
Reason for
Leaving
Comments
on
Knowledge
Comments
on
Motivation
Comments on
Organization
Comments
on Fit
Comments
on Links
Comments
on
Sacrifice
1

2

3
103

4

5

6

7

8

III. Post Review Researcher Reflections

104

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Research Questions
1. What knowledge and motivation factors influence fundraisers to be engaged with
Oakview University?
2. What cultural components of Oakview University inspire longevity?
Introductory Language
Hello, my name is (Interview Partner Name). I am a student at the University of Southern
California and partnering with Kristin Green, who you know as the leader of Talent Management
at USF Advancement. As you know, she has asked me to conduct this interview today to ensure
the thoughts you share today remain completely confidential. Due to her role in your
organization and the sensitive nature of the topics discussed, it is our hope to collect the best
possible data with me as an outside interviewer.
Thank you for taking the time today to discuss your professional experiences as a higher
education fundraiser. The purpose of this research is to understand what engages fundraisers in
their work with the hope of discovering how to create a more engaging environment to retain
higher education fundraisers. I am here today as a researcher. My purpose is to understand your
experiences to inform fellow researchers and practitioners of trends in your industry. The data
gathered will remain confidential. While some quotes may be used in the final report, your name
will not be associated with them.
The questions today will ask about your work experiences, some positive and some
negative and ultimately explore what goes into the decision about staying at the organization or
leaving. Please note, you are welcome to pass on any question or withdraw from the interview at
105

any point in time. I will provide you with a transcript of your interview for your review so you
may edit the document to reflect your desired response most accurately.
I would like to ask for your permission to record our interview. This recording will only
be viewed by a transcription service to accurately capture what was discussed. Again, any
concepts or ideas pulled from our interview will not be tied to your name. You may request that
the recording be stopped at any time. The video will be stored in my personal password protected
files and will be destroyed after the completion of the transcript. May I have your permission to
record today?
Do you have any questions before we get started?
May I have your permission to begin the interview and start the recording? Thank you!
Classifying Questions
1. How long have you been a fundraiser? (Please categorize as 0–5, 5–10, 10–15, 15+ to
keep confidentiality)
2. Roughly how many years have you been at this institution? (Please categorize as 0–2, 2–
5, 5–10 or 10+ to keep confidentiality)
3. Do you have any formal degrees or certificates in fundraising?
4. Are you in a leadership role? (Clarifying question - do you have any direct reports?)
Interview Questions
1. What are you most proud of about working with the University of South Florida (USF)?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Tell me more about what excites you about working for your
university?
b. Follow-Up Probe: Is there anything else you brag about?
2. If you left your job tomorrow, what are some of the things you would give up?
106

a. Follow-Up Probe: How important are those things to you?
b. Follow-Up Probe: Which one of those things is most important to you?
3. What is or has been important for you to know to be successful in your role at USF?
a. Follow-Up Probe: How did you learn this information?
b. Follow-up Probe: What do you know now that you wish you would have known
when you joined USF?
4. How do you continue to improve your craft?
a. Follow-up Probe: What professional development opportunities do you take part
in?
5. How do you collaborate with colleagues in your organization?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Please share an example of when you collaborated with your
colleagues.
b. Follow-Up Probe: Can you describe a recent project you completed with a
colleague that you were proud of?
c. Follow-Up Probe: Can you share an example of when a collaboration did not go
as well?
6. Can you describe the social networks you have at work?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Tell me about the people and networks you converse with
during the workday?
b. Follow-Up Probe: Do you also see people from your organization outside of work
hours for social reasons? If so, tell me about those relationships.
c. Follow-Up Probe: If not, is this something you would like to do more of or would
you prefer leaving work relationships at work?
107

7. I would like to know about your relationship with your manager. Can you describe a
recent interaction that highlights how you generally work together?
a. Follow-up Probe: What can your leader do to better support you?
b. Follow-up Probe: Can you tell me about a past manager or leader that gave you
the support you desired?
8. Do you have clear goals and expectations for the work that you do?
a. Follow-up Probe if Yes: Tell me about how those are communicated and why you
those interactions result in clear goals and expectations.
b. Follow-up Prove if No: Tell me about the gaps that exist.
9. What do you value most in a work environment?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Is there anything else that is important to you in a work
environment?
b. Follow-Up Probe: Of what you just discussed, are any of these non-negotiables
that must be met in your place of employment?
10. Thinking about your core values, those beliefs that drive you as a person, how well do
those values align with your daily work?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Can you give me an example of how these values align with
your work?
11. Have you ever experienced something at work that did not align with your values?
a. Follow-Up Probe: Tell me more about a situation when this happened.
12. Focusing on your work environment and culture, what are some of the roadblocks you
face to doing your job well?
a. Follow-Up Probe: What challenges get in the way of your success?
108

13. Tell me about the communication channels at work. Between your manager, peers, and
overall organizational network, do you receive the information necessary to perform your
job well?
a. Follow-up Probe: How can communication channels be improved to better
support your work?
b. Follow-Up Probe: What activities or assignments do you participate in that are
helpful toward accomplishing your career goals?
14. When did you last purposefully reflect on your day to contemplate what went well, what
did not go well and how you might improve?
a. Follow-up Probe: Approximately how much time do you dedicate to reflection?
15. Describe the environment of your last job when you decided to accept your current role.
a. Follow-up Probe: Why did you decide to make the move?
16. Have you ever questioned how long you will be at your current organization?
a. Follow-up Probe: If yes, can you describe what was going on in your mind as you
were contemplating this decision?
b. Follow-up Probe: If no, is there anything that weighs negatively on your mind
about your current situation?
c. Follow-Up Probe: What were some of the factors that made you think about
moving elsewhere?
d. Follow-Up Probe: Why did you ultimately stay?
Concluding Questions
1. Is there anything else that would be helpful for me to know about your experience as an
employee?
109

2. Are there any questions I can answer for you before we conclude?
Closing Language
Today’s interview was an important part of the process to discovering how to create work
environments that set fundraisers up for success. My next step is to send the recording of our
conversation to a transcription service. I will provide this for your review along with the
opportunity to edit, delete or expand on the ideas you presented today. You may also choose to
redact any information that may reveal your identity. As a reminder, this conversation was
confidential, and the recording will be destroyed as soon as the transcription, with your personal
information protected, is complete. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your candor.
e. Follow-Up Probe: What were some of the factors that made you think about
moving elsewhere?
f. Follow-Up Probe: Why did you ultimately stay?
Concluding Questions
3. Is there anything else that would be helpful for me to know about your experience as an
employee?
4. Are there any questions I can answer for you before we conclude?
Closing Language
Today’s interview was an important part of the process to discovering how to create work
environments that set fundraisers up for success. My next step is to transcribe our conversation
and identify themes. I will provide this for your review along with the opportunity to edit, delete
or expand on the ideas you presented today. As a reminder, this conversation was confidential,
and I will be the only one viewing the recording. Thank you for your time and I appreciate your
candor.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Transforming the leadership table: a critical narrative study of the underrepresentation of Chicana/os in higher education leadership

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

Low retention of active duty female Marine Corps officers

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

The great balancing act: women seeking work-life balance during COVID-19

PDF

Shelf awareness: public librarians and diverse collections

PDF

KMO factors influencing the culturally responsive implementation of PBIS: a mixed-methods study

PDF

When they teach us: recruiting teacher candidates of color for the next generation of students, an evaluation study

PDF

The influence of high school bystanders of bullying: an exploratory study

PDF

Underrepresentation of African Americans in master’s engineering programs

PDF

Educational technology integration: a search for best practices

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

Creating a culture of connection: employee engagement at an academic medical system

PDF

Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover

PDF

Implementation of dual language immersion to improve academic achievement of Latinx English learners

PDF

Leadership capacity and pipeline in higher education

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

Building charter school leadership capacity: a look into leadership practices at accelerated academy

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Green, Kristin (author)

Core Title Raising tenure: a case study of fundraiser retention in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/03/2022

Defense Date 08/03/2022

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

Tag employee retention,Fundraising,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Combs, Wayne (committee member), Malloy, Courtney (committee member)

Creator Email green.kristin.n@gmail.com,kngreen@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376111

Unique identifier UC111376111

Legacy Identifier etd-GreenKrist-11096

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Green, Kristin

Type texts

Source 20220804-usctheses-batch-969 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu