University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building a framework for guiding fundraiser learning and practice in higher education advancement

(USC Thesis Other)

Building a framework for guiding fundraiser learning and practice in higher education advancement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

BUILDING A FRAMEWORK FOR GUIDING FUNDRAISER LEARNING AND PRACTICE
IN HIGHER EDUCATION ADVANCEMENT

by

Arwen Staros Duffy

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

August 2022

Copyright 2022 Arwen Staros Duffy
ii
Dedication

To Sean, I could not have achieved this without your love and support.

To Jack and James, thank you for your patience and understanding.

To my parents, thank you for modeling persistence in doctoral studies when I was young.
Although it took me a long time to start down the path, I am proud to follow in your footsteps.

iii
Acknowledgements
In addition to friends and family who graciously accommodated my limited availability
in recent years, I owe a debt of gratitude to my former colleagues at the University of Southern
California, particularly Kevin Corbett, Karla Reid, John Keim, and Adam Gutierrez, whose
brainstorming about the USC Fundraising Institute put me on this path of inquiry, Lorri
Grubaugh, Margaret Kean, and John Sonego, whose participation in a pilot study helped focus
my dissertation research, and the Rossier School of Education faculty and staff, who guided me
through a new field of study and mode of learning. I am deeply grateful to my dissertation
committee, which was chaired by Ken Yates, whose patience is (nearly) boundless and whose
advice is invaluable, and included Jerry Lucido, who introduced me to gap analysis, and Alison
Muraszewski, who taught me all about learning.
This study would not have been possible without the help and participation of colleagues
in institutional advancement, learning and development, consulting, and search. I am indebted to
the 77 panelists, who put up with three substantial survey rounds and provided a wealth of data,
and I am grateful to the colleagues who helped me find such fantastic participants. In particular,
Aaron Conley, Kevin Corbett, Brian Ibsen, Sam Lopez, Anne Melvin, Jim Montague, John
Solmonese, and Suzanne Hilser-Wiles went out of their way to provide multiple introductions,
which I deeply appreciate. It is an honor to share the results of this study with those who were so
central to its successful completion, although I acknowledge that a cross-country move for a new
job put me months behind schedule. Thank you for your patience!
Mentorship, apprenticeship, and learning by doing play important roles in my
recommendations, and I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my mentors and guides,
whose expertise, guidance, and wisdom helped me grow from novice fundraiser to chief
iv
advancement officer, including Judith Teitelman, Laura Parker, John Glier, Janet Lustig, and
Jane Hayden. Similarly, I owe a great deal to my mentees and team members at LACE, UCLA,
CalArts, Art Center, USC, and, now, UMass. For 27 years, you’ve given me the opportunity to
grow as a manager, leader, coach, and guide; you’ve put up with my penchant for
experimentation and innovation; and you’ve taught me so much. Thank you.
Once again, to my family, friends, colleagues, instructors, mentors, mentees, and team
members, I offer my sincere gratitude for your thoughtfulness, support, guidance, assistance, and
patience, all of which contributed to this dissertation.
For additional information about the study, please contact Arwen Duffy, Vice Chancellor
for Advancement, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 181 Presidents Drive, Room 239,
Amherst, MA 01003-9313, arwen.duffy@umass.edu (formerly Assistant Vice President for
Development, University of Southern California [2014-2021]).

v
Table of Contents

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. viiiii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context ....................................................................................................... 2
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 5
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 10
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 11
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 12
Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15
Fundraising for American Higher Education .................................................................... 15
The Advancement Workforce ........................................................................................... 35
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 46
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 47
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 71
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 72
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 72
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 73
vi
Assessment of Performance Needs ................................................................................... 81
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................. 91
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 93
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 94
Trustworthiness of Data .................................................................................................... 96
Role of Investigator........................................................................................................... 97
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 98
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 99
Summary of Findings for the Study by Topic ................................................................ 100
Participants ...................................................................................................................... 105
Summary of Results by Rounds ...................................................................................... 110
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 134
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 135
Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 136
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 136
Effective Training Methods for Major Gift Officers ...................................................... 144
Applying Research to Build Managers' Capacity to Train MGOs ................................. 147
Integrating Research into a Complete Training and Management System..................... 166
Evaluating Efficacy of MGO Training and Development .............................................. 183
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 201
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 204
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 206
References ................................................................................................................................... 208
Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 234
Appendix A: Round One Survey .................................................................................... 234
vii
Appendix B: Round One Quantitative Analysis ............................................................. 245
Appendix C: Round One Qualitative Analysis ............................................................... 250
Appendix D: Round Two Survey ................................................................................... 261
Appendix E: Round Two Quantitative Analysis ............................................................ 289
Appendix F: Round Two Qualitative Analysis ............................................................... 294
Appendix G: Round Three Survey ................................................................................. 349
Appendix H: Round Three Quantitative Analysis .......................................................... 376
Appendix I: Round Three Qualitative Analysis.............................................................. 391

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Sample Campaign Gift Table 22
Table 2: Essential Tasks and Behaviors by Factor (K, M, O) and 141
Thematic Area
Table 3: Stakeholder Roles in a Complete Fundraising Training 178
and Management System
Table 4: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and 186
Internal Outcomes
Table 5: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing 188
for Evaluation
Table 6: Required Drivers to Support MGO Critical Behaviors 191
Table 7: Required Drivers to Support Managers as Trainers 193
Table B1: Round One Quantitative Analysis 245
Table E1: Round Two Quantitative Analysis 289
Table H1: Round Three Quantitative Analysis 376

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Donor Cultivation Cycle (Dunlop, 1993) 24
Figure 2: Nurturing Fundraising Cycle (Dunlop, 1993, 2002) 25
Figure 3: Theoretical Framework of Delphi Technique in Qualitative 75
Research (Habibi et al., 2015)
Figure 4: Delphi Study Structure for Data Collection and Analysis 77
Figure 5: Training Methods Found Effective by Preliminary Consensus 104
Figure 6: Approaches to Evaluating Fundraiser Training Reported in 105
Round Three
Figure 7: Geographic Distribution of Represented Higher Education Institutions 107
Figure 8: Types of Higher Education Institutions Represented 108
Figure 9: How Panelists Began Their Careers in Advancement 109
Figure 10: Reported Training and Professional Development Activities 110
Available to MGOs
Figure 11: Survey Two Design 112
Figure 12: Sample Item from Round Two Showing Average Rating from 124
Round One
Figure 13: Training Methods Suggested by Expert Panel 131
Figure 14: Training Methods Rated and Found Effective in Round Three 133
Figure 15: The New World Kirkpatrick Model 183
Figure 16: Guidance for Coaching Managers from Clark (2007) 197

x
Abstract
Philanthropic support is a vital source of revenue for U.S. higher education institutions, yet
training of professional fundraisers is often ad hoc and incomplete. Informed by a pragmatic
perspective on social science research, this mixed methods exploratory study assesses training
needs of major gift officers (MGOs) using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, a
systematic, analytical method that focuses on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
to close gaps between actual and preferred human performance levels. The study captured
expertise from experienced fundraisers who manage MGOs to define desired training outcomes
and begin building a research-based framework for guiding fundraising training. The research
questions guiding this study are: 1) what fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors do managers
of MGOs working in higher education identify as essential for MGOs to meet their performance
goals? 2) How do managers help MGOs learn to perform essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors? 3) What recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organization can be made
for managers to guide MGO learning and practice of fundraising? Utilizing a modified Delphi
survey technique, the study engaged a panel of 77 fundraising managers in three survey rounds.
Quantitative and qualitative analysis followed each round, and the results informed the design of
the next survey. Through consensus, the panel defined 49 fundraising tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors essential for success in major gifts fundraising, provided detailed information about
current training methods, and revealed a lack of confidence in group training, the most frequently
used approach. The results suggest an individualized, hands-on approach to fundraiser training
guided by more experienced colleagues—i.e., an apprenticeship model—supported by an
organizational culture that values learning and continuous improvement.
Keywords: Advancement, fundraising, major gifts, training, higher education

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Charitable gifts are a vital revenue source for American institutions of higher education,
which depend on tuition and fees, grants, philanthropy, and, in some instances, state allocations
for funding (Speck, 2010). Over the past four decades, fundraising for our nation’s colleges and
universities has increased dramatically as public funding for higher education has declined.
Between 1980 and 2015, giving to American colleges and universities (in constant 2015-16
dollars) increased 250%, from $11.6 billion to $40.6 billion (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2016). A growing institutional advancement workforce is responsible for this
enterprise; however, this emerging profession lacks a strong foundation of research to guide
practice (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Caboni & Proper, 2007; Drezner & Huehls, 2014;
Kelly, 1991).
A career in advancement requires no formalized educational preparation or board
certification process.
1
Most practitioners begin working in the field by chance rather than by
design (Lanning, 2007; Tempel & Duronio, 1997) and learn fundraising on the job (Shaker &
Nathan, 2017; Tempel & Duronio, 1997) often through trial and error (Marion, 1997).
Developing fundraising expertise can take many years (Lanning, 2007) at an opportunity cost to
nonprofit institutions. Moreover, when large segments of its fundraising workforce lack more
formal training and experience, an institution risks stagnant gift revenues and a low return on its
investment in advancement.
Colleges and universities can mitigate this risk by taking a proactive approach to
building fundraising expertise, particularly during periods of staff expansion, which often occur
during the early years of a campaign. Instead of relying on participation in work to result in

1
An international accredited certification program, Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), exists; however, it is
voluntary and generally not a requirement of job applicants (http://www.cfre.org/).

2
mastery, institutions can support guided learning at work, in which more experienced co-workers
“support and monitor the development of the knowledge of workplace learners by making
accessible and guiding the development of the kinds of conceptual knowledge that would
otherwise remain hidden, yet are salient for effective work practice” (Billett, 2000, p. 273).
However, no such framework currently exists to support those best positioned to provide
guidance: managers of fundraisers. As such, this innovation study serves as a needs assessment
for managers of major gift officers (MGOs) to become effective workplace learning guides.
Organizational Context
Higher education advancement offices share a labor supply problem: the demand for
experienced major gift officers (MGOs) is greater than the supply. In the 1990s, a number of
universities launched campaigns with billion-dollar goals (CASE, 2020; Drezner & Huehls,
2014; Lanning, 2007; Worth, 1993). As fundraising expectations grew, advancement budgets
and staffs expanded (Drezner & Huehls, 2014), and demand for experienced advancement
professionals outstripped supply (Lanning, 2007). Additionally, the rapid growth of the nonprofit
sector (Marion, 1997) and an “epidemic of turnover in the advancement profession” (Iarrobino,
2006, p. 141) compounded staffing challenges at many institutions.
Since the 1990s, the scale of university fundraising has steadily increased. The Council of
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) keeps a running list of the largest higher
education campaigns in the United States by fundraising goal. This list includes a single billion-
dollar campaign begun in the 1980s (Stanford University), 28 begun in the 1990s, and 146 begun
since 2000 (CASE, 2020). A 2016 benchmark study by campaign consulting firm Grenzebach,
Glier and Associates compared nine university advancement programs that are among the

3
highest performing in the nation (CAE, 2012, 2013, 2014).
2
With an average of 433
advancement full-time employees raising an average of $609 million per year, these universities
illustrate the scale of workforce necessary to meet a multi-billion campaign goal (GG+A, 2016).
Beyond these nine, many other institutions are conducting large-scale campaigns that require
scores to hundreds of fundraisers to complete. Colleges, universities, and professional schools
employed 11,370 fundraisers in 2017, and the number of fundraising positions is projected to
increase by 9.3% between 2014 and 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).
The current scale of higher education fundraising requires a sizable specialized
workforce; however, there is no steady pipeline of formally-trained recruits. When universities
staff up for a campaign, they must be prepared to train and develop their fundraisers. Iarrobino
(2006) recommends training, mentorship, and ongoing professional development to deepen
skills, foster internal promotion, and retain advancement staff. High educational attainment
among advancement professionals can support on-the-job training in fundraising. The Council of
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), the largest professional organization of
advancement professionals working in education, includes demographic questions in periodic
surveys of its members. In 2016, 97% of CASE survey respondents had associates (2%),
bachelors (48%), or advanced degrees (47%) (CASE, 2016). The uniformity in educational
attainment reflects a certain homogeneity in advancement demographics. 2016 survey
respondents to questions about race and gender were 88% White and 71% female (P. Bakerman,
personal communication, March 20, 2017). As colleges and universities work to build

2
The benchmark cohort includes University of Chicago, Columbia University, Cornell University, Duke University,
Johns Hopkins University, University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, University of Southern California, and
Yale University. The GG+A report uses self-reported data from the Voluntary Support of Education (VSE) report of
the Council for Aid to Education (CAE).

4
administrations that reflect the diversity of their student and alumni populations, on-the-job
training that promotes early and continuing fundraising success can aid recruitment and retention
of a more diverse Advancement workforce.
Retention is a widely acknowledged challenge for employers of fundraisers. A 2013
study by Bell and Cornelius responded to widespread concerns of “premature turnover of
development directors, lengthy vacancies in the role, and the seemingly thin pool of qualified
candidates from which organizations can choose” (Bell & Cornelius, 2013, p. 4). Via a survey of
2,700 executive directors and development directors across the nonprofit sector, Bell and
Cornelius found that half (50%) of development directors planned to leave their current
organizations within two years and 40% planned to leave the profession. Their data confirmed
that demand for development directors exceeds supply, with half of executive directors reporting
insufficient candidates with the right blend of skills and experience in their most recent
development search (53%). Further, a quarter of executive directors reported their development
directors had no or novice-level experience in prospect research (24%) and securing gifts (26%)
(Bell & Cornelius, 2013). A 2019 survey of 1035 fundraisers conducted by the Association of
Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and the Chronicle of Philanthropy in conjunction with The
Harris Poll focused on factors in retaining fundraisers and found that most fundraisers feel
tremendous pressure to succeed in their role (84%), half plan to leave their current organizations
within two years (51%), and 30% plan to leave the profession.
Several recent surveys have found that professional development is important to
advancement professionals (AFP, Chronicle of Philanthropy & Harris Poll, 2019) and higher
education employees (Fusch, 2018). AFP et al. (2019) found that the majority of respondents
were very or somewhat satisfied with their access to professional development (75%), leadership

5
training (66%), and mentoring (56%); however, there is room for improvement in all areas.
Fusch (2018) found that higher education staff who described their departments as having “a
culture that is devoted to professional development and growth” (p. 8) were three times as likely
to report being extremely or very satisfied with their jobs (66%) compared to the job satisfaction
of respondents who did not describe a learning culture at work (22%). Forty percent of
respondents whose workplace lacked a learning culture said they were likely to leave their
positions compared to 18% of respondents working in a learning culture (Fusch, 2018). This
survey tested for the presence of five characteristics of a learning culture and found many
lacking in higher education workplaces. For example, only 32% of respondents reported
receiving ongoing support from leadership to follow through on what they learned through
professional development (Fusch, 2018).
Background of the Problem
Fundraisers are expected to learn by doing, and managers play a key role in evaluating
and increasing the skill levels of the MGOs they supervise. Frontline fundraisers typically report
to other fundraisers. These supervisors are in a position to provide guidance tailored to gift
officers’ experience levels; however, managers typically lack training in instructional practices,
theories of learning, and research on motivation. Furthermore, they typically have individual
fundraising goals that compete for time and attention with their management and training
responsibilities. In addition, advances in technology and informatics are contributing to the rapid
evolution of fundraising practices, requiring experienced fundraisers to further develop their skill
sets. A framework that enables managers to assess accurately a MGO’s skill level performing an
essential task and to select a training activity designed to elevate his or her skills to the next level

6
can support the continuous improvement of an institutional advancement team’s performance.
The first step in creating such a framework is clarifying what MGOs need to know.
Two recurring themes in the literature are the paucity of research on institutional
advancement (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Caboni & Proper, 2007; Drezner & Huehls, 2014;
Kelly, 1991; Proper & Caboni, 2014) and its status as a profession (Aldrich, 2016; Bloland and
Bornstein, 1990; Caboni, 2010; Carbone, 1989, 1990; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Pribbenow,
1994). Concerned that the rapid acceleration of educational fundraising lacked a strong
foundation of research to guide practice, the Council for Advancement and Support of Education
(CASE)
3
and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
4
funded the first review of
available research into a slim, oft-cited volume, The Campus Green: Fundraising in Higher
Education (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990). Subsequent volumes on fundraising have drawn on a
larger body of research while reiterating the need to further grow the field (Drezner, 2011;
Proper & Caboni, 2014).
The availability of research on fundraising is related to professionalization of the field.
Caboni (2010) applies Goode’s (1969) standards for professional status, which include mastering
a basic body of abstract knowledge and providing service that meets the needs and protects the
interests of clients. Noting that “the fundraising profession lacks a substantial knowledge base
from which to derive professional status” (p. 340), Caboni (2010) concludes that fundraising is
still maturing as a profession. Lacking the formal, consistent preparation of established
professions, such as law or medicine, fundraisers rely on on-the-job training, professional

3
CASE is the largest organization of advancement professionals working in higher education. It was created in 1974
through the merger of the American Alumni Council and the American College Public Relations Association
(https://www.case.org/about-case/evolution-case).
4
ERIC is an online library of education research and information, sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) of the U.S. Department of Education.

7
development, self-study, and mentors to develop their skill base (Tempel & Duronio, 1997;
Shaker & Nathan, 1997). Until the 1980s, practitioners typically learned fundraising through
informal apprenticeship and mentoring; however, as the nonprofit sector and advancement
workforce rapidly expanded at the end of the 20th century, access to experienced mentors
decreased, and novice fundraisers frequently learned through trial and error (Marion, 1997). A
voluntary credential, the Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), was introduced in 1980, yet
the president of CFRE International notes “an overall ambivalence to certification” (Aldrich,
2017, p. 146) among fundraisers that serves as a barrier to further professionalization of the field.
Degree programs in philanthropic studies and certificate programs in fundraising are increasingly
available (e.g., at The Lilly Family School of Philanthropy), but there are no credentialing
requirements for fundraisers to drive enrollment or the development of a standard curriculum.
Today, higher education advancement teams often include talent management and
learning and development specialists who can organize in-house training programs. Additionally,
there are a variety of conferences and workshops (e.g., organized by CASE, Academic
Impressions, National Association of Charitable Gift Planners, etc.) and consultants who provide
on-site training (e.g., Advancement Resources, Plus Delta, etc.) for educational fundraisers. Even
so, fundraisers learn how to perform their roles and complete essential tasks through
participation in work. In a survey of fundraisers, Shaker and Nathan (2017) found that 91.5%
learned on the job, 67.5% engaged in professional development (e.g., workshops and trainings),
62.6% credited mentors, and 16.7% learned fundraising through formal education; in response to
a question about professional knowledge needed for fundraising effectiveness, only 0.7%
participants included holding a professional credential or degree.

8
In higher education fundraising, major gift officers play a particularly important role.
These fundraisers are responsible for securing substantial gifts (e.g., $100,000 or more) to fund
capital projects, establish endowed funds, and support new initiatives. Each MGO is responsible
for establishing and managing relationships with alumni, parents, and friends who have the
capacity, affinity, and inclination to provide philanthropic support. A MGO typically manages a
dynamic portfolio of constituent relationships and works independently to cultivate and solicit
major gifts. It is widely acknowledged that the supply of seasoned, successful MGOs cannot
meet demand, driving recruitment of workers with transferable skills and nascent abilities.
Proper, Caboni, Hartley and Willmer (2009) found a strong correlation between the size
of a college’s fundraising staff and total dollars raised. Universities commonly add staff as they
prepare for and commence a new campaign; however, new gift officers need time to reach full
productivity. A consulting firm’s surveys of major gift officers found that gift officers in a new
position and new organization commonly increase productivity in their third year (Grabau,
2012). The lag in productivity is due, in part, to the nature of the work, which involves building
trusting relationships with prospective donors. Another contributing factor is knowledge gaps,
particularly among inexperienced gift officers (Grubaugh, 2019).
New advancement staff members must learn about their university’s history and
traditions, organization and culture, current research and planned programs, and fundraising
needs and opportunities. As they become familiar with their university, gift officers must also
develop relationships with and learn about the donors and prospects they are responsible for
engaging. Because demand for experienced gift officers exceeds supply, many gift officers have
not previously performed the role for which they were hired and must learn how to do their jobs.
To address these training needs, some universities have assembled advancement training teams

9
(Education Advisory Board [EAB], 2016) and/or hired advancement staff members dedicated to
learning and development; however, gift officers continue to learn many of the skills necessary
for performing their roles by working with more experienced colleagues. Taking a sociocultural
perspective, Rogoff (1995, 2008) describes three, interrelated planes of analysis in situated
learning: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. These personal,
interpersonal, and community processes together constitute learning (Rogoff, 1995, 2008).
Building on this concept, Billett (2000) suggests ways to provide guided learning at work that are
more effective in transferring knowledge than simply participating in work. Throughout the field
of institutional advancement, the need for increased and improved training of fundraisers to
develop a knowledge base is widely acknowledged. Formalizing workplace learning for MGOs
through a guided approach can directly address this need.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this exploratory study is to capture expertise from experienced fundraisers
who are responsible for managing major gift officers (MGOs) in order to assess training needs
and begin building a research-based framework for guiding fundraising practice. No such
framework is currently available to managers of MGOs. While a complete needs assessment
would focus on all stakeholders in higher education advancement, for practical purposes this
analysis will focus on fundraisers responsible for supervising MGOs and ensuring that they meet
their performance goals.
This study assessed needs in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational behaviors necessary for major gift officers (MGOs) to attain their fundraising
goals. The analysis began by gathering and generating lists of fundraising tasks and behaviors
MGOs may need to master, proceeded to a systematic examination to identify essential MGO

10
tasks, attitudes, and behaviors, and ended by gathering data on current training methods.
Managers were also asked to describe their current training methods for MGOs with various
levels of experience. The essential tasks and behaviors identified by managers, together with
common ways of sharing fundraising expertise, provide a foundation for building a framework
for managers to use in training MGOs that is grounded in research in learning and motivation
and attuned to advancement professional culture.
When incorporated into more guided instruction, it is anticipated that the resulting
framework will increase self-efficacy of both managers and MGOs, accelerate acquisition of
fundraising expertise, and increase fundraising productivity. Ensuring that all MGOs know how
to perform essential fundraising tasks, fostering their development from novice to expert
practitioners, and promoting a learning culture can positively impact a university’s fundraising
revenue; whereas, failing to provide effective training to MGOs can not only negatively impact
fundraising revenue, but also perpetuate high turnover in the profession.
The questions that guide this study are the following:
Research Questions
1. What fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors do managers of major gift
officers (MGOs) working in higher education identify as essential for MGOs to
meet their performance goals?
2. How do managers help MGOs learn to perform essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors?
a. For each task, attitude, or behavior, which training methods, if any, do
managers use with MGOs at various experience levels?

11
3. What recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organization can be made
for managers to guide MGO learning and practice of fundraising?
Methodological Framework
To conduct this needs assessment, the study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework, a systematic, analytical method that focuses on knowledge, motivation, and
organizational factors to close gaps between actual and preferred human performance levels.
Assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational needs were generated based on personal
knowledge and related literature. These needs were validated through literature review and
multiple surveys, and research-based innovations were recommended.
This study utilized a modified Delphi survey technique (Delphi), a method for obtaining
consensus of opinion among a group of experts (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). First developed by the
RAND Corporation, Delphi engages a panel of experts in successive surveys, providing a
summary of findings after each round. Participants’ contributions are independent and
anonymous, minimizing the influence of any one expert on the group. Each round provides
participants an opportunity to review findings from the group and modify their opinions,
supporting the convergence of opinions toward a consensus (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Habibi et
al., 2014; Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Yousef, 2007). Originally designed to elicit qualitative data via
free response questions, the Delphi technique has been modified over time to include quantitative
survey items. The Delphi rounds in this study included both qualitative and quantitative survey
questions. Informed by a pragmatic perspective on social science research, this mixed methods
study identified a problem of practice and utilized “pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge
about [it]” (Creswell, 2014, p. 11).

12
Significance of the Study
To meet the challenges of ever-increasing fundraising needs in higher education,
institutional advancement needs a professional workforce that is knowledgeable, highly
effective, and able to gain the trust of prospective donors and academic partners. Evidence
suggests that universities seeking to raise more funds should grow their fundraising staff (Proper
et al., 2009), yet fundraising trends and labor statistics indicate there will continue to be an
insufficient supply of experienced fundraisers to meet demand (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017;
EAB, 2014, 2017). Thus, colleges and universities will have to take an active role in training
their development staff. Higher education institutions are increasingly relying on fundraising to
help compensate for decreases in state appropriations and federal research grants (EAB, 2014;
Speck, 2010), and major gift officers (MGOs) play a vital role in securing substantial gifts to
meet higher education’s needs for current expenditure funds, endowment growth, and capital
projects. Defining essential tasks and behaviors for MGO success, providing managers with a
framework for assessing and developing these key fundraising skills, and offering
recommendations for formalizing MGO training can speed mastery, increase productivity,
improve workplace culture, and benefit the bottom line.
Definition of Terms
Charitable contributions: the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America
defines a charitable contribution as “a donation or gift to, or for the use of, a qualified
organization. It is voluntary and is made without getting, or expecting to get, anything of equal
value,” and notes that qualified organizations “include nonprofit groups that are religious,
charitable, educational, scientific, or literary in purpose, or that work to prevent cruelty to

13
children or animals” (IRS, 2019, p. 2). Gifts meeting these criteria qualify for tax deductions in
the United States.
Institutional advancement: a field of higher education administration that includes
fundraising, alumni relations, public relations, and marketing that may also be called
“advancement” or “development” (Proper & Caboni, 2014).
Guided learning: providing information that fully explains the concepts and procedures
to be learned, with learning defined as a change in long-term memory (Kirschner et al., 2006).
Major gift: an outright or deferred gift not given annually and of a substantial size
(Heintzelman, 2000), often a significant event in a donor’s philanthropic lifetime (Dunlop,
1993). Each institution defines its own threshold for a major gift (Dunlop, 1993; Heintzelman,
2000; Kozobarich, 2000), in accordance with its “experience, ambition, and realistic
expectation” (Heintzelman, 2000, p. 315). Larger institutions may have higher thresholds (e.g.,
$100,000) and accept both cash and noncash assets, such as securities, property, and royalties
(Heintzelman, 2000).
Major gift officer (MGO): a fundraising professional responsible for securing major gifts,
typically by “obtain[ing] significant assets from the person who acquired and accumulated these
assets” (Heintzelman, 2000, p. 315).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This introductory chapter provides the
reader with key concepts and terminology regarding the training of major gift fundraisers
working in higher education.
Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study,
including an historical perspective on university fundraising; an overview of how fundraising

14
works, with particular attention to major gifts; the advancement workforce; preparation, training
and professional development of fundraisers; learning by doing; and motivation. Chapter Three
details the assumed causes for this study as well as methodology regarding choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for addressing the needs
and closing the performance gap as well as recommendations for an implementation and
evaluation plan for the solutions.

15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The institutional advancement function in higher education took shape in the latter half of
the twentieth century, and today most American colleges and universities have a professional
fundraising staff that secures charitable gifts for current use, capital projects, and endowment.
These fundraisers typically learn on the job (Shaker & Nathan, 2017), as they did 20 years ago
(Tempel & Duronio, 1997). What they learn varies. Meisenbach (2004) observes, “Fundraising
lacks even having a comprehensive body of abstract knowledge, much less requiring fundraisers
to master it” (p. 45), yet, over the years, standards and norms have developed (Caboni, 2010),
and there is a growing body of literature on the field (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Drezner &
Huehls, 2014; Huehls, 2016; Proper & Caboni, 2014). Now, there is an opportunity to draw on
research as well as practice to formalize on-the-job training and provide fundraisers with a
pathway to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential to succeed. This study aims to
clarify training needs for a key role in higher education by surveying managers of major gift
officers. Its findings can provide the foundation for a framework for training MGOs on the job.
This chapter begins with a brief history of fundraising for American higher education and
the development of fundraising approaches, programs, and practices. Next, it examines the
advancement workforce, including demographics, roles, preparation, and training. Finally, the
conceptual framework of gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) is explored, with sections on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors in major gifts fundraising.
Fundraising For American Higher Education
Historical Perspective
Over the last 50 years, fundraising for American higher education has increased in scale
and scope as public institutions joined private colleges and universities in seeking voluntary

16
support as a way to balance, grow, and supplement their budgets. Since Harvard University first
solicited gifts in the 1640s (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Cutlip, 1965/1990), America’s
private colleges and universities have gradually developed fundraising vehicles ranging from the
annual fund to the capital campaign (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990) and increased their
investments in fundraising (Worth, 1993). In the 1970s and 1980s, public funding declined and
fundraising for public colleges and universities became widespread (Brittingham & Pezzullo,
1990; Worth, 1993). By 1987, 86% of state universities had established a supporting foundation
to seek and accept gifts (Worth, 1989,1993). Together with grants and tuition and fees, charitable
donations are now one of three primary sources of revenue for both public and private
universities and provide vital support for facilities, scholarships, and unrestricted support (Speck,
2010). As public funding for higher education decreased, the importance of voluntary support
grew, spurring a rapid acceleration in educational fundraising in both public and private colleges
and universities, from $11.6 billion in 1980 to $40.6 billion in 2015 (in constant 2015-16 dollars)
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). At an institutional level, increases in
fundraising ambition and performance are reflected in the growing number and size of
fundraising campaigns (CASE, 2020).
The Evolution of Fundraising Campaigns
The comprehensive campaign, the current standard in higher education fundraising,
evolved from project-specific initiatives (e.g., a new building) that utilized marketing techniques
to reach a large number of prospective donors and create a sense of urgency for giving. A
comprehensive campaign typically includes gifts of all sizes for current use, capital projects, and
endowment growth solicited by professional staff working in collaboration with volunteer and
administrative leadership over a defined period of time (e.g., seven to ten years) to achieve a

17
lofty dollar goal. University campaigns commonly seek philanthropic investments in support of
students, faculty, programs, and facilities not only to balance budgets but also to elevate the
institution’s reputation and increase its impact.
The elements of contemporary campaigns took shape during the 20th century. In his
seminal history of American fundraising, Cutlip (1965/1990) traces the evolution from periodic
campaigns conducted by volunteers and paid consultants to ongoing efforts conducted by
permanent staff. He describes the simultaneous development of two approaches in 1904-05: the
first large-scale alumni fund drive, which secured $2.4 million in endowed support to raise
Harvard faculty salaries, and a whirlwind campaign to raise the $80,000 needed to complete the
YMCA building in Washington, DC (Cutlip, 1965/1990). Both efforts employed a highly
organized, systematic approach to fundraising, utilized large lead gifts to catalyze giving, and
pioneered methods familiar today (Cutlip, 1965/1990; Oliver, 1999). For the Harvard Campaign
of 1904-05, Bishop William Lawrence, president of the Harvard Alumni Association, formed a
working committee of well-known alumni, systematically solicited alumni, sent appeal letters to
alumni and friends, and strategically used public relations (Cutlip, 1965/1990). Seeking to
preserve good relationships with fellow alumni so that they would be inclined to give again,
Lawrence did not apply overt pressure (Oliver, 1999). Meanwhile, YMCA fundraisers Charles
Sumner Ward and Lyman L. Pierce organized a 27-day blitz in which civic leaders solicited
assigned lists of prospects, appealing to their sense of civic duty (Oliver, 1999). Their approach
included “careful organization, picked volunteers spurred on by competition, prestige leaders,
powerful publicity, a large gift to be matched by the public’s donations, careful records, report
meetings, and a definite time limit” (Cutlip, 1965/1990, p. 44) as well as a kick-off dinner,

18
corporate philanthropy and in-kind support, a campaign clock that measured progress toward the
goal, and a published list of donors (Cutlip, 1965/1990; Oliver, 1999).
These two pioneering efforts established methods that were refined and reproduced,
thanks in large part to the new industry of campaign consulting, in later university campaigns
(Cutlip, 1965/1990; Oliver, 1999; Worth & Asp, 1994). For example, Bishop Lawrence’s
technique was passed down to Guy Emerson and, from him to John Price Jones and Robert F.
Duncan, who conducted Harvard’s 1919-1920 $14.2 million campaign (Cutlip, 1965/1990).
Duncan and Harold J. Seymour, who worked on the 1919 campaign, conducted Havard’s next
campaign, in 1956-1960, which secured $82.8 million (Cutlip, 1965/1990). The Stanford PACE
Campaign, begun in 1960, was the first true comprehensive campaign (Oliver, 1999). It was
prompted by a $25 million Ford Foundation grant with a three-to-one matching requirement and
guided by Stanford’s “Red Book,” a 10-year long-range plan (Oliver, 1999). To organize this
record-breaking campaign, Stanford hired Kersting, Brown, a fundraising consulting firm
descended from John Price Jones (Oliver, 1999). It also hired professional staff to work on this
effort, including three attorneys with tax and estates expertise, and organized regional campaign
committees comprised of alumni (Oliver, 1999).
Building on Cutlip (1965/1990), Oliver (1999) traces the post-WWII transition from
periodic capital campaigns for specific purposes to a regular cycle of comprehensive campaigns,
noting that the former tended to be shorter initiatives with a high level of volunteer engagement
whereas the latter are longer and more dependent on professional staff. Worth (1993) identifies
three key trends as educational fundraising evolved during the latter half of the 20th century:
First, increasing professionalization of the field and the expanding role of the
development officer within the institution; second, the proliferation of formal

19
development programs at more and different types of institutions, notably state
universities and community colleges; and third, ever-higher fund-raising goals (Worth,
1993, pp. 22-23).
Campaigns became common in the 1980s, and, by the 1990s, leading universities were planning
and launching campaigns with goals of $1 billion or more (CASE, 2020; Worth, 1993). By the
late 1990s, some universities (e.g., Notre Dame) no longer used volunteers to solicit gifts, relying
wholly on their development staff (Oliver, 1999). Comprehensive campaigns require extensive
planning, organization, staffing, and management to succeed. Over the past 40 years, fundraising
staff, budgets, and expectations have expanded exponentially, with the largest private and public
institutions successfully closing multibillion-dollar campaigns (Drezner & Huehls, 2014). As
they begin a new campaign, colleges and universities typically invest in advancement—e.g.,
growing the team, building infrastructure, and strengthening alumni relations, communications,
and development programs—in order to increase gift revenues.
Institutional Advancement
As college and university fundraising has evolved, so has its organization (Worth, 2002)
and approach to meeting institutional needs (Buchanan, 2000). Institutional advancement
commonly includes several interrelated functions, including alumni relations, communications,
development (i.e., fundraising), and advancement services (e.g., constituent relationship
management (CRM) systems, data analytics, gift processing, stewardship, etc.). Board relations,
government and community relations, and integrated marketing may also be included under the
advancement umbrella (Buchanan, 2000). Contemporary organization of institutional
advancement can be traced to the Greenbriar Conference of 1958, a gathering of higher
education leaders, fundraisers, and representatives of professional fundraising and public

20
relations organizations sponsored by the Ford Foundation, the American Alumni Council, and
the American College Public Relations Association (Buchanan, 2000; Drezner & Huehls, 2014;
Worth, 1993). The subsequent Greenbrier Report recommended the “creation of a vice president
with status equal to other chief administrators on campus that oversaw the functions of public
relations, fundraising, and alumni affairs” (Drezner & Huehls, 2014, loc. 2348).
How Fundraising Works
Today, colleges and universities fundraise continually, with the same basic organization
of development programs and staff during and between campaigns. As institutions plan and
begin to implement a new campaign, they typically increase the overall size of the staff, making
additions to strengthen the infrastructure and increase fundraising productivity. In addition to
raising an ambitious dollar goal, institutions often undertake a campaign with the objective of
permanently increasing gift revenues. For example, a university that is raising an average of $75
million per year might aim to double its average to $150 million per year during the campaign
and maintain that average until raising its sights for the next campaign. Such increases are
feasible, given sufficient resources. Proper et al. (2009) found that enlarging the size of a
university’s fundraising staff is strongly correlated with raising more funds. Adding fundraisers
and professional support at the beginning of a campaign enables institutions to step up to higher
levels of fundraising during campaigns and to sustain them after reaching the campaign goal,
particularly when fundraisers are deployed in ways that reflect an institution’s prospect pool and
maximize its fundraising potential.
Development programs
Worth (2002) describes development as a process that begins with a translation of the
institution’s academic plan into fundraising priorities and goals, proceeds to identify prospects

21
for gifts for these purposes and amounts, engaging them in the institution’s plans, and then
soliciting and stewarding their gifts. Colleges and universities typically solicit gifts of all sizes,
with each level of giving playing a distinct role. For example, a university may receive 100,000
annual fund gifts during a campaign and one $100 million gift. Principal and major gifts are
essential to achieve the campaign goal, and annual giving helps create a pipeline of future major
gift donors (Worth, 2002). Further, alumni participation, which is often encouraged via annual
giving, is a factor in the U.S. News & World Report ranking formula.
5
A gift table, in which the
number of donors is inversely correlated with the size of the gift, helps illustrate the scale of
fundraising necessary to achieve an ambitious campaign goal. Table 1 shows a sample gift table
for a $1 billion campaign in a typical format. In the two largest university campaigns to date,
both conducted between 2010 and 2018, Harvard secured more than 633,000 gifts from over
153,000 households totaling $9.62 billion
6
while the University of Southern California secured
more than 2,475,000 gifts from over 400,000 donors totaling $7.16 billion.
7
During these
campaigns, both schools raised more than $1 billion in some years.

5
Average undergraduate alumni participation in giving accounts for 5% of the score given by U.S. News & World
Report to colleges because it “serves as a proxy for how satisfied students are with the school.”
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/ranking-criteria-and-weights
6
See https://alumni.harvard.edu/giving/harvard-campaign or https://www.harvardmagazine.com/campaigntotal-18
for details about the Harvard Campaign.
7
See https://giving.usc.edu/by-the-numbers/ or https://news.usc.edu/trojan-family/campaign-for-usc-end/ for details
about the Campaign for the University of Southern California.

22

23
Major gifts programs and practices. As the Sample Campaign Gift Table (Table 1)
illustrates, gifts of six figures or more play a particularly important role in achieving ambitious
fundraising goals. Smith (1997) articulates a common case for investing in a major gifts program
by noting that 90% of an institution’s giving comes from fewer than five percent of its prospects.
Major gifts are defined in a variety of ways: by size, source, and methods. In their campaign gift
tables, universities commonly categorize six- and seven-figure gifts from all sources as major
gifts; however, the practice of major gift fundraising is typically narrower. Major gift officers
(MGOs) typically work closely with individual donors
8
over time to custom-tailor gift
opportunities that reflect personal philanthropic priorities, that are made from accumulated assets
rather than income, and that are above a certain size. An institution’s major-gift minimum often
coincides with the threshold for establishing a new endowed fund. While some donors have the
capacity to make multiple major gifts during their lifetime, others can afford just one, often
through their estates. In addition to capacity, MGOs assess prospective donors’ inclination to be
philanthropic and affinity with their institution in evaluating the likelihood of a major gift. At
most colleges and universities, alumni are key sources of major gifts, along with trustees,
parents, friends, and neighbors.
A distinctive major gifts methodology, Moves Management, developed in the latter half
of the 20th century, pioneered by G. T. “Buck” Smith and David Dunlop at Cornell University in
the 1960s (Dunlop, 1993; Smith, 1997; Sturtevant, 1997). Their framework describes a “donor's
psychological shift from indifference through passive knowledge, intellectual understanding,
emotional care, and finally commitment” (McLoughlin, 2017, p. 2) and is indebted to early 20th

8
Some individuals give through personal foundations, donor-advised funds, trusts, and other entities. Major gift
officers are commonly responsible for securing gifts from these sources as well as directly from individuals.

24
century “scientific” salesmanship cycles. Smith conceptualized the process of cultivating major
gifts as a cycle involving five stages, beginning with identifying and gathering information about
prospective donors, building their interest and encouraging their involvement in the university,
and then discussing a philanthropic investment (Dunlop, 1993; Smith, 1997), which he called the
Donor Cultivation Cycle (Figure 1). Dunlop further articulated the progressive stages in a
prospective donor’s engagement with a charitable organization that lead to giving in the
Nurturing Fundraising Cycle (Figure 2) (Dunlop, 1993, 2002). Smith and Dunlop’s
conceptualization of major gifts as periodic transactions in an ongoing relationship connects
fundraiser actions to donor experience. Subsequent major gift frameworks, including the
prospect pipeline, the donor journey, and relationship or donor-centered fundraising, are
similarly rooted in a relational approach to fundraising (McLoughlin, 2017), differentiating them
from the transactional methods—e.g., direct mail, email, and telephone solicitations—of the
annual fund.
Figure 1
The Donor Cultivation Cycle (Dunlop, 1993)

25
Figure 2
Nurturing Fundraising Cycle (Dunlop, 1993, 2002)

The Moves Management framework is reflected in a series of stages that are typically
used to describe the major gifts process: identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation,
and stewardship. MGOs are responsible for identifying and engaging individuals who have a
connection to their institution (e.g., alumni, parents, grateful patients, event attendees) or an
aspect of its work (e.g., educating first-generation students, advancing glioblastoma research)
and ascertaining whether they have the capacity to make a major gift as well as an inclination to
be philanthropic (“qualification” or “discovery”). MGOs cultivate gifts by building relationships
with qualified prospects, connecting them with people working in their areas of interest, and
learning about their motivations for giving. They create custom-tailored gift opportunities for
prospective donors, orchestrate, and participate in solicitations, close gifts, and steward donors.
A review of guides to major gift fundraising for practitioners yields advice shaped by
differing views of fundraiser roles (Worth & Asp, 1994). Some authors describe how to ask for a

26
gift; others detail how to support volunteer solicitors. Some offer strategies for building major
gift programs; others set fundraising in a broad organizational and/or societal context. Taken
together, authors writing from a range of perspectives provide advice for MGOs’ work with
prospective donors, volunteers, and academic partners, guidance for organizing this work, and
appeals to represent the profession by being knowledgeable, trustworthy, and ethical.
Advice for identifying and prioritizing prospects converges on the presence of three
qualities: a connection with the institution (“affinity” or “linkage”), the ability to make a major
gift (“capacity” or “ability”), and evidence of interest in charitable giving, such as a history of
philanthropy (“inclination” or “interest”) (Dove, 2000; Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013; Shaker,
2016). Additionally, MGOs are advised to examine giving patterns (Greenhoe, 2013; Panas,
1999), consider stage of life (Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013), and review competing charitable
interests (Dunlop, 2002). MGOs need to synthesize background research with information
gleaned from prospect interactions (Adams, 1993; Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013). They are
encouraged to ask prospects open-ended questions about their philanthropic interests (Greenhoe,
2013; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016) and develop active listening skills (Dove, 2000; Drollinger,
2018; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997).
Building relationships with prospects takes time and relies on repeated contacts,
preferably in person (Adams, 1993; Burnett, 2002; Dunlop, 2002; Dove, 2000; Greenhoe, 2013;
Lively, 2017; Panas, 1999). MGOs are encouraged to provide “the quality, frequency, and
continuity of attention… needed… to make an institution one of [the prospect's] highest
priorities for charitable giving” (Dunlop, 2002, p. 90). Purposeful cultivation of prospects
involves not only building their trust, but also growing their interest in the institution’s work and

27
mission (Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013; Kirsch & Shell, 2000; Lively, 2017; Sturtevant, 1997).
MGOs are advised to:
[bring] donors inside, where they can help shape policy, test their values and interests
against the organization’s, fully understand the organization’s mission, appreciate the
organization’s impact, and, ultimately, discover the right channels for expressing, through
philanthropy, their passion for the organization’s work (Kirsch & Shell, 2000, p. 125).
Further, MGOs are encouraged to shape an individualized cultivation strategy and/or plan for
each prospect (Greenhoe; 2013; Shaker, 2016; Smith, 1997; Sturtevant, 1997). Lively (2017)
notes that “fundraisers should understand how to align a donor’s passions with the institution’s
strategic ambitions and connect the dots between the two” (p. 88).
As MGOs prepare to solicit a prospective donor, they should create a specific gift
opportunity tailored to their interests while considering who should make the ask, when and
where it should take place, and how to make the case (Dove, 2000; Panas, 1999; Seiler, 2016;
Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997). “Securing major gifts is a relatively simple task: finding the
right person to ask the right prospect for the right gift in the right form for the right reason at the
right time” (Dove, 2000, p. 123). As they assemble a solicitation team, MGOs are encouraged to
consider the prospective donor’s relationships with board members and alumni volunteers who
are influential social peers as well as with academic partners (Dove, 2000; Dunlop, 2002;
Freeman & Hermanson, 2016; Greenhoe, 2013; Hunt, 2012; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016;
Sturtevant, 1997). MGOs should prepare the solicitation team through discussions, briefings,
rehearsals, and role play, anticipating the prospect’s questions, preparing responses, and
reviewing any presentations or collateral materials that will be used (Dove, 2000; Panas, 1999;
Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997).

28
Solicitations are comprised of distinct steps or stages that vary slightly by author (Adams,
1993; Dove, 2000; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997). In synthesis, solicitors are
advised first to establish rapport and common ground, to review the background for the ask (e.g.,
by thanking the prospect for past giving and service), to remind the prospect of the purpose of
the meeting, to elicit their participation in discussing their values and priorities, and, if the
prospect appears receptive, to ask for a gift with a specific purpose and amount. Pause and wait
for the prospect’s response, and be prepared to address questions, probe for concerns, and
discuss ways to give (e.g., multi-year pledge, noncash contributions, estate gift). Secure a
commitment for a gift or a follow-up discussion, review next steps, and thank the prospect for
their time. Send a thank you/follow-up note to the prospect and write a detailed contact report.
Solicitors are advised not to commit common errors in making an ask, including under
preparation, failing to make a clear ask, not emphasizing the impact and benefits of giving,
failing to listen carefully, and not probing to understand hesitancy (Dove, 2000; Panas, 1999;
Sturtevant, 1997). To handle objections, Sturtevant (1997) and Panas (1999) recommend asking
questions to determine the underlying issue—e.g., is it the institution, the project, the amount, or
the timing? If the amount is too much, Shaker (2016) suggests offering an alternative gift
opportunity rather than a discount. "Always remember that objections are really questions, and
that the prospect's investment in the project will help overcome the objections. Remembering
this fact will help in converting objections into reasons for giving" (Dove, 2000, p. 120). To
close gifts, Sturtevant (1997) recommends maintaining a positive attitude, maintaining control of
the follow-up process, giving the prospect an opportunity to commit, and keeping a few selling
points and/or influencers in reserve. When the answer is “no,” solicitors should not take rejection
personally (Sturtevant, 1997); MGOs should respond to the prospect’s need to table the

29
discussion or find another project (Shaker, 2016), end fundraising efforts on good terms (Wolf,
2011), and move on to other prospects (Dove, 2000). Major gift fundraising typically assumes a
ratio of three to five prospects for every gift closed (see Table 1 above). Greenhoe (2013) advises
MGOs to build peer networks and consult mentors to provide support and help handle rejection.
The practitioner literature includes advice for increasing self-awareness and self-
reflection during and after interactions with prospects. Sturtevant (1997) provides an assessment
tool for listening skills and recommends cultivating self-awareness to correct bad habits,
including talking too much, interrupting, avoiding eye contact, putting words in other speakers’
mouths, putting people on the defensive, arguing, digressing, overdoing feedback (e.g.,
constantly nodding), and making judgments. Panas (1997) provides a list of questions for MGOs
to ask themselves after each prospect meeting: “Were my comments relevant and persuasive?
Am I taking the prospect one step closer to an investment? Is my objective totally in place?
Was I clear about what I wanted to achieve in the discussion? Did I gain additional information
about the prospect?” (p.137). In addition to interpersonal communication skills, the literature
recommends that fundraisers cultivate qualities including optimism, enthusiasm, patience, and
resilience (Greenhoe, 2013), integrity (Panas, 1999; Sturtevant, 1997), and a nonjudgmental
attitude (Dunlop, 2002).
Shaker (2016) addresses the need to overcome social taboos around discussing money
and encourages MGOs to focus on the benefits of giving for donors, including expressing values
and transmitting them to their children, the “warm glow” effect, giving back, addressing
problems, benefiting society, and creating a legacy. Adams (1993), Dove (2000), and Greenhoe
(2103) also call for a positive mindset about fundraising; MGOs should not apologize for their
roles (Greenhoe, 2013; Rosso, 2016) or view solicitation as begging (Dove, 2000).

30
Relational fundraising is time-intensive and requires a sustained institutional investment.
By building trusting relationships and stimulating conversations about philanthropy, MGOs help
constituents mature as donors and volunteers. MGOs work with a limited number of prospects at
any one time, and each major gift takes months to years to cultivate, solicit, and close. Yet,
because those gifts are substantial, a well-functioning major gifts program is the most cost-
effective approach to fundraising in higher education.
Fundraising return on investment and performance management. As the scale of
investment in institutional advancement has increased, so has accountability. University trustees,
presidents, and donors seek a strong return on investment (ROI), and chief advancement officers
(CAOs) commonly track ROI at the organizational level (EAB, 2013). To manage performance
and demonstrate efficacy, CAOs also track individual fundraiser performance and ROI, with a
focus on major gift officer (MGO) metrics (Collins, 2013; EAB, 2013, 2015). Fundraiser metrics
provide advancement leadership a way to illustrate the work behind gifts to the institution and
enable fundraisers and their managers to track progress toward individual and team goals.
Activity metrics, including qualification of new prospects, contacts, and submitted proposals,
help ensure that MGOs are guiding prospects through the stages of Moves Management.
Today’s powerful constituent relationship management (CRM) databases enable tracking
of multiple measures; however, too many metrics can diffuse fundraisers’ focus on the activity
that matters most to the bottom line: the number of proposals (EAB, 2013). Hiles (2010) reviews
common fundraiser metrics, including dollars raised, contacts made, and proposals submitted and
presents a case for qualitative as well as quantitative measures. To measure quality, he suggests
that managers accompany fundraisers on calls to assess how well they overcome donors’
objections and provide coaching, appraise fundraiser strategies and outcomes, and review each

31
MGO’s ratio of proposals submitted to proposals closed. In a review of current practices, the
Education Advisory Board (EAB, 2015) found a variety of successful approaches for setting
annual expectations for fundraisers. EAB (2015) recommends that each institution use its own
history of performance to benchmark MGO performance and suggests tailoring goals for each
fundraiser based on the characteristics of the advancement department, gift officer, and portfolio
(EAB, 2015). The report indicates that universities continue to refine the traditional fundraiser
performance measures of dollars, contacts, and proposals (Hiles, 2010) with growing emphasis
on using institutional data to set custom-tailored standards, consolidating activity targets to a few
key metrics fundraisers can use to boost their productivity and increase dollars raised, using
ratios to gauge fundraiser productivity, encouraging quality over quantity in setting annual
activity targets, decreasing portfolio sizes (e.g., from 125 to 50 prospects), focusing on the
proposal pipeline, and assessing the utility of metrics via outcomes.
The evolution of fundraiser metrics reflects the maturation of the advancement profession
during a period of technological disruption. The transition from paper files to relational databases
transformed information keeping and enabled new ways to utilize donor data and track
fundraiser activity at the individual, team, and organizational levels. After attempting to track
and measure everything, many university advancement operations are refining and curating
donor and fundraiser data to increase its utility and avoid information overload. Fundraiser
metrics emphasize contact with prospects and donors. Over time, fundraisers may discern
patterns in the behaviors of individual prospects and types of donors (e.g., parents). Philanthropic
theory can help practitioners better understand, anticipate, and utilize donor motivation and
behavior.

32
Donor behavior and theoretical underpinnings of advancement. Philanthropic studies
is an interdisciplinary field that utilizes theoretical frameworks developed in fields ranging from
economics to public relations. The academic study of philanthropy started at Yale in 1977, led by
John G. Simon, and grew to 16 university programs by the mid-1980s (Oliver, 1999). While
research in institutional advancement has focused more on practice than theory building
(Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Caboni & Proper, 2007; Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Kelly, 1991),
research in philanthropic studies includes analyses of donor behavior and the development of
theories of donor motivation (Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Joslyn, 2018; Prince & File, 1994).
9

Donor surveys, such as the biennial US Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy, can
help illuminate factors in philanthropic decision making. The 2016 US Trust Study found that
most respondents reported giving (91%) and half reported volunteering (49.7%) in 2015, with
the latter giving some (84.3%), most or all (69.2%) of their charitable giving to the organizations
where they volunteer (Osili et al., 2016).
10
The authors note that giving from high-net-worth
households is approximately ten times greater than giving from the general population, making
this group important for fundraisers to understand (Osili et al., 2016). They found that
respondents gave when they believed they could make a difference (94.3%) and because they
believed in the mission (97.2%); that they were confident in the ability of individuals (87.2%)
and non-profit organizations (86.6%) to solve complex societal and global problems, and that
personal values drove giving decisions (76.4%).

9
This area of research has complements in the practitioner literature, which includes stories about specific donors
and their motivations (e.g., Panas, 1984), and in biographies of philanthropists (e.g., O’Clery, 2007).
10
The 2016 US Trust Study of High Net Worth Philanthropy surveyed more than 1500 U.S. households with a net
worth of $1 million or more (excluding primary home value) and/or annual income of $200,000 or more about
charitable giving in 2015 and, for the first time, offered analysis by age, gender, race, and sexual orientation.

33
Qualitative research on charitable giving provides insight into donors’ thought processes.
Breeze (2013) conducted 60 interviews of committed U.K. donors and found that, while they
expect charities to meet needs, donors are not very deliberative in choosing where to give.
Donors have difficulty managing the number of requests they receive, create classification
systems and mental maps to cope with the complex nonprofit sector, perceive some causes as
automatically (un-)deserving of support, and use heuristics to assist decision making. Breeze
(2013) found that taste is a dominant factor in choosing charities, with personal background,
inertia, and path dependency influencing giving decisions. “Despite popular beliefs that
charitable giving should be directed primarily to those who are needy, donors often support
organizations that promote their own preferences, that help people they feel some affinity with,
and that support causes that relate to their own life experiences” (Breeze, 2013, p. 180). This
conclusion echoes Schervish and Havens’ (1997, 2002) identification theory of care, which
posits that we are motivated to give when we identify with the needs of others. In their Boston
Area Diary Study, Schervish and Havens (2002) asked 44 participants to detail their activities in
a diary format and interviewed them weekly for a year to gain insight into all the ways that they
gave material or emotional assistance to others. They found that participants’ direct, informal
giving to the people around them was more than five times greater than their indirect, formal
giving to charitable organizations and surmised that everyday acts of generosity to the people
around us serve as the training ground for formal philanthropy.
Drezner and Huehls (2014) gather theories from philanthropic studies, economics,
marketing, psychology, and other fields that trace donors’ motivations to give to a range of
impulses. A desire to help others (altruism) is explained by the public-good model, which is well
developed in economic theory; recognizing an aspect of one’s self in others is the basis of the

34
identification model (Schervish & Havens, 1997); reciprocity theory, built on work by Sugden
(1984), Martin (1994), and others, explains the underpinnings of a sense of community; the
feeling giving elicits is explained in the warm-effect theory, built on work by Andreoni (1989)
and other economists; impact (Duncan, 2004) or venture (Boverini, 2006) philanthropy, in which
donors are often involved in ways as well as means, illuminates the desire to make a difference;
relationship marketing and continuity theory, built on work by Gamble et al. (1999), Kotler,
(1997), McKenna (1991), and others, explain consistency in giving; a desire for social
recognition or other reward is rooted in social exchange theory (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Kelly,
1991; and others); organizational identification, particularly for alumni, is explained by social
identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992; and others); justice motivation
theory (Warren and Walker, 1991; and others) illuminates the desire to correct an injustice; and
prosocial behavior, first theorized by Wilson (1975), posits that humans and animals are wired
and conditioned to help one another (Drezner & Huehls, 2014). Drezner and Huehls (2014)
discuss the importance of modeling, often by parents and family members, in teaching prosocial
behaviors in the spheres of religion, social justice, and philanthropy.
Donors may be motivated to give by a variety of influences and factors, and theoretical
frameworks can aid understanding of the internal processes at work in giving decisions. Analyses
of donor behavior and theories of donor motivation are contributing to a growing knowledge
base about philanthropy that is relevant to fundraising practice; however, because research has
trailed the exponential growth of institutional advancement, many fundraisers working today
learned on the job with little exposure to theory. Managers who lack a theoretical framework for
their work are unlikely to provide one to the fundraisers they hire and train. To elevate practice,

35
experienced managers may benefit from in-service training that incorporates the fruits of
research in philanthropic studies.
The Advancement Workforce
The increase in fundraising scale and scope during the latter half of the 20th century
spurred the growth and development of fundraising as a profession. Needs and opportunities,
more than theoretical frameworks, have driven the evolution of fundraising practices. Research
on fundraising has trailed practice, providing fundraising managers with little guidance on
effective methods. Over time, fundraising standards developed to guide practice. Fundraising
standards and practices are primarily learned on the job through informal instruction.
Fundraising as a Profession
Fundraising is an emerging profession (Aldrich, 2016; Bloland and Bornstein, 1990;
Caboni, 2010; Carbone, 1989, 1990; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Pribbenow, 1993) with accepted
norms, ethical guidelines, and a small, but growing, body of research (Brittingham & Pezzullo,
1990; Caboni & Proper, 2007; Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Huehls, 2016; Kelly, 1991). Caboni
(2010) designed an exploratory study to reveal the presence or absence of a normative structure
for college and university fundraising and found three inviolable and six admonitory norms
distinguishing ethical from unethical fundraiser behaviors and establishing moral boundaries
around the practice of fundraising. Caboni (2010) posits that these commonly accepted moral
boundaries suggest that fundraising is an emerging profession and notes the contributions of
professional organizations to fundraising norms. In 1974, the American Alumni Council and the
American College Public Relations Association merged to form the Council for the
Advancement and Support of Education (CASE), which has helped develop standards of practice
for higher education fundraising including a Statement of Ethics (CASE, 1982). The Association

36
of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), a professional organization for fundraisers across the
nonprofit sector, developed The Donor Bill of Rights (AFP, 1993). These documents lay out
ethical standards for soliciting and using charitable gifts. Another, more recent guiding
document, Principles of Practice for Fundraising Professionals at Educational Institutions
(CASE, 2014), further clarifies fundraising’s professional ethical norms.
Ethical breaches by nonprofits in the 1980s, including fraudulent fundraising by Jim and
Tammy Faye Bakker on behalf of their organization, Praise the Lord, helped bring about the first
legislation regulating fundraising at the state level, which was proposed by the National
Association of Attorneys General in 1986 (Oliver, 1999). Meanwhile, the IRS began tightening
standards for charitable giving. In the 1990s, CASE, together with the National Association of
College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), the Association of Governing Boards
(AGB), and the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel (AAFRC),
11
developed
campaign counting standards to accompany reporting standards for annual funds and fundraising
expenses (Oliver, 1999).
Characteristics, Traits, and Roles of Development Officers
As the field of advancement has professionalized, the literature reveals both shifts in and
stability of institutional roles, occupational identities, and ideal characteristics of professional
fundraisers. Stable characteristics begin to point toward a collection of knowledge, skills, and
attitudes needed for successful practice. Worth and Asp (1994) identified and Ryan (2006)
validated four distinct roles for higher education development officers that developed as

11
The American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel was renamed The Giving Institute in 2005. Its membership
consists of fundraising consultancies, and it is the parent organization of Giving USA Foundation (est. 1985), which
publishes an annual report on American philanthropy with research by the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

37
fundraising practices evolved: salesman, catalyst, manager, and leader. In the salesman role,
development officers utilize interpersonal skills to directly solicit gifts. In the catalyst role, they
focus on the engagement, preparation, and deployment of academic partners (e.g., presidents,
deans, faculty), trustees, and volunteer solicitors. In the manager role, they focus on the
fundraising operation. In the leader role, development officers share professional expertise and
ethics, participate in planning activities beyond advancement, and represent the institution. Both
Worth and Asp (1994) and Ryan (2006) emphasize the fluidity of these roles and the need for
fundraisers to shift between them to meet situational needs.
Worth and Asp (1994) also identify several overarching requirements, noting that
“everyone believes the development officer should be well-rounded, intelligent, personable,
capable, and gifted in communication. In short, he or she should be all things to all people” (p.
39). In reviewing the literature, they found agreement that development officers should be able to
blend into situations and should not be overly controversial or unconventional (Worth & Asp,
1994). Similarly, Kozobarich (2000) argues for “a broad and current understanding of the
institution, high energy and self-motivation, the ability to communicate orally and in writing, an
enjoyment of people, and good common sense” (p. 26). Wood (1997) prioritizes listening,
negotiation, and communication skills and, noting the importance of being able to gain trust,
maintain the highest ethical standards, and convey passion for the mission, identifies integrity,
character, and a positive mindset as essential characteristics of good MGOs. Counts and Jones
(2019) note the importance of leadership qualities to mobilize donors as well as soft skills,
including self-motivation, critical thinking, creativity, and cultural awareness, to align donor
interests with institutional needs.
The Education Advisory Board (EAB, 2018) surveyed 1217 MGOs from 90 American,

38
Canadian, and British colleges and universities and conducted 200 interviews to glean
distinctions between low- and high-performing MGOs. It found four common attributes among
top performers, “behavioral and linguistic flexibility, intellectual and social curiosity, the ability
to distill information, and the skill to strategically solicit prospective donors” (EAB, 2018, p. 7).
In a survey of fundraisers (n=508), Shaker and Nathan (2017) asked respondents to list personal
characteristics/traits, learned skills, and areas of expertise that contribute most to a fundraiser’s
effectiveness. The top responses regarding personal characteristics include emotionally
intelligent (35.6%), achievement-oriented (21.5%), ethically grounded (16.9%), other-centered
(10%), mission-focused (8.3), and intellectually adept (7.8%). In the area of professional
knowledge, responses included managing the fundraising process (e.g., through the stages of
identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship) (34.2%), understanding fundraising
programs and strategies, including planned giving (28.9%), and possessing institution-specific
and industry knowledge, such as basic legal and tax considerations in charitable giving (17.9%).
The most frequently listed learned skills were oral/written communication (13.3%), interpersonal
communication (10.1%), listening (7.5%), and donor engagement (5%). Shaker and Nathan
(2017) invited advice for improving the profession, and “an overwhelming majority of
suggestions related to further professionalizing fundraising through training, certification, formal
education, standardization, and ethical practice;” in addition, “there was a strong desire to
educate the general public about the role nonprofit organizations, philanthropy, and fundraisers
play in society while promoting the career to a younger generation” (p. 8). Shaker and Nathan
(2017) conclude that “the breadth of responses to the knowledge, skills, and personal
characteristics of successful fundraisers shows the complexity of contemporary fundraising in
the academy. It requires a broad base of knowledge and skills along with the variety of personal

39
competencies that hiring managers and leaders must seek, foster, facilitate, and recognize” (p. 9).
In observations and studies spanning decades, a constant is the high level of adaptability
necessary for fundraisers. Because they work across a range of functions with varied audiences,
fundraisers must be able to shift roles and approach fluidly to meet the needs of the situation.
This purposeful flexibility requires both situational awareness and a broad base of knowledge,
skills, and attitudes from which to choose the right combination for the task at hand.
Advancement Demographics
The higher education advancement workforce has grown rapidly since the 1980s, and its
composition has shifted from majority male to majority female while remaining predominantly
White (Tempel & Duronio, 1997). Although fewer in number, male fundraisers tended to earn
more and have higher-status roles (Tempel & Duronio, 1997). Shaker and Nathan (2017)
updated Tempel and Duronio’s (1997) study of fundraisers, using some of the same questions.
With regard to demographics, not much has changed in 20 years. They found that “contemporary
higher education fundraisers... are predominately White, female, well‐educated, and enter the
profession by age 30,” yet White men continue to have the “best salaries, loftiest titles, and
highest degree of formal education” (Shaker & Nathan, 2017, pp. 8-9). Since 1982, CASE has
periodically surveyed its membership about roles and compensation and collected demographic
data, including gender, ethnicity, and educational attainment. Its recent surveys confirm that the
educational advancement field is largely female (70% of respondents in 2013, 71% in 2016),
White (91%, 88%), and has at least some higher education (99%) (CASE, 2013, 2016) and that
men are over-represented in management, with median salaries $19,000 above women’s (CASE,
2013). The vast majority of the workforce has a bachelor’s (95%), and nearly half (46%, 47%)
has an advanced degree (CASE, 2013, 2016).

40
The higher education advancement workforce is not keeping up with the growth of
alumni of color over the past three decades. Data compiled by the National Center for Education
Statistics indicate that 16.5% of domestic U.S. college students were Black, Hispanic, Asian, and
Native American in 1980, rising to 41.7% in 2014, and creating a substantially more diverse
alumni base (NCES, 2015). At the same time, the percentage of CASE survey respondents of
color grew from 4.5% (1982) to 9.0% (2013). Gasman and Bowman (2013) investigated
differences in engagement and giving among alumni of color via surveys of (a) AAU member
institutions and (b) alumni of color of majority White institutions. They found that, in the
majority institutions, alumni of color are often seen as recipients rather than sources of
philanthropic support, are less likely to be asked to volunteer or give, and may not be well
represented in publications. They describe culturally specific philanthropic motivations, such as
a strong affinity with the overarching goal of racial uplift among African-American donors, and
they note that “alumni of color want to be engaged by people who look like them” (Gasman &
Bowman, 2013, p. 128).
In 2016, colleges, universities, and professional schools employed 11,160 fundraisers,
and the number of fundraising positions is projected to increase by 9.3% between 2014 and 2024
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017). As the field continues to grow, there is an opportunity to
recruit, train, and retain fundraisers whose diversity reflects that of higher education alumni.
Preparation, Training, and Professional Development in Advancement
In a recent study of fundraiser education in the United States, Counts and Jones (2019)
found 47 university-based programs: 34 certificate programs, six master’s degrees, three
undergraduate minors, two undergraduate majors, and two undergraduate certificates; however,
pursuing a career in fundraising requires neither a specialized degree nor board certification. Gift

41
officers come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds. Common pathways
into the field include working or interning for advancement while a student, serving in other non-
profit roles (e.g. college admissions), transferring parallel business skills (e.g., sales, marketing),
and volunteering (Lanning, 2007; Strickland & Walsh, 2013; Worth & Asp, 1994). In their
survey of fundraisers, Shaker and Nathan (2017) found that the majority learned fundraising on
the job (91.5%), received guidance from mentors (62.6%), and benefitted from professional
development opportunities, such as training workshops (67.5%); whereas a minority learned
fundraising through formal education (16.7%) or a certificate program (20.1%).
Certification Programs
The National Society of Fund Raising Executives (NSFRE, which later became the
Association of Fundraising Professionals [AFP]) introduced the first fundraising credential,
Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE), largely in response to increasing demand in the 1970s
for self-regulation of the profession (Aldrich, 2017). Two other professional organizations were
interested in fundraiser certification; however, “while NSFRE wanted AAFRC’s and CASE’s
affiliation with the certification program, NSFRE did not want their input” (Aldrich, 2017, p.
127).
While developing the credential, there was a debate within NSFRE about certifying
different levels of expertise; however, the CFRE credential was ultimately designed to reflect
baseline rather than advanced fundraising knowledge and general rather than specialized
fundraising expertise (Aldrich, 2017). Further, the multiple-choice CFRE exam tests fundraising
knowledge rather than its application. CFRE certification is voluntary and typically is not
referenced in higher education advancement job postings; however, with more than 7000

42
credentialed fundraising professionals in more than 20 countries,
12
the CFRE credential is
widespread and represents a body of knowledge gathered over 40 years from professional
fundraisers. It is “an accredited, independent third-party assessment of achievement” that “is
based on industry-wide standards formulated through a rigorous evaluation and testing process”
(Aldrich, 2016, p. 507). For these reasons, the content tested on the CFRE exam—i.e., tasks
fundraisers need to perform and the knowledge required to do so—provides a useful starting
point in assessing the training needs of major gift officers.
Degree Programs
The chair of NSFRE’s Committee on Certification, Lyle E. Cook, also co-founded The
Fund Raising School with Joseph R. Mixer and Henry A. Rosso (Aldrich, 2017), which moved
to Indiana University in 1987, the same year that the university established a Center on
Philanthropy. Today, the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy offers perhaps the most
comprehensive range of academic programs in the field with bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral
degrees in philanthropic studies as well as certificates in philanthropic studies and fundraising.
The Nonprofit Academic Centers Council (NACC) has developed curricular guidelines for
undergraduate and graduate programs in philanthropy; however, Aldrich (2016) notes that
NACC provides only two, general guidelines on the subject of fundraising (p. 507): (a) the
various forms and structures in and through which organized philanthropy occurs, and (b)
components and elements that are part of a comprehensive fund development process (Nonprofit
Academic Centers Council, 2007, p. 10). Aldrich (2016) describes the complementary roles of
university-based degree programs, such as the one at Indiana University, and a voluntary

12
CFRE website: https://www.cfre.org/about/certification/

43
certification program, like CFRE, noting that the former expands the knowledge base while the
latter ensures its broad application in the field.
Counts and Jones (2019) advocate for university-based programs that integrate
fundraising with other aspects of nonprofit management, attract people serving a variety of
nonprofit roles (e.g., executive directors, board members, etc.), and draw on faculty from a range
of disciplines. A wide frame, they argue, is necessary to help fundraisers recognize the
transformational nature of a role that includes, “mediat[ing] between donor and organization,
educat[ing] the donor about the mission and the organization, identify[ing] and address[ing]
issues of power and democracy, and identify[ing] potential opportunities (including new
programmatic opportunities) that connect the donor’s interest and the organization’s priorities”
(Counts & Jones, 2019, p. 356). To help build a more diverse advancement workforce, Bowman
(2010) advocates for siting an advancement degree program at an historically Black college or
university (HBCU).
Professional Development
A growing number of university advancement programs have talent development
specialists on staff and have created in-house onboarding, training, and/or professional
development programs. EAB (2016) studied onboarding, training, and professional development
programs at five research universities with internal teams charged with developing training
programs tailored for their advancement colleagues. Implementation involved other departments
(e.g., Human Resources) and, on occasion, outside vendors. Onboarding included orientation to
university structure and culture and mandatory training on fundamentals, such as business and
information systems. Team members with different responsibilities received different training
(e.g., supervisors received management and leadership training). Advancement leadership in

44
these universities encouraged participation in optional offerings throughout the year.
“Advancement staff prefer live, interactive sessions such as group discussions, roundtables,
workshops, case study exercises, and drill sessions” (EAB, 2016, p. 4). Q&A with deans,
department heads, faculty, and students are popular. Training subject areas include, “institutional
policies and procedures, professional development, campus history and culture, software and
technology, and health and wellness” (EAB, 2016, p. 4). Universities also offered specific
training related to their campaigns.
At Colorado College, Elder (2010) utilizes relationship-based sales training for frontline
fundraisers. MGOs practice a presentation that they give to prospective donors, utilizing role-
play and critical reflection to drive improvement. Elder (2010) applies Michael Gelb’s work on
learning organizations, helping fundraisers visualize success, and receive accurate feedback. He
recommends quantitative measures and qualitative evidence to track progress and assess what’s
working and building a coaching culture to support individual growth. He encourages joint visits
as a way to provide feedback.
Peet et al. (2010) utilized Generative Knowledge Interviewing to transfer tacit knowledge
of fundraising experts at the University of Michigan to new leaders and used the process to
identify six core competencies: a) Embodying self-discipline, integrity, and confidence, b)
creating sightlines of possibility, c) surfacing donors’ passions, needs, and interests, d) leading
people towards balance and a common goal e) focusing on strengths and possibilities, and f)
developing adaptive expertise and reflective practices. These core competencies were then used
at UM to develop a talent pipeline, recruiting and selecting MGO candidates, improving
mentoring, building a curriculum for in-house training of MGOs, and helping donors identify
their motivations for giving.

45
To identify requisite traits for fundraising expertise, Lanning (2007) surveyed (n=58) and
interviewed (n=5) fundraisers working in higher education who have attained the CFRE
credential. He proposes a model for skill development with experience, commitment, personal
credibility, mentorship, and stability serving as enablers of fundraising expertise. Using the five-
stage skill acquisition model for developing expertise developed by Dreyfus and Dreyfus,
(1980), Lanning (2007) proposes a university-based training program that moves from largely
formal to experiential as learners develop expertise. Fundraising experts would be tapped as
mentors for less experienced colleagues to utilize their highly developed situational knowledge
and expose them to fresh ideas and methods.
Training for Managers
In an article on managing fundraisers, EAB (2016) notes that:
to be promoted in the fundraising industry, you must be an exemplary fundraiser.
However, this type of fundraiser does not naturally translate to a successful manager. As
a result, many managers lack core management skills. In fact, fewer than 10% of chief
advancement officers (CAOs) and associate vice presidents who attended the 2015-2016
Advancement Forum meeting series had training prior to assuming their first
management role. (p. 23)
EAB (2016) found that the majority of fundraising directors (57%) had no management or
leadership training before assuming their first management role. They note that per-person
spending on leadership development in the nonprofit sector ($29) is 24% of what the for-profit
sector spends ($120) (EAB, 2016).

46
The literature reveals considerable interest in staff training and development, and
universities are experimenting with methods; however, on-the-job training and professional
development opportunities vary widely by institution and may or may not encompass the full
range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for successful fundraising. Further, the lack
of commonly accepted formal and tacit knowledge bases is a limiting factor in the development
and implementation of professional training. Because the locus of learning to fundraise is at
work, developing a more complete and immersive approach to training fundraisers on the job has
the potential not only to benefit the institution but also to advance the profession.
Conceptual Framework
Clark and Estes (2008) developed the gap analysis framework to improve human
performance in organizations. They frame employees as capital in a knowledge-based economy,
noting that “improving human performance is the highest leverage activity available to a
company” (p. 4). Their gap analysis framework focuses on knowledge, skills, and motivation in
relation to organizational goals. Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize alignment of individual
performance goals (e.g., an MGO securing $3 million in gifts and pledges during the current
fiscal year) with organizational goals (e.g., a university achieving its $3 billion campaign goal in
seven years). Establishing cascading goals is the first step in determining performance gaps.
Analysis of gaps focuses on performance influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation and
organization. Assumed influences are identified based on general theory, context-specific
literature, and a current understanding of an institution. Solutions to knowledge/skill, motivation,
and organizational process and material gaps are then identified, implemented, evaluated, tuned,
and reexamined as organizational goals evolve. Thus, gap analysis is a cyclical problem-solving
process that supports continuous improvement.

47
While typically utilized to study stakeholder performance within a specific organization,
the gap analysis framework is adapted in this study to focus on a common role across higher
education institutions—i.e., managers of MGOs—and to serve as a needs analysis for innovation
in the advancement profession. Fundraising managers are typically responsible for ensuring that
gift officers under their supervision achieve their goals. Cascading goals that link institutional
fundraising goals to individual fundraiser goals are common in higher education advancement,
whether a college or university is in or between campaigns. Thus, the first step of gap analysis, in
which goals are defined and aligned, is a common foundation of the field. Performance gaps, in
which individual fundraisers struggle to attain their dollar and activity goals, are also common in
the profession. While environmental factors, such as reputation-damaging scandals, economic
recessions, natural disasters, and pandemics, impact fundraising results, even in difficult
circumstances, fundraisers can focus on their activity goals, which track interactions with donors
that contribute to cultivating, soliciting, and closing gifts.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
MGOs typically learn to fundraise on the job and rely on more experienced colleagues for
tutelage. Managers of MGOs, who typically have demonstrated success as fundraisers, can
impart valuable fundraising knowledge and expertise; however, Clark and Estes (2008) describe
the limitations of experts as trainers, noting that expert knowledge and skills are largely
automated and unconscious. Because experts perform routine but complex tasks without needing
to think through the steps, they cannot accurately describe how to perform them (Clark & Estes,
2008). The following section presents assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences specific to fundraising managers who contribute to the training of MGOs under their
supervision.

48
Knowledge and Skills
Anderson et al. (2001) define four categories of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge comprises “discrete, isolated ‘bits of
information’” (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 42) including terminology and specific details and
elements. Examples of factual knowledge include sources of information (e.g., IRS Instructions
for Form 8283 provides guidelines for noncash charitable contributions) and technical
vocabulary (e.g., in a “retained life estate gift,” a donor transfers ownership of his or her home or
farm to a charitable organization while retaining the right to live in the property). Conceptual
knowledge is more complex and organized than factual knowledge; it comprises mental models,
theories, principles, categories, and classifications. Knowledge of the various types of life-
income gifts and of cultural traditions that influence giving are examples of conceptual
knowledge in the fundraising domain. Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something
(e.g., when and how to steer a conversation with a prospective donor toward charitable giving).
This category of knowledge, which encompasses skills, techniques, and methods, is particularly
important to major gifts fundraising, tends to be under-described in the literature, and is typically
learned on the job. Metacognitive knowledge is awareness of one’s own cognition and
knowledge of cognition generally. Self-awareness, self-reflection, self-knowledge, and self-
regulation are all examples of metacognition; so is knowledge about cognitive tasks and
strategies for learning, thinking, and problem-solving. Sturtevant’s (1997) advice to MGOs to
cultivate active listening skills through self-awareness and Panas’ (1997) questions to prompt
self-reflection following donor meetings are examples of metacognitive strategies for
fundraisers.

49
Whether factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive, knowledge is acquired
through learning. Mayer (2008) defines learning as a series of cognitive processes that include
selecting, organizing, and integrating information with prior knowledge. As they process vast
amounts of sensory information, learners must pay attention to relevant information (e.g., their
instructor’s presentation rather than sounds from outside the classroom), organize it into “a
coherent mental representation” (Mayer, 2008, p. 761), and connect it to what they already
know. The following sections draw on Mayer’s (2008) theory of learning in their organization.
Information Processing Theories
Major gifts fundraising draws on a wide range of information drawn from a variety of
domains, from psychology (Prince & File, 1994) to sociology (Herzog & Price, 2016) to law
(Purcell, 2016) to communications (Maxwell & Dunlavy, 2016), much of which is learned as
situations arise and integrated with prior knowledge. Information processing and schema theories
provide an explanation of how we store and retrieve information from memory. As novices
develop expertise, their knowledge is organized in increasingly complex schemata in long-term
memory (Kirschner et al., 2006). Schema theory posits that a schema can be treated as a single
entity in working memory, reducing cognitive load, and schemata can integrate information and
production rules, automating knowledge (Kirschner et al., 2006) as expertise develops (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Thus, as a fundraiser gains experience, factual knowledge, such as the term
“retained life estate,” may become embedded in broader conceptual knowledge, such as types of
planned giving instruments, and entwined with procedural and metacognitive knowledge, such as
active listening for cues to raise planned giving and knowing how to present the instrument most
appropriate to a donor’s situation—e.g., when a donor wistfully says, “although they have fond
memories of growing up here, none of my children want to take over the family farm,” an

50
experienced MGO knows to ask questions that help determine whether a retained life estate gift
may be of interest.
Typically, managers of MGOs have demonstrated success in fundraising. Their
competence performing fundraising tasks, or procedural knowledge, draws on their factual,
conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge about fundraising. As fundraisers develop expertise,
they build complex, domain-specific schemata that help automate their knowledge; however,
their mental models are shaped by work experience rather than by a foundational curriculum
(e.g., such as law school provides). Institutional advancement lacks a standard body of
fundraising knowledge (Caboni, 2010; Meisenbach, 2004) to provide an organizing framework.
Fundraiser schemata may therefore be more variable in their content and organization than those
of professionals in fields that require specific education and training.
Organizing Theories
The first step in creating an organizing framework for the knowledge MGOs need to be
successful is defining the fundraising tasks most essential to major gifts fundraising. The test
content outline for the CFRE exam lays out 35 fundraising tasks, ranging from prospect research
to strategic planning (CFRE, 2018), providing a useful starting point; however, the CFRE exam
tests general, baseline fundraising knowledge rather than specialized, advanced fundraising
knowledge (Aldrich, 2017). Focusing on fundraising tasks that are especially relevant to major
gifts fundraising and elaborating upon them can illuminate what MGOs need to know. This
knowledge can then be organized into a framework for managers to use in helping them learn
and apply it. According to Mayer (2011), “transfer occurs when 1) something you know from
prior learning 2) affects your performance on a new task” (p. 20). Within organizations,
“knowledge transfer, the process through which one social unit learns from or is affected by the

51
experience of another unit” (Argote & Fahrenkopf, 2016, p. 146), plays a large role in on-the-job
learning. Individuals can transfer tacit as well as explicit knowledge adapted for specific contexts
and tasks, making them powerful mechanisms for transferring knowledge within organizations
(Argote & Fahrenkopf, 2016). Thus, managers can play a vital role in training and developing
MGOs. However, without a guide to presenting key fundraising information, managers must
recall relevant knowledge from long-term memory, disaggregate complex schemata, select the
most pertinent information, and share it in ways less than experienced MGOs can understand and
use. They must do all this as information is needed or miss the opportunity to impart relevant
knowledge. Providing managers with a framework will support their efforts to train and develop
MGOs while helping MGOs construct fundraising schemata that are better organized and more
complete. In sum, having a framework of critical fundraising knowledge and skills will help
managers be more effective trainers and support a more systematic transfer of these knowledge
and skills to MGOs.
Motivation
General Theory
In addition to learning knowledge and developing skills, cultivating certain attitudes
about fundraising helps MGOs succeed. Choosing to engage in a particular task (e.g., making
cold calls/emails to potential prospects for a major gift), persisting in it (e.g., despite a low
response rate), and making an effort (e.g., crafting a tailored outreach email based on available
information about a potential prospect) are all aspects of motivation. Schunk et al. (2014) define
motivation as “the process whereby goal-directed activities are instigated and sustained” and
describe it as “an energized internal state that results in goal-directed behaviors” (p. 5). Six major
theories of motivation that are relevant to workplace learning and performance are briefly

52
described below: social cognitive theory, expectancy-value theory, self-determination theory,
interest, attribution theory, and goal theory. These theories share a cognitive approach to framing
motivation as influenced by individuals’ thoughts, beliefs, and emotions. An additional
consideration in motivation is belongingness. Leary & Cox (2008) argue that belongingness
motivation—the need for acceptance and belonging—is a fundamental social motive that
underlies human behavior. Given the sociocultural aspects of workplace learning, this facet of
motivation is also relevant to this needs assessment study.
Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory (SCT), which posits that personal, behavioral,
and environmental factors continuously interact and reciprocally influence one another, serves as
a foundation for many theories of motivation (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015). Bandura
(1977) theorized that the beliefs people hold about their capabilities and the outcomes of their
efforts influence how they behave. According to SCT, “these self-efficacy beliefs help determine
the choices people make, the effort they put forth, the persistence and perseverance they display
in the face of difficulties, and the degree of anxiety or serenity they experience as they engage
the myriad tasks that comprise their life” (Usher & Pajares, 2008, p. 751).
The concepts of self-efficacy and agency are central to research on motivation
(Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015). Self-efficacy “is associated with key motivation constructs
such as causal attributions, self-concept, optimism, achievement goal orientation, academic help-
seeking, anxiety, and value” (Usher & Pajares, 2008, p. 751). Individuals form self-efficacy
beliefs as they interpret information from their previous attainments (mastery experiences), their
observations of others (vicarious experiences), encouragement from others (verbal and social
persuasions), and their emotional and physiological states (e.g., anxiety, fatigue, mood) (Usher &

53
Pajares, 2008). Individuals exercise agency through intention, forethought, self-regulation, and
self-reflection (Bandura, 1982, 1989, 1997). Self-regulatory strategies, including self-correcting
thoughts and actions that lead to better results, play an important role in motivation (Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Pajares, 2009; Zimmerman, 1990). Self-efficacy is typically assessed through
Likert-scale survey questions that ask respondents to rate how confident they are in performing
tasks.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Related to self-efficacy, or individuals’ beliefs about their capacity to execute behaviors
to attain specific performance levels, are individuals’ expectancies of success, or beliefs about
how well they will perform a task. Individuals are motivated to engage in an activity when they
believe they can perform successfully (Schunk et al., 2014). Further, how they value a task
influences their desire to perform it. “Modern expectancy-value theory (Eccles et al., 1983)
assumes that individuals’ expectations for success and subjective value for tasks are the most
proximal predictors of their academic choices, achievement-related behaviors, and, ultimately,
learning and achievement” (Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015, p. 92). Task value falls into four
categories: utility value, attainment value, intrinsic value, and cost. The utility value of a task
refers to its perceived usefulness to an individual’s future plans; attainment value refers to its
importance to an individual’s sense of self; intrinsic value refers to an individual’s enjoyment of
doing the task; and cost refers to both the anticipated effort to complete a task and the lost
opportunity to do something else (Wigfield et al., 2009). Reviews of research suggest that
individuals' expectancy of success in and valuation of tasks predict their achievement outcomes,
including choice of activities, persistence, and performance (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002;
Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2015; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wigfield et al., 2009). Values and

54
expectancies can be assessed through survey or interview questions that focus on the importance
of a task (value) and individuals’ expectations of outcomes, beliefs that a specific behavior will
produce a particular outcome and beliefs about the future expectancy of success (expectancy) as
well as observations of the activities people choose to undertake and how long they persist
(value).
Self-Determination Theory
Underlying motivation are three basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and
competence (Sheldon & Schüler, 2011). As these needs are met, motivation becomes more
internally than externally driven, leading to longer persistence and better performance (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). In Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Deci and Ryan (1985) differentiate types of
motivation based on the reasons or goals that give rise to an action (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation is tied to an interest in and satisfaction from engaging in a task—i.e., an
activity done for its own sake—whereas extrinsic motivation is tied to instrumental value—i.e.,
an activity done to attain some separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci (2000)
propose a continuum from amotivation to intrinsic motivation that includes four states of
extrinsic motivation that are distinguished by the perceived locus of causality. External
regulation, in which an individual reacts to external rewards and/or punishments designed to
enforce compliance, is the least autonomous and most alienating of these four states. In
introjected regulation, an individual’s contingent self-esteem—i.e., feeling pressure to avoid
guilt or anxiety or to attain approval or pride—controls behavior. In identification, an individual
consciously values a behavior, recognizes its personal importance, and enacts it willingly.
Integrated regulation approaches intrinsic motivation in that behaviors are congruent with an
individual’s values and needs and his or her reasons for acting are assimilated into a sense of

55
self; however, because the behaviors have instrumental value, motivation remains extrinsic
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). In sum, when individuals feel agentic, connected, and effective, they
internalize and integrate reasons for acting, and extrinsically motivated behaviors become more
self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In applying SDT to work environments, Gagne and Deci
(2005) distinguish between autonomous and controlled motivation as a key factor in work
motivation.
Interest
As noted above, both interest and satisfaction are associated with intrinsic motivation.
Schiefle (2009) points out that, “unlike many other motivational constructs, such as motives,
needs, self-concepts, or goal-orientations, interest is always related to a specific object, activity,
or subject area” (p. 197). Interest, in other words, is tied to content. Individual interest is
relatively stable and may refer to an orientation toward certain domains or to a distinction
between interests and non-interests. How an activity is defined (e.g., as interesting or
uninteresting) can differ both between individuals and within the same individual over time
(Sansone & Thoman, 2005). Situational interest is a temporary state “that involves focused
attention, increased cognitive functioning, persistence, enjoyment or affective involvement, and
curiosity” (Schiefle, 2009, p. 198). A heightened version of this state, in which an individual
brings a high level of skill to a challenging task, is the optimal experience Csikszentmihalyi
(1975) calls flow. Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989) found that flow states enhanced affect,
concentration, creativity, satisfaction, and motivation. Interestingly, they found that study
participants experienced flow three times more often at work than in leisure.
Sansone and Thoman (2005) found that interest reliably predicts task choice and
persistence, and Sansone et al. (1992) found that individuals use interest-enhancing strategies to

56
maintain the motivation to perform necessary but uninteresting activities. Sansone and Thoman
(2005) found that “individuals often attempt to regulate their motivation for important activities
by using the social context of the activity to make their experience more interesting” (p. 182).
This argument is supported by prior studies that found that individuals with an interpersonal
orientation expressed greater interest in tasks when working with or alongside another person
(Isaac et al., 1999).
Interest is typically assessed through self-reporting in response to questions focused on
attitudes, preferences, enjoyment, content, and choice of specific activities as well as the
personal importance or significance of the activity to the respondent. Open-ended interview
questions (e.g., How do you feel about [a specific activity]?) can elicit responses that indicate
interest. Survey questions with priority rankings and strength of agreement are effective in
assessing interest in specific activities. Observations of active choice, persistence, and mental
effort can also indicate interest in an activity.
Attribution Theory
Several assumptions underlie attribution theory: (a) individuals seek to understand and
master their environments; (b) they look for causal determinants of their and others’ behaviors;
(c) they construct beliefs from the causes they perceive as responsible for outcomes (e.g., ability,
effort, luck, difficulty, mood, etc.), whether or not their attributions are accurate (Schunk et al.,
2014). Causes can be categorized along three dimensions: locus (internal or external to the
individual), stability (persistent or transient), and controllability (extent of individual’s perceived
influence) (Graham & Williams, 2009; Schunk et al., 2014; Weiner, 1985, 2005). Graham and
Williams (2009) describe their intersection: “When we attribute our failure to low ability, we
tend to see this as a characteristic of ourselves, enduring over time, and beyond personal control.

57
Effort, on the other hand, is also internal, but unstable and controllable” (p. 14). Attributional
antecedents may include prior performance history, social norm information, and self-enhancing
biases, such as taking credit for success and blaming failure on external causes, as well as
indirect cues, such as unsolicited help offered by men to women and unfair treatment of
stigmatized groups (Graham & Williams, 2009). Causal attributions can have psychological
consequences, influencing expectancy for success, self-efficacy, and affect, as well as behavioral
consequences, including choice, persistence, level of effort, and achievement (Schunk et al.,
2014). For example, “the locus dimension of causality is related to self-esteem and esteem-
related emotions like pride and shame” (Graham & Williams, 2009, p. 18); stability affects
expectancies of success; and controllability relates to perceptions of others’ responsibility and
can influence interpersonal interactions (e.g., responding with anger or sympathy). Pekrun
(2011) illuminates the role of positive and negative emotions in (de-)activating engagement in
tasks and attachment to outcomes.
Yeager and Dweck (2012) build on attainment theory to address mindsets that increase or
inhibit resilience. Individuals’ implicit theories about the malleability of their personal qualities
influence their responses to challenges. Students who see intelligence or personality as fixed
(entity theory) tend to give up, whereas those who see them as malleable (incremental theory)
tend to work harder and smarter in response to challenges (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Dweck’s
(2008) book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, popularized the term “growth mindset”
and elucidated mastery vs. performance goals and mindsets for millions of readers.
Attributions can be assessed by asking an individual to provide the reason for a
performance outcome. Open-ended interview and survey questions in which an individual
articulates the reasons he or she succeeded or failed at a task are useful forms of assessment.

58
Survey questions that ask respondents to rank common attributions (e.g., effort, ability, luck,
etc.), force a choice between such attributions and Likert-scale questions about effort can also
illuminate attributions.
Goal Theories
In their summary of goal setting theory, Locke and Latham (2002) assert that goals
provide direction and energy, encourage persistence, and promote discovery and use of
knowledge and strategies to achieve them. High satisfaction results from high performance,
helping to drive a high-performance cycle (Locke & Latham, 2002). To optimize performance,
they recommend a participatory process to set specific goals that are difficult to achieve. They
describe tactics for goal commitment, including public commitment, support from leadership,
and incentives to underscore the importance of goals; adequate training, role modeling, and
communicating confidence in workers to enhance self-efficacy; and providing feedback by
tracking progress toward goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Bandura and Schunk (1981) distinguish
between proximal and distal goals. Their research confirmed that using proximal subgoals in
self-directed learning influenced mastery, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest.
While Locke and Latham (2002) focus on goal properties (e.g., challenging),
achievement goal theory, or goal orientation theory, focuses on why individuals want to attain
goals (Schunk et al., 2014). Mastery goals (a.k.a. task-involved, learning goals) focus on
developing competence, whereas performance goals (a.k.a. ego-involved, ability goals) focus on
demonstrating competence (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Achievement of a mastery goal is measured
by progress—i.e., how an individual’s current performance compares to his or her previous
performance. In contrast to the self-referential nature of mastery goals, performance goals are
competitive in nature and are measured by comparing individual performance with that of others

59
(Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Achievement goal theory posits that goals create motivational systems
(or schemas) by providing “the unifying construct or the motivational linchpin of cognition,
affect, and behavior” (Maehr & Zusho, 2009, p. 80).
Yough and Anderman (2006) recommend assessing goal orientations through self-report
methods including surveys, interviews, thinking aloud, and stimulated recall, in which the
measures match the context. Likert-type survey items can distinguish mastery, performance
approachment, and performance avoidant orientations. Open-ended questions about an
individual’s reasons for doing a specific activity can also reveal goal orientations. To determine
goals, straightforward questions such as, “What is your goal for doing [a specific activity]?” are
effective, and document analysis may be helpful to illuminate goal content.
Implications for Instructional Design
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., (2016) describe the influence of competence beliefs and
expectancies, causal attributions, and implicit theories of intelligence, interest, and value,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, achievement goal orientations, and emotion in engagement
and learning. They recommend five instructional design principles to enhance motivation: “(a)
support students’ feelings of competence, (b) enhance autonomy, (c) use personally relevant and
active tasks, (d) emphasize learning and de-emphasize social comparison, and (e) encourage
feelings of belonging” (p. 228).
Motivation factors in fundraiser training and development
Formal preparation for fundraising, managing fundraisers, and training fundraisers is
rare; all are typically learned by doing. Supporting participation in training MGOs in ways that
enhance managers’ self-efficacy and expectancy of success as coaches and guides, their interest
in training others and the value they assign to it, and their cultivation of growth mindsets and

60
utilization of mastery goals can increase the likelihood that managers will choose to invest time
and effort in developing their team members’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes. A framework that
defines essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes for MGOs can provide support for managers.
Value. Ambivalence about asking people for money and negative perceptions of
fundraising are common roadblocks to developing fundraising prowess. In a study of fundraiser
identities, Meisenbach (2008) catalogs negative perceptions of fundraising, from begging to
misusing relationships, that practitioners must navigate in their daily work. A few widely
publicized instances of misuse of charitable contributions have contributed to reduced public
trust in nonprofit organizations; use of telemarketing firms and coercive tactics have raised
questions about fundraising practices; and these reputational issues have carried over to the
fundraising profession (Meisenbach, 2008). Fundraisers may have to overcome negative
associations with their occupation (Meisenbach, 2008) and find ways to move past social taboos
around discussing money (Shaker, 2016) in order to view their work as interesting and/or
enjoyable. Shaker (2016) suggests focusing on giving as the means to a good end.
In several theories of motivation, an individual draws on their identity and sense of self in
ascribing value to a task. In expectancy-value theory, the concept of attainment value posits that
“tasks are important when individuals view them as central to their own sense of themselves or
allow them to express or confirm important aspects of self” (Wigfield et al., 2007, pp. 57-58). In
self-determination theory, the reasons for engaging in extrinsically motivated activities—i.e.,
those with instrumental value—become increasingly internalized as an individual consciously
values an activity as personally important (identification) and assimilates it into their sense of
self (integration) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Framing fundraising in a positive light (e.g., as essential
to achieve an organization’s mission) may help remove motivational barriers to crucial

61
fundraising activities, such as asking a prospective donor for a specific sum of money, by
helping MGOs value and identify with their work.
Self-Efficacy. Asking for charitable contributions greatly increases the likelihood of
receiving them. In designing campaigns, advancement leaders build in ratios of prospects to
donors with the expectation that multiple solicitations (often three to five) will be required to
secure one gift (the Sample Campaign Gift Table [Table 1] illustrates this approach).
Maintaining a healthy expectancy of success (Eccles et al., 1983) and a sense of self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1977) may help MGOs persist in asking despite repeated rejections.
Interest. Together with self-efficacy and expectancy of success, interest is helpful in
understanding other motivational challenges in fundraising. For example, identifying and
qualifying prospective donors who may be cultivated for a major gift involves repeated outreach
attempts, frequently with no response, to a large pool of constituents. Interest predicts task
choice and persistence (Sansone & Thoman, 2005). When tasks are necessary but not
particularly interesting, individuals may employ interest-enhancing strategies (Sansone et al.,
1992), including working with others (Isaac et al., 1999; Sansone & Thoman, 2005). Such
approaches may help MGOs maintain their interest in and enjoyment of repetitive activities, like
sending emails to and leaving voicemail messages for a long list of discovery prospects in the
hope that a few may respond.
Attribution. MGOs who attribute their successes and failures to their own efforts rather
than to external forces (e.g., luck, the economy, etc.) and who look for ways to influence
outcomes are better positioned for success. A donor’s gift decision is not within a fundraiser’s
control; however, an MGO can set up the conditions for success by “finding the right person to

62
ask the right prospect for the right gift in the right form for the right reason at the right time”
(Dove, 2000, p. 123).
Mindset. Yet, even the best attempts do not always succeed. It is not uncommon for an
MGO to devote considerable time and preparation to soliciting a gift that is ultimately declined.
Sometimes, preparing to solicit and/or negotiating a particularly large or complex gift will
require so much attention that it becomes difficult for an MGO to lay the groundwork for other
solicitations. When such a gift falls through, the MGO must cope not only with disappointment
in the outcome but also with the opportunity cost of his or her efforts (i.e., fewer proposals in the
pipeline). MGOs who are resilient when experiencing setbacks and seek to learn from failures, as
well as successes, may be better able to manage these ups and downs.
Mood. The cyclical nature of major gifts fundraising can take an emotional toll.
Emotions play a central role in achievement striving (Pekrun & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2012), and
maintaining a positive outlook at work helps MGOs persist, even when current and prospective
donors are unresponsive to outreach, decline proposals, or provide negative feedback.
Goal Orientation. MGOs typically have a set of quantifiable goals for each fiscal year
that may include the number of new prospects qualified, donors visited, asks made, and gifts
closed. These metrics are designed to keep MGOs focused on activities that help them attain
dollar goals. Utilizing self-regulatory strategies, including setting incremental goals, using time
well, monitoring performance, and taking corrective actions, helps MGOs successfully meet
expectations for productivity and bottom-line impact. Fundraisers who rely on external
regulation—e.g., a manager noticing that they are behind in meeting targets—may struggle to
achieve their goals.

63
More generally, fundraisers who rely on external motivators, such as approval, praise,
and/or other rewards for accomplishing tasks, may find them lacking in their daily work. A more
internalized approach—whether rooted in self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000),
mastery orientation (Dweck, 2008; Maehr & Zusho, 2009), or interest—is useful in driving the
independent work expected of fundraisers. Motivational approaches can be taught, modeled, and
encouraged. A training framework that helps managers develop productive attitudes, in addition
to fundraising knowledge and skills, among the MGOs they supervise can help advancement
organizations achieve their performance goals.
Organization
Although MGOs are typically expected to work independently, with each fundraiser
qualifying, cultivating, soliciting, and stewarding his or her own prospect portfolio, their work
environment, or organizational culture, influences whether and how they achieve their goals.
Clark and Estes (2008) write that “culture is a way to describe the core values, goals, beliefs,
emotions, and processes learned as people develop over time in our family and in our work
environments” (p. 108). They describe approaches to analyzing and modifying organizational
cultures by addressing culture in the environment, in groups, and in individuals. With regard to
individuals, they assert that “training and motivational programs are, by definition, attempts to
transmit new organizational culture and change people’s cultural behaviors at work” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 110). In describing learning organizations, Senge (2006) connects learning to
both behavioral outcomes and excellence, noting that “learning is about developing a capacity to
reliably produce a certain quality of results” (p. 284). Schein (2004) describes culture as “the
accumulated shared learning of a given group, covering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
elements of the group members’ total psychological functioning” (p. 17) and notes that all

64
groups must deal with two major sets of problems: “(1) survival, growth, and adaptation in their
environment; and (2) internal integration that permits daily functioning and the ability to adapt
and learn” (p. 18). For major gifts officers, achieving fundraising goals is essential for the
organization’s survival and their own professional growth. To do so, they must adapt to an ever-
changing environment—in terms of current events, market cycles, media attention, etc.—that
influences philanthropic behaviors. Further, to complete their daily work, fundraisers must
integrate new tools and procedures, respond to shifting priorities, and meet the evolving
expectations of management and leadership. Together with gaps in knowledge and motivation,
organizational factors influence the on-the-job training MGOs receive and their success in
fundraising.
Cultural Setting
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) describe cultural settings as “occasions where people
come together to carry out joint activity that accomplishes something they value” (p. 48). In
conducting a gap analysis, Clark and Estes (2008) advise looking for informal and formal
organizational policies, processes, and resources levels that serve as barriers to achieving
performance goals. Like expertise, cultural behaviors and patterns become “implicit,
unconscious, and automated” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 114) over time. Misalignment of such
behaviors and processes with performance goals is counterproductive. Aligning intentionally
designed and organic aspects of organizational culture can help ensure that organizational
behaviors, policies, and procedures do not work against performance goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). For example, an advancement organization that seeks to establish strong relationships
with constituents but treats its staff transactionally can resolve the conflict between its goals and
its culture by taking a more relational approach to its employees. Similarly, an organization that

65
seeks to enhance collaboration in fundraising but only measures individual gift officer
performance can adjust its metrics to include gift assistance or adopt team goals in addition to or
in lieu of individual goals (EAB, 2015). Further, it can encourage competition with other
organizations rather than competition within teams by helping team members reframe their
colleagues as resources in achieving goals (Edmondson, 2015).
MGOs typically set and work to achieve revenue and activity goals (EAB, 2015; Hiles,
2010). As fundraising practices evolve, the number and type of fundraiser metrics, the size and
turnover of portfolios, and interest in qualitative as well as quantitative indicators are shifting
(EAB, 2015; Hiles, 2010; Lively, 2017). Some of these shifts reflect research findings on goal-
setting in relation to motivation, including employee participation in defining key metrics (Hagel
& Englebert, 2019), setting individual goals (Locke & Latham, 2002), and connecting individual
goals with overarching organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). What has not changed is the
bottom-line expectation that MGOs secure gifts and, with it, pressure on fundraisers to limit
activities that take time away from managing prospects and securing gifts.
Rather than analyzing fundraising performance in a specific organization, this study
focuses on a professional role common in higher education advancement—i.e., managers of
major gift officers—and the part it plays in MGO learning and performance. Institutional
advancement cultures vary from one university to another; however, there are commonalities
across the field that may be addressed from an organizational perspective. For example, the
organizational structure for major gift fundraising in colleges and universities is often fairly flat,
particularly in centralized operations or in large units (e.g., the college of letters and science),
where a number of MGOs may work fairly independently and report to a single manager.
Further, in many institutions, the Development team, comprised primarily of fundraisers, and the

66
Advancement Services team, which often includes prospect research and management, data
services and analytics, gift processing and stewardship, and other important functions, frequently
report to different senior managers with different areas of expertise. When workflow processes
across these functions are not carefully designed, implemented, and monitored, friction can
develop between them. Clark and Estes (2008) note that coordination of workflow across
functions is a common challenge for horizontal organizations and advise developing clear,
formal procedures to facilitate collaboration and increase accountability.
Cultural Models
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural models as “shared mental schema or
normative understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47). Fundraising is a
rapidly evolving field, and MGOs need to be flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes
in the environment. A number of authors have linked organizational cultures that support
learning and innovation with high performance, including Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978),
Clark and Estes (2008), Schein (2004), and Senge (2006). Senge (2006) describes a set of
organizational behaviors that support adaptability and contribute to a culture of learning and
continuous improvement. He emphasizes five disciplines: (a) pursuing personal mastery; (b)
revising mental models; (c) building shared visions; (d) team learning; (e) systems thinking. A
translation of Senge’s (2006) five disciplines to major gifts fundraising could involve developing
active listening skills (Panas, 1999; Sturtevant, 1997) as a component of personal mastery;
reframing talking about money as a pertinent rather than taboo topic (Shaker, 2016) as an
example of a revised mental model; discussing ways a research university contributes to the
public good to build a shared vision; in meetings, distinguishing between information-gathering
and presenting potential solutions to facilitate team learning (Senge, 2006); and utilizing systems

67
thinking to look at the big picture, recognize patterns, and uncover the root causes of why the
college’s signature fundraising event has had dwindling net proceeds over the past three years.
Senge (2006) characterizes a learning organization as the combined knowledge of every
team member and emphasizes the importance of alignment, collaboration, and information
sharing among team members. Success in fundraising requires individual initiative, and an
emphasis on individual goals can contribute to a competitive work environment; yet, MGOs
benefit from collaboration with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers who
can help them engage, cultivate, solicit, and steward donors more effectively than would be
possible alone. To work effectively with peers, partners, and volunteers, MGOs must gain their
trust. Sharing timely, pertinent information can help elicit trust, and doing so enables teams to
evolve tactics in an ever-shifting fundraising environment. For example, the COVID-19
pandemic required MGOs to find ways to engage new prospects virtually, in lieu of the
traditional discovery meeting at a prospect’s home, office, or preferred coffee shop. Sharing
information about outreach attempts helped MGOs develop and adopt effective tactics for an
unprecedented work environment.
A learning organization with a culture that emphasizes alignment, collaboration, and
information sharing can promote knowledge transfer between colleagues, which is essential for
MGO training and development. Sargeant and Shang (2016) studied British charities with highly
successful fundraising operations and found that “development of an organizational learning
culture was deemed critical to the development of exceptional fundraising” (p. 51). Further, they
describe common qualities among the fundraisers in these organizations, including working well
independently, seeking help when needed, and guiding and assisting colleagues. Schein (2004)
notes that new members of a group spend much of their time deciphering its operating norms and

68
assumptions and that the success of their efforts relies on feedback from old members. “In this
sense, there is always a teaching process going on, even though it may be quite implicit and
unsystematic” (Schein, 2004, p.19).
Zak (2017) notes that “high engagement—defined largely as having a strong connection
with one’s work and colleagues, feeling like a real contributor, and enjoying ample chances to
learn—consistently leads to positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations” (p. 86)
and connects engagement to trust. Hurley (2006) defines trust as “confident reliance on someone
when you are in a position of vulnerability” (p. 56). Building a culture of trust within
organizations enables high performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Galford & Drapeau, 2003;
Hurley, 2006; Zak, 2017). When MGOs earn the trust of colleagues, academic partners, and
volunteers, they gain access to crucial information and networks. Further, to be effective in
cultivating, soliciting, and closing gifts, MGOs must secure the trust of prospective donors
(Drollinger, 2018; Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013; Kirsch & Shell, 2000; Lively, 2017;
Sturtevant, 1997).
Policies and Procedures
Institutional advancement operations typically comply with a variety of fundraising
norms (e.g., CASE Statement of Ethics,
13
AFP Donor Bill of Rights
14
), gift acceptance and
reporting standards (e.g., CASE Management Guidelines and Reporting Standards
15
), tax codes
(e.g., IRS guide to charitable contribution deductions
16
), and local, state and federal laws (e.g.,

13
CASE Statement of Ethics available at https://www.case.org/resources/case-statement-ethics
14
The Donor Bill of Rights available at https://afpglobal.org/donor-bill-rights
15
https://www.case.org/resources/case-reporting-standards-and-management-guidelines
16
IRS guide to charitable contribution deductions is available at https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-
profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions

69
laws governing nonprofit organizations, privacy, etc.). The necessity of compliance not only
informs institutional policies and procedures but also influences advancement culture.
Stakeholder-Specific Factors
Time spent on MGO training and development has a cost to managers who also have
individual fundraising goals. The benefit to the organization is a more effective fundraising
workforce; however, managers who invest time in helping others may not be recognized for their
efforts. Depending on the institution, fundraising management responsibilities may explicitly or
tacitly include training and developing MGOs; however, while measurement of fundraiser
performance through dollars raised and activity targets is well established in higher education
advancement and serves as a common method of evaluation, measurement and evaluation of
managers’ efficacy in training, developing, and guiding fundraisers is not commonplace. Further,
many institutions make fundraiser metrics—e.g., how many gifts a particular fundraiser has
closed so far this year and their total dollar amount—available to all. Similarly, progress toward
some team goals (e.g., a school or unit’s dollar goal) is also commonly tracked and disseminated.
Thus, managers of MGOs face difficult decisions about how to spend their time. Devoting
insufficient time and effort to his or her own fundraising activities can result in a manager
missing his or her individual fundraising and activity goals; however, providing insufficient
training and guidance to MGOs can result in missing larger team goals.
Resources
Clark and Estes (2008) argue that “organizations are made up of people whose
knowledge, skills, and motivation drive the organization. It is crucial to focus on people and
what they need to succeed” (p. 115). To meet performance goals, people require adequate
material resources. In order for managers to fulfill expectations for training and developing

70
MGOs while also achieving fundraising goals, they need support. Their time is limited and,
typically, they have little or no formal preparation for teaching or training. A framework for
training MGOs that provides practical guidance for assessing and developing specific
knowledge, skills, and attitudes could be a valuable resource for managers.
With this in mind, this study focuses on managers of MGOs as the primary stakeholders.
Managers are best positioned to guide MGOs’ on-the-job training and provide information as it
is needed. Drawing on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors described in this
chapter, the study will seek a consensus among managers regarding the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes most essential in major gifts fundraising.

71
Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this exploratory study is to capture expertise from experienced
fundraisers, who are responsible for managing major gift officers (MGOs) and ensuring that they
meet their performance goals, in order to assess MGO training needs. The resulting needs
assessment serves as a foundation for a research-based framework for guiding the development
of knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential in major gifts fundraising. Current literature reveals
that no such framework is currently available to managers, who are ideally positioned to provide
timely, individualized, and ongoing on-the-job training to MGOs.
This study aims to assess needs in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational behaviors necessary for major gift officers (MGOs) to attain their fundraising
goals. The analysis began by gathering and generating lists of fundraising tasks and behaviors
MGOs may need to master, proceeded to a systematic examination to identify essential MGO
tasks and behaviors, gathered data on current training methods, and ended by testing confidence
in the most common training methods. Managers were also be asked to describe their current
training methods for MGOs with various levels of experience. The essential tasks and behaviors
identified by managers, together with common ways of sharing fundraising expertise, provide a
foundation for building a framework for managers to use in training MGOs that is grounded in
research in learning and motivation and attuned to advancement professional culture.
When incorporated into guided instruction, it is anticipated that the resulting framework
will increase self-efficacy of both managers and MGOs, accelerate acquisition of fundraising
expertise, and increase fundraising productivity. Ensuring that all MGOs know how to perform
essential fundraising tasks, fostering their development from novice to expert practitioners, and
promoting a learning culture can positively impact a university’s fundraising revenue; whereas,

72
failing to provide effective training to MGOs can not only negatively impact fundraising
revenue, but also perpetuate high turnover in the profession.
The questions that guide this study are the following:
Research Questions
1. What fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors do managers of major gift officers
(MGOs) working in higher education identify as essential for MGOs to meet their
performance goals?
2. How do managers help MGOs learn to perform essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors?
a. For each task, attitude, or behavior, which training methods, if any, do
managers use with MGOs at various experience levels?
3. What recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organization can be made for
managers to guide MGO learning and practice of fundraising?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Informed by a pragmatic perspective on social science research, this mixed methods
study identifies a problem of practice and utilizes “pluralistic approaches to derive knowledge
about [it]” (Creswell, 2014, p. 11). Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework is a
systematic, analytical method that focuses on knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors
to close gaps between actual and preferred human performance levels. A traditional gap analysis
assesses performance indicators in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization to
understand and address root causes of performance gaps, such as insufficient knowledge and
experience to perform an essential task proficiently. This study adapts the gap analysis
framework to assess training needs. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs

73
were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These needs were validated
through literature review and multiple surveys. The study concludes with recommendations for
research-based innovations.
Instrumentation
This study made use of the Delphi survey technique (Delphi), a method for obtaining
consensus of opinion among a group of experts (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). First developed by the
RAND Corporation, Delphi engages a panel of experts in successive surveys, providing a
summary of findings after each round. This controlled feedback may include data and/or “factors
and considerations suggested as potentially relevant by one or another respondent” (Dalkey &
Helmer, 1963, p. 458). Participants’ contributions are independent and anonymous, minimizing
the influence of any one expert on the group (Habibi et al., 2014; Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Linstone
& Turoff, 1975). Each round provides participants an opportunity to review findings from the
group and modify their opinions, supporting the convergence of opinions toward a consensus
(Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Habibi et al., 2014; Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Linstone & Turoff, 1975;
Yousuf, 2007).
“Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process
so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a
complex problem” (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 3). Its suggested uses include forecasting,
exploring policy options, developing educational models, and planning curricula (Linstone &
Turoff, 1975; Stritter et al., 1994; Yousuf, 2007). Delphi has been used extensively in health and
social science research (Hasson et al., 2000) and has been applied in a variety of ways, including
needs assessment, program planning, resource utilization, and policy determination (Hsu &
Sanford, 2007). Delphi is suggested for research problems that can be better addressed through

74
expert opinion and judgment than precise analytical techniques (Linstone & Turoff, 1975;
Stritter et al., 1994; Yousuf, 2007). “The main advantage of ‘Delphi’ is the achievement of
concurrence in a given area where none previously existed” (McKenna, 1994, p. 1222). Because
Delphi studies result in the collective opinion of informed individuals, it is a useful method for
addressing research questions that do not have a single correct answer (McKenna, 1994).
In comparison with traditional group consensus methods, such as focus groups and
nominal group technique, Delphi has several advantages. Fink et al. (1984) note that Delphi
allows “each participant to express views impersonally, while ultimately providing information
generated by an entire group” (p. 980). McKenna (1994) describes the ability of Delphi to “guide
group opinion towards a final decision” and calls its utility in attaining convergence of
agreement “unique” (p. 1223). Rather than interrupting the work of experts in order to gather
them in one place, Delphi studies rely on self-administered questionnaires, formerly distributed
by mail and now by email (Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Keeny et al., 2010). They provide participants
with anonymity (Habibi et al., 2014; Keeny et al., 2010). Because “only relevant and useful
material is channeled back to respondents,” (McKenna, 1994, p. 1223), Delphi minimizes
tangential exploration, thus reducing noise in the data.
Noting its roots in the philosophies of Locke, Kant, Hegel, and, especially, Dewey,
Brady (2015) describes the pragmatism of the Delphi technique. It is flexible and may be used to
collect both quantitative and qualitative data; it is affordable and straightforward to use; it seeks
a purposive sample of experts on a topic; and it is designed to inform policy, practice, and/or
decision making (Brady, 2015). Qualitative Delphi studies share common criteria, including
purposeful sampling, emergent design, anonymous respondents, structured communication, and
thematic analysis (Brady, 2015; Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Over time, variations in the Delphi

75
method have emerged to achieve different objectives. The RAND Corporation’s original use was
forecasting—i.e., predicting the likelihood of future events—and the process it developed has
been further defined as an exploratory or conventional Delphi (Yousuf, 2007). A policy, focus,
or decision Delphi seeks to elicit strongly opposing viewpoints from experts on a policy issue
(Yousef, 2007). The normative or consensus Delphi, which is most often used in educational
settings, focuses on establishing goals and priorities (Yousuf, 2007). This study utilizes a
normative Delphi. In Figure 3, Habibi et al., (2015) represent this process.
Figure 3
Theoretical Framework of Delphi Technique in Qualitative Research (Habibi et al., 2015)

76
Habibi et al. (2015) summarize requirements for using Delphi as:
the need for experts' judgment, group consensus to achieve the results, anonymity in data
collection, a complex, multidimensional, and interdisciplinary problem, lack of consensus
and imperfect knowledge, experienced and capable experts, dispersion of experts, no time
limitation, and lack of cost-effective method. (p. 10)
This study meets these criteria with one caveat. Anonymity may not be strictly necessary for a
study whose subject is not known to be sensitive and/or contentious; however, it is a useful
measure to prevent groupthink (Habibi et al., 2014; Hsu & Sanford, 2007; Linstone & Turoff,
1975). Further, it may be worth noting the utility of Delphi, which enables broad geographic
participation (Fink et al., 1984), during a period of reduced travel and in-person interaction (e.g.,
during a global pandemic).
Delphi studies are iterative and make use of successive surveys to achieve consensus. The
panel of experts remains the same through all rounds, and responses from each survey round
serve as the foundation for the next. After each round, investigators determine the level of
consensus, ending the study once consensus is achieved. Two to four rounds of questions are
typical (Fink et al., 1984; Keeny et al., 2010). Originally, Dalkey and Helmer (1963) posed an
open-ended question to generate a list of opinion statements that were used to further refine the
problem and generate subsequent rounds of questions. A modified Delphi approach begins with a
first round of questions—i.e., quantitative survey items—derived from interviews or focus
groups with experts or an extensive literature review of another field (Fink et al., 1984; Keeny et
al., 2010). This mixed methods Delphi study begins with a list of questions derived from the
literature on institutional advancement, educational psychology, and human performance
technology. Each round included both qualitative (e.g., free response) and quantitative (e.g.,

77
Figure 4
Delphi Study Structure for Data Collection and Analysis

rating) survey questions. Qualitative data provided insight into a complex and understudied
topic—i.e., tasks, attitudes, and behaviors essential for success in major gifts fundraising.
Quantitative data determined the level of consensus achieved. This study sought a minimum
consensus level of 70%, which is consistent with other Delphi studies (Habibi et al., 2015),
although some set the agreement level as low as 51% (McKenna, 1994). Figure 4 represents a
visual mapping of the study design.
Survey Design
The purpose of the Delphi Round One survey was to prioritize competencies directly
associated with major gifts fundraising in a higher education context. In Round One, participants
rated the importance of fundraising tasks and work-related attitudes and behaviors in MGO
effectiveness. The tasks, attitudes, and behaviors selected for inclusion in the survey were drawn
from the literature. Work-related attitudes and behaviors, such as demonstrating self-confidence
in performing job responsibilities, were informed by the literature on motivation, human
performance technology, and organizational culture as well as more than two decades of

78
practical experience securing gifts for colleges and universities. Fundraising tasks, such as
soliciting and securing gifts, were informed by practical guides for frontline fundraisers and are
indebted to the Test Content Outline for CFRE Exam (CFRE, 2018), which includes a list of 35
tasks, developed over four decades, that a Certified Fund Raising Executive should be able to
perform.
To develop the CFRE exam, testing agency Professional Examination Service (PES)
worked with subject matter experts drawn from the NSFRE Exam Committee on a role
delineation in 1980 to identify key competencies, which were described as fundraiser tasks
(Aldrich, 2017). The resulting list of tasks was reviewed, rated, and critiqued by approximately
50 NSFRE members to determine their importance, frequency, criticality, and the extent to
which they differentiated acceptable from unacceptable performance (Aldrich, 2017). Using this
feedback, PES developed and tested approximately 250 test questions before administering the
first CFRE exam in October 1981 (Aldrich, 2017). In 1997, the first fundraising job task analysis
was performed, and task analysis was used in the first international benchmarking of fundraising
practice in 2003.
17
In 2001, CFRE International, an independent nonprofit, was formed to
oversee CFRE certification. Aldrich (2017), who serves as president and CEO of CFRE
International, reports that it performs a formal job analysis every five years. The CFRE
credential received national accreditation in 2009 and international accreditation in 2017.
18

The CFRE credential reflects general rather than specialized fundraising expertise
(Aldrich, 2017). The Test Content Outline for CFRE Exam (CFRE, 2018) articulates 35 tasks
and 104 key knowledge areas associated with these tasks. Tasks and associated knowledge areas

17
See https://www.cfre.org/about/cfre/ for a detailed timeline.
18
CFRE is accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) (Aldrich, 2017).

79
are divided into six domains: (a) Current and Prospective Donor Research; (b) Securing the Gift;
(c) Relationship Building; (d) Volunteer Involvement; (e) Leadership and Management; and (f)
Ethics, Accountability, and Professionalism. The 35 CFRE tasks span advancement functions
ranging from data integrity to development communications and include tasks that pertain to
staff members with management responsibilities. College and university advancement
operations, which typically have a sufficiently large staff to include specialized roles, have the
luxury of more narrowly defining MGO responsibilities to prioritize engaging, cultivating, and
soliciting gifts from new and repeat donors. Some CFRE tasks, such as, “implement an utilize a
secure data management system to ensure data privacy, store information on current and
prospective donors, and enable segmented retrieval and analysis” (CFRE, 2018, p. 1), may be
performed wholly or in part by advancement services specialists in a higher education
advancement operation. Further, the CFRE credential reflects baseline rather than advanced
fundraising knowledge, and the multiple-choice CFRE exam tests fundraising knowledge rather
than its application (Aldrich, 2017). While the practical literature on major gift fundraising
includes detailed advice for guiding gift conversations, the Test Content Outline for CFRE Exam
(2018) sums it up in one task: “Ask for and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in
order to generate financial support for the organization’s mission” (p. 2). This item laudably
references the importance of alignment between a donor’s gift and the organization’s mission;
however, it provides no detail about how MGOs fulfill their primary responsibility to their
institutions. Thus, to focus on tasks and knowledge areas essential for MGOs, the researcher
compared CFRE tasks with advice from the practical literature on major gifts fundraising,
selecting tasks commonly performed by MGOs in higher education and adding depth to those
involving donor interactions.

80
Using a zero-to-100 scale, the Round One survey instrument asked respondents to
evaluate the importance of 48 fundraising tasks and work-related attitudes and behaviors to
MGOs effectiveness. Several open response questions enabled participants to add additional
tasks and behaviors they deem essential. Respondents were also asked to rate their confidence
teaching others to perform the tasks and adopt the behaviors they identified as most important to
MGO effectiveness. Additional questions in Round One included information about the
respondents’ fundraising responsibilities (i.e., whether they manage a prospect portfolio), the
number and experience levels of the MGOs on their teams, and the kinds of onboarding and
training activities currently available to their teams.
The Delphi Round Two survey identified the fundraising tasks and work-related attitudes
and behaviors deemed most essential via Round One. Participants reviewed these tasks, attitudes,
and behaviors and confirmed or challenged the assertion that MGOs must be able to perform,
display, or enact them. Participants had the opportunity to provide comments about top-rated
tasks, attitudes, and behaviors and to suggest others that should be included. Further, using
dialogue boxes, participants were asked to describe methods they have experienced, utilized, or
witnessed that help MGOs learn how to perform, adopt, or enact essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors.
Round Three focused on managers’ confidence in common training methods associated
with essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors. For each training method, panelists were asked to
rate its effectiveness in preparing MGOs to perform the task, adopt the attitude, or enact the
behavior independently, effectively, consistently, and in the right situations. Further, panelists
were invited to identify the experience level(s) of MGOs, if any, who benefit from the method in
question. They also had the opportunity to provide comments about training methods. Soliciting

81
input about best approaches for mastering a particular task helped pinpoint those tasks that
require active guidance by managers (e.g., guiding conversations with prospects toward
philanthropy) versus other training methods (e.g., a training session on distinguishing which life-
income gift structure best addresses a donor’s situation).
Assessment of Performance Needs
Fundraising has been characterized as an emerging profession (Caboni, 2010) without a
strong foundation of research to guide practice (Brittingham & Pezzullo, 1990; Caboni & Proper,
2007; Drezner & Huehls, 2014; Kelly, 1991). Lacking a substantial knowledge base as a
foundation (Caboni, 2010), there is, as yet, no standard curriculum for teaching fundraising.
Thus, a needs assessment of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational behaviors essential
for effective major gifts fundraising is a critical first step toward designing a framework for
managers to use in providing on-the-job training for MGOs.
Knowledge Assessment
This study takes a cognitive view of learning, in which “knowledge is inferred from
behavior” (Mayer, 2011, p.16). As noted in the previous chapter, procedural knowledge, which
encompasses skills, techniques, and methods (Anderson et al., 2001), is particularly important to
major gifts fundraising. To perform their roles, MGOs skillfully utilize an extensive knowledge
base during interactions with donors and in response to their cues. Knowledge and skills reside in
long-term memory, organized in schemas, which are mental frameworks for understanding and
remembering information (Kirschner et al., 2006). As learning occurs, new schemas are formed
or existing ones are remade, becoming increasingly complex as expertise develops (Kirschner et
al., 2006). Schemas can integrate information and production rules, automating knowledge, and
skilled performance (Kirschner et al., 2006). The procedural knowledge required to perform the

82
MGO role may include factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge, wherein factual
knowledge describes basic elements of a discipline (e.g., terminology), conceptual knowledge
encompasses interrelationships among basic elements (e.g., categories, principles, and models),
and metacognitive knowledge includes awareness of one’s own cognition (Anderson et al.,
2001). For example, having insight into a prospective donor’s values, interests, and personal
history helps an MGO propose a giving opportunity that is meaningful to the donor. Knowing
how to ask open-ended questions that elicit this kind of personal information and actively
listening to the donor’s responses are examples of procedural knowledge, yet, the self-
monitoring skills that are part of attentive listening are metacognitive in nature.
The test content outline for the CFRE exam (CFRE, 2018) focuses on the demonstration
of fundraising knowledge through tasks, providing a useful starting point for building an
assessment instrument. Further, the practical literature on major gifts fundraising provides how-
to advice, much of which is fairly consistent across authors and over time. Comparing items
from the test content outline for the CFRE exam (CFRE, 2018) with themes that emerged from
the practical literature on major gifts fundraising produced a list fundraising tasks that may be
included in an MGO’s responsibilities and are not typically performed by other members of the
Advancement staff, such as prospect researchers, stewardship officers, and Advancement
leadership. For each task, the type(s) of knowledge needed to perform it—i.e., factual,
conceptual, procedural, and/or metacognitive—was considered. The following 27 fundraising
tasks served as an initial catalog of knowledge and skills managers deem necessary for major
gifts fundraising:

83
▪ develop a list of prospective major gift donors by identifying individuals, groups, and
entities with the linkage, ability, and interest to give (CFRE, 2018; Shaker, 2016) -
Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach (CFRE, 2018; Greenhoe, 2013) - Procedural
knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations (Adams, 1993; Greenhoe, 2013; Panas, 1999; Sturtevant, 1997) -
Procedural and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from conversations with
prospective donors (Dove, 2000; Greenhoe, 2013; Panas, 1999; Smith, 1997) -
Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors (CFRE, 2018; Dunlop, 2002; Dove, 2000; Greenhoe, 2013; Panas,
1999; Shaker, 2016) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors (CFRE, 2018; Sturtevant,
1997) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly. (Drezner &

84
Huehls, 2014; Joslyn, 2018; Prince & File, 1994) - Conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution (Adams, 1993; CFRE, 2018; Dunlop, 2002; Kirsch &
Shell, 2000; Lively, 2017; Panas, 1999) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al.,
2001)
▪ manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle (Dunlop, 1993, 2002; Lively, 2017; Smith, 1997) - Procedural knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising (Bell
& Cornelius, 2013; CFRE, 2018) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ employ marketing and public relations principles and tools to support and grow
fundraising programs (CFRE, 2018; Drezner & Huehls, 2015; Maxwell & Dunlavy,
2016) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ with the involvement of stakeholders, develop a compelling case for support that
communicates the rationale for supporting the institution’s mission and includes a call
to action (CFRE, 2018; Dove, 2000; Hunt, 2012; Seiler, 2016) - Procedural
knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ prepare donor-focused proposals, gift agreements, and other solicitation
communications in order to facilitate informed gift decisions (CFRE, 2018) -
Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)

85
▪ understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’
financial and philanthropic goals (Purcell, 2016; Regenovich, 2016) - Conceptual and
procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask - procedural and metacognitive (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ assemble and prepare solicitation teams in advance of soliciting gifts (Dove, 2000;
Dunlop, 2002; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997) - Procedural knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s mission (CFRE, 2018; Dove, 2000; Dunlop,
2002; Panas, 1999; Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997) - Procedural knowledge
(Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the
use of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s
records (CFRE, 2018; Hunt, 2012; Tempel & Seiler, 2016) - Procedural and
metacognitive knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ acknowledge and recognize donor engagement and gifts in ways that are personalized
and meaningful to donors and appropriate to the mission and values of the
organization (CFRE, 2018; Kirsch & Shell, 2000) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson
et al., 2001)
▪ identify opportunities to engage volunteers and attributes that increase their
effectiveness in fundraising (CFRE, 2018; Dove, 2000; Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe,
2013; Sturtevant, 1997) - Conceptual knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)

86
▪ create structured processes to identify, recruit, onboard, train, assess, recognize,
retain, and renew volunteers (CFRE, 2018; Freeman & Hermanson, 2016; Tempel &
Seiler, 2016) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ develop role descriptions and define terms of commitment to empower volunteers and
enhance their effectiveness (CFRE, 2018; Freeman & Hermanson, 2016; Tempel &
Seiler, 2016) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ participate in recruiting experienced and diverse volunteer leadership to ensure boards
and committees are representative of, and responsive to, the constituents and
communities served (CFRE, 2018; Freeman & Hermanson, 2016; Tempel & Seiler,
2016) - Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ engage various types of volunteers (e.g., board, program, campaign) and academic
partners (e.g., deans, department chairs, directors) in the fundraising process (CFRE,
2018; Dove, 2000; Dunlop, 2002; Shaker, 2016; Sturtevant, 1997) - Procedural
knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ create and implement annual and project-based fundraising plans and budgets to
support the institution’s strategic goals (CFRE, 2018; Lively, 2017; Seiler, 2017) -
Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ communicate principles of ethical fundraising to stakeholders and promote
fundraising as a vital component of philanthropy to strengthen the institution, the
nonprofit sector, and civil society (CFRE, 2018; Tempel, 2016) - Procedural
knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)
▪ participate as an active and contributing member of the fundraising profession
through activities such as mentoring, continuing education, research, and membership

87
in professional organizations (Aldrich, 2016; CFRE, 2018; Huehls, 2016) -
Procedural knowledge (Anderson et al., 2001)

Participants were asked to rate the importance of each of the tasks listed above. In addition, they
were asked if there are any additional tasks that MGOs must perform to be effective and were
encouraged to provide free-response answers.
Motivation Assessment
Major gifts fundraising is goal-oriented work. MGO performance is measured by dollars
raised, visits made, proposals submitted, and other key metrics. Motivation, “the process
whereby goal-directed activities are instigated and sustained” (Schunk et al., 2014, p. 5), plays a
vital role in the day-to-day work of MGOs. The previous chapter outlines six major theories of
motivation that are relevant to workplace learning and performance: social cognitive theory,
expectancy-value theory, self-determination theory, interest, attribution theory, and goal theory.
Similar to the cognitive approach to learning noted above, these theories share a cognitive
approach to framing motivation as influenced by individuals’ thoughts, beliefs, and emotions.
These theories provide a starting point for developing a motivation assessment instrument that,
like the knowledge assessment, also draws on the fundraising literature, including studies of
fundraisers as well as practical guides to fundraising. Survey items included the following 11
motivation-related attitudes and behaviors related to major gifts fundraising:
▪ demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities (Bandura,1986, 1997;
EAB, 2018; Worth & Asp, 1994)
▪ utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions (Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Greenhoe, 2013; Locke & Latham,
2002; Usher & Pajares, 2008; Zimmerman, 1990; Worth & Asp, 1994)

88
▪ persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success (Greenhoe,
2013; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Worth & Asp, 1994)
▪ seeks approval, praise, and/or other rewards for accomplishing assigned tasks.
(Dweck, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000)
▪ shows personal value in engaging in assigned tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sargeant &
Shang, 2016)
▪ enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising (Bandura & Schunk, 1981;
Burnett, 2002; EAB, 2018; Hunt, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Sansone & Thoman,
2005)
▪ maintains a positive outlook at work (Panas, 1984; Pekrun, 2011; Worth & Asp,
1994)
▪ is resilient when experiencing setbacks (Dweck, 2008; EAB, 2018; Yeager & Dweck,
2012)
▪ attributes success and failures to their own efforts (Sargeant & Shang, 2016; Weiner,
1985, 2005)
▪ chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals (Gagne & Deci,
2005; Hiles, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000)
▪ demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission (Sansone & Thoman, 2005;
Schiefle, 2009)
Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of these attitudes and behaviors and to
describe others, if any, that MGOs must adopt to be effective in a free response item.
Organization/Culture/Context Assessment
To achieve top-level business goals, Clark and Estes (2008) recommend involving

89
everyone in the organization through cascading goals for work teams and individuals.
Fundraising organizations typically connect campaign goals to individual MGO goals, creating a
goal-oriented work culture. Schein (2004) describes culture as “the accumulated shared learning
of a given group, covering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive elements of the group members’
total psychological functioning” (p. 17) and notes that all groups must deal with two major sets
of problems: “(1) survival, growth, and adaptation in their environment; and (2) internal
integration that permits daily functioning and the ability to adapt and learn” (p. 18). For MGOs,
achieving fundraising goals is essential for the organization’s survival and their own professional
growth. To do so, they must adapt to an ever-changing environment—in terms of current events,
market cycles, media attention, etc.—that influences philanthropic behaviors. Further, to
complete their daily work, fundraisers must integrate new tools and procedures, respond to
shifting priorities, and meet the evolving expectations of management and leadership.
A number of authors have linked organizational cultures that support learning and
innovation with high performance, including Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978), Clark and Estes
(2008), Schein (2004), and Senge (2006). Many of their studies focus on the business sector;
however, Sargeant and Shang (2016) studied British charities with highly successful fundraising
operations and found that “development of an organizational learning culture was deemed
critical to the development of exceptional fundraising” (p. 51). Further, they describe common
qualities among the fundraisers in these organizations, including working well independently,
seeking help when needed, and guiding and assisting colleagues. Sargeant and Shang (2016)
found a high level of systems thinking and critical problem solving in the fundraising
organizations they studied, as well as interest in outside perspectives and a willingness to take
risks. They observed that fundraising leaders’ attention to the composition of their teams, the

90
structure of their organizations, and organizational learning cultures enabled them to achieve
highly successful approaches to isolating, defining, and solving problems throughout their
organizations.
Senge (2006, 2012) applied research on organizational learning culture to educational
institutions. Educators, who manage their classrooms independently, benefit from opportunities
to come together to enhance efficacy, share promising practices, and deepen their expertise, often
through professional learning communities or communities of practice. Similarly, MGOs, who
manage prospect portfolios independently, benefit from opportunities to collaborate with and
learn from one another. With this in mind, the organizational assessment instrument includes
items related to organizational learning, knowledge sharing, and collaboration.
Building trust is another key factor in both fundraiser efficacy (Drollinger, 2018; Dunlop,
2002; Greenhoe, 2013; Kirsch & Shell, 2000; Lively, 2017; Sturtevant, 1997) and organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008; Galford & Drapeau, 2003; Hurley, 2006; Zak, 2017), and so
is appropriate goal-setting (Clark & Estes, 2008; EAB, 2015; Hagel & Englebert, 2019; Hiles,
2010; Locke & Latham, 2002). The organizational assessment instrument, like the knowledge
and motivation assessment, drew on both the fundraising literature and research on
organizational behavior and culture in an attempt to identify key organizational behaviors
associated with effective major gifts fundraising. Ten survey items regarding organizational
behaviors were as follows:
▪ contributes to a culture of individual initiative (Clark & Estes, 2008; Sargeant & Shang,
2016; Schein, 2004)
▪ accepts and supports colleagues (Leary & Cox, 2008; Sargeant & Shang, 2016; Schunk
et al., 2014)

91
▪ sets concrete, challenging, current goals (EAB, 2015; Hagel & Englebert, 2019; Hiles,
2010; Locke & Latham, 2002)
▪ contributes to a culture of healthy competition with peer institutions (Clark & Estes,
2008; Edmondson, 2015; Schein, 2004)
▪ collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process (Clark & Estes, 2008; Dove, 2000; Dunlop, 2002; Shaker, 2016;
Sturtevant, 1997)
▪ shares knowledge and information with colleagues (Argote & Fahrenkopf, 2016; Argyris
& Schon, 1974, 1978; Sargeant & Shang, 2016; Schein, 2004; Zak, 2017)
▪ gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors (Clark & Estes, 2008; Drollinger,
2018; Dunlop, 2002; EAB, 2018; Galford & Drapeau, 2003; Sturtevant, 1997; Zak,
2017)
▪ contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement (Argyris & Schon,
1974, 1978; Sargeant & Shang, 2016; Schein, 2004; Senge, 2006)
▪ is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment (Argyris &
Schon, 1974, 1978; EAB, 2018; Schein, 2004; Senge, 2006)
▪ contributes to the organization’s informational resources and improvements to policies
and procedures (Sargeant & Shang, 2016; Schein, 2004; Senge, 2006)
As in the knowledge and motivation instruments, participants were asked to rate the importance
of each of the above organizational behaviors and also had an opportunity to identify additional
behaviors that MGOs must exhibit to be effective in a free response item.

92
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is managers of major gift officers (MGOs)
working in American institutions of higher education. Typically, such managers have a
successful track record as frontline fundraisers and continue to have fundraising responsibilities.
Most have implicit or explicit responsibility for onboarding, training, and developing the MGOs
on their teams; however, training activities may not be clearly articulated in job descriptions, are
rarely measured, and may not appear as a separate item in performance evaluations. There is a
growing consensus in institutional advancement that training and talent development are
important not only for recruitment and retention, but also for increasing performance; however,
organizational cultures support training and development efforts to varying degrees. Thus,
among managers of MGOs, one can find varying degrees of involvement in training and
development. This study sought participants who are engaged in training and developing the
talent on their teams.
Sampling
The sampling strategy for panel participants was purposeful, typical, and convenient
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). Participants have extensive experience
in major and principal gift fundraising in a higher education context, have followed common
career paths in institutional advancement, directly supervise fundraisers, and take an interest in
their training and professional development. Specific management criteria include current or
recent (within two years) supervision of three or more MGOs and responsibility for guiding a
team in attaining specific annual financial goals. In addition to these selection criteria, and in
recognition that the study utilized professional networks for snowball sampling (Fink, 2017;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015), the researcher sought colleagues who felt no obligation

93
to participate (e.g., no colleagues in the same unit were invited to participate).
Habibi et al. (2015) recommend snowball sampling to assemble expert panels for Delphi
studies and found a wide range—from fewer than 10 to more than 100—in the size of such
panels. This study sought a minimum of 25 experts on the panel.
Recruitment
Yousuf (2007) asserts that “the information obtained by the Delphi study is only as good
as the experts who participate on the panel” (p. 6). Habibi et al. (2015) concur, noting that “the
validity of the results depends on the competence and knowledge of panel members” (p. 10). To
find the ideal combination of fundraising expertise, management experience, and a track record
of developing talent, the study utilized snowball sampling (Fink, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Patton, 2015) with the goal of including participants from a variety of higher education
institutions. Beginning with contacts developed over 23 years of service in four colleges and
universities (all in the same region), the researcher developed a list of higher education
advancement colleagues that was supplemented through outreach to learning and development
professionals, executive search and campaign consultants, and colleagues with specific regional
networks (e.g., the Midwest). LinkedIn contacts, developed in part through conference
attendance and recruitment activities, helped further expand the list, as did Internet searches to
locate potential participants in underrepresented regions. Care was taken to include people of
color, who are underrepresented in higher education advancement, and women, who are
underrepresented in advancement leadership. Outreach to potential sources of referrals, as well
as to the potential participants they suggested, was conducted by telephone and email, often
through introductions.

94
Data Collection
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
prospective participants were recruited by email and telephone. The researcher provided an
overview of the study, explained the Delphi process, noting its protection of anonymity, the
timeline of the project, and the importance of sustained participation through multiple survey
rounds, and invite questions. The researcher also asked for suggestions of additional potential
participants who meet the criteria to serve as panelists—i.e., management of MGOs and
involvement in their training and professional development.
Surveys
Participants on the expert panel were contacted by email through Qualtrics and given a
concisely written introduction to the purpose of the study and a description of the Delphi method.
The email included a link to participate. Surveys were distributed and collected electronically
using Qualtrics software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, 2018). Quantitative data was collected in several
ways. Rounds one and three included questions that asked respondents to rate importance or
confidence. These data were collected using a slider function from zero to 100 with the selected
whole-number integer displayed. Rounds one and three also included multiple-choice questions
of several types: binary or forced choice questions (Round One) and multiple-choice questions
(rounds one and three). Qualitative data were collected in each round using free response forms
embedded in Qualtrics. Responses were transferred to an Excel spreadsheet without modification
for coding. Rounds One, Two, and Three each remained open for two to four weeks. Reminder
emails were sent periodically for unopened and incomplete surveys.

95
Data Analysis
The mixed methods Delphi design used in study enabled convergence of qualitative and
quantitative data through side-by-side comparison and data transformation (Creswell, 2014).
Analysis of data from each round served as a foundation for creating the next survey round,
consistent with Delphi methodology. Data from completed survey rounds were de-identified,
maintaining connections between quantitative and qualitative responses to ensure accurate
interpretation in analysis. After Round One, the 48 items rated for importance were analyzed
quantitatively by calculating the mean, median, range, standard deviation, variance, coefficient
of variation, and consensus level to ascertain relative importance to MGO effectiveness. Each of
the 48 items included a text box for optional comments. Free response answers added depth to
the 48 items and were reviewed in a side-by-side comparison with quantitative data. Panelists
also had an opportunity to suggest additional tasks, attitudes, and behaviors essential to MGO
success. Themes that emerge from these responses were quantified to prioritize emergent
constructs. In sum, Round One data was reviewed for similarities and differences, combined into
new and/or modified constructs, and added to the list of essential fundraising tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors for MGOs presented in Round Two.
Creswell (2014) guided analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data from all survey
rounds. Analysis of qualitative data followed Creswell’s (2014) six-step approach: (a)
organization, preparation, and sorting; (b) reading all data; (c) emergent coding; (d) development
of description and themes; (e) creation of narrative; and (f) interpretation. Analysis of
quantitative data was anticipated to be descriptive, in keeping with the small sample size
(Creswell, 2014).

96
Data gathered in rounds one and two were analyzed to determine the level of consensus
for tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that are essential for MGO effectiveness. Analysis of Round
Two and Round Three data determined the common approaches to training MGOs to perform,
adopt, and enact essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors. Data collected in Round Three were
analyzed to determine confidence in the effectiveness of current training methods associated with
these essential fundraising tasks and work-related behaviors.
Trustworthiness of Data
In order to maintain the credibility and trustworthiness of this study, its design includes
elements intended to strengthen its internal validity and reliability. One of the benefits of the
Delphi method is that it entails multiple rounds of surveys interspersed with feedback. For
example, the panel’s Round One ratings of essential MGO tasks, attitudes, and behaviors were
summarized in Round Two, providing panelists the opportunity to revisit their collective
responses and confirm and/or clarify the investigator’s understanding of their views. This
feedback loop constitutes a form of respondent validation (Maxwell, 2013) or member checking,
in which preliminary findings are shared with participants to test whether the interpretation
“rings true” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 245). In addition, collecting multiple data sets from the
same participants at different times is a form of triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and
provides an opportunity for comparison (Maxwell, 2013). Successive rounds of surveys helped
achieve data saturation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as the panel moved toward consensus.
Convergence of quantitative and qualitative data, collected from the same participants on the
same concepts (Creswell, 2014), and transformation of appropriate qualitative data into
quantifiable form (Maxwell, 2013) further strengthened validity in this mixed methods study.
Reliability was increased by maintaining an audit trail that logs processes and decision-making

97
as one round of data collection and analysis informs the next (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally,
Maxwell (2013) describes reactivity in interviews as “a powerful and inescapable influence,”
noting that “what the informant says is always influenced by the interviewer and the interview
situation” (p. 125). The Delphi method’s use of anonymous surveys may help reduce reactivity,
which is a concern in a study that seeks colleagues as participants.
Role of Investigator
The investigator in this study is a professional fundraiser who has worked in higher
education institutions for 24 years, managed professional staff in advancement for 20 years, and
served in advancement leadership roles for 17 years. Securing philanthropic investments in two
public research universities (R1 Carnegie Classification), one private research university (R1),
and two private, specialized Master’s colleges (M2) has provided extensive hands-on experience
in major gifts as well as deep familiarity with the full range of fundraising sources and methods
typically utilized in colleges and universities. The investigator has also been involved in a variety
of on-the-job training activities, from providing individual guidance, coaching, and mentoring to
co-creating a series of workshops on major gift fundraising based on a cognitive task analysis of
expert fundraisers. In addition, the investigator has updated and taught the core fund
development course in a university-based Masters in Nonprofit Leadership and Management
program.
Extensive experience building advancement teams spurred interest in on-the-job training,
particularly of MGOs, who are perpetually in short supply. Further, the investigator’s
involvement in establishing an in-house training and professional development program for a
university advancement team with more than 450 members provided the impetus to study
educational psychology in order to better support systemic approaches to organizational learning.

98
To ensure that the investigator’s subjectivity (Maxwell, 2013) did not overly influence the
assessment of MGO training needs, a consensus-building approach was selected for the research
design. To minimize researcher biases and assumptions in the survey instrument (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), the investigator conducted an extensive literature review of research in and
practical guides to institutional advancement (in addition to research in learning, motivation, and
organizational culture), drew on more than 40 years of certification exam development by CFRE
International, and compared areas of emphasis to create the 48 items included in Round One.
Limitations
The limitations of this study stem from both its design and instrumentation. The study
seeks to identify the training needs of MGOs working in higher education through expert
opinion, and its results may not be generalizable to other contexts. Instead, as Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) describe user generalizability, “the person who reads the study decides whether
the findings can apply to his or her particular situation” (p. 256). To enhance transferability, the
investigator leveraged features of the Delphi method to maximize variability in the sample by
including a larger number of perspectives from a wider range of institutions than would be
practical if the study relied on in-depth interviews or focus groups (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Fink et al. (1984) assert that the reliability of the Delphi survey method increases with the size of
the panel and the number of rounds and warn that panelists may become fatigued after two or
three survey rounds. McKenna (1994) also notes the potential for poor response rates as a
limitation of Delphi. Another limitation of Delphi is the lack of opportunity for participants to
expand on their views (Walker & Selfe 1996; Goodman, 1987), although panelists had an
opportunity to provide comments throughout this study. Further, the outcome of a Delphi study
can be specious or manipulated consensus, rather than true consensus (Yousuf, 2007).

99
The long-term goal of this line of inquiry is the creation of a flexible training framework
that can be adapted for use in a variety of nonprofit organizations to strengthen their fundraising
programs. While the results of this study are not intended to be generalized beyond higher
education advancement, they can contribute to a proof-of-concept study that, if successful, could
provide a research and development model for wider implementation.
Chapter Four: Results
This study utilized the Delphi survey technique, pioneered by Dalkey and Helmer (1963),
to obtain a consensus of opinion among a group of expert fundraisers with management
responsibilities to assess training needs of major gift officers (MGOs). In exploring training
needs, the study sought to determine (a) a core group of tasks and behaviors essential to major
gift fundraising, (b) current training methods for essential tasks and behaviors, and (c) managers’
confidence in the effectiveness of current training methods. Delphi uses successive surveys, with
the results of each survey informing the next. Figure 4 (in Chapter Three) illustrates the three
survey rounds included in this study.
Data collection began with snowball sampling in February 2021 to assemble a panel of
77 fundraising experts, who were asked to participate in three survey rounds from March to June
2021. In Round One, panelists rated for importance 48 fundraising tasks and behaviors derived
from the literature and suggested additional ones. Fundraising tasks and behaviors rated 80 or
higher on a 100-point scale by at least 70% of panelists were deemed to have reached a
preliminary consensus that they are important in MGOs’ ability to meet performance goals.
Panelists also provided background information about their fundraising experience, management
responsibilities, and involvement in training, and their institutions’ training offerings. The Round

100
One survey instrument appears in Appendix A. Analyses of the quantitative and qualitative data
it produced are included in Appendices B and C.
In Round Two, panelists reviewed the ratings of 28 fundraising tasks and behaviors that
had reached a preliminary consensus of importance and rated them once again. Their ratings
confirmed and strengthened the preliminary consensus reached in Round One, with consensus
levels rising from an average of 85% in Round One to an average of 97% in Round Two. The
panel also rated for importance 21 new fundraising tasks and behaviors derived from panelist
suggestions. These items reached an average consensus level of 93% (i.e., on average, new items
were rated 80 or higher on a 100-point scale by 93% of panelists). Panelists then described
training methods used for the tasks and behaviors they rated highly for importance (85 or higher
on a 100-point scale). The Round Two survey instrument appears in Appendix D. Analyses of the
quantitative and qualitative data it produced are included in Appendices E and F.
In Round Three, panelists rated frequently cited training methods for effectiveness and
provided information about how their institutions evaluate the effectiveness of the training they
provide to MGOs. Training methods rated 80 or higher on a 100-point scale by at least 70% of
panelists were deemed to have reached a preliminary consensus that they are effective. The
Round Three survey instrument appears in Appendix G. Analyses of the quantitative and
qualitative data it produced are included in Appendices H and I.
Summary of Findings for the Study by Topic
In this section, the findings of the study are presented under two categories. First, the
study set out to define a core group of tasks and behaviors essential to major gift fundraising, and
an overview of these tasks and behaviors is presented below. Second, the study sought

101
information about current training methods associated with these tasks and behaviors and their
effectiveness. Key findings regarding training methods are also presented below.
Essential Fundraising Tasks and Behaviors
Survey Round Two produced a strong consensus (overall average of 95%) on 49
fundraising tasks and behaviors that are essential for success in major gifts fundraising.
Consensus items included 21 fundraising tasks and behaviors suggested by panelists and 28
fundraising tasks and behaviors derived from the literature, including practical guides to major
gift fundraising and the Test Content Outline for Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) Exam
(CFRE, 2018). As noted in Chapter Three, the CFRE credential reflects general rather than
specialized and baseline rather than advanced fundraising expertise (Aldrich, 2017). The expert
panel in this study defined essential MGO expertise as more focused and, in areas of
concentration, more advanced than the wide range of competencies tested in the CFRE exam. In
essence, the list of MGO core competencies defined through this Delphi study includes
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that overlap with those listed in Test Content Outline for the
CFRE Exam (CFRE, 2018) while placing greater emphasis and providing more granularity on
interactions with donors and prospects.
Most of the fundraising tasks (i.e., knowledge items) and organizational behaviors on the
MGO core competencies list involve interpersonal skills, including relationship building,
collaboration, and communication. Of the 21 fundraising tasks that the expert panel deemed
essential, 17 involved direct interactions with donors and prospects (e.g., “Utilize open-ended
questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective donor’s values, inclination
to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations,” which achieved a 100%
consensus level). The remaining four concern planning for and reflecting on interactions with

102
donors and prospects (e.g., “Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions
with prospective donors,” [100% consensus]). The majority of organizational behaviors deemed
essential by the panel (12 of 16 items) focused on interpersonal dynamics, including
collaboration, collegiality, and respectful interactions (e.g., “Gains the trust of peers, partners,
and supervisors” [100% consensus]), two items focused on personal behaviors (e.g., “Is flexible,
adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment” [100% consensus]), and the
remaining two are activities that may be performed independently and/or collaboratively (e.g.,
“Ably navigates institutional politics and policies” [98% consensus]). With two exceptions, the
motivation items presented to the panel for rating focused on personal attitudes and behaviors.
As discussed in Chapter Two, intrinsic motivation, as well as internalized causes of motivation
(Ryan & Deci, 2000), play vital roles in instigating and sustaining goal-directed activities
(Schunk et al., 2014). Not surprisingly, all 12 of the motivation items deemed essential by the
panel reflect this inward focus (e.g., “Is resilient when experiencing setbacks” [98% consensus]).
In sum, 29 of the 49 fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors deemed essential for
success in major gift fundraising (59%) emphasize interpersonal skills (12 items), including
collaboration with colleagues, or involve direct interactions with donors and prospects (17
items); six are activities that may be performed independently or collaboratively (12%); and the
remaining 14 are personal attitudes and behaviors (29%), including self-regulatory strategies.
More information about findings pertaining to essential fundraising tasks and behaviors is
provided below in the sections on Rounds One and Two, and detailed results are presented in
charts in Appendices A and B.

103
Training Methods
While the study produced a strong consensus on essential MGO expertise, analysis of
data on training methods and their effectiveness produced significant contrasts. In Round Two,
panelists reported using group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants to teach essential tasks and skills more than any other training method (316 of
1083 suggested training methods [29%] involved group training). In Round Three, panelists
rated the effectiveness of training, providing a preliminary consensus on which training methods
are effective for specific tasks and behaviors. Group training was not among them. In other
words, managers of MGOs lack confidence in the effectiveness of the most frequently used
method to train MGOs how to do the things that are most important to their success. As shown in
Figure 5, the methods they most often found effective included guidance from supervisors,
interactions with colleagues, engaging in specific activities and actions, and coaching and/or
mentoring, which together comprised 81% of all effective methods. These findings suggest that
the most effective approaches to training MGOs involve learning by doing with guidance from
more experienced colleagues. As noted in Chapter One, apprenticeship and mentoring were, for
decades, the only vehicles for learning fundraising (Marion, 1997). With an average tenure of 21
years in institutional advancement, perhaps it is not surprising that panelists found hands-on,
individualized training to be most effective in preparing MGOs to succeed in their roles. Until
recently, this is how many fundraisers learned to perform their duties and meet their goals.

104
Figure 5
Training Methods Found Effective by Preliminary Consensus

The preliminary consensus level for training method effectiveness averaged 80%—lower
than the average preliminary consensus levels for fundraising tasks and behaviors derived from
the literature (85%) and suggested by panelists (93%). This may be due in part to a dearth of
evaluation data. The Round Three survey began with a question about how panelists’ institutions
evaluate the effectiveness of the fundraiser training they provide. Only three panelists responded
that their institutions track the participation of advancement staff in training against fundraising
performance over time. Most of the reported evaluation of training is subjective, and nine
panelists reported no evaluation of any kind. Thus, panelists’ ratings of training methods for
effectiveness must be assumed to be subjective rather than rooted in empirical data. Figure 6
provides a breakdown of the 77 evaluation approaches reported by 44 panelists in Round Three.

105
Figure 6
Approaches to Evaluating Fundraiser Training Reported in Round Three

The remainder of this chapter provides information about the panel, which was
considerably larger than the minimum target size of 25, a description of the process, and a more
detailed summary of results from each survey round. As noted above, a set of nine appendices
presents instruments and data by survey round.
Participants
This study utilized a purposive sampling approach, snowball sampling, to select a Delphi
panel of experts in major gifts fundraising. Following outreach to the author’s professional
network, helpful colleagues suggested and provided introductions to managers of MGOs at
colleges and universities across the country. The resulting list was supplemented by online
searches for chief advancement officers and senior managers of major gifts teams in an effort to

106
secure geographic and institutional diversity (e.g., public and private colleges and universities).
Additionally, although race, ethnicity and gender were not measured—only professional
experience was—the study intentionally utilized diverse networks to recruit participants.
Panel Size
Sampling began in February 2021, and invitations to participate were distributed in
March 2021. One hundred eighty-two potential participants were identified and invited to
participate. These invitations yielded 77 participants, a 42.78% response rate, for the Round One
Survey. Two participants who had not managed a portfolio of major gift prospects within the past
two years as well as three who did not oversee MGOs, either directly or indirectly, at the time of
the survey were directed to the end of the Round One Survey without rating fundraising tasks,
attitudes, and behaviors. Because these five individuals offered useful perspectives (e.g., one
oversees fundraising at an R1 university but no longer manages a portfolio), they were included
in the panel going forward.
Round Two was distributed by email to 77 panelists in April 2021. Fifty-four panelists
began the survey (70% response rate), and 47 completed it (87% completion rate). Round three
was distributed by email to 77 panelists in May 2021. Forty-seven panelists began the survey
(61% response rate), and 33 completed all or most of it (70% completion rate); another 11
responded to the first question on their institution’s practices for evaluating training (44 total).
Geographic and Institutional Distribution
Panelists represented 50 higher education institutions in 21 states, as shown in Figure 7.
Of these, 26 are private and 24 are public institutions. In some cases, one panelist represented
their institution on behalf of colleagues. In others, several participants from the same institution
responded individually (i.e., without coordination). These differences were due to the way in

107
which referrals were made. For example, introductions to an institution’s chief advancement
officer sometimes resulted in delegation to a team member whose responsibilities include
oversight of the major gifts function or direct management of major gift officers. Alternatively,
referrals directly to team members sometimes resulted in additional referrals within and/or
beyond the institution.
Figure 7
Geographic Distribution of Represented Higher Education Institutions

108
The institutions represented include four-year colleges, master’s and doctoral universities,
special focus institutions (e.g., art schools), and two academic medical centers (see Figure 8).
Nearly 71% of panelists work in doctoral universities, many of which are large institutions with
large-scale advancement operations that include multiple teams of MGOs who represent different
academic areas and/or geographic regions. A small college, on the other hand, may have a single
major gifts team and manager. Further, universities with sizable advancement teams (i.e.,
hundreds rather than dozens of team members) often have in-house training and development
programs, whereas smaller operations may partially or wholly outsource professional
development. Because this study focuses on on-the-job training for MGOs and sought
participants who manage teams of MGOs, the overrepresentation of doctoral universities is
neither surprising nor detrimental.
Figure 8
Types of Higher Education Institutions Represented

109
Professional Experience and Training
Panelists had, on average, two decades of experience in institutional advancement, with a
range from six to 35 years and a mean of 20.65 years (n = 69). Their entry into the field followed
typical pathways, with only nine reporting formal training (n = 97 with multiple answers). Figure
9 shows panelists’ self-reported pathways into Advancement. The (estimated) experience levels
of the MGOs on their teams were fairly evenly distributed across four categories: less than two
years (56), two to five years (61), six to nine years (55), and ten or more years (56). The 77
panelists reported 469 forms of training and/or professional development available to the MGOs
in their institutions. Webinars, conferences, and onboarding were most frequently cited, followed
closely by coaching/mentoring, on- and off-site courses/workshops/seminars/lectures, and
readings. Forty-four panelists indicated that their institutions provide MGOs with individualized
Figure 9
How Panelists Began Their Careers in Advancement

110
professional development plans overseen by supervisors. Twelve responded that their institution
supports CFRE certification. One noted cohort-based training by Plus Delta Partners
(https://www.plusdeltapartners.com/), a consulting firm that was cited by additional panelists in
the Round Two survey. Figure 10 details training and professional development opportunities
available to MGOs.
Many panelists reported direct involvement in a number of these training and
professional development activities, particularly coaching and mentoring (39), leading or
facilitating internal training programs (14), onboarding new team members (10), and providing
access to conferences (9) and webinars (4). In addition, panelists noted use of team meetings and
discussions with colleagues for training and development purposes (30). They also reported
providing individualized guidance to MGOs through regular check-ins, one-on-one training, joint
Figure 10
Reported Training and Professional Development Activities Available to MGOs

111
donor visits, and other means (23). Panelists noted use of professional development plans or
goals, conversations about career goals, performance appraisals, and use of metrics and goals to
support MGO development (19).
In sum, the study attracted a larger-than-anticipated national panel with extensive
experience in institutional advancement, and most panelists reported direct involvement in at
least one form of training and professional development of MGOs.
Summary of Results by Rounds
The study utilized three surveys to assess needs for on-the-job MGO training with the
aim of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of training provided in higher education
advancement operations. The results of each survey were used to develop the next round (for an
illustration of the study structure, see Figure 4 in Chapter Three).
Round One presented 48 fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors and sought a
preliminary consensus of expert opinion on their importance in MGO performance. These items
were presented in three sections corresponding to fundraiser knowledge, motivation, and
organizational behaviors. After each section, panelists were asked to provide additional tasks,
attitudes, and behaviors essential to MGO success, if any. Agreement on what MGOs need to be
able to do is a logical starting point for designing training programs; however, no previous
studies have sought this information. Round One also captured data about panelists’ institutions,
advancement experience, and involvement in MGO training, much of which is summarized in
the previous section.
Round Two was the longest and most complicated in this study. It had several distinct
parts that are visualized in Figure 11. First, Round Two presented the top-rated items from
Round One and sought confirmation that these tasks, attitudes, and behaviors are essential to

112
MGO success. Next, Round Two presented additional fundraising tasks, attitudes, behaviors
suggested by panelists and requested ratings of importance for these new items. Consistent with
Round One, items were presented in sections corresponding to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational behavior with, for example, top-rated knowledge items from Round One followed
by new knowledge items. Finally, Round Two sought information about training methods
panelists had experienced, utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency performing
each item. Because the total number of items was large (49) and composing descriptions of
training methods is time-consuming, Round Two utilized two approaches to focus panelists’
attention in an attempt to elicit high-quality responses and encourage completion of the survey.
First, Round Two utilized Qualtrics Display Logic to narrow down the questions about training
methods that each panelist received. If, for example, a panelist rated the item solicit and secure
gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial support for the
organization’s mission 85 or more on a sliding scale of 0 to 100, this item appeared in the
Figure 11
Survey Two Design

113
training methods section. Items rated 84 or lower did not appear. Second, the instructions in the
training methods section invited panelists to “feel free to focus on some tasks and skip others,
particularly any for which you do not have a training method to recommend.”
Round Three asked panelists to rate the effectiveness of the most common training
methods described by panelists for items with a high level of consensus around importance. The
three survey instruments are presented in their entirety in Appendices A, D, and G.
This iterative survey design was intended to accomplish several things. First, the study
sought to define fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that are essential in major gifts
fundraising, and multiple rounds enable a consensus to form around specific items. Second, the
study sought insight into current training methods associated with those tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors deemed essential by the expert panel. Finally, the study sought expert opinion about
the effectiveness of current training methods. Taken together, these data can inform approaches
to MGO training. Understanding which fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors are most
important in MGO performance enables advancement organizations to increase efficiency by
providing highly relevant, targeted training to MGOs. Understanding how well current training
methods work enables advancement organizations to increase effectiveness by improving
training for critically important fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that are not being
taught successfully. The study utilized several approaches to measure expert opinions on the
importance of fundraising tasks and behaviors and current methods for training MGOs to
perform them.
Measuring Consensus
Delphi studies use successive survey rounds until consensus is achieved. How best to
determine that consensus has been achieved is the subject of ongoing debate. Sajesh (2018)

114
characterizes the lack of a universally accepted method for determining consensus as a major
drawback of the Delphi method and recommends using multiple approaches for triangulation.
Valerino-Perea et al. (2020) combined percentages of agreement, mean values, and coefficient of
variation (i.e., the ratio of population standard deviation to population mean [CV=    ) to
determine levels of consensus. Similarly, this study utilized several measures to determine
consensus of expert opinion on (a) the importance of specific fundraising tasks and behaviors in
major gift fundraising and (b) the effectiveness of current training methods in preparing MGOs
to perform the most important tasks and behaviors independently. The approaches used to
determine consensus in this study include measures of central tendency, level of agreement, and
coefficient of variation.
Measures of Central Tendency
Delphi studies commonly use measures of central tendency in data analysis; however,
there is debate about which measure—mean, median, or mode—is preferable. This study
calculated all three, ultimately choosing median and mean as the most useful measures in
determining consensus levels and providing controlled feedback to panelists.
Level of Agreement
Calculating level of agreement—i.e., the percentage of panelists who rate an item at or
above a particular level—is also a common way to measure consensus. Consistent with other
Delphi studies (Habibi et al., 2015), this study sought a minimum consensus level of 70%.
Coefficient of Variation
Holey et al. (2007) note that subjective criteria have often been used to determine when
to stop Delphi studies, and Yang (2003) recommends using statistical techniques in stopping
rules. Building on Yang’s research, Shah and Kalaian (2009) compared parametric statistical

115
methods and found that coefficient of variation (CV) was the best procedure to obtain reliability
in a Delphi study. CV is the ratio of standard deviation of a rated item to its corresponding mean
among panelists (Shah & Kalaian, 2009). English and Kernan (1976) utilized CV to determine
whether to continue or stop a Delphi study. Consistent with guidance from Dalkey (1974),
English and Kernan’s (1976) stopping rule was a CV less than or equal to 0.5. Ideally, an item's
CV value should decrease with successive rounds (Yang, 2003) indicating lower levels of
variation compared to the mean (Shah & Kalaian, 2009). Yang (2003) cites Dajani (1979), who
calculated the absolute value of the difference in CV between two rounds to determine stability.
When the absolute value reaches a minor difference—i.e., less than 0.2—stability is achieved
(Dajani, 1979, cited in Yang 2003), and no further survey rounds are needed. In sum, some
studies have focused on CV values within a round, while others have focused on the difference
between CV values in successive rounds. This study did both. The CV for each item included in
a survey round was calculated, and, for those items included in multiple rounds, the difference
between CV values was calculated.
Round One Quantitative Results
Responses to Round One were downloaded from Qualtrics to Microsoft Excel, de-
identified, and analyzed by item. For each of the 48 fundraising tasks and behaviors, which were
rated for importance on a scale of 0 to 100, the arithmetic mean, median, mode, range size,
standard deviation, variance, and CV were calculated and the minimum and maximum scores
were noted. To calculate consensus level, the number of responses scored 80 or higher were
divided by the total number of responses. The following measures were used to rank fundraising
tasks and behaviors for importance: (a) mean rating (80 or above noted), (b) median rating (90 or
above noted), (c) CV (0.4 or less noted), and (d) consensus level (70% or higher noted). Thirteen

116
items pertaining to fundraising knowledge, eight motivation items, and seven organization items
emerged as highly ranked across all four measures—i.e., each of these 28 tasks and behaviors
had a mean rating of 80 or above and a median score of 90 or above, indicating a high level of
importance, as well as a consensus level of more than 70% and CV of less than 0.25, indicating a
high level of agreement. These items are listed below in ranked order of importance as indicated
by mean rating (please see Appendix B for detailed rating data):
Knowledge Items
▪ Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s mission
▪ Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
▪ Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations
▪ Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors,
maintaining regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the
donor cultivation cycle
▪ Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors
▪ Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask

117
▪ Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors
▪ Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
▪ Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
▪ Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
▪ Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly
▪ Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the
use of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s
records
▪ Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’
financial and philanthropic goals
Motivation Items
▪ Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
▪ Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
▪ Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission
▪ Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance,
and taking corrective actions

118
▪ Maintains a positive outlook at work
▪ Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
▪ Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
▪ Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising

Organizational Behavior Items
▪ Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
▪ Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
▪ Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
▪ Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
▪ Shares knowledge and information with colleagues
▪ Accepts and supports colleagues
▪ Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
In addition to knowledge, motivation, and organizational behavior items, panelists were
asked to rate their confidence in teaching others to perform/adopt the tasks/attitudes/behaviors
they consider to be most important to be effective in the MGO role. On a 100-point scale, the
mean rating for confidence in teaching knowledge items was 88.57 (n = 61); the mean rating for
motivation items was 82.40 (n = 62); and the mean rating for organizational behavior items was

119
83.82 (n = 61). In sum, panelists were fairly confident in their ability to teach essential
fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors.
Round One Qualitative Results
Round One provided opportunities for two kinds of free responses: optional comments
and requests for input. Comments were reviewed side-by-side with ratings in an Excel
spreadsheet, which provided an opportunity to read a panelist’s comments across multiple items.
A few panelists used the comment box to provide scores rather than using Qualtrics slider
function. These responses were included in the quantitative analysis. Requests for input were
extracted from a standard Qualtrics report and thematically grouped in a Microsoft Word
document (Appendix C).
Optional Comments
Panelists had the ability to comment on each of the 48 items they were asked to rate. The
instructions clearly stated that comments were optional, and many participants provided few if
any comments; however, some participants offered insightful comments that provided context for
their ratings. Comments explaining very high or low ratings provided helpful context. For
example, the item, “Acknowledge and recognize donor engagement and gifts in ways that are
personalized and meaningful to donors and appropriate to the mission and values of the
organization,” yielded eight comments. Six panelists noted that, in their institutions, donor
relations/stewardship specialists have primary responsibility for this fundraising task, with
MGOs playing a secondary role, if any. Their average score for this item was 48 (vs. a mean
rating of 82). Two comments alluded to the value MGOs add when partnering with donor
relations specialists (e.g., more personalized and meaningful stewardship) and were accompanied
by ratings of 100.

120
The panel consistently gave low mean ratings to fundraising tasks that can be
accomplished entirely or in part by staff other than MGOs (e.g., building a portfolio, working
with volunteers, developing a case for support, etc.); however, split opinions were common,
resulting in higher ranges, variances, and CVs for these items. Although the instructions in
Round One defined MGOs simply as “frontline fundraisers who are responsible for managing a
portfolio of prospects and securing major gifts,” comments suggested that some panelists drew a
distinction between MGOs and frontline fundraisers with management and leadership
responsibilities. This was particularly evident in comments on items regarding planning,
budgeting, and engaging volunteers and academic partners. For example, the item, “Engage
various types of volunteers (e.g., board, program, campaign) and academic partners (e.g., deans,
department chairs, directors) in the fundraising process” elicited two comments about who in the
organizational hierarchy performs this task regularly (i.e., vice presidents, associate deans,
executive directors), two reported a case-by-case approach, and one characterized this as a
regular practice, with the caveat that it requires coaching and political awareness. This item was
the last of four focused on volunteer management, none of which reached a consensus on
importance. Comments on preceding items suggest a prevalence of staff-driven fundraising
approaches with most volunteer engagement performed by alumni relations and reunion giving
teams.
Requests for Input
At the end of the sections pertaining to MGO knowledge (K), motivation (M), and
organizational behaviors (O), panelists were asked, “If there are any additional [tasks (K) or
behaviors (M,O)] not listed above that MGOs must perform to be effective, please describe them
here: _______” These questions elicited a number of responses, with the most following the first

121
section (K) and the least following the last section (O). Panelists’ responses to the first question
(K) were grouped into 12 themes, whose occurrence was quantified: collaboration (6), navigating
politics and differing perspectives (3), intellectual engagement (3), conversational skills (2), gift
negotiation and closing (2), customer service (2), writing and communication (1), ways of giving
(1), contact reports (1), cold calls (1), planning and time management (1), and other qualities,
such as empathy, resiliency, and mindset (3). Because ways of giving, contact reports, and
qualification activities (e.g., cold calls) were included in the items for rating, albeit using
somewhat different language, these responses were not considered new constructs. Similarly,
collaboration was included in the last section (O), which panelists had not yet reached when
responding to the first question.
Panelists’ responses to the second question (M) were grouped into eight themes: curiosity
(6), entrepreneurship and drive (6), emotional intelligence and empathy (4), inclusivity and
respect for others (3), self-awareness (2), perspective on fundraising (2), working with others (2),
and other qualities, such as being patient, persistent, conscientious, or humble (4). Working with
others was deemed too similar to collaboration to be viewed as a new construct. There were only
four responses to the third question (O), all different in nature. One noted aspects of items
included in the first section (K) and was not viewed as a new construct.
Responses to all three questions soliciting additional tasks and behaviors elicited
suggestions that pertained to different sections—e.g., collaboration was suggested in response to
the first (K) and second (M) question and was explicitly included in the third section of items for
rating (O). Thus, when developing new items from the suggested additional tasks and behaviors,
they were first compared to the 48 rated items. In this way, 21 new items were developed from
panelists’ input on tasks and behaviors essential to major gifts fundraising.

122
Knowledge Items. The eight new knowledge items are as follows:
▪ Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
▪ Communicates effectively in writing and in person
▪ Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors
▪ Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts
▪ Facilitates a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution
▪ Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
▪ Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from
one's own
▪ Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to
a problem
Motivation Items. The four new motivation items are as follows:
▪ Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
▪ Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
▪ Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
▪ Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement
Organizational Behavior Items. The eight new organizational behavior items are as
follows:
▪ Treats others with respect
▪ Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
▪ Brings self-awareness to interactions with others
▪ Ably navigates institutional politics and policies
▪ Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics

123
▪ Manages up effectively
▪ Engages diverse audiences
▪ Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale
Round Two Quantitative Results
As noted above, the second survey had three distinct parts. Panelists re-rated 28
fundraising tasks and behaviors that had reached a preliminary consensus of importance in
Round One; they rated additional fundraising tasks and behaviors derived from their suggestions
in Round One; and they provided training methods for fundraising tasks and behaviors that they
had rated very highly (85 or above). The study draws a distinction between a preliminary
consensus, which relies on data from one survey round and a confirmed consensus, which relies
on data from a second survey round that seeks confirmation of—and/or dissent from—the
results. To preserve this distinction, this section breaks down the results by (a) items that were
derived from a review of the literature, reached preliminary consensus in Round One, and were
re-tested in Round Two and (b) new items that were derived from panelist input in Round One
and introduced in Round Two. Results pertaining to training methods will be discussed in the
following section on qualitative data.
Literature Review Items
In Round Two, panelists were presented with 28 fundraising tasks and behaviors that had
reached a preliminary consensus of importance in Round One. The mean score for each item was
included, and a comment box was provided. Panelists were asked to rate these items again using
sliders. If their answers varied by 10 or more points from the mean score, they were asked to use
the comment box to explain their ratings. Twelve panelists provided comments that
contextualized their ratings and/or offered commentary on the item (please see Round Two

124
Qualitative Results for more on comments). A few panelists used the comment box to enter a
score, and these answers were incorporated into the ratings data. As an illustration, Figure 12
presents an item that received a mean rating of 93 in Round One and was presented again in
Round Two to confirm the initial rating and preliminary consensus level and invite comments.
Following the process established in Round One, Round Two responses were downloaded from
Qualtrics to Microsoft Excel, de-identified, and analyzed by item. Forty-seven panelists rated
fundraising tasks and behaviors for importance, and the arithmetic mean, median, mode, range
size, standard deviation, variance, and CV of their scores were calculated. The range of scores
was noted, and the consensus level was calculated as in Round One (i.e., the number of
responses scored 80 or higher were divided by the total number of responses).
Figure 12
Sample Item from Round Two Showing Average Rating from Round One

Note: This figure shows an item as presented in Qualtrics. The gray box is a dialogue box. The
red circle at the bottom left is a slider for providing a rating on a 0-100 scale. A few panelists
used dialogue boxes to record their scores, suggesting this presentation was ambiguous.

125
Round Two ratings confirmed and strengthened the preliminary consensus reached in
Round One, with consensus levels rising from an average of 85% in Round One to an average of
97% in Round Two. Mean and median ratings of items remained similar between rounds, with an
average gain of 2.34 (on a scale of 0-100) in mean rating and an average loss of 1.61 in median
rating. CV values fell from less than 0.25 in Round One to less than 0.12 in Round Two,
indicating a high level of agreement. For 27 items, CV decreased by a minimum of 0.01 to a
maximum of 0.16. For one item, “Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting,
monitoring performance, and taking corrective actions,” CV increased by 0.02 in Round Two.
All changes in CV are in the range of minor differences—i.e., less than 0.2—indicating that
stability was achieved and no further rounds are needed (Dajani, 1979, cited in Yang 2003).
Taken together, the rising consensus levels, stable ratings, and minor differences in CV values
between Rounds One and Two provide confirmation of agreement among the expert panel that
these 28 fundraising tasks and behaviors are very important in major gift fundraising.
Expert Panel Items
Round Two also included the 21 new items derived from panelist suggestions that are
listed in the Requests for Input section (above). These items all reached a preliminary consensus
of importance with an average consensus level of 93%. The average mean rating of expert panel
items was 90.63, indicating a high level of importance. CV values were less than or equal to
0.20, indicating a high level of agreement. Ratings of expert panel items were consistent with the
ratings of literature review items, suggesting a similar level of importance for both sets of
fundraising tasks and behaviors. The expert panel items rated in Round Two had a higher average
preliminary consensus level than the literature review items that reached preliminary consensus
in Round One (93% vs. 85%), but a lower average consensus level than the confirmed consensus

126
levels achieved in Round Two (97%). The study design did not allow for re-rating expert panel
items in Round Three, which focused on the effectiveness of training methods; however, the
preliminary consensus levels for expert panel items are sufficiently strong to suggest that these
21 fundraising tasks and behaviors are also important in major gift fundraising.
Round Two Qualitative Results
Round Two collected qualitative data in several ways. First, as they re-rated literature
review items, panelists were asked to use a comment box to explain ratings that departed from
the Round One average by more than 10 points. Second, panelists had the option to comment on
expert panel items as they rated them for the first time. Third, panelists were invited, once again,
to suggest additional fundraising tasks and behaviors essential to success in major gifts
fundraising. Fourth, panelists were asked to describe training methods they had experienced,
utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency performing highly-rated fundraising
tasks and behaviors.
Comments
Of the 47 respondents in Round Two, eight provided a total of 15 comments that
contextualized their ratings and/or offered commentary on a literature review item that they re-
rated. For example, the item, “Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and
instructions regarding the use of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the
organization’s records,” which had an average rating of 85 in Round One, elicited three
comments from panelists who rated it 95, 96, and 100 in Round Two. They noted practical and
ethical considerations around ensuring that donors’ gifts are used in the ways they intended. One
explained, “this is critical for the long-term strength of the relationship between the organization
and the donor.” Another item, “contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement”

127
(average rating of 87), elicited two supportive and one partially dissenting comment by panelists
who rated it 100, 95, and 76. The third opined, “While this is important for organizational
culture, it doesn't necessarily impact how productive a fundraiser is in their work.”
Eight panelists provided a total of 22 comments on expert panel items as they rated them
for the first time. Three new items elicited the most comments (3 each). “Facilitates a donor’s
giving to areas of interest across the institution” received comments that alluded to differing
responsibilities on the part of centrally and unit-based fundraisers. Three panelists suggested
limitations to the item, “Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point
toward solutions to a problem,” noting that this fundraising task applies more to principal gifts
than major gifts and alluding to alignment with institutional mission and priorities. “Engage
diverse audiences” elicited comments that suggest a range of perspectives on the importance of
diversity in fundraising. One panelist noted the importance of MGOs being conscious of issues
around diversity and inclusion and institutions’ need to adapt to a more diverse society (rating =
90). Another regretted that, “the unfortunate reality of our work is that we do not work with a
diverse constituency” (rating = 72). A third commented that MGOs engage only one type of
audience: the wealthy (rating = 50). As the advancement profession grapples with lack of
diversity in its workforce, prospect portfolios, and volunteer corps, this very small sample of
comments illustrates the need for candid conversations about inclusive approaches to fundraising
and their positive impact over time.
Additional Tasks and Behaviors
Five panelists offered suggestions for new fundraising tasks and behaviors. In response to
the prompt at the end of the Knowledge section, panelists reiterated the importance of working
with academic partners, navigating institutional politics, seeking alignment of values, asking

128
questions, and bringing EQ and self-awareness to their work. In response to the prompt at the
end of the Motivation section, a panelist suggested that MGOs need to (a) learn to keep their
egos in check and (b) “stay up to date on [the] latest thinking surrounding diversity and inclusion
as it is permeating every organization.” There were no responses to the prompt at the end of the
Organizational Behavior section.
Training Methods
Panelists provided many and varied responses to the questions about training methods. As
noted above, panelists were not asked to provide training methods for every fundraising task and
behavior; instead, they were instructed to focus on the ones they rated most important and for
which they had effective training methods to suggest. Data were downloaded in two forms: (a) as
a Qualtrics standard report and (b) as a CSV file. From the first, panelists’ responses were copied
into a Microsoft Word document where they were coded and quantified. The second was
converted to an Excel spreadsheet to provide a way of seeing a panelist’s responses across
multiple questions. In both, responses were de-identified.
Panelists suggested 1083 training methods for 48 fundraising tasks and behaviors, with
tasks pertaining to fundraiser knowledge receiving the most responses. One task, “provides
excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects,” elicited no responses; the rest
received multiple suggestions, from a low of three (for “enjoys activities associated with major
gifts fundraising”) to a high of 80 (for “solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective
donors in order to generate financial support for the organization's mission”). Suggested
approaches to training MGOs to perform specific tasks and behaviors were grouped into the
following emergent categories:

129
▪ Group training: conferences (e.g., CASE, Academic Impressions), webinars, in-
house onboarding and professional development, and consultant-led training (e.g.,
Plus Delta, Advancement Resources)
▪ Interactions with colleagues: internal meetings (e.g., prospect strategy discussions)
and conversations (e.g., learning about ways to give from colleagues in planned
giving)
▪ Guidance from supervisor: individualized, one-on-one training, regular meetings,
timely discussions and feedback (e.g., debriefing after a donor visit), etc.
▪ Specific actions/activities: various learn-by-doing activities (e.g., accompanying
more experienced colleagues on donor visits to learn how to solicit and secure gifts)
▪ Coaching and/or mentoring: by supervisor, colleagues, and others
▪ Specific exercises and practice: role playing exercises, use of case studies, practicing
active listening, and other preparatory activities
▪ Job aids: worked examples (e.g., sample letters, emails, and discovery questions),
templates, frameworks, step-by-step protocols, etc.
▪ Using available tools and reports: utilizing information technology, such as the
constituent database (e.g., Salesforce) and software for data analysis and visualization
(e.g., Tableau), and other available resources (e.g., prospect research reports)
▪ Following processes: e.g., following processes for ensuring the accuracy of gift
agreements, recording them properly, and notifying stewardship
▪ Organizational culture/setting: e.g., supportive work environment, transparent and
timely communication, shared values and norms, recognition of accomplishments,
shared credit for gifts, etc.

130
▪ Self-study: suggested readings and self-directed learning
▪ Learning from experience: i.e., responses that suggested MGOs learn to perform a
task or behavior with experience rather than providing a more specific training
method
▪ Other: miscellaneous, singular approaches that do not fit into the categories above
Group training was, by far, the most common training method cited by panelists. It was
particularly prevalent in responses to fundraising knowledge items—e.g., for 19 of the 20
fundraising tasks that received responses, it was the most frequent or second most frequent
training method cited by panelists. Interactions with colleagues and guidance from supervisors,
both of which involve learning from more knowledgeable others, and specific actions and
activities, many of which involve guided practice, were also frequent themes. Figure 13 shows
the number of times panelists suggested each training method.
Once panelists’ responses were categorized and quantified, the two to five most
frequently cited training methods for a particular fundraising task or behavior were included in
Round Three and rated for effectiveness by the expert panel. Neither learning from experience,
which implies a lack of training, nor miscellaneous suggestions, which were cited by a single
panelist, were included among the training methods presented in Round Three.

131
Figure 13
Training Methods Suggested by Expert Panel

Round Three Quantitative Results
In Round Three, panelists (a) provided information about the ways in which their
institutions evaluate the effectiveness of the training they provide to MGOs and (b) rated the
effectiveness of 169 training methods in relation to 47 essential fundraising tasks and behaviors.
Items rated 80 or higher on a 100-point scale by at least 70% of panelists were deemed to have
reached a preliminary consensus that they are effective.
Evaluation of Training
To provide context for panelists’ ratings of training methods for effectiveness, Round
Three began with a question asking, “How does your institution evaluate the effectiveness of
training provided to MGOs?” Panelists were provided with six responses describing varying
levels of evaluation, an “other—please describe” option, and invited to check all that apply. This
question elicited 77 forms of evaluation from 44 panelists. The majority of responses (50)

132
reflected forms of evaluation that rely on the subjective judgment of participants or their
managers. Nine panelists reported no evaluation of training. One panelist described having
MGOs share key points from conferences with peers. Of the remaining 17 responses, eight
concerned pre-/post- tests, six were tied to fundraiser performance indicators, and three were tied
to fundraising performance over time. These responses suggest that few advancement operations
have empirical data on the effectiveness of training methods and are, instead, relying on
subjective judgments. Further, some of the evaluation methods reported by panelists are not
focused on transfer of knowledge into practice. Figure 6, in the section titled Summary of
Findings for the Study by Topic (above), presents reported training evaluation methods.
Effectiveness of Training Methods
Group training was the most commonly cited training method in Round Two, comprising
29% of total responses. In Round Three, panelists rated group training for effectiveness in
learning to perform 39 fundraising tasks and behaviors; however, it did not reach the consensus
level for any of them. In other words, fundraising managers lack confidence in the effectiveness
of the most frequently used method to train MGOs how to do the things that are most important
to their success.
Panelists reached a preliminary consensus that other training methods are effective.
Overall, 92 of the 169 training methods presented in Round Three were rated effective for
specific fundraising tasks and behaviors (54%). Figure 14 shows the proportion of training
methods rated (green) and found effective (blue) in Round Three, illustrating the gap between
commonly used training methods, as reported by panelists, and their confidence in their
effectiveness. The top training methods were (a) receiving guidance from a supervisor, (b)
interacting with colleagues (e.g., in meetings, discussions, and shared activities), (c) engaging in

133
specific actions or activities, and (d) receiving coaching and/or mentoring. These methods reflect
a more individualized approach to on-the-job training than group training can generally provide.
Some training methods were positively associated with tasks and behaviors in the realm
of knowledge, motivation, or organizational behavior, but not all three. For example, interactions
with colleagues were found to be effective for 100% of the knowledge items that included this
training method, whereas this method was found to be effective for 83% of the motivation items
and 17% of the organizational behavior items that included it. Addressing aspects of
organizational culture, such as core values, goals, beliefs, and processes (Clark & Estes, 2008),
or cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001) were suggested for eight and rated effective
for seven motivation and organizational behavior items (e.g., “Establishing and implementing
norms and goals around diversity, equity, and inclusion” to help MGOs learn to “accept and
support colleagues”); however, this approach to training was not frequently cited to help MGOs
Figure 14
Training Methods Rated and Found Effective in Round Three

134
master knowledge items. A detailed breakdown of ratings of training methods for specific tasks
and behaviors is included in Appendix E.
Round Three Qualitative Results
Panelists were provided the following prompt:
Please use the sliders to rate the effectiveness of each method in preparing MGOs to
perform the task independently, consistently, effectively, and in the right situations after
training. Some training methods may be most effective for MGOs with a particular level
of experience. You may use the text boxes above the sliders to indicate which experience
level(s) benefit from each training method and provide comments.
Seven panelists provided comments on experience levels and training methods, which may be
helpful in suggesting ways for managers to provide individualized training to the MGOs they
manage; however, given the small number of responses, this study does not present these data as
conclusive. Future research in this area may be helpful, particularly as new approaches to MGO
training, informed by this research, are developed and piloted.
Summary
Although the qualitative data regarding effective training methods for MGOs with
different experience levels lacked depth, the study produced rich data in the areas of essential
fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors and current training and evaluation methods. These
data provide a strong foundation for building a framework for on-the-job training of MGOs that
is more individualized and more focused on interpersonal skills than current, prevalent options,
such as group training and CFRE certification. The final chapter of this dissertation focuses on
recommendations for addressing the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that are
central to successful major gifts fundraising.

135
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this exploratory study is to capture expertise from experienced fundraisers
who are responsible for managing major gift officers (MGOs) in order to assess training needs
and begin building a research-based framework for guiding fundraising practice. No such
framework is currently available to managers of MGOs.
This study aims to assess needs in the areas of knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational behaviors necessary for major gift officers (MGOs) to attain their fundraising
goals. The analysis began by gathering and generating lists of fundraising tasks and behaviors
essential for success in major gift fundraising, systematically identified essential MGO tasks and
behaviors, and ended by gathering data on current training methods. The essential fundraising
tasks and behaviors identified by managers, together with common ways of sharing fundraising
expertise, provide a foundation for building a framework for managers to use in training MGOs
that is grounded in research in learning and motivation and attuned to the professional culture of
institutional advancement.
This framework is intended to increase self-efficacy of both managers and MGOs,
accelerate acquisition of fundraising expertise, and increase fundraising productivity. Ensuring
that all MGOs know how to perform essential fundraising tasks, fostering their development
from novice to expert practitioners, and promoting a learning culture can positively impact a
university’s fundraising revenue; whereas, failing to provide effective training to MGOs can not
only negatively impact fundraising revenue, but also perpetuate high turnover in the profession.

136
Research Questions
The following questions have guided this study:
1. What fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors do managers of major gift officers
(MGOs) working in higher education identify as essential for MGOs to meet their
performance goals?
2. How do managers help MGOs learn to perform essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors?
a. For each task, attitude, or behavior, which training methods, if any, do
managers use with MGOs at various experience levels?
3. What recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organization can be made for
managers to guide MGO learning and practice of fundraising?
Discussion of Findings
An effective framework for providing on-the-job training to MGOs must focus on the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) necessary to perform the job tasks and behaviors that are
essential for success in major gifts fundraising. The first part of the study aimed to define
essential tasks and behaviors for MGOs. It resulted in a list of 49 core competencies: 21
knowledge-based tasks, 12 motivation-related behaviors, and 16 organizational behaviors.
Essential Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes for Major Gift Officers
In higher education institutions with mature fundraising operations, advancement roles
typically are specialized, with a prevalence of MGOs. Because they focus on substantial gifts
(e.g., endowment level) from alumni, parents, and friends, MGOs play a vital role in achieving a
college or university’s fundraising goals. The first objective of this study was to clarify essential

137
KSAs for MGOs. Defining core competencies is a key step toward identifying learning
objectives for a training curriculum specifically for major gifts fundraising.
Prior research in core competencies for nonprofit fundraisers serves as a foundation for
this study. As noted in previous chapters, CFRE International has performed job analyses since
1980 to develop test content for the Certified Fund Raising Executive (CFRE) Exam; however,
the CFRE credential reflects general, baseline fundraising expertise rather than mastery of
specialized, advanced skills (Aldrich, 2017). The CFRE Exam does not test expertise related to a
specific fundraising role. Instead, it tests six domains of knowledge: prospect research, securing
gifts, relationship building, volunteer involvement, leadership and management, and ethics,
accountability, and professionalism (CFRE website, 2021). Some of these domains are highly
relevant to major gifts fundraising; others pertain more to advancement services, alumni
relations, leadership annual giving, and/or management, particularly in large, mature fundraising
organizations. Compared to the broad range of competencies tested in the CFRE Exam (CFRE,
2018), the expert panel in this study defined essential MGO expertise as more focused and,
within focal areas, more advanced. The MGO core competencies defined by the panel are listed
below in ranked order of importance, as indicated by mean rating, within the categories of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational behavior:
Fundraising Tasks and Knowledge
To be successful in their roles, MGOs must be able to perform the following 21 tasks:
▪ Solicits and secures gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s mission
▪ Initiates and strengthens relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-
term commitment to the institution

138
▪ Utilizes open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations
▪ Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
▪ Manages a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors,
maintaining regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the
donor cultivation cycle
▪ Communicates effectively in writing and in person
▪ Develops and implements specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors
▪ Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors
▪ Uses information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and
other factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of
prospective major gift donors
▪ Monitors a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assesses his or her
readiness for an ask
▪ Records and reflects on relevant information gleaned from interactions with
prospective donors
▪ Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts
▪ Facilitates a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution
▪ Clarifies, implements, monitors, and honors donors’ intent and instructions regarding
the use of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s
records

139
▪ Qualifies and disqualifies prospective major gift donors for further cultivation
through discovery visits and other outreach
▪ Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
▪ Recognizes patterns in donor motivation, categorizes prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailors cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly
▪ Understands and communicates ways of giving and their implications for donors’
financial and philanthropic goals
▪ Promotes a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
▪ Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from
one's own
▪ Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to
a problem
Fundraiser Motivation
To be successful in their roles, MGOs must adopt or enact the following 12 attitudes and
behaviors:
▪ Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
▪ Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
▪ Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
▪ Maintains a positive outlook at work
▪ Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission
▪ Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance,
and taking corrective actions

140
▪ Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
▪ Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
▪ Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
▪ Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
▪ Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement
▪ Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising
Organizational Behaviors of Fundraisers
To be successful in their roles, MGOs must enact the following 16 behaviors:
▪ Treats others with respect
▪ Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
▪ Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
▪ Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
▪ Brings self-awareness to interactions with others
▪ Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
▪ Demonstrates a commitment to excellence
▪ Shares knowledge and information with colleagues
▪ Ably navigates institutional politics and policies
▪ Accepts and supports colleagues
▪ Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
▪ Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
▪ Manages up effectively
▪ Engages diverse audiences

141
▪ Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
▪ Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale
These 49 core competencies provide guidance for defining the MGO role and for hiring,
onboarding, and training MGOs working in higher education institutions To provide structure
and simplicity, the essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors can not only be categorized by
knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational behavior (O), but also grouped into four
thematic areas—connecting and communicating, relationship building and customer service,
planning and organization, and commitment to growth—that may be more familiar to
practitioners. These thematic areas, shown in Table 2, may be useful in organizing an in-house
training and professional development curriculum for MGOs.
Table 2
Essential Tasks and Behaviors by Factor (K, M, O) and Thematic Area
Theme Factor Essential task, attitude or behavior
Connecting & Communicating
K
Solicits and secures gifts from current and prospective donors in order to
generate financial support for the organization’s mission
K
Utilizes open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about
a prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic
interests, priorities, and motivations
K Communicates effectively in writing and in person
K Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors
K Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts
K
Understands and communicates ways of giving and their implications for
donors’ financial and philanthropic goals
K
Promotes a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding
of the value of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in
fundraising
K
Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ
from one's own
K
Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward
solutions to a problem

142
Theme Factor Essential task, attitude or behavior
Connecting &
Communicating
M Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission
M Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
M Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement
O Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
O Brings self-awareness to interactions with others
O Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
Planning & Organization
K
Manages a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors,
maintaining regular contact with them and monitoring their progress
through the donor cultivation cycle
K
Develops and implements specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors
K
Uses information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest,
and other factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation of prospective major gift donors
K
Qualifies and disqualifies prospective major gift donors for further cultivation
through discovery visits and other outreach
K
Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity
metrics
K
Recognizes patterns in donor motivation, categorizes prospective donors’
motivations for giving, and tailors cultivation and solicitation plans
accordingly
M Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
M Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
M
Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring
performance, and taking corrective actions
M Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
O Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
Relationship Building &
Customer Service
K
Initiates and strengthens relationships with constituents, building trust in and
long-term commitment to the institution
K Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
K
Monitors a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assesses
his or her readiness for an ask
K
Records and reflects on relevant information gleaned from interactions with
prospective donors
K Facilitates a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution

143
K
Clarifies, implements, monitors, and honors donors’ intent and instructions
regarding the use of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in
the organization’s records
Theme Factor Essential task, attitude or behavior
Relationship Building & Customer Service
M Maintains a positive outlook at work
M Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising
O Treats others with respect
O
Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers
in the fundraising process
O Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
O Demonstrates a commitment to excellence
O Shares knowledge and information with colleagues
O Ably navigates institutional politics and policies
O Accepts and supports colleagues
O Manages up effectively
O Engages diverse audiences
Commitment to
Growth
M Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
M Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
M Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
O Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
O Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
O Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale

Hard and Soft Skills
Most of the core competencies identified above rely on interpersonal skills, or soft skills;
some require job-specific skills, or hard skills. For example, in order to understand and
communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial and philanthropic
goals, an MGO must be knowledgeable about charitable gift instruments and tax deductions (a
hard skill that utilizes factual and conceptual knowledge) and know when and how to
communicate this information to a prospective donor (a soft skill that utilizes procedural
knowledge).

144
Effective Training Methods for Major Gift Officers
As noted in the previous chapter, there is a disconnect between the training methods
managers currently rely on to develop essential fundraising KSAs and those they believe are
effective. While group training, in the form of conferences, webinars, in-house onboarding and
professional development, and consultant-led training, was the most commonly cited method in
use, the consensus of panelists was that it is not as effective as other methods for the 49 core
MGO competencies they defined. The expert panel preferred more individualized, hands-on
approaches. The methods panelists most often found effective included guidance from
supervisors, interactions with colleagues, engaging in specific activities and actions, and
coaching and/or mentoring, which together comprised 81% of all effective methods. These
findings suggest that the most effective approaches to training MGOs involve learning by doing
with guidance from more experienced colleagues.
Marion (1997) notes that, before the rapid expansion of the nonprofit sector and
advancement workforce in the 1980s and 1990s, practitioners typically learned fundraising
through informal apprenticeship and mentoring; however, as access to experienced mentors
decreased, novice fundraisers frequently learned through trial and error. Perhaps it is not
surprising that today’s managers view guided practice as most effective. Given their average
experience of 20.65 years, many panelists entered the advancement profession when the informal
apprenticeship model still represented the ideal for training, even as its frequency was waning.
Additionally, panelists’ ratings of training methods for effectiveness are assumed to be
subjective. When asked how their institutions evaluate the effectiveness of MGO training, only
12% of panelists’ responses indicated the use of empirical data to measure individual (8%) or
institutional (4%) performance outcomes. Another 10% of responses indicated use of tests to

145
measure learning during training sessions, 66% relied on subjective judgment of learning and/or
transfer, and 12% indicated no evaluation of any kind (see Figure 7 in Chapter Four for details).
Having noted the potential for bias in the panel’s ratings of training methods for
effectiveness, research on learning supports its conclusion that individualized guidance is highly
effective. In a meta-analysis of comparative studies of instructional methods in K-12 education,
Bloom (1984) found that the achievement level of an average student who received one-to-one
tutoring was two standard deviations (a.k.a. 2 sigma) above that of an average student who
received conventional classroom instruction. In other words, the average student who received
one-to-one tutoring was in the 98th percentile of achievement measures.
While recognizing tutoring as the gold standard for instruction, Bloom (1984)
acknowledged that it is expensive to provide on a large scale. He sought to resolve the “2 sigma
problem” (Bloom, 1984, p. 4) by “find[ing] methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-
one tutoring” (p. 15). Many of the successful instructional approaches Bloom (1984) identified to
increase K-12 student achievement can be adapted for on-the-job learning. These include use of
feedback and correction to promote mastery; enhancing cognitive prerequisites for advanced
study; encouraging cooperative learning among students; improving instructional materials;
encouraging active participation in learning; emphasizing problem solving, application of
principles, and other higher mental processes; and providing guides (e.g., parents, supervisors)
with ongoing education on ways to support learning.
In sum, both individualized and group training can be effective. Survey Two data
indicates that, in many higher education Advancement operations, both methods are currently
being used, with group training being used most frequently. Survey Three data suggests that
group training is not being used effectively. This may be due to its design and/or implementation

146
(e.g., focusing on delivery of content rather than application of principles); however, given a
cultural setting in which individual contributions are emphasized, it may also be due to over-
reliance on group training to make up for managers’ time constraints. In other words, if
managers and other experienced colleagues are too busy trying to meet their own fundraising
goals to guide less experienced MGOs, the responsibility for training shifts from the fundraising
experts in neighboring offices to speakers, consultants, and instructors at conferences,
workshops, and in-house training sessions.
Yet, novice MGOs need daily individualized instruction guided by more experienced
colleagues as they learn to perform the role. For example, having a manager provide guidance in
prioritizing prospects for qualification, crafting messages to include in telephone, digital, and
print outreach, and practicing techniques for removing obstacles to securing a meeting helps a
new gift officer learn crucial discovery skills. Periodic group training can complement everyday
guidance. For example, a workshop on basic prospect research techniques and resources can help
novice MGOs better utilize the constituent database and publicly available information to
personalize outreach to discovery prospects.
Combining Individual and Group Instruction
Individualized and group instruction can be used in combination for on-the-job learning
within a learner-centered training framework that maximizes connections between all forms of
guidance and instruction. To expand on an earlier example, planned giving workshops can help
MGOs understand the range of gift instruments, including charitable gift annuities, charitable
lead and remainder trusts, and noncash charitable gifts, and their tax implications for donors—
i.e., factual and conceptual knowledge. Workshops can also begin to lay a foundation of
procedural knowledge that equips MGOs to apply what they’ve learned by including case studies

147
that illustrate how various giving instruments provided solutions for specific donor situations.
Working on planned gifts with donors and their legal and financial advisors alongside gift
planning officers and more experienced MGOs (i.e., guided experiential learning) further builds
procedural knowledge and expands understanding of when and how to utilize gift planning tools.
Managers of MGOs—as well as gift planning officers—can observe the leap in comprehension
that occurs when an MGO has opportunities to apply knowledge of gift instruments and tax
deductions to help donors achieve their goals. By working alongside more experienced
colleagues who serve as guides, MGOs can develop an ear for donors’ financial concerns (e.g.,
capital gains liability, wealth transfer, retirement income stream, etc.), test interest in exploring
ways of giving that address these concerns, and assemble a team of experts (e.g., a gift planning
officer, donor’s counsel and financial advisors) to arrive at solutions.
Applying Research to Build Managers’ Capacity to Train MGOs
Managers do not need a teaching credential to oversee effective on-the-job training;
however, they may benefit from having some familiarity with theories of learning, motivation,
and organizational behavior and how they can be productively applied within the context of
higher education advancement. The following sections apply research on educational and
organizational psychology to on-the-job training of MGOs and include approaches for helping
MGOs master representative examples of the 49 essential tasks and behaviors identified by the
panel. Survey Three collected data on the panel’s confidence in common training methods for
each essential task and behavior, and these results are provided in Appendix H.
Applying Research on Learning at Work
Beyond building relationships with donors and gaining their trust, an MGO’s role is, in
essence, to identify and solve problems using philanthropy. The kinds of problems that MGOs

148
tackle range from a donor’s specific situation (e.g., has highly appreciated assets, supports a
family member with a disability, seeks to pay forward the support received as a student) to their
institution’s needs (e.g., more scholarship funds to increase access and affordability) to broader
societal issues (e.g., persistent lack of educational equity for historically marginalized
populations). Such problems often include multiple issues, require an understanding of cultural
and institutional settings, and lack a single solution. To address them, MGOs benefit from the
collective knowledge and experience of their colleagues.
Sociocultural theories of learning emphasize the interrelation of individuals and their
social and cultural environments and the importance of guidance from more knowledgeable
others within those environments. Learning occurs through interaction, negotiation, and
collaboration, and understanding is shaped by a community of practice’s specific discourse,
norms, and practices (Scott & Palincsar, 2013). When a more experienced practitioner guides a
colleague to a deeper level of understanding than he/she/they had achieved independently, the
guide helps the colleague develop a higher skill level. Vygotsky (1978) called the space between
individuals’ actual and potential skill level—i.e., what they can achieve independently and what
they can achieve with assistance from someone with more experience—the zone of proximal
development. Scaffolded instruction that falls within this zone provides learners with the optimal
level of challenge, helping them develop new skills by building on established ones (Vygotsky,
1978; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976).
Workplace learning can be highly contextual and, in the case of major gifts fundraising,
must transmit a body of knowledge that has developed over time through practice. Sociocultural
theory connects individual learning with cultural, institutional, and historical context (Scott &
Palincsar, 2013). Their emphasis on guided participation, apprenticeship, and collaboration

149
makes sociocultural approaches particularly relevant to workplace learning. Rogoff (1995)
describes three “planes of focus in sociocultural activity - community/institutional, interpersonal,
and personal” (p. 141). Apprenticeship is a community activity “that has as part of its purpose
the development of mature participation in the activity by the less experienced people” (Rogoff,
1995, p. 142); “in apprenticeship, newcomers to a community of practice advance their skill and
understanding through participation with others in culturally organized activities (Bruner, 1983;
Dewey, 1916; Goody, 1989; John-Steiner, 1985; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 1990)” (Rogoff,
1995, p. 143). Guided participation describes interpersonal activity and encompasses face-to-face
interaction, side-by-side joint participation, hands-on involvement, and observation (Rogoff,
1995). Participatory appropriation “is the personal process by which, through engagement in an
activity, individuals change and handle a later situation in ways prepared by their own
participation in the previous situation” (Rogoff, p. 142). By intentionally utilizing all three of the
planes Rogoff (1995) identifies, workplace training programs can provide more complete
learning.
While sociocultural theory emphasizes learning by doing, social cognitive theory allows
for learning through observation. Demonstrating a strategy or modeling a behavior for learners
improves their self-efficacy, learning, and performance (Denler et al., 2009). Working in close
proximity with more experienced colleagues provides MGOs with opportunities to watch how
they perform key fundraising tasks and behaviors. Mayer (2011) notes that organizing and
rehearsing modeled behaviors before enacting them overtly makes observational learning more
effective. Thus, if a manager or colleague not only models how to do something, but also guides
MGOs through the steps, they are likely to learn more from the experience. Models’ credibility
and similarity to the learners matters, and so does the functional value of the behavior being

150
modeled: the more credible, similar, and valuable, the more likely the behavior will be adopted
(Denler et al., 2009). By focusing managers’ and colleagues’ explicit training responsibilities on
the essential fundraising tasks and behaviors they are best equipped to address—e.g., modeling
productive interactions with prospects and donors—they can make a significant contribution to
fundraiser learning. For example, as noted in Chapter 4, the panel confirmed that having a novice
MGO accompany an experienced colleague on donor visits can help them learn how to utilize
open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective donor’s
values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations (76%
consensus level) as well as to solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in
order to generate financial support for the organization's mission (73% consensus level).
In his theory of reciprocal determinism, Bandura (1989) posited that behavior, personal,
and environmental factors interact and influence learning. The combined influences at work in
social cognitive theory bridge learning processes that are visible and external (e.g., performing a
new task or behavior) and those that are hypothetical and internal (e.g., connecting concepts).
Moving inside the brain, information processing system theory explains how individuals commit
to memory a fraction of the constant, transitory sensory information they receive each day.
Through attention, auditory and visual information enters working memory where, if it is
engaged and manipulated, it may be stored indefinitely in long-term memory. Organizing new
information in ways that connect to prior knowledge promotes successful integration into long-
term memory—i.e., it is stored faster and remembered more accurately (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). In a study of workplace learning strategies, mentors perceived that using diagrams to
explain complex concepts helped mentees generate strong mental images and using analogies
helped them compare new, complex ideas to more familiar ones (Billett, 2000). For example,

151
planned giving marketing often makes use of diagrams to explain how different instruments
serve different purposes with regard to tax advantages, life income, and flow of assets.
The way in which individuals organize knowledge influences both how they learn and
how they apply what they know (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). Mayer (2011) describes learning
as “a constructive process of assimilation to schema” (p. 29). As novices develop expertise, their
knowledge is organized in increasingly complex schemata in long-term memory (Kirschner et
al., 2006). To develop mastery, they must practice integrating component skills and understand
when to apply what they have learned (Schraw &McCrudden, 2006). In Billett’s (2000)
workplace learning study, mentors used questioning “to engage learners directly, to get them to
do the thinking, to encourage a consideration of options and also as a means to ascertain what the
mentees know” (p. 281). Similarly, coaching helped mentors monitor and assist their mentees’
learning and development, and both mentors and mentees found questioning dialogues and
coaching useful (Billett, 2000). Fundraising managers can utilize coaching techniques, such as
asking questions that help the learner gain insight or determine next steps (vs. providing direct
instruction), to help MGOs develop the mastery and self-efficacy to perform essential
fundraising tasks and behaviors independently.
Applying Research on Motivation at Work
Mastery, autonomy, and purpose are vital to sustaining motivation at work and in general
(Pink, 2011). Social cognitive theory connects mastery of skills, self-efficacy—i.e., the beliefs
people hold about their capabilities and the outcomes of their efforts—and behavior (Bandura,
1977). Usher and Pajares (2008) note that:
self-efficacy beliefs help determine the choices people make, the effort they put forth, the
persistence and perseverance they display in the face of difficulties, and the degree of

152
anxiety or serenity they experience as they engage the myriad tasks that comprise their
life (p. 751).
Among the attitudes and behaviors they deemed essential to major gifts fundraising, managers
included drive, active choice, persistence, positivity, and self-confidence, all of which can be
positively influenced by increasing MGOs’ self-efficacy. Individuals form self-efficacy beliefs
as they interpret information from their previous attainments (mastery experiences), their
observations of others (vicarious experiences), encouragement from others (verbal and social
persuasions), and their emotional and physiological states (e.g., anxiety, fatigue, mood) (Usher &
Pajares, 2008). Feedback and modeling increases learners’ self-efficacy, and high self-efficacy
can increase motivation (Pajares, 2006).
Managers can help MGOs build self-efficacy in key fundraising tasks and behaviors in a
variety of ways. One method, which compliments Rogoff’s (1995) concept of apprenticeship, is
to provide initial support (a.k.a. scaffolding) and multiple opportunities to practice as MGOs
develop new knowledge, skills, and abilities, while gradually removing the support to encourage
independent practice (Pajares, 2006). Direct instruction, modelling, worked examples (e.g.,
sample talking points, letters, and emails) and other job aids are all forms of support. For
example, to help novice MGOs learn to conduct productive discovery visits with prospects,
managers might take them on a series of meetings. During the first discovery visit, the manager
might ask the MGO to observe more than speak and to pay close attention to how open-ended
questions can elicit information and guide the direction of the conversation. To promote deeper
understanding, the manager could ask the new MGO to take the lead in analyzing the visit on the
drive back (or soon afterwards) while offering information that helps the MGO connect factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge (e.g., “I asked the prospect when she

153
began collecting art to get a sense of whether capital gains might be a concern.”). To prepare for
the next discovery visit, the manager might ask the MGO to prepare a few questions based on
available information about the prospect. During the meeting, the manager could provide cues
for the MGO to participate in the conversation, and on the drive back, prompt analysis and offer
feedback as well as information. By gradually increasing the MGO’s active role in discovery
visits and—importantly—decreasing one’s own, the manager can prepare them to conduct
discovery visits independently and confidently.
Feedback plays an important role in building self-efficacy. Pajares (2006) recommends
coupling goal-directed practice (e.g., conducting discovery visits with a more experienced
colleague) with feedback on progress in learning and performance that is frequent, accurate,
credible, targeted, and private. Balancing comments about strengths and challenges is most
effective (Borgogni et al., 2011). Further, the timing of feedback can increase its utility.
Borgogni et al. (2011) recommend providing immediate feedback on simple tasks (e.g., gleaning
useful information about prospects from the constituent database) and delayed feedback for
complex tasks (e.g., drawing on database information to ask pertinent questions during a donor
visit). In addition, Pajares (2006) notes the importance of conveying to learners that they are
capable of performing the task or learning the material being taught. Thus, when managers and
more experienced colleagues tell novice MGOs that, with practice, they can master essential
fundraising tasks and behaviors, they help them increase self-efficacy.
MGOs’ understanding of the value of these tasks and behaviors influences their
motivation to master them. A tenet of expectancy value theory (EVT) is that, if the learner values
the task, learning and motivation are enhanced (Eccles, 2006). Schraw and Lehman (2009)
recommend being explicit about the value and relevance of tasks to be learned. Discussing the

154
importance and utility value of the task or behavior to be learned can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006). Pointing out how learning and training will be useful in learners’
lives and linking rewards with progress can also increase self-efficacy (Pintrich, 2003). Borgogni
et al. (2011) note that feedback as well as actual success on challenging tasks positively
influences people’s perceptions of competence, and encouraging learners’ perceptions of
confidence and setting high expectations for success can positively influence learning and
motivation (Eccles, 2006). In sum, valuing a task helps cultivate a sense of purpose.
Managers can encourage MGOs to value essential fundraising tasks and behaviors by
modeling enthusiasm and interest in performing them. In addition, other credible, similar models,
such as near-peer colleagues, can foster positive values. The recommendation to model values is
supported by research (Eccles, 2006; Pajares, 2006). Further, Pintrich (2003) recommends using
learning materials and activities that are relevant and useful to the learners, connected to their
interests, and based on real-world tasks.
In addition to mastery and purpose, autonomy plays a vital role in motivation. Providing
opportunities for choice and control can activate personal interest (Eccles, 2006; Schraw &
Lehman, 2009), and activating and building on personal interest can increase learning and
motivation (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Isaac et al. (1999) found that individuals with an
interpersonal orientation expressed greater interest in tasks when working with or alongside
another person, and Sansone and Thoman (2005) found that interest reliably predicts task choice
and persistence. Interest is tied to content. Schiefle (2009) notes that, “interest is always related
to a specific object, activity, or subject area” (p. 197). Personal (or individual) interest is
relatively stable and may refer to an orientation toward certain domains or to a distinction
between interests and non-interests. How an activity is defined (e.g., as interesting or

155
uninteresting) can differ both between individuals and within the same individual over time
(Sansone & Thoman, 2005). In contrast, situational interest is a temporary state “that involves
focused attention, increased cognitive functioning, persistence, enjoyment or affective
involvement, and curiosity” (Schiefle, 2009, p. 198). When an individual brings a high level of
skill to a challenging task, they may achieve a heightened version of this state: the optimal
experience Csikszentmihalyi (1975) calls flow. During flow, an individual is fully absorbed in an
activity and perceptions of time and effort fade away. Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre (1989)
found that flow states enhance affect, concentration, creativity, satisfaction, and motivation—and
they mostly occur while working (vs. during leisure activities).
Managers view curiosity, intellectual engagement, and enjoyment of activities associated
with major gifts fundraising as essential MGO attitudes and behaviors; however, intrinsic interest
varies among individuals, and some fundraising tasks are more enjoyable than others. Using
interest-enhancing strategies can help maintain the motivation to perform necessary but
uninteresting activities (Sansone et al., 1992). For example, gamifying discovery outreach can
help MGOs churn through long prospect lists and identify those willing to have a conversation
with a gift officer (Duffy et al., 2017; Hassan, 2017). Learning materials (e.g., case studies,
readings, and examples used in conversation) can help activate personal interest. Schraw and
Lehman (2009) recommend integrating common interests and incorporating real-life stories that
are novel, vivid, or varied and create surprise or disequilibrium. They also advise making
learning materials user-friendly—i.e., complete, clear, and coherent—to increase interest
(Schraw & Lehman, 2009).
Locke and Latham’s (2002) extensive research on the role of workplace goals in
motivation demonstrates that they provide direction and energy, encourage persistence, and

156
promote discovery and use of knowledge and strategies to achieve them; further, they found that
high performance results in high satisfaction, helping to drive a high-performance cycle.
Individual performance goals are typical in higher education advancement and often include both
activity and dollar targets. To optimize performance, managers can involve MGOs in setting
specific, measurable goals that require them to stretch (Clark & Estes, 2008; Dembo & Eaton,
2000; Locke & Latham, 2002). In addition to annual performance goals, managers can utilize
proximal subgoals to promote mastery, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest (Bandura & Schunk,
1981), and encourage team members to plan work schedules and timelines for progress (Yough
& Anderman, 2006). Thus, managers of MGOs who are still learning aspects of major gifts
fundraising might guide their team members to set not only annual performance goals that are
specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound—i.e., SMART goals (Doran, 1981)—
but also daily, weekly, and/or monthly subgoals that build essential skills while supporting
performance (e.g., reaching out to a minimum of five prospects and donors per day with
personalized content, such as news about a program of interest, an invitation to an upcoming
event, or thanks for a recent gift).
Research on motivation distinguishes between mastery goals (a.k.a. task-involved,
learning goals) that focus on developing competence and performance goals (a.k.a. ego-involved,
ability goals) that focus on demonstrating competence (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Aspects of an
advancement organization’s cultural setting (e.g., publicly comparing and/or ranking gift officer
performance) can have the effect of emphasizing performance over mastery, which can be
counterproductive to workplace learning. Social comparison and norm-referenced standards are
less effective than focusing on self-improvement (Pintrich, 2003; Yough & Anderman, 2006).

157
By focusing on mastery, learning, and understanding in their interactions with MGOs and
using evaluation structures that encourage effort and progress (Pintrich, 2003), managers can
promote learning and motivation. Further, managers can make it safe to take risks by modelling
the valuable behavior of viewing mistakes and failures as opportunities to learn (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2016) recommend five instructional design
principles to enhance motivation: supporting learners’ feelings of competence, enhancing their
autonomy, assigning relevant and active tasks, emphasizing learning and de-emphasizing social
comparison, and encouraging feelings of belonging. An approach to managing MGOs that
encourages growth, builds trust, and casts the manager as a coach and accountability partner
aligns with research on learning and motivation, whereas overuse of metrics and policies,
punishing mistakes or failures, and other controlling behaviors tend to instill fear, which is not an
effective long-term motivator (Witte, 1996).
Beyond managerial approaches to utilizing performance goals, working with peers can
support goal orientation. Yough and Anderman (2006) recommend that schools create
communities of learners where everyone supports everyone else’s attempts to learn, and Pintrich
(2003) notes that cooperative and collaborative groups provide opportunities for learners to attain
both social and academic goals. These approaches can be adapted for workplace learning. In
educational settings, teachers can devise ways to assess progress through individual work while
encouraging students to learn from each other in cooperative groups (Yough & Anderman,
2006). Similarly, managers of MGOs need to be able distinguish individual contributions while
encouraging collaboration and cooperation among team members. In a large organization with
many gift officers, fractional proposal credit can offer an at-a-glance metric for comparing
individual fundraising performance; however, such approaches can provide a disincentive for

158
partnerships that combine strengths and encourage continuous learning and performance.
Qualitative assessments, such as the quality of a proposal or the skill in overcoming a donor’s
objection, may provide a more complete picture than proposal credit alone while also
encouraging collaboration, workplace learning, and continuous improvement. Pintrich (2003)
recommends using organizational and management structures that encourage personal and social
responsibility and provide a safe, comfortable, and predictable environment.
Qualitative assessment, in addition to use of a few key metrics, could also help reinforce
positive aspects of causal attribution. As individuals seek to understand and master their
environments, they look for causal determinants of their and others’ behaviors and construct
beliefs from the causes they perceive as responsible for outcomes (e.g., ability, effort, luck,
difficulty, mood, etc.), whether or not their attributions are accurate (Schunk et al., 2014). Causes
can be categorized along three dimensions: locus (internal or external to the individual), stability
(persistent or transient), and controllability (extent of individual’s perceived influence) (Graham
& Williams, 2009; Schunk et al., 2014; Weiner, 1985, 2005). Causal attributions can have
psychological consequences, influencing expectancy for success, self-efficacy, and affect, as
well as behavioral consequences, including choice, persistence, level of effort, and achievement
(Schunk et al., 2014). Learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute success
or failures to effort rather than ability (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). Managers can reinforce
effort attributions by providing feedback that emphasizes the process of learning, including the
importance of effort, strategies, and self-regulation (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Pintrich,
2003). For example, when an MGO has a donor interaction that undercuts their confidence, a
manager can help steer the gift officer away from an ability attribution (e.g., “I’m just not good
at this.”) and toward an effort attribution (e.g., “I need to learn more about [x].”) by providing

159
accurate feedback that identifies the skills or knowledge an MGO lacks, assurance that they can
be learned, and active assistance in acquiring them (Anderman & Anderman, 2009).
Mindset can influence perception, causal attributions, and resilience. Learners who see
intelligence or personality as fixed tend to give up, whereas those who see them as malleable
tend to work harder and smarter in response to challenges (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Several
essential fundraising attitudes involve mindsets, including being resilient when experiencing
setbacks, being willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways, and viewing philanthropy as
mutually beneficial to donor and recipient. Managers may find Dweck’s (2008) book, Mindset:
The New Psychology of Success, helpful in encouraging a “growth mindset” that promotes MGO
resilience and commitment to continuous learning and improvement. In his philosophy of
fundraising, Hank Rosso, founder of The Fund Raising School, encourages practitioners to
substitute pride for apology and view fundraising as “the gentle art of teaching people the joy of
giving.” (Rosso, 2016, p. 5). Cultural taboos around talking about money and perceptions of
fundraising as akin to begging for handouts remain common (Meisenbach, 2008; Shaker, 2016)
and can impact fundraiser performance. In a guide to personal solicitation, Shaker (2016)
addresses the psychology of asking for money and advises MGOs to understand their own
responses to societal taboos regarding money, come to terms with their personal attitudes, and
recognize money’s “inherent value as a means to achieving donor goals while enhancing the
public good” (p. 364).
Applying Research on Organizational Behavior at Work
Learning, motivation, and organizational behavior are deeply interconnected, and all
influence performance. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that “training and motivational programs
are, by definition, attempts to transmit new organizational culture and change people’s cultural

160
behaviors at work” (p. 110); Schein (2004) describes culture as “the accumulated shared learning
of a given group, covering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive elements of the group members’
total psychological functioning” (p. 17); and, in describing learning organizations, Senge (2006)
notes that “learning is about developing a capacity to reliably produce a certain quality of
results” (p. 284). Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978), Schein (2004), Senge (2006), Clark and Estes
(2008), and Sargeant and Shang (2016) have linked organizational cultures that support learning
and innovation with high performance. For example, in a study of British charities with highly
successful fundraising operations, Sargeant and Shang (2016) found that “development of an
organizational learning culture was deemed critical to the development of exceptional
fundraising” (p. 51). Senge (2006) describes a set of organizational behaviors–called the five
disciplines–that support a culture of learning and continuous improvement: (a) pursuing personal
mastery; (b) revising mental models; (c) building shared visions; (d) team learning; and (e)
systems thinking. His emphasis on shared vision and mental models aligns with Gallimore and
Goldenberg’s (2001) definition of cultural models as “shared mental schema or normative
understandings of how the world works, or ought to work” (p. 47).
The concept of shared schemata, with regard to both organizational behavior and
professional knowledge, is an interesting one to apply to higher education advancement. Students
in professional degree programs, such as the juris doctor, develop discipline-specific schemata
that may be presumed to have some commonalities in both content and organization due to a
core curriculum (e.g., the courses taught in the first year of law school are fairly consistent across
institutions). Because fundraisers typically enter the profession without formal study of
philanthropy and/or fundraising, they do not arrive with a common body of knowledge upon
which to build through practice. Instead, they must acquire discipline-specific knowledge on the

161
job as they practice. Thus, non-profit organizations that employ fundraisers, including higher
education institutions, have a high level of responsibility for ensuring that their advancement
staff have access to opportunities to learn discipline-specific knowledge–e.g., the knowledge
needed to perform the essential major gifts fundraising tasks noted above–and develop
professional skills. Further, in hiring fundraisers, it may be helpful for institutional advancement
leadership and management to think about acculturation to the profession as well as to the
organization.
That said, the focus of this section is organizational behaviors essential for MGOs
working in higher education. Every college, university, professional school, and institute has its
own organizational culture; yet, to those working outside of higher education, our institutions
share many common organizational features, including, to name just a few, the academic
calendar, distinctions between faculty and staff, varying degrees of shared governance, and
organization around academic disciplines as well as administrative functions (e.g., advancement,
enrollment management, finance, human resources, etc.). Most higher education institutions also
share similar missions, often combining education, research, and service, and values, such as the
importance of academic freedom. In addition, many features of higher education advancement
are similar across institutions. For example, we typically seek and secure current expenditure,
endowment, and capital funds in support of students, faculty, programs, and facilities. With these
organizational similarities in mind, the organizational behaviors deemed essential to major gifts
fundraising are likely to apply to MGOs working in a variety of institutions.
A number of the essential behaviors concern building strong relationships within and
beyond the institution by accepting and respecting others, collaborating, sharing knowledge and
information, and earning trust. Senge (2006) characterizes a learning organization as the

162
combined knowledge of every team member and emphasizes the importance of alignment,
collaboration, and information sharing among team members. Sergeant and Shang (2016)
connect these qualities to high-performing fundraising organizations, in which fundraisers
commonly work well independently, seek help when needed, and guide and assist colleagues.
MGOs benefit from collaboration with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and
volunteers who can help them engage, cultivate, solicit, and steward donors more effectively
than would be possible alone. To work effectively with others, MGOs must gain their trust.
Hurley (2006) defines trust as “confident reliance on someone when you are in a position of
vulnerability” (p. 56). Among the expert panel, there was a strong consensus (88%) that
modelling can be beneficial in helping MGOs learn how to elicit trust. Also, by suggesting
specific actions and approaches, including active listening, following through, resolving conflict,
and collaborative decision making, supervisors and other guides can help MGOs learn to gain the
trust not only of colleagues, but also of constituents. In addition, managers can help MGOs earn
trust by offering prompts and feedback on their interpersonal interactions (e.g., encouraging
MGOs to share timely, pertinent information with collaborators).
Building a culture of trust within organizations enables high performance (Clark & Estes,
2008; Galford & Drapeau, 2003; Hurley, 2006; Zak, 2017). Zak (2017) connects trust and
engagement and notes that “high engagement—defined largely as having a strong connection
with one’s work and colleagues, feeling like a real contributor, and enjoying ample chances to
learn—consistently leads to positive outcomes for both individuals and organizations” (p. 86).
Further, when MGOs earn the trust of colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers, they gain
access to crucial information and networks. This intramural practice can help MGOs secure the
trust of prospective donors, which is essential to successfully cultivating, soliciting, and closing

163
gifts (Drollinger, 2018; Dunlop, 2002; Greenhoe, 2013; Kirsch & Shell, 2000; Lively, 2017;
Sturtevant, 1997).
The importance of relationship building can be signaled in the hiring process for new
MGOs (e.g., by including key partners in the interview process) and reinforced in onboarding.
Collaboration, sharing knowledge and information, accepting and supporting colleagues, and
treating people with respect can be modelled by colleagues, including leaders and supervisors,
and reinforced through work processes and expectations until they are ingrained in the
organizational culture. Participation in everyday work activities where these behaviors are
modeled and expected can provide novice MGOs, as well as those who are new to the
organization, a foundation upon which to build through coaching, mentoring, and guidance from
supervisors. There was consensus (78%) among the expert panel that creating expectations
around collaboration and structures and processes (e.g., group credit for gifts) to facilitate it are
effective approaches. For example, setting team goals can contribute to a positive organizational
culture and promote collaboration, information sharing, support of colleagues, and donor-centric
approaches to fundraising (EAB, 2015). Edmondson (2015) notes that encouraging competition
with other organizations instead of competition within teams helps team members reframe their
colleagues as resources in achieving goals. The expert panel agreed that meetings and
discussions with colleagues, including presentations by units in a hybrid or decentralized
organization, can help foster collaboration (72% consensus), and team meetings, prospect
strategy discussions, and other forums can encourage information sharing (81% consensus).
Establishing and implementing norms and goals around diversity, equity, and inclusion (78%
consensus) and receiving guidance and encouragement from supervisors to work closely with

164
coworkers (e.g., joint visits) (78% consensus) can help promote acceptance and support of
colleagues.
Customer service skills, including engaging diverse audiences and demonstrating a
commitment to excellence, comprise another facet of essential organizational behaviors for
MGOs. Managers can encourage these behaviors through modeling and coaching, and specific
actions, activities, exercises, and practices can further build these essential behaviors. For
example, participation in benchmarking activities can help strengthen an organization’s
commitment to excellence. With regard to diversity and inclusion, the expert panel suggested an
array of intentional actions, including reviewing fundraiser portfolios for diversity and alumni
offerings for inclusion, recruiting diverse board members, and encouraging MGOs to participate
in events and activities with diverse audiences, as well as practices that develop empathy, such as
listening, keeping an open mind, and being respectful of all people.
Colleagues in alumni relations, donor relations, and other areas of advancement can be
key partners in helping MGOs develop essential relationship building and customer service skills
and behaviors. In fact, in advancement organizations that take an active approach to recruiting
entry-level employees, providing training and professional development, and encouraging
growth through successive roles, many of the essential skills and behaviors included in this
subject area may first be learned in an alumni or donor relations role and further developed as
responsibilities grow to include frontline fundraising.
The ability to get things done is essential to maintaining good relationships with both
colleagues and customers. Ably navigating institutional politics and policies and effectively
managing up–not only to supervisors, but also to academic, administrative, and volunteer
leadership–are essential MGO behaviors. Schein (2004) notes that new members of a group

165
spend much of their time deciphering its operating norms and assumptions and that the success
of their efforts relies on feedback from old members. “In this sense, there is always a teaching
process going on, even though it may be quite implicit and unsystematic” (Schein, 2004, p.19).
By offering MGOs guidance and advice, particularly as they are learning how to catalyze actions
and decisions across the organization, managers can help them find effective and efficient ways
to accomplish work tasks. In the case of managing up, supervisors may need to take an active
role in setting expectations and providing feedback (Rousmaniere, 2015). Similarly, supervisors
are instrumental in helping MGOs know, understand, and navigate institutional policies, as well
as coaching them through internal processes.
Several of the organizational behaviors deemed essential by managers concern MGOs’
ability to connect and communicate with others. In considering MGOs’ interactions with others,
the expert panel agreed that coaching and mentoring helps MGOs learn to demonstrate empathy
and emotional intelligence (75% consensus), and reviewing one's interactions, seeking feedback,
and other specific actions help MGOs increase their self-awareness (76%). MGOs often talk with
prospects and donors about sensitive topics, including formative experiences, family dynamics,
and distributing wealth. Coaching and mentoring can help MGOs learn how to create a
comfortable environment for these discussions.
Managers also value planning and organization skills in MGOs, including the ability to
set concrete, challenging, current goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Locke & Latham, 2002). The
expert panel agreed that establishing processes for setting annual goals and incorporating them in
performance reviews (88% consensus) and guidance from supervisors in discussing and setting
goals (81% consensus) are effective ways to help MGOs learn this essential organizational
behavior.

166
Finally, managers value MGOs’ commitment to growth. To help MGOs become flexible,
adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment, the expert panel recommended
mentoring (75% consensus). Mentoring, coaching, and encouraging participation in
collaboration, shared value discussions, and learning opportunities (e.g., by building them into a
performance review system) (72% consensus) can help MGOs contribute to a culture of learning
and continuous improvement.
Integrating Research into a Complete Training and Management System
Research has linked organizational cultures that support learning and innovation with
high performance (Argyris & Schön, 1974, 1978; Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2004; Senge,
2006). To build a culture of learning and continuous improvement in their organizations,
advancement leadership and management can borrow from Senge (2006), who recommends
inculcating a set of organizational behaviors by pursuing personal mastery, revising mental
models, building shared visions, team learning, and systems thinking. These “five disciplines
represent approaches (theories and methods) for developing three core learning capabilities of
fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity” (Senge,
2006, p. 2) that help organizations adapt and innovate. Similarly, Schein and Schein (2017)
describe 10 attributes of a learning culture that leaders can encourage. They include (a) taking a
proactive approach to learning and problem solving, (b) demonstrating an ongoing commitment
to learning by valuing reflection and experimentation, (c) believing that people can and will learn
if provided the necessary resources and psychological safety, (d) having a shared assumption that
the environment can be managed, (e) committing to truth through inquiry, dialogue, and
intercultural understanding, (f) having a positive orientation to the future, (g) committing to open
communication, cultural diversity, and systems thinking, and (h) believing in the value of

167
analyzing and reflecting on organizational culture. Both Senge (2006) and Schein and Schein
(2017) describe attitudes and behaviors that, to be fully effective, must occur throughout the
organization, from individual contributors to team managers to executive leadership. In short,
leadership is responsible for creating the conditions that enable a learning culture to thrive;
however, sustaining it requires the participation of team members at every level of the
organization. With this in mind, advancement organizations that take a holistic rather than
targeted approach to training and professional development—i.e., viewing learning as ongoing
and systemic rather than something that happens in response to discrete events (such as a
constituent database/CRM conversion)—may be better equipped to maintain high fundraising
performance.
As such, this section integrates research on learning, motivation, organizational behavior,
and institutional advancement to suggest a systemic approach to training and ongoing
professional development of MGOs. Rogoff (1995), whose three “planes of focus in
sociocultural activity - community/institutional, interpersonal, and personal” (p. 141) provides a
framework for organizing team-based, one-on-one, and independent activities that lead to
mastery of tasks, attitudes, and behaviors essential to major gifts fundraising. The following
sections address the roles of leadership, managers, MGOs and their advancement colleagues in
implementing a complete training and management system for higher education advancement.
The Role of Leadership in Shaping Organizational Culture
The chief advancement officer, together with her leadership team, are responsible for
shaping a culture that values learning and continuous improvement, for providing the resources
to support it, and for modeling management practices that integrate teaching and learning into
everyday practice. Workplace learning can be formal (e.g., instructor-led workshops) or informal

168
(e.g., helping team members navigate territory new to them). Leadership can provide the
mandate and resources to create, strengthen, and sustain an in-house talent development program
that, for example, provides consistent onboarding and training, opportunities for professional and
leadership development, and support of communities of practice. However, to maximize
knowledge transfer, these programs need to be viewed not as the sole solutions to on-the-job
training needs, but rather as a complement to an approach to management that takes
responsibility for informal instruction, coaching, and mentoring.
Senge (2006) describes “an alternative system of management based on love rather than
fear, curiosity rather than an insistence on “right” answers, and learning rather than controlling”
(p. 2). These qualities are not dissimilar from those that comprise the top-performing “curious
chameleon” profile developed by EAB (2018) in a study of higher education MGOs, namely
behavioral and linguistic flexibility, intellectual and social curiosity, information distillation, and
strategic solicitation. In other words, top fundraisers are attuned to their audience, have an
appetite for learning, see the big picture, and are deliberate in their actions. Applying skills
honed in major gifts fundraising can help advancement leaders manage their operations in ways
that support a learning culture.
Working with donors teaches MGOs to be adaptable, flexible, and open to new
information and ideas; to ask questions that reveal the motivations, priorities, and concerns that
lie beneath the surface; to be self-aware, self-regulated, and reflective; and to solve problems
with alacrity and creativity. Accomplished MGOs are adept at seeding ideas and guiding
conversations while encouraging donors to take the lead in articulating their philanthropic
goals—and they know they have succeeded when donors claim their gifts as their own ideas. All
of these approaches serve advancement leaders well. Leading by example, both in modeling

169
successful approaches to fundraising and in modeling behaviors that support continuous learning
and improvement—i.e., those articulated by Schein and Schein (2017) and Senge (2006) and
noted above—can help establish a high-performance culture.
Schein and Schein (2017) assert that leaders embed their assumptions, beliefs, and values
through what they pay attention to, measure, and control on a regular basis; how they react to
critical incidents and organizational crises; how they allocate resources, rewards, and status; how
they recruit, select, promote, and banish; and deliberate role modeling, teaching, and coaching.
Further, Schein and Schein (2017) note that leaders utilize a variety of mechanisms to reinforce
and stabilize their assumptions, beliefs, and values, including, organizational design and
structure, systems and procedures, rites and rituals, architectural and environmental design,
storytelling, and formal statements of organizational philosophy, creeds, and charters.
Advancement leaders who seek to build a learning organization must be intentional in allocating
resources, including team members’ time, and setting expectations for participation. By using a
variety of means, from modelling productive behaviors (e.g., encouraging innovation and
learning from failures rather than punishing them) to rewarding effective managers, leadership
can shape a culture that values learning and continuous improvement.
The Role of Managers in Structuring Apprenticeships
Once leadership makes a strategic commitment to provide an environment that supports
learning and improvement, management plays a vital role in embedding this vision and its
accompanying values in everyday practice. As noted in earlier chapters and sections, fundraising
managers typically have their own fundraising goals in addition to management responsibilities.
Providing an incentive structure that appropriately balances individual and team performance,
such as a performance evaluation that explicitly addresses managers’ roles in helping their team

170
members grow and succeed, may be necessary to encourage managers to allocate time and
energy to helping others. It is not in the best interest of higher education institutions to assign so
many instructional responsibilities to fundraising managers that they no longer have time to work
with donors. Experienced fundraisers who manage MGOs are most valuable to workplace
learning when they have the opportunity to work alongside team members, evaluate their
progress, and provide opportunities for them to continually build and hone essential skills and
behaviors. Managers’ perspectives on their direct reports enables them to assess and monitor
their attitudes, behaviors, and skill levels over time and provide timely, scaffolded interventions
that contribute to growth.
Rogoff (1995) uses the term “apprenticeship” to describe situations in which learners join
“others in culturally organized activity that has as part of its purpose the development of mature
participation in the activity by the less experienced people” (p. 142). In workplace learning,
managers are well positioned to establish and evolve such apprenticeships so that they meet the
individualized learning and professional development needs of team members. In preparing for a
campaign, advancement operations typically hire additional MGOs. Given budget and
marketplace constraints, managers may need to hire MGOs with varying experience levels. An
MGO with 10 years of experience fundraising for other colleges and/or universities requires a
different kind of apprenticeship than an MGO who began as a student worker, served in several
supporting roles, and has advanced to his first frontline position. For the former, the need to learn
the organization is likely to be greater than the need to learn new skills. For the latter, the
opposite is likely to be true. In designing an apprenticeship for each newly hired or promoted
team member, a thoughtful manager will assess their prior knowledge and experience and

171
determine the right blend of networking and relationship building, training and skill
development, and cultural initiation and mentoring.
Returning to the hypothetical situation described above, the experienced MGO may come
from an institution with a highly competitive culture in which information is hoarded more often
than shared. To succeed in an organization with a more collaborative culture, it will be important
for this MGO to have early, positive experiences collaborating with colleagues and be
recognized for her contributions to team accomplishments. Thus, cultural initiation, networking,
and relationship building would be the key goals of her apprenticeship. Her manager may ask her
to partner with other team members on specific projects and prospects; provide introductions to
key collaborators throughout the institution; give her a role on a task force or committee; and
provide coaching and mentoring to help navigate the organizational structure and culture. In
short, the apprenticeship may be designed to encourage certain behaviors. If, over time, it
becomes clear that this MGO is masterful in some areas (e.g., guiding qualification conversations
to a prospect’s philanthropic priorities, objectives, and motivations) and less proficient in others
(e.g., utilizing social media for prospect research and outreach), her apprenticeship may include
targeted skill development. Meanwhile, the new MGO who began as a student worker has had
time to learn the organization and now needs to expand his tool kit to include essential skills for
major gifts fundraising. Thus, his apprenticeship may focus on training and skill development
and include more direct instruction, scaffolding, and opportunities to practice new skills. His
manager may ask him to shadow more experienced MGOs on donor visits, assign him a small
initial portfolio on which to focus, offer worked examples (e.g., outreach emails and telephone
scripts), encourage him to rehearse talking points and questions prior to meetings with prospects,

172
provide feedback and coaching, and ensure that advancement and other colleagues are aware of
his new role as a frontline fundraiser.
One of Senge’s (2006) five disciplines is team learning, which is important because the
collective intelligence of a team can be far greater than the intelligence of the individuals who
comprise it. “Team learning is the process of aligning and developing the capacity of a team to
create the results its members truly desire” (Senge, 2006, p. 218). Senge (2006) illustrates the
concept of alignment through championship sports teams (i.e., the Boston Celtics during Bill
Russell’s tenure [1956-1969]) and great jazz ensembles, noting that they are metaphors for
innovative, coordinated action. “Outstanding teams in organizations develop the same sort of
relationship—an ‘operational trust,’ where each team member remains conscious of other team
members and can be counted on to act in ways that complement each other’s actions” (Senge,
2006, p. 219). Practice plays a vital role in team learning. Senge (2006) notes the practice-
performance-practice cycle of professional musicians. In higher education fundraising,
intramural work with advancement colleagues as well as academic and administrative partners
to, for example, shape the case for support provides an opportunity to practice compelling
arguments prior to performing them for prospective donors. Managers can assemble teams
around key fundraising priorities that bring diverse skill sets and perspectives to bear on the
challenge at hand. For example, the fundraising strategy team for a new academic building might
include a dean or department chair, a capital projects representative, fundraiser(s), a prospect
management director, and a writer and/or marketing team member, who together figure out the
most compelling arguments for the planned facility, target amounts for nameable spaces, and a
list of top prospects. As teams pursue their shared objectives, managers can monitor the
development of both work product and team dynamics with the goal of making a smooth

173
transition to solicitation activities—e.g., by the time marketing materials for the new building
(i.e., renderings, model, brochure, etc.) have been prepared and the team is ready to solicit
prospective donors, the dean or department chair, capital projects representative, and fundraisers
can anticipate one another and strengthen each other’s performances in donor meetings.
In summary, managers play a key role in organizing apprenticeships that meet the
individualized needs of MGOs, in part by facilitating team learning. Mintzberg (1998) advises
managing professions through covert leadership–i.e., orchestrating rather than controlling–an
approach that may be useful in higher education advancement organizations. Facilitating and
orchestrating the activities of teams can promote constructive interactions between colleagues.
The Role of Colleagues in Guided Practice
Peers can play an important role in workplace learning. Rogoff (1995) uses the term
“guided participation” to describe “the processes and systems of involvement between people as
they communicate and coordinate efforts while participating in a culturally valued activity” (p.
142). She notes that participation can mean observation as well as hands-on involvement and
clarifies that guidance includes direction not only from partners, but also from social and cultural
values. Further, guided participation can take a variety of forms, from face-to-face interaction to
side-by-side joint participation to working together remotely and/or asynchronously. In
Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the zone of proximal development, more experienced members of
the community (e.g., of advancement practitioners) play a vital role in sociocultural learning by
helping learners accomplish more than they could alone. In the same way that an experienced
home cook can guide a novice through meal preparation, a seasoned MGO can help a new
fundraiser take the right steps at the right times. In this way, learners gain crucial procedural
knowledge–i.e., how to perform a task (Anderson et al., 2001). Along the way, guides can

174
address gaps in factual (e.g., terminology, sources of information, etc.) and conceptual (e.g.,
models, principles, categories, etc.) knowledge and cue metacognitive learning, including self-
awareness, self-reflection, and self-regulation (Anderson et al., 2001). For example, a member of
the gift planning team can guide an MGO who lacks experience with non-cash gifts through the
process of accepting a gift of tangible property (procedural knowledge), including relevant
institutional policies and tax forms (factual knowledge) and precedents involving similar
property (conceptual knowledge). Further, summarizing the conversation for the gift planning
colleague provides an opportunity for the MGO to reflect on the donor’s cues about assets,
recognize signals missed in the moment, and actively listen for non-cash giving opportunities in
subsequent conversations (metacognitive learning).
Keeping in mind that a colleague may be more experienced in–and have greater mastery
of–particular skills rather than the full spectrum of essential MGO skills and behaviors,
learner/guide pairings can be fluid. In the earlier hypothetical scenario, the two new MGOs could
learn a lot from each other. One knows how to engage prospects and move them toward giving;
the other knows how to get things done in the organization. In a learning culture, knowledge
does not flow only from the top down, it also flows up and around. In other words, guides and
learners can switch roles, both spontaneously and with forethought, in organizations where
learning is viewed as an ongoing process. From a management perspective, recognizing that a
team member has mastered an essential skill and asking them to help others learn it accomplishes
several objectives at once: first, it provides a way for managers to let team members know they
are valued; second, it distributes training and development responsibilities so that they are more
manageable; and third, teaching others encourages reflection and refinement by already skilled
practitioners. One of the attractions of major gifts fundraising, particularly the work MGOs do

175
with prospects and donors, is the potential to keep improving, even after decades of practice.
Senge (2006) writes, “personal mastery is not something you possess. It is a process. It is a
lifelong discipline” (p. 132), and this insight is highly applicable to practitioners in fields like
major gifts fundraising that rely heavily on soft skills.
The Role of Major Gift Officers in Personal Mastery
Noting that “an organization’s commitment to and capacity for learning can be no greater
than that of its members,” Senge (2006, p. 7) includes personal mastery in the five disciplines of
learning organizations. He describes personal mastery as “the discipline of continually clarifying
and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing patience, and of
seeing reality objectively,” (Senge, 2006, p. 7) and he notes that, while grounded in competence
and skills, personal mastery is also about mindset. Senge (2006) describes common
characteristics of people with a level of personal mastery, including a sense of purpose linked to
vision and goals, a clear-eyed perspective on the current state that enables them to embrace
change, a tendency to see themselves as part of a larger creative process that can be influenced,
but not controlled, and a self-confidence rooted in an awareness of limitations and growth areas,
all of which suggest a high level of maturity. Also, like EAB’s (2018) curious chameleons,
Senge (2006) describes people with high levels of personal mastery as “deeply inquisitive” (p.
132). This characteristic is particularly important in major gifts fundraising, both because of the
way MGOs connect prospective donor interests to the mission, priorities, and goals of their
institutions and because they must learn a substantial body of professional knowledge on the job.
Personal mastery, Senge (2006) notes, is a lifelong discipline of continuous learning and
growth–i.e., it is a process rather than a goal. In research on learning, the process of gaining
mastery is tied to the automation of knowledge and behaviors, which allows people to

176
accomplish increasingly complex tasks (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2008; Feldon, 2006).
When first learning to drive a car, student drivers are taught to go through a checklist before
pulling out of a parking space (e.g., turn on Signal, check Mirrors, look Over shoulder, Glide out
[SMOG]); however, experienced drivers go through these steps–and many more–automatically
with little effort. Similarly, novice MGOs must learn many small steps, integrate them, and learn
to apply them in the right situations (Ambrose et al., 2010). Expert MGOs can be helpful guides;
however, because so much of their knowledge is automated, their instructions can skip key steps
(Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2008; Feldon, 2006). Expert MGOs must learn to break down
complex tasks into their component parts to teach them effectively to less experienced
colleagues. Support and prompts from the learning and development team, as well as from
management, can help experts remember to provide step-by-step guidance in an appropriate
sequence. Further, learners must feel empowered to ask questions when they do not understand
the factual, conceptual, procedural, or metacognitive knowledge being taught. Teaching others
and fielding questions helps expert MGOs engage in more reflective practice, increasing their
own personal mastery as they help develop their less experienced colleagues’ mastery.
Rogoff’s (1995) concept of participatory appropriation refers to “the process by which
individuals transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their own
participation” (p. 150) in sociocultural activity. Rogoff (1995) further explains that “participatory
appropriation is ongoing development as people participate in events and thus handle subsequent
events in ways based on their involvement in previous events” (p. 156). Both Rogoff (1995) and
Senge (2006) are interested in the ways that people’s participation in a community of practice or
workplace evolves over time, from peripheral observer to active participant to manager.
Formalized Communities of Practice (CoP) within workplaces or networks offer a way for

177
practitioners to deepen knowledge expertise (Lee & Shaari, 2012). Often organic, unstructured,
and self-organizing, CoPs “[allow] for a dynamic bottom-up learning initiative that adapts with
the learning priorities of the time” (Lee & Shaari, 2012, p. 458). In contrast, Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) are often top-down learning initiatives that help shape
professional identities. Lee and Shaari (2012) reviewed the literature on both CoPs and PLCs in
education and found them to be complementary approaches to organizing teacher professional
communities and augmenting teacher autonomy. They propose a two-pronged approach that uses
CoPs to seed teacher professionalism through emergent best practices and PLCs to consolidate
best practices into a coherent teacher professional identity. Advancement organizations can
benefit from several decades of experimentation with learning communities within schools.
While teachers manage their own classrooms, MGOs manage their own prospect portfolios. Both
work within accountability frameworks, yet have considerable autonomy in deciding which
approaches to use in a given situation. In other words, both teachers and MGOs are responsible
for independently and creatively solving problems on a daily basis. In a higher education
advancement organization, leadership’s commitment to build learning culture, the programs
designed and implemented by the learning and development staff, and management’s daily
involvement in individualized, on-the-job learning all constitute top-down learning initiatives
that can help shape a shared professional identity among fundraisers. MGOs, as well as other
practice groups (e.g., annual giving officers) can complement these top-down initiatives with
CoPs that help generate emergent practices in response to an ever-changing fundraising
environment (e.g., staying in touch with donors via Zoom meetings during the COVID-19
pandemic). By taking responsibility for their own continuous learning and growth, novice MGOs
can help accelerate their mastery of the essential tasks and behaviors while experienced MGOs

178
go deeper into the craft of major gifts fundraising and increase their ability to navigate complex
and transformative gifts. Similar to Bandura’s (1977) concept of self-efficacy, Senge (2006)
links mastery and motivation. A commitment to continuous learning in the workplace may help
MGOs maintain their motivation while increasing their knowledge, skills, and abilities.
Table 3 sketches out the roles, responsibilities, and methods of team members throughout
the advancement organization in building and sustaining a learning culture.
Table 3
Stakeholder Roles in a Complete Fundraising Training and Management System
Stakeholder Key responsibility Approaches & methods Source(s)
Advancement
Leadership
Shape an
organizational
culture that
supports
continuous
learning and
improvement
Take a proactive approach to
learning and problem solving
Schein and Schein
(2017)

Actively manage the environment

Demonstrate an ongoing
commitment to learning by
valuing reflection and
experimentation

Model a positive orientation to
the future

Commit to truth through inquiry,
dialogue, and intercultural
understanding

Commit to open communication

Commit to cultural diversity

Commit to systems thinking

Believe that people can and will
learn if provided the necessary
resources and psychological
safety

Value analyzing and reflecting on
organizational culture

179
Stakeholder Key responsibility Approaches & methods Source(s)
Advancement
Leadership
(cont’d)

Engage team members
throughout organization in
pursuing personal mastery,
revising mental models,
building shared visions, team
learning, and systems thinking

Senge (2006)

Provide resources, including staff
time, for training and
motivational programs,
including dedicated learning
and development staff who can
develop complementary
training and PD programs and
provide train-the-trainer
support, including awareness of
"unconscious competence"
(Ambrose et al., 2010, p. 98)
and expert blind spots
Ambrose et al.
(2010), Clark and
Estes (2008)
Fundraising
Managers
Design and oversee
individualized
apprenticeships
for major gift
officers
Assess the prior knowledge of
each MGO by talking with
previous supervisors,
observing/reviewing their
work, brainstorming with them,
asking them to assess their own
prior knowledge, and/or other
means
Ambrose et al.
(2010)

Incorporate activities that
promote networking and
relationship building, training
and skill development, and
cultural initiation to meet each
MGO's needs
Clark and Estes
(2008), Gallimore
and Goldenberg
(2001), Schein
(2004)

Assist MGOs in setting
productive learning and
development goals that are
challenging, achievable, and
connected to organizational
goals, and encourage self-
evaluation and self-regulation
Ambrose et al.
(2012), Clark and
Estes (2008),
Denler et al.
(2009), Locke and
Latham (2002),
Meyer (2011)

180
Stakeholder Key responsibility Approaches & methods Source(s)
Fundraising
Managers
(cont’d)

Assign specific activities and
partners and monitor outcomes
Rogoff (1995), Scott
and Palinscar
(2006)

Provide guidance to partners (see
Advancement Colleagues
section below) to ensure
efficacy of "guided
participation" (Rogoff, 1995, p.
142)
(see section below)

When partnering, help less
experienced colleagues learn
how to perform an essential
task by breaking it down and
providing step-by-step
guidance as needed
Ambrose et al.
(2010), Anderson
and Krathwohl
(2001), Rogoff
(1995), Scott and
Palincsar (2006),
Vygotsky (1978)

Encourage MGOs to practice,
integrate, and apply fundraising
knowledge, skills, and abilities
and to rehearse essential tasks
and behaviors prior to
performing them with donors
Ambrose et al.
(2010), Elder
(2010), Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006

When partnering, provide timely,
specific, and accurate feedback,
balance critique with positive
reinforcement, identify gaps in
skills or knowledge, and
provide active assistance in
acquiring them
Anderman and
Anderman (2009),
Bloom (1984),
Borgogni et al.
(2011), Pajares
(2006), Shute
(2008)

Provide encouragement and
assurance that MGOs are
capable of learning and
performing essential tasks and
behaviors
Anderman and
Anderman (2009),
Pajares (2006)

Provide coaching and mentoring
to support learning, promote
knowledge transfer, and
enhance fundraising
performance
Billet (2000), Elder
(2010), Hiles
(2010), Lanning
(2007), Marion
(1997), Peet et al.
(2010)

181
Stakeholder Key responsibility Approaches & methods Source(s)
Fundraising
Managers
(cont’d)
Encourage team
learning
Monitor progress and gradually
remove supports to encourage
independent practice
Scott and Palinscar
(2006)

Build operational trust by forming
project-based teams and
providing opportunities for
practice prior to performance
Senge (2006)
Advancement
Colleagues
(in/beyond
major gifts)
Guide less
experienced
colleagues in
learning and
performing
essential tasks
and behaviors
When partnering, help less
experienced colleagues learn
how to perform an essential
task by breaking it down and
providing step-by-step
guidance as needed
Ambrose et al.
(2010), Anderson
and Krathwohl
(2001), Rogoff
(1995), Scott and
Palincsar (2006),
Vygotsky (1978)

Offer opportunities to practice,
integrate, and apply fundraising
knowledge, skills, and abilities
and to rehearse essential tasks
and behaviors prior to
performing them with donors
Ambrose et al.
(2012), Elder
(2010), Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006,
Senge (2006)

Prompt MGOs to reflect after
rehearsing and performing
essential tasks and behaviors
and identify strengths and areas
for improvement
Ambrose et al.
(2012), Meyer
(2011)

Provide timely, specific, and
accurate feedback, balance
critique with positive
reinforcement, identify gaps in
skills or knowledge, and
provide active assistance in
acquiring them
Anderman and
Anderman (2009),
Bloom (1984),
Borgogni et al.
(2011), Pajares
(2006), Shute
(2008)

Provide encouragement and
assurance that MGOs are
capable of learning and
performing essential tasks and
behaviors
Anderman and
Anderman (2009),
Pajares (2006)

182
Stakeholder Key responsibility Approaches & methods Source(s)
Provide coaching and mentoring
to support learning, promote
knowledge transfer, and
enhance fundraising
performance
Billet (2000), Elder
(2010), Hiles
(2010), Lanning
(2007), Marion
(1997), Peet et al.
(2010)
MGOs
(novice to
expert)
Commit to growth
and improvement
throughout
professional
practice
Ask for assistance, information,
and advice
Sargeant and Shang
(2016)
Seek opportunities to practice,
integrate, and apply fundraising
knowledge, skills, and abilities
Ambrose et al.
(2010), Schraw
and McCrudden
(2006)

Reflect on interactions, thoughts,
emotions, and behaviors to
increase self-awareness,
emotional intelligence, and
empathy
Goleman (1996),
Salovey and
Mayer (1990)

Develop mastery by guiding less
experienced colleagues
Sargeant and Shang
(2016)

Be open to being part of a
learning community and accept
guidance and/or feedback from
colleagues, including those
with less overall work
experience
Billet (2000),
Pintrich (2003),
Rogoff (1995),
Scott and
Palincsar (2013)

Seek, accept, and utilize critical
feedback to adjust attitude,
modify behavior, and/or
improve performance
Dweck (2008),
Yeager and
Dweck (2012),
Yough and
Anderman (2006)
Cultivate a positive orientation to
the future and be open to
change
Schein and Schein
(2007)

183
Evaluating Efficacy of MGO Training and Development
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) cite three major reasons to evaluate training
programs. First, assessing the effectiveness of the program (e.g., is it well designed and well
received?) provides the insight needed to improve it. Second, assessing whether and how much
participants’ performance improves and contributes to organizational results indicates the extent
to which the program’s content is relevant and transferable to their work. Third, assessing the
impact of training programs demonstrates their value to the organization.
The Evaluation Framework
To guide meaningful assessments of training programs, Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) outline four levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, behavior, and results, which are
described in the sections that follow. Figure 15 illustrates how these levels of evaluation relate to
one another in the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The new
world model differs from the historical Kirkpatrick model by identifying desired organizational
Figure 15
The New World Kirkpatrick Model

184
outcomes upfront and then working in reverse to examine participant behavior, learning, and
reaction. This approach connects training to institutional goals, individual behaviors, and
organizational supports.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
The fourth level of evaluation in the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016) focuses on the results of training in relation to top-level institutional goals.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define results as “the degree to which targeted outcomes
occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package” (location 1334).
They recommend working backward from desired results in planning training programs and
monitoring a few leading indicators, through observation or measurement, that suggest whether
critical behaviors are on track to make a positive impact. In nonprofit organizations, realizing the
mission is typically the institution-wide goal, and institutional advancement contributes to it by
securing resources. Thus, a common goal for advancement is to raise more money. For example,
a university may seek to double its average annual fundraising during a multi-year campaign
(e.g., from a pre-campaign average of $75 million per year to an average of $150 million during
the final years of the campaign). Annual fundraising results and campaign totals are both simple
to measure (e.g., CASE counting guidelines provide a standard approach to tallying gifts,
pledges, and deferred commitments) and, typically, transparent to both intramural and extramural
stakeholders; yet, many factors contribute to these sums. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) use
the metaphor of flags up a mountain to describe a sequence of leading indicators that culminate
in the organization’s desired result (i.e., realizing the mission). At the base of the mountain are
individual outcomes; in the foothills are, first, team outcomes and then unit outcomes; as the

185
altitude increases, customer response, followed by organizational outcomes, customer
satisfaction, market/industry response, and, finally, at the peak, desired results.
In translating these general indicators to ones specific to higher education advancement,
one might begin with individual MGO performance in terms of funds raised and activity goals
achieved. These totals roll up into team outcomes, such as the combined fundraising and
activities of the school of management’s frontline fundraisers. The combined achievements of
fundraising teams across the advancement operation are represented in the college or university’s
annual fundraising and campaign totals. From here, a shift in focus, from funds raised to their
impact, is needed. For example, a university that succeeds in significantly increasing donor-
funded scholarships during a campaign may find that more prospective students apply for
admission, which increases selectivity and, eventually, elevates it rank. In this era of
consolidation within higher education, the prestige of being a highly selective, highly ranked
college or university helps ensure a steady stream of applicants and, as they matriculate, the
continuation of a core aspect of its mission–i.e., educating students.
Advancement is well practiced in demonstrating the impact of giving to donors. The
Kirkpatrick model suggests that connecting the dots between individual fundraising performance
and mission achievement is equally important. In designing, implementing, and evaluating
training and professional development programs for MGOs, advancement leadership–including
and beyond the chief learning and development officer–will be well served by correlating
participation in training and development programs with fundraising results over time. Further,
connecting training (e.g., on the case for scholarships) with organizational outcomes (e.g., larger
applicant pool) may be useful to demonstrate the value of institutional advancement as well as its

186
training and development programs. Table 4 presents leading indicators and desired outcomes of
collective gift officer performance.
Table 4
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased institutional
reputation
Global and national rankings
(e.g., U.S. News & World
Report)
Marketing and Communications
monitors annual/periodic
publication of rankings from
independent sources
Increased popularity
among prospective
students
Number of applications submitted
and selectivity (i.e., percentage
of applicants admitted)
Admissions tracks number of
applications and offers of
admission by academic year
Increased interest by
scholars
Number of applications submitted
by candidates for faculty
appointments
Faculty Affairs tracks number of
applications in faculty searches
Internal Outcomes
Increased financial
resources
Philanthropic funds raised ($) Advancement tracks new gifts
and commitments by fiscal year
and monitors year-to-date
comparisons
Growth of community
of support
Number of donors Advancement tracks donors by
fiscal year and monitors year-
to-date comparisons
Increased number of
gifts
Number of gifts (including
multiple gifts from a single
donor)
Advancement tracks gifts by
fiscal year and monitors year-
to-date comparisons
Increased cumulative
giving
Number of donors at a given level
of lifetime and/or campaign
cumulative giving (e.g.,
$500,000-$999,999)
Advancement tracks donors by
lifetime and/or campaign
cumulative giving and monitors
increases in donors per level in
gift table
Increased MGO
retention
Average length of service Human Resources monitors
length of service of frontline

187
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
fundraisers who carry a
prospect/donor portfolio
Increased institutional
assets, including
endowment and
bricks and mortar
(as a proxy for the
quality and quantity
of resources
available to students
and faculty)
Assets (e.g., net pledges
receivable, investments, and net
property, plant and equipment)
and/or total net assets on
consolidated balance sheets in
annual financial statements
Independent auditor produces
annual report on financial
statements with inputs from
Advancement, Controller, and
other administrative offices

Level 3: Behavior
In the new world Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), level-three
evaluation examines “the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training
when they are back on the job” and constitutes “a comprehensive, continuous performance
monitoring and improvement system” (p. 49). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend a
blended learning approach that combines traditional training programs (e.g., group training) with
an on-the-job environment that supports learning. The complete training and management system
outlined above follows this recommendation. In addition to creating an individualized
apprenticeship for each new MGO on their teams, managers contribute to on-the-job learning by
monitoring, encouraging, reinforcing, and rewarding critical behaviors (see Table 3).
Critical Behaviors
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) advise focusing on a few behaviors that are critical to
achieve key institutional outcomes, such as the ones listed in Table 3. To define critical
behaviors, they suggest working with supervisors, managers, and possibly a group of high

188
performers to discuss what behaviors they believe would bring about the desired outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 5 describes seven critical behaviors for MGOs that are,
in essence, a distillation of the 49 essential fundraising tasks and behaviors defined through this
study. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that their new world model includes on-the-job
learning because, in contemporary workplaces, “1. Up to 70% of all learning that directly
contributes to job performance takes place on the job. 2. Personal responsibility and motivation
are key partners to external support and reinforcement efforts for optimal performance” (p. 15).
In recognition of this second point, a commitment to growth is included as a critical behavior for
MGOs.
Table 5
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
MGO critical
behavior
Metric(s) Managers’ evaluation
method(s)
Timing
1) Engage in
purposeful,
productive
communication with
prospects that
addresses
philanthropy
Prospects move
through stage codes
(e.g., qualification,
cultivation,
solicitation, etc.);
proposals are
planned and
presented; gifts are
closed
Observe in the field
(e.g., joint visits);
read contact reports;
review proposal and
gift reports; discuss
progress with
prospects in meetings
Ongoing activity
with progress
evident in
metrics within
24 months
(MGO)
Ongoing
monitoring and
support
(Manager)

2) Elicit, connect, and
synthesize ideas and
information to align
prospect interests
and institutional
priorities
Individualized
cultivation &/or
solicitation
strategies developed
for prospects;
proposals are
planned and
presented
Observe in the field;
read contact reports;
discuss prospects’
interests in meetings;
seek feedback from
academic &
administrative
partners
Ongoing activity
with progress
evident in
metrics within
18 months
(MGO)
Ongoing
monitoring and
support
(Manager)

189
MGO critical
behavior
Metric(s) Managers’ evaluation
method(s)
Timing
3) Use prospect
information (e.g.,
linkage, ability,
interest, motivation,
etc.) to prioritize,
plan & execute
engagement,
cultivation &
solicitation
Individualized
engagement,
cultivation &/or
solicitation
strategies developed
for prospects;
proposals are
planned and
presented
Observe in the field;
read contact reports
and prospect
strategies; discuss
prospect strategies in
meetings
Ongoing activity
with progress
evident in
metrics within
18 months
(MGO)
Ongoing
monitoring and
support
(Manager)

4) Utilize planning and
organization
techniques to set and
accomplish
challenging, but
achievable
fundraising activity
and dollar goals

Annual fundraising
activity and dollar
goals are
established;
progress toward
goals is measured
Review fundraising
activity metrics and
dollars raised (e.g.,
through dashboard
&/or reports)
against % of fiscal
year elapsed to
monitor pace of
progress
Annual operating
plan with
quarterly &/or
monthly
review (MGO
& Manager)
5) Build strong,
multifaceted
relationships with
prospects that
increase trust and
interest in the
organization and
result in giving
Prospect cultivation
&/or solicitation
strategies include
academic &/or
administrative
partners; prospects
move through stage
codes; prospects
become donors
Observe in the field;
read contact reports;
discuss prospects’
engagement in one-
on-one meetings;
seek feedback from
academic &
administrative
partners
Ongoing activity
with progress
evident in
metrics within
18 months
(MGO)
Ongoing
monitoring and
support
(Manager)

6) Provide attentive
customer service that
anticipates and
responds to donors’
needs and
expectations and
results in donor
retention
Number and timing of
contact reports
demonstrates
regular contact;
quality interaction
reflected in contact
reports;
individualized
stewardship plan

Review number,
timing, and quality of
contact reports
Ongoing activity
(MGO) and
review
(Manager)
7) Demonstrate
commitment to
growth through
professional
Participation in
training and PD
activities;
fundraising activity
Incorporate PD in
annual plans and
reviews; monitor
participation in
Ongoing activity
(MGO) and
monitoring,
review,

190
MGO critical
behavior
Metric(s) Managers’ evaluation
method(s)
Timing
development (PD)
and productive
response to
challenges, setbacks
&/or changes in the
environment
metrics; qualitative
assessment of
professional growth,
adaptability, and
resilience in annual
performance review
training and PD;
review fundraising
activity metrics;
prompt reflection on
growth and discuss
challenges in one-on-
one meetings
prompts, and
discussions
(Manager)

Annual
performance
review and
plan for the
next year
(MGO &
Manager)

Required Drivers
To help MGOs adopt these critical behaviors, an advancement organization needs
systems and processes that provide support and accountability while driving continuous
performance monitoring. For example, modeling, on-the-job training, and reminders provide
reinforcement of critical behaviors; recognition rewards them; coaching and mentoring provide
encouragement; and observation, reviewing work and metrics, and regular one-on-one meetings
provide monitoring. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) note that:
organizations that reinforce the knowledge and skills learned during training with
accountability and support systems can expect as much as 85% application on the job.
Conversely, companies that rely primarily on training events alone to create good job
performance achieve around a 15% success rate (Brinkerhoff, 2006). (loc. 496)
As shown in Table 6, managers play a key role in implementing these support and accountability
systems. For example, as MGOs practice engaging prospects in purposeful, productive
conversations that address philanthropy, managers can support them by accompanying them on
visits, prompting timely reflection, and providing feedback on whether and how their questions

191
elicited useful information and guided the conversation toward giving. This kind of coaching
provides encouragement while improving performance. In a learning culture, managers play a
vital role in turning work activities into valuable learning experiences for team members who are
acquiring and honing new knowledge, skills, and abilities on the job, which is something all
advancement professionals must do as they assume responsibility for frontline fundraising.
Table 6
Required Drivers to Support MGO Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Reinforcing
Modeling by Advancement
managers and leadership
Ongoing expectation that managers and
leadership who manage relationships
with donors and prospects model
critical behaviors for major gift
officers

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
On-the-job training through
observation, guidance,
practice, and feedback
In daily interactions for novices and
decreasing frequency as competency
in critical behaviors progresses

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Managers and guides remind
MGOs when and how to
perform critical behaviors
In daily interactions for novices and
decreasing frequency as competency
in critical behaviors progresses

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Worked examples and other job
aids that provide guidance,
such as sample questions to
ask in discovery visits, a
template for contact reports,
program overviews, etc.

Provide relevant job aids in training
sessions and make them available
online on demand; encourage use
through reminders (above)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Community(ies) of practice that
gathers MGOs from across
organization
Organizational support for monthly,
bimonthly, or quarterly gatherings as
well as ongoing communication
channels (e.g., Slack, Teams, etc.)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
esp. 7

192
Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported
Encouraging
Peer mentoring from more
experienced colleagues in
similar roles
Weekly or biweekly throughout
apprenticeship period

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Mentor program that pairs
MGOs with senior colleagues
outside of their reporting line

Monthly or bimonthly during &/or
beyond apprenticeship period
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Coaching by managers, peers,
&/or certified coaches
Weekly to biweekly (from colleagues)
&/or monthly to bimonthly (from
certified coaches) throughout
apprenticeship period
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Rewarding
Recognition through one-on-
one interaction, in team
meetings, departmental
newsletters, etc.
In response to making progress toward
&/or achieving goals (e.g., closing an
important gift that required effort) or
passing a milestone (e.g., 100
prospects qualified)

4
On-the-spot rewards, such as a
gift card for a coffee shop or
movie tickets, that are
spontaneous and unexpected
In response to excellent performance of
critical behaviors (e.g., converting an
unhappy donor to a happy one)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6
Recognize mastery critical
behaviors by asking MGOs to
guide others

In response to consistent, high-level
performance of one or more critical
behaviors
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Monitoring

Observation by managers and
guides (e.g., during joint
donor visits)
In daily interactions for novices and
decreasing frequency as competency
in critical behaviors progresses

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Work review by manager &/or
guides, depending on critical
behavior (e.g., manager
reviews metrics to monitor 4,
guide reviews draft contact
report after joint visit)

In daily interactions for novices and
decreasing frequency as competency
in critical behaviors progresses
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Regular one-on-one meetings
with manager
Weekly or bi-weekly for novices and
decreasing frequency as competency
in critical behaviors progresses
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

193
Organizational Support
Managers of MGOs typically have individual fundraising goals in addition to their supervisory
responsibilities. Keeping these dual functions in balance can be challenging, and increasing
expectations for managers’ involvement in training MGOs will require, at minimum, a re-
examination of managerial metrics, if not a larger cultural shift. Providing training that
maximizes MGOs’ effectiveness will help achieve the institution’s fundraising goals; however, it
is important to ensure that managers, who are often the institution’s most experienced fundraisers
and carry high-value prospect portfolios, have time to cultivate, solicit, and close gifts.
Distributing responsibilities for training can help preserve managers’ time for other tasks, and
integrating training into everyday activities (e.g., through job shadowing) can help make it time-
efficient. Even so, to meet the training needs of MGOs and support their critical behaviors,
managers require support from the organization. Derived from the sections above on applying
research on organizational behavior and building a complete fundraising training and
management system, Table 7 lays out required drivers that advancement organizations need to
provide managers to support their involvement in training MGOs.
Table 7
Required Drivers to Support Managers as Trainers
Method(s) Timing
Reinforcing
Allocate resources, including dedicated staff and
managers' time, to on-the-job training of MGOs
Ongoing commitment through annual
operating budget, goal-setting
process, and performance evaluation
system
Provide on-the-job training of managers (e.g., train-
the-trainer workshops, coaching training, etc.)
In advance of systemic changes (e.g.,
to goal-setting process and
performance evaluation system) and
group training for MGOs (i.e., to
promote transfer), and periodic

194
Method(s) Timing
cohort-based training (e.g.,
coaching)
Require managers to participate in key onboarding,
training, &/or professional development activities
for frontline fundraisers
Quarterly (or regular participation in
organization's calendar of
onboarding, training, & PD)
Create communities of practice for managers as well
as MGOs
Organizational support for monthly,
bimonthly, or quarterly gatherings
as well as ongoing communication
channels (e.g., Slack, Teams, etc.)
Engage managers in building, analyzing, and
reflecting on organizational culture
Quarterly, semiannually, or annually
(e.g., in retreats for management
and leadership)
Model behaviors expected of managers Ongoing expectation that leadership
will participate in training activities
and provide coaching and mentoring
to their direct reports (e.g.,
managers)
Encouraging
Peer mentoring from senior colleagues in similar
roles
Monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly,
especially for new managers
Coaching by certified coaches &/or colleagues
trained as coaches
Monthly to bimonthly, especially
during period of adjustment to new
expectations for training MGOs
Rewarding
Recognize managers' achievements in helping others
succeed in conducting performance evaluations,
determining merit increases, and in succession
planning and promotion opportunities
Annually (performance evaluations
and merit increases) and ongoing
(succession planning and
promotion)
When recognizing an MGO's achievement (e.g.,
closing their first major gift), as appropriate,
mention the manager/mentor/colleague(s) who
helped them succeed &/or encourage MGOs to
thank/credit colleagues who helped them
Regularly in staff meetings led by
advancement leadership, in
departmental newsletters, etc.
Recognize masterful management by asking
managers to help train, coach, &/or mentor others
In response to consistent pattern of
increasing performance by new
team members

195
Method(s) Timing
Monitoring
Create performance expectations and measures for
managers that include and reflect successful
training of MGOs (e.g., team goals)
Ongoing commitment through annual
goal-setting process and
performance evaluation system
Review team as well as individual progress to goals Monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly
Include team member growth as a standing agenda
item in managers' meetings with supervisors
Monthly, bimonthly, or quarterly

Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe learning as “the degree to which participants
acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment based on their
participation in the training” (p. 42). The expert panel in this study identified and clarified 49
tasks and behaviors essential to major gifts fundraising. To learn to perform these essential tasks
and behaviors, MGOs need guidance from more experienced practitioners. To provide an
individualized, apprenticeship-style training program, managers also need training and support.
Train-the-trainer workshops, communities of practice for managers, ongoing support from
learning and development staff, and an organizational culture that values and makes time for
learning can help managers acquire the KSAs, confidence, and commitment necessary to help
MGOs learn and grow on the job.
Learning Goals and Programs
Managers of MGOs are typically expert major gift fundraisers themselves. This subject
matter expertise makes them good guides for on-the-job learning; however, as noted previously,
because experts perform complex tasks automatically, they may skip key steps in explaining
procedures to novices (Ambrose et al., 2010; Clark et al., 2008; Feldon, 2006). Train-the-trainer

196
workshops can help subject matter experts (SMEs) be more conscious of how they accomplish
essential tasks and behaviors and how to provide guidance to learners with different levels of
experience performing them. Teaching managers basic instructional skills—e.g., how to present
content clearly, facilitate dialogue and practice, ensure that MGOs master learning objectives,
and help them use what they’ve learned (i.e., knowledge transfer)—provides a foundation on
which to build a complete fundraising training and management system.
A next step is training fundraising managers in coaching techniques that prepare them to
work with team members to determine goals, diagnose performance issues, find solutions for
addressing them, monitor and assess progress, and give constructive feedback. When team
members may have both skill and motivation challenges at work, Clark (2007) notes that
coaching is the preferred management approach. Clark (2007) draws on situational interest
motivation theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) to provide specific guidance for various combinations
of skill and motivation, which are outlined in Figure 16. Coaching training for managers that
uses a cohort model provides opportunities for colleagues to practice techniques on one another,
benefit from each other’s insights during coaching sessions, and build support networks that are
useful when difficult coaching situations arise. Certified coaches as instructors, such as those
with International Coaching Federation (ICF) credentials, can provide guidance on coaching
techniques. Honing skills commonly used in coaching, including asking open-ended questions,
active listening, responding without judgment, eliciting (instead of providing) solutions, and
building trust, is useful not only in working with team members, but also with major gift donors.
Thus, coaching training can help managers become better fundraisers, better workplace learning
guides, and better leaders.

197
Figure 16
Guidance for Coaching Managers from Clark (2007)

Providing fundraising managers with additional management and leadership training may
increase their confidence as managers while expanding their skill sets. Many higher education
advancement organizations are relatively flat, in part to enable MGOs to focus on fundraising
rather than supervisory responsibilities. Thus, fundraising managers may have considerable
depth and range of fundraising knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) built over years of
practice, yet have underdeveloped management KSAs due to limited experience. As successful
fundraisers take on supervisory responsibilities, providing management training, coaching, and
mentoring can support their professional growth and help them successfully lead teams of
MGOs. Communities of practice can help managers build peer networks, discuss common

198
challenges, and develop solutions. As managers gain experience and seek opportunities to
improve and grow, cohort-based leadership training can provide further professional
development and strengthen peer support networks.
These three approaches to supporting managers—train-the-trainer workshops, cohort-
based coaching instruction, and professional development in management and leadership—can
strengthen an advancement organization’s learning culture. By assuming their responsibility to
continue to grow and improve, managers and leaders model the importance of personal mastery
and set this expectation for team members at all levels of their organization.
Evaluation of Learning. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend a variety of
ways to gauge on-the-job learning. Formative assessments, including discussions, individual
and/or group activities, role play, and knowledge tests, can provide immediate feedback about
how well participants are grasping new concepts and mastering new skills during training.
Summative assessments, including post-training tests, final presentations, teach-back activities,
demonstrations and/or performance tests, action planning, surveys, interviews, and focus groups,
can indicate how effective the training program has been in helping participants acquire the
intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment to using them.
In train-the-trainer workshops, providing opportunities to practice instructional skills, ask
questions, and discuss expectations can help build managers’ confidence as guides and
commitment to on-the-job training. Administering a post-training assessment that includes
several retrospective pre- and post-training items—e.g., asking participants to think back to what
they knew before training compared to what they know following training—can help illuminate
managers’ newfound insight into their subject matter expertise, how to break down complex
tasks for novices, and how to provide on-the-job guidance and instruction.

199
Coaching training typically provides opportunities for practice (e.g., on other participants
during training sessions and on volunteers outside of training sessions) that can serve as
formative assessments. Instructors and/or mentor coaches may watch or listen to practice
sessions and provide feedback on participants’ use of coaching techniques. ICF certification
requires a range of assessments, including training hours, practice hours, mentor coaching,
performance assessments, and a written exam. These formative and summative assessments can
be adapted to evaluate coaching training for fundraising managers.
Just as management and leadership training can take a variety of forms, so can their
evaluation. Focusing on assessing gains in knowledge, skill, attitude, confidence, and
commitment, as Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest, during training (i.e., formative
assessments) and at the end of training (summative assessments) can provide the feedback
necessary to choose and refine training programs that are effective for higher education
advancement. Investments in professional development that demonstrate a good return are more
likely to be continued. Level 2 assessments are useful to determine learning; however, Level 3
assessments, which focus on changes in behavior, and Level 4 assessments, which focus on
results, are important to evaluate training for managers as well as training for MGOs.
Level 1: Reaction
In the new world Kirkpatrick model, which builds on the evaluation model laid out in
Evaluating Training Programs (Kirkpatrick, 1993), the first and most immediate form of
evaluation is gauging the reactions of participants to assess “the degree to which participants find
the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p.
39). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend a variety of formative evaluation methods
for use during a training session, including observation by the instructor and/or a dedicated

200
observer to monitor participant engagement and stopping to ask participants for feedback. They
also offer advice for summative evaluation following training. Surveys are commonly used to
assess participant reactions. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend using short, simple
surveys that focus on the most important elements to track over time so that evaluation resources,
including staff time, can be conserved for the higher levels of evaluation: learning, behavior, and
results.
Time is also in short supply for managers, who balance supervisory and fundraising
responsibilities. In evaluating managers’ reactions to train-the-trainer workshops, coaching
programs, and leadership and management training, monitoring participants’ feelings about the
usefulness of training as it is taking place and focusing on areas of concern (e.g., by adjusting
training to incorporate timely examples, case studies, and/or areas of emphasis) may increase
participants’ engagement and satisfaction. can allay concerns about the required time
commitment to create and sustain a learning culture in an advancement organization. In addition
to the time managers need to spend providing guidance to MGOs, they need to devote time to
train-the-trainer workshops, coaching training, management training, and leadership
development. While these forms of group training can be delivered effectively and efficiently,
monitoring managers’ engagement in, and satisfaction with training can be useful to adjust
training sessions—in real time and going forward—to increase their relevance. In addition,
assessing managers’ reactions to training, as well as their ongoing participation in communities
of practice, can help gauge their commitment to building a learning culture.
The commitment by management and leadership to the key components of a culture of
learning and continuous improvement, which Senge (2006) describes as (a) pursuing personal
mastery; (b) revising mental models; (c) building shared visions; (d) team learning; and (e)

201
systems thinking, will have a far greater impact than any one training session. In addition to the
training for managers described above, periodic facilitated retreats may be useful to maintain
managers’ commitment to a learning culture and its critical importance in developing sustained,
exceptional fundraising (Sargeant & Shang, 2016).
In sum, effectively gauging participants’ reactions to training is useful not only to adjust
training sessions as they are happening and to improve them over time, but also to monitor the
ongoing commitment of managers of MGOs, who are key stakeholders in higher education
advancement, to creating and sustaining a culture of learning and continuous improvement.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the Recommendations
Relying on managers to provide timely and effective training and development to MGOs
has several important limitations that must be taken into account. First, managers typically have
their own fundraising expectations. In higher education advancement, it is common for
fundraisers with proven success securing major gifts to be promoted into management with the
expectation that they will lead by example. In some institutions, managers have ambitious
individual fundraising goals as well as similar activity metrics as the MGOs they supervise, and
the common practice of circulating progress reports can invite comparisons between managers
and fundraisers. This practice can create disincentives to spend time training, developing, and
managing team members. When managers feel they must outperform their team members and/or
are too busy working with their own donors and prospects to make time for their reports,
training, development, and team performance suffers. This situation can be compounded when
managers’ job descriptions and/or performance evaluations do not explicitly include expectations
around the training, development, and guidance of the MGOs on their teams. If managers’

202
contributions to the success of their teams will not be evaluated, they have little incentive to
devote time and attention to helping them succeed.
Lively (2017) argues for small, focused portfolios, suggests different metrics for
managers, and builds assisting others with gift proposals into evaluations in order to maximize
fundraising performance. In assessing different approaches to metrics, EAB (2015) notes that
team goals help promote collaboration, information sharing, positive organizational cultures, and
donor-centric approaches while requiring consistent managerial oversight. Organizations can
encourage managers to view their team members’ success as an important part of their own by
adjusting metrics to promote collaboration and other essential behaviors (e.g., by balancing
individual with team goals), setting measurable objectives around management responsibilities,
including training and developing MGOs, and building sufficient time for these responsibilities
into managers’ job descriptions.
Another limitation to this approach is the scope of each manager’s knowledge about
major gifts and their ability to share what they know in ways that novices can understand and
use. Utilizing group training for MGOs, particularly for hard skills (e.g., explaining the tax
implications of charitable giving), as a complement to individualized training can compensate for
uneven knowledge among managers. Further, incorporating training for managers through train-
the-trainer and coaching workshops can help them be more effective in training MGOs.
Coaching’s emphasis on helping participants see challenges more clearly and find ways to
resolve them shifts the responsibility for solving every problem away from managers and
supports MGO autonomy. Given the importance of autonomy, mastery, and purpose in
sustaining motivation, this approach can be useful in a variety of ways.

203
Limitations of the Study Design
The Delphi survey technique relies on a panel of experts. In this case, the expertise
sought was major fundraising in higher education advancement. Higher education institutions
typically have sizable, established advancement operations in which major gifts programs are
clearly defined and play a leading role in fundraising. The results of this study may not be
generalizable to other nonprofit organizations, particularly those with a small advancement staff,
in which members may play a variety of roles, and/or those that rely heavily on grants, annual
giving, or other forms of fundraising.
As noted in Chapter 4, 77 panelists represented 50 institutions (26 private and 24 public)
in 21 states across the United States, with an emphasis on doctoral universities (71%). The
panelists’ collective input, based on an average of two decades of experience in institutional
advancement, provides insight into a typical university fundraising operation. The results of the
study may not be fully generalizable to very small higher education institutions and/or those with
highly specialized fundraising operations in which major gifts play a limited role; however, the
study findings may be useful to small-scale higher education advancement operations that seek
to strengthen their major gifts programs.
Because the Delphi technique relies on successive survey rounds, it is not uncommon for
the participation rate of panelists to decrease with each survey. In this study, the results of survey
Round One reflect the input of all 77 panelists, whereas the results of rounds two and three
reflect a subset of the panel (i.e., 54 panelists began and 47 completed Round Two, and 47 began
and 33 completed Round Three). The larger sample size in the earlier survey rounds may provide
a broader perspective on the questions investigated in those rounds (i.e., essential fundraising
tasks and behaviors for MGOs and current training methods).

204
Limitations of the Study Findings
This study sought to address three research questions:
1. What fundraising tasks, attitudes, and behaviors do managers of major gift officers
(MGOs) working in higher education identify as essential for MGOs to meet their
performance goals?
2. How do managers help MGOs learn to perform essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors?
a. For each task, attitude, or behavior, which training methods, if any, do
managers use with MGOs at various experience levels?
3. What recommendations for knowledge, motivation, and organization can be made for
managers to guide MGO learning and practice of fundraising?
The data gathered for research question 2.a. lack the depth of data gathered for research
questions 1, 2, and 3. Answering this question more definitively would increase understanding of
current training approaches and might provide useful information for guiding MGO training at
various experience levels.
Recommendations for Future Research
Beyond research to provide a more nuanced understanding of current training methods
for MGOs with various levels of experience, the results of this study suggest several pathways
for future research and innovation. First, creating a training curriculum for MGOs that utilizes
these findings, particularly the essential fundraising tasks and behaviors identified by managers,
is a logical next step in this line of research. As noted throughout this dissertation, the success of
higher education advancement relies on on-the-job training, which, for the most part, has been
developed informally over decades of practice. Although CFRE first performed a job analysis of

205
fundraisers in the 1980s and, since then, has refined six domains of fundraising tasks and
knowledge required of fundraising executives, no such analysis has previously been performed
for the MGO role. The goal of CFRE’s work has been to provide professional certification, and
this credential is useful across the nonprofit sector; however, new entrants to the profession
require considerable training prior to taking the CFRE exam. In higher education advancement,
which, particularly during large-scale campaigns, employs a large workforce with an emphasis
on major gifts fundraising, proactive, ongoing, and effective training can play a vital role in
fundraising performance. For several decades, following public universities’ entrée to
fundraising in the 1970s and 1980s and the emergence of billion-dollar campaigns across public
and private universities in the 1990s, demand for experienced MGOs has outstripped supply, yet
higher education institutions are uniquely equipped to train entrants to the profession. Additional
research to develop, test, and assess the effectiveness of a training curriculum informed by the
accumulated expertise of this study’s expert panel could be a great asset to college and university
fundraising and, potentially, the wider advancement profession.
Second, the work of this study’s panel of managers of MGOs to (a) identify essential
tasks and behaviors in major gifts fundraising, (b) describe current fundraising methods, and (c)
rate their effectiveness provides a model that can be replicated for other specialized fundraising
roles in areas such as annual giving, foundation relations, and corporate engagement. Further,
common higher education programs, such as reunion and parent giving, could be investigated in
a similar manner as this study’s approach to defining essential tasks and behaviors in major gifts
fundraising.
Using mixed methods research techniques, such as the Delphi survey technique, to seek
input from experts across higher education advancement will add valuable, actionable knowledge

206
to a field whose importance is growing. As discussed in Chapter Two, philanthropic support has
become a key revenue source, together with tuition, fees, and grants, for both private and public
higher education (Speck, 2010). As federal and state funding for higher education fluctuate,
endowment payout and gifts for current use can provide steady support. In some public systems,
state funding as a proportion of the total operating budget has declined substantially since the
1980s. For example, in the current budget for the University of California, private support (7% of
total) now approaches state general funds (8.3%) and tuition and fees (9.3%) as a source of
revenue (University of California, 2021-22). Meanwhile, from 1980 to 2004, college tuition
increased faster than inflation, requiring a larger proportion of family income (Bundick &
Pollard, 2019). Philanthropy provides assets that increase access to higher education, provide
stable, reliable income, and support capital investments and other large, one-time investments. In
short, gifts have become an indispensable component of college and university operating budgets
while providing soft money for seed funding, buildings, and a variety of other projects and
programs that, over time, create a margin of excellence for our institutions.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to assess needs in the areas of knowledge and skill,
motivation, and organizational behaviors necessary for MGOs to attain their fundraising goals
and to suggest a framework for managers to use in training MGOs that is grounded in research in
learning and motivation and attuned to the professional culture of institutional advancement.
This study defines 49 tasks and behaviors essential to successful major gift fundraising in higher
education, provides insight into current training methods, and reveals managers’ lack of
confidence in a prevalent approach. The essential tasks and behaviors for MGOs are categorized
by knowledge (K), motivation (M), and organizational behavior (O) and grouped into four

207
thematic areas—connecting and communicating, relationship building and customer service,
planning and organization, and commitment to growth—that may be useful in organizing an in-
house training and professional development curriculum for MGOs.
Further, this study draws on research in learning, motivation, organizational behavior,
and institutional advancement to recommend specific approaches to on-the-job training for
MGOs. The recommended approaches to training have a common theme: intentionality. For
many years, higher education advancement relied on ad hoc training; today, group training is
prevalent. Building a learning culture that values personal mastery and continuous
improvement, thoughtfully integrating timely, targeted group training with informal
apprenticeships, and training managers to train, coach, and mentor team members can help
higher education advancement operations work more effectively and attain ever-increasing
fundraising goals.

208
References
Adams, M.F. (1993). How to solicit a major gift. In Worth, M.J. (Ed.), American Council on
Education Series on Higher Education. Educational fund raising: Principles and practice
(pp. 131-140). The Oryx Press.
Aldrich, E. E. (2016). Fundraising as a profession. In E. R. Tempel, T. L. Seiler & D. F.
Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 503-516). Wiley.
Aldrich, E. E. (2017). Creating fundraising professionals: The development of the certified fund
raising executive credential (Order No. 10683616). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1984983098). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1984983098?accountid=14749
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (2009). Oriented towards mastery: Promoting positive
motivational goals for students.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich,
Raths, J. and Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing:
A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Pearson.
Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian
equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–58.
Argote, L., & Fahrenkopf, E. (2016). Knowledge transfer in organizations: The roles of
members, tasks, tools, and networks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 136, 146-159.

209
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness.
Jossey Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective.
Addison Wesley.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Association of Fundraising Professionals (1993). The donor bill of rights.
https://www.afpnet.org/ethics/enforcementDetail.cfm?ItemNumber=3359
Association of Fundraising Professionals and The Chronicle of Philanthropy in conjunction with
The Harris Poll (2019). Job satisfaction and workplace issues in the fundraising
profession: Executive summary.
https://afpglobal.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2019-
08/JobSatisfactionWorkplaceIssuesFundraisingProfessionEXECUTIVESUMMARY.pdf
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-
1184.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-
147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

210
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic
interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
41(3), 586.
Bell, J. and Cornelius, M. (2013). Underdeveloped: A national study of challenges facing
nonprofit fundraising. CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Evelyn and Walter
Haas, Jr. Fund. https://www.compasspoint.org/underdeveloped
Billett, S. (2000). Guided learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, (12)7, 272-285.
Bloland, H. G., & Bornstein, R. (1990). On the transformation of an administrative occupation:
Professionalization processes and university fund raising. ASHE Annual Meeting Paper.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as
effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4-16.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Boverini, L. (2006). When venture philanthropy rocks the ivory tower. International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 6(2), 84–106.
Bowman III, N. (2010). Cultivating future fundraisers of color at historically black colleges and
universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(3), 230-234.
doi:10.1057/ijea.2010.19
Brady, S. R. (2015). Utilizing and adapting the Delphi method for use in qualitative research.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(5),
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621381

211
Breeze, B. (2013). How donors choose charities: the role of personal taste and experiences in
giving decisions. Voluntary Sector Review, 4(2), 165–83.
https://doi.org/10.1332/204080513X667792
Brinkerhoff, R.O. 2006. Telling Training’s Story: Evaluation Made Simple, Credible, and
Effective. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Brittingham, B. E. and Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The campus green: Fundraising in higher
education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. School of Education and Human
Development, The George Washington University.
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Norton.
Buchanan, P. M., Ed. (2000). Handbook of institutional advancement (3
rd
ed.). CASE Books.
Bundick, B., & Pollard, E. (2019). The rise and fall of college tuition inflation. Economic
Review, 1612387(104), 1-19.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Employment projections 2014 to 2024.
https://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2017.
https://www.bls.gov/oes/2017/may/oes131131.htm
Burnett, K. (2002). Relationship fundraising. Jossey-Bass.
Caboni, T. C. (2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors.
The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 339-353. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0094
Caboni, T. C., & Proper, E. (2007, November). Dissertations related to fundraising and their
implications for higher education. In Association for the Study of Higher Education
annual meeting held in Louisville, KY. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED498936.pdf

212
Carbone, R. F. (1989). Fund raising as a profession. Clearinghouse for Research on Fund
Raising.
Carbone, R. (1990). Is fundraising a profession? Not yet. Nonprofit World, 8(1). The Society of
Nonprofit Organizations.
CFRE (2018). Test content outline. https://www.cfre.org/certification/initial/test-content-outline/
Clark, R. E. (2007). A performance-based coaching system for managers [conference
presentation]. 2007 Learning and Performance Strategies Conference.
Clark, R. E. and Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clark, R.E., Feldon, D., Van Merrienboer, J.J.G., Yates, K., and Early, S. (2008) Cognitive task
analysis. In J.M. Spector, M.D. Merrill, J.J.G. van Merrienboer, & M.P. Driscoll (Eds.).
Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Collins, C. (2013). Science behind the art: ROI for frontline fundraisers.
http://www.supportingadvancement.com/revenue/general/carrie_collins_
science_and_ROI_behind_fundraising.pdf
Cook, W., & Lasher, W. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher education. Review of
Higher Education, 20(1), 33–51.
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (2020). CASE File: Largest Campaigns
in the United States.
https://www.case.org/system/files/media/file/CASE_File_Largest_Campaigns_United_St
ates_15.pdf

213
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (2013). Pay check: results of the 2013
CASE Compensation Survey.
http://www.case.org/Documents/protected/Research/salarysurvey/2013_Compensation_S
urvey_PAY_CHECK.pdf
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (2016). Pay check: results of the 2016
CASE Compensation Survey. https://www.case.org/resources/2016-case-compensation-
survey-results
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, Board of Trustees. (2014). Principles of
practice for fundraising professionals at educational institutions.
http://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Principles_of_Practice/Principles_of
_Practice_for_Fundraising_Professionals_at_Educational_Institutions.html
Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, Board of Trustees. (1982). Statement of
ethics.
http://www.case.org/Samples_Research_and_Tools/Ethics_Resources_and_Issues/CASE
_Statement_of_Ethics.html
Council for Aid to Education (2012, 2013, 2014, 2017). Voluntary support of education [data
set]. http://vse.cae.org/info.cfm?uuid=458955EFC6F44CA5&msg=contactus
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). http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.18666/JNEL-
2019-V9-I4-9000
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

214
Cutlip, S. M. (1990). Fundraising in the United States: Its role in America’s philanthropy
(Transaction Edition). Transaction Publishers. (Original work published 1965)
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & LeFevre, J. (1989). Optimal experience in work and leisure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 815.
Dajani, J. S. (1979). Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 13, 83-90.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use
of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458-467.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Plenum.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
Macmillan.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives.
Management Review, 70(11), 35–36.
Dove, K.E. (2000). Cultivating and soliciting major gift prospects. In K. Dove, Ed., Conducting
a successful capital campaign (2nd ed., pp. 109-123). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

215
Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in
directed skill acquisition (No. ORC-80-2). California Univ Berkeley Operations Research
Center.
Drezner, N. D. (2011). Philanthropy and fundraising in American higher education, Volume 37,
Number 2. John Wiley & Sons.
Drezner, N. D., & Huehls, F. (2014). Fundraising and institutional advancement: Theory,
practice, and new paradigms. Routledge.
Drollinger, T. (2018). Using active empathetic listening to build relationships with major-gift
donors. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(1), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2017.1326336
Duffy, A., Palafox, P., and Rojas, S. (unpublished). The discovery challenge: Motivating
fundraisers to find new prospects. [final paper for EDUC 712: Issues in Human
Motivation, spring 2017]
Duncan, B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88 (9–10),
2159–2180.
Dunlop, D.R. (1993). Major gift programs. In Worth, M.J. (Ed.), American Council on
Education Series on Higher Education. Educational fund raising: Principles and practice
(pp. 97-116). The Oryx Press.
Dunlop, D.R. (2002). Major gift programs. In Worth, M.J. (Ed.), American Council on
Education Series on Higher Education. New strategies for educational fund raising (pp.
89-111). Praeger Publishers.
Duronio, M. A., & Tempel, E. R. (1997). Fund raisers: Their careers, stories, concerns, and
accomplishments. Jossey-Bass.

216
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.
Eccles, J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J., & Midgley, C.
(1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement
and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: Freeman.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual review of
psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Edmonson, A. (2015). Get rid of unhealthy competition on your team. Harvard Business Review.
Available at https://hbr.org/2015/06/get-rid-of-unhealthy-competition-on-your-team
Education Advisory Board (2013). Measuring advancement’s return on investment:
Advancement metrics, methodology, and results. https://www.eab.com/research-and-
insights/advancement-forum/custom/2013/11/measuring-advancements-return-on-
investment
Education Advisory Board (2014). Competing for talent: 9 strategies for improving major gift
officer recruitment. https://www.eab.com/-/media/EAB/Research-and-
Insights/AF/Studies/2015/Competing-for-Talent/Competing-for-Talent.pdf
Education Advisory Board (2015). Making meaning of metrics: Leveraging accountability and
analytics to enhance fundraiser productivity. https://www.eab.com/research-and-
insights/advancement-forum/studies/2016/making-meaning-of-metrics
Education Advisory Board (2016). The professional development playbook: A toolkit to target
skill building and maximize advancement staff performance.
https://eab.com/research/advancement/toolkit/the-professional-development-playbook/
Education Advisory Board (2017). Elevating inclusion: Building a diverse volunteer community.
https://eab.com/research/advancement/study/elevating-inclusion-2/

217
EAB Advancement Forum (2018). Gifted and talented: What makes a top fundraiser in the age
of venture philanthropy?
EAB (2016). To retain top talent, managers matter: 5 imperatives to help guide managers to
success. https://eab.com/insights/expert-insight/advancement/to-retain-top-talent-
managers-matter/
EAB (2016). Training programs for advancement staff. Advancement forum research brief.
EAB (2016). The professional development playbook: A toolkit to target skill building and
maximize advancement staff performance. https://attachment.eab.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/32843-Professional-Development-Playbook.pdf
Elder, S. D. (2010). Recruiting, training, and retaining high-performance development teams.
New Directions for Higher Education, 149. 81– 88.
English, J.M. and Kernan, G.L. (1976). The prediction of air travel and aircraft technology to the
year 2000 using the Delphi method. Transportation Research, 10(1), pp. 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(76)90094-0.
Feldon, D. (2006). Expertise. http://www. education.com/reference/article/ expertise/
Fink, A. (2017). How to conduct surveys (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J. Chassin, M., & Brook, R.H. (1984). Consensus methods: Characteristics
and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health 74(9), 979-983.
Freeman, T.M., & Hermanson, E. (2016). Volunteer management. In E. R. Tempel, T. L. Seiler
& D. F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 451-464).
Wiley.
Fusch, D. (2018). Professional development in higher education survey. Academic Impressions.
https://www.academicimpressions.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/pd-report-2017.pdf

218
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
Galford, R., & Drapeau, A. S. (2003). The enemies of trust. Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 88-
95.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gamble, P. R., Stone, M., Woodcock, N., & Foss, B. (1999). Up close and personal? Customer
relationship marketing @ work. Kogan Page.
Gasman, M. and Bowman III, N. (2013). Engaging diverse college alumni: the essential guide to
fundraising. Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6),
49-50.
Goode, W. J. (1969). The theoretical limits of professionalization. In A. Etzoni (Ed.), The semi-
professions and their organization. Free Press.
Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: a critique. Journal of advanced nursing, 12(6),
729-734.
Goody, E. N. (1989). Learning, apprenticeship and the division of labor. In M. W. Coy (Ed.),
Apprenticeship: From theory to method and back again (pp. 233— 256). State University
of New York Press.
Grabau, T. (2012). Major gift metrics that matter. Colloquy, 20(2), 36-40.

219
Graham, S., & Williams, C. (2009). An attributional approach to motivation in school. In K.R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school, (pp. 11-33).
Routledge.
Greenhoe, J. (2013). Opening the Door to Major Gifts: Mastering the Discovery Call.
CharityChannel Press. Kindle Edition.
Grenzebach, Glier & Associates (2016). Fundraising, Staffing and Expenditures Report: XXXX
University Advancement Program Review; Benchmark Cohort. [Unpublished,
confidential report]
Grubaugh, L. S. (2019). Institutional advancement in higher education: Managing gift officer
performance and turnover (Order No. 27798519). Dissertations & Theses @ University
of Southern California. (2352654829). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/2352654829?accountid=14749
Habibi, A., Sarafrazi, A., & Izadyar, S. (2014). Delphi technique theoretical framework in
qualitative research. The International Journal of Engineering and Science, 3(4), 8-13.
Hagel III, J., & Engelbert, C. (2019). Give your employees specific goals and the freedom to
figure out how to reach them. Harvard Business Review. Available at
https://hbr.org/2019/02/give-your-employees-specific-goals-and-the-freedom-to-figure-
out-how-to-reach-them
Hassan, L. (2017). Governments should play games: Towards a framework for the gamification
of civic engagement platforms. Simulation & Gaming, 48(2), 249-267.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey
technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015.

220
Hatano, G. (1982). Cognitive consequences of practice in culture specific procedural skills.
Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 4, 15–18.
Heinzelman, J. R. (2000). Major gifts: Up close and personal. In P. M. Buchanan (Ed.),
Handbook of institutional advancement (3rd ed., pp. 315-319). CASE.
Herzog, P. S., & Price, H. E. (2016). American generosity: Who gives and why. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Hiles, T. S. (2010). Determining the success of fundraising programs. New Directions for Higher
Education, 149, 51– 56. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.380
Holey, E.A., Feeley, J.L., Dixon, J. and Whittaker, V .J. (2007). An exploration of the use of
simple statistics to measure consensus and stability in Delphi studies. BMC Medical
Research Methodology, 7(52). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-52
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.
Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 12(10).
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=10
Huehls, F. (2016). Resources for strengthening fundraising. In E. R. Tempel, T. L. Seiler, & D.
F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (pp. 517-527). Wiley. Kindle
Edition.
Hunt, P. C. (2012). Development for academic leaders: A practical guide for fundraising
success. John Wiley & Sons.
Hurley, R. F. (2006). The decision to trust. Harvard business review, 84(9), 55-62.
Iarrobino, J. D. (2006). Turnover in the advancement profession. International Journal of
Educational Advancement, 6(2), 141-169.

221
Internal Revenue Service (2019). Publication 526: Charitable contributions.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p526.pdf
Isaac, J. D., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other people as a source of interest in an
activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 239-265.
Joslyn, Heather. "What Motivates Different Types of Big Donors." The Chronicle of
Philanthropy, vol. 30, no. 7, May 2018, p. 49. Gale Academic OneFile,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A539922119/AONE?u=usocal_main&sid=AONE&xid=4
10cfaee. Accessed 21 Nov. 2020.
John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind: Explorations of thinking. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. The Delphi technique in nursing and health research
2010. Chichester.
Kelly, K. S. (1991). Fund raising and public relations: A critical analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kirsch, R. P. and Shell, M. W. (2000). Building lasting relationships and developing lead gifts.
In K. Dove, Ed., Conducting a successful capital campaign (2nd ed., pp. 124-135).
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., and Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative
learning: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 31-42.

222
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Knowles, M. S., Holton III, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.).
Routledge.
Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control.
Prentice Hall.
Kozobarich, J. L. (2000). Institutional advancement. New Directions for Higher Education,
2000(111), 25-34.
Lanning, P. I., Jr. (2007). Developing expertise in higher education fundraising: a conceptual
framework (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific).
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304820702
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge University Press.
Leary, M. R., & Cox, C. B. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action. In
J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science. Guilford Press.
Lee, D. H. L. & Shari, I. (2012). Professional identity or best practices? An exploration of the
synergies between professional learning communities and communities of practices.
Creative Education, 3(4), 457-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.34070
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Patall, E. (2015). Motivation. In L. Linnenbrink-Garcia, E. Patall, L.
Corno, & E. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 91-103).
Routledge.

223
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Patall, E. A., & Pekrun, R. (2016). Adaptive motivation and emotion in
education: Research and principles for instructional design. Policy Insights from the
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(2), 228-236.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method (pp. 3-12). Addison-Wesley.
Lively, D. (2017). Managing major gifts fundraisers: A contrarian’s guide. Council for
Advancement and Support of Education.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American psychologist, 57(9), 705.
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In K.
R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77-104).
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13(2), 103–123.
Marion, B. H. (1997). The education of fundraisers. New Directions for Philanthropic
Fundraising, 1997(15), 69-81.
Martin, M. W. (1994). Virtuous giving: Philanthropy, voluntary service, and caring.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Martin, S. (2014). Measuring cognitive load and cognition: Metrics for technology-enhanced
learning. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(7-8), 592-621.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
publications.

224
Maxwell, M. M. and Dunlavy, S. (2016). Marketing and communications for fundraising. In E.R.
Tempel, T.L. Seiler & D.F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th
ed., pp. 337-350). Wiley.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design
of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63(8), 760-769.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson.
Mayer, R. E., & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of research on learning and
instruction (2nd ed.). Routledge.
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text
processing. Educational psychology review, 19(2), 113-139.
McKenna, H. P. (1994). The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing?.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19(6), 1221-1225.
McKenna, R. (1991). Relationship marketing: Successful strategies for the age of the customer.
Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
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.
Meisenbach, R. J. (2004). Framing fund raising: A poststructuralist analysis of higher education
fund raisers' work and identities (Order No. 3154694). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (305149786). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/305149786?accountid=14749
Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

225
Mintzberg, H. (1998). Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals. Harvard Business
Review, 76, 140-148.
Nagaraj, A. J. (2015). Gifted and talented: What makes a top fundraiser in the age of venture
philanthropy? Education Advancement Board.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). Employees in degree-granting postsecondary
institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, employment status, control and level of institution,
and primary occupation: fall 2013.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_314.40.asp?current=yes
National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Fall enrollment of U.S. residents in degree-
granting postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity: selected years, 1976 through 2025.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_306.30.asp?current=yes
National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Voluntary support for degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by source and purpose of support: Selected years, 1949-50
through 2014-15. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_333.80.asp
Nonprofit Academic Centers Council. 2007. “Curricular Guidelines for Graduate Study in
Nonprofit Leadership, the Nonprofit Sector and Philanthropy.” Cleveland, OH: Nonprofit
Academic Centers Council.
O'Clery, C. (2007). The Billionaire who wasn't: How Chuck Feeney secretly made and gave
away a fortune. PublicAffairs.
Oliver, F. H. (1999). Fellow beggars: The history of fund raising campaigning in United States
higher education (Order No. 9939532). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(304499934). http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/304499934?accountid=14749

226
Osili, U., Clark, C., St Claire, M., & Bergdoll, J. (2016). The 2016 US Trust® Study of High Net
Worth Philanthropy.
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-
efficacy-theory/
Panas, J. (1999). Finders keepers: Lessons I’ve learned about dynamic fundraising. Bonus
Books, Inc.
Panas, J. (1984). Mega gifts: Who gives them, who gets them. Bonus Books.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Peet, M. R., Walsh, K., Sober, R., & Rawak, C. S. (2010). Generative knowledge interviewing:
A method for knowledge transfer and talent management at the University of Michigan.
International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2), 71-85.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In New
perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23-39). Springer, New York, NY.
Pekrun, R., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2012). Academic emotions and student engagement. In
Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 259-282). Springer, Boston, MA.
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Pribbenow, P. (1994). Fundraising as public service: Renewing the moral meaning of the
profession. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1994(6), 27-48.
Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new approach to
cultivating major donors. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

227
Proper, E., & Caboni, T. (2014). Institutional advancement: What we know. Springer.
Proper, E., Caboni, T. C., Hartley III, H. V., & Willmer, W. K. (2009). ‘More bang for the buck’:
Examining influencers of fundraising efficiency and total dollars raised. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(1), 35 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijea.2009.19
Purcell, P.M. (2016). The law and fundraising. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler & D.F. Burlingame
(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 337-350). Wiley.
Regenovich, D. (2016). Establishing a planned giving program. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler &
D.F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 337-350).
Wiley.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford
University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2008). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. Pedagogy and practice: Culture and identities,
58-74.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation,
guided participation, apprenticeship. In J. W. Wertsch, A. Alvarez & P. del Rio (Eds),
Sociocultural Studies of Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 139-64.
Rosso, H. A. (2016). A philosophy of fundraising. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler & D.F.
Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 3-10). Wiley.
Rousmaniere, D. (2015). What everyone should know about managing up. Harvard Business
Review, 23.
Ryan, L. J. (2006). Behavioral characteristics of higher education fund-raisers. International
Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(4), 282– 88.

228
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Sajesh, V . K. (2018). Delphi method: An overview.
https://krishi.icar.gov.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/20524/1/Delphi%20method0001.pdf
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and
personality, 9(3), 185-211.
Sansone, C., & Thoman, D. B. (2005). Interest as the missing motivator in self-regulation.
European Psychologist, 10(3), 175-186.
Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgan, C. (1992). Once a boring task always a boring
task? Interest as a self-regulatory mechanism. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 63(3), 379.
Sargeant, A., & Shang, J. (2016). Outstanding fundraising practice: how do nonprofits
substantively increase their income?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 21(1), 43-56.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E.H. and Schein, P.A. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Wiley.
Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A
multivariate analysis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 8(3), 235-260.
Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (2002). The Boston area diary study and the moral citizenship
of care. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
13(1), 47-71.

229
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K.R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 197–222). Routledge.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory.
Schunk, D.H., Meece, J.L., & Pintrich, P.R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and applications (4th ed.). Pearson Education. Kindle Edition.
Scott, S., & Palincsar, A. (2013). Sociocultural theory. Education. com.
Seiler, T.L. (2016). Developing and articulating a case for support. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler &
D.F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 337-350).
Wiley.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Crown Business/Currency.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that
learn (updated and revised): A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. Currency.
Shah, H.A. and Kalaian, S.A. (2009). Which is the best parametric statistical method for
analyzing Delphi data? Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8:1(20).
http://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1241137140
Shaker, G.G. (2016). Personal solicitation. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler, & D.F. Burlingame
(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (pp. 363-373). Wiley.
Shaker, G. G., & Nathan, S. K. (2017). Understanding higher education fundraisers in the United
States. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), e1604.

230
Sheldon, K. M., & Schüler, J. (2011). Wanting, having, and needing: Integrating motive
disposition theory and self-determination theory. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 101(5), 1106.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), 153-
189.
Smith, P.B. (1997). Managing a successful major gifts program. In Burlingame, D. F., & Hodge,
J. M. (Eds.), Developing major gifts (31-47). Jossey-Bass Inc.
Speck, B. W. (2010) The growing role of private giving in financing the modern university. New
Directions for Higher Education, 149. 7-16. DOI: 10.1002/he
Strickland, S., & Walsh, K. (2013). Fostering future fundraisers through a model undergraduate
internship program. The Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(1).
Stritter, F. T., Tresolini, C. P., & Reeb, K. G. (1994). The Delphi technique in curriculum
development. Teaching and Learning in Medicine: An International Journal, 6(2), 136-
141.
Sturtevant, W.T. (1997). The artful journey: Cultivating and soliciting the major gift. Bonus
Books, Inc.
Sugden, R. (1984). Reciprocity: The supply of public goods through voluntary contributions. The
Economic Journal (London), 94(376), 772–787. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232294
Tempel, E. R., & Duronio, M. A. (1997). The demographics and experience of fundraisers. New
Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1997(15), 49-68.
Tempel, E.R. (2016). Ethics and accountability. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler & D.F. Burlingame
(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 467-486). Wiley.

231
Tempel, E.R., & Seiler, T.L. (2016). Stewardship and accountability. In E.R. Tempel, T.L. Seiler
& D.F. Burlingame (Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 337-350).
Wiley.
University of California (2021-22), Budget for current operations: Summary of the budget
request as approved by the regents, 2021-22. https://www.ucop.edu/operating-
budget/_files/rbudget/2021-22-budget-summary.pdf
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443-463.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the
literature and future directions. Review of educational research, 78(4), 751-796.
Valerino-Perea, S., Armstrong, M., & Papadaki, A. (2020). Development of an index to assess
adherence to the traditional Mexican diet using a modified Delphi method. Public Health
Nutrition, 24(14), 4387-4396. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020004565
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Walker, A. M., & Selfe, J. (1996). The Delphi method: a useful tool for the allied health
researcher. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 3(12), 677-681.
Warren, P. E., & Walker, I. (1991). Empathy, effectiveness and donations to charity: Social
psychology’s contribution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 30(4), 325–337.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological review, 92(4), 548.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. Handbook of competence and motivation, 73-84.

232
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wigfield, A., Tonks. S., & Klauda, S.L. (2009). Expectancy-value theory. In K.R. Wentzel & A.
Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 55-75). Routledge.
Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
Witte, K. (1996). Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model
to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Handbook of communication and
emotion (pp. 423-450). Academic Press.
Wolf, T. (2011). How to Connect with Donors and Double the Money You Raise. Emerson &
Church.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.1976.tb00381.x
Wood, E. W. (1997). Profiling major gifts fundraisers: What qualifies them for success. In
Burlingame, D. F., & Hodge, J. M. (Eds.), Developing Major Gifts (5-15). Jossey-Bass.
Worth, M. J. and Asp, J. W. (1994). The development officer in higher education: Toward an
understanding of the role. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. The George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.
Worth, M. J. (1989). The institutionally related foundation in public colleges and universities. In
J.W. Pocock (Ed.), Fund-raising leadership: A guide for college and university boards.
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

233
Worth, M. J. (1993). Educational fund raising: Principles and practice. American Council on
Education series on higher education. American Council on Education and The Oryx
Press.
Worth, M. J., Ed. (2002). New strategies for educational fundraising. American Council on
Education/Praeger series on higher education. Praeger.
Yang, Y . N. (2003). Testing the stability of experts' opinions between successive rounds of
Delphi studies. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472166.pdf
Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe
that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational psychologist, 47(4), 302-314.
Yough, M. and E. Anderman. (2009) Goal Orientation Theory.
Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Practical Assessment,
Research, and Evaluation, 12(1), 4. https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=12&n=4
Zak, P. J. (2017). The neuroscience of trust. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 84-90.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview.
Educational psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.

234
Appendix A: Round One Survey
Fundraiser Learning - Round One Survey

Start of Block: Background Questions

Q10 Background Questions
This questionnaire is intended for managers of frontline fundraisers whose responsibilities
include securing major gifts for an institution of higher education. The following questions are
intended to provide a sense of the size, composition, and experience levels of your team.

Q1 Have you managed a portfolio of major gift prospects within the past two years?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Have you managed a portfolio of major gift prospects within the past two years? = No

Q2 What classification best describes the institution you represent?
o Associate's college (1)
o Baccalaureate college (2)
o Master's college or university (3)
o Doctoral university (4)
o Special focus institution (e.g., seminary, art school, law school, etc.) (5)
o Tribal college (6)
o Other (please describe below) (7)
________________________________________________

235
Q3 Do you oversee major gift officers (MGOs), either directly or indirectly?
o Yes (1)
o No (2)

Skip To: End of Survey If Do you oversee major gift officers (MGOs), either directly or indirectly? = No

Q4 MGOs on my team have the following levels of frontline fundraising experience (provide the
approximate number of MGOs for each level; your best guess will suffice):

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Less than 2 years ()

2-5 years ()

6-9 years ()

More than 10 years ()

236
Q5 What training and/or professional development (PD) activities are available to MGOs in your
organization? (check all that apply)
▢ Onboarding (1)
▢ Individualized professional development plan overseen by supervisor (2)
▢ Coaching and/or mentoring (3)
▢ On-site courses, workshops, seminars, lectures, etc. (4)
▢ Off-site courses, workshops, seminars, lectures, etc. (5)
▢ Conferences (6)
▢ Webinars (7)
▢ Readings (e.g.,subscriptions to periodicals, access to fundraising books and
articles, etc.) (8)
▢ CFRE certification (9)
▢ Other (please describe below) (10)
________________________________________________

Q6 How are you involved in the training and/or professional development of the MGOs on your
team?
________________________________________________________________

Q7 I have worked in Advancement for:
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of years ()

237
Q8 How did you begin your career in advancement? (check all that apply)
▢ Obtained a degree or certificate in philanthropic studies, fundraising, or nonprofit
leadership and management (1)
▢ Held a student job or internship in an office of advancement/development (2)
▢ Found an entry-level job in advancement (3)
▢ Transitioned from another profession (e.g., sales, marketing, college admissions,
etc.) (4)
▢ Volunteered for a nonprofit organization (5)
▢ Accidentally (6)
▢ Other (please describe below) (7)
________________________________________________

End of Block: Background Questions

Start of Block: Knowledge: Fundraising Tasks

Q11 Main Survey
In many organizations, advancement officers wear a variety of hats. For the following questions,
let’s define major gift officers (MGOs) as frontline fundraisers who are responsible for managing
a portfolio of prospects and securing major gifts.

Q12 Please rate the importance of each item in MGOs’ effectiveness in meeting performance
goals (comments are optional):
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

238
Develop a list of prospective major gift
donors by identifying individuals, groups,
and entities with the linkage, ability, and
interest to give ()

Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift
donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach ()

Utilize open-ended questions and active
listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to
give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations ()

Record and reflect on relevant information
gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors ()

Use information about prospective donors,
such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement,
cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors ()

Develop and implement specific,
personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of
prospective donors ()

Recognize patterns in donor motivation,
categorize prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailor cultivation and
solicitation plans accordingly ()

Initiate and strengthen relationships with
constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution ()

Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and
prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring
their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle ()

Promote a culture of philanthropy by
broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders
across the institution in fundraising ()

Employ marketing and public relations
principles and tools to support and grow
fundraising programs ()

239
With the involvement of stakeholders,
develop a compelling case for support that
communicates the rationale for supporting
the institution’s mission and includes a call to
action ()

Prepare donor-focused proposals, gift
agreements, and other solicitation
communications in order to facilitate
informed gift decisions ()

Understand and communicate ways of giving
and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals ()

Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about
the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask ()

Assemble and prepare solicitation teams in
advance of soliciting gifts ()
Solicit and secure gifts from current and
prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s
mission ()

Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor
donors’ intent and instructions regarding the
use of gifts and ensure that gifts are
accurately documented in the organization’s
records ()

Acknowledge and recognize donor
engagement and gifts in ways that are
personalized and meaningful to donors and
appropriate to the mission and values of the
organization ()

Identify opportunities to engage volunteers
and attributes that increase their effectiveness
in fundraising ()

Create structured processes to identify,
recruit, onboard, train, assess, recognize,
retain, and renew volunteers ()

Develop role descriptions and define terms of
commitment to empower volunteers and
enhance their effectiveness ()

240
Participate in recruiting experienced and
diverse volunteer leadership to ensure boards
and committees are representative of, and
responsive to, the constituents and
communities served ()

Engage various types of volunteers (e.g.,
board, program, campaign) and academic
partners (e.g., deans, department chairs,
directors) in the fundraising process ()

Create and implement annual and project-
based fundraising plans and budgets to
support the institution’s strategic goals ()

Communicate principles of ethical
fundraising to stakeholders and promote
fundraising as a vital component of
philanthropy to strengthen the institution, the
nonprofit sector, and civil society ()

Participate as an active and contributing
member of the fundraising profession
through activities such as mentoring,
continuing education, research, and
membership in professional organizations ()

Q13 If there are any additional tasks not listed above that MGOs must perform to be effective,
please describe them here:
________________________________________________________________

Q14 How confident are you in teaching others to perform the tasks you consider to be most
important to be effective in the MGO role?
Not Confident Somewhat
Confident
Very Confident

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rate your confidence (comments are
optional) ()

End of Block: Knowledge: Fundraising Tasks

Start of Block: Motivation: Fundraising Attitudes and Behaviors

241

Q15 Research in motivation has identified a number of factors relevant to fundraising. Please use
the slider to rate the importance of each of the following attitudes and behaviors in MGO
effectiveness (comments are optional):
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Demonstrates self-confidence in performing
job responsibilities ()
Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including
goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions ()

Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with
the expectation of success ()
Seeks approval, praise, and/or other rewards
for accomplishing assigned tasks ()
Shows personal value in engaging in
assigned tasks ()

Enjoys activities associated with major gifts
fundraising ()
Maintains a positive outlook at work ()

Is resilient when experiencing setbacks ()

Attributes success and failures to their own
efforts ()
Chooses to engage in activities that will help
achieve work goals ()

Demonstrates interest in the organization’s
mission ()

Q16 If there are any additional attitudes or behaviors not listed above that MGOs must adopt to
be effective, please describe them here:
________________________________________________________________

242
Q17 How confident are you in teaching others to adopt the attitudes you consider to be most
important to be effective in the MGO role?
Not Confident Somewhat
Confident
Very Confident

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rate your confidence (comments are
optional) ()

End of Block: Motivation: Fundraising Attitudes and Behaviors

243
Start of Block: Organization: Fundraising Behaviors

Q18 Research in organizational performance has identified a number of factors that are relevant
to institutional advancement. Please use the slider to rate importance of each of the following
behaviors in MGO effectiveness (comments are optional):

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Contributes to a culture of individual
initiative ()
Accepts and supports colleagues ()

Sets concrete, challenging, current goals ()

Contributes to a culture of healthy
competition with peer institutions ()
Collaborates with advancement colleagues,
academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process ()

Shares knowledge and information with
colleagues ()
Gains the trust of peers, partners, and
supervisors ()

Contributes to a culture of learning and
continuous improvement ()
Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to
changes in the environment ()
Contributes to the organization’s
informational resources and improvements to
policies and procedures ()

Q19 If there are any additional behaviors not listed above that MGOs must exhibit to be
effective, please describe them here:
________________________________________________________________

244
Q20 Please rate your confidence teaching others to exhibit the behaviors you consider to be most
important to be effective in the MGO role.
Not Confident Somewhat
Confident
Very Confident

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rate your confidence (comments are
optional) ()

End of Block: Organization: Fundraising Behaviors

Start of Block: Thank you message

Q21 Thank you for your participation in this survey. Once we have analyzed the results, we will
provide you with a summary and request additional input.

End of Block: Thank you message

245
Appendix B: Round One Quantitative Analysis
The Round One survey included in Appendix A asked panelists to rate the importance of
specific tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that were derived from the literature for success in major
gifts fundraising. The data were analyzed, and results are reported in Table B1. Items that
reached a consensus level of 70% or more, a mean rating of 80 or more, a median of 90 or more,
and/or a CV less than or equal to 0.4 are indicated in bold text.
Table B1
Round One Quantitative Analysis
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level
Solicit and secure gifts from current and
prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s
mission
96.03 100 0.0873 97%
Initiate and strengthen relationships with
constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
93.38 100 0.181 89%
Utilize open-ended questions and active
listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to
give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations
92.63 100 0.1306 90%
Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and
prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring
their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle
92.52 100 0.1148 94%
Use information about prospective donors, such
as linkage, ability, interest, and other factors,
to prioritize and plan engagement,
cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors
91.24 95 0.1262 86%
Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about
the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask
91.13 95 0.1139 86%

246
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level
Develop and implement specific, personalized
engagement, cultivation, and solicitation
plans for the involvement of prospective
donors
90.5 95 0.1305 87%
Record and reflect on relevant information
gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
88.77 97.5 0.17 77%
Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift
donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
86.67 90 0.2198 84%
Promote a culture of philanthropy by
broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders
across the institution in fundraising
85.7 90 0.1838 76%
Recognize patterns in donor motivation,
categorize prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailor cultivation and
solicitation plans accordingly
85.57 90 0.1627 75%
Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’
intent and instructions regarding the use of
gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately
documented in the organization’s records
85.29 95 0.2398 73%
Understand and communicate ways of giving
and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals
85.03 90 0.2032 71%
Acknowledge and recognize donor engagement
and gifts in ways that are personalized and
meaningful to donors and appropriate to the
mission and values of the organization
82.1 87 0.2348 68%
Prepare donor-focused proposals, gift
agreements, and other solicitation
communications in order to facilitate
informed gift decisions
81.62 90 0.2483 65%

247
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level
With the involvement of stakeholders, develop
a compelling case for support that
communicates the rationale for supporting
the institution’s mission and includes a call to
action
78.68 80 0.2513 56%
Communicate principles of ethical fundraising
to stakeholders and promote fundraising as a
vital component of philanthropy to
strengthen the institution, the nonprofit
sector, and civil society
76.95 85 0.316 61%
Develop a list of prospective major gift donors
by identifying individuals, groups, and
entities with the linkage, ability, and interest
to give
72.29 80 0.4036 55%
Engage various types of volunteers (e.g., board,
program, campaign) and academic partners
(e.g., deans, department chairs, directors) in
the fundraising process
72.24 80 0.3441 52%
Assemble and prepare solicitation teams in
advance of soliciting gifts
71.13 79.5 0.3876 50%
Participate as an active and contributing
member of the fundraising profession
through activities such as mentoring,
continuing education, research, and
membership in professional organizations
66.03 75 0.3717 41%
Identify opportunities to engage volunteers and
attributes that increase their effectiveness in
fundraising
65.37 70 0.3749 30%
Create and implement annual and project-based
fundraising plans and budgets to support the
institution’s strategic goals
65.33 79 0.5019 49%
Participate in recruiting experienced and
diverse volunteer leadership to ensure boards
and committees are representative of, and
responsive to, the constituents and
communities served
61.14 60 0.5007 33%

248
Employ marketing and public relations
principles and tools to support and grow
fundraising programs
52.48 50 0.4729 13%
Create structured processes to identify, recruit,
onboard, train, assess, recognize, retain, and
renew volunteers
51.1 50 0.5899 19%
Develop role descriptions and define terms of
commitment to empower volunteers and
enhance their effectiveness

49.41 50 0.6277 16%
Fundraiser motivation item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level
Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
93.92 100 0.0871 94%
Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with
the expectation of success
91.63 90 0.097 94%
Demonstrates interest in the organization’s
mission
91.38 100 0.1361 89%
Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including
goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
90.97 90 0.0929 94%
Maintains a positive outlook at work
90.6 95 0.1154 87%
Chooses to engage in activities that will help
achieve work goals
89.03 90 0.1375 89%
Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job
responsibilities
87.1 90 0.1011 84%
Enjoys activities associated with major gifts
fundraising
84.79 90 0.2187 75%
Shows personal value in engaging in assigned
tasks
81.08 85 0.2136 69%
Attributes success and failures to their own
efforts
68.59 78 0.3716 49%
Seeks approval, praise, and/or other rewards for
accomplishing assigned tasks
55.21 50 0.4665 25%

249
Fundraising Organizational Behavior Item
Mean
Rating
Median
Rating
CV*
Consensus
Level
Gains the trust of peers, partners, and
supervisors
95.58 100 0.0771 97%
Collaborates with advancement colleagues,
academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
92.02 95 0.1287 89%
Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to
changes in the environment
89.47 91 0.1365 87%
Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
87.48 90 0.1377 84%
Shares knowledge and information with
colleagues
88.94 95 0.1732 82%
Accepts and supports colleagues
87.02 91.5 0.1934 81%
Contributes to a culture of learning and
continuous improvement
86.52 90 0.1829 77%
Contributes to a culture of individual initiative
80.68 86.5 0.2509 66%
Contributes to the organization’s informational
resources and improvements to policies and
procedures
70.26 77 0.3613 47%
Contributes to a culture of healthy competition
with peer institutions
57.61 60 0.49 31%

Note. N=63. Bold type indicates a measurement that meets or exceeds the threshold for review in
determining essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors of MGOs—i.e., mean ≥80, median ≥90,
CV≤0.4, and consensus level ≥70%
* Coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to mean)
** Consensus level = percentage of total responses with a rating of 80 or higher

250
Appendix C: Round One Qualitative Analysis
Using comment boxes, the Round One survey asked panelists for input into fundraising
tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that MGOs must perform/adopt to be effective. The survey was
divided into knowledge, motivation, and organizational behavior items, with requests for input at
the end of each section. The text below compiles panelists’ responses to each request. Responses
(with typos corrected) are grouped into themes in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
behavior sections below. Researcher’s annotations are in italics. A checkmark indicates a
response that was incorporated into a new item for testing in Round Two. New items for testing
in Round Two are presented at the end in three groupings.
Knowledge
Q13: “If there are any additional tasks not listed above that MGOs must perform to be effective,
please describe them here:_____” Responses (with typos corrected) are grouped into themes
below.
Theme 1: Collaboration (6) – addressed in Organizational Behavior section
✓ You must be a good colleague and university citizen who is willing to help the entire
University and not just your own academic area. If a prospect wants to support
another academic area, you must provide them the same service and work closely
with your colleagues in that area to help close the gift.
▪ I think development is a team sport and MGOs, while working solo most often with
donors, must have the ability to collaborate with colleagues to find innovative ways to
engage donors and bounce ideas off others in order to devise effective cultivation and
solicitation strategy – collaboration is covered in Organizational Behavior

251
▪ Development of internal relationships with key staff, faculty, and university
leadership in the fundraising process – working with academic partners is covered in
Organizational Behavior
▪ Collaborate with other fundraisers – collaboration is covered in Organizational
Behavior
▪ identifying blended gifts and working with the Director of Planned Giving – ways of
giving are included in Knowledge tasks
✓ Manage a staff assistant in partnership with one or two other gift officers. Participate
in internal working groups to help improve fundraising training, office efficiency, and
overall morale of the group – move to Organizational Behavior
Theme 2: Navigating politics and differing perspectives (3)
✓ Navigate conversations with people who hold differing points of view.
✓ Of course the idea of 'interest based negotiation' is also important, letting donors
know their perspectives or ideas are being heard, but asking the questions to make
sure you are getting to their true interests, and not just their positions. This is
especially helpful when dealing with donors on the opposite side of the DO politically
or on a specific issue. It is easier to find common interests than common positions!
✓ Navigating the politics, policies, and biased practices of the university itself as a
means to closing visionary gifts with visionary impact – move to Organizational
Behavior
Theme 3: Intellectual Engagement (3) – Move to Motivation
✓ intellectual curiosity

252
✓ The ability to absorb, retain, and then explain large amounts of information is very
important. Those able to do this tend to have better and deeper conversations with
their prospects.
✓ curiosity and creativity in discovery; move beyond "working the list" and think about
leveraging opportunities that already exist within the university for major gift ask;
ability to structure and ask questions of prospects that help propose solutions to a
problem (big idea thinking, not just transactional).
Theme 4: Conversational Skills (2)
✓ The ability to absorb, retain, and then explain large amounts of information is very
important. Those able to do this tend to have better and deeper conversations with
their prospects.
✓ ability to structure and ask questions of prospects that help propose solutions to a
problem (big idea thinking, not just transactional).
Theme 5: Gift Negotiation & Closing (2)
✓ Closing major gifts (not just soliciting)
✓ Follow-up and knowing how to handle objections and get an ask that has been side-
tracked back on track are very important skills.
Theme 6: Customer Service (2)
✓ have to have excellent customer service skills to respond quickly and positively to
donors
✓ Follow-up
Theme 7: Writing & Communication

253
✓ Strong writers as many MGOs have to write their own proposals in addition to
correspondence
Theme 8: Planning & Time Management
✓ Develop and execute a weekly, monthly and annual plan to achieve fundraising
metrics and goals.
Other Fundraising Tasks
a) Ways of Giving
▪ identifying blended gifts and working with the Director of Planned Giving – covered
in Knowledge items
b) Contact Reports
▪ Keep accurate and timely records to capture history of contacts and engagement –
covered in Knowledge items
c) Cold Calls
▪ The list above overlooked the ability to cold call. – Qualification is covered in
Knowledge items
Other Fundraising Qualities
▪ Ability to empathize with individuals – Organizational Behavior
▪ tenacity, creativity, resiliency – Motivation
▪ Not a task but critical to MGO effectiveness is mindset. – Motivation

Motivation
Q16: “If there are any additional attitudes or behaviors not listed above that MGOs must adopt
to be effective, please describe them here:____”

254

Theme 1: Curiosity, Intellectual Curiosity, Intelligence [Intrinsic motivation, Interest] (6)
✓ Curiosity around the intellectual content available is important - those that are more
engaged in the mission from an intellectual perspective have been more effective.
✓ Intellectual curiosity
✓ curiosity about things outside of the realm of fundraising
✓ Curiosity and ability to engage with highly diverse audiences
✓ visionary thinking and ability to connect the dots that neither donors or academic
leadership can see on their own – move to Knowledge: synthesizing, big-picture thinking
▪ outgoing and intelligent
Theme 2: Entrepreneurial, Work Ethic, Drive (6)
✓ Entrepreneurial spirt
✓ entrepreneurial mindset and flexibility
✓ fire in the belly!
✓ Strong work ethic, commitment to success and long-range outlook
✓ Some of the best MGO's I have worked with have a competitive spirit. They do not like
to lose and, while they are not out to make their colleagues look bad, they work to
separate themselves from the pack.
▪ Time management – Implied in Motivation (self-regulation)
Theme 3: Emotional Intelligence, Empathy, and Interest/Attention to Others (4) – move to
Organization
✓ Understands people, behaviors, motivations/ has high EQ
✓ high emotional intelligence

255
✓ Empathy? An ability to empathize with the donor and their wish to make a difference,
helping them to succeed in giving money effectively?
▪ Demonstrates an interest in the prospective donor
Theme 4: Inclusivity, Respect for Others (3) – move to Organization
✓ ability to engage with highly diverse audiences
✓ A desire to engage in challenging conversations and ability to create a comfortable
environment and approach casually what others find awkward (cold calls, solicitations,
etc.)
✓ they must be genuine in their interactions; they should have and show respect for others
Theme 5: Self-Awareness, Active Listening, Self-Improvement (2)
✓ Good listening skills, strong self-awareness
✓ Self-awareness, actively embraces coaching to improve skills, as focused on
technique/craft as outcomes
Theme 6: Perspective on Fundraising and Philanthropy (2)
✓ views philanthropy as a mutually-beneficial venture
▪ An ability to empathize with the donor and their wish to make a difference, helping them
to succeed in giving money effectively?
Theme 7: Working with others (2) – move to Organization and merge with collaboration
▪ Interdisciplinary approach to work and donor-centric (not just limited to particular school
or college or limited by university goals)
▪ humility is important. In our org, very few gifts are closed alone. Being able and willing
to engage colleagues in a collaborative way will help MGOs be more effective.

256
Other Qualities (4):
▪ Conscientious
▪ Humble
▪ Patient
▪ Persistence

Organizational Behaviors
Q19: “If there are any additional behaviors not listed above that MGOs must exhibit to be
effective, please describe them here:_____”
All responses:
✓ Effective managing up when MGO sees benefit to all
✓ Have a "yes, and" attitude and rarely say "that's not my job" but instead seek out new
opportunities to learn – move to Motivation (growth mindset)
✓ commitment to excellence
▪ The MGOs need compelling cases for support. In addition, a culture that values
philanthropy where people across the school are involved and supportive of the
fundraising process – both are covered in Knowledge

Items to Test in Round Two
Knowledge
Consensus items (from the literature):
1. Solicits and secures gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s mission

257
2. Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle
3. Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective
donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations
4. Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
5. Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation
plans for the involvement of prospective donors
6. Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors
7. Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask
8. Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
9. Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
10. Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value
of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
11. Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for
giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly

258
12. Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use
of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s records
13. Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals

New items (from panelist responses):
1. Removes donors’ objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts
2. Facilitates a donor’s giving to areas of interest across the institution
3. Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
4. Communicates effectively in writing and in person
5. Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors
6. Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
7. Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one’s
own
8. Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem

Motivation
Consensus items (from the literature):
1. Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
2. Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective action
3. Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success

259
4. Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission
5. Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
6. Maintains a positive outlook at work
7. Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
8. Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising

New items (from panelist responses):
1. Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement
2. Brings self-awareness to interactions with others
3. Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
4. Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
5. Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways

Organization
Consensus items (from the literature):
1. Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
2. Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
3. Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
4. Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
5. Shares knowledge and information with colleagues
6. Accepts and supports colleagues
7. Contributes to a culture of continuous learning and improvement

260
New items (from panelist responses):
1. Demonstrates a commitment to excellence
2. Ably navigates institutional politics and policies
3. Manages up effectively
4. Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
5. Engages diverse audiences
6. Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
7. Treats others with respect
8. Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale

261
Appendix D: Round Two Survey Instrument
Fundraiser Learning - Round Two Survey

Start of Block: Knowledge consensus items

Q1 Fundraising Tasks
In round one, we asked you to rate the importance of specific fundraising tasks in major
gift officer effectiveness. Preliminary results show agreement that the following 13 tasks are
important in major gifts fundraising (i.e., these tasks were rated 80 or higher by a minimum of
70% of respondents).
To provide deeper insight, use the sliders to rate these tasks again. We have provided the
average ratings from the first survey. If your answer varies by 10+ points from the average,
please use the comment box to explain your rating.

Q2 Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial
support for the organization’s mission
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 96 ()

262
Q3 Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 93 ()

Q5 Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective
donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 93 ()

Q4 Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation cycle

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 93 ()

263
Q6 Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other factors,
to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective major gift donors

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

Q7 Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her readiness
for an ask
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

Q8 Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation plans
for the involvement of prospective donors
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

264
Q10 Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 89 ()

Q9 Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through discovery
visits and other outreach
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 87 ()

Q14 Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value of
giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 86 ()

265
Q11 Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for
giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 86 ()

Q12 Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use of
gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s records

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 85 ()

Q13 Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 85 ()

End of Block: Knowledge consensus items

Start of Block: Knowledge new items

Q17 In round one, we asked you to suggest additional fundraising tasks that MGOs must perform
to be effective. We synthesized your responses into the following 8 tasks. Please rate the
importance of each item in MGOs meeting their performance goals (comments are optional).

266

Q18 Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts

Not important Somewhat
important
Very important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q74 Facilitates a donor’s giving to areas of interest across the institution

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q122 Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q75 Communicates effectively in writing and in person

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

267

Q76 Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q77 Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q78 Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's own

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q79 Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

268

Q80 Thank you for rating the Round One fundraising tasks and the new tasks listed above.

If there are any additional fundraising tasks that MGOs must be able to perform to be effective,
please describe them here.
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Knowledge new items

Start of Block: Motivation consensus items

Q33 MGO Attitudes & Behaviors
In round one, we asked you to rate the importance of certain attitudes and behaviors in
MGO effectiveness. Preliminary results show agreement that the following 8 attitudes and
behaviors are important in major gifts fundraising (i.e., these items were rated 80 or higher by a
minimum of 70% of respondents).
To provide deeper insight, use the sliders to rate each item again. We have provided the
average ratings from the first survey. If your answer varies by 10+ points from the average,
please use the comment box to explain your rating.

Q34 Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 94 ()

269
Q36 Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 92 ()

Q37 Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

Q35 Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

Q38 Maintains a positive outlook at work
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 91 ()

270
Q39 Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 89 ()

Q40 Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 87 ()

Q41 Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 85 ()

End of Block: Motivation consensus items

Start of Block: Motivation new items

Q86 In round one, we asked you to suggest additional attitudes and behaviors MGOs must adopt
to be effective. We synthesized your responses into the following 5 items. Please rate the
importance of each item in MGOs meeting their performance goals (comments are optional).

271

Q42 Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q82 Brings self-awareness to interactions with others

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Comments: ()

Q83 Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q84 Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

272
Q85 Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Use slider to rate importance and text box for
comments ()

Q95 Thank you for rating the Round One and new attitudes and behaviors listed above.

If there are additional attitudes or behaviors that MGOs must adopt to be effective, please
describe them here.
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Motivation new items

Start of Block: Organization consensus items

Q43 Factors in Organizational Performance
In round one, we asked you to rate the importance of factors in organizational
performance in relation to MGO effectiveness. Preliminary results show agreement that the
following 7 items are important in major gifts fundraising (i.e., these items were rated 80 or
higher by a minimum of 70% of respondents).
To provide deeper insight, use the sliders to rate each item again. We have provided the
average ratings from the first survey. If your answer varies by 10+ points from the average,
please use the comment box to explain your rating.

273
Q48 Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 96 ()

Q44 Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 92 ()

Q50 Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 89 ()

Q49 Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 87 ()

274
Q45 Shares knowledge and information with colleagues

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 89 ()

Q46 Accepts and supports colleagues
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 87 ()

Q47 Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average Rating: 87 ()

End of Block: Organization consensus items

Start of Block: Organization new items

Q87 In round one, we asked you to suggest additional organizational performance factors related
to MGO effectiveness. We synthesized your responses into the following 8 items. Please rate the
importance of each item in MGOs meeting their performance goals (comments are optional).

275
Q55 Demonstrates a commitment to excellence
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q88 Ably navigates institutional politics and policies

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q89 Manages up effectively
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q90 Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

276
Q91 Engages diverse audiences
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q92 Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics

Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q120 Treats others with respect
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

Q93 Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale
Not Important Somewhat
Important
Very Important

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Comments: ()

277
Q97 Thank you for rating the Round One and new factors in organizational performance listed
above.

If there are additional behaviors that MGOs must exhibit to be effective, please describe them
here.
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Organization new items

Start of Block: Training methods for these items

Q22 Your responses regarding essential tasks in major gifts fundraising will help focus on-the-
job training for MGOs. In the following questions, we seek your insight into current and past
training methods that help MGOs become proficient in performing these tasks.

Q98 Please review the following fundraising tasks and describe training methods you have
experienced, utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency performing them. Feel
free to focus on some tasks and skip others, particularly any for which you do not have a training
method to recommend. (If you do not see any tasks below, please check to make sure you used
the sliders to provide ratings in previous sections).

Display This Question:
If Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial suppo... [ Average
Rating: 96 ] >= 85

Q19 Soliciting and securing gifts that provide support for the organization’s mission
________________________________________________________________

278
Display This Question:
If Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining regular cont... [
Average Rating: 93 ] >= 85

Q20 Managing a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective donor... [ Average
Rating: 93 ] >= 85

Q21 Utilizing open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective
donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term commitme... [
Average Rating: 93 ] >= 85

Q23 Initiating relationships, strengthening relationships, and/or building constituents' trust in and
commitment to the institution
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other factors,... [ Average
Rating: 91 ] >= 85

Q24 Using information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, to prioritize
and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective major gift donors
________________________________________________________________

279
Display This Question:
If Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation plans for... [ Average
Rating: 91 ] >= 85

Q25 Developing and implementing specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her readiness for... [ Average
Rating: 91 ] >= 85
Q26 Monitoring a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and/or assessing his or her
readiness for an ask
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through discovery vi... [ Average
Rating: 87 ] >= 85

Q27 Qualifying and disqualifying prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective donors [ Average
Rating: 89 ] >= 85

Q28 Recording and/or reflecting on relevant information gleaned from interactions with
prospective donors
________________________________________________________________

280
Display This Question:
If Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value of givin... [
Average Rating: 86 ] >= 85

Q29 Promoting a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value
of giving and/or engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for giving, an... [
Average Rating: 86 ] >= 85

Q30 Recognizing patterns in donor motivation, categorizing prospective donors’ motivations for
giving, and tailoring cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use of gifts... [ Average
Rating: 85 ] >= 85

Q31 Clarifying, implementing, monitoring, and honoring donors’ intent and instructions
regarding the use of gifts and/or ensuring that gifts are accurately documented in the
organization’s records
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial and philan... [
Average Rating: 85 ] >= 85

Q32 Understanding and communicating ways of giving and their implications for donors’
financial and philanthropic goals
________________________________________________________________

281
Display This Question:
If Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q101 Removing donors' objections, negotiating terms, and closing gifts
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Facilitates a donor’s giving to areas of interest across the institution [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q102 Facilitating a donor’s giving to areas of interest across the institution
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Provides excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q123 Providing excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Communicates effectively in writing and in person [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q103 Communicating effectively in writing and in person
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q104 Absorbing, synthesizing, and conveying ideas and information to donors
________________________________________________________________

282
Display This Question:
If Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q105 Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's own [ Comments: ]
>= 85

Q106 Conducting productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's
own
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a problem [
Comments: ] >= 85

Q107 Asking donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem
________________________________________________________________

Q99 Please review the following MGO attitudes and behaviors and describe training methods
you have experienced, utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency adopting
them. Feel free to focus on some items and skip others, particularly any for which you do not
have a training method to recommend.

Display This Question:
If Is resilient when experiencing setbacks [ Average Rating: 94 ] >= 85

Q57 Being resilient when experiencing setbacks
________________________________________________________________

283

Display This Question:
If Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and taking c... [ Average
Rating: 91 ] >= 85

Q58 Utilizing self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success [ Average Rating: 92 ] >= 85

Q59 Persisting in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission [ Average Rating: 91 ] >= 85

Q60 Demonstrating interest in the organization’s mission
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Maintains a positive outlook at work [ Average Rating: 91 ] >= 85

Q61 Maintaining a positive outlook at work
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals [ Average Rating: 89 ] >= 85

Q62 Choosing to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
________________________________________________________________

284
Display This Question:
If Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities [ Average Rating: 87 ] >= 85

Q63 Demonstrating self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising [ Average Rating: 85 ] >= 85

Q64 Enjoying activities associated with major gifts fundraising
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q108 Demonstrating curiosity and intellectual engagement
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Brings self-awareness to interactions with others [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q109 Bringing self-awareness to interactions with others
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q110 Being a self-starter with a drive to succeed
________________________________________________________________

285
Display This Question:
If Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q111 Viewing philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways [ Use slider to rate importance and text box for
comments ] >= 85

Q112 Being willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
________________________________________________________________

Q100 Please review the following organizational behaviors and describe training methods you
have experienced, utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency adopting
them. Feel free to focus on some items and skip others, particularly any for which you do not
have a training method to recommend.

Display This Question:
If Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the fundraising pr... [
Average Rating: 92 ] >= 85

Q65 Collaborating with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Shares knowledge and information with colleagues [ Average Rating: 89 ] >= 85

Q66 Sharing knowledge and information with colleagues
________________________________________________________________

286

Display This Question:
If Accepts and supports colleagues [ Average Rating: 87 ] >= 85

Q67 Accepting and supporting colleagues
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement [ Average Rating: 87 ] >= 85

Q68 Contributing to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors [ Average Rating: 96 ] >= 85

Q69 Gaining the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Sets concrete, challenging, current goals [ Average Rating: 87 ] >= 85

Q70 Setting concrete, challenging, current goals
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment [ Average Rating: 89 ] >= 85

Q71 Being flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
________________________________________________________________

287
Display This Question:
If Demonstrates a commitment to excellence [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q113 Demonstrating a commitment to excellence
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Ably navigates institutional politics and policies [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q114 Ably navigating institutional politics and policies
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Manages up effectively [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q115 Manages up effectively
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q116 Demonstrating empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Engages diverse audiences [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q117 Engaging diverse audiences
________________________________________________________________

288
Display This Question:
If Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q118 Creating a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Treats others with respect [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q121 Treating others with respect
________________________________________________________________

Display This Question:
If Participates in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale [ Comments: ] >= 85

Q119 Participating in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale
________________________________________________________________

End of Block: Training methods for these items

Start of Block: Block 7

Q73 Many thanks for your participation in this survey. Your insight is greatly appreciated. Once
we have analyzed the results, we will provide you with a summary and request your feedback.

End of Block: Block 7

289
Appendix E: Round Two Quantitative Analysis
The Round Two survey included in Appendix D asked panelists asked panelists to rate
the importance of specific tasks, attitudes, and behaviors that (a) were derived from the literature
and (b) emerged from the qualitative data included in Appendix C for success in major gifts
fundraising. The data were analyzed, and results are reported in Table E1. Items that reached a
consensus level of 70% or more, a mean rating of 80 or more, a median of 90 or more, and/or a
CV less than or equal to 0.4 are indicated in bold text.
Table E1
Round Two Quantitative Analysis
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Solicit and secure gifts from current and
prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization’s
mission
98.64 100 0.0277 100%
Initiate and strengthen relationships with
constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
97.72 100 0.0362 100%
Utilize open-ended questions and active
listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to
give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations
96.38 97 0.0446 100%
Provides excellent service and timely responses
to donors and prospects
96.06 100 0.0551 100%
Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and
prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring
their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle
95.06 95 0.0493 100%
Communicates effectively in writing and in
person
94.94 97 0.0631 98%

290
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Develop and implement specific, personalized
engagement, cultivation, and solicitation
plans for the involvement of prospective
donors
94.15 95 0.0509 100%
Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and
information to donors
93.81 95 0.0701 98%
Use information about prospective donors, such
as linkage, ability, interest, and other factors,
to prioritize and plan engagement,
cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors
93.26 92 0.054 100%
Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about
the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask
92.34 90 0.0465 100%
Record and reflect on relevant information
gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
91.98 91 0.0648 100%
Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms,
and closes gifts
90.89 92 0.0894 96%
Facilitates a donor's giving to areas of interest
across the institution
90.68 90 0.1041 91%
Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’
intent and instructions regarding the use of
gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately
documented in the organization’s records
89.85 90 0.0767 96%
Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift
donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
89.26 90 0.0929 96%
Develops and executes a plan to achieve
fundraising goals and activity metrics
89.11 90 0.1484 94%
Recognize patterns in donor motivation,
categorize prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailor cultivation and
solicitation plans accordingly
88.55 90 0.0571 96%

291
Fundraising knowledge item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Understand and communicate ways of giving
and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals
88.13 88 0.065 98%
Promote a culture of philanthropy by
broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and engaging stakeholders
across the institution in fundraising
87.28 88 0.0938 91%
Conducts productive conversations with people
whose points of view differ from one's own
85.6 90 0.1969 85%
Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture
thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem
85.3 90 0.1646 85%

Fundraiser motivation item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed
95.36 95 0.0568 98%
Is resilient when experiencing setbacks
94.13 95 0.0746 98%
Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with
the expectation of success
93.19 95 0.0643 98%
Maintains a positive outlook at work
92.74 95 0.0786 96%
Demonstrates interest in the organization’s
mission
92.70 95 0.0942 96%
Brings self-awareness to interactions with
others
92.45 93 0.0814 96%
Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including
goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
91.28 91 0.1128 94%
Chooses to engage in activities that will help
achieve work goals
91.00 90 0.0689 98%
Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to
donor and recipient
90.81 94 0.1326 94%
Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job
responsibilities
90.72 92 0.0915 96%
Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new
ways
90.57 91 0.1037 91%

292
Fundraiser motivation item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual
engagement
89.51 90 0.1058 94%
Enjoys activities associated with major gifts
fundraising
88.38 90 0.1000 91%

Fundraising organizational behavior item
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV*
Consensus
level**
Treats others with respect
95.89 100 0.0925 96%
Collaborates with advancement colleagues,
academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
95.15 95 0.0539 98%
Gains the trust of peers, partners, and
supervisors
94.98 95 0.0520 100%
Demonstrates empathy and emotional
intelligence in interactions with others
92.87 95 0.0923 96%
Is flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to
changes in the environment
92.45 91 0.0595 100%
Demonstrates a commitment to excellence
92.17 92 0.0773 94%
Shares knowledge and information with
colleagues
91.06 91 0.0694 98%
Ably navigates institutional politics and policies
90.55 91 0.0748 98%
Accepts and supports colleagues
89.70 90 0.0757 96%
Creates a comfortable environment for
discussing sensitive topics
89.32 90 0.0877 94%
Contributes to a culture of learning and
continuous improvement
89.21 90 0.0813 94%
Manages up effectively
87.64 90 0.1383 91%
Engages diverse audiences
87.47 90 0.1729 87%
Sets concrete, challenging, current goals
87.26 89 0.1148 89%
Participates in working groups to improve
training, efficiency, and/or morale
82.13 85 0.2006 79%

293
Note. N=47. Bold type indicates a measurement that meets or exceeds the threshold for review in
determining essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors of MGOs—i.e., mean >= 80, median >=90,
CV<=0.4, and consensus level >=70%
* Coefficient of variation (ratio of standard deviation to mean)
** Consensus level = percentage of total responses with a rating of 80 or higher

294
Appendix F: Round Two Qualitative Analysis
In the Round Two survey, panelists were asked to provide training methods they had
experienced, utilized, or witnessed for the fundraiser tasks, attitudes, and behaviors they rated
highly (a score of 85 or above). Their free responses describing training methods for each task,
attitude, and behavior were categorized into approaches that emerged from the data and are
informed by the literature. The outline below presents the data for each fundraiser task, attitude,
and behavior.
Knowledge
Q19 - Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial
support for the organization’s mission
I. Group Training (33)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta, Advancement Resources, etc. (11)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE, Academic Impressions, etc. (9)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal (8)
i. Training on institutional priorities, content areas, etc. (4)
ii. The Making of a Philanthropic Advisor (1)
iii. Small group filming sessions (1)
e. Topical (Unspecified trainer) (4)
i. Negotiation strategies
ii. Anchoring methods
iii. Estate planning sessions
iv. Sales training

295
II. Specific actions/activities (14)
a. Shadow more experienced gift officers on visits (12)
b. Learn by doing: solo visits, LAG asks (2)
III. Specific exercises (e.g., role play) (13)
a. Role play (11)
b. Case studies (2)
IV. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (8)
a. Strategy sessions (5)
b. Strategic planning
c. Gift post mortem
d. Dialogue around institutional priorities
V. Guidance from supervisor (5)
a. Debrief after visits (3)
b. 1:1 training
c. Shadow MGO on visits
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (4)
a. Peer mentors (2)
VII. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (3)
a. Pre-visit document
b. Strategic questions
c. Sample proposals

296
Q20 - Managing a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors
I. Specific actions/activities (16)
a. Use organizational systems & strategies to (6)
i. Prioritize prospects (2)
1. Rating systems (hot/warm/cold)
2. Top prospect list
ii. Gain insight into prospects (2)
1. Segment by interest, capacity, etc.
2. Determine propensity for giving
b. Reach out to prospects to (6)
i. Disqualify and/or churn prospects (4)
ii. Schedule asks (1)
iii. Discovery (1)
c. Develop prospect strategies (3)
d. Ensure portfolio composition includes prospects in different stages (1)
II. Group Training (16)
a. Internal (8)
i. Business intelligence
ii. Portfolio management & composition (2)
iii. CRM & reports training (2)
iv. Research training
b. Consultants (4) [Plus Delta (3)]
c. Conferences/workshops (2)

297
d. Boot Camp (2)
III. Guidance from supervisor (10)
a. [1:1 meetings] with supervisors (10)
IV. Use available tools/reports (10)
a. CRM & other vendors (4)
b. Research (1)
c. Analytics (1)
d. Reports (1)
e. Visualization (1)
f. Metrics (1)
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (9)
a. Collaboration with prospect management and research teams (7)
b. Experienced fundraisers sharing portfolio management strategies (1)
c. Develop common knowledge of best practices (1)
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (5)
a. Coaching (2)
b. Peer mentoring (2)
c. Mentoring
VII. Specific exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Experience

298
Q21 - Utilizing open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and
motivations
I. Group Training (19)
a. Consultants (11): Plus Delta (7), Advancement Resources' Art and Science of
Donor Development (3), Enneagram training (1)
b. Conferences/workshops (3): CASE (2), Generous Change workshop (1)
c. Boot camp/onboarding (1)
d. In-house (2)
e. Unspecified trainer, focused on asking questions (2)
II. Practice/exercises (17)
a. Role playing exercises (9), practicing with other gift officers (1), and mock
meetings (1)
b. Case study (3)
c. Practice active listening (1)
d. Practice asking questions (1)
e. Gain experience (1)
III. Job Aids (6)
a. Sharing/reviewing questions to ask (6)
IV. Guidance from supervisor or experienced colleagues (6)
a. Joint visits with supervisor or colleagues (6)
i. Modeling (2)
ii. Feedback (2)

299
V. Self-Study - Readings (5)
a. Getting to Yes by Fisher, Ury, & Patton (and other books by William L. Ury)
b. Difficult Conversations by Patton, Stone, and Heen
c. Power Questions by Sobel and Panas
d. Humble Inquiry by Edgar Schein
e. Online development libraries
VI. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Meetings with guest speakers, including donors (3)
VII. Mentoring (2)
VIII. Specific activities/actions (1)
a. Developing and testing questions on donors (1)

Q23 - Initiating relationships, strengthening relationships, and/or building constituents' trust in
and commitment to the institution
I. Group Training (12)
a. Consultants/Plus Delta (5)
b. CASE (1)
c. Internal (1)
d. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
e. Unspecified (3)
i. Emotional Intelligence (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (10)
a. Internal sharing of proven practices (2)

300
b. Discussing stewardship plans (2)
c. Discussing mission and values (1)
d. Prospect sessions (2)
i. Strategy (1)
ii. Prospecting and qualification sessions (1)
e. Event strategy discussions (1)
f. Engaging with faculty and staff across campus (1)
III. Specific actions/activities (4)
a. Donor outreach (1) and introductions (1)
b. Focus on donor relationships (1) and portfolio churn (1)
IV. Job Aids (3)
a. Sample emails and telephone scripts (2)
b. Collateral/marketing materials (1)
V. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Joint visits (2)
VI. Attending to employees’ trust in and commitment to the institution (2)
a. Monthly Wellness Wednesday (1)
b. Participating in institutional activities and events (1)
VII. Specific exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Role play (1)
VIII. Mentoring (1)
IX. Promoting a donor-centric culture (1)

301
Q24 - Using information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, to prioritize
and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective major gift donors
I. Group training (12)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (3) Advancement Resources (1)
b. Vendors (Blackbaud) (1)
c. Conferences (CASE)/Workshops (1)
d. Onboarding/Boot Camp (2)
e. Internal
i. CRM/database training (1)
ii. Prospect research training (3)
f. Unspecified trainer (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (10)
a. Prospect strategy discussions (3)
b. Working with prospect research/management team (3)
c. Working with other Advancement Services areas (2)
d. Working with vendors (EverTrue) (1)
III. Use available tools/reports (4)
a. Research tools (1)
b. Database tools (3)
c. To help set strategy (1)
IV. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. 1:1 training (1)
b. Prospect strategy conversations (1)

302
V. Coaching and mentoring (2)
a. From supervisor (1)
b. From peers (1)
VI. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Review Rel Sci reports (1)
b. Get introductions from donors (1)
VII. Job aids (1)
a. Prep sheet that prompts use of database info

Q25 - Developing and implementing specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and
solicitation plans for the involvement of prospective donors
I. Group Training (13)
a. Consultants: Plus Delta (5), Advancement Resources (1)
II. Meetings/Discussions with colleagues (12)
a. Prospect strategy/review sessions (6)
b. Share proven practices (1)
c. Peer-to-peer discussion and feedback (2)
d. Collaborate with Stewardship (1) and Prospect Research (1)
e. Working with vendors: EverTrue, ThankView, DonorGuru (1)
III. Job aids (4)
a. Planning & strategy guides (3)
b. Plus Delta materials (1)
IV. Guidance from supervisor (3)

303
a. 1:1 conversations (2)
b. Joint visits (1)
V. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Written plans with specific cultivation steps (1)
b. Portfolio composition targets that include prospects in stewardship (1)
VI. Use of volunteers (1)
VII. Marketing materials (1)

Q26 - Monitoring a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and/or assessing his or
her readiness for an ask
I. Group Training (11)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (5), other (3)
i. DiSC training (1)
ii. Emotional intelligence/personality types (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (1)
i. Qualification techniques
d. Unspecified trainer (1)
i. Test ask techniques
II. Specific actions/activities (8)
a. Asking donors questions (4)
b. Seeing/checking in with donors (2)
c. Reflecting on donor contacts (1)

304
d. Building trusting relationships with donors (1)
III. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Joint visits with debrief (1)
b. Debrief after solo visits (1)
c. 1:1 training (1)
IV. Meetings/Discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Strategy session/discuss scenario (2)
b. Working with vendors ??? [identical response to Q25] (1)
V. Job aids (2)
a. Sample questions (1)
b. Menu of priority [gift opportunities] (1)
VI. Coaching and mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring (1)
VII. Role Play/specific exercises (1)

Q27 - Qualifying and disqualifying prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
I. Group Training (12)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (3), Academic Impressions (1)
b. Conferences/workshops (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (2)
d. Internal (3)
i. Training by Research team (1)

305
ii. Small group training with managers (1)
iii. Qualification training (1)
e. Unspecified trainer (2)
II. Specific actions/activities (5)
a. Asking the right questions (1)
b. Reviewing qualification questions prior to visits (1)
c. Periodic outreach to prospects to be qualified (1)
d. Clarity about role in outreach (i.e., I am a fundraiser…) (1)
e. Disqualification (1)
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Prospect review sessions (1)
b. Work with research (1)
c. Digital engagement officers (1)
IV. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Portfolio review with manager (1)
b. Asking reports about plans for specific prospects (1)
V. Use available tools/reports (2)
a. Qualification metrics (2)
VI. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (1)
a. Qualification/discovery questions
VII. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer Mentoring

306
Q28 - Recording and/or reflecting on relevant information gleaned from interactions with
prospective donors
I. Group Training (13)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (3)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (4)
i. By experienced MGOs (1)
ii. By Advancement Services (1)
iii. Best practices for contact reports (1)
iv. CRM training (1)
d. Unspecified trainer (4)
i. Best practices for contact reports (2)
II. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (3)
a. Templates, frameworks, instructions
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (4)
a. Prospect review/strategy meetings (3)
b. Discuss with peers (1)
IV. Specific actions/activities (4)
a. Add to database (2)
b. Write contact reports and debrief with a colleague (1)
c. Review strategies for top prospects (1)
V. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Manager reviews, discusses

307
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Coaching by manager
VII. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Consistent practice (1)
VIII. Readings (1)
a. Effective Contact Reports by Jason McNeal of Gonser Gerber (1)

Q29 - Promoting a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the
value of giving and/or engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
I. Specific actions/activities (10)
a. Tell donor stories (2)
i. Feature donors in articles
ii. Provide inspirational examples in conversations
b. Introduce donors to each other
c. Teach philanthropy through senior class gift, etc.
d. Provide strong stewardship/donor relations
e. Convey impact of giving (2)
f. Gather donors to learn about new developments
g. Recruit donors for service on advisory councils
h. Hold regular meetings with [internal] stakeholders about role of philanthropy
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (6)
a. Presentations about initiatives, areas, units (2)
b. Hear from philanthropic leaders (1)

308
c. Share stories in meetings (2)
d. Strategy sessions (1)
III. Group Training (5)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (2)
i. By leadership (CFO, Provost, etc.)
ii. For departments, chairs
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Build relationships with colleagues
b. Consistent practice
V. Use available tools/reports (2)
a. Slack channel
b. Collaboration credit on proposals
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Supervisory coaching
b. Peer mentoring
VII. Behaviors/values (2)
a. Embed culture of philanthropy in team values
b. Model behavior for MGOs

Q30 - Recognizing patterns in donor motivation, categorizing prospective donors’ motivations
for giving, and tailoring cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly

309
I. Group Training (10)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (4), Advancement Resources (1), DiSC (1)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal (1)
i. Research/prospect management training
e. Unspecified trainer (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (6)
a. Prospect strategy/review sessions (2)
b. Working with vendors (EverTrue, ThankView, DonorGuru, RE, Ellucian) (2)
c. Working with Data Analytics team (1)
d. Hearing stories from other gift officers (1)
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Learn from experience (2)
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Peer mentoring
b. Individual coaching
V. Self-study (1)
a. CFRE (1)
VI. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Segment portfolio to uncover and map patterns
VII. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (1)
a. Portfolio mapping/planning grid (1)

310
Q31 - Clarifying, implementing, monitoring, and honoring donors’ intent and instructions
regarding the use of gifts and/or ensuring that gifts are accurately documented in the
organization’s records
I. Group Training (8)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1), Planned Giving (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal (3)
i. By leadership (1)
ii. Around gift agreements, stewardship (1)
e. Unspecified trainer
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (5)
a. Work with Donor Relations/Stewardship/Gift Administration (3)
b. Updates/info from leadership (1)
c. Reminders to be patient during agreement process (1)
III. Processes & Protocols (3)
a. Processes that automatically loop in Stewardship
b. Processes that ensure we record gift agreements and follow gift intent
c. Disciplined process throughout to ensure accuracy
IV. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (2)
a. A step-by-step protocol (1)
b. A checklist for MGOs and Stewardship officers (1)
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)

311
a. Coaching from supervisor
b. Peer mentoring
VI. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Learn from experience (1)

Q32 - Understanding and communicating ways of giving and their implications for donors’
financial and philanthropic goals
I. Group Training (15)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2), Sharpe (1)
b. Conferences/workshops (5)
i. CASE (1), NACGP (1)
ii. Local Planned Giving councils (1)
iii. Planned Giving seminar (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal: by Gift Planning team (4)
e. Unspecified trainer (2)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (6)
a. Working with/hearing from Gift Planning team (2)
b. Review tax code updates (1)
c. Gift post-mortems (1)
d. Experienced MGOs (1)
e. Meet with unit-based colleagues to learn about priorities (1)
III. Specific actions/activities (3)

312
a. Use creative mechanisms to secure gifts
b. Tell donors about relevant legislation (e.g., IRA rollover)
c. Tell donors to talk with their financial advisors
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Role play
b. Experience
V. Use available tools/reports (1) [possibly job aids]
a. Provide tools for fundraisers re: giving vehicles and tax-advantageous ways of
giving
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring
VII. Marketing materials (2)
a. PG newsletter
b. Relevant collateral

Q101 - Removing donors' objections, negotiating terms, and closing gifts
I. Group Training (17)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (4), Advancement Resources (1), unspecified (1)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (3), Academic Impressions (1), AFP (1), MACGP
(1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp
d. Internal
e. Unspecified trainer (4)

313
i. Overcoming common objections (3)
II. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (7)
a. Role play (2)
b. Review case studies (on negotiating terms) (2)
c. Prepare by thinking through most likely objections (1)
d. Practice asking difficult questions (1)
e. Practice 1:1 with colleagues (1)
III. Specific actions/activities (6)
a. Have open conversations with donors
b. Be creative to resolve objections
c. Be forthright and honest throughout
d. Ask clarifying questions
e. Use interest-based negotiation tactics (e.g., Ury)
f. Use strategies for closing gifts
IV. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (5)
a. Experienced MGOs share/discuss real cases
b. Gift post mortems
c. Prospect strategy meetings (2)
d. Discuss donor questions in fundraising meetings
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (3)
a. Coaching by supervisor
b. Mentoring (2)
VI. Guidance from supervisor (2)

314
a. 1:1 conversations with manager
b. Joint visits
VII. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (1)
a. Meeting templates with questions

Q102 - Facilitating a donor’s giving to areas of interest across the institution
I. Specific actions/activities (6)
a. Learn about donor interests through significant conversations
b. Make sure donors are aware of all the areas they may care about
c. Look at all prospects as potential multi-interest donors
d. Probe prospects’ philanthropy to find potential synergies with the institution’s
work
e. Ask donors if they give, what drives their decision-making, who else is
involved—don’t make assumptions
f. Frame institutional objectives in the lens of how the donor approaches potential
investment opportunities and what motivates them
II. Group Training (5)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2), Advancement Resources (1)
b. Internal (2)
i. With Donor Relations
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (5)
a. Gather all MGOs to hear about priorities, discuss convergent strategies (3)
b. Facilitate collaboration among gift officers (2)

315
IV. Encourage collaborative, donor-centric practices (2)
a. Encourage development of internal relationships
b. Remind MGOs that donors with broad and deep connections give more
V. Marketing/collateral materials (1)
a. Provide MGOs with the latest stories, research to share with donors
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q103 - Communicating effectively in writing and in person
I. Group Training (11)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1), other (2)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal
i. Utilizing institution’s writing resources (e.g., creative writing faculty,
business writing course, etc.) (3)
e. Unspecified trainer (2)
II. Guidance from supervisor (9)
a. Screen for communication skills in hiring process (3)
b. Ensure review of written work (emails, letters, proposals) (6)
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (3)
a. Role playing (for oral communication)
b. Practice pitch sessions

316
c. Preparing and practicing
IV. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (2)
a. Sample proposals, outreach communications, etc.
b. Provide good talking points
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Work with academic partners
b. Work with communications specialists
VI. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Use institution’s writing resources/centers
b. Ask colleagues to proofread
VII. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q104 - Absorbing, synthesizing, and conveying ideas and information to donors
I. Group Training (7)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (4)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal (1)
i. On fundraising priorities
II. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Hire for this skill set (2)

317
b. Monitor how often an MGO’s written work needs revision and how often
clarification with donors is needed
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Mock meetings
b. MGOs explain giving priorities to each other
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. In-house coaching
b. Peer mentoring
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. MarComm specialists
VI. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Taking notes and preparing

Q105 - Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
I. Guidance from supervisor (8)
a. 1:1 meetings (2)
b. Develop goals/metrics with reports (1)
c. Seek monthly/quarterly updates (3)
d. Provide advice, guidance on activities (1)
II. Group Training (6)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (2)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1), Academic Impressions (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)

318
d. Internal (1)
i. Business plan training
III. Use available tools/reports (5)
a. Activity metrics (3)
i. That include leading indicators (1)
b. Reports on progress in meeting activity metrics (1)
c. System that supports goal-setting and monitoring progress (Workday) (1)
IV. Specific actions/activities (3)
a. Annual planning (in July)
b. Devise a plan to meet metrics (1)
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring
VI. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Work with Advancement Services/Prospect Management on metrics, goals

Q106 - Conducting productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's
own
I. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (6)
a. Role play (1)
b. Talk to everyone with whom you come in contact (1)
c. Describe difficult conversations, share experiences (1)
d. Provide reminders to listen (1)
e. Provide reminders to tolerate generational differences (1)

319
f. Personal development over time (1)
II. Group Training (5)
a. Consultant: UNH PowerPlay (1), Plus Delta (1)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Unspecified trainer
i. Diversity training (1)
III. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Hire for this ability (2)
IV. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Read/Listen to news for exposure to people whose ideas differ from one’s own (1)
V. Self-Study/Readings (1)
a. Books by William L. Ury
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q107 - Asking donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem
I. Group Training (7)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (5), Advancement Resourcs (2)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (6)
a. Prospect strategy meetings (2)
b. Present full vision for a project

320
c. Invite faculty to present
d. Discuss with experienced MGOs
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Role play
b. Hands-on experience
IV. Job aids (e.g., worked examples) (1)
a. Provide sample questions
V. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Include academic partners in conversations with donors
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Motivation
Q57 - Being resilient when experiencing setbacks
I. Guidance from supervisor (12)
a. Conversations with MGOs about setbacks, pep talks (7)
b. Provide 1:1 training (1)
c. Remind MGOs that they only control their own actions (1)
d. Set realistic expectations (low-yield business) (1)
e. Hire for resilience (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (8)
a. Share successes and setbacks in meetings/conversations with other MGOs (7)
b. Gift postmortems (1)

321
III. Coaching and/or mentoring (3)
a. Mentoring (2)
b. Coaching (1)
IV. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Share successes/celebrate victories (2)
V. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Experience (2)
VI. Organizational culture (2)
a. Inspiring (vs. fearful)
b. Supportive environment

Q58 - Utilizing self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
I. Guidance from supervisor (6)
a. Regular 1:1 meetings that includes review of progress toward goals (4)
b. Utilize coaching techniques (1) with specific short-term goals and tasks (1)
c. Work 1:1 with MGOs (2)
II. Coaching and/or mentoring (4)
a. Coaching (3)
b. Peer mentoring (1)
III. Use available tools/reports (4)
a. Utilize metrics (2)
b. Use CRM (e.g., Raiser’s Edge) (1)

322
c. Use to-do lists, calendar reminders, and other office tools to track effort against
results (1)
IV. Group Training (4)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
b. Unspecified trainer (3)
i. Time management courses
ii. Professional development courses
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Sharing best practices, insights, recommendations (2)
VI. Institutional structure (1)

Q59 - Persisting in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
I. Guidance from supervisor (7)
a. Regular check-in meetings (2)
b. Model persistence, striving for excellence (2)
c. 1:1 training
d. Remind MGOs to be patient
e. Hire for this behavior (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Celebrate successes (2)
b. Gift postmortems (1)
III. Group Training (1)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)

323
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q60 - Demonstrating interest in the organization’s mission
I. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Meetings where faculty, etc. present their work (3)
II. Specific actions/activities (3)
a. Learn about why the organization is important
b. Take time to experience the mission
c. Get to know the people who are fulfilling the mission
III. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Assess interest in mission in hiring (2 + see comments)
b. Model behavior/lead by example (1)
IV. Use available tools/reports (1)
a. Provide access to mission statement, etc. via online information hub (e.g.,
intranet)
V. Group Training (1)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Comments: interest in mission is required for MGO success (2)

324
Q61 - Maintaining a positive outlook at work
I. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (6)
a. Share successes (2)
b. Acknowledge and address difficulties (2)
c. Invite students, faculty to address gift officers (1)
d. Work with Talent Development (1)
II. Guidance from supervisor (5)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior (2)
b. Provide encouragement when needed
c. 1:1 training
d. Model this behavior/lead by example
III. Specific actions/activities (4)
a. Offer social opportunities outside of work
b. Take the position that one’s attitude and responses determine how one feels
c. Invest in one’s personal development
d. Prayer
IV. Organizational Culture (3)
a. Create a supportive culture (1)
b. Provide transparent and timely communication (1)
V. Group Training (3)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
b. Internal (1)
i. Wellness sessions

325
c. Unspecified trainer (1)
VI. Coaching and Mentoring (2)
a. Coaching
b. Peer mentoring
VII. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Practice mindfulness

Q62 - Choosing to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
I. Guidance from supervisor (7)
a. Utilize metrics to maintain focus (2)
b. Review progress toward goals regularly (1)
c. Educate MGOs on activities that lead to success (1)
d. Create a culture of intention around highest ROI (1)
e. Planning and discussion of action items, next steps (1)
f. Hire for this behavior (1)
II. Group Training (5)
a. Conferences/workshops (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (1)
d. Unspecified trainer (2)
III. Use available tools/reports (2)
a. Metrics (2)
IV. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)

326
a. Participate in relevant programming
V. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Practice self-direction
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring
VII. Self-study (1)
a. Reading

Q63 - Demonstrating self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
I. Guidance from supervisor (5)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior
b. Encourage a growth mindset
c. Encourage MGOs to believe in themselves
d. Model being present and listening to others
e. Recognize job well done
II. Group Training (4)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (2)
b. Unspecified trainer (2)
III. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Recognize a job well done with note/email from leadership (1)
b. Lead a SWOT analysis with the team (1)
IV. Organizational culture (2)
a. Provides recognition for a job well done

327
b. Supports continuous learning
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Public recognition of job well done
VI. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Practice self-direction
VII. Tools/reports (1)
a. Ensure MGOs have the tools needed to do the job
VIII. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q64 - Enjoying activities associated with major gifts fundraising
I. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. At times, make work fun with contests, rewards for the team
b. Encourage team members to do what works best for them
c. Hire for this attitude/behavior

Q108 - Demonstrating curiosity and intellectual engagement
I. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior
II. Group Training (3)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
b. Unspecified trainer (2)
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)

328
a. Informal discussions
b. “Thoughts for Thursday” monthly conversations
IV. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Demonstrate what is interesting about our work and our institution
b. Discuss current events, emerging opportunities
V. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Practice/experience
VI. Self-Study (1)
a. Reading, listening, asking questions

Q109 - Bringing self-awareness to interactions with others
I. Group Training (5)
a. Consultant: Enneagram (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Unspecified trainer (3)
i. Training on Emotional Intelligence (EQ)
ii. Personality type training
II. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior (2)
b. Work 1:1 with MGOs
III. Specific actions/activities (3)
a. Ask colleagues for feedback (2)
b. Review one’s interactions, conversations and commit to improve

329
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. EQ questionnaire and evaluation
V. Self-Study (1)
a. Read Daniel Goleman’s book on EQ
VI. Organizational Culture (1)
a. Facilitate a culture of learning and open feedback
VII. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Informal discussions
VIII. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer Mentoring

Q110 - Being a self-starter with a drive to succeed
I. Guidance from supervisor (4)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior (2)
b. Model self-starting
c. Foster healthy competition within team
II. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Challenge oneself to achieve goals and get things done
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Practice self-direction
IV. Group Training (1)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
V. Self-Study (1)

330
a. Read books by self-starters
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q111 - Viewing philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
I. Group Training (3)
a. Consultant: Generous Change (1),
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Unspecified trainer (1)
i. Making of a Philanthropic Advisor course (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Invite donors to speak about their joy/satisfaction in giving and why they value
MGOs
b. Gift postmortems
c. Encourage stewardship
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Utilize case studies
b. Learn from experience
IV. Guidance from supervisor (1)
a. Hire for this attitude
V. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Set a goal of having philanthropists be happier after giving than before
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)

331
a. Peer mentoring

Q112 - Being willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
I. Guidance from supervisor (5)
a. Hire for this attitude/behavior (2)
b. Informal discussions
c. Include in goal-setting
d. Involve team in planning
II. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Leadership development coaching
b. Peer mentoring
III. Organizational setting (2)
a. Make this an expectation and include it in performance review/assessment
b. Demonstrate importance of learning, growing, etc. in a rapidly changing world
IV. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Be humble and seek feedback
V. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Gap and SWOT analyses
VI. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Retreat sessions led by team members
VII. Self-Study (1)
a. read, talk, attend lectures and seminars
b. Take classes

332

Organizational Behavior
Q65 - Collaborating with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
I. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (8)
a. Forums for development officers
b. Presentations by units/liaisons to units (3)
c. Corporate roundtables that include faculty/staff
d. Pipeline review
e. Peer-to-peer discussions
f. Discuss best practices
II. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (5)
a. Utilize case studies/exemplars in group forums (3)
b. Learn by doing—i.e., collaborate (2)
III. Group Training (4)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (1)
i. Division-wide trainings
d. Unspecified trainer (1)
IV. Organizational Setting (4)
a. Set expectations for collaboration
b. Create structures and processes that facilitate collaboration

333
c. Allow group credit for gifts
d. Build a collaborative culture
V. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Create committees and task forces
b. Encourage relationships with faculty and academic leadership
VI. Self-study (2)
a. Read Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson and Joseph Grenny
b. Read Speed of Trust by Stephen Covey
VII. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Provide cross-unit mentors to new hires
b. Peer mentoring

Q66 - Sharing knowledge and information with colleagues
I. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (7)
a. Regular team meetings/prospect review sessions (3)
b. Share information, stories in meetings (3)
c. Strategize together (1)
d. Brown bag lunches (1)
II. Group Training (4)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (1)
d. Unspecified trainer (1)

334
i. Communication training (1)
III. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Provide guidance about including partners
b. Model and encourage this behavior
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Learn by doing (2)
V. Self-study (2)
a. Read Crucial Conversations by Kerry Patterson and Joseph Grenny
b. Read Speed of Trust by Stephen Covey
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Mentoring
b. Peer mentoring
VII. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Make managing portfolios a team project—e.g., review and trade prospects

Q67 - Accepting and supporting colleagues
I. Group Training (4)
a. Consultant: UNH PowerPlay (1)
b. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
c. Internal (1)
i. HR training
d. Unspecified trainer (1)
i. DEI training

335
II. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Facilitate 1:1 meetings with every member of the team
b. Encourage joint visits
c. Hire for this behavior
III. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (3)
a. Keep an open mind
b. Be respectful of all people, including colleagues
c. Listen to each other
IV. Organizational Setting (2)
a. Create DEI goals and implement
b. Establish group norms
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Informal discussions
VI. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Participate in social activities

Q68 - Contributing to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
I. Group Training (4)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (1)
i. Organizational health/values training
d. Unspecified trainer (1)

336
II. Organizational Setting (4)
a. Provide learning/PD opportunities and encourage participation (2)
b. Encourage collaboration
c. Attend to organizational health (e.g., creation and implementation of shared
values)
d. Utilize a performance review system that supports a culture of learning and
continuous improvement
III. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Leadership development coaching
b. Peer mentoring
IV. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Forums for development officers
V. Guidance from supervisor (1)
a. Promoting the goal of success for all
VI. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Cultivate a growth mindset
VII. Use available tools/reports (1)
a. Immunity to Change maps

Q69 - Gaining the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
I. Specific actions/activities (5)
a. Keep your word and do what you say you will do (2)
b. Listen

337
c. Be collaborative when making decisions
d. Help resolve conflict
II. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Model/demonstrate transparency, trustworthiness (2)
b. Hire for this behavior (1)
III. Group Training (3)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp(1)
c. Unspecified trainer (1)
IV. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Forums for development officers
b. Pipeline review meetings
V. Organizational Culture (1)
a. Set expectation of trust-building
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

Q70 - Setting concrete, challenging, current goals
I. Guidance from supervisor (9)
a. Set goals… (5)
i. Together (1)
ii. That make one stretch (1)
iii. Based on portfolio and tenure (1)

338
b. Discuss goals, progress, projections (4)
II. Organizational Setting (3)
a. Incorporate goals into annual performance review process/system (2)
b. Clear process for setting annual qualitative and quantitative goals that involves
specific partners (e.g., supervisor, prospect management team) (1)
III. Group Training (3)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Unspecified trainer (2)
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (3)
a. Leadership development coaching
b. Coaching
c. Mentoring
V. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Look at data
VI. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Cultivate a growth mindset

Q71 - Being flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
I. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Discuss changes and brainstorm ideas for ways to approach challenges,
opportunities
b. Forum for development officers
c. Talk with others

339
II. Group Training (2)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
III. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Model this behavior
b. Hire for these attributes
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (2)
a. Be positive
b. Be open-minded
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Mentoring
b. Peer mentoring
VI. Organizational Culture (1)
a. Incorporate into organizational health initiative

Q113 - Demonstrating a commitment to excellence
I. Guidance from supervisor (4)
a. Demonstrate commitment to excellence (1)
b. Work hard, put in the hours (2)
c. Hire for this attitude (1)
II. Group Training (2)
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)

340
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Monthly meetings
b. Forum for development officers
IV. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Proof your work
b. Look at examples from other institutions
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Mentorship with accountability
b. Peer mentorship
VI. Organizational Culture (1)
a. Excellence as an institutional priority

Q114 - Ably navigating institutional politics and policies
I. Coaching and/or mentoring (5)
a. Coaching (on politics) (2)
b. Mentoring (2)
c. Peer mentoring (1)
II. Guidance from supervisor (4)
a. Ensure MGOs are aware of/understand policies (2)
b. Provide help navigating them (2)
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Prospect/pipeline review sessions (2)
b. Forum for development officers (1)

341
IV. Group Training (1)
a. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
V. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Use case studies with examples

Q115 - Manages up effectively
I. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Set/define expectations (2)
b. Hire for this skill (1)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (1)
a. Informal discussions
III. Group Training (1)
a. Consultant: Generous Change workshop (1)
IV. Practice/exercises (e.g., role play) (1)
a. Apply skills from working with donors/prospects to supervisor
V. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Coaching from manager as needed

Comment: Managing down is also an important skill set for MGOs

Q116 - Demonstrating empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
I. Group Training (6)
a. Conferences/workshops: Generous Change workshop (1)

342
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Unspecified trainer (4)
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (4)
a. Prospect strategy sessions/pipeline review (2)
b. Forum for development officers
c. Discuss challenges together
III. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. 1:1 conversations
b. Hire for this behavior
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Personal coaching/mentoring
b. Peer mentoring
V. Self-study (1)
a. Humble Inquiry by Edgar Schein
VI. Organizational Culture
a. DEI initiative

Q117 - Engaging diverse audiences
I. Specific actions/activities (7)
a. Individual
i. Participate in events and conversations with diverse audiences
b. Institutional
i. Review portfolios for diversity

343
ii. Develop strategies to identify diverse prospects
iii. Review alumni offerings for inclusion
iv. Purposefully recruit diverse board members
c. Both
i. Be mindful and deliberate (“no excuses”)
ii. Model behavior within organization
II. Group Training (5)
a. Consultant: UNH PowerPlay (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (2)
i. DEI training
ii. HR training
d. Unspecified trainer (1)
i. DEI training
III. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. All hands meetings
b. Forums for development officers
c. Pipeline review meetings
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Mentoring
b. Peer Mentoring
V. Guidance from supervisor (1)
a. Model behavior

344
Q118 - Creating a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
I. Group Training (3)
a. Consultant: UNH PowerPlay (1)
b. Conferences/workshops
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
d. Internal (1)
i. DEI programming
e. Unspecified trainer
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (3)
a. Forum for development officers
b. Pipeline review sessions
c. Advice from HR
III. Specific actions/activities (2)
a. Keep confidences
b. Know your organization’s mission and values
IV. Coaching and/or mentoring (2)
a. Mentorship
b. Peer mentoring
V. Self-Study – Readings
a. Humble Inquiry by Edgar Schein

Q121 - Treating others with respect
I. Group Training (4)

345
a. Workshop: Paul Meshanko/The Respect Effect (1)
b. Onboarding/Boot Camp (1)
c. Internal (2)
i. HR training
ii. DEI programming
II. Meetings/discussions with colleagues (2)
a. Forums for development officers
b. Regular discussions
III. Guidance from supervisor (2)
a. Model behavior
b. Hire for this attitude/behavior
IV. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Call people out when this isn’t happening
V. Organizational culture (1)
a. Embed respect for others in organizational culture
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring
VII. Other (1)
a. Unitarian Universalist Church

Note: Two comments suggest this is a necessary attitude/behavior for MGOs

346
Q119 - Participating in working groups to improve training, efficiency, and/or morale
I. Guidance from supervisor (3)
a. Model this behavior, provide encouragement
b. Assign staff to group tasks to foster teamwork
c. Ask team members with bandwidth who are performing well to take on working
group assignments
II. Group Training (3)
a. Workshop: Generous Change (1)
b. Unspecified trainer (2)
i. Leadership development courses
ii. Encourage training for all team members, regardless of experience
III. Specific actions/activities (1)
a. Provide ongoing opportunities for staff who volunteer or have unique perspectives
IV. Organizational culture (1)
a. Organizational health initiative
V. Meetings/discussions with colleagues
a. To improve morale (vs. training for task), lighten up some meetings and include
fun activities from time to time

Q123 - Providing excellent service and timely responses to donors and prospects
I. Guidance from supervisor (9)
a. Set expectations, provide reminders, hold accountable (4)
b. Hire for this attitude/behavior (2)

347
c. Model behavior (2)
d. 1:1 meetings (1)
II. Group Training (8)
a. Consultant: Plus Delta (1)
b. Conferences/workshops: CASE (1), Academic Impressions (1)
c. Onboarding/Boot Camp (2)
i. Include customer service in basic fundraising training
d. Internal (1)
i. Mini-trainings within All Hands meetings
e. Unspecified trainer (2)
i. Time management and prioritization training (1)
ii. Customer service best practices and strategies (1)
III. Specific actions/activities (4)
a. Focus on donors
b. Keep a to-do list
c. Set aside a standing time daily/weekly for donor correspondence
d. Ask for help and delegate
IV. Organizational culture (3)
a. Create an environment in which excellent service is provided in all things,
internal and external
b. Stress the importance of timely, thoughtful and comprehensive communications
with prospects
c. Major gifts leadership [sets/models this expectation]

348
V. Use available tools/reports (1)
a. Work with vendors (e.g., EverTrue, ThankView, DonorGuru) on message and
delivery tracking
VI. Coaching and/or mentoring (1)
a. Peer mentoring

349
Appendix G: Round Three Survey Instrument

Fundraiser Learning - Round 3

Start of Block: Introduction

Q4 Thank you for your participation in previous surveys about essential tasks, attitudes, and
behaviors in major gifts fundraising. This is the final survey in the research study, which seeks
to improve MGO training. In the last survey, we also asked about training methods you have
experienced, utilized, or witnessed that helped MGOs attain proficiency performing these tasks,
adopting these attitudes, and enacting these behaviors. In this survey, we seek feedback about
the effectiveness of the most commonly cited training methods.

Q5 How does your institution evaluate the effectiveness of training provided to MGOs? Check
all that apply.
▢ We review MGOs' relevant performance indicators in the months before and after
training (e.g., for a workshop on closing gifts, we might review the number of
gifts closed). (1)
▢ We use pre- and post-training evaluations to measure participants' learning during
training sessions. (2)
▢ We survey participants to ask if a training session is helpful and/or relevant. (3)
▢ We track institutional advancement's participation in training against fundraising
performance over time. (4)
▢ After training sessions, supervisors monitor whether MGOs apply what they've
learned to their daily work. (5)
▢ Other - please describe below (6)
________________________________________________
▢ We do not evaluate the effectiveness of the training we provide to MGOs (7)

End of Block: Introduction

350
Start of Block: Knowledge

Q1 Fundraising Tasks

Survey Round Two results confirmed that the following 21 tasks are important in major gifts
fundraising (i.e., these tasks were rated 85 or higher by a minimum of 85% of
respondents). The most frequently cited training methods for each task are listed below.
Please use the sliders to rate the effectiveness of each method in preparing MGOs to perform the
task independently, consistently, effectively, and in the right situations after training.
Some training methods may be most effective for MGOs with a particular level of
experience. You may use the text boxes above the sliders to indicate which experience level(s)
benefit from each training method and provide comments.

Q2 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial support
for the organization’s mission
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Shadowing gift officers on donor visits and
other specific activities ()

Exercises including role play and use of case
studies ()
Prospect strategy sessions and other
discussions with colleagues ()
Guidance from supervisors, including
debriefing after solo visits ()

351
Q3 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Meetings and discussions with colleagues,
including sharing proven practices ()
Seeking introductions, reaching out to
prospects, and other specific actions ()
Using sample emails, telephone scripts, and
other job aids ()

Q7 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective
donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Exercises including role play and use of case
studies ()
Sample questions to ask prospective donors
()
Donor visits with more experienced
colleagues or supervisor ()
Readings (e.g., Getting to Yes, Power
Questions, Humble Inquiry) ()

352
Q9 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining regular
contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation cycle

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Prioritizing and reaching out to prospects,
developing strategies, and other specific
activities ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Guidance from supervisor ()

Using available tools and reports, including
CRM ()
Working with prospect management and
research teams and learning strategies and
practices from experienced fundraisers ()

Q10 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Communicate effectively in writing and in person
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, consultants, and/or institution's
writing resources ()

Reviewing written work ()

Role play, practice pitch sessions, and other
exercises ()
Sample outreach emails, proposals, talking
points, and other worked examples ()

353
Q11 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation plans for
the involvement of prospective donors
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Prospect strategy sessions and other
discussions with colleagues ()
Planning/strategy guides and other job aids ()

Guidance from supervisor ()

Q12 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Absorb, synthesize, and convey ideas and information to donors

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, consultants, and/or institution's
writing resources ()

Mock meetings and other exercises ()

Guidance from supervisor ()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

354
Q13 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other factors, to
prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective major gift donors

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Prospect strategy sessions and collaboration
with colleagues in prospect management,
research, and other areas ()

Using available tools and reports (e.g., CRM,
research) ()
Guidance from supervisor ()

Q14 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her readiness for
an ask
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Checking in with donors, asking questions,
and reflecting on contacts ()
Debriefing after solo and joint visits and
other guidance from supervisor ()

355

Q15 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective donors

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Discussions with colleagues (e.g., in prospect
review meetings) ()
Writing and entering contact reports,
debriefing, and other specific activities ()
Templates, frameworks, instructions, and
other job aids ()

Q16 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Remove donors' objections, negotiate terms, and close gifts

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Role play, case studies, and other exercises ()

Asking clarifying questions, using
negotiation tactics, and other specific actions
()

Prospect strategy, gift post-mortem, and
other discussions with colleagues ()
Coaching and/or mentoring ()

356
Q17 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Facilitate a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Learning about donors' philanthropy, making
them aware of all areas of interest, and other
specific actions ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Collaborating with colleagues and discussing
donor-centric strategies ()

Q18 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use of gifts
and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s records

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Working with colleagues in donor relations,
stewardship, gift administration, etc. ()
Following processes and protocols that
ensure accurate and complete information
and appropriate stewardship ()

357
Q19 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through discovery
visits and other outreach
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Reaching out to prospects, asking questions,
and other specific activities ()
Prospect review and other collaborations
with colleagues ()

Q20 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Develop and execute a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Regular meetings with and guidance from
supervisor ()
Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Using metrics, reports, and other tools ()

Annual planning process and other specific
activities ()

358
Q21 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for giving,
and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Prospect strategy sessions, collaboration with
colleagues, and/or work with vendors ()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Q22 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial and
philanthropic goals
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Working with gift planning, gift post-
mortems, and other discussions with
colleagues ()

Telling donors about relevant legislation and
giving mechanisms and other specific
activities ()

359
Q23 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value of
giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Stewarding, gathering, and connecting
donors; telling donor stories; conveying the
impact of giving; talking with stakeholders
about the role of philanthropy; and other
specific activities ()

Discussions with with colleagues, academic
partners, and philanthropic leaders ()
Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Q24 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Conduct productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's own

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Role play, sharing difficult conversations,
and other exercises ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Reading and/or listening to news for
exposure to a wide range of views and other
specific activities ()

360
Q25 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Ask donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a problem

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Prospect strategy meetings, faculty
presentations, and other discussions with
colleagues ()

Role play and other forms of practice ()

End of Block: Knowledge

Start of Block: Motivation

Q26 MGO Attitudes & Behaviors
Survey Round Two results confirmed that the following 13 attitudes and behaviors are
important to MGO effectiveness (i.e., they were rated 88 or higher by a minimum of 91% of
respondents). The most frequently cited training methods for each attitude or behavior are listed
below.
Please use the sliders to rate the effectiveness of each method in preparing MGOs to
adopt the attitude or enact the behavior independently, consistently, effectively, and in the right
situations after training.
Some training methods may be most effective for MGOs with a particular level of
experience. You may use the text boxes above the sliders to indicate which experience level(s)
benefit from each training method and provide comments.

361

Q27 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Be self-starters with a drive to succeed
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modeling and encouragement from
supervisor ()
Challenging oneself to accomplish tasks and
achieve goals ()

Q28 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Be resilient when experiencing setbacks
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Talking with supervisors and receiving
encouragement and advice ()

Sharing successes and setbacks in
conversations and meetings with colleagues
()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Providing a supportive environment ()

362
Q29 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Persist in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Guidance from supervisor, including
modeling persistence and regular meetings ()
Celebrating successes and discussing how
they were achieved with colleagues ()
Mentoring ()

Q30 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Maintain a positive outlook at work
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

In meetings, sharing successes,
acknowledging and addressing difficulties,
and inviting students and faculty to present ()

Encouragement and modeling from
supervisor ()

Active engagement in reflection, mindset,
and personal development ()
Providing a supportive culture, timely
communication, and/or social opportunities
outside of work ()

Wellness sessions and other group training
opportunities ()

363
Q31 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Demonstrate interest in the organization’s mission
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Presentations by faculty, deans, and directors
()

Finding opportunities to experience the
mission, getting to know the people who are
fulfilling it, and other specific actions ()

Assessment of interest in mission by hiring
manager ()

Q32 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Bring self-awareness to interactions with others
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Reviewing one's interactions, seeking
feedback, and other specific actions ()
Using emotional intelligence EQ resources
(e.g., books, assessments) ()

364
Q33 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Utilize self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and taking
corrective actions
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Regular one-on-one meetings with supervisor
()
Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Using metrics, CRM, to-do lists, calendar
reminders, and other tools and reports ()
Time management courses and other group
training opportunities ()

Q34 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Choose to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Guidance from supervisor, including using
metrics, reviewing progress toward goals,
and discussing action items ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

365
Q35 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Demonstrate self-confidence in performing job responsibilities

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Encouragement and recognition from
supervisor ()
Onboarding/boot camp and other group
training ()
A culture that supports continuous learning
and recognizes a job well done ()

Q36 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Be willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Encouragement from supervisor and
involvement in planning and goal-setting ()
Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Valuing learning and growing, making them
expectations, and/or including them in
performance assessments ()

366
Q37 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Demonstrate curiosity and intellectual engagement
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Onboarding/boot camp and other group
training ()

Meetings and informal discussions with
colleagues ()
Discussing current events, emerging
opportunities, and other specific activities ()

Q38 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Enjoy activities associated with major gifts fundraising

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Encouragement from supervisors to do what
works best for them ()
Occasional contests and rewards for MGOs ()

367
Q39 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

View philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

In meetings with colleagues, conducting gift
post-mortems, encouraging stewardship, and
inviting donors to speak about joy in giving
()

Use case studies and other exercises ()

End of Block: Motivation

Start of Block: Organization

Q40 Factors in Organizational Performance
Survey Round Two results confirmed that the following 14 factors in organizational performance
are important to MGO effectiveness (i.e., they were rated 87 or higher by a minimum of 89% of
respondents). The most frequently cited training methods for each factor are listed below.
Please use the sliders to rate the effectiveness of each method in preparing MGOs to enact the
behavior independently, consistently, effectively, and in the right situations after training.
Some training methods may be most effective for MGOs with a particular level of
experience. You may use the text boxes above the sliders to indicate which experience level(s)
benefit from each training method and provide comments.

368
Q41 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Treat others with respect
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through workshops, in-house
training, and/or onboarding ()

Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., MGO forums) ()
Modeling and guidance from supervisor ()

Q42 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Collaborate with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the fundraising
process
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Meetings and discussions with colleagues,
including presentations by units ()
Exercises (e.g., case studies) and practice
(i.e., learning by doing) ()
Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Creating expectations for collaboration and
structures and processes (e.g., group credit
for gifts) to facilitate it ()

369
Q43 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Gain the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Listening, resolving conflict, collaborative
decision making, following through, and
other specific actions ()

Modeling and guidance from supervisor ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Pipeline review, MGO forums, and other
meetings with colleagues ()

Q44 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Demonstrate empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., prospect strategy sessions, MGO
forums) ()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Readings (e.g., Humble Inquiry) ()

Guidance from supervisor ()

370
Q45 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Be flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Discussions with colleagues (e.g.,
brainstorming ideas for responding to
challenges and opportunities) ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Modeling and practicing being positive and
open-minded ()
Mentoring ()

Q46 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Demonstrate a commitment to excellence
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Modeling and guidance from supervisor ()

Group training through workshops, in-house
training, and/or consultants ()
Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., MGO forums) ()
Benchmarking and proofing one's work and
other specific activities ()

Mentoring ()

371
Q47 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Share knowledge and information with colleagues
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Sharing information with colleagues in team
meetings, prospect strategy discussions, and
other forums ()

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants ()

Modeling and guidance from supervisor ()

Q48 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Ably navigate institutional politics and policies
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Guidance from supervisor in knowing,
understanding, and navigating policies ()
Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., prospect strategy sessions) ()

372
Q49 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Accept and support colleagues
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through workshops, in-house
training (e.g., HR), and/or consultants ()

Guidance from supervisor (e.g., encouraging
one-on-one meetings with colleagues, joint
visits, etc.) ()

Practicing listening, keeping an open mind,
and being respectful of all people ()

Establishing and implementing norms and
goals around diversity, equity, and inclusion
()

Q50 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Create a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through consultants and/or in-
house training (e.g., diversity, equity, and
inclusion programming) ()

Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., MGO forums, advice from HR) ()
Keeping confidences, focusing on
institutional mission and values, and/or other
specific actions ()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

373
Q51 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Contribute to a culture of learning and continuous improvement

Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Group training through workshops, in-house
training, and/or consultants ()
Encourage participation in collaboration,
shared value discussions, and learning
opportunities (e.g., by building them into
performance review system) ()

Coaching and/or mentoring ()

Q52 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Manage up effectively
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Guidance from supervisor in setting
expectations ()
Informal discussions with colleagues ()

Applying skills from working with donors to
working with more senior colleagues ()
Coaching from supervisor ()

374
Q53 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Engage diverse audiences
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Reviewing portfolios for diversity and
alumni offerings for inclusion; developing
strategies to identify diverse prospects;
recruiting diverse board members;
encouraging MGOs to participate in events
and conversations with diverse audiences;
and other specific activities ()

Group training through workshops, in-house
training, and/or consultants ()
Meeting and discussions with colleagues ()

Mentoring ()

Q54 Please rate the effectiveness of the following training methods in preparing MGOs to:

Set concrete, challenging, current goals
Not effective Highly effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Guidance from supervisor in discussing and
setting goals ()
Establishing processes for setting annual
goals and incorporating them in performance
review ()

Group training through workshops, in-house
training, and/or consultants ()
Coaching and/or mentoring ()

End of Block: Organization

375
Start of Block: Thank You

Q55 Many thanks for your participation in this research study. Your thoughtful insight and
commitment throughout multiple surveys are greatly appreciated. Once we have fully analyzed
the results, we will provide you with a summary.
Please click the forward button (below) to complete the survey and record your responses.

End of Block: Thank You

376
Appendix H: Round Three Quantitative Analysis
The Round Three survey included in Appendix G asked panelists to rate the effectiveness
of commonly cited training methods in teaching MGOs to perform specific tasks, adopt specific
attitudes, or enact specific behaviors that the panel previous identified as important for success in
major gifts fundraising. The data were analyzed, and results are reported in Table H1. Items that
reached a consensus level of 70% or more, a mean rating of 80 or more, a median of 90 or more,
and/or a CV less than or equal to 0.4 are indicated in bold text.
Table H1
Round Three Quantitative Analysis
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level
KNOWLEDGE

Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate
financial support for the organization's mission

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
73.18 75 0.2663 45%

Shadowing gift officers on donor
visits and other specific activities
84.39 85 0.1489 73%

Exercises including role play and use
of case studies
78.03 84 0.2095 64%

Prospect strategy sessions and
other discussions with colleagues
86.82 90 0.1486 85%

Guidance from supervisors,
including debriefing after solo
visits
89.15 90 0.1004 88%
Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants

67 70 0.3624 42%

377
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Meetings and discussions with
colleagues, including sharing
proven practices
84.73 90 0.1599 73%

Seeking introductions, reaching out
to prospects, and other specific
actions
83.24 85 0.171 67%

Using sample emails, telephone
scripts, and other job aids
81.12 85 0.2193 73%
Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a
prospective donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities,
and motivations

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
74.42 80 0.2857 52%

Exercises including role play and use
of case studies
79.21 85 0.2242 58%

Sample questions to ask
prospective donors
85 90 0.1594 76%

Donor visits with more experienced
colleagues or supervisor
88.3 90 0.1223 76%

Readings (e.g., Getting to Yes, Power
Questions, Humble Inquiry)
66.48 62 0.2529 33%
Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle

Prioritizing and reaching out to
prospects, developing strategies,
and other specific activities
85.67 89 0.1265 73%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
67.18 75 0.362 42%

Guidance from supervisor 84.3 90 0.152 73%

Using available tools and reports,
including CRM
79.7 80 0.1573 64%

378
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Working with prospect
management and research teams
and learning strategies and
practices from experienced
fundraisers
87.91 90 0.1126 85%

Communicates effectively in writing and in person

Group training through conferences,
workshops, consultants, and/or
institution's writing resources
66.61 70 0.3084 30%

Reviewing written work 81.33 85 0.201 67%

Role play, practice pitch sessions,
and other exercises
75.64 80 0.2864 64%

Sample outreach emails, proposals,
talking points, and other worked
examples
85.15 88 0.1483 73%
Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation
plans for the involvement of prospective donors

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
63.91 67 0.3772 36%

Prospect strategy sessions and
other discussions with colleagues
87 90 0.1311 73%

Planning/strategy guides and other
job aids
69.76 75 0.2909 45%

Guidance from supervisor 89.12 90 0.101 85%
Absorbs, synthesizes, and conveys ideas and information to donors

Group training through conferences,
workshops, consultants, and/or
institution's writing resources
71.52 80 0.2928 58%

Mock meetings and other exercises 74.61 80 0.2497 52%

Guidance from supervisor 84 89 0.1848 79%

Coaching and/or mentoring 87.58 90 0.1084 85%
Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors

379
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
66.33 66 0.3174 33%

Prospect strategy sessions and
collaboration with colleagues in
prospect management, research,
and other areas
86.06 90 0.1651 76%

Using available tools and reports
(e.g., CRM, research)
78.48 85 0.2299 64%

Guidance from supervisor 85.61 90 0.1499 82%
Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training,
and/or consultants
59.73 60 0.3842 27%

Checking in with donors, asking
questions, and reflecting on
contacts
90.3 95 0.1399 85%

Debriefing after solo and joint
visits and other guidance from
supervisor
88.97 90 0.1255 82%
Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective donors

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
61.82 60 0.3866 36%

Discussions with colleagues (e.g., in
prospect review meetings)
83.58 87 0.1766 70%

Writing and entering contact
reports, debriefing, and other
specific activities
84.79 90 0.2038 79%

Templates, frameworks, instructions,
and other job aids
69.64 75 0.2842 42%
Removes donors' objections, negotiates terms, and closes gifts

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
65.82 70 0.3318 36%

Role play, case studies, and other
exercises
82.97 85 0.1686 67%

380
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Asking clarifying questions, using
negotiation tactics, and other
specific actions
89.3 94 0.1232 85%

Prospect strategy, gift post-mortem,
and other discussions with
colleagues
87.36 91 0.148 79%

Coaching and/or mentoring 89.18 91 0.127 85%

Facilitates a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution

Learning about donors'
philanthropy, making them aware
of all areas of interest, and other
specific actions
91.79 95 0.0948 88%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
65 70 0.3244 36%

Collaborating with colleagues and
discussing donor-centric strategies
89.03 90 0.1164 85%
Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use of
gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s records

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
67.48 74 0.3247 39%

Working with colleagues in donor
relations, stewardship, gift
administration, etc.
88.76 92 0.1367 76%

Following processes and protocols
that ensure accurate and complete
information and appropriate
stewardship
87.48 90 0.1519 82%
Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through discovery
visits and other outreach

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
70.79 79 0.2422 48%

Reaching out to prospects, asking
questions, and other specific
activities
91.73 95 0.1018 88%

381
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Prospect review and other
collaborations with colleagues
84.58 85 0.1479 70%
Develops and executes a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics

Regular meetings with and guidance
from supervisor
91.45 94 0.1295 97%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
61.64 66 0.3916 36%

Using metrics, reports, and other
tools
83.73 89 0.1685 73%

Annual planning process and other
specific activities
85.42 90 0.1692 82%
Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for
giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
63.73 70 0.3547 33%

Prospect strategy sessions,
collaboration with colleagues,
and/or work with vendors
87.36 90 0.139 79%

Coaching and/or mentoring 89.12 90 0.1161 88%
Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial and
philanthropic goals

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
72.45 80 0.2998 52%

Working with gift planning, gift post-
mortems, and other discussions
with colleagues
88.09 90 0.1329 79%

Telling donors about relevant
legislation and giving mechanisms
and other specific activities
74.73 80 0.2421 55%

382
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value of
giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising

Stewarding, gathering, and
connecting donors; telling donor
stories; conveying the impact of
giving; talking with stakeholders
about the role of philanthropy; and
other specific activities
87.94 90 0.1612 79%

Discussions with colleagues,
academic partners, and
philanthropic leaders
84.7 85 0.1433 73%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
66.06 76 0.3725 39%
Conducts productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's own

Role play, sharing difficult
conversations, and other exercises
87.09 90 0.1469 70%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
70.79 76 0.3385 48%

Reading and/or listening to news for
exposure to a wide range of views
and other specific activities
78.88 85 0.2848 61%
Asks donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
67.36 74 0.3168 33%

Prospect strategy meetings, faculty
presentations, and other
discussions with colleagues
85.94 90 0.1637 79%

Role play and other forms of practice 82.52 88 0.2295 73%

383
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level
MOTIVATION
Is a self-starter with a drive to succeed

Modeling and encouragement from
supervisor
85.91 88 0.1321 76%

Challenging oneself to accomplish
tasks and achieve goals
87.18 90 0.1361 82%
Is resilient when experiencing setbacks

Talking with supervisors and
receiving encouragement and
advice
87.55 90 0.1623 85%

Sharing successes and setbacks in
conversations and meetings with
colleagues
88.94 90 0.1037 85%

Coaching and/or mentoring 88.7 90 0.1271 91%

Providing a supportive environment 88.12 90 0.2046 88%
Persists in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success

Guidance from supervisor, including
modeling persistence and regular
meetings
86.79 88 0.1141 79%

Celebrating successes and discussing
how they were achieved with
colleagues
88.15 90 0.1279 85%

Mentoring 87.48 90 0.1308 85%
Maintains a positive outlook at work

In meetings, sharing successes,
acknowledging and addressing
difficulties, and inviting students
and faculty to present
83.79 90 0.2336 79%

Encouragement and modeling from
supervisor
90.15 94 0.1622 91%

Active engagement in reflection,
mindset, and personal development
85.82 90 0.205 79%

Providing a supportive culture,
timely communication, and/or
social opportunities outside of
work
83.18 86 0.2235 79%

384
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Wellness sessions and other group
training opportunities
67.15 75 0.3341 36%
Demonstrates interest in the organization’s mission

Presentations by faculty, deans, and
directors
86.97 90 0.1149 85%

Finding opportunities to experience
the mission, getting to know the
people who are fulfilling it, and
other specific actions
90.39 92 0.0968 88%

Assessment of interest in mission by
hiring manager
73.7 77 0.2792 45%
Brings self-awareness to interactions with others

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
58.21 69 0.4588 24%

Reviewing one's interactions, seeking
feedback, and other specific
actions
84.45 86 0.154 76%

Using emotional intelligence EQ
resources (e.g., books, assessments)
66.12 72 0.3721 39%
Utilizes self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and taking
corrective actions

Regular one-on-one meetings with
supervisor
88.64 90 0.1141 85%

Coaching and/or mentoring 86.52 90 0.1318 73%

Using metrics, CRM, to-do lists,
calendar reminders, and other
tools and reports
83.73 90 0.2019 76%

Time management courses and other
group training opportunities
68.3 74 0.3354 45%
Chooses to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals

Guidance from supervisor, including
using metrics, reviewing progress
toward goals, and discussing action
items
88.18 90 0.1199 76%

385
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
62.03 71 0.4131 27%
Demonstrates self-confidence in performing job responsibilities

Encouragement and recognition
from supervisor
88 90 0.1361 85%

Onboarding/boot camp and other group
training
74.12 80 0.2767 55%

A culture that supports continuous
learning and recognizes a job well
done
89.12 92 0.162 91%
Is willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways

Encouragement from supervisor and
involvement in planning and goal-
setting
87.18 90 0.1747 79%

Coaching and/or mentoring 85.45 89 0.1615 76%

Valuing learning and growing,
making them expectations, and/or
including them in performance
assessments
83.03 85 0.2006 70%
Demonstrates curiosity and intellectual engagement

Onboarding/boot camp and other group
training
67.73 70 0.2885 36%

Meetings and informal discussions with
colleagues
80.76 80 0.1618 61%

Discussing current events, emerging
opportunities, and other specific
activities
75.42 80 0.2529 58%
Enjoys activities associated with major gifts fundraising

Encouragement from supervisors to do
what works best for them
82 85 0.2211 67%

Occasional contests and rewards for
MGOs
61.33 63 0.3888 21%
Views philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
68.94 76 0.359 48%

386
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

In meetings with colleagues,
conducting gift post-mortems,
encouraging stewardship, and
inviting donors to speak about joy
in giving
86.09 90 0.1748 76%

Use case studies and other exercises 72.12 77 0.3094 48%
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORS

Treats others with respect

Group training through workshops, in-
house training, and/or onboarding
61.34 68 0.4039 31%

Meetings and discussions with
colleagues (e.g., MGO forums)
75.03 77 0.2605 47%

Modeling and guidance from
supervisor
89.91 90 0.1091 88%
Collaborates with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the fund-
raising process

Meetings and discussions with
colleagues, including presentations
by units
82.47 85 0.1959 72%

Exercises (e.g., case studies) and
practice (i.e., learning by doing)
75.72 82.5 0.2744 56%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
61.56 69 0.4143 31%

Creating expectations for
collaboration and structures and
processes (e.g., group credit for
gifts) to facilitate it
85.41 90 0.1978 78%
Gains the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors

Listening, resolving conflict,
collaborative decision making,
following through, and other
specific actions
87.56 90 0.1475 75%

Modeling and guidance from
supervisor
87.28 90 0.1404 88%

387
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
60.59 66.5 0.4285 31%

Pipeline review, MGO forums, and
other meetings with colleagues
76.78 80 0.2355 56%

Demonstrates empathy and emotional intelligence

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
59.69 59.5 0.3718 28%

Meetings and discussions with
colleagues (e.g., prospect strategy
sessions, MGO forums)
73.72 75.5 0.2770 50%

Coaching and/or mentoring 84.03 85.5 0.1598 75%

Readings (e.g., Humble Inquiry) 60.03 63 0.3524 28%

Guidance from supervisor 81.31 84.5 0.1789 66%
Be flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment

Discussions with colleagues (e.g.,
brainstorming ideas for responding to
challenges and opportunities)
83.59 87.5 0.1685 63%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
59.22 54 0.3696 28%

Modeling and practicing being positive
and open-minded
84.84 88 0.1359 69%

Mentoring 86.03 85.5 0.1437 75%
Demonstrate a commitment to excellence

Modeling and guidance from
supervisor
89.22 90.5 0.1161 88%

Group training through workshops, in-
house training, and/or consultants
62.78 69 0.3524 31%

Meetings and discussions with
colleagues (e.g., MGO forums)
77.03 80 0.2245 53%

388
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Benchmarking and proofing one's
work and other specific activities
80.63 85 0.2092 75%

Mentoring 83.84 85 0.1453 75%
Shares knowledge and information with colleagues

Sharing information with colleagues in
team meetings, prospect strategy
discussions, and other forums
88.16 90.5 0.1410 81%

Group training through conferences,
workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
65.13 71.5 0.3687 34%

Modeling and guidance from
supervisor
86.13 86.5 0.1372 84%
Ably navigate institutional politics and policies

Coaching and/or mentoring 84.09 85 0.1493 84%

Guidance from supervisor in knowing,
understanding, and navigating
policies
88.97 90 0.1004 88%

Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., prospect strategy sessions)
78.59 80 0.2044 63%
Accepts and supports colleagues

Group training through workshops, in-
house training (e.g., HR), and/or
consultants
63.09 73 0.3662 34%

Guidance from supervisor (e.g.,
encouraging one-on-one meetings
with colleagues, joint visits, etc.)
85.03 88 0.1259 78%

Practicing listening, keeping an open
mind, and being respectful of all
people
86.16 90 0.1593 75%

Establishing and implementing norms
and goals around diversity, equity,
and inclusion
85.13 88 0.1935 78%
Creates a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics

Group training through consultants
and/or in-house training (e.g., diversity,
equity, and inclusion programming)
69.81 79.5 0.3417 50%

389
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level

Meetings and discussions with colleagues
(e.g., MGO forums, advice from HR)
78 80 0.2059 53%

Keeping confidences, focusing on
institutional mission and values, and/or
other specific actions
83.44 86.5 0.1685 66%

Coaching and/or mentoring 85.06 86.5 0.1425 75%
Contributes to a culture of learning and continuous improvement

Group training through workshops, in-
house training, and/or consultants
72.56 78.5 0.2991 47%

Encourage participation in
collaboration, shared value
discussions, and learning
opportunities (e.g., by building them
into performance review system)
81.16 84.5 0.1992 72%

Coaching and/or mentoring 82.56 88 0.1959 72%
Manage up effectively

Guidance from supervisor in setting
expectations
87.25 88.5 0.1268 84%

Informal discussions with colleagues 79.03 80.5 0.2109 59%

Applying skills from working with
donors to working with more senior
colleagues
77.66 83 0.2644 56%

Coaching from supervisor 85.81 90 0.1582 72%
Engages diverse audiences

Reviewing portfolios for diversity and
alumni offerings for inclusion;
developing strategies to identify
diverse prospects; recruiting diverse
board members; encouraging MGOs
to participate in events and
conversations with diverse
audiences; and other specific
activities
82.91 90 0.1816 72%

Group training through workshops, in-
house training, and/or consultants
72.41 79 0.2514 47%

Meeting and discussions with colleagues 80.31 84.5 0.2128 69%

Mentoring 78.72 85 0.2303 59%

390
Item Training method
Mean
rating
Median
rating
CV
Consensus
level
Sets concrete, challenging, current goals

Guidance from supervisor in
discussing and setting goals
87.72 92 0.1702 81%

Establishing processes for setting
annual goals and incorporating them
in performance review
89.44 90 0.0989 88%

Group training through workshops, in-
house training, and/or consultants
63.28 67 0.3222 31%

Coaching and/or mentoring 81.22 87.5 0.1994 63%

Note. Bold type indicates a measurement that meets or exceeds the threshold for review in
determining essential tasks, attitudes, and behaviors of MGOs—i.e., mean >= 80, median >=90,
CV<=0.4, and consensus level >=70%. Coefficient of variation is the ratio of standard
deviation to mean. Consensus level = percentage of total responses with a score of 80 or higher.

391
Appendix I: Round Three Qualitative Results
The following outline is a compilation of qualitative responses to a request in the Round
Three survey to provide feedback, using comment boxes, on which MGO experience level(s)
benefit from the training methods presented for rating. Text in italics are researcher notes added
for context and/or clarity. Only a few panelists (n = 7) provided comments, and none provided
comments for all items included the survey. Thus, the qualitative data gathered in Round Three
are incomplete and not definitive; however, they may provide a useful starting point for future
research.
1. Solicit and secure gifts from current and prospective donors in order to generate financial
support for the organization’s mission
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants benefits MGOs with the following levels of experience:
i. Beginner (3)
ii. Intermediate (0)
iii. Advanced (0)
iv. All levels of experience (3)
v. Comments: Helpful at all levels. I get most annoyed with more senior
fundraisers who believe they cannot learn anything new in training.
b. Shadowing gift officers on donor visits and other specific activities benefits
MGOs with the following levels of experience:
i. Beginner (5)
ii. Intermediate (0)
iii. Advanced (0)

392
iv. All levels of experience (0)
v. Comments: Best for high level annual fund staff training. More difficult to
allow shadowing on a 7-figure plus solicitation.
c. Exercises including role play and use of case studies benefit MGOs with the
following levels of experience:
i. Beginner (0)
ii. Intermediate (0)
iii. Advanced (0)
iv. All levels of experience (2)
v. Comments: Case studies are best; this method is educational and also
motivating for gift officers at all levels
d. Prospect strategy sessions and other discussions with colleagues benefit MGOs
with the following levels of experience:
i. Beginner (0)
ii. Intermediate (0)
iii. Advanced (0)
iv. All levels of experience (4)
v. Comments: They are essential for major and principal gift fundraisers, but
seem to deal more with the purpose and rationale for the gift (which are
very important) than the solicitation itself.
e. Guidance from supervisors, including debriefing after solo visits benefits MGOs
with the following levels of experience:
i. Beginner (0)

393
ii. Intermediate (0)
iii. Advanced (0)
iv. All levels of experience (3)
v. Comments: Sometimes when I hear staff describe the visit you and they
can uncover missed opportunities in hindsight; encourages reflection

2. Initiate and strengthen relationships with constituents, building trust in and long-term
commitment to the institution
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. All levels of experience (2)
ii. Comments: I don't actually see this as a topic typically covered in group
training, but I think it could be effective for all levels depending on how it
was done.
b. Meetings and discussions with colleagues, including sharing proven practices
i. All levels of experience (1)
c. Seeking introductions, reaching out to prospects, and other specific actions
i. All levels of experience (1)
d. Using sample emails, telephone scripts, and other job aids
i. Beginner (2)
ii. All levels of experience (2)

394
iii. Comments: I expect an MGO to be competent and comfortable with their
approach. Hearing of the approach of others can, however, inspire new
activity.

3. Utilize open-ended questions and active listening to elicit information about a prospective
donor’s values, inclination to give, and philanthropic interests, priorities, and motivations
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Beginner (1)
ii. All levels of experience (2)
iii. Comments: Group training that shares questions and at what stage to use
them are effective, especially for newer gift officers, but I think helpful for
all
b. Exercises including role play and use of case studies
i. All levels of experience (2)
ii. Comments: Case studies are a great tool to teach all levels.
c. Sample questions to ask prospective donors
i. All levels of experience (2)
ii. Comments: Yes, to spur one to find question that fit with their personality
and style—what works for one does not work for all.
d. Donor visits with more experienced colleagues or supervisor
i. Beginner (2)

395
ii. Comments: These are very helpful in a limited way to model behavior.
Challenge is that donors gravitate toward one voice in the meeting and it
must be clear that the less senior person will maintain the relationship and
have an identified role in the meeting.
e. Readings (e.g., Getting to Yes, Power Questions, Humble Inquiry)
i. All levels of experience (1)
ii. Comments: There are differences in the way people learn and retain
information. This may work well for some, less so for others. A discussion
among colleagues of a book, or chapter, may make this more effective.

4. Manage a dynamic portfolio of current and prospective major gift donors, maintaining
regular contact with them and monitoring their progress through the donor cultivation
cycle
a. Prioritizing and reaching out to prospects, developing strategies, and other
specific activities
i. All levels of experience (1)
b. Guidance from supervisor
i. All levels of experience (1)
c. Using available tools and reports, including CRM
i. All levels of experience (1)
d. Working with prospect management and research teams and learning strategies
and practices from experienced fundraisers
i. All levels of experience (1)

396
5. Communicate effectively in writing and in person
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, consultants, and/or institution's
writing resources
i. Beginner (1)
b. Reviewing written work
i. All levels of experience (1)
c. Role play, practice pitch sessions, and other exercises (3 responses; 2 comment
only)
i. Beginner (1)
ii. Comments: Great for practicing in person pitches and elevator talks; Not
sure how verbal communication and interaction helps build writing skills...
d. Sample outreach emails, proposals, talking points, and other worked examples
i. Beginner (1)

6. Develop and implement specific, personalized engagement, cultivation, and solicitation
plans for the involvement of prospective donors
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. All levels of experience (1)
ii. Comments: Can be a round peg, square hole situation.
b. Prospect strategy sessions and other discussions with colleagues
i. All levels of experience (2)

397
ii. Comments: It is effective for all experience levels to share knowledge in
this manner.
c. Planning/strategy guides and other job aids (0)
d. Guidance from supervisor
i. All levels of experience (1)

7. Absorb, synthesize, and convey ideas and information to donors
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, consultants, and/or institution's
writing resources
i. All levels of experience (1)
b. Mock meetings and other exercises
i. All levels of experience (1)
c. Guidance from supervisor
i. All levels of experience (1)
d. Coaching and/or mentoring
i. All levels of experience (1)

8. Use information about prospective donors, such as linkage, ability, interest, and other
factors, to prioritize and plan engagement, cultivation, and solicitation of prospective
major gift donors
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants

398
b. Prospect strategy sessions and collaboration with colleagues in prospect
management, research, and other areas
c. Using available tools and reports (e.g., CRM, research)
d. Guidance from supervisor
No qualitative responses

9. Monitor a prospective donor’s feelings about the organization and assess his or her
readiness for an ask
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. Checking in with donors, asking questions, and reflecting on contacts
c. Debriefing after solo and joint visits and other guidance from supervisor
No qualitative responses

10. Record and reflect on relevant information gleaned from interactions with prospective
donors
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. Discussions with colleagues (e.g., in prospect review meetings)
c. Writing and entering contact reports, debriefing, and other specific activities
d. Templates, frameworks, instructions, and other job aids
No qualitative responses

399
11. Remove donors' objections, negotiate terms, and close gifts
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. All levels of experience (1)
b. Role play, case studies, and other exercises (0)
c. Asking clarifying questions, using negotiation tactics, & other specific actions (0)
d. Prospect strategy, gift post-mortem, and other discussions with colleagues (0)
e. Coaching and/or mentoring (0)

12. Facilitate a donor's giving to areas of interest across the institution
a. Learning about donors' philanthropy, making them aware of all areas of interest,
and other specific actions
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
c. Collaborating with colleagues and discussing donor-centric strategies
No qualitative responses

13. Clarify, implement, monitor, and honor donors’ intent and instructions regarding the use
of gifts and ensure that gifts are accurately documented in the organization’s records
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Comments: Needed to teach policy and protocol

400
b. Working with colleagues in donor relations, stewardship, gift administration, etc.
(0)
c. Following processes and protocols that ensure accurate and complete information
and appropriate stewardship (0)

14. Qualify and disqualify prospective major gift donors for further cultivation through
discovery visits and other outreach
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Beginner (1)
b. Reaching out to prospects, asking questions, and other specific activities (0)
c. Prospect review and other collaborations with colleagues (0)

15. Develop and execute a plan to achieve fundraising goals and activity metrics
a. Regular meetings with and guidance from supervisor (0)
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Comments: I personally have not seen this done very effectively in group
training.
c. Using metrics, reports, and other tools
i. Comments: Great for monitoring progress toward goals and then
implementing coaching to shore up problem areas.
d. Annual planning process and other specific activities (0)

401
16. Recognize patterns in donor motivation, categorize prospective donors’ motivations for
giving, and tailor cultivation and solicitation plans accordingly
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. Prospect strategy sessions, collaboration with colleagues, and/or work with
vendors
c. Coaching and/or mentoring
No qualitative responses

17. Understand and communicate ways of giving and their implications for donors’ financial
and philanthropic goals
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Comments: Good for understanding planned giving options
b. Working with gift planning, gift post-mortems, and other discussions with
colleagues (0)
c. Telling donors about relevant legislation and giving mechanisms and other
specific activities
i. Comments: I would rather have MGOs telling donors of the impact of
their gift and inspire them, than talk about legislation and giving
mechanisms.

402
18. Promote a culture of philanthropy by broadening constituents’ understanding of the value
of giving and engaging stakeholders across the institution in fundraising
a. Stewarding, gathering, and connecting donors; telling donor stories; conveying
the impact of giving; talking with stakeholders about the role of philanthropy; and
other specific activities
b. Discussions with with colleagues, academic partners, and philanthropic leaders
c. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
No qualitative responses

19. Conduct productive conversations with people whose points of view differ from one's
own
a. Role play, sharing difficult conversations, and other exercises
i. Comments: Preparing gift officers to do this is becoming more important;
need to share difficult conversations.
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants (0)
c. Reading and/or listening to news for exposure to a wide range of views and other
specific activities (0)

20. Ask donors questions that elicit big-picture thinking and/or point toward solutions to a
problem

403
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
i. Comments: I would like to see more group trainings offered on this as a
way to get gift officers into this mindset.
b. Prospect strategy meetings, faculty presentations, and other discussions with
colleagues (0)
c. Role play and other forms of practice (0)

21. Be self-starters with a drive to succeed
a. Modeling and encouragement from supervisor
b. Challenging oneself to accomplish tasks and achieve goals
No qualitative responses

22. Be resilient when experiencing setbacks
a. Talking with supervisors and receiving encouragement and advice
b. Sharing successes and setbacks in conversations and meetings with colleagues
c. Coaching and/or mentoring
d. Providing a supportive environment
No qualitative responses

23. Persist in accomplishing assigned tasks with the expectation of success
a. Guidance from supervisor, including modeling persistence and regular meetings
b. Celebrating successes and discussing how they were achieved with colleagues

404
c. Mentoring
No qualitative responses

24. Maintain a positive outlook at work
a. In meetings, sharing successes, acknowledging and addressing difficulties, and
inviting students and faculty to present
i. All levels of experience (1)
b. Encouragement and modeling from supervisor (0)
c. Active engagement in reflection, mindset, and personal development (0)
d. Providing a supportive culture, timely communication, and/or social opportunities
outside of work
i. Comment: Perhaps social opportunities within work hours, rather than
expecting additional time commitment.
e. Wellness sessions and other group training opportunities (0)

25. Demonstrate interest in the organization’s mission
a. Presentations by faculty, deans, and directors
b. Finding opportunities to experience the mission, getting to know the people who
are fulfilling it, and other specific actions
c. Assessment of interest in mission by hiring manager
No qualitative responses

405
26. Bring self-awareness to interactions with others
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. Reviewing one's interactions, seeking feedback, and other specific actions
c. Using emotional intelligence EQ resources (e.g., books, assessments)
No qualitative responses

27. Utilize self-regulatory strategies, including goal setting, monitoring performance, and
taking corrective actions
a. Regular one-on-one meetings with supervisor (0)
b. Coaching and/or mentoring (0)
c. Using metrics, CRM, to-do lists, calendar reminders, and other tools/reports (0)
d. Time management courses and other group training opportunities
i. Comments: training by a SME in this topic is effective

28. Choose to engage in activities that will help achieve work goals
a. Guidance from supervisor, including using metrics, reviewing progress toward
goals, and discussing action items
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
No qualitative responses

406
29. Demonstrate self-confidence in performing job responsibilities
a. Encouragement and recognition from supervisor (0)
b. Onboarding/boot camp and other group training
i. Comments: Onboarding is critical to bolster confidence of new gift
officers
c. A culture that supports continuous learning and recognizes a job well done (0)

30. Be willing to learn, grow, and contribute in new ways
a. Encouragement from supervisor and involvement in planning and goal-setting
b. Coaching and/or mentoring
c. Valuing learning and growing, making them expectations, and/or including them
in performance assessments
No qualitative responses

31. Demonstrate curiosity and intellectual engagement
a. Onboarding/boot camp and other group training
b. Meetings and informal discussions with colleagues
c. Discussing current events, emerging opportunities, and other specific activities
No qualitative responses

32. Enjoy activities associated with major gifts fundraising
a. Encouragement from supervisors to do what works best for them
i. Comments: ...as long as what works best for them leads to success.

407
b. Occasional contests and rewards for MGOs
i. Comments: Frontline fundraisers at all levels are competitive and
appreciate recognition, so opportunities for public recognition are helpful.

33. View philanthropy as mutually beneficial to donor and recipient
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. In meetings with colleagues, conducting gift post-mortems, encouraging
stewardship, and inviting donors to speak about joy in giving
c. Use case studies and other exercises
No qualitative responses

34. Treat others with respect
a. Group training through workshops, in-house training, and/or onboarding
b. Meetings and discussions with colleagues (e.g., MGO forums)
c. Modeling and guidance from supervisor
No qualitative responses

35. Collaborate with advancement colleagues, academic partners, and volunteers in the
fundraising process
a. Meetings and discussions with colleagues, including presentations by units
b. Exercises (e.g., case studies) and practice (i.e., learning by doing)

408
c. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
d. Creating expectations for collaboration and structures and processes (e.g., group
credit for gifts) to facilitate it
No qualitative responses

36. Gain the trust of peers, partners, and supervisors
a. Listening, resolving conflict, collaborative decision making, following through,
and other specific actions
b. Modeling and guidance from supervisor
c. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
d. Pipeline review, MGO forums, and other meetings with colleagues
No qualitative responses

37. Demonstrate empathy and emotional intelligence in interactions with others
a. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
b. Meetings and discussions with colleagues (e.g., prospect strategy sessions, MGO
forums)
c. Readings (e.g., Humble Inquiry)
d. Guidance from supervisor

409
No qualitative responses

38. Be flexible, adaptable, and able to respond to changes in the environment
a. Discussions with colleagues (e.g., brainstorming ideas for responding to
challenges and opportunities)
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
c. Modeling and practicing being positive and open-minded
No qualitative responses

39. Demonstrate a commitment to excellence
a. Modeling and guidance from supervisor
b. Meetings and discussions with colleagues (e.g., MGO forums)
c. Benchmarking and proofing one's work and other specific activities
d. Mentoring
No qualitative responses

40. Share knowledge and information with colleagues
a. Sharing information with colleagues in team meetings, prospect strategy
discussions, and other forums
b. Group training through conferences, workshops, in-house training, and/or
consultants
c. Modeling and guidance from supervisor

410
No qualitative responses

41. Ably navigate institutional politics and policies
a. Coaching and/or mentoring
b. Guidance from supervisor in knowing, understanding, and navigating policies
c. Meetings and discussions with colleagues (e.g., prospect strategy sessions)
No qualitative responses

42. Accept and support colleagues
a. Group training through workshops, in-house training (e.g., HR), and/or
consultants
b. Guidance from supervisor (e.g., encouraging one-on-one meetings with
colleagues, joint visits, etc.)
c. Practicing listening, keeping an open mind, and being respectful of all people
d. Establishing and implementing norms and goals around diversity, equity, and
inclusion

No qualitative responses

43. Create a comfortable environment for discussing sensitive topics
a. Group training through consultants and/or in-house training (e.g., diversity,
equity, and inclusion programming)
b. Meetings and discussions with colleagues (e.g., MGO forums, advice from HR)

411
c. Keeping confidences, focusing on institutional mission and values, and/or other
specific actions
d. Coaching and/or mentoring
No qualitative responses

44. Contribute to a culture of learning and continuous improvement
a. Group training through workshops, in-house training, and/or consultants
b. Encourage participation in collaboration, shared value discussions, and learning
opportunities (e.g., by building them into performance review system)
c. Coaching and/or mentoring
No qualitative responses

45. Manage up effectively
a. Guidance from supervisor in setting expectations
b. Informal discussions with colleagues
c. Applying skills from working with donors to working with more senior
colleagues
d. Coaching from supervisor
No qualitative responses

412
46. Engage diverse audiences
a. Reviewing portfolios for diversity and alumni offerings for inclusion; developing
strategies to identify diverse prospects; recruiting diverse board members;
encouraging MGOs to participate in events and conversations with diverse
audiences; and other specific activities
b. Group training through workshops, in-house training, and/or consultants
c. Meeting and discussions with colleagues
d. Mentoring
No qualitative responses

47. Set concrete, challenging, current goals
a. Guidance from supervisor in discussing and setting goals
b. Establishing processes for setting annual goals and incorporating them in
performance review
c. Group training through workshops, in-house training, and/or consultants
d. Coaching and/or mentoring
No qualitative responses

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Building a framework for self-regulated learning in surgical education

PDF

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

PDF

STEM education in middle school: a promising practices study

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

A curriculum for higher education faculty to reimagine learning in a postpandemic world

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Professional development for teachers to meet the needs of neurodiverse learners

PDF

Culturally responsive pedagogy: a curriculum for secondary education teachers

PDF

A framework for customer reputation evaluation: an innovation study

PDF

The use of cognitive task analysis to capture exterptise for tracheal extubation training in anesthesiology

PDF

Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study

PDF

Black@: using student voices to dismantle colorblindness and inspire culturally relevant pedagogy in southern independent schools

PDF

Adaptive learning in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Bridging theory and practice: developing children’s mathematical thinking through cognitively guided instruction

PDF

Incorporating social and emotional learning in higher education: a promising practices based development of authentic leadership

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

Graduate academic advisor training course

Asset Metadata

Creator Duffy, Arwen Staros (author)

Core Title Building a framework for guiding fundraiser learning and practice in higher education advancement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/07/2022

Defense Date 04/25/2022

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

Tag advancement,Fundraising,Higher education,major gifts,OAI-PMH Harvest,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Lucido, Jerome (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email arwenduffy@gmail.com,arwensdu@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376230

Unique identifier UC111376230

Legacy Identifier etd-DuffyArwen-11123

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Duffy, Arwen Staros

Type texts

Source 20220808-usctheses-batch-972 (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