University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Can collaboration among senior higher education leaders ensure organizational survival?

(USC Thesis Other)

Can collaboration among senior higher education leaders ensure organizational survival?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Can Collaboration Among Senior Higher Education Leaders Ensure Organizational Survival? by Bryan Jeffrey Gross Rossier School of Education University of Southern California A dissertation submitted to the faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education May 2022 © Copyright by Bryan Jeffrey Gross 2022 All Rights Reserved The Committee for Bryan Jeffrey Gross certifies the approval of this Dissertation Eric Canny Adrian Donato Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2022 iv Abstract Given market challenges, it is critical for regional private institutions (RPIs) to generate undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses. If RPIs are not able to accomplish this, it may jeopardize their existence. The purpose of the study was to explore how chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers at RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. Two research questions guided the study: (a) in what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses, and (b) what organizational influences need to be in place for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? The key findings of this study are: (a) CEFA officers have strong knowledge of goals and external challenges; (b) CEFA officers believe it is useful to collaborate but RPIs lack formal structure to do so; (c) COVID-19 has impacted CEFA officer collective knowledge and motivation; (d) financial and human resource policies and procedures are hindering goal attainment; and (e) there are opportunities for senior leaders to offer more emotional support. Based on key findings, three main recommendations with sub-recommendations are presented. First, it is recommended that CEFA officers create formal meetings to collaborate on revenue generation strategies. Next, financial and HR policies and procedures should be created that allow RPIs to gain a competitive advantage. Finally, it is recommended that Presidents facilitate a culture of improvement among CEFA officers. v Dedication To Kimberly, Rayna, Kendall, and Bailey. Your support during this journey has meant so much. You made sacrifices, thank you. I hope you learned some things along the way too. Follow your dreams. You are never too young or old to learn new things. Push yourself to do something that makes you uncomfortable. It will be worth it in the end. Life is stressful, and you can handle it. Your family will always be there to help you through all life has to offer. Always. To Kimberly. You are my best friend and more than I could ever ask for more in my life partner. None of this is possible without you. Let’s grow (really) old together. To Rayna, Kendall, and Bailey. Share with the world all that you are capable of. Everything you want to achieve is yours. Always remember how special you are. I am simply the luckiest guy in the world. I love you all so very much. vi Acknowledgements To Dr. Phillips. You were there every step of this process to guide, push, and encourage me. I am so fortunate you were my committee chair and could not have done this without you. Thank you is not enough. To Dr. Canny and Dr. Donato, your insight was so valuable as members of this dissertation committee. I am humbled by the opportunity to learn from such accomplished and caring professors and practitioners. I have deep appreciation and respect for the all faculty at the USC Rossier School of Education. Thank you. To the USC Rossier OCL Cohort 14. Thanks for the knowledge, motivation, inspiration, and laughter. I am humbled to graduate with such accomplished and caring professionals. To Presidents Salonen, Caprio, and Johnson. Thank you for your mentorship, support, and encouragement. You inspire me to keep growing and advancing in our field. To Jack Maguire, Tom Williams, Steve Kerge, and all my higher education mentors and friends. Thank you. Let’s keep going! To my amazing colleagues and friends at Western New England University. Your encouragement, work ethic, dedication, and willingness to deal with my crazy ideas are very much appreciated. Your support has meant so much as we navigated through a global pandemic. I am very proud to be a Golden Bear. To my friends near and far. You never stopped believing in my ability to get through this, even when I doubted myself. Thank you. Your support has meant more than you will ever know. To Unkee. My ultimate role model. To mom. You have showed me how to reach for the stars. To grandmama. To dad. To Eric and Todd. To Beverly. Love to all my amazing family. I am truly grateful you are in my life. vii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2 Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 4 Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 5 Field Performance Goal ...................................................................................................... 6 Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 7 Stakeholder Group for the Study ........................................................................................ 7 CEFA Officer Performance Goals ...................................................................................... 8 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 9 Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ......................................... 10 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11 Organization of the Project ............................................................................................... 12 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 14 Background and History of Regioal, Private Institutions (RPIs) ...................................... 14 Factors Impacting Ability of RPIs to Balance Revenue and Expenses ............................ 19 Role of CEFA Officiers .................................................................................................... 33 Benefits of Collaboration in an Organization ................................................................... 37 Clark and Estes's (2008) Knolwedge, Motivation, and Organization Influence Framework ........................................................................................................................ 42 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influences ................................. 43 viii Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 57 Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 62 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 62 Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 62 Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 64 The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 71 Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 73 Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 75 Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 78 Research Question #1: In What Ways Does CEFA Officier Knowledge and Motivation Impact Their Collaboration in Generating Revenue That Exceeds Expenses? .......................................................................................................................... 80 Research Question #2: What Organizational Influences Need to be in Place for CEFA Officiers to Leverage Collaborative Efforts in Generating Revenue that Exceeds Expenses? ......................................................................................................... 101 Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influence Data ........................ 117 Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations ....................................................................... 122 Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................... 123 Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 132 Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 157 Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 160 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 161 References ................................................................................................................................... 165 Appendix A: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications ........................................................... 184 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research .............................................................. 189 Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 191 ix List of Tables Table 1: Field Mission, Field Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal 9 Table 2: Knowledge Influences 47 Table 3: Motivation Influences 52 Table 4: Organization Influences 57 Table 5: Data Sources 64 Table 6: CEFA Officer Thresholds for Chapter 4 Theme Descriptors 77 Table 7: Overview of Participating Stakeholders 78 Table 8: Participant Pseudonyms, Gender Identity and Ethnicity 80 Table 9: Summary of Overall Knowledge Findings 82 Table 10: Summary of Knowledge Findings by CEFA Officer Group 83 Table 11: COVID-19 as an External Challenge for Revenue Generation 88 Table 12: Summary of Overall Motivation Findings 94 Table 13: Summary of Motivation Findings by CEFA Officer Group 95 Table 14: Lack of Confidence Between CEO and CFO 99 Table 15: Lack of Confidence Due to External Factors 100 Table 16: Summary of Overall Organization Findings 103 Table 17: Summary of Organization Findings by CEFA Officer Group 104 Table 18: Deficits in Senior Leadership Support 114 Table 19: Summary of Each KMO Influence as Asset or Gap 120 Table 20: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 148 Table 21: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 150 Table 22: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 152 Table 23: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 157 x Table 24: Components to Measure Reactions to the Programs 158 Table C1: Interview Protocol Crosswalk 194 xi List of Figures Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 58 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study Given a variety of market challenges, it is critical for regional private institutions (RPIs) to consistently generate undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses (Grawe, 2018; Zemsky et al., 2020). If RPIs are not able to focus on this task it may jeopardize their existence (Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). Grawe (2018) studied the impact of declining demographics, college participation rates, and a change in consumer mindset around the value of higher education in the United States (US). He concluded that from 2018 - 2026 there will be fewer opportunities for RPIs in the United States to meet revenue targets, especially among RPIs that are not ranked in the Top 100 of National Universities among US News and World Report (US News). An Investor Service Report by Moody’s in 2015 predicted institutional closures would outpace mergers, which caused major concern among senior higher education leaders (Zimmerman, 2018). The investment service cited financial struggles as the reason for this prediction, showing that small colleges with a three-year overall enrollment growth rate of less than 2% increased fivefold, to 50%, from 2006 to 2014 and cited this as being unsustainable (Zimmerman, 2018). RPIs in the United States will need to ensure that chief enrollment, finance and academic (CEFA) officers work together in new and innovative ways to ensure organizational survival. The purpose of the study was to explore how CEFA officers at multiple RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. A gap analysis focused both on collaboration among CEFA officers and how knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences can be understood to help close the gap between desired and earned undergraduate revenue. 2 Background of the Problem With fewer students eligible to enroll, declining college participation rates, and a change in consumer mindset regarding price and value, RPIs are challenged to meet annual enrollment targets and align undergraduate revenue and expenses, impacting ability to maintain academic quality, fulfill mission, and remain in business (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kelderman, 2019; Langston and Scheid, 2014; Bok 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020; Zierdt, 2009). According to the 2016 Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) report, the number of high school graduates from public and private high schools in the United States will decline by 10.4%, going from 3,927,050 to 3,518,410 graduates. This equates to 408,640 fewer high school graduates from 2026 – 2036 (Bransberger & Michelau, 2020; Grawe, 2021). Zemsky et al. (2020) analyzed enrollment, retention, pricing, and endowment trends among public and private higher education institutions. They found that US News Top 100 National Universities have little reason for concern, but 10% of the nation’s colleges and universities face substantial “market risk,” which comes from declines in available students to enroll at an institution (Zemsky, et al., 2020). Of four-year private, not-for-profit institutions, 26%, or 423 institutions, were deemed at moderate risk of severe financial difficulty and 12%, or 195 institutions, were at substantial risk and face the potential of closing in the next decade (Zemsky, et al., 2020). These demographics, which are expected to decline further in the year 2026 for the entire country, along with stagnant retention rates, confusing pricing models, and small endowments have led many to speculate that college closures will increase significantly in the next decade (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). Researchers have analyzed strategies higher education institutions can implement to address declining undergraduate revenue. Leuhusen (2017) studied three institutions in the 3 United States with populations less than 5,000 students that were seeking revenue diversification to counter declining enrollments and revenue. The study analyzed nationally available standardized data to reflect how each institution diversified revenue compared to similar institutions. The research concluded that long-term fiscal health is achievable for higher education institutions in the United States in conjunction with effective enrollment management strategies (Leuhusen, 2017). However, Leuhusen’s study did not address the extent to which these enrollment management strategies required collaboration from other senior leaders on campus. Langston and Scheid (2014) studied the changing demographics in the United States and identified proactive enrollment management strategies institutions can implement to counter declining revenues. Among their findings is that RPIs must invest fiscal resources into enrollment management leaders who can implement strategies which stratify admissions, financial aid, and marketing (Langston & Schneid, 2014). Langston and Scheid did analyze areas outside of enrollment, but their study did not address the importance of engaging key leaders in enrollment, financial, and academic affairs to collaboratively address the problem. COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that emerged in 2019 and is now a pandemic. It can lead to severe respiratory symptoms and has caused millions of deaths in the United States and around the world (Cao, 2020). In January 2020, COVID-19 created new challenges and accelerated already existing financial problems for all colleges and universities in the United States, placing particular financial stress on RPIs (DePietro, 2020). The high cost of adapting to online instruction, loss of room and board revenue, the cancellation of summer programs and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sports, and declines in research grant activity caused significant financial stress. Schools of all sizes have been impacted, and RPIs have been 4 among the most financially stressed, as they have smaller endowments and do not have the financial reserves to counter the impact of these stressors as easily (DePietro, 2020). COVID-19 has not only impacted college finances, but it has altered consumer mindset around price and the value of higher education. With an increased number of lost jobs in the United States, many schools have seen decreased yield rates in the semester following the COVID-19 outbreak, indicating that consumer mindset around value and safety will continue to play a significant role in the overall fiscal health of colleges and universities (Galloway, 2021; West, 2020). Importance of Addressing the Problem With diverse organizational responsibilities, collectively CEFA officers assume primary responsibility for both generating revenue and controlling institutional expenses through a wide variety of strategies and tactics specific to their areas of responsibility within their institution (Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; Maguire & Butler, 2008). Solving this problem by discovering ways in which CEFA officers can collaborate to ensure undergraduate revenue consistently exceed expenses will positively contribute to the access students have to higher education, with particular emphasis on disadvantaged populations across race, economic and first-generation status (Lundy et al., 2020). In a study that analyzed the impact of excess capacity in higher education, Lundy et al. (2020) found that from 2009-2019 higher education capacity has increased by 26% and enrollment growth increased by 3%. This gap between capacity and enrollment causes an increase in cost per full time enrolled (FTE) student. In fiscal year 2019, the average space utilization among private, four-year institutions was 73%. By developing formulas to calculate both peak enrollment and peak instructional capacity, the researchers modeled the financial impact of unused classroom space and found that if institutions could move their unused capacity 5 from 73% to 90-100% it would result in a decrease of between $3,500 and $5,600 in the cost per student and save four-year private institutions millions of dollars each year (Lundy et al., 2020). Many institutions who are not able to grow enrollment or reduce the size of their faculty and/or staff are forced to pass growing costs on to students through tuition increases. Rising tuition rates disadvantages all students but has a particular impact on those without the resources to afford the cost of higher education (Lundy et al., 2020). Because little research has been conducted to date analyzing the ability of these specific stakeholders to collaborate, there is an opportunity to discover promising practices that will not only help RPIs meet their undergraduate enrollment and revenue goals, but to assist many like institutions in the United States facing similar challenges. Field Context and Mission As of 2017-2018, there are 4,298 degree-granting, post-secondary institutions in the United States, which includes public and private, two-year and four-year institutions; with 1,626 of these schools being public and 1,627 being private, non-profit, and 985 being for-profit (Moody, 2019). U.S. News and World Report (US News) annually ranks more than 1,400 regionally accredited, degree-granting institutions that offer a four-year course of study (Moody, 2019). There are 389 national universities, 223 national liberal arts colleges, 594 regional universities, and 366 regional colleges in the United States (Morse & Brooks, 2020). Of the regional universities, 320 are private, non-profit. Of the regional colleges, 185 are private, non- profit for a total of 505 regional, private, non-for-profit colleges and universities, which will be referred to as regional, private institutions (RPI) for the purpose of this study. The purpose of the study was to explore how CEFA officers at multiple RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic 6 initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses. For this study, to be included in the definition of a RPI, the institution must have been a private university ranked outside of the US News National Top 100 list or be within a regional ranking and have fewer than 5,000 full-time undergraduate students currently enrolled. The mission of an RPI is unique to each individual college or university, but there are common themes among most. These themes include a focus on undergraduate education with a small number of master’s degrees and few, if any, doctorate programs (Morse & Brooks, 2020). RPIs typically grant less than 50% of their degrees in the liberal arts. They define their student experience as one that facilitates personal attention from faculty who have earned a terminal degree with an emphasis on experiential learning and preparedness for students to understand the challenges of being part of an increasingly interconnected and globalized society (Morse & Brooks, 2020; Wilson et al., 2012). Field Performance Goal The field performance goal of this study was that RPIs will produce revenue that exceeds expenses by at least 5%. The scope of this study entailed interviewing 4-7 of each CEFA officer at an RPI for a total of 16 interviews. There was redundancy regarding the RPI each CEFA officer worked at; therefore, there were not 16 unique RPIs represented in the study. This metric of undergraduate revenue exceeding expenses by 5% was developed by factoring likely changes in demographics, capacity demand, and rising costs of inflation so that each RPI could have flexibility towards the goal of consistently achieving a balanced budget to be able to fulfill its mission (Grawe, 2018; Lundy et al., 2020). A balanced budget was defined as an institution’s revenues and expenses being equal at the end of a fiscal year (Hladchenko, 2015). This goal is important because if not achieved, the RPIs could have a multi-year structural budget deficit that 7 will result in academic programs needing to be eliminated and faculty and staff losing their jobs (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). Further, if RPIs cannot ensure that revenues consistently meet expenses the cuts could jeopardize the ability to fulfill mission and stay in business (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Maguire & Butler, 2008; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). Description of Stakeholder Groups To understand how RPIs can produce revenue that exceeds expenses by 5%, the strategic collaboration of every member of the faculty, staff, and student leaders at each RPI was examined. This includes the President, each Vice President, Director, middle-managers, and entry-level employees that have a role in ensuring revenues exceed expenses through revenue generation and cost containment strategies. Collaboration among members of the faculty and with the administration was examined to understand how structural governance changes may or may not contribute to the success of this goal. Faculty included senior-level academic administrators, such as Deans and Assistant Deans, as well as tenured and non-tenured faculty members and adjunct instructors. Collaboration among full-time staff members was discussed to understand how they may contribute to the strategies implemented at each RPI to ensure revenues exceed expenses. Stakeholder Group for the Study Joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the overall organizational goal of ensuring that revenues will exceed expenses by at least 5%. It was essential to explore the capacity of chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers’ abilities to develop and share a common set of goals and collaborate on the development of revenue generation strategies that will ensure their RPI is in a realistic financial position to fulfill its mission. This stakeholder group was chosen because they are responsible for the three key areas that research has cited as 8 being central for revenue generation and cost reduction. These are: a) enrollment, b) retention, c) marketing, d) financial systems and operations, and e) the academic product inside and outside the classroom, including academic support services (Bok, 2015; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Leuhusen, 2017; Zemsky et al., 2020). CEFA officers are often seen as the leaders in higher education with the largest portfolio of direct reports, with the most diverse sets of organizational experience who have a broad set of employees reporting to them (Bok, 2015; Leuhusen, 2017; Maguire & Butler, 2008; Zemsky et al., 2020). CEFA Officer Performance Goals The goal for the stakeholder group of focus was for CEFA officers to collaborate on strategic initiatives that will facilitate their organization producing undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses by at least 5%. Table 1 shows the field mission, organizational goal, and stakeholder goals for this study. 9 Table 1 Field Mission, Field Goal and Stakeholder Group’s Performance Goal Field mission There are common themes found among most mission statements. These themes include education of each student inside and outside the classroom, exposing students to diverse experiences, groups, and ways of thinking to prepare them for an increasingly global world, developing a passion to be a lifelong learner, and preparing students for meaningful work that leads to a fulfilling life Field performance goal RPIs will produce undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses by at least 5% CEFA officer goal CEFA officers will collaborate on strategic initiatives that will facilitate their organization producing revenue that exceeds expenses by at least 5% Purpose of the Study and Research Questions The purpose of the study was to explore how CEFA officers at multiple RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. A complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders at each RPI. For practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus for this analysis was CEFA officers. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to CEFA officers’ ability to share a common set of goals and collaborate on the development of undergraduate revenue generation strategies that will ensure that their organization is able to fulfill its mission. 10 The questions that guided this study are the following: 1. In what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? 2. What organizational influences need to be in place for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework The conceptual framework used to analyze the problem is Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model. Gap analysis compares actual performance to desired performance by conducting root cause analyses to determine if the gap is due to knowledge, motivation, or the organization’s culture and/or policies and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). A key assumption is the gap analysis focused both on the agency among CEFA officers and how their knowledge, motivation and organizational structure can be understood to help close the gap related to their ability to collaborate to achieve desired and earned revenue. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting CEFA officers’ capacities to collaborate on strategies to ensure revenues exceed expenses was explored via a qualitative methodological framework. Specifically, qualitative data was gathered through interviews with 16 CEFA officers at regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States. This entailed identifying four to seven individuals in each of the three categories at RPIs in the United States: chief enrollment officers, chief finance officers, and chief academic officers. A 20-question interview, each corresponding to a specific research question and having related prompts was asked to each participant. 11 Definition of Terms • Chief refers to a Vice President-level position or the person who has the highest level of authority in a particular division at a college or university. Usually, a direct report to either the President or head of an academic division (Maguire & Butler, 2008). • Collaboration refers to all activities undertaken by organizations and individuals at varying levels to achieve common goals that could not be accomplished independently (Soliday Hong et al., 2019). • Enrollment Management refers to an institutional response to the challenges and opportunities that recruiting and retaining the right student body present to a school's financial health, image, and student quality. It’s a research-based process that creates a synergy among recruitment, pricing and financial aid, academic affairs, student life, and constituent relations (NAIS, https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/what-is-enrollment-management/). • External Influences are those influences on an organization that cannot be controlled or managed by an individual or group with an organization. These are matters that influence an organization outside of anything that can be controlled (Clark & Estes, 2008). • Motivation refers to the process that guides, initiates, and maintains behaviors that are goal- oriented in nature. Involves the emotional, biological, social, and cognitive factors that trigger behavior. Is frequently used to describe why a person does something. (Weiss, 2011). • Organizational Culture refers to the property of individuals or groups of people in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). • Organizational Influences refers to those factors, such as policies and procedures or culture, that have an impact on the achievement of goals and objectives within an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). 12 • Private, non-for profit college or university refers to colleges and universities that do not receive funding from their state, but receive funding from a variety of other sources such as federal government, tuition and fees, and donations. They are overseen by a board of trustees and the administration’s primary role is to concentrate on providing an education to students (Zemsky & Shaman, 2017). • Regional College refers to an institution whose primary focus is on undergraduate education and grants less than 50% of their degrees in the liberal arts (Morse & Brooks, 2020). • Regional, Private University refers to a private college or University in the United States that is not ranked in the US News and World Report Top 100. (Grawe, 2018). • Regional University can be public or private. Provide a full range of undergraduate programs with some master’s programs and very few, if any, doctorate programs (Morse & Brooks, 2020). • Retention refers to school’s ability to keep and re-enroll students from one year to the next (NAIS, https://www.nais.org/articles/pages/what-is-enrollment-management/). • Net tuition revenue (NTR) per student refers to the tuition revenue per student received by a college or university minus any institutional gift aid (NACUBO, www.nacubo.org). • Tuition Discounting refers to the practice of using institutional dollars, either merit based or need based, to offset the cost of tuition and fees at a college or university (NACUBO, www.nacubo.org). Organization of the Project Five chapters were used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about collaboration, revenue, and expenses at RPIs. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders as well as the framework 13 for the project were introduced. Chapter 2 provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of the study. Market challenges such as declining demographics, change in consumer mindset and undergraduate discounting practices, as well as how COVID-19 may accelerate these challenges will be highlighted. Chapter 2 also presents the CEFA officer’s knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that will be explored in the study. Chapter 3 details the methodology regarding the study’s participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter 4, the data are assessed and analyzed. Chapter 5 provides recommendations for practice and for future research. 14 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature This chapter begins with a history of regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States. Following, significant literature is discussed that pertains to the challenges making it difficult for the study’s stakeholder group to balance undergraduate revenue and expenses. These challenges are declining high school demographics, change in consumer mindset around higher education, and tuition discounting practices. The impact of COVID-19 on these challenges is then discussed. The chapter outlines the role of CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States as well as the benefits of collaboration in organizations, which is undergirded by Bandura's (1986) Theory of Collective Efficacy. Finally, the conceptual framework of this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model, is discussed as well as research on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the researcher’s problem of practice that was studied. Background and History of Regional, Private Institutions (RPIs) Over 21 million students are enrolled in more than 4,700 colleges and universities in the United States, creating diverse college choices for students of all ages, gender, ability, and backgrounds (Heller, 2016; McGee, 2015; Morse & Brooks, 2020). However, these broad choices did not always exist. Higher education in the United States has both changed and adapted over time in alignment with the rapidly shifting social, political, and economic conditions that existed in the United States. The following section describes the history and development of higher education, with a focus on the evolution of RPI in the United States and how it came to its current form today. The Industrial Revolution As the United States began to form into the industrialized nation it is today, people realized the important need to education large numbers of men and woman beyond the secondary 15 school level. Harvard College was the first college in the United States, founded in 1862. Harvard was founded as a private higher education institution, as was the College of William and Mary, Yale University, and the University of Pennsylvania. However, in their early years, all these institutions received significant state funding and were subject to heavy government regulations (Morse & Brooks, 2020; Thelin, 2019). The idea of there being two distinct college entities - the public and the private college - was not part of America’s consciousness in the 1600’s and 1700’s (Thelin, 2019). Many historians cite the 1819 Dartmouth College v. Woodward as being the case that first introduced the notion that colleges could be free from state regulation, or “private.” In the case, Dartmouth College officials fought against both their board of directors and New Hampshire officials, stating that their interference in school affairs was a violation of contract law (Thelin, 2019). Dartmouth’s desire to be independent was originally denied in the state courts. Dartmouth officials appealed, landing the case in the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Dartmouth, in effect creating the nation’s first private college completely free from state regulations (Thelin, 2019). The Progressive Era By the late 1890’s there were two significant developments in the history of private higher education. First, smaller private schools, which by today’s standards would be considered a RPI, began to form and expand throughout the country (Thelin, 2019). Their popularity happened because of efforts to expand education to women and to create schools that prepared students for specific occupations (McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). The best example of this was the creation of “normal schools,” which prepared students to be school teachers. Commerce also began to become more popular during this time, which led to the first intentional blurring of 16 liberal and professional studies in higher education. This was best exemplified by Joseph Warton’s School, founded in 1881 at the University of Pennsylvania, where the school rejected curriculum covering courses in business, government, and economics, instead focusing solely on teaching subjects specific to business commerce (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). As a result of this blurring of liberal and professional studies, competition for enrollments increased at the traditional liberal arts college, leading to financial stress (Thelin, 2019). There was not a lot of organization or consistency in how colleges structured or prepared their budgets. Further, they had a hard time tracking student movement through courses and co-curricular events, causing chaos in the industry (Thelin, 2019). Limited resources and increased competition led to the earliest form of what is now referred to as tuition discounting (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). Struggling liberal arts colleges would take all the applicants they could receive, and if they had any classroom space left over, they would offer discounts to students who were willing to enroll (Thelin, 2019). World War I The early 1900’s saw the rise of the college President as the entrepreneur (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). Because resources were often scarce at non-elite, small private colleges, the college President would serve as primary fundraiser, chief academic officer, and was in charge of securing financial support through fundraising and state lobbying (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). Presidents began writing in newspapers about pressing issues of the time and were expected to both teach in the classroom and maintain a strong presence on campus and in the community. This led to a new set of expectations for professionalism among members of the faculty and those caring for the buildings and physical grounds for private colleges to grow and expand (McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). As colleges became more prestigious, it became clear that no 17 college at the time would be able to survive without a very high quality, well-regarded President who could help attract the right number of students to provide the tuition needed to operate the college. Many private colleges largely became tuition driven (Heller, 2016; McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). One development that took place among private colleges was the introduction of “selective admissions,” which was led by two New England private colleges who tried to persuade their college Presidents that college should be protected for the “aristocracy” (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). This type of “exclusive thinking'' continued when the Presidents of Harvard and Columbia became concerned with having too many Jewish students enroll, which could lead to dissatisfaction among prospective Protestant students (Thelin, 2019). This practice, combined with a continued, rapid expansion of college campuses created a gap between the elite private institutions, who could attract a broad base of highly qualified students, and the smaller, less- known private colleges who relied on small staff and a disorganized structure to stay in business (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). The Inter-War Period Another important development in the history of regional, private universities took place after World War I, with a rapid expansion of the secondary school system in the United States. To keep up, college campuses expanded, and student interest grew with it, especially in schools with large football stadiums and other attractive facilities (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). This period saw a large increase in private philanthropy that led to larger, more ornate, and elaborate campus buildings that contributed to the physical differentiation of private and public institutions (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). For example, Coca-Cola provided a multi-million-dollar gift to construct multiple large buildings at Emory University (Thelin, 2019). Large, private institutions 18 grew in size and popularity. The era also saw the expansion of women's colleges, business schools, teacher’s colleges, Catholic colleges, and regional state colleges. As a result, the term “booster college” became part of the American vernacular. Not all these colleges were private but many of them had the size and characteristics of what would be considered a RPI by today’s standards (Heller, 2016; McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). World War II Receiving a higher education degree prior to 1945 was seen as a luxury, but there was about to be a major shift in consumer mindset that would cause most United States citizens to view a college education as essential to be able to contribute to society. At that time, only 4.6% of the United States population over the age of 25 had earned a college degree (McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). However, in the mid-1960’s, with The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, higher education moved from a “luxury” to an “earned right,” further changing the higher education landscape and the role private colleges played in the United States (Heller, 2016; McGee, 2015; Thelin, 2019). From 1965-1985 higher education went through a great transformation period (Grawe, 2018; Thelin, 2019; Zemsky et al., 2017). In a major growth mode, both public and private colleges rapidly expanded degree program offerings. This expansion and related financial prosperity also saw many smaller, private universities struggle with financial management and organizational turmoil (Heller, 2016; Thelin, 2019). In 1970, sociologist Martin Trow concluded that there was a “structural overload” taking place in higher education, largely rooted in demographics and the desire to educate 50-60% of the nation’s growing number of high school graduates (Thelin, 2019, p. 321). 19 Cold War Era From the mid 1980’s to 2008, RPIs continued to not only grow enrollment, but grow capacity. Lundy et al. (2020) coined the years of 1976-1996 as those of capacity expansion, and the period from 1996-2011 as those of capacity utilization. For many RPIs, both domestic and international enrollment saw exponential growth and university administrators often did not need to be particularly strategic to reap the revenue benefits of this growth (McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2017). Those that were strategic and demonstrated the ability to collaborate in positive and innovative ways benefited more (McGee, 2015). It was not until 2008, the beginning of the Great Recession, the RPIs began to see signs that this enrollment, revenue, and campus expansion trend would not last (Grawe, 2018; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). The history of RPIs has shaped their current state, which includes opportunities and challenges to balance annual revenues that exceed expenses. Factors Impacting Ability of RPIs to Balance Revenues and Expenses In 2021, RPIs in the United States face unprecedented challenges that hinder their ability to balance undergraduate revenue and expenses. The number of high school graduates in the United States is declining and these declines vary significantly by geographic region, race, and institutional ranking (Bransburger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 215; Zemsky et al., 2020). Elite and National Top 100 Universities in the US News and World Report rankings continue to grow in popularity, and regional, private universities struggle to enroll the right size and composition of students that will both meet budget thresholds and allow the institution to align strategic plans with the appropriate financial resources (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). There is a shift in consumer mindset that has taken place since the Great Recession of 2008, where families are more price sensitive and make their college decision based on who can 20 offer the best price, further accelerating aggressive and unsustainable tuition discounting practices (Grawe, 2021; Lundy et al., 2020; Zemsky et al., 2020). COVID-19 accelerated the pace at which these market challenges are impacting the ability for RPIs to generate revenue, as the pandemic brought significant new expenses to institutions and caused colleges and universities to rethink the way they deliver services both inside and outside the classroom (Cao, 2020; Galloway, 2021). If declining demographics, a change in consumer mindset and unsustainable tuition discounting practices are not addressed, RPIs face the prospect of permanent closure (Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2018; 2021; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). In a 2019 Insider Higher Education poll of current United States college and university Presidents, one in every seven polled indicated significant worry that their intuition could face closure in the next five years (Lederman, 2019). Stowe and Komasara (2016) analyzed 96 schools that closed between 2000 and 2015 to examine common economic and demographic factors among them. The researchers used common data sets from IPEDS and the United States Department of Education Federal Financial Aid Reports. They combined this analysis with maptitude software that looked at demographic and economic factors surrounding schools that closed (Stowe & Komasara, 2016). The study found that special-focus schools such as law schools or seminaries were the most likely to close, accounting for 40% of all closures analyzed. For profit-schools made up 15% of closures and Master’s level schools were the least likely to close (Stowe & Komasara, 2016). They found little correlation between external population variables, such as age and income, of schools that closed and did not close. 21 Stowe and Komasara (2016) did find that the two most important commonalities among the schools that did close was their size and liabilities and expenses per full-time equivalent (FTE). Medium FTE enrollment among the schools that closed was 171 compared to 858 for those that did not (Stowe & Komasara, 2016). In other words, a school’s size is significant when it comes to a school's ability to stay in business. Because a school’s size is significant in ensuring organizational health, it is important that RPIs understand the number of high school graduates that are eligible to enroll in college each year. Changes in this number can have a significant impact on an RPIs ability to enroll the right number of undergraduate students that will allow them to meet annual revenue targets. This finding is consistent with those of Lundy et al. (2020), who found that four-year institutions with fewer than 1,000 students had the least utilized campus capacity at 59% compared to 73% utilized capacity for the schools between 1,000 - 3,000 students and 75% for those schools over 3,000 students. This is significant because unused capacity can drive the net cost to educate a student up by as much $6,000 per student, leading to significant financial stress (Lundy et al., 2020). Controlling costs for all students, but especially those from diverse racial and socio-economic backgrounds is particularly important when considering changes in demographic trends across distinct cohorts. Declining High School Demographics For RPIs to enroll the right number of students to ensure that revenues exceed expenses, it helps for there to be a predictable number of high school graduates in the United States each year that can fulfill each school’s desired enrollment. By 1990, 60% of America’s high school graduates were attending college immediately following high school graduation, and the high school demographic grew at a rapid pace over the next two decades (Grawe; 2018; McGee, 2015). From 1990 to 2000, the number of high school graduates grew by 17%, and from 2000 to 22 2010 the number of high school graduates increased by 30% (Bransberger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2018; McGee, 2015). This led to a 51% rate of growth in the enrollment of traditional-aged college students at all colleges and universities in the United States from 1994-2009 (McGee, 2015). The growth peaked in 2010, when the United States graduated the largest number of high school graduates in its history at 3.4 million students (Bransberger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2018; McGee, 2015). The number of high school graduates and the ability of RPIs to grow are correlated (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Radford et al., 2018, Zemsky et al., 2020). The 2009 High School Longitudinal Study (HSLS) revealed that 75% of students with a high school credential attended a postsecondary institution (Grawe, 2021; Radford et al., 2018). This high rate of attendance assures that as the number of high school graduates in the United States increases and decreases moving forward, so will college enrollment (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Radford et al., 2018, Zemsky et al., 2020). The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) shows that the rate of growth among high school graduates in the United States began to decline slowly after 2010 (Bransberger et al., 2020, Grawe, 2018, 2021). From 2000 to 2010 the total number of public and private high school graduates went from 2,850,006 to 3,446,268, a rate of growth of 20.9%. From 2010 to 2020, the number of public high and private high school graduates went from 3,446,268 to 3,750,170, a rate of growth of 8.8% (Bransberger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2021). This represents a 57.8% decrease in the rate of growth among high school graduates in the two decades (Bransberger et al., 2020). Using 2020 WICHE projections, from 2020 to 2025, the total number of public and private high school graduates is projected to go from 3,750,170 to 3,927,050 at a growth rate of 4.7%, after which the number of high school graduates is expected 23 to stop growing and decline (Bransberger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). The demographic decline that is projected to begin nationally in 2026 is often referred to as “the demographic cliff” or the “demographic storm” (Boeckenstedt, 2022; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Pavlov & Katsamkas, 2020; Zemsky et al., 2020). WICHE data from the 2020 report projects an immediate decline in the number of public and private high school graduates in 2026, going from 3,927,050 to 3,848,470 graduates, a decline of 2% (Bransberger et al., 2020). From 2026 to 2036, the national number of public and private high school graduates is projected to go from 3,927,050 to 3,518,410, a decline of 10.4% or 408,640 fewer graduates. The national decline in high school graduates provides a broad perspective on the impact declining demographics will have on college enrollments. There are variances by region that better contextualize the impact these declines will have, particularly for RPIs (Boeckenstedt, 2022; Grawe, 2018, 2021). In regions of the United States such as the Northeast, the demographic decline and related negative impact on college enrollment has been taking place for several years and is only projected to decline further when the entire country experiences the “demographic cliff” in 2026 (Grawe, 2018). According to the 2016 WICHE Report, the number of high school graduates in the Northeast United States was projected to decline by 6.38% from 2009 – 2018 and is projected to decline by another 5.12% from 2018 – 2027. This equates to 72,309 fewer high school graduates from 2009 – 2027 in a period where other regions of the country, such as the West, experienced an increase in the number of high school graduates (Bransberger & Michelau, 2016; Grawe, 2018, 2021). During this same period, there are projected variances in the declines by state, where Idaho and Florida are expected to see growth above the regional trends and 24 California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are expected to see a decline that is greater than the overall regional average decline (Bransberger et al., 2020). There are not only demographic differences by region and state, but there are large demographic shifts that vary by rural and urban settings and among discrete racial profiles within these areas (Grawe, 2021, 2018). For example, the Caucasian demographic decline is larger than the overall projection, and there is significant projected growth among Asian American and Hispanics colleges in regions where an overall decline is projected (Grawe, 2018, 2021). Colleges and universities need to be aware of these micro-trends to strategically plan for enrollments. (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Zemsky at al., 2020). Looking at the data without careful analysis and proper contextualization can lead one to draw conclusions that hinder, as opposed to help, with enrollment planning. Combining analysis of both micro- demographic trends and how an RPIs market position influences consumer behavior is important (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Zemsky at al., 2020). Demographics and Market Position Demographics alone are not directly correlated with enrollment. Brand and market position matter a great deal (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Zemsky et al., 2020). Grawe (2018) analyzed demographic trends in the United States and their impact on enrollment and, in doing so, created the Higher Education Demand Index (HEDI). This index aims to show that regional demographics, combined with a school’s brand position and reputation, have already been creating “winners” and “losers” in the market since 2008 in terms of enrollment and revenue growth (Grawe, 2018). He describes three sets of schools in his analysis. The first is elite four- year institutions consisting of Ivy League schools and those in the US News top 50. He reports that these schools will continue to thrive and see increased demand 25 and revenue despite demographic declines due to strong brand position and large endowments. He describes the National four-year institutions as those in the US News National Top 100. These schools are also likely to thrive despite declining demographics due to both brand reputation, size, and infrastructure. They will also benefit from the trickle-down impact of left-over demand from the elite schools and their ability to market more easily to and from the third category. The third category of students are regional, four-year institutions, who are outside of the US News Top 100. For the purpose of this study these are RPIs. He posits that these are the schools that are already struggling financially and will continue to struggle as demographics decline in the United States due to poor market position, high rates of completion, and unsustainable discounting practices (Grawe, 2018). This supports the view that demographics alone do not solely determine enrollment (Boeckenstedt, 2022; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Zemsky et al., 2020). Another caution about using demographics alone to determine undergraduate revenue generation strategy is that it is important to be mindful of the way in which projections are generated in the first place, understanding that projection models generally assume all variables remain constant in terms of academic achievement and graduation among distinct subsets of high school students (Grawe, 2021). For example, in his original model, Grawe (2018) did not account for national programs aimed at improving graduation rates of Hispanic and African American students, which ended up causing an increase in the number of graduates in these populations (Grawe, 2021). Models are also not able to account for migration, immigration, distribution of money across family income as well as changing college attendance rates among subpopulations (Grawe, 2021). This has led to a modification of Grawe’s (2018) original projection to include some increases and decreases among different school types and regions 26 (Grawe, 2021). The one thing that did remain constant in both sets of his projections is that regional, private institutions (RPIs) are most likely to be negatively impacted by the decline in demographics (Grawe, 2018, 2021). Change in Consumer Mindset Regarding the Value of Higher Education Not only does there need to be the right number of students for RPIs to meet annual revenue goals, students eligible to enroll need to feel that there is value in attaining a higher education degree. The Great Recession, which was a large economic downturn that began in 2008, was caused in part by an unstable housing market that resulted from a lack of ethical behavior and transparency by several corporate entities (McGee, 2015). The United States public suffered financially and emotionally. The projected decline in the number of high school graduates in 2026 is due to a decline in the number of babies born at the start of The Great Recession in 2008 (Grawe, 2018; McGee, 2015). The American public now questions the value of higher education (Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al, 2017, 2020). In 2012, the average cost to attend a public or private university in the United States was equal to more than 25% of the average American’s yearly take home salary for more than 60% of Americans, making it the second largest investment a family typically makes next to the purchase of a home (McGee, 2015). While these high costs impact all income levels of families in the United States, college has become disproportionately unaffordable for America’s lowest income families (McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). Hemelt and Marcotte (2016) conducted a longitudinal study to measure the impact of rising tuition at public universities on student choice and enrollment patterns. The researchers looked at patterns of enrollment in 1992 and again in 2002, which is the period in American history where the rate of tuition grew at the fastest rate in history at public institutions. This is 27 important, because enrollment at public institutions in the United States makes up 80% of all college enrollment (Hemelt & Marcotte, 2016). Any shifts in consumer mindset about enrolling in public institutions could have impacts for RPIs. The study found that increases in in-state tuition costs for attending a four-year public institution had a negative impact on overall enrollment, causing in-state students to enroll at greater rates to other four-year schools that may be out of state (Hemelt & Marcotte, 2016). Also of importance is the fact that tuition increases had a slightly greater impact on the college choice of African American and first-generation college students (Hemelt & Marcotte, 2016). This finding is significant as it not only supports a change in consumer mindset around price but has implications for ways in which RPIs can compete with public institutions. One limitation is that the study did not report on the impact tuition increases have on “stop-outs,'' which are students who leave an institution and do not enroll at another college or university. It also did not account for students who chose not to attend college at all because of price. There is no longitudinal research that studies the long-term emotional impact of students who leave college due to financial reasons and never return to earn a degree. Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) studied changes in the way children in the United States have been raised in the last twenty years to determine how these changes may have affected campus policy and culture. The researchers found that shielding children from stress and failure, limiting unsupervised, creative, free-play and exposure to social media has led to a sharp increase in anxiety among college-aged adults (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). In a large survey of college counseling centers, in 2009 37% of students who utilized college counseling services reported anxiety. In 2013 that number rose to 46% and in 2016 it was 51%. Anxiety is now the number one reason students receive support services on college campuses (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). 28 This increase in anxiety has impacted the way that colleges and universities treat and respond to students and the extent to which students retain on campus, which is another very important driver of revenue (Davis et al., 2019; Grawe, 2021; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). When students have high levels of anxiety, they are more likely to struggle to feel a sense of belonging. Davis et al. (2019) developed a belonging index in a study to measure the impact that belonging has on college retention. They analyzed the concept of belonging in the context of belonging both to the university and an individual college major. They found that academic belonging on their scale had an 18% impact on retention. Social belonging had a more significant 28% impact on retention (Davis et al., 2019). Overall, the study found that social and emotional belonging, combined with academic coaching was most effective in improving college retention (Davis et al., 2019). This study could provide some useful information as to how the consumer mindset has continued to change and how colleges and universities can respond to these changes by focusing on helping to build a sense of belonging among students. It fails to address how increased levels of anxiety, or changes in parenting styles over time impact belonging. If CEFA officers were to collaborate to address students’ belonging it could positively impact revenue generation. Tuition Discounting Practices Tuition discounting is the practice higher education institutions use to provide institutional gift aid to reduce the net price students pay to enroll. Tuition discounting also aims to maximize overall net tuition revenue for the institution (DesJardins, 2001; Jalal & Khaksari, 2019; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Martin, 2002; Parrott, 2008; Rine, 2019). Tuition discounting is used today by most large and small, public and private institutions. However, it is most aggressively used by smaller, private institutions who are competing for students in a 29 competitive, price-sensitive market (DesJardins, 2001; Jalal & Khaksari, 2019; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Martin, 2002; Parrott, 2008; Rine, 2019). Institutions typically provide higher achieving students a greater tuition discount because these students can get admitted to more schools, and in a price sensitive market, it will take more institutional gift aid for them to yield from an admitted to enrolled student (Jalal & Khaksari, 2019; Martin, 2002; Parrott, 2008; Rine, 2019). The practice of tuition discounting is important in that if the percent of institutional gift aid increases, so does the school’s discount rate, and a discount rate increase, net tuition revenue decreases (DesJardins, 2001; Jalal & Khaksari, 2019; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Martin, 2002; Parrott, 2008; Rine, 2019). In a 2015 NACUBO survey, 9.5% of schools reported a discount rate of greater than 60%, compared to 5% of schools surveyed five years prior (Woodhouse, 2015). RPIs with high discount rates are rarely able to capture a large enough increase in enrollment to increase net tuition revenue (McGee, 2015; Zierdt, 2009; Woodhouse, 2015). If RPIs are not able to generate the needed revenue to fulfill mission, brand and student experience can be compromised (Grawe, 2018; McGee, 2015; Zierdt, 2009). Jalal and Khaksari (2019) studied how tuition discounting impacts revenue, reputation, and recruitment at different types of universities in the United States. In their study they looked at operating surplus, profit margin and revenue growth by analyzing data found in both US News and in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Using data panel regressions to test multiple hypotheses, they found that tuition discounting has a positive relationship with profitability, but only to a small degree, and then when universities pass certain thresholds the discounting reduces net revenue, even when there is marginal growth in student headcount (Jalal & Khaksari, 2019). They also found that tuition discounting can have a positive 30 impact on yield and the number of enrolled students but does not positively impact academic quality of an incoming class and student retention (Jalal & Khaksari, 2019). Finally, they found a negative relationship between tuition discounting and brand reputation (Jalal & Khaksari, 2019). While this research did cover a wide range of variables related to tuition discounting, it did not break down relationships between tuition discounting and student race or first-generation status, which would have clarified the relationship between this practice and closing equity gaps. Pavlov and Katsamakas (2020) used a computational model to analyze three ways United States colleges could deal with declining applications and revenue because of declining demographics and aggressive tuition discounting. They selected a “do nothing” scenario, a “cut expenses'' scenario by reducing faculty costs, and an “increase revenue” scenario by modeling the impact of building new campus facilities. Their findings revealed that the first two scenarios yielded a constant decline in revenue over a five-year period. While building new facilities did provide an initial increase of enrollment and revenue, over a few year period of time following the increase, the decline leveled consistent with the first two scenarios, in part due to the long- term burden of the extra debt (Pavlov & Katsamakas, 2020). This study shows that there are no easy ways for RPIs to generate revenue that exceeds expenses in difficult market situations. The study does acknowledge that a computational model cannot possibly factor in all variables that impact specific strategies and posits that perhaps a change in business model might the most advantageous strategies for universities to address declining revenues (Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2021; Pavlov & Katsamakas, 2020). CEFA officers have the opportunity to collaborate on new business models to ensure annual revenues exceed expenses. 31 COVID-19 As an Accelerant To External Challenges COVID-19 is a global pandemic that emerged in 2019. It can lead to severe respiratory symptoms and has caused millions of deaths in the United States and around the world (Cao, 2020). In January 2020, COVID-19 created new problems and accelerated already existing financial problems for all colleges and universities in the United States, placing particular financial stress on RPIs (DePietro, 2020). The high cost of adapting to online instruction, loss of room and board revenue, the cancellation of summer programs and NCAA sports, and declines in research grant activity caused significant financial stress. While schools of all sizes have been impacted by COVID-19’s effects, RPIs have been among the most financially stressed, as they have smaller endowments and do not have the financial reserves to counter the impact of these stressors as easily (DePietro, 2020). COVID-19 has not only impacted college finances, but it has also altered consumer mindset around the value of higher education and caused disproportionate rates of college stop outs among minority populations centered in large urban cities (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). With an increased number of lost jobs in the U.S., many schools have seen decreased yield rates in the semester following the COVID-19 outbreak, indicating that consumer mindset around value and safety will continue to play a significant role in the overall fiscal health of colleges and universities (Galloway, 2021; West, 2020). COVID-19 has accelerated the price sensitivity of students currently enrolled in high school. The ECMC, a group whose aim is to help students understand financial aid borrowing, conducted a large survey of students attending high school during the pandemic. They found that students reported a 20% decrease in their likelihood of attending college since the pandemic, going from 71% to 53% (Dickler, 2021). In the Princeton Review’s “2021 Hopes and Worries 32 Survey” a majority of students surveyed that the rising costs of college and financing a college education is their number one concern since the COVID-19 pandemic. Ninety-eight percent of students and parents surveyed said that financial aid would be necessary, and a majority of students reported that they are now applying to schools with lower sticker prices since the pandemic (Dickler, 2021). The National Student Clearinghouse reported that overall college enrollment fell by more than 4% in 2020, the year of the pandemic, with the incoming first year class accounting for a 13% decline (Dickler, 2021). This data shows that COVID-19 accelerated price sensitivity and has caused a greater number of students to delay college attendance altogether. In January 2022, The National Student Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) released its latest enrollment statistics, with emphasis on the projected impact of COVID-19 on fall 2021 total undergraduate and graduate enrollments (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). The higher education sector experienced a 2.7% decline in new student total enrollment in the fall 2021 and 2.5% new student total enrollment decline in fall 2020. This represents a 5.1% decrease over the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic and equates to 938,000 fewer students enrolling at US public and private institutions. They also reported that every higher education sector (i.e., public, private, 2-year, 4-year) saw undergraduate enrollment declines, with there being an overall 3.1% decrease in undergraduate enrollment during the pandemic, which equated to 465,300 fewer students enrolling in the United States higher education system (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). Kecojevic et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional study among a sample of college students in Northern New Jersey at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, where many students had their lives altered by pandemic restrictions. A survey was completed by 162 students that 33 were asked about their COVID-19 knowledge level, sources of COVID-19 information and the impact COVID was having on behaviors and academic performance. The findings showed that even though the students did well with knowledge when given information from trusted sources, that the students still experienced a significant increase in stress, anxiety, and academic difficulty (Kecojevic et al., 2020). Because this study was administered in the early stages of the pandemic, researchers were not able to ascertain the extent to which COVD-19 caused a higher dropout rate, thereby negatively impacting college finances. Further research that studies the relationship between COVID-19 and overall student net revenue would be valuable. Role of CEFA Officers For an RPI to ensure revenues exceed expenses, it is critical that the Chief Enrollment, Chief Finance and Chief Academic Officers (CEFA) collaborate. While the specific offices of supervision can vary from each RPI, the scope of responsibility is generally consistent. The Chief Enrollment Officer (CEO) is to generate revenue through the recruitment and retention of students. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) manages the finances and ensures the organization remains in compliance and the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) is to manage the quality of the product, the academic enterprise. While there are other senior level officials at an RPI that play a pivotal role in an organization's health, such as the Chief Advancement and Chief Student Affairs Officer, it is the role of these three senior level officials whose roles have the most ability, when combined, to transcend the wicked problems that exist in the market for RPIs today. Background of Chief Enrollment Officer The Chief Enrollment Officer (CEO) often holds the title of the Vice President for Enrollment Management at an RPI (Maguire & Butler, 2008; Smith, 2001). In the simplest 34 terms, the job of the Chief Enrollment Officer to generate revenue. The way they are expected to do this is through recruiting the right size and composition of new students each year, partnering with all offices at the institution to promote student persistence through graduation (Dennis, 2012; Maguire & Butler, 2008; Smith, 2001; Vander Schee, 2007). This process is often referred to as a “culture of enrollment management” when each member of the campus understands the unique and important role they play in both recruiting and training students. The typical direct oversight for the Chief Enrollment Officer often consists of admissions, financial aid, student retention and some or full oversight of the institution's marketing efforts (Maguire & Butler, 2008; Vander Schee, 2007). An Enrollment management leader often relies on a strong ability to analyze data and may oversee a business systems team with some information technology background to be able to effectively utilize various systems in recruitment and retention efforts (Dennis, 2012; Maguire & Butler, 2008; Smith, 2001; Vander Schee, 2007, 2009). As pressure increases each year at RPIs given market challenges, the role and responsibilities of the Chief Enrollment Officer are seeing different scopes of responsibilities, which can include student affairs, student registration, community relations and other such functions that impact university brand, student success and any activities that generate revenue (Dennis, 2012; Maguire & Butler, 2008). Vander Schee (2007) conducted a longitudinal study that analyzed how changes in marketing strategy impact recruitment and retention efforts at small, Christian institutions. They found that small schools have the advantage of being nimbler and being able to move quicker, which is needed given the intense competition that small, Christian schools face. They also found that cycles of recruitment, retention and marketing are extremely fluid and require enrollment managers to be able to balance multiple priorities, for multiple cycles at the same time (Vander 35 Schee, 2007). Vander Schee (2009) conducted a second longitudinal study to analyze the use of an enrollment management division since 1997. The study found consistent growth in institutions incorporating an enrollment management model across institutional size and level of selectivity. Both studies acknowledge the limitations of the enrollment management model at small institutions, where staff positions can become jeopardized if institutions are not meeting revenue goals (Vander Schee, 2007, 2009). Background of Chief Financial Officer One of the roles of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at a RPI is that of an advisor (Bolman & Gallos, 2011). The CFO is to advise the President and often members of the Board of Trustees on fiscally sound business practices that are in the best interest of the RPI (Hommell et al., 2011; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010). This includes managing and offering advice on accounting and budget, ensuring regulatory compliance, managing investment and debt strategies, and maintaining the organization's reserves (Hommell et al., 2011; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; McCann, 2019). The CFO’s areas of supervision vary, but portfolios of supervision often include the bursar’s office, controller’s office, and procurement. Other offices that may fall under the supervision of a CFO at an RPI are information technology, facilities, public safety, legal affairs, and human resources. All areas that deal with issues of financial management and compliance are usually the primary responsibility of the CFO (Hommell et al., 2011; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; Maguire & Butler, 2008). The CFO also serves at many RPIs as the executive financial advisor to the board of directors. In such, this person is responsible for all contractual matters of the institution and makes fiscal recommendations for the board’s approval, especially on large capital matters (Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010). The CFO is responsible for fiscal management of the 36 endowment, and often works with the board investment committee to manage investments and related investment policies. Finally, the issue of debt management is central to the role of the CFO. As market challenges have accelerated the ability for RPIs to balance undergraduate revenues and expenses, CFOs are continually being asked to work more collaboratively with a wider variety of stakeholders (Hommell et al., 2011; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010). Additionally, there is a growing trend in higher education to look at CFO’s that come from a for profit background to bring a skillset and mindset that can best help the RPI manage through difficult market circumstances (Hommell et al., 2011; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; Maguire & Butler, 2008). Background of Chief Academic Officer The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) often has two titles, that of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Provost (Bolman & Gallos, 2011). Both titles are important and interconnected to fulfilling the mission of an RPI, which invariably, despite nuances, centers around providing students with an education in one form or another. In the role of a Provost, the CAO manages the Deans and the faculty, where size and organization vary depending on the RPIs academic focus (Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Kezar & Lester, 2009). The Provost manages faculty contracts, or supervises the Deans in their management of the faculty and their contracts. This work often involves oversight of a registrar’s office, including course scheduling, course registration, managing the official academic bulletin, and verification of degrees upon graduation (Kezar & Lester, 2009). The Provost mediates conflicts, ensures state and federal compliance and also supervises programmatic and institutional accreditation, which can be extremely time consuming and high stakes of not successfully executed (Baum et al., 2013; Kezar & Lester, 2009). 37 As the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the CAO crafts the strategic academic plan, which typically involves prioritization of programming that is to be developed and programs to be discontinued. This is often done through the lens of both mission and what makes sense financially for each RPI (Baum et al., Kezar & Lester, 2009). The CAO also oversees research activity, which can include an Office of Sponsored Research and grant activity of both faculty and staff. Goals include advancing academic mission, improving student and faculty outcomes, and generating revenue through various fundraising activities. Other responsibilities of the CAO can include oversight of the library, academic support services, a center for teaching and learning and student accessibility services (Kezar & Lester, 2009). At many RPIs, CAO’s are viewed as the “second in command” or the chief executive officer, especially when the President is not available. There are many organizational models in higher education when the CAO also directly supervises the Vice President for Enrollment Management and the Vice President of Student Affairs. The CAO is also expected to generate revenue not only through grants and sponsorships, but through fundraising. As the chief representative of the academic enterprise, they are often expected to assist in all matters of recruitment, retention, and student success (Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Kezar & Lester, 2009). Being the CAO at an RPI is often referred to as “the most difficult job on a college campus” (Maguire & Butler, 2008). In sum, it is important to understand the history and unique components of each CEFA officer role in order to understand how research proven strategies can facilitate collaboration among them. Benefits of Collaboration in an Organization Because this study examined the ability of CEFA officers to collaborate to ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses, this section will examine the benefits of collaboration within an organization. The concept of collective efficacy, or a group’s shared belief about their 38 ability to implement change, within Social Cognitive Theory is first explored (Alavi & McCormick, 2018; Bandura, 1986, 1995, 2000; Elliot et al., 2018). The next subsection explores research pertaining to collaboration outside of higher education and within higher education. The last section aims to summarize some overall best practices in collaboration, which include creating work groups that strip away formal titles and job descriptions and the benefits of having personal relationships with colleagues prior to engaging in professional collaboration (King, 2010; Love & Edwards, 2009; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016). Collective Efficacy Seminal work by Bandura (1986) defined the constructs of Social Cognitive Theory and the impact that efficacy beliefs and collective efficacy have on motivation, learning and performance. Collective efficacy is a group’s shared belief about their capability to organize and implement a course of action that produces desired levels of attainment (Alavi & McCormick, 2018; Bandura, 1995, 2000; Elliot et al., 2018). Groups with strong collective efficacy not only produce desired results through shared knowledge and skills, but have a level of coordinated synergy (Bandura, 2000). There is a relationship between efficacy beliefs, which is an individual’s perception of their ability to organize and implement change, and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Lawson & Ventriss, 1992). An individual can have strong efficacy beliefs but still not perform well in a group if vital group conditions are not met, and vice versa (Bandura, 1993, 2000, 2012; Lawson & Ventriss, 1992; Lent et al., 1996). Efficacy beliefs regulate individual and group performance through cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes (Bandura, 1995, 2000). Regarding cognitive processes, it has been found that when goals are challenging and achieved, it solidifies one’s commitment to the goal and improves efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1995; Locke & Latham, 2006). 39 Efficacy beliefs have a relationship with motivation processes, and the degree to which individuals and groups attribute success and failures to either effort or ability (Bandura, 1995). Groups with high collective efficacy attribute failure to effort, where those with low collective efficacy attribute failure to the difficulty of the task, which impacts motivational processes (Bandura, 1995, 2000; Chwalisz et al., 1992; Schunk & Gunn, 1986). Affective processes impact the extent to which efficacy beliefs are impacted by stress, as those with strong perceived self- efficacy are able to navigate threats without letting harmful thoughts impact performance (Bandura, 1995). In a study that examined the impact of environmental stressors on efficacy and performance, it was found that among individuals exposed to the same environmental stressors, those who remained unphased by external challenges not only performed better but used stronger affective processes which positively impacted efficacy beliefs (Sanderson et al., 1989). Regarding selection processes, people with high efficacy beliefs take on environments they deem themselves capable of managing, whereas people with low efficacy beliefs avoid environments they fear will be stressful and lead to unfavorable results (Bandura, 1995, 1996). Collaboration Outside of Higher Education Peer-reviewed empirical research exists that outlines collaboration in non-for-profit organizations outside of higher education and the benefit it can have on organizational performance. Ary and Lin (2007) studied collaboration outcomes among 52 nonprofit organizations. This study was relevant because it looked at the degree to which various elements of collaboration led to the production of funds either through external means or due to the direct work of employees internally. One of the relevant findings was that structural holes in an organization’s composition led to negative funding generalism (Ary & Lin, 2007). The other 40 important result was that when employees in a non-profit organization understood their purpose and what they were working towards, it increased collaboration and revenue generation (Ary & Lyn, 2007). The study is valuable in that it evaluated multiple dimensions of collaboration and its impact on revenue in non-higher education, non-profit organizations. These findings can be generalized to support the notion that when CEFA officers have a shared understanding of purpose, revenue generation is increased. However, the study failed to analyze the variables of market position and consumer mindset and how they shape competitive advantage and revenue generation. Weber et al., (2017) noted that inter-organizational collaborations happen frequently in the for-profit sector, but less among non-for-profit organizations. They studied the extent to which value is created for each organization when partnerships are formed. The findings of their longitudinal study showed evidence that receiving knowledge, material, and financial resources, along with building self-enforcing governance structures between two organizations, are relevant for joint value to be created (Weber et al., 2007). This study is useful, as the researchers both acknowledge the soundness and detail developed to validate the findings of this study which cover many of the knowledge, motivation, and organization components necessary for joint collaboration. The tool used is limited in that it measures partnerships at one particular point in time and does have the ability to measure how changes will impact joint value over time (Weber et al., 2017). Collaboration in Higher Education Fulford (2017) posits a new way to think about collaboration in higher education. Rather than looking at collaboration in the context of teamwork, she frames two modern economic theories and suggests that new technologies drive economics which change the roles of 41 responsibility, reciprocity and possibility thinking in higher education (Fulford, 2017). Moon et al. (2019) looked at the role collaboration with external partners play in providing new knowledge and resources to a higher education institution. Their findings showed that the ability of the external firm to absorb more from the institution has a positive effect on the overall partnership. This included advice, engaging in joint research, using consulting services and engaging in joint problem-solving activities were all important attributes for higher education institutions to participate in for the collaboration to be successful (Moon et al., 2019). While limited research exists that studies collaboration among leaders in for-profit organizations, the existing body of research lacks peer reviewed literature that highlights the financial benefits of collaboration in higher education. There is no known literature that focuses specifically on the benefits of collaboration among CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States. Best Practices in Collaboration There is research that has examined best practices for overall organizational collaboration, with a focus that collaboration can be taught in order to achieve desired outcomes (King, 2010; Love and Edwards, 2009; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016). Rycroft-Malone et al. (2016) conducted a national (England) empirical study on collaboration, where over 200 participants engaged in semi-structured, qualitative interviews. Observations of events and meetings also took place over four rounds of observation and theory testing. The study found when programs were implemented with lack of connection or collaboration among departments, that groups focused more on the knowledge needed to implement, which produced less favorable project findings. However, when paths were cleared for departments to work outside the lines of their formal job description and collaborate as one cohesive team, the implementation focused less on knowledge needed and focused more on leveraging a diverse set of stakeholders’ 42 strengths. As a result, measured implementation outcomes over time were significantly better when collaboration was the focus (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016). This shows the importance of leaders stripping away titles and working outside silos as a best practice in collaboration. Love and Edwards (2009) posit that the best practice for collaborations in higher education is to find an institutional partner and then cultivate a relationship - turning a personal relationship into an organizational relationship. They studied relationships across academic affairs and student affairs departments and found that collaboration and student outcomes benefited when employees across units had relationships where they enjoyed spending time with one another (Love & Edwards, 2009). King (2010) studied organizational collaboration and found that collaboration becomes more likely when unintentional personal experiences cause casual communications to turn into collective planning, idea generation, and participation of other designed activities. This suggests that in order for CEFA officers to effectively collaborate, some degree of a personal relationship can benefit strong professional outcomes. Clark & Estes’s (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Influence Framework The study implemented a modified gap analysis model as its conceptual framework. The conceptual framework used to analyze the problem was Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. Gap analysis compares actual performance to desired performance by conducting root cause analyses to determine the degree to which knowledge, motivation, or the organization’s culture and/or policies and procedures inhibit performance. The goal of this framework is to help organizations take a systematic and research proven approach to achieving desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008). 43 Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influences A key assumption is that this study’s gap analysis focused on collaboration among CEFA officers and how their knowledge, motivation and the organizational structure can be understood to facilitate collaboration to close the gap between desired and earned revenue. This study examined the idea that declining revenue is out of the control of a RPI because external challenges are too great to overcome, with a focus on collaboration as means to close knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps to ensure annual revenues exceed annual expenses by at least 5% (Clark & Estes, 2008; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). Knowledge Influences This section of the review of literature will provide an overview of knowledge-related influences that are relevant to exploring the ability of CEFA officers to collaborate to ensure that institutional revenues exceed expenses. Krathwohl (2002), in Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, explains that having clarity on knowledge and concepts to complete a goal provides alignment and identifies missed opportunities among stakeholders - CEFA officers. Clark & Estes (2008) posit that achieving a baseline of common declarative and metacognitive knowledge is critical for goal attainment. In order for the stakeholder goal to be met, CEFA officers will need to have awareness of facts, strategies and procedures that will help them meet their goal (Mayer, 2011). For the purpose of this study, knowledge and skills were assessed in order to examine whether CEFA officers have the core competencies to meet the stakeholder goal. Knowledge influences were important to examine the problem of practice because the demographic decline, change in consumer mindset, and tuition discounting practices will bring significant new knowledge to CEFA officers about ways they can respond to ensure that revenues exceed expenses. CEFA officers will need to possess the most current knowledge about 44 entrepreneurial behavior, ensuring strong collective efficacy and promoting self-regulation strategies that will increase likelihood of goal attainment. Being adaptive to new knowledge is a concept embedded within the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Declarative Knowledge: Understanding of RPI Goals to Generate Revenue From an epistemological perspective, declarative knowledge is the “that” of knowledge, as opposed to the “how” of knowledge (Mayer, 2011). For the stakeholder goal to be met, CEFA officers will need to understand a uniform set of declarative knowledge, which includes knowledge of all the goals their respective RPI has to generate revenue. To acquire that knowledge, CEFA officers will need to demonstrate a depth of declarative knowledge beyond basic facts about what the goals are, which includes knowledge in the areas of recruitment, retention, fundraising and auxiliary services (Clark & Estes, 2008). Beyond just knowledge of the goals, understanding the procedure of how the goals were developed and whether that methodology was in alignment with current circumstances is important. Kotlar et al. (2018) developed a review of literature on the history of organizational goals and the benefits goals have on performance. They specifically examined the effect goals have on employee performance and behavior. The researchers created a conceptual framework that outlined the variety of organizational goals and their relationships to context, organizational antecedents, and outcomes as well as the importance of feedback loops within each of these areas. A robust future agenda was set which included the need to further research not only what drives people towards goals, but to look at the relationship between goals, outcomes, and an assessment of whether the organization is doing well (Kotlar et al., 2018). This is relevant to this study as CEFA officers must be able to understand whether current organizational goals are positioned to help achieve desired results. 45 Colbert et al. (2008) examined the impact that knowledge of goals had on the professional relationship and outcomes between Presidents and Vice Presidents among 94 different management teams. Similar to Koltar et al. (2018) they found that shared knowledge of goals does foster positive relationships among vice Presidents and Presidents. However, goal knowledge did not have a positive impact on the performance of vice Presidents (Colbert et al., 2008). While knowledge of goals alone did not positively correlate to increased performance, the study found that when vice Presidents assessed their President as being a transformational leader, which includes shared knowledge of goals among other traits, there was a positive relationship to performance outcomes (Colbert et al., 2008). Declarative Knowledge: Awareness of External Challenges Hindering Revenue Generation The second type of declarative knowledge needed for CEFA officers to collaborate on strategic initiatives to ensure their organization produces revenue that exceeds expenses by 5% is an awareness of external challenges that hinder revenue generation. Among those challenges, are declining high school demographics, a change in consumer mindset of higher education and a change in tuition discounting practices that can hinder revenue generation. It is important for CEFA officers to understand external challenges, as within each there are elements that can be controlled and elements that cannot be controlled. To be successful in meeting their goal, CEFA officers will need to understand specific external market variables that impact collaboration in detail (Grawe, 2021, 2018; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). For example, while overall high school demographics that include all race categories are expected to decline nationally in the year 2025, there will also be growth among Hispanic and Asian American high school students (Grawe, 2018, 2021). 46 Metacognitive Knowledge: Opportunity Awareness Metacognition is the thoughts and efficacy people have about their knowledge and acquisition of it (Krathwohl, 2002, Mayer, 2011). Having metacognitive awareness of their strengths and opportunities to generate recommendations that contribute to positive undergraduate revenue will allow CEFA officers to apply what they learn to successfully collaborate on several organization-specific strategies, which will minimally include planning a baseline budget model where revenues exceed expenses by 5% each year for a period of five years. Additionally, CEFA officers will need to understand their strengths and limitations regarding making cuts in expenses that can contribute to goal attainment. Kontostavlou and Drigas (2021) conducted a literature review to determine the relationship between metacognition and gifted leaders. Gifted leaders are defined as having wisdom and creative skills, academic knowledge, and practical ideas that are focused on helping the common good (Sternberg & Sternberg, 2005). Their research found a relationship between metacognition, giftedness, and leadership, with a strong connection between those who are gifted leaders and the regular use of metacognitive strategies (Gardner et al., 2005; Kontostavlou & Drigas, 2021). This research supported the idea that when leaders regularly self-regulate, monitor, and are aware of their thoughts there is greater opportunity to improve outcomes (Kontostavlou & Drigas, 2021). In relation to this study, the extent to which CEFA officers monitor and self-regulate their own collaborative activities served as an asset in their efforts to ensure that annual undergraduate revenues exceed annual expenses. Table 2 outlines the assumed knowledge influences and the corresponding knowledge types of this study. 47 Table 2 Knowledge Influences Assumed knowledge influence Knowledge type CEFA officers need knowledge of the institutional goals intended to generate revenue. Declarative CEFA officers need to understand the external challenges that hinder revenue generation. Declarative CEFA officers need to monitor their collaborative activities within their organization to generate revenue and cut expenses. Metacognitive Motivational Influences In the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, the second step in closing the gap between actual results and desired results is assessing the motivational influences of key stakeholders, in this case CEFA officers. Motivation, described as why someone does something, is the reason a person has for acting in a certain way (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Active choice, mental effort, and persistence are other key components to motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The motivation section of the review of literature focuses on CEFA officer's choice, persistence, and mental efforts regarding collaborating that will ensure that undergraduate revenues exceed expenses each year for a period of five years. Motivation must be present for a stakeholder goal to be reached (Rueda, 2011). McGee and Johnson (2015) analyzed motivation from a behavioral perspective. They looked at the use of rewards and their impact on motivation and found that extrinsic reinforcers 48 decrease intrinsic motivation. In regards to the motivation of CEFA officers, it is important to examine whether motivation to produce revenue that exceeds expenses comes from an internal or external locus of control (McGee & Johnson, 215). Utility Value Expectancy value theory is based on Atkinson’s work from 1957 in which an individual’s task related beliefs are correlated to performance, persistence, and choice (Elliot et al., 2017). The value a stakeholder has in a goal, and well as their expectations for successful attainment will play a critical role in motivation (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Utility value stems from expectancy value theory and describes the strength of a set of choices a person or group has within a range of possibilities (Levin et al., 2020). For this study, CEFA officers need to believe in the strength of the strategic choices they have, which will help them collaborate to reduce expenses and increase revenue to ensure the survival of the organization. The CEFA officers will need to feel motivated by the choices to jointly pursue the strategies that they feel will be most successful in generating revenue and reducing expenses. This is important because if the motivation towards a unified set of choices of strategies is not consistent among them, outcomes and future collaborative efforts can be impacted (Levin et al., 2020). Eccles and Wigfield (2020) conducted an extensive review of literature on expectancy theory and found that an individual's expectations for success and the subjective value they place on a task is the most important psychological determination as to whether one will choose, perform and engage in an activity. They also found that confidence and choice in a task is often domain specific. The more one is knowledgeable about a topic, the more motivated they are to take it on because they have a greater expectation for success (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). Because each CEFA officer will have different knowledge levels that could influence 49 motivation, it was important to measure the impact of expectancy theory and motivational outcomes as stakeholder goals are assessed. Collective Efficacy CEFA officers need to be confident that they can implement strategies to collaborate that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses. A review of literature examined collective efficacy and its impact on goal achievement. Collective efficacy is the collaborative force a group has to achieve a desired result (Bandura, 2000). Collective efficacy is often thought as being critical to producing positive group outcomes because of the important role it plays in connecting people with their environment (Bandura, 2000; Zaccaro et al., 1995). A number of studies have shown that strong collective efficacy increases group engagement and motivation (Bandura, 1997; George, 1996; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Salanova et al., (2011) conducted two longitudinal studies using independent samples of 274 secondary school teachers and studied how perceived collective efficacy influenced the vigor, dedication, and absorption of the group’s performance over time. They found that efficacy beliefs influence positive engagement, enthusiasm and create a positive “spiral” that increases results over time due to engagement and positive emotion (Salanova et al., 2011). George (1996) found that when people in groups display similar motivational and behavioral patterns, a “shared affective tone” develops that continues to lead to collective efficacy and positive results over time. In a two-way longitudinal study, Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) not only studied the relationship between efficacy beliefs and work engagement, but tested to see whether the relationship would last over time. Their findings revealed a reciprocal gain cycle, where the more time that passed where collective efficacy existed, work engagement also increased and vice versa (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). 50 Resilience. Kunnari et al. (2018) examined the collective efficacy and resiliency of teacher teams by researching what makes the teams successful when implementing new teaching practices that emphasized independence and adaptation. Five teacher teams were selected at a University in Finland to look at protective and risk factors that impacted the teacher’s collective efficacy and resilience and found that providing teachers with the external resources to be flexible and adaptable considering uncertainty increased collective efficacy and the ability to handle difficult circumstances (Kunnari et al., 2018). In a similar study, Meister and Athens (2011) identified three main factors that led to teacher resilience: group support for enthusiasm and growth, positive interactions with colleagues, and group affirmation that the group aims to positively impact students’ lives; supporting the correlation between collective efficacy and reliance. In a third case study analysis that examined a cohort of teachers in Africa and how collective efficacy fosters resiliency. Ebersohn (2012) found that when school communities foster positive relationships between teachers and school administrators and parents, that teachers are better able to overcome external obstacles and produce positive learning outcomes among their students. These studies are important because they demonstrate that if CEFA officers can collaborate and form strong collective efficacy it could improve their level of resilience in dealing with internal and external challenges. Group Performance. There are studies that analyze the correlation between collective efficacy and group performance (Bandura, 1995, 2000). Lent et al. (2005), administered two measures of collective efficacy among undergraduate engineering students working in team projects. In this study, collective efficacy was found to be a strong predictor of both team performance and the ways in which individuals positively evaluated themselves. Stajkivoc and Lee (2001) analyzed data from 35 separate studies on the relationship between collective 51 efficacy and performance and found that collective efficacy accounts for roughly 20% of the variance in group performance, a large effect size. A meta-analysis by Gully et al. (2002) tested the relationship between collective efficacy and performance and found that collective efficacy of high performing teams rated more highly than the individual level. This finding supports the relationship between collective efficacy and group performance while also highlighting the powerful impact collective efficacy has on it, with a mean correlation of .41. These studies demonstrate that if CEFA officers can develop strong collective efficacy, it is likely to improve the results of the initiatives they work on together. Table 3 shows the motivation influences and related motivation constructs of this study. 52 Table 3 Motivation Influences Motivation influence Motivation construct CEFA officers need to believe it is useful to collaborate to reduce expenses and increase revenue to ensure the survival of the organization. Utility Value CEFA officers need to be confident in each other’s skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses. Collective Efficacy Organization Influences Organizational influences are the final component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework. Organizational influences are important as they refer to the policies and procedures and the organizational culture that support alignment between actual results and desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described cultural models as the way an organization operates and the way the stakeholders within the organization view the operations or specific policies and procedures. It is important to note these are shared views (Rueda, 2011). Schein (2004) described cultural models as the invisible attitudes and beliefs that drive organizational behavior in a cultural setting. Cultural settings describe the way people within an organization come together over time to accomplish a set of tasks or goals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). These concepts undergird the research that shows culture is formed when people come together within a setting and that culture impacts whether the task will be completed in a way that aligns with goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). In an education 53 context, Carpenter (2015) described a collaborative culture as being an interactive one, where teachers and administrators share expertise with the goal of helping to improve the practice of others. His research shows that for effective organizational collaboration, stakeholders must believe their knowledge, skills and experience will be respected and contributions valued (Carpenter, 2015). Cultural Models: Culture of Improvement Cultural models and cultural settings are the concrete aspects of a culture—employees, tasks, and how tasks are completed whereas cultural models describe underlying ways of doing work and mental schemas used to framework, which may not always be obvious (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) believe that culture is formed in its setting. In the cultural model context, organizational leaders at RPIs need to understand the unique role they play in helping to meet organizational goals that will ensure revenue exceeds expenses. If done, this will contribute to a culture of improvement. Yelon and Williamson (2016) studied how cultural technologists integrate a culture of improvement into skill training. They found that to build such a culture, five steps need to be followed: motivate employees to learn and apply, present a clear vision, schedule practice, employ a consistent feedback protocol, and require an improved repeat performance of a learned skill (Kiran et al., 2019; Yelon & Williamson, 2016). This study examined the extent to which a cultural model was present wherein CEFA Officers understand the unique role they play in ensuring that annual revenues exceed expenses. Cultural Settings: Finance Policies and Procedures that Support Revenue Generation Cultural setting is the concept that team culture forms when groups of people come together to act towards a shared objective (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Research shows that 54 organizational culture is influenced by an organization’s policies and procedures, with specific studies showing this to be the case in education settings (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Kohm & Nance, 2009). For RPIs to generate revenue that exceeds expenses, finance policies and procedures need to support activities that both generate revenue and enable expenses to be cut. In the context of this study, people within finance may consider partnering with CEFA officers, along with a variety of other organizational stakeholders, to understand unique challenges that specific units have in cutting costs and generating revenue. Once these are understood, those in finance and administration may develop policies and procedures that are both compliant with state and federal regulations and facilitate a cultural setting where goal attainment is possible. Wilson (2018) examined how to build a culture of diversity in a higher education workplace and found that polices, practices, and procedures are critical elements to bring people together to form a culture that facilitates reaching high-level goals (Kiran et al., 2019). Alheit (2016) examined the cultural settings within organizations in the United Kingdom that can both facilitate and hinder collaboration. He concluded that there is a complex relational framework between workplace structure, cultural settings, and the actions that are regularly taken on and adapted by teams. There were two types of policies and procedures that were sought out in this study to determine whether this setting was a gap or asset and the extent to which these policies and procedures contributed to organizational performance. The first were financial policies around procurement services to acquire new products or vendor services to generate revenue. The second focused on financial budget policies that allowed CEFA officers insight into their budgets to effectively cut expenses. 55 Cultural Settings: Support of New Initiatives For a cultural setting to facilitate CEFA officer collaboration so that undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses they will need the organizational support of the larger organization, which in higher education would be the President and Board of Trustees (BOT). CEFA officers will need a President and BOT to come together regularly to listen and respond to ideas that generate revenue and cut expenses, and CEFA officers need to feel the organization supports their ideas (Colbert et al., 2008). This support can come in the form of verbal support or leadership actions that send signals to others in the organization that these new tasks are worth completing and in alignment with overall strategic goals. (Clarke & Estes, 2008; Colbert et al., 2008). Agocs (1997) researched the factors that create organizational resistance that prevents meaningful change. She found that the culture created by organizational decision makers can largely determine whether employees will contribute meaningfully to goal attainment or actively resist, which ties into the nation of an employee’s willingness to generate new ideas (Agocs, 1997; Alavi & McCormick, 2018). Research has found that organization performance can be correlated to the personality traits of its leader (Cao et al., 2019; Carpenter, 2015; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Oreg & Berson, 2018; O’Reilly et al, 2014; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Carpenter (2015) found that the extent to which teachers engage in a collaborative culture is largely shaped by both emotionally supportive and shared leadership, defined by trust and respect for them as professionals. O’Reilly et al. (2014) investigated the link between how senior leaders influence culture and how culture is related to organizational outcomes, which are variables that have not been widely researched. By interviewing employees from 32 high-tech companies in the United States they found a positive relationship between a CEO’s personality and the culture of their company. They then 56 found a linkage between each company’s culture and a wide variety of outcomes, such as financial performance, employee attitudes, reputation and how analysts make recommendations about the company stock. Kauppila and Tempelaar (2016) conducted a two-phase survey of 638 employees in 173 groups across 34 organizations to explore the relationship between high level leadership qualities and employee ambidexterity. Employee ambidexterity is an employee’s ability to explore new opportunities while also continuing to effectively utilize existing competencies (Cao et al., 2019; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). They found that employees exhibit high levels of ambidexterity when managers exhibit strong managerial support along with high performance expectations. This study sought to confirm the CEFA officers interviewed perceive that they received emotional support from the President and Board of Trustees in the sense that they regularly listened and responded to ideas that were intended to generate revenue and reduce expenses in a manner that aligned with internal and external challenges. Table 4 shows the organizational influences and the related organizational influence category for this study. 57 Table 4 Organizational Influences Organizational influences Organizational influence category RPIs need to have a culture wherein all CEFA officers understand the unique role they can play in helping to meet goals that will generate revenue and cut expenses. Cultural Model Influence 1 RPIs need financial policies and procedures that support CEFA officer collaborative revenue generation activities and the reduction of expenses. Cultural Setting Influence 1 RPI senior leadership needs to provide emotional support to CEFA officers to foster collaborative initiatives that generate revenue and reduce expenses. Cultural Setting Influence 2 Conceptual Framework This conceptual framework supports multiple theoretical frameworks and supporting literature along with the professional educational context of a study (Adams & Buetow, 2014; Berman, 2014; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In research, factors being studied need to relate to one another in a meaningful way that is supported by empirical literature (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The conceptual framework allows the researchers to understand central concepts that bring their research together and serves as the outline to guide a well-planned study. For the purpose of this study, there were three concepts central to the conceptual framework, which were the knowledge, motivation and organization influences central to the work of Clark and Estes (2008). 58 This study examined the knowledge CEFA officers will need regarding internal and external challenges and the range of choice they had to collaborate to ensure undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. This knowledge influences the expectancy, collective-efficacy, and utility value of CEFA officers’ ability to collaborate, thereby impacting motivation. The knowledge and motivation then influence the cultural model and cultural settings, which relies on both alignment of financial policies and procedures and an overall collaborative culture that will determine whether CEFA officers at each RPI can collaborate to generate revenue that exceeds expenses by 5% for a period of five consecutive years. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework for this study. Figure 1 Conceptual Framework 59 This framework shows collaboration as being central within the roles of each CEFA officer. Shared knowledge and motivation among each of the three CEFA officers impacts both collaboration and the organizational ability to produce annual undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses. In the framework, red arrows depict how knowledge and motivation drive the organization and vice versa. The CEFA Officers are depicted within the organizational sphere, where knowledge and motivation are solidly connected to both the organization and the related revenues and expenses. The image that represents the CEFA officers intentionally touch the organization to illustrate the impact collaboration has on the organization. The annual undergraduate revenue exceeding expenses is what happens for the organization when CEFA officers are collaborating with shared knowledge and motivation. Outside of the organization ring are the external variables of demographics, tuition discounting practices, and consumer mindset. There is a one-way arrow to the organization, as they influence the shared knowledge, motivation, and collaboration. Summary Regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States face unprecedented challenges that hinder their ability to balance revenue and expenses. Declining demographics are negatively impacting the number of high school graduates, which vary significantly by geographic region, race, and institutional ranking (Bransburger et al., 2020; Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 215; Zemsky et al., 2020). There is a shift in consumer mindset that has taken place since the Great Recession of 2008, where families are more price sensitive and may make their college decision based on who can offer the best price, further accelerating aggressive and unsustainable tuition discounting practices (Grawe, 2021; Lundy et al., 2020; Zemsky et al., 2020). COVID-19, a contagious respiratory infection that caused an active global pandemic in 2019, accelerated the 60 pace at which these market challenges impacted the ability for RPIs to generate revenue (Cao, 2020; Galloway, 2021). If these challenges are not addressed, RPIs face the prospect of permanent closure (Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2018, 2021; McGee, 2015; Zemsky et al., 2020). For an RPI to ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses, it is critical to examine the level of collaboration among Chief Enrollment, Chief Finance and Chief Academic (CEFA) officers. While the specific offices of supervision can vary from each RPI, the scope of responsibility is generally consistent. The Chief Enrollment Officer is to generate revenue through the recruitment and retention of students. The Chief Financial Officer manages the finances and ensures the organization remains in compliance and the Chief Academic Officer is to manage the quality of the product, the academic enterprise. Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and his future works highlight the importance of self-efficacy in collaboration. Efficacy beliefs regulate individual and group performance through: cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes (Bandura, 1995, 2000). Regarding cognitive processes, it has been found that when goals are challenging and achieved, it solidifies one’s commitment to the goal and improves efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1995; Locke & Latham, 2006). The conceptual framework being used to analyze the problem was Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. Gap analysis compares actual performance to desired performance by conducting root cause analyses to determine if the gap is due to knowledge, motivation, or the organization’s culture and/or work processes and material resources. The goal of this framework is to help organizations take a systematic and research proven approach to achieving desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008). A key assumption of the gap analysis focused both on the agency among CEFA officers and how their knowledge, motivation and organizational structure can be understood to help close the gap between desired and earned undergraduate revenue. This study 61 analyzed the idea that declining revenue is out of the control of a RPI because external challenges are too great to overcome (Clark & Estes, 2008; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). 62 Chapter Three: Methodology The purpose of the study was to explore how CEFA officers at multiple RPIs in the United States use shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. The study examined how organizational and external influences impacted CEFA officers’ ability to collaborate to accomplish this goal. A semi-structured interview format was used to understand the knowledge and motivation influences that impact CEFA officers’ ability to collaborate to ensure organizational survival. This chapter will cover the study’s research questions, methodology, data collection plan and limitations and delimitations. Research Questions Two research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaboration efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? 2. What organizational influences need to be in place for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? Overview of Methodology Given that this is a topic that has not been studied, this study provided an initial exploration of the subject to identify potential barriers to collaboration that may exist among CEFA officers. The methodology of this study utilized the approach of single-stage, semi- structured, confidential interviews of CEFA officers at regional, private institutions (RPI) in the United States (Creswell, 2018). For the purpose of this study, an RPI was defined as a regionally accredited college or university outside of the United States News Top 100 national rankings (Grawe, 2018). Qualitative methodology was implemented. This study placed value on the 63 subjective analysis of each interviewed CEFA officer given their senior level status, unique leadership role, scope of authority within their organization, and their status as employee at an RPI in the United States who is responsible for generating revenue. Utilizing Patton’s (2002) six types of interview questions, a script was created with predetermined questions to anchor rich, qualitative conversations. Further, probes were prepared for each question to allow the semi-structured interview to go into unique and relevant directions related to the research questions (Merriam, 2006). Specific questions aimed to uncover how knowledge and motivational factors influence collaboration among CEFA officers to generate revenue that exceeds expenses. Other questions aimed to uncover the external and organizational influences that impact annual revenue exceeding expenses. Four to five of each CEFA officer were expected to be interviewed at various RPIs in the United States. The study concluded with sixteen total CEFA officers participating. CEFA officers participating may or may not have been employed at the same RPI in the United States. There was no limit as to a specific region of the United States the CEFA officer needed to reside to participate in the study, as the challenges outlined in the review of literature were relevant to RPIs in all regions of the United States (Grawe, 2018, 2021; Zemsky et al., 2020). A 20-question interview protocol, each question corresponding to a specific research question with related prompts, was asked to each participant. Depending on the answers, I reserved the right to ask follow-up questions. This semi-formal methodology was appropriate to elicit unique, contextual information that is specific to the circumstances to each interviewee. The identity and organization of each interviewee was kept strictly confidential. Table 5 shows the data source for each of the research questions used in this study. 64 Table 5 Data Sources Research questions Interview In what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaboration efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? X What organizational influences need to be in place in order for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? X Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan A qualitative method was used in this study. Recorded, semi-structured interviews were conducted. Data collection took place over a 30-day period. The key concepts being explored in the interviews were: revenue, expenses, collaboration, motivation, organization influences, external influences, and organizational culture. Thirty days were allocated for the analysis of the data, which included transcribing interviews and data analysis, which involved formally documenting consistent elements within each document. Method 1: Interviews I used a single-stage, semi-structured approach to the interviews. The questions served as a guide to the order and way in which each question was asked. I remained flexible during the interview, allowing responses to guide follow up probes (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). This approach was utilized because the research topics can be rather broad, especially when talking about budget processes and organizational structure among various RPIs. This interview 65 approach allowed me to explore the similarities and differences that exist within each organization. Participating Stakeholders The target population were chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers at RPIs in the United States. There are 505 RPIs in the United States, with each one having three CEFA officers in total, leaving the total number of CEFA officers in the United States for potential interview at 1,015 (Morse & Brooks, 2020). These stakeholders were directly relevant to the problem of practice and research questions, which focus on CEFA officer’s ability to collaborate to ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses. This study utilized a non-probability, purposeful sample strategy. I began my research by conducting a convenience sample, where subjects I know were asked to participate and scheduled based on their availability and my ability to utilize connections in the field to request interviews. I also implemented a snowball sampling approach, where I asked current CEFA officers that I know to refer me to other CEFA officers they know who could be interested in participating in the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In regards to sample size, I conducted a total of sixteen one -hour interviews. The intention was to recruit and interview approximately four to five individuals from each of the three CEFA officer categories: chief enrollment officers, chief financial officers, and chief academic officers. Two individual interviewees came from the same RPI, but I did not identify this to them to preserve confidentiality. I did not stratify based on any specific gender, age or racial demographic distribution. 66 Instrumentation I was the primary instrument for gathering all data. The protocol for the interview questions, which can be found in Appendix C, was not adapted or adopted from any measure already in use given the nature of this study and lack of existing research into this problem of practice and participant group. I developed 20 questions specific to the problem of practice which align with each research question. Specific concepts undergird the conceptual framework of the Clark & Estes (2008) gap analysis model. The approach was appropriate as there are not any current survey measures. Interviews were designed to ask questions that elicited descriptive responses that got at both the literal meaning of words and the deep sub context beneath them (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The instrument developed in Appendix C includes specific concepts being addressed, sample probe questions, the type of question based in Patton’s (2015) six question framework and the level of measurement (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). There were description questions about the participants’ background and those that asked them to describe their level of knowledge about strategies being used to generate revenue and reduce expenses. I designed questions aimed at eliciting both metacognitive and declarative knowledge. Motivation questions, with a focus on expectancy, attribution, and collective efficacy, were asked to garner information about motivation towards collaboration. There were organizational model and cultural settings questions, aligned with understanding external and organizational influences that impact goal achievement. A beta of the interview questions was implemented with two current leaders at my place of employment. Data from this beta was not included in the study. The interview consisted of a total of 20 open-ended questions, with specific probe questions assigned to each to support the semi-structured approach. The conceptual framework 67 utilized Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. It is this conceptual framework that guided the research questions, which specifically look at knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. In the knowledge category, questions aimed to explore factual, procedural, and metacognitive elements of each CEFA officer’s knowledge. For motivation, there were specific questions to measure expectancy, attribution, and collective efficacy as they relate to collaboration. For organizational influences, there were questions aimed to explore the cultural model influences and questions aimed at understanding the cultural setting influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). I intentionally chose to vary questions with experience/behavior, opinion, feeling, knowledge, and sensory questions (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). I included one background demographic question in the interview. Data Collection Procedures My goal was to allow for thirty days if needed, but ideally collect data over a 21-day period of time. A strict sixty-minute time limit was in place for each interview in order to respect the time and demands associated with being a CEFA officer. I recruited the participants first through purposeful, convenience sampling, as outlined in the Participants section above, by sending an email to CEFA officers at RPIs with which I have a professional connection. Following the email, if the CEFA officer verbally agreed to participate, I sent a formal invite for scheduling and documentation purposes. I used Zoom to conduct each interview and the camera was turned on for each conversation. Each session was recorded with Zoom, and I utilized the audio transcription feature to analyze the details of the conversation, realizing they needed to be edited for accuracy after each online interview (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). Each subject was provided a transcript to review and edit prior to it being finalized for analysis. This method was utilized because it was the most comfortable and convenient platform 68 for the subjects, who work in higher education. It also allowed for greater flexibility for both the subject and me, leaving the opportunity for early morning or late evening sessions. Given the COVID-19 pandemic and the physical location of the participants, in-person interviews were not an option. Data Analysis Analysis was done to explore answers to the research questions. A codebook was established consisting of a-priori codes developed prior to the interviews, which correlated to the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences. A-priori codes were developed and refined after each interview and were based on themes that came out during the interview process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The recordings were transcribed at the conclusion of each interview using Zoom transcription software. The transcriptions were assessed for clarity, relevancy, depth, and participant perspective. The transcripts and the video recordings were read and watched zones of times, and the data was coded during this process. Coding and categorization were linked to variables of interest expressed in the research questions and the study’s conceptual framework. My reflexivity, which is the extent to which I accounted for biases to make sure they did not skew interview questions, were the primary method of addressing biases and assumptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each interview had the chance to review the transcript prior to coding and analysis, and any edits or questioned were incorporated into validating authenticity of participant responses. I followed up with all the respondents shortly after the interview to ask for responses to be validated by the interviewee. I ensured that adequate engagement in data collection occurred, whereby I was able to identify clear and distinguishable patterns in answers to the point of saturation, or where there seemed to have been complete concept exploration (Meriam & 69 Tisdale, 2016). Creswell and Creswell (2018) identified a six-step method to conduct qualitative analysis. My research used a deductive approach with the intention of identifying whether each assumed knowledge, motivation or organization influence was present or not. Below are the steps I took from the Creswell and Creswell (2018) approach: 1. Identification of major themes. 2. Organization of a-priori codes by identifiable themes. 3. Conducting interviews. 4. Organizing and transcribing interviews. 5. Create a qualitative narrative of the participants’ perspectives. 6. Interpret the data for conclusions, association to the research questions and prior literature, and suggest further study queries. Credibility and Trustworthiness For a qualitative study to be credible and trustworthy it must be well designed, adhere to a set of ethical standards, use a reliable instrument, contain a hypothesis, be free of bias and should produce consistent findings across researchers over time (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2018). There is debate among members of the scientific community as to what constitutes a credible and trustworthy qualitative interview. I resonate with Tracy’s (2013) criteria for conducting qualitative research, which include making sure the topic is worthy, the methods are rigorous and transparent, the research is relatable to stakeholders, and the research makes a significant contribution to the related field while be conducted ethically and based on a solid base of literature. There were intentional strategies utilized to ensure credibility and trustworthiness were maximized in the study. First, was by using member checks (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). Transcripts of each interview were sent to the respondents, which included back 70 and forth correspondence to both clarify and gain more information on research question themes. This practice was consistent with all 16 participants, each of whom confirmed receipt of the documents, and more than half had follow up questions or clarification. Another way to ensure credibility was through a deep, inner analysis of my integrity. It was important that I understood my positionality and how my job and position in higher education could had the potential for me to expect certain answers from respondents, even if that was not my conscious intention (Meriam & Tisdale, 2016). The initial intent of the research design was to use triangulation in the form of document analysis. I had planned to use each school’s Form 990 to compare the annual revenues and expenses in relation to the knowledge, motivation, and organization assets and gaps identified during the interviews. I decided not to triangulate in this manner for two reasons. First, the financial information from the Form 990 was reflective of the institutional finances prior to the year 2020, the year in which COVID-19 began. Because COVID-19 was such a factor in many of the participant responses, I did not think the document analysis would add value to the research. Conversely, I thought it would add confusing and inconsistent data to the responses. Second, once I evaluated the Form 990’s I realized that there was potential to compromise the confidentiality of the participants. Sharing figures of institutional finances, even at a broad level, paired with the rich text responses, could have allowed audience members to research and connect the schools that participated in this study. While I did not triangulate with document analysis, triangulation was conducted within the points of view of the CEFA officers within the interview data. Further limitations related to triangulation will be discussed in the Limitations and Delimitations section of Chapter 5. 71 The Researcher My identities in relation to this study are being a Caucasian, Jewish male who comes from an upper-middle-class background. Both of my parents attended college. I am young compared to my work peers, am heterosexual and live in an upper-middle-class neighborhood where my children have the privilege of attending very strong public schools. My professional identity is as the Vice President for Enrollment Management and Marketing at Western New England University, where I am responsible for admissions, financial aid, student registration, retention services and marketing. Being responsible for these areas provides me the opportunity to analyze and implement best practices to generate revenue at a regional, private university. Being a member of the Budget Advisory Committee and a close colleague of the CFO provides insight on university expenses and best practices for responsibly managing them. Morgan (2018) defined an intersecting axis of privilege, domination, and oppression that helps to frame my positionality based on my personal attributes. I have a great deal of privilege to be cognizant of when developing and conducting research and framing this problem. As a white, heterosexual male who is young, able-bodied, and holds an executive level position, I fit into a group that receives a tremendous amount of privilege in the college admissions process in the United States. I needed to be aware of my privilege so that I did not create a study that skews towards solutions that could contribute to non-inclusive enrollment management strategies (McGee, 2015). Further, as a vice President, I have power to make decisions, needed to be careful that I was not marginalizing those I am conducting research with, as we needed to be on equal ground for the study to achieve credible and trustworthy findings. One important position of power that I was conscious of in my research is that I am currently a Vice President for Enrollment Management and Marketing at a regional, private 72 university in the United States. There were a few ways in which my position and experience had the potential to impact my study. First, I needed to know participants may be wary of sharing answers with me in fear that they could be sharing competitor trade secrets or that I might not be able to keep the answers confidential (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To combat this, I aimed to build genuine trust and assure the participants that I do not plan to use any information they share solely to benefit my university in my professional role. This involved discussing the opportunity we all have as campus leaders to share information to help the profession and ultimately the students we serve, which was a goal of my research. I made it clear that my primary role for the study was as a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern California. One of the best ways I was able to combat these potential pitfalls was through honest disclosure and rapport building at the onset of my interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I made it clear that I would not judge any of the answers for professional reasons. I was also aware of my non-verbal signals during the interview, as people could be extra sensitive to the way I react to answers and could falsely interpret my non-verbal reactions as a form of judgement. Remaining neutral to all answers and discussions was important in this effort (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). To reinforce this, I included overt language on the disclosure form that clearly stated that no information will be used by me for professional purposes related to my organization’s strategic goals. Another strategy I used was to overtly ask the respondents prior to the interview whether there are any concerns I could address. Finally, to reinforce my authentic interest in conducting this research as a student to improve the outcomes for our students, I needed to make sure that I followed up as promised and provided respondents with the data in appreciation for their time and efforts (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). 73 Regarding inclusion and my topic, I wanted to make sure that any enrollment management strategies that were aimed at ensuring that revenue exceeds expenses did not come at the cost of reducing the number of marginalized students on campus. In fact, to do so would be counter to the mission of most all regional, private institutions (McGee, 2015) as well as that of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. In addition, when talking about financial aid strategies, I made sure that we are not discussing strategies that generally talked about meeting percent of student aid with institutional gift aid without segmenting students of color from those who are Caucasian. I also wanted to make sure that I was thinking about how first-generation students experience the admissions process in my research questions (Grawe, 2018, 2020). My positionality offered several insights regarding how I viewed equity and this research problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). For example, in my senior-level professional role I have had years to digest data at the regional and national levels regarding the negative impacts of discriminatory admissions and retention practices. I also realized my positionality comes with obstacles, as I have never had the experience of being marginalized so was sensitive to different backgrounds and perspectives my subjects had. My pragmatism focused on the acceptance of varied and diverse viewpoints and was encouraging of different methods to solve a problem, which allowed me flexibility in conducting my research with the highest ethical standards possible (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Ethics Rubin and Rubin (2012) outlined three essential components to ethically conducting a research study, which entailed respecting participants, not placing pressure on participants, and not harming participants. I held these as core values when thinking about the importance of 74 conducting ethical research. This study complied with the full set of human research guidelines as defined by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants received a written information sheet, shown in Appendix B, detailing the purpose of the study which explicitly outlined the fact that participation was voluntary and that all answers were kept strictly confidential. All participants had the opportunity to decline participation beforehand and could ask to stop the study at any time (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were made aware that the Zoom session was recorded and received a written transcript for review and modification following the interview and prior to analysis (Creswell & Crewell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). 75 Chapter 4: Findings The purpose of the study was to explore how chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers at multiple regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses. The analysis focused on the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences related to CEFA officers’ ability to collaborate on the development of undergraduate revenue generation strategies that ensured their organization’s ability to fulfill mission. Two research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? 2. What organizational influences need to be in place for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? The conceptual framework used to analyze the problem is Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model. Gap analysis compares actual performance to desired performance by conducting root cause analyses to determine if the gap is due to knowledge, motivation, or the organization’s culture and/or policies and procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). A key assumption in the gap analysis focused both on the agency among CEFA officers and how their knowledge, motivation and organizational structure can be understood to help close the gap related to their ability to collaborate to achieve desired revenue. The knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting CEFA officers’ capacity to collaborate on strategies to ensure revenues exceed expenses was explored via a qualitative methodological framework. Specifically, qualitative data was gathered through 76 interviews with 16 CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States. This entailed identifying four to seven CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States. A 20-question interview protocol, each corresponding to a specific research question with related prompts, was asked to each participant. The Zoom conferencing platform was used to conduct all interviews. I downloaded transcripts of each interview, and the video recording was used to ensure coherent grammar and sentence structure within each transcript. Member checks were conducted by sending the transcript to each corresponding participant to allow them a chance to clarify answers they provided. ATLAS.ti Scientific Software was used to conduct the qualitative analysis. Codes were created within ATLAS.ti that corresponded with the research themes within the research questions. Rich quotations were gathered within each code to support the ultimate determination as to whether the theme was a gap or asset for the CEFA officer. If 75% or more of the overall participants were determined to have responded affirmatively to questions aligned to an assumed knowledge, motivation, or organizational influence, that influence was considered an asset. Less than a 75% positive response rate was deemed a gap. The same percentages were used within each CEFA officer subgroup to determine whether the theme was an asset or gap among each type of CEFA officer. Triangulation was conducted among each CEFA officer’s response to enhance both recommendations and the overall study findings. This chapter will first review key demographic background traits of the participating stakeholders and then present research question findings with related themes, which will be reinforced by the participants’ interview responses. Descriptors within Chapter 4 headings were created for each theme using thresholds based on the percent of total CEFA officers who 77 indicated that the influence was an asset or gap as described above. Table 6 outlines the thresholds used with the corresponding heading descriptor. The goal was to be consistent with terms used with each heading and enhance clarity for the reader. Following the summary of themes from each research question, recommendations will be presented followed by a concluding summary of all findings. Table 6 CEFA Officer Thresholds for Chapter 4 Theme Descriptors (N = 16) Theme descriptor % of N indicating theme as asset Extensive 95% - 100% Robust 90% - 94% Firm 85% - 89% Deficit 55% - 59% Lack 54% and below 78 Participating Stakeholders The participating stakeholders were chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers at regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States. Grawe’s (2018) definition of an RPI was used, which was any private college or university outside of the US News Top 100 ranking that had fewer than 5,000 total undergraduate students. There are 505 RPIs in the United States, with each one having three CEFA officers in total, leaving the total number of CEFA officers in the United States for potential participant population at 1,015 (Morse & Brooks, 2020). These stakeholders were directly relevant to the problem of practice and research questions, which focus on CEFA officer’s ability to collaborate to ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses. A total of 28 CEFA officers were invited to participate in the study. Ten were chief enrollment officers, seven were chief financial officers, and 11 were chief academic officers. Eight of the 10 chief enrollment officers accepted the interview request; one had to cancel the appointment after accepting, which resulted in seven chief enrollment officers in the study. Five of the seven chief financial officers accepted the interview request, and six of the 11 chief academic officers accepted the interview request, with two being unable to schedule an interview time within the timeline needed to complete the research. Table 7 outlines the breakdown of the number of chief officers requested, accepted, and interviewed for the study. Table 8 outlines the pseudonyms assigned to each officer to protect each participant’s identity and add context to the quotations used in this chapter. It also includes the participant’s identified gender pronouns and ethnicity. 79 Table 7 Overview of Participating Stakeholders Participants requested Participants accepted Participants interviewed Chief enrollment officers 10 8 7 Chief financial officers 7 5 5 Chief academic officers 11 6 4 Total 28 19 16 80 Table 8 Participant Pseudonyms, Gender Identity and Ethnicity Participant Participant pseudonym Gender pronouns Ethnicity Chief enrollment officers (CEOs) CEO #1 CEO Jake he/him Caucasian CEO #2 CEO Peter he/him Caucasian CEO #3 CEO Billy he/him Middle Eastern CEO #4 CEO Joe she/her Caucasian CEO #5 CEO Allison she/her Caucasian CEO #6 CEO Sydney she/her Caucasian Chief financial officers (CFOs) CFO #1 CFO Dylan he/him Caucasian CFO #2 CFO Valerie she/her Caucasian CFO #3 CFO Brenda she/her Caucasian CFO #4 CFO Steve he/him Caucasian CFO #5 CFO Kelly she/her Caucasian Chief academic officers (CAOs) CAO #1 CAO Olivia she/her Caucasian CAO #2 CAO Spencer he/him Caucasian CAO #3 CAO Jordan he/him Caucasian CAO #4 CAO Layla she/her Caucasian Note. N = 16. Research Question #1: In What Ways Does CEFA Officer Knowledge and Motivation Impact Their Collaboration in Generating Revenue That Exceeds Expenses? In the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, when organizational knowledge and motivation among leaders serves as an asset, as opposed to a gap, organizations are more likely to align outcomes between their current and ideal state. In this study, the first research question focused on specific knowledge and motivational influences. Interview questions focused on each CEFA officer’s declarative knowledge regarding organizational goals intended to generate revenue and the extent to which they understood external market challenges that may hinder revenue generation. Metacognition, which was measured by the degree to which CEFA officers monitor 81 their collaborative activities within the organization to generate revenue and reduce expenses, was also measured. For the study’s motivational influences, utility value, or the extent to which each CEFA officer felt it was useful to collaborate to generate revenue that exceeds expenses, as well as their collective efficacy, or their confidence in their skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses, was measured. Each assumed influence was identified as either an asset or gap using a 75% threshold. If 75% or more of the respondents were able to provide data that sufficiently affirmed the influence as present and positively contributing to revenue performance, it was considered an asset. Otherwise, it was considered a gap. This higher threshold was reasonable based on the smaller sampling population. Knowledge findings will be presented first followed by motivation findings. Specific sub- themes within each knowledge and motivation influence will be discussed as either an asset or gap. A topic was deemed a sub-theme if greater than 50% of the overall respondents, or greater than 50% of the respondents within each CEFA officer category, responded either positively or negatively. Rich examples from the respondents will be presented to support the determination. Finally, findings will be triangulated by sharing similarities and differences among each type of chief officer. Knowledge Findings When analyzing the three knowledge influences in this study, the CEFA officers demonstrated extensive and robust levels of declarative knowledge and firm metacognitive knowledge. All three knowledge influences were an asset in relation to the problem of practice, which is collaborating to ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses at RPIs in the United States. CEFA officers have the knowledge of organizational goals and external 82 challenges and can monitor their own collaborative behaviors towards generating revenue that exceeds expenses. As outlined in Table 9, there was no significant variance overall in levels of CEFA officer declarative and metacognitive knowledge within the assumed influences. Table 10 highlights the knowledge findings among each CEFA group. Table 9 Summary of Overall Knowledge Findings Institutional goals External challenges Monitor collaboration Declarative Declarative Metacognitive Yes 15 16 14 No 1 0 2 % Yes 94% 100% 88% Asset threshold 75% 75% 75% Asset or gap Asset Asset Asset Note. N = 16. 83 Table 10 Summary of Knowledge Findings by CEFA Group Institutional goals External challenges Monitor collaboration Declarative Declarative Metacognitive Chief enrollment officer Yes 7 7 7 No 0 0 0 Percent yes 100% 100% 100% Asset or gap Asset Asset Asset Chief financial officer Yes 5 5 5 No 0 0 0 Percent yes 100% 100% 100% Asset or gap Asset Asset Asset Chief academic officer Yes 3 4 2 No 1 0 2 Percent yes 75% 100% 50% Asset or gap Asset Asset Gap Note. N = 16. 84 CEFA Officers’ Extensive Knowledge of Institutional Goals Intended to Generate Revenue As outlined in Table 8, CEFA officers have extensive knowledge of institutional goals intended to generate revenue. Of the 16 CEFA officers interviewed, only one individual did not have extensive knowledge of institutional goals intended to generate revenue, leaving 94% of CEFA officers with this declarative knowledge. Within this influence, three sub-themes emerged from the participants’ responses: a) the role the Board of Trustees and President play in determining goals; b) the differentiation of goals for the recruitment of new students versus the retention of current students to generate revenue; and c) the use of external financial aid consultants in determining goals. As outlined in Table 9, among chief enrollment officers (CEOs) as referred to in this study, 100% of the respondents were able to articulate both a clear sense of institutional goals, how these goals were developed, and the extent to which the process to develop them was a collaborative one. Only one CEO did not mention the role that the President and/or Board of Trustees plays in goal setting. A total of 86% of respondents mentioned this group of leaders in their response. Many responses focused on the goals of new students and the net tuition revenue they generate for the institution. CEO Peter spoke about both his board’s role in goal setting and the revenue generated from new students: I would say that our revenue goals start from the Cabinet and then there's an executive committee within the Cabinet as well, creating structures at the at the top strategic level of the institution. Then, within my division, I create a strategic plan for specific targets for first year and transfer students, and all types of graduate students. Right now, we're really focused on tuition revenue and stabilizing, as it has been pretty volatile over the past several years. I work very closely with President and others to help make 85 institutional decisions through the lens of, does this bring in new student enrollments and new revenue. This quote shows the clear role the President and his cabinet are playing in the setting of goals and the focus on the net tuition revenue of new students at CEO Peter’s RPI. CEO Billy stated, “I still report to an enrollment management subcommittee of the board the ways in which we will tackle specific revenue goals on a year-by-year basis.” Of the CFO’s interviewed, 100% were able to articulate a clear sense of their institutional goals to generate revenue that exceed expenses. In the interviews, 80% of the CFO’s interviewed cited the use of an external financial aid optimization firm as being an integral component of the goal setting process. CFO Brenda stated, “when working with our financial aid firm to set goals, we are very focused on our undergraduate revenue and our goals have been very focused on both headcount and discount rate.” According to CFO Dylan, “Historically, our external financial aid provider has helped us frame our goals based on the size of our institution, our residential capacity, our price, and our revenue goals. This is the initial framework we use at this time.” Of the CAOs interviewed, 75% had extensive knowledge of the goals to generate revenue. CAO Olivia was the one CAO who did not have this knowledge, and cited that goals around revenue generation were largely created by her President without understanding the logic that went into it. She also reported that the targets changed frequently enough to make the goals and revenue targets confusing and unclear to most of the members of the President’s cabinet. CAO Olivia stated, “Our meetings (in relation to goal setting) are not very collaborative, as we spend most of our time at the operational level taking about general things and not as much time at the strategic level as we should be.” 86 The CAOs were focused in their responses on both revenue goals around new students but also revenue goals around the retention of current students. This was a difference in the responses of CAOs compared to the other two chief officers. One hundred percent of the CAOs interviewed spoke about student retention in their responses around goal generation. CAO Layla stated, “When it comes to goal setting, we bring in an external partner who comes in and gives us a sense of our realistic revenue projections. I always push on the impact these strategies will have on student retention.” CAO Spencer stated, “right now I see our single most important opportunity for revenue is to set clear goals around student persistence so we can help our students successfully graduate. That is why we should all be doing what we do.” CEFA Officers’ Robust Understanding of External Challenges Hindering Revenue Generation CEFA officers articulated a robust understanding of external challenges that hinder revenue generation. Among the 16 respondents, 100% were able to articulate a clear and thorough understanding of multiple external variables. Three clear sub-themes within this influence emerged: a) aligned declarative knowledge with the challenges outlined in Chapter 2 of this study, which included declining demographics, unsustainable tuition discounting practices, and change in consumer mindset; b) the influence of COVID-19 as an important, emerging external influence; and c) a view of external challenges as an opportunity to generate new streams of revenue. The respondents spoke about the impact of these external variables on both undergraduate net tuition revenue and undergraduate room and board revenue. Finally, much of the knowledge of external challenges identified by the respondents were repeated in responses to other influence and theme questions throughout the study. 87 There were many responses that were consistent with the challenges outlined in Chapter 2 of this study, which identified current demographic declines by region in the United States and a larger projected decline among the number of high school graduates for all regions in the year 2026 and beyond (Grawe, 2018; 2021). CEO Joe, in relation to a change in consumer mindset, stated, The challenge with declining demographics is that even among populations where there is growth, like with students of color, they are much less likely to take out student loans. There is no easy ways to just capture a new demographic of student. CFO Valerie shared, “I don’t see how the operating model of higher education can be stable at many places. Everyone’s discount rate is growing, and we have a shrinking pot of students to pull from.” CEO Jake reported, “I’m trying to ban the phrase discount rate around my campus…,” and CAO Layla remarked, “Our enrollment management and finance people are very focused on discount as compared to headcount.” CEO Amanda remarked, “You know the cliff is coming and it’s going to be Armageddon…” CAO Olivia summed up the change in consumer mindset by stating, “So really in the last ten years I think there is a general uneasiness about the value of higher education among young people.” CEO Sydney stated, “I think the higher ed landscape has changed so significantly that we don’t even realize how much it has changed.” There were a wide variety of ways in which CEFA officers contextualized the external challenges and their impacts on their specific campus, but there was both a high level of awareness and critical thinking that was taking place regarding how these challenges are impacting revenue generation. Of all the external challenges mentioned, 100% of the respondents made at least one mention of COVID-19. Table 11 outlines some of the statements made by each of the 16 CEFA 88 officers. Of note is the fact that a majority of respondents mentioned COVID-19 in more than one context and in multiple responses to different questions. Table 11 COVID-19 As External Challenge for Revenue Generation Chief officer Participant quotes CEO Jake In recent years when COVID hit the two classes that have come in we’ve seen a huge increase in our accepted, not enrolled students…” CEO Peter The pandemic is changing the way families think about education and I think families are more focused on outcomes. CEO Billy So what’s the “new normal” and with COVID affecting things it’s really hard to understand. CEO Joe COVID has certainly impacted students’ perception of how they want to take classes and how they want to participate in higher education. CEO Allison Online was always kind of in our DNA, but the pandemic made the switch for other small, private institutions a bit more monumental for them. CEO Sydney The pandemic has left so many students stressed…I don’t know that they know how to talk to people as well, let alone discuss what they want to do in the future. CEO Amanda Especially during the pandemic we have had to meet weekly or more and have three different scenarios as to how we would respond to multiple situations… 89 Chief officer Participant quotes CFO Dylan The pandemic has really, really validated the ability of institutions to pivot online or hybrid… CFO Valerie Especially on small campuses, if we had 400 students living on campus and now we are down to 80, that’s not a lot and there’s not a lot of student activity on campus anymore. CFO Brenda I don’t know if I have confidence in my spring forecast at this point with COVID, so I keep saying I wish I had that crystal ball. CFO Steve Many institutions are trying to figure out how they will recover the HEERF (Higher Education Emergency Relief) Funds they got as a result of COVID. CFO Kelly So much is dominated by COVID and what’s happening financially to students and their families. CAO Olivia The pandemic has really impacted our residential revenue as well as increased our auxiliary expenses, impacting our already meager room and board revenue. CAO Spencer Does COVID now mean that institutions will have fewer residential students? Will students now just stay home and go to school? CAO Jordan Our plans are good and I think this week we have the ability to execute them, but with COVID there are a lot of things out of our control at the moment. CAO Layla It’s really hard to separate the demographic cliff from COVID…that’s a real external concern that is pretty significant. Note. N = 16. 90 While there were many external variables listed as challenges to revenue generation, an emergent sub-theme was the number of chief officers who spoke about using external challenges as an opportunity to generate revenue. For example, CAO Spencer stated, I always try to start with positive side and know that higher education tends to be focusing initially on the negatives and I'm trying to find ways to overcome it. Market creativity right now is related to post COVID stuff and there's a whole range of ways in which digital learning is accelerating working from home. It means that all the things that business teaches, how HR does HR management, etc. are being done virtually. They’re all being made up practically right now. There is a huge market need for training in this and I think schools can capitalize on it. CEO Joe identified that she sees an opportunity coming out of COVID-19 to recruit more international students, stating, “we are now seeing more and more international students returning to the market, so that’s a positive thing.” CEO Billy reported, “despite the market challenge, my institution is focusing on three things we can change in the future: activity, sustainability, and accessibility.” CEO Peter also sees opportunity through the lens of increasing student access, stating, “one of my jobs now is to help my institution navigate into being a Hispanic-serving institution, which will come with more access for our students.” Within all CEFA officer groups participants were poised to both acknowledge the financial and emotional difficulties and wanted to process how these challenges could be framed as an opportunity for both current goal attainment and future revenue growth. 91 CEFA Officers’ Firm Knowledge of How Their CEFA Colleagues Think About Their Range of Choices to Generate Revenue The third knowledge influence studied was the metacognitive knowledge CEFA officers have in their ability to monitor their collaborative activities within their organization to generate revenue and reduce expenses. Among all CEFA officers, this metacognitive knowledge influence was determined to be an asset, with 88% of CEFA officers demonstrating a clear understanding. Looking at each chief officer, both chief enrollment and chief financial officers demonstrated a metacognitive knowledge level of 100%, and only two of the four, or 50%, of the chief academic officers demonstrated firm metacognitive practices. There were a variety of ways in which CEFA officers were monitoring collaborative behaviors within their organization. Among CEOs and CFOs, they mentioned each other more than they mentioned the CAO in their responses. CFO Kelly stated, “one of the ways in which we collaborate is that we are all part of a working group that is really led by our admissions and financial aid folks.” CFO Steve spoke of the relationship component of collaboration in his organization, “I would say that relationships are truly critical, to be honest, in order to get the collaboration you need.” CEO Jake spoke specifically to the value of having his CFO involved directly in enrollment work. “Our CFO is very much involved in our financial aid packaging and enrollment projections. I think it’s a pretty good relationship, I mean it is a healthy one in that we communicate well with each other.” Finally, CEO Joe shared, We're requiring each individual school to manage their own budget, in a way that is aligned with their enrollment. And so their budget will go up or down every year, based on the number of students enrolled in their class… the President at our institution believes recruitment is everybody's job. And this is one way of demonstrating that saying 92 to the schools you need to bring on programs that students want, you need to make sure that you are participating in all of the initiatives that will help draw new students and make sure that students are continuing to enroll…Otherwise, I've seen a ton of cuts happening in enrollment management and I’m finding it very hard to find rhyme or reason. Metacognitive knowledge about the range of choices to generate revenue was deemed an overall asset, which was supported by strong metacognitive awareness among CEOs and CFOs. In regards to CAOs, metacognitive awareness of collaborative activities was identified as a gap, as only 50% of those interviewed were able to articulate a clear awareness. CAO Layla admitted that with the pandemic she has just started to be more aware of ways in which she and others can collaborate to generate revenue, claiming, “I definitely have started to monitor things that have been implemented, something which honestly should have always been in place but hadn’t been for a couple of years.” CAO Layla also spoke about the degree to which her time meeting with the CFO is currently being taken up talking about and managing COVID-19, subtracting from her ability to monitor other collaborative revenue generation strategies in the organization. She described, “I feel like I am spending all day, every day speaking with the CFO, but it is only in the context of talking about COVID.” CAO Jordan spoke about faculty perceptions, and the fact that some are more aware of budget challenges while others remain less aware of the importance of collaboration to positively impact the budget: I mean while this is a generalization, I think that faculty know that for our institution to sustain itself and to continue into the future we need to make money. However most people in academic affairs still believe they are hired to teach courses and advise 93 students. They have yet to fully realize that we need to pay attention to the to the budget side, you know… Because CEOs and CAOs tend to have employees whose job responsibilities center around budget and financial matters, there tends to be a greater amount of awareness in these units about the range of choices to generate revenue. Faculty members who report through a CAO are less likely to have the same amount of regular exposure to producing strategies that generate revenue because that is typically not a core component of their professional role. This finding represents an opportunity for CEOs and CFOs to intentionally collaborate with CAOs to better support metacognitive strategies to monitor collaborative activities within each RPI to generate revenue that exceeds expenses. Motivation Findings Motivation findings focused on CEFA officers’ sense of utility value and collective efficacy. The value a stakeholder has in a goal, and well as their expectations for successful attainment, play a critical role in motivation (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Utility value describes the strength of a set of choices a person or group has within a range of possibilities (Levin et al., 2020). Collective efficacy is the collaborative force a group has to achieve a desired result (Bandura, 2000). Collective efficacy is often thought as being critical to producing positive group outcomes because of the important role it plays in connecting people with their environment (Bandura, 2000; Zaccaro et al., 1995). Table 12 and Table 13 summarize the overall motivation findings and the specific findings by CEFA officer. Overall, CEFA officers had a firm value for collaborating to reduce expenses and increase revenue to ensure organizational survival. Their overall confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses was identified as a gap. 94 Table 12 Summary of Overall Motivation Findings Useful to collaborate Confident in abilities Response Utility value Collective efficacy Yes 14 9 No 2 7 Percent yes 88% 56% Asset threshold 75% 75% Asset or gap Asset Gap Note. N = 16. 95 Table 13 Summary of Motivation Findings by CEFA group Useful to collaborate Confident in abilities Response Utility value Collective efficacy Chief enrollment officer Yes 7 4 No 0 3 Percent yes 100% 57% Asset or gap Asset Gap Chief financial officer Yes 4 2 No 1 3 Percent yes 80% 40% Asset or gap Asset Gap Chief academic officer Yes 3 3 No 1 1 Percent yes 75% 75% Asset or gap Asset Asset Note. N = 16. 96 CEFA Officers’ Firm Value for Collaborating to Reduce Expenses and Increase Revenue to Ensure Organizational Survival Across each CEFA officer group, the value placed on collaboration was identified as an asset. As shown in Table 12, 88% of all CEFA officers had a firm belief that it was useful to collaborate to ensure organizational survival. Of the CEOs, 100% felt it was useful to collaborate. Of the CFOs, 80% felt it was useful to collaborate and 75% of CAOs felt it was useful to collaborate. A sub-theme among all chief officers, but particularly among CFOs and CAOs, was that while most were able to articulate the usefulness of collaboration and ways in which collaboration takes place, nine of the 16 participants, without being asked, identified that there were no current formal meetings in their organization where CEFA officers intentionally met to discuss revenue generation. All nine verbalized they thought it would be useful if they implemented such a meeting moving forward and reported that they planned to do so as a result of participating in this study. CAO Spencer described his collaboration with the CFO, stating, “my relationship with the CFO is essential in many ways, but less in terms of setting enrollment targets. As we collaborate, I am always trying to be fair to the different people that I am thinking about.” CEO Amanda described the utility value of collaboration with her CFO in seeing the value of collaboration through the unique lens of a chief enrollment officer: I would say he (CFO) and I have a brother and sister relationship because he watches the money, and I have to bring it in. But I also have to spend it so it's funny. We get along great, but sometimes I know people are like oh my God they're always like a little bit of contention, but it's not personal. It's just like he's got his role to play and I have my role to play. I need my people. I need my budget and I need my financial aid and he always 97 wants to pull back. He wants to cut expenses and if that means cutting my wants or cutting discount rate, he wants to cut...but I think, overall I'm confident that he really appreciates what I've accomplished and we know it is important to work together. CAO Jordan summed up his perception of the value of collaboration by stating, “But to simply answer your question absolutely I think it (collaboration) makes a huge difference in how well we do at the end of the academic year and the fiscal year.” Overall, 14 of the 16 CEFA officers interviewed felt it was useful to collaborate. Further, during the interviews it became apparent that when CEFA officers spoke about the usefulness of collaboration it created positive feelings towards wanting to find new ways to collaborate with their CEFA colleagues. Nine of the 16 participants reflected about the usefulness of being asked this question when the interview concluded. Three CEFA officers did not feel it was useful to collaborate. Their lack of feeling it was useful was less about feeling that collaboration was not useful and more about not feeling as though collaboration with a particular CEFA colleague would result in positive outcomes. CEO Joe confided the following about his relationship with a fellow CEFA officer: I have a CFO who's a penny pincher. And I am not a penny pincher. I'm of the opposite mind. I think spend more to make more. And he thinks spend less and less and less, and do more with less is his motto. So it's certainly challenging. CFO Jordan also more broadly believed in the importance of collaboration, but he felt it was not useful when the right person was not managing enrollment. He explained his rationale during his interview: I didn't sign up for his role. So it's like I'm sorry but you're in charge of enrollments. I get challenges in that, in the most professional way, the pandemic has hit everybody and the 98 demographic cliff has hit everybody. Especially in the Northeast. So I get your plights and challenges that the cost of higher education is really freaking expensive. So you should just tell me the truth. The CEFA officers who reported it was not useful to collaborate did so in the context of being frustrated with the traits of a colleague. In all three examples, interpersonal factors were driving revenue challenges and related unpleasant feelings. CEFA Officers’ Confidence Deficit in Each Other’s Skills and Abilities to Identify Strategies That Result in Revenue That Exceeds Expenses Among all CEFA officers there was a deficit in collective efficacy regarding perception of skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in revenue generation. Fifty-six percent articulated confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to identify strategies, which was below the 75% threshold to consider this theme an asset. Among each CEFA officer group, 57% of CEOs and 40% of CFOs believed this collective efficacy was in place. Conversely, 75% of CAOs had a strong belief in their CEFA colleague’s skills and abilities. There are two sub-themes regarding the findings in this influence. First, it was rare that any CEFA officer’s articulated lack of confidence was directly related to a specific colleague’s personal skill or ability. When the personal lack of confidence did exist, which was among four participants, it was exclusively between the CEO and the CFO. There was not a CEO or CFO who articulated a lack of confidence in the skills or abilities of their CAO. Second, within this theme, four of the seven negative responses had to do with the degree to which external variables, most prominently COVID-19, negatively influenced their CEFA officer collective efficacy. Despite there being an overall gap in this theme, there were many comments that supported high levels of confidence also exist among CEFA officers, particularly when a CEFA 99 officer spoke of a new hire to the organization. Tables 14 and 15 provide an overview of these sub-themes with supporting quotations from interview participants. Table 14 Lack of Confidence Between CEO and CFO CEFA officer name Direct quote CFO Dylan I would say there are multiple components to setting revenue, and meetings with the CEO are probable more tension filled…my view is that I just want the truth so I can adjust the budget accordingly, but I don’t always get that. CFO Steve Obviously, I talk with the CEO about the discount rate and enrollment rates, but in my experience the individual does not have a lot of experience looking beyond first year enrollment. CEO Joe He (CFO) is the one that is dead set focused on the discount rate, and he has convinced the President that everything begins and ends with the discount rate. When I sit in meetings with him, he is very closed minded…he doesn’t see things through the net tuition revenue lens, he just doesn’t. CEO Billy When there are too many direct reports under one person (CFO) collaboration just dies, because it then just becomes one person’s view on how to solve a problem no matter who you work with in their division. Note. n = 4. 100 Table 15 Lack of Confidence Due to External Factors CEFA officer name Direct quote CFO Kelly I can’t say that I am as confident as I used to be given our current environment. CFO Steve I felt modestly confident, but I will say there's a huge asterix on this right now which is COVID…I don't know that anyone really recognized that all this omicron variant was going to causes so much disruption…and I don't know if it's going to continue. CAO Jordan Our plans our good and I think we have the ability to execute them, but I think there are just too many things out of our control at the moment. CEO Amanda I am pretty confident, but to overcome these (external) challenges it takes a lot of hard work from a lot of people and I guess I don’t really see that. Note. n = 4. Collective efficacy was identified as a gap overall, but there were nine CEFA officers that identified a strong level of confidence in their colleagues. CEO Amanda shared, “During the pandemic we have been meeting every week, if not more. We did a lot of scenario planning together which was very productive. So, there really is a close relationship there.” CAO Layla spoke about her perceptions of her CEFA colleagues, reporting, “I’m comfortable with finance and enrollment management, who have the depth and expertise to drive financial conversations.” CFO Brenda spoke about her relationship with the CEO sharing how she respects him, stating, “He really understands the data. He understands how to put it in a graphic or pictorial format that 101 will resonate with board.” Collective efficacy was identified as a gap in CEFA officer collaboration, but the positive belief in each other’s skills and abilities articulated by nine of the respondents provides an opportunity for reflection and learning to build greater collective efficacy for those that identified the influence as a gap. Research Question #2: What Organizational Influences Need to be in Place for CEFA Officers to Leverage Collaborative Efforts in Generating Revenue That Exceed Expenses? The third component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is the organization. Organizational influences refer to the policies and procedures and the organizational culture that, along with knowledge and motivation, create alignment between actual and desired states of performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Within the organizational dimension, both cultural models and cultural settings were examined as part of the second research question of this study. Cultural models are the way an organization operates and the way the stakeholders within the organization view the operations or specific policies and procedures (Gallimore & Goldenberg). Cultural settings describe the way people within an organization come together over time to accomplish a set of tasks or goals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Positive culture is formed when people come together in a way that aligns with goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Organization Findings Overall, CEFA officers identified the organizational culture, where people at all levels understand the unique role they serve in ensuring annual revenues exceed expenses, as an asset. During the interviews, the CEFA officers discussed the role of a broad number of community members to articulate their understanding or lack of understanding regarding their unique role in 102 helping to meet goals that will generate revenue and reduce expenses. These colleagues ranged from the Board of Trustees and President to other vice Presidents, deans, faculty, senior and entry-level administrators. All were discussed in relation to the cultural role they help create to achieve revenue goals, which ascertained their awareness of the unique role they play. Fourteen out of 16 respondents, which accounts for an 88% affirmative response rate, understood the unique cultural role they plan in facilitating positive revenue generation and reducing expenses. While the first theme focused on the cultural model influence of the organization, the next two themes focused on the cultural settings. The next two organizational influences related to cultural settings. There were eight affirmative and eight negative responses, equating to 50% of CEFA officers identifying strength in these two settings. Given the threshold for an asset was 75%, both cultural setting influences were identified as an organizational gap. The first cultural setting influence was the RPI’s financial policies and procedures that support CEFA officer collaboration. The specific financial polices asked about during the study focused on access to institution budget information to help reduce expenses and how procurement policies that facilitate the acquisition of goods and partnership services contribute to positive revenue generation. The second cultural setting theme was the emotional support CEFA officers receive from senior leadership officials, namely the President and Board of Trustees. Questions focused on whether CEFA officers felt supported by their President and Board of Trustees and whether these senior officials regularly listened to and positively responded to new ideas to generate revenue. Table 16 summarizes the overall organizational findings. Table 17 is a summary of findings by CEFA group. 103 Table 16 Summary of Overall Organization Findings Understands role Policies and procedures Senior leadership support Cultural model Cultural setting #1 Cultural setting #2 Yes 14 8 8 No 2 8 8 Percent yes 80% 50% 50% Asset threshold 75% 75% 75% Asset or gap Asset Gap Gap Note. N = 16. 104 Table 17 Summary of Organization Findings by CEFA Group Understands role Policies and procedures Senior leadership support Response Cultural model Cultural setting #1 Cultural setting #2 Chief enrollment officers Yes 5 2 3 No 2 5 4 Percent yes 71% 29% 43% Asset or gap Gap Gap Gap Chief financial officers Yes 5 4 3 No 0 1 2 Percent yes 100% 80% 60% Asset or gap Asset Asset Gap Chief academic officers Yes 4 2 2 No 0 2 2 Percent yes 100% 50% 50% Asset or gap Asset Gap Gap Note. N = 16. 105 CEFA Officer’s Firm Cultural Understanding of The Unique Role They Play in Helping To Meet Goals That Will Generate Revenue and Reduce Expenses Fourteen of the 16 CEFA officers interviewed identified a clear understanding of their roles in helping to meet goals that generate revenue and reduce expenses, but there were similarities and differences within specific CEFA group responses. CFOs and CAOs had a 100% positive response rate in their understanding of their roles, making this cultural model an asset for both groups. The CEOs had 3 of 7 respondents identify the understanding of their role as a cultural deficit, making this a gap among them. The positive response rate in this CEO group was 71%, as outlined in Table 17. A theme among the CEOs was how COVID-19 and other external challenges negatively impacted their sense of the role they play to generate revenue and reduce expenses. The expressed contextual impact of COVID-19 came through in this question in a similar manner to the question responses related to collective efficacy in the first research question of this study. CEO Billy stated, “Things have been remote for a while now, so there’s a disconnect from a communication standpoint.” CEO Joe discussed the impact of challenges in enrollment over multiple years and the negative cultural impact it had in her organization. She shares, So we are now going into our fourth year of pretty chaotic enrollment numbers and so when I'm looking at what has happened over the last four years and trying to make sense of how to set goals moving forward things can seem overwhelming, especially without direct reporting lines to the President. CEO Amanda identified with some of the challenges other chief enrollment officers face in this regard, explaining, 106 I think I am fortunate to work in an organization that understands the importance of revenue…in a lot of institutions someone comes up with an idea and then all of a sudden we're going to be this, which ends up being an unnecessary barrier to achieve your goals. Regarding CEFA officers who understood the unique role they play in contributing to a positive culture of improvement, three sub-themes emerged. The sub-themes focused on senior level collaborations, the value of strong communication throughout the organization, and behaving with honesty and integrity. Speaking to senior level collaboration, CAO Jordan described the discussions he has at his senior staff level, reporting, “We don’t have a million dollars to spend anywhere…let’s pick the top four or five programs we think we can benefit from putting extra money into and invest into them.” CEO Jake spoke about the goal setting process at his institution, stating, “the process is lengthy and involves a lot of constituencies…we are talking about a good three-month process.” While there were external challenges identified that challenged the sense of the roles they play in meeting goals among two CEOs, overall CEFA officers demonstrated a firm understanding of their role and how it contributes to the generation of revenue and reduction of expenses. Communication about budget and revenue was another sub-theme within this influence. CFO Steve discussed how he typically goes about communicating budget matters with those in academic affairs, positing, Those conversations really depend on the financial sophistication of the of the person with whom you're speaking, and I would say that, for me, I often like to when I'm having these kinds of discussion, I like to put the spreadsheets aside for a second, which is not always easy for me to do. But I'm just trying to have a conversation about what is it that the department vision needs to be without talking about the finances so that I understand 107 where they're coming from, where their motivations lie, and then I can begin to start asking questions and find out whether or not the numbers really end up in the way that that they may or may not be thinking. There was an awareness among CAOs about how matters of revenue generation are communicated to them by the CEFA colleagues. They expressed the importance that they clearly and consistently communicate revenue generation information to their stakeholders in their academic division. CAO Layla reflected, The spirit is one of collaboration in that there is no one that does not think the provost does not belong there, but the reality is that most of the strategy is determined and then I’m brought in to know the strategy and confirm or approve it. CFO Brenda summed the effort to communicate effectively, stating, “I really like to be open and honest in my communications and try to make sure the community understands the financial challenges we face.” Overall strong organizational communication is a sub-theme that serves as an opportunity for RPIs to consider. Regarding open communication, CAO Spencer spoke about the importance of working in an open manner with faculty. He stated, “faculty members are always thinking about their program, so it is important to share with them the big picture decisions you are making and the impact on revenue.” CAO Spencer spoke of the integrity of understanding where one’s funds are coming from to support collaborative efforts, “It’s not my money, it’s students’ money and it’s their parent’s money or loved one’s money. It’s government money or loan money…therefore we all have a responsibility to handle it well.” Finally, CEO Billy was one of the few leaders who spoke about the importance of shared mission to drive all members of the organization to place where goals can be met. Regarding the relationship to mission and culture at a religiously 108 affiliated school, he stated, “I think there's a lot of people who are committed to the overall mission of [my school], but I think there's a certain amount of it is the connection to [religious mission] and this creates kind of a “oneness” to that experience, and a desire to help in all ways.” Based on the responses, there was an identified connection among CEFA officers between clear two-way communication and understanding the unique role they play in generating revenue and reducing expenses. Lack of Financial Policies and Procedures That Support Collaborative Revenue Generation Activities and the Reduction of Expenses The specific financial policies and procedures asked about in the interviews related to policies around the formation and distribution of budget information and procurement policies to purchase goods or form service relationships. Among all CEFA officers, financial policies and procedures were reported as a gap in support of revenue generation. Financial policies and procedures were also a gap among CEOs and CAOs, with only a 29% and 50% respective positive response rate. Of the CFOs, four of five, or 80%, felt the current financial policies and procedures support revenue generation. Among the five CFOs interviewed, 100% reported that the establishment and monitoring of such financial policies and procedures were within their organizational scope of responsibility. The data indicates a broad disparity in views among CFOs, opposed to CEOs and CAOs, which may be related to the CFO’s responsibility as the person who develops and enforces financial policies and procedures. Financial policies and procedures were identified as a gap within the overall study. The large number of CEOs and CAOs who did not feel their organizations’ financial policies and procedures supported revenue generation led to this finding. CEO Allison shared that her school’s policies and procedures could feel, “a bit monumental.” CAO Spencer posited, “There 109 is a lot I could probably should not share about how well our policies and procedures can sometimes hinder our goals.” CEO Billy stated simply, “Expense reports and other forms like that all seem needlessly complex.” He went on to say, “There are just some things that happen here in that regard that just don’t make a lot of sense to me.” Through many large and small examples, CEOs and CAOs believed their organizations lacked financial policies and procedures that supported revenue generation. In contrast to the CEOs and CAOs, four of the five CFOs interviewed firmly believed their financial policies and procedures were an organizational asset. CFO Kelly made clear, “there is a lot of intentionality behind our policies and procedures.” CFO Valerie spoke positively of her organization’s financial policies and procedures, noting, “They are strong…especially given the additional compliance requirements that are put on us.” CFO Valerie also felt her financial policies were productive towards revenue generation given her school’s size, sharing, “We are able to be flexible and nimble. I think part of it is that if you think about ships being hard to turn, we are much smaller ship and so and I think that that makes sense.” CFO Steve thought his institution’s policies and procedures support revenue and spoke about the collection of student financial balances, a topic no other CEFA officer mentioned: I would say our strength is collections. So now we have a student, they've been billed, now we have to collect that money and how do we go about doing that right and when do we put financial holds on a person's account so they can't leave until they pay us. The alignment of financial policies and procedures in support of goal attainment is an area to be examined for improved communication and collaboration so there is alignment in perception among CEFA officers. 110 Two sub-themes emerged regarding the influence of financial policies and procedures on goal attainment. The first was whether being a RPI was being used as an advantage over public school competitors, who are commonly viewed as having more lengthy and rigorous financial policies and procedures that may prevent business from getting done. CEO Sydney spoke about her RPI, admitting, In admissions you're always looking at your goals and saying, would it be the worst thing if we made an adjustment to this policy, or is this an opportunity, or how could I make something work being we are private and supposed to be nimble. Nine CEFA officers spoke about the need to be nimble with current policies in either a positive or negative context. CEO Joe was in a unique position to speak about transitioning from a public to a private institution in her current role: I came to [current school] very excited to return to a private because I felt like the number one problem I had with [previous school] was how difficult it was to get anything done. The rules were so just so long-standing and antiquated in many cases that I felt like I can't get anything done. There was no way you can be responsive to the market. I joined [current school] and quickly learned all of their policies are exactly the same…The thresholds for RFPs, the threshold for having to go to bid, everything is the same. The timelines are the same, the review process is the same it's just as cumbersome and arduous. I was really disappointed, and I had to very quickly say to myself all right, you can't be mad at this anymore, because you're just going to have to get over this or you are gonna be mad for your whole career. CFO Dylan added, “Private institutions are not taking that competitive advantage of being different versus the state institutions. They're not using that nimbleness that they inherently 111 have.” He went on to state, “Why bother to coming up with ideas to reduce expenses if it takes six months to get it approved…At that point the opportunity is already gone.” While responses were mixed among CEF officers as to whether being an RPI was being used as a competitive advantage, it was clear that CEFA officers at RPIs aspired to have a broader and more consistent set of financial policies and procedures within their institutions that better support annual revenue generation that exceeds expenses. Merriam and Tisdale (2016) described a finding as being emergent when it is flexible and responsive to changing conditions as the study progresses. The second sub-theme was an emergent finding as it was not part of the original research design yet contributes meaningfully to the purpose of this study. The emergent sub-theme was that CEFA officers discussed human resources (HR) policies and procedures and hiring practices as an organizational gap and hinders annual revenue production. Twelve of the 16 CEFA officers, or 75%, mentioned HR polices or personnel budgets in a negative way during their interview, even though there was not a question that asked about HR policies and procedures. These HR deficiencies focused on a challenging hiring/job market for employers, which the 12 CEFA officers viewed as both being problematic and an opportunity for improvement that would help to meet revenue targets. HR topics were discussed in the context of reducing expenses and aligning HR policies and procedures to acquire the right salaries to attract top performing employees. CEFA officers also discussed the length of time it takes to get positions posted and for people to get hired as an organizational gap. HR policies and procedures were discussed from a variety of lenses. CFO Kelly said, “There is a lot of intentionality around HR matters. We are also pretty intentional about filling positions.” In a later statement during the interview she stated, “A real opportunity is not only looking at shared services, but how we can save money in sharing positions in ways that we may 112 not have previously thought of.” CEO Peter, regarding the challenging market for hiring the “right people” states, “We are trying to make more money by hiring the right people, but our hiring practices are just so archaic.” CEO Jake spoke about the impact financial policies and procedures have on his employees in admissions, whose are responsible for generating revenue through the recruitment of new students. He stated, “Sometimes we forget about the importance of keeping staff happy…It drives young staff insane that they are putting money on their credit card and then sometimes not getting reimbursed until their next billing cycle. That matters to a 23-year-old.” CEO Peter shared his strong concerns about recent changes in the employment market due to COVID-19. He explained, I feel like young people simply do not want to work in admissions anymore. It is a lot of hours, not a lot of pay, and now with COVID there is risk involved. The job market is good. Young people can now get a higher paying job and work less. If we don’t fix this by changing the way we hire and pay admissions staff our industry could be in trouble. Despite the variety of macro and micro perspectives on this topic, it was clear that HR policies and procedures are seen as an important opportunity for improvement that CEFA officers can collaborate on in a vastly changing United States economy and job market. Senior Leadership Deficit in Emotional Support for Collaborative Initiatives that Facilitate the Generation of Revenue and Reduction of Expenses Among CEFA officer groups, emotional support from the President and/or Board of Trustees did not reach the 75% threshold to be considered an organizational asset. Emotional support was defined as the extent to which the President and/or Board of Trustees regularly listen to and respond to ideas from CEFA officers that generate revenue and cut expenses. Among CEOs, 43% felt emotional support from their President or Board of Trustees. Among CFOs, 60% 113 felt emotional support and among CAOs, 50% felt appropriate emotional support was present. It is worth noting that the level of emotional support reported by the CEFA officers was distinct from their perceived competence level of their President and Board of Trustee members. Eighty one percent of all CEFA officers described their President or Board of Trustees as being either highly intelligent, competent, or business savvy. Many spoke very clearly about the difference between competence and feeling as though there is a culture of continuous improvement where their revenue generation ideas are listened to and acted on in a clear and organized manner. Table 18 provides an overview of some of the quotes from CEFA officers that support the deficit in emotional support that came through in this research influence. 114 Table 18 Deficits in Senior Leadership Support CEFA officer name Direct quote CEO Joe “I can use help to educate the leadership team to see beyond discount rate. I know that a lot of my messages aren't landing the way that I want them to land and that's very hard...It seems to me it’s not strategic. We just want to save money.” CAO Olivia “It doesn't matter whether we can actually hit our number target or not, all that matters is that I can’t show these to the board unless I can make the numbers make sense. That demotivates me and marketing and admissions because we just spent all this time working on goals that we felt really confident about and then more get added.” CEO Peter “They want to be viewed as an advisor and they want us to use them as advisors, but I don’t feel they are setting any decision making, that’s for sure.” CEO Billy “A lot of them have specific targets as it pertains to growth of the university…but they're not checking to say okay, what was your per capita NTR, etc., etc.” CAO Jordan “He has a financial background and so is certainly extremely savvy, but should also know about the metrics that should be tracked to indicate a strong school…On the operational side it is the President that sets all the goals.” 115 CEFA officer name Direct quote CFO Brenda “I think the biggest challenge is getting them to where the market is.” CFO Dylan “There are moments in time when we have strategic meetings but it's really not how it functions day to day, which has been an ongoing challenge, because the President views it as being strategic, but then the meeting itself goes on and on without talking about big picture strategy.” Note. n = 7. To counter the sentiments among the majority that emotional support did not exist, there were eight CEFA officers that were clear in their feeling that their senior leaders had established a culture of improvement. CAO Spencer described the positive way in which his board helps drive revenue, “Our board really helps us be a very corporate minded organization. We're at a school where we are run a lot more like a business than we are a small liberal arts college in [our region].” CEO Jake described his President as “very mission oriented.” He went on to share, “When hard decisions come up he makes it easy because he always ensures that we are serving students.” CAO Layla supported the notion that there are Presidents providing emotional support in efforts to generate revenue. She shared, “I’m actually very comfortable with the conversations I have with the President about this. She and I are on the same page and if we need to change course, we could.” In sum, it is important to note that while among all CEFA officers emotional support towards forming a culture of improvement is a gap, there are Presidents, members of boards of trustees, and CEFA officers working collaboratively together towards positive goal attainment. 116 Interaction Between Organizational Influences and CEFA Officers’ Knowledge and Motivation The CEFA officer goal of this study is that collaboration on strategic initiatives will facilitate their RPI producing revenue that exceeds expenses by a least 5% annually. Tables 19 provides an overview of the study’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Two CEOs and two CFOs mentioned that their institution carefully examines the margin between revenue and expenses as a primary outcome when developing and annual budget. Three of the four of those respondents used a specific 5% margin as their organization’s budgeting baseline. Among all CEFA officers, declarative and metacognitive knowledge were identified as an asset, as was group utility value, which is outlined in Table 19. The first gap identified in the study was collective efficacy in CEFA officer’s confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses. Broadly it was discovered that external market conditions led to an overall lack of confidence in skills and abilities among CEFA officers. While the lack of confidence was present among CEOs and CFOs, every participant in the study shared specific details regarding the negative impact COVID-19 has had on their RPI. Table 11 summarized the extent to which COVID-19 has diminished their confidence in their ability to collaborate to generate annual revenue that exceeds expenses. The impact of COVID-19 was a consistent theme across influences. One hundred percent of CEFA officers demonstrated declarative knowledge of external challenges that hinder revenue generation, with COVID-19 being mentioned as a challenge by 100% of respondents. Fifty percent of CEFA officers lacked confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to generate revenue that exceeded expenses, with COVID-19 being a frequent response as to why they 117 lacked confidence in their CEFA colleagues. There was a strong knowledge of COVID-19 as an external challenge, but there did not seem to be a clear awareness among CEFA officers as to how their perception of COVID-19 may be negatively impacting collective efficacy. CEFA officer’s ability to understand the importance of collective efficacy in goal attainment and the way in which their perception of COVID-19 may be diminishing it provides an opportunity for improved collaboration and outcomes among CEFA officers. There may also be an interaction in the gaps identified among the study’s organizational cultural setting influences. In short, the gaps in the two cultural setting influences surrounding policies and procedures and emotional support could be having a direct negative impact on group motivation and their sense of collective efficacy (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Kohm & Nance, 2009). There also may be interaction between the CEFA officers’ utility value and their organization’s cultural model, where CEFA officers facilitate an organizational culture where they understand their roles in meeting goals that will generate revenue and cut expenses. Declarative and metacognitive knowledge may have a positive interaction with group utility value, as an understanding of goals and challenges and how they can monitor their collaborative behavior could lead them to believe it us useful to collaborate. However, it does not appear that that the same knowledge positively influences CEFA officer collective efficacy or the study’s three organizational influences, as outlined in Table 19. The interaction of these variables could be an area for future research, which will be discussed in greater detail in the limitations and delimitations section of Chapter 5. Summary of Knowledge, Motivation and Organization Influence Data The purpose of this study was to explore the role of collaboration among senior higher education leaders in ensuring undergraduate revenues exceed expenses at regional, private 118 institutions (RPIs) in the United States. Sixteen chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers were interviewed for this study. This group of leaders represent a large portion of the departments that are responsible for generating undergraduate revenue at RPIs in the United States. Two research questions guided this study: 1. In what ways does CEFA officer knowledge and motivation impact their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? 2. What organizational influences need to be in place for CEFA officers to leverage their collaborative efforts in generating revenue that exceeds expenses? The participants demonstrated extensive knowledge of institutional goals intended to generate revenue and a robust understanding of the external challenges that hinder revenue generation. CEFA officers had a firm knowledge of both how their colleagues think about their range of choices to generate undergraduate revenue and a firm belief that it useful to collaborate. There may be a potential relationship, which would need to be explored through future research, between the presence of metacognitive knowledge and the expressed desire to create an organizational structure where regular meetings among CEFA officers take place specifically to discuss revenue generation. This was a sub-theme that emerged and supports the potential relationship between CEFA officer metacognition and their organizational setting. CEFA officers had a firm understanding of the unique role they play in helping to meet goals that will generate revenue and reduce expenses. There was a deficit in CEFA officer confidence in each other’s skills and abilities, which they linked to COVID-19 and other external market challenges. CEFA officers reported a gap in financial policies and procedures as well as a lack of emotional support from their President or Board of Trustees towards efforts that support the generation of undergraduate revenue and the reduction of expenses. The presence of COVID-19 as an external 119 challenge was an important sub-theme that was discussed across multiple influences, including the CEFA officer motivational influence of collective efficacy. Chapter 5 will utilize the insights gained through the analysis done in Chapter 4 with the goal of identifying and recommending evidence-based solutions. Table 19 provides a summary of each knowledge, motivation and organization influence as either an asset or gap. 120 Table 19 Summary of Each KMO Influences as Asset or Gap Chief Enrollment Officer Chief Financial Officer Chief Academic Officer Overall finding Declarative Knowledge CEFA officers need knowledge of the institutional goals intended to generate revenue Asset Asset Asset Asset Declarative Knowledge CEFA officers need to understand the external challenges that hinder revenue generation Asset Asset Asset Asset Metacognitive Knowledge CEFA officers need to monitor their collaborative activities within their organization to generate revenue and cut expenses Asset Asset Gap Asset Motivation - Utility Value CEFA officers need to believe it is useful to collaborate to reduce expenses and increase revenue to ensure the survival of the organization Asset Asset Asset Asset Motivation – Collective Efficacy CEFA officers need to be confident in each other’s skills and abilities to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses Gap Gap Asset Gap 121 Chief Enrollment Officer Chief Financial Officer Chief Academic Officer Overall finding Organization – Cultural Model RPIs need to have a culture wherein all CEFA officers understand the unique role they can play in helping to meet goals that will generate revenue and cut expenses Gap Asset Asset Asset Organization – Cultural Setting RPIs need financial policies and procedures that support CEFA officer collaborative revenue generation activities and the reduction of expenses Gap Asset Gap Gap Organization – Cultural Setting RPI senior leadership needs to provide emotional support to CEFA Officers in to foster collaborative initiatives that generate revenue and reduce expenses Gap Gap Gap Gap 122 Chapter 5: Discussion and Recommendations Regional, private institutions (RPIs) in the United States are facing internal and external challenges straining annual revenue production, impacting academic quality, diminishing ability to fulfill mission, and threatening their ability to remain in business (Bok 2015; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kelderman, 2019; Langston and Scheid, 2014; Zemsky et al., 2020; Zierdt, 2009). COVID-19 created new financial problems for RPIs and accelerated those problems that already existed, which included the financial impact of declining demographics, change in consumer mindset around the value of higher education, and unstainable tuition discounting practices (Cao, 2020; DePietro, 2020; Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2018, 2021; West, 2020; Zemsky et al., 2020). Chapter 5 begins with a discussion of the findings presented in Chapter 4. Next, recommendations that address these key findings are presented. The chapter concludes with limitations and delimitations, and recommendations for future research. The purpose of the study was to explore how chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers at RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. The research used the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model to conduct a root cause analysis to determine gaps in collaboration among CEFA officers. A key assumption in the gap analysis focused both on the agency among CEFA officers and how their knowledge, motivation, and organizational structure can be understood to help close gaps so that collaboration can facilitate desired revenue states (Clark & Estes, 2008). With an expansive set of organizational responsibilities, CEFA officers have primary responsibility for generating revenue and prudently managing organizational expenses through a variety of strategies and tactics specific to their areas of responsibility (Bolman & Gallos, 2011; 123 Kezar & Lester, 2009; Lapovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; Maguire & Butler, 2008). The stakeholder goal was for CEFA officers to collaborate on strategic initiatives that will facilitate their organization producing undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses by at least 5%. Solving this problem by discovering ways in which CEFA officers can collaborate to ensure annual undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses will positively contribute to the access students have to higher education, with particular emphasis on disadvantaged populations across race, economic, and first-generation status (Lundy et al., 2020). Discussion of Findings This section builds upon insights gained in the analysis section of the study. Findings have been selected that are most significantly connected to the study’s research questions. Each key finding is presented in this section along with supporting material from literature and similar studies that support the findings. CEFA Officers Have Strong Knowledge of Goals and External Challenges Based on the analysis of the interview data, CEFA officers have high levels of declarative knowledge about organizational goals intended to generate revenue. This same high level of declarative knowledge exists regarding external challenges that may hinder annual undergraduate revenue generation. Ninety-four percent of the study participants reported having direct input in goal setting activities and felt connected to how goals were set. CEFA officers believed their goal setting process was collaborative across a broad set of stakeholders. One hundred percent of the participants were able to clearly articulate a deep level of detail regarding the external challenges hindering annual revenue generation. Without any prompting, 100% of participants mentioned declining demographics and COVID-19 as significant external threats that could hinder current and future revenue generation. Changes in 124 consumer mindset and unsustainable tuition discounting practices, as outlined in Chapter 2, were discussed by 56% of interview participants. Of the CEFA officers interviewed, 44% articulated a desire to frame external challenges in an optimistic way, serving as a sub-theme to the discussion of the complex, inter-related external challenges and their relationship to revenue generation. Research shows that knowledge of goals and how they are developed is critical for a goal to be reached (Clark & Estes, 2008; Krathwohl, 2002; Meyer, 2001). In Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy, Krathwohl (2002) explained that having clarity on goals provides alignment among leaders and identified missed opportunities among an organization’s stakeholders. Mayer (2011) conducted research that found for stakeholder goals to be met, leaders needed to have awareness of how goals were set, and the procedures used to set them. Clark and Estes (2008) found that achieving a baseline of common declarative knowledge was critical for goal attainment. This work supports the notion that CEFA officer’s strong knowledge of goals and external challenges is important in achieving desired states of undergraduate revenue. There are similar studies that support this study’s findings. Koltar et al. (2018) found a positive relationship between knowledge of goals and organizational outcomes. The researchers also found that strong knowledge of goals improved employee’s internal assessment of how the organization performed (Koltar et al., 2018). More specific to senior leaders, Colbert et al. (2008) found that shared knowledge of goals facilitated positive relationships among vice Presidents and among vice Presidents and Presidents. Awareness of external challenges is important in the pursuit of goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Kontostavlou and Drigas (2021) found that when senior leaders regularly regulate and monitor environmental conditions there was greater opportunity to improve outcomes. Sternberg and Sternberg (2005) found that gifted leaders used creative skills and practical 125 knowledge to positively shape performance outcomes. This research supports the possibility that among the 44% of CEFA officers interested in turning external challenges into revenue generation opportunities, there may be a higher likelihood for them to achieve their goals. Overall, strong knowledge of goals and external challenges should contribute to successful obtainment of annual revenue goals (Clark & Estes, 2008; Koltar et al., 2018; Krathwohl, 2002; Meyer, 2001). CEFA Officers Believe it Is Useful to Collaborate to Generate Revenue but Their RPIs Lack Formal Structures Among all CEFA officers interviewed, motivation to collaborate was identified as an asset. Eighty eight percent felt that it was useful to collaborate on strategies to generate undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses. Among the two CEFA officers who did not feel it was useful, their answers focused on negative individual attributes of CEFA officer colleagues as opposed to feeling more broadly that it was not useful to collaborate. While there was strong consensus about the usefulness of collaboration, 56% of respondents mentioned that their organization did not have a formal meeting or series of meetings designed for CEFA officers alone to collaborate on revenue generation. This sub-theme emerged in discussions about CEFA officer motivation, but the implementation of a formal meeting structure is an organizational setting influence (Clark & Estes, 2008). Research describes motivation as the why someone does something (Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). It has been found to be the reason a person has for acting (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Active choice, mental effort, and persistence are central components for motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Mayer (2011) and Rueda (2011) conducted research on utility value and found that the value a stakeholder had in a goal, and well as their 126 expectations for successful attainment, played a critical role in motivation. Levin et al. (2020) found that utility value described the strength of a set of choices a person or group has within a range of possibilities. Their research found that high utility value also positively influenced goal achievement (Levin et al., 2020). For CEFA officers, their strong belief that it is useful to collaborate, paired with their articulated belied that it would be useful to create a formal CEFA officer meeting structure to discuss revenue goals, is a potential opportunity for RPIs. Studies have examined the relationship between group utility value and goal achievement. Eccles and Wigfield (2020) found that an individual's expectations for success and the subjective value they place on a task was the most important psychological determination as to whether one will choose, perform, and engage in an activity. They also found that confidence and choice in a task is often domain specific (Eccles & Wigfield, 2020). This would support why CEOs and CFOs demonstrated higher utility value than CAOs, as revenue generation is more domain specific within the scope of work for CEOs and CFOs. Regarding the expressed desire among CEFA officers to create formal meeting structures to review revenue generation strategies, Carpenter (2015) described a collaborative culture as being an interactive one, where stakeholders share expertise to improve the practice of others. His research showed that for effective organizational collaboration, stakeholders must believe their knowledge, skills, and experience will be respected and contributions valued (Carpenter, 2015). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) believed that culture is formed in its setting. Weber et al. (2017) studied the extent to which value is created when inter-organizational partnerships are formed. They found that receiving knowledge, material, and financial resources, along with building self-enforcing governance structures between two organizations, were important towards goal achievement. Rycroft-Malone et al. (2016) found that when paths were 127 cleared for departments to work outside the lines of their formal job description and collaborate as one cohesive team that outcomes over time were significantly better. This research placed an emphasis on the notion of self-enforcing governance structures and collaboration outside the boundaries of formal job descriptions. It supports the idea that if RPIs have CEFA officers motivated to collaborate, and they provide the setting to create self-governed meetings, there is a possibility to strengthen collaborative culture and improve revenue generation (Ary & Lynn, 2007; Carpenter, 2015; Rycroft-Malone et al., 2016; Weber et al., 2017). Impact of COVID-19 on CEFA Officer Collective Knowledge and Motivation COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that emerged in 2019 and has caused millions of deaths in the United States and around the world (Bhagat & Kim, 2020; Cao, 2020). The 2021 National Student Clearinghouse Report found that higher education experienced a 2.7% decline in total new student enrollment in fall 2020. There was also a large increase in reports of mental health distress among currently enrolled students (Bhagat & Kim, 2020; National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2022). COVID-19 was discussed throughout the participant interviews. In this study, COVID-19 was discussed most significantly in relation to external challenges and CEFA officer confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to identify revenue generation strategies. One hundred percent of the participants mentioned COVID-19 as an external threat. Sample responses were outlined in Table 11. Fifty-six percent of CEFA officers articulated confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to identify revenue generation strategies, with 75% of those who lacked this confidence having citied external challenges created by COVID-19 as the primary reason for this lack in confidence. 128 Kecojevic et al. (2020) conducted research in the early stages of COVID-19 and found that college students in the United States experienced a significant increase in stress, anxiety, and academic difficulty at the onset of the pandemic. Pandey et al. (2020) examined the psychological impact that extended periods of quarantining had on college students in India. They found that depression, anxiety, and stress all rose significantly during a college student’s second full week of quarantine (Pandey at al., 2020). These studies revealed the negative impact the pandemic had on student mental health and potentially on student retention, which is an important theme discussed in the context of revenue generation opportunities among CEFA officers (Bhagat & Kim, 2020). Not all early research has shown the impacts of COVID-19 to be negative. Gonzalez at al. (2020) researched the academic impact of college students in Spain who were quarantined during the pandemic. They found that COVID-19 changed students’ learning strategies. Students moved to study habits that were more regularized, which improved their academic efficiency. As a result, the researchers predicted better scores in student assessment, which would be explained by an improvement in their learning performance (Gonzalez et al., 2020). In examining the negative mental health outcomes of COVID-19, there are student retention opportunities that CEFA officers can collaborate on. Leaders should be mindful of the importance of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; George, 1996; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Studies showed that strong collective efficacy increased group engagement and motivation (Bandura, 1997; George, 1996; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Salanova et al. (2011) found that efficacy beliefs influenced positive engagement and enthusiasm which then positively influenced results over time. George (1996) found that when people in a group shared motivational and behavior 129 patterns there was a positive effect over time. In sum, the study’s findings suggest three things regarding the impact of COVID-19 on CEFA officer knowledge and motivation. First, CEFA officers understand the influence of COVID-19 as an external challenge that could hinder revenue generation. Second, the presence of COVID-19 has decreased the confidence they have in each other’s abilities. Third, there is an opportunity to strengthen collective efficacy in a post- pandemic world among CEFA officers with a focus on scaffolding, feedback, and modeling strategies to improve student retention (Bhagat & Kim, 2020; George, 1996; Gonzalez et al., 2020; Kecojevic et al., 2020; Pandey at al., 2020; Salanova et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Financial and Human Resource Policies and Procedures Are Hindering Goal Attainment Participants were asked about the extent to which they felt financial policies supported annual revenue goals. Among all CEFA officers, they viewed their financial policies and procedures as an unnecessary obstacle in some revenue generation strategies. This was a gap among CEOs and CAOs, with a 29% and 50% responding they felt financial policies and procedures supported revenue generation. Among CFOs, four of the five respondents, or 80%, felt the current financial policies and procedures supported revenue generation. The data indicated a broad disparity among CEFA officers regarding how financial policies and procedures supported or hindered revenue generation. Organizational influences are the third component of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis conceptual framework. Organizational influences refer to the policies and procedures and the organizational culture that support alignment between actual results and desired results (Clark & Estes, 2008). Financial policies and procedures fall within cultural settings. Cultural settings describe the way people within an organization come together over time to accomplish a 130 set of tasks or goals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011). Research shows that an organization’s culture is strongly influenced by their policies and procedures, with studies showing this to be the case in education settings (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Kohm & Nance, 2009). Wilson (2018) found that workplace policies and procedures aligned with goals are critical elements in a team culture that achieves performance goals. Alheit (2016) studied ways in which cultural settings facilitated and hindered collaboration. He found that cultural settings can largely determine the work that was taken on by teams and how successful they were in meeting work objectives. These studies outlined an opportunity for CEFA officers to understand the role financial and human resource policies and procedures play in facilitating revenue generation. Of particular focus, based on this study’s findings, is the role these policies and procedures played among CEOs and CAOs. If CEFA officers can collaborate to use their RPI status as a tool to be nimble and align financial and human resource policies and procedures with revenue goals, they will have a greater opportunity for success (Alheit, 2016; Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Kohm & Nance, 2009; Wilson, 2018). Opportunities for Senior Leaders to Offer More Emotional Support CEFA officers need to feel the organization supports their ideas (Carpenter, 2015; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Oreg & Berson, 2018; O’Reilly et al, 2014; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). To be successful in meeting revenue goals, CEFA officers need their President and board of trustees (BOT) to regularly listen and respond to ideas that generate revenue and cut expenses (Colbert et al., 2008). This support can be verbal or in the form of leadership actions that send signals to others in the organization that revenue generation tasks are of value and in alignment with the organization’s strategic plan (Clarke & Estes, 2008; Colbert et al., 2008). 131 In this study, CEFA officers identified emotional support from the President and/or board of trustees as an organizational gap. Table 16 illustrated that only 50% of CEFA officers reported that the emotional support they receive from the President or BOT supports revenue generation. Emotional support was defined as the extent to which the President and/or BOT regularly listened to and responded to ideas from CEFA officers that generate revenue and cut expenses and how values expressed by CEFA officers were communicated to the larger campus community. Among CEOs, 43% felt senior leadership provided emotional support. Among CFOs, 60% felt senior leadership support, and among CAOs, 50% felt appropriate emotional support. The reported level of emotional support was distinct from perceived competence of the President and BOT, which was high. Research has found that organizational performance is correlated to the personality traits of its leader (Cao et al., 2019; Carpenter, 2015; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Oreg & Berson, 2018; O’Reilly et al, 2014; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Agocs (1997) and Alvai and McCormick (2018) conducted separate research studies that examined factors that influence employee’s willingness to generate new ideas. They found that organizational decision makers held the greatest ability to determine whether employees contributed to or resisted goal attainment based on the culture they created and their willingness to listen to new ideas. Carpenter (2015) found that collaborative culture was largely shaped by emotionally supportive and shared leadership, defined by trust and respect for and from senior leadership. O’Reilly et al. (2014) investigated the link between how senior leaders influenced culture and how culture was related to organizational outcomes. They found a positive relationship between a chief executive officer’s personality and the culture of their company. There was also a correlation to a variety of other outcomes, including financial performance, employee attitudes, and company reputation 132 (O’Reilly et al., 2014). For RPIs to generate annual revenue that exceeds expenses, CEFA officers will need to feel emotional support from their President and/or BOT. Recommendations for Practice This section contains recommendations for practice that are based on findings obtained in this study. Three recommendations for CEFA officers are presented. The goal of the recommendations is to help RPIs generate annual undergraduate revenue that exceeds expenses by 5%. Within each recommendation are research findings that serve as evidence for the recommendation. The three primary recommendations focus on organizational settings within the gap analysis framework, followed by an integrated training program that addresses motivation and organizational gaps identified in this study (Clark & Estes, 2008). Recommendation 1: Create a Series of Formal Meetings for CEFA Officers to Collaborate Eighty-eight percent of CEFA officers interviewed felt it was useful to collaborate to generate revenue that exceeds expenses. CEFA officers reported a variety of settings in which they met with their CEFA collogues, which included formal settings, such as a President’s senior staff meeting or on a financial aid optimization committee. They shared examples of collaboration that took place in informal settings, such as chats in the early morning due to close office proximity or time spent before or after meetings that were scheduled for other topics, including COVID-19 mitigation meetings. Despite the strong belief that it was useful to collaborate and the formal and informal ways in which CEFA officers reported meeting with one another, nine of the 16 participants identified that there was no formal meeting structure within their organization where CEOs, CFOs and CAOs intentionally met for the sole purpose to develop and monitor revenue goals and strategies. 133 The first recommendation is for CEFA officers to establish a series of formal meetings to discuss goals and strategies designed to generate revenue and reduce expenses. This recommendation is driven by an organizational influence finding, but the CEFA officers as stakeholders are best positioned to implement this recommendation given their agency as senior decision makers within their respective organizations. They set the agendas and timing for meetings among one another. Hindle (1998) characterized a formal meeting as one that has a pre- arranged and agreed upon time, location, and agenda (LeBlanc & Nosik, 2019). Consistent with research on effective formal meetings, the time CEFA officers spend together should intentionally aim to generate ideas, identify, and solve institutional problems, gain clarity on individual tasks, generate new programs, and seek advice from one another on job performance (Hindle, 1998; Hood, 2013, LeBlanc & Nosik, 2019; Sellers et al., 2016). Further, it is recommended that rules be established and agreed upon by CEFA officers in advance of meetings to maximize productivity, which include: a) reviewing an agenda in advance, b) arriving on time, c) agreeing to put away electronics, d) participating actively without being repetitive, e) actively listening to one another, f) avoiding and self-managing interruptions, and g) agreeing to follow up promptly on assigned tasks (LeBlanc & Nosik, 2019; Sellers et al., 2016). Fifty-six percent of CEFA officers lacked confidence in each other’s skills and abilities to generate revenue that exceeds expenses. Among CAOs, 75% had confidence in their CEFA officer colleagues, which was an asset. However, 57% of CEOs and 40% of CFOs had confidence in their CEFA colleagues, leading to a gap in collective efficacy among these groups. Groups with strong collective efficacy produce desired results through shared knowledge and skills and have a high level of coordinated synergy (Alavi & McCormick, 2018; Bandura, 1995, 134 2000; Elliot et al., 2018). There is a relationship between efficacy beliefs, which is an individual’s perception of their ability to organize and implement change, and collective efficacy (Bandura, 2000; Lawson & Ventriss, 1992). An individual can have strong efficacy beliefs but still not perform well in a group if vital group conditions are not met, and vice versa (Bandura, 1993, 2000, 2012; Lawson & Ventriss, 1992; Lent et al., 1996). Sanderson et al. (1989) found that among individuals exposed to the same environmental stressors, those who remained unphased by external challenges not only performed better but used stronger affective processes which positively impacted collective efficacy. Persson et al. (2021) researched the impact of well-run formal meetings on organizational outcomes and found that formal meetings among leaders strengthened collective efficacy and enhanced motivation and positive work outcomes. By conducting well-run formal meetings and strengthening collective efficacy leaders are better positioned to meet goals (Alavi & McCormick, 2018; Bandura, 1995, 2000; Elliot et al., 2018; LeBlanc & Nosik, 2019; Persson et al., 2021; Sellers et al., 2016). Research-based strategies to address the identified motivation problem of collective efficacy is recommended as a component of the formal meetings. Clark (2005) found that motivating a group often comes with unique challenges distinct from motivating individuals. He developed five team motivation strategies that can directly impact motivation, and in the case of CEFA officers positively impact collective efficacy (Clark, 2005). There are several team-based motivation recommendations to be embedded in the formal meetings: • Foster mutual respect among CEFA officers for the expertise of all team members. • Help weaker team members believe that their effort is vital to overall success. • Support a shared belief in the cooperative capabilities of the CEFA officers as a collaborative collective. 135 • Hold individual team members accountable for their contributions to the team effort. • Direct the team’s competitive spirit outside the team and the organization. To meet the stakeholder goal and given the findings of past research, it is recommended that CEFA officers consider incorporating three components into their meeting structure: a) informal time to build appropriate personal relationships, b) time to collaborate to improve student belonging and retention, and c) time to explore new business models. These three areas of focus are intended to positively contribute to the stakeholder goal and are outlined in the sub- sections below. Research to support these recommended meeting content focus areas are also included. Informal Meeting Time to Build Appropriate Personal Relationships One hundred percent of the study participants were asked about whether they felt it was important to have an appropriate personal relationship with their CEFA colleagues. Examples included engaging in dialogue about personal interests, popular culture, and matters related to family or friends. All participants reported they felt it was important to get to know their CEFA colleagues beyond their work roles, proving dialogue stayed within boundaries that did not make either party uncomfortable. They felt these relationships were most helpful when having to work through challenging matters related to finances and when differences of opinion existed. While all felt that appropriate personal connection was important, only 38% of CEFA officers reported that they intentionally took the time to build personal relationships with their CEFA colleagues. They reported that COVID-19 made these personal relationships more difficult. Hindle (1998) defined informal meetings as being able to take place anywhere, for any given amount of time, providing they do not have a formal agenda. It is recommended that that within the recommended series of formal meetings, that informal joint break time be allocated for CEFA 136 officers to get to know each other and share their thoughts and feelings about different work situations. Persson et al. (2021) found that creating informal meetings during joint breaks allowed leaders to share their thoughts about a variety of work situations which promoted social relationships. Employees who had appropriate personal relationships gave each other more support in everyday practice and helped each other to manage stressful job demands (Gerwick, 2013; Persson et al., 2021). Research supports this recommendation, showing that personal relationships positively impact collective efficacy and goal attainment (Ary & Lynn, 2007; King, 2010; Love & Edwards, 2009). Ary and Lynn (2007) found that when leaders had a shared understanding of purpose, goal obtainment and revenue generation was increased. Love and Edwards (2009) recommended higher education leaders find an institutional partner and then cultivate a relationship - turning a personal relationship into an organizational relationship. They studied relationships among senior leaders and found that student outcomes improved when senior leaders enjoyed spending time with one another (Love & Edwards, 2009). King (2010) found that collaboration became more likely when unintentional personal experiences caused casual communications to turn into collective planning, idea generation, and participation of other designed activities. Research supports the recommendation that creating intentional time for informal conversation within meeting structures can build personal relationships and trust, which can benefit strong professional outcomes (Ary & Lynn, 2007; Gerwick, 2013; King, 2010; Love & Edwards, 2009; Persson et al., 2021). 137 Collaborate on Strategies to Facilitate Student Belonging and Improve Retention When discussing external threats and opportunities for revenue generation, 94% of the CEFA officers interviewed discussed student retention as an important revenue generation strategy they engage in. Eighty-one percent of the CEFA officers expressed concern about the impact COVID-19 is having on student mental health and retention. Finally, 100% of the CAOs and CFOs spoke about the need to improve student retention, and 85% of CEOs spoke explicitly about the value of focusing effort to improve student retention. It is important to note that discussions did not focus only on improving retention to generate revenue. Eight of the 16 respondents and 100% of the CAOs spoke about student retention as the core of their professional purpose. Several respondents became emotional and displayed great passion when discussing the importance of improving student retention. It is recommended that within their formal meetings, CEFA officers discuss strategies to facilitate student belonging to improve student retention. Research supports the positive relationship between student belonging and student retention (Braxton, 2014; Davis et al., 2019; Ezarik, 2022; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Seidman et al., 2012). Davis et al. (2019) found that when students had high levels of anxiety, they were more likely to lack a sense of belonging. They found that academic belonging had an 18% positive impact on student retention, and social belonging had a 28% positive impact on retention (Davis et al., 2019). Ezarik (2022) summarized the 2015 Report on the Gallup-Perdue Index. The study looked at the relationship between student debt, experiences, and perceptions of college worth and found that when students had at least one person at their institution who took a personal interest in their success that student retention improved. It was found that having at least a singular “champion” increased a student’s sense of belonging. It was 138 reported that the belief that someone at the institution knew them, gets them and was rooting for them matters in the long term (Ezarik, 2022). Overall, research shows that social and emotional belonging, combined with academic coaching is most effective in improving student retention (Braxton, 2014; Davis et al., 2019; Ezarik, 2022; Kaslbeek & Zucker, 2013; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018; Seidman et al., 2012). There is an opportunity for CEFA officers to specifically collaborate to implement strategies that improve student belonging and retention, which could positively contribute to meeting the stakeholder goal of this study. Explore Possibilities for New Business Models One hundred percent of the CEFA officers interviewed mentioned declining demographics as a market challenge on their minds as they developed revenue goals, and 44% of participants mentioned the expansion of international student recruitment efforts as a strategy to counter these domestic demographic declines. Further, 100% of CEOs and CFOs mentioned that declining demographics and associated declining revenues are a factor in how new student goals are planned. Sixty-three percent of study participants mentioned the exploration of alternative business models as a topic they frequently think about to meet current and future revenue goals. CEFA officers can collaborate on new business models to ensure annual revenues exceed expenses. Research shows there are alternative business models or new ways of looking at university efforts to generate revenue (Audretsch & Belitski, 2021; Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2017, 2021; Pavlov & Katsamakas, 2020). For example, Audretsch and Belitski (2021) developed the notion of a Three-Ring Entrepreneurial University as an alternative business model for private universities struggling to deal with external challenges. Their research suggested a new business model that focused on three components: a) investment in knowledge via research and teaching, b) subsequent entrepreneurial activity aimed at knowledge 139 transformation and commercialization between university and industry, and c) integrating the institution’s role in engaging with stakeholders at the individual, organizational and ecosystem levels to develop a competitive value proposition to external stakeholders. Kanwar and Carr (2020) studied the impact of COVID-19 on international student recruitment efforts. They found that the declines in international student enrollment and revenue during COVID-19 can be used as a learning opportunity for higher education institutions. They suggested that institutions look at three key areas to improve future international enrollments and related revenue, which include offering a greater variety of online programs across all degree levels, improving relationships with foreign institutions and related transfer credit policies, and focusing on training students for vocational skills that will help them contribute to society (Kanwar & Carr). There have also been studies that looked at alternative ways to generate revenue at an RPI. Lundy et al. (2020) found that in the last decade higher education capacity increased by 26% but enrollment growth increased by just 3%. In fiscal year 2019, the average space utilization among private, four-year institutions was 73%. If institutions could move their unused capacity to 90-100%, by considering a variety of creative space utilization strategies, it would result in a decrease of between $3,500 and $5,600 in the cost per student and save four-year private institutions millions of dollars each year (Lundy et al., 2020). It is recommended that CEFA officers charge a group of employees in institutional research, enrollment management and finance to collaborate on the research alternative business models. CEFA officers could then plan for intentional meeting time to explore these alternative business models that could result in new streams of revenue. CEFA officers can then make recommendations to the President and 140 board of trustees for implementation (Galloway, 2021; Grawe, 2021; Lundy et al., 2020; Maguire & Butler, 2008; Zemsky et al., 2020). Recommendation 2: Create Financial and Human Resource Policies and Procedures that Allow RPIs to Gain a Competitive Advantage Half of the study participants felt their RPI was using their financial policies and procedures as a competitive advantage to achieve revenue goals. Four of the eight participants who viewed their financial policies and procedures as aligned with goals were CFOs. The high response rate from CFOs is important because they were evaluating policies they helped to enforce as part of their role. Two of the four CFO respondents articulated a desire to leverage their status as a private institution that can be nimble to support revenue generation. It is recommended that CEFA officers collaborate to examine both financial and HR policies and procedures and make necessary policy change to utilize their RPI status as a competitive advantage. These policy adjustments are to be compliant with state and federal regulations and facilitate a cultural setting where a broad set of stakeholders beyond CEFA officers are engaged in the change implementation, enhancement, and maintenance. While not part of the interview questionnaire, an emergent sub-theme in this study was that CEFA officers did not feel that human resource (HR) policies and procedures supported revenue generation. Seventy-five percent of respondents mentioned HR policies and procedures in a negative way in relation to goal achievement. Being able to fill vacant positions in a timely manner and offering competitive salaries to both faculty and staff were topics that were discussed by the 12 participants who initiated conversations about HR policies and procedures. The following sub-sections address literature that supports recommendations to improve the gap found in financial and HR policies and procedures that hinders revenue generation. 141 Financial Policies That Support Goals Having financial policies and procedures that support revenue generation provides positive benefit to an organization’s cultural settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Giles & Hargreaves, 2006; Kohm & Nance, 2009). Kiran et al. (2019) and Wilson (2018) found that a culture of diversity can be achieved in part when employees are engaged to develop and enhance polices, practices, and procedures. They also found a perceived positive cultural setting led to the attainment of high-level goals (Kiran et al., 2019; Wilson, 2018). Alheit (2016) studied the relationship between workplace structure, cultural settings, and the actions by teams. They found that when structures supported a positive setting that teams took on more complex and challenging tasks with a positive attitude (Alheit, 2016). It is recommended that CEFA officers run focus groups within their division to assess the extent to which there is an organizational culture where employees feel financial policies and procedures support revenue goals. Following the focus groups, it is recommended that CEFA officers collectively engage a broad set of campus stakeholders to implement, monitor, and enhance financial policy and procedure. This strategy may bode well for CEFA officer collaboration that supports annual revenue generation that exceeds expenses. As with the revision of HR policies and procedures discussed in the next sub-section, the Presidents of the respective RPIs will need to provide support to the CEFA officers and these initiatives. Investing in Top Talent Already at the Institution Through Talent Management Strategies HR policies and procedures and their relationship to attracting top talent in a competitive job market impacted by COVID-19 were not a part of the original research question. New research, not presented in Chapter 2, was gathered to support the recommendation that CEFA officers collaborate to evaluate HR policies in efforts to motivate current top talent and meet 142 revenue goals. In Strategic Direction (2020) researchers evaluated ways of supporting top organizational talent using a strategic talent development approach. Investing additional resources and attention in top talent through regular feedback, skills training, deploying self- monitoring analytics tools, clarifying organizational roles, and encouraging experimental collaboration supported alignment between organization's talent management and overall corporate strategy (Son et al., 2020; Strategic Direction, 2020). As of January, 2022 there were 11.3 million open jobs in the US (United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Horn (2020) found that companies are struggling to find qualified candidates due to rapid technological changes, such as automation and artificial intelligence. According to Horn (2020), 77% of chief executives reported that a scarcity of people with key skills in a hypercompetitive workforce. Additionally, 50% of newly hired employees failed within 18 months, which cost companies $15,000 on average, per employee (Horn, 2020). This illustrated the opportunity for RPIs to save money by investing in retaining current employees deemed to be top talent by CEFA officers (Horn, 2020; Son et al., 2020). In the context of sports economics, Kesenne (2015) found a relationship between an equitable distribution of talent across teams in a league and the amount of revenue the league produced. These findings were not generalizable to higher education due to vast differences in goals, structures, and talent availability. However, Kesenne’s findings, along with those of Horn (2020), Son et al. (2020), and Strategic Direction (2020) mentioned previously, can lead one to consider that if RPIs worked together to create and align broad, uniform improvements to HR policies and practices to attract and retain top talent that revenue generation could improve. Murray and Holmes (2021) studied the relationship between empowerment, commitment, and employee retention among hospitality workers. They found that strategically targeting top- 143 performing employees to develop their sense of meaning by aligning personal and organizational ideals led to increased employee retention. Further, it was found that top-performing employees used human resource policies and procedures as a proxy to articulate their sense of organizational ideals (Murray & Holmes, 2021). It is recommended that Presidents build a culture of improvement by supporting changes to human resource policies and procedures to achieve alignment with organizational goals in hopes of attracting and retaining top talent. Recommendation 3: RPI Presidents to Facilitate a Culture of Improvement Among CEFA Officers Among the interviewed CEFA officers, eight of the 16 interviewed did not feel that the President and/or their Board of Trustees regularly listened to and responded to ideas that were intended to generate revenue and reduce expenses in a manner that aligned with internal and external challenges. Fifty percent of the CEFA officers interviewed felt they received emotional support on a consistent basis from the President and/or Board of Trustees. This gap in support was present and consistent among each of the CEFA groups. Among CEOs, 43% felt senior level support. Among CFOs, 60% felt emotional support, and among CAOs 50% felt emotional support in their pursuit of revenue goals. Pressure to achieve enrollment and revenue targets was discussed frequently. CEFA officers reported that their Presidents were often challenged when asked to listen to and respond to new ideas because of the fast rate of change, multi-faceted demands of their broad responsibilities, and difficulty educating their BOT members in the middle of a cycle. CEFA officers felt that Presidents and BOTs were not receptive to hearing when there was a chance enrollment or revenue targets could be missed. Agocs (1997) researched factors that prevent meaningful change. She found that high- level decision makers largely determined whether employees contributed meaningfully to goal 144 attainment. This finding was consistent with previous studies that found a relationship between the personality traits of leaders and their willingness to generate new ideas (Agocs, 1997; Alavi & McCormick, 2018). Kauppila and Tempelaar (2016) explored the relationship between high level leadership qualities and employee ambidexterity. Employee ambidexterity is an employee’s ability to explore new opportunities while also continuing to effectively utilize existing competencies (Cao et al., 2019; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Kauppila and Tempelaar (2016) found that employees exhibited high levels of ambidexterity when managers exhibited strong managerial support along with high performance expectations (Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016). It is recommended that President’s and BOT members work together to make intentional time during each Board of Trustee meeting where CEFA officers can present ideas and recommendations pertaining to new and existing revenue generation strategies. This practice of making intentional time will also facilitate and encourage the actions recommended for CEFA officers in Recommendation 1 to create formal meeting structures for collaboration among one another. Yelon and Williamson (2016) studied how to facilitate a culture of improvement. They found that five steps needed to be followed: motivate employees to learn and apply, present a clear vision, schedule practice, employ a consistent feedback protocol, and require an improved repeat performance of a learned skill (Kiran et al., 2019; Yelon & Williamson, 2016). It is recommended Presidents and BOT members model the five steps identified to facilitate a culture of improvement (Yelon & Williamson, 2016). They should then place expectations that their CEFA officers model the same five steps with their employees to engrain a culture of improvement within their organization. 145 Integrated Recommendations In this study, there were both motivation and organization gaps to achieving the performance goal of annual revenues exceeding expenses by 5% annually. To effectively address them, CEFA officers are being targeted for intervention as the goal is to increase collaboration to meet the performance goal. They are also responsible for implementing change where gaps were present due to their leadership position in the organization and broad scope of responsibilities. The New World Kirkpatrick Model will be used to design the implementation and evaluation plan to meet the performance goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model articulates four levels to be worked through during the planning phase of a program implementation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These levels are to be considered in reverse order from level four to level one. Level four starts with the end in mind, and focuses on results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This level emphasizes the extent to which desired outcomes are achieved as a result of the training and accountability mechanisms implemented and places emphasis on leading indicators, which are recorded and analyzed short-term metrics used to determine whether behaviors are on track to meet desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level three focuses on behavior, and whether learning is utilized when in their daily professional roles (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Of particular focus are critical behaviors and desired drivers. Critical behaviors are those critical actions that will bring CEFA officers to produce desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required drivers are the systems and processes that reinforce, monitor, encourage and reward the achievement of the desired behaviors and goals. This level also places value in on-the-job learning (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). 146 Level two focuses on determining whether training participants acquired the desired knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level one focuses on the degree to which participants find the training engaging and relevant to their jobs. This is often referred to as the “customer satisfaction” component of the program (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). These four levels are intended to be flexible and easy to implement and evaluate to achieve maximum organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The approach to the integrated recommendation plan focuses on addressing the motivation and organization gaps identified in this study. A CEFA officer training workshop should be designed to help them develop a better sense of their existing financial and HR policies to support the implementation of Recommendation 2. Knowledge of financial and HR policies was not specifically evaluated in this study, but the data presented by CEFA officers indicated there were inconsistencies in knowledge of these policies in relation to how they support revenue generation. The workshop will aim to help CEFA officers identify areas of development in their financial and HR policies and to learn about each other’s roles as a first step to build confidence in their skills and abilities. The effectiveness of this initiative and ongoing formal mechanisms for collaboration identified in Recommendation 1 will be measured using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) framework. Support from the CEFA officer’s President and BOT will be incorporated into the workshop and evaluation as required drivers. Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators Table 20 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators and includes internal and external outcomes, metrics and methods focused on CEFA officers. The external observations and measurements refer to information that originates outside of the CEFA officer’s 147 RPI. The internal observations and measurements refer to information that originates within the CEFA officer’s RPI. 148 Table 20 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes Outcome Metric(s) Method(s) External outcomes Undergraduate revenue exceeds expenses by 5% each year RPI revenue data Monthly and annual budget data reported by CFO Annual ratings of Standard and Poors Study body increases in size year over year The number of new and returning undergraduate students The number of undergraduate students living in the residence halls Weekly enrollment management tracking reports monitored by CEFA officers Monthly residency occupancy reports monitored by CEFA officers Internal outcomes CEFA officers articulate confidence in each other’s skills and abilities Reported high levels of collective efficacy in quarterly interviews conducted by President Interview conducted by President and monitored by Board of Trustees CEFA officers report confidence that financial and human resource policies and procedures are aligned to support goal attainment Reported high levels of alignment between goals and policies and procedures by more than 85% of RPI community Annual survey of all faculty and staff A culture of improvement exists within the RPI President listens to and responds to mid-cycle revenue generation ideas Collaborative strategic planning meetings take place between CEFA officers, the President and BOT CEFA officers create a culture of improvement within their unit. Annual employee survey; sorted by unit and evaluated by President 149 Level 3: Behavior The behavioral stakeholders of focus are CEFA officers. Proper, careful data collection will ensure regular feedback among stakeholders so that progress in critical behaviors will lead to positive results. The specific behaviors, metrics, methods, and timings for each outcome behavior is expressed in Table 21. 150 Table 21 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing 1. CEFA officers create a formal series of meetings to strategize on goals to generate annual revenue Production of a formal meeting schedule to facilitate collaboration Data evaluated by CEFA officer during meetings Bi-weekly 2. CEFA officers allocate informal joint break time during formal meetings to get to know each other and share their thoughts and feelings about different work situations Production of meeting ground rules, signed off by each CEFA officer, that includes mutual agreement to allow for informal meeting time during each formal meeting Assessment completed by CEFA officers annually and evaluated by President Bi-weekly 3. CEFA officers allocate time during formal meetings to strategize on how they can positively impact student belonging and improve retention Quarterly review of bi- weekly meeting agendas by CEFA officers to ensure this topic is being addressed in formal meetings Student belonging assessments completed annually and evaluated by CEFA officers Quarterly revenue reports evaluated by CEFA officers and President Bi-annually Quarterly 4. CEFA officers allocate time during formal meetings to explore alternative business models that will result in new or improved revenue Quarterly review of bi- weekly meeting agendas by CEFA officers to ensure this topic is being addressed in formal meetings Quarterly revenue reports evaluated by CEFA officers and President Quarterly 151 Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing 5. CEFA officers recommend changes to financial and human resource policies and procedures to support revenue goals Data on all current financial and human resource policies and procedures Focus group data CEFA officer training program summary report Quarterly Quarterly Required Drivers CEFA officers will require the support of both the President and the BOT to reinforce what they learn from the workshop on financial and HR policies and their continued practices of collaboration during formal and informal meetings. These senior leaders will encourage them to apply what they learned to members of the RPI. Table 22 outlines the methods and timing of the required drivers to support the critical behaviors needed. 152 Table 22 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors Methods Timing Critical behaviors supported Reinforcing President reviews CEFA officer formal meeting agendas and facilitates discussions at cabinet and BOT meetings monthly 1,3,4,5 President reminds CEFA officers on importance of spending informal time together during meetings monthly 2 President and BOT model importance of spending informal time together by allocating informal time to get to know CEFA officers better quarterly 2 President charges employees in institutional research, enrollment management and finance to collaborate on a research report and job aid on emerging alternative business models quarterly 1,4 President to develop checklist with key revenue milestones that need to be reached quarterly 1,3,4 President engages in intentional modeling by working with students in facilitating belonging and reporting experiences to CEFA officers ongoing 1,3 President mandates Chief Human Resource Officer (CHRO) and CFO facilitate a job aid to help CEFA officers understand current financial and HR policies and procedures quarterly 1,5 President and BOT model open and honest communication during meetings ongoing 1,2,3,4,5 Encouraging President encourages self-directed learning for CEFA officers about innovations in business models, retention strategies, and policies and procedures ongoing 1,3,4,5 153 President coaches CEFA officers to agree to arrive on time to meetings, put away electronics during meeting and listen actively to each other ongoing 1,2,3,4,5 President and BOT seek advice from CEFA officers on problems related to revenue generation ongoing 1,2,3,4,5 BOT mentor CEFA officers by designating break time during formal meetings to discuss their purpose and motivations for volunteering on the board ongoing 1,2 President and BOT coach CEFA officers on the development of competitive value proposition document that can be shared with the campus community quarterly 1,2,3,4,5 Rewarding President and BOT have a social dinner with CEFA officers to celebrate completion of successful revenue generation strategies quarterly 1,2,3,4,5 President and BOT provide employee recognition awards for units that CEFA officers recognize for supporting production of revenue and reduction of expenses bi-annually 1,2,3,4,5 President provides a piece of school merchandise to employees who participate in focus groups quarterly 1,5 Monitoring President conducts formal evaluation of CEFA officer meetings, the goals, and progress made towards them annually 1,3,4,5 President and BOT hold touch-base meetings to hear about progress made in formal meetings bi-annually 1,2,3,4,5 President mandates administration of a survey to students to measure changes in sense of student belonging on campus bi-annually 1,3 President mandates administration of a survey to all employees to measure improvement in alignment between financial and HR policies and procedures and revenue goals quarterly 1,5 154 Organizational Support For the drivers listed in Table 22 to be implemented, there must be proper organizational support in place. First, the President should mandate and fund the creation of an annual workshop that allows CEFA officers to formally come together to both gain knowledge of existing financial and human resource policies and then make recommendations on how they can be altered to better align with revenue generation and expense reduction goals. RPIs must have financial and human resource policies and procedures that are clearly understood by all members of the RPI, and they should support organizational goals that are openly endorsed by the President and BOT. CEFA officers also need support from colleagues on the President’s senior staff to collaborate on developing improvements to these financial and human resource policies and procedures. In doing so, they will learn more about each other’s roles and gain greater collective efficacy. The collaboration among CEFA officers, the President, and BOT on the evaluation and communication of the critical behaviors and related drivers will help to facilitate a culture of improvement in the organization. Level 2: Learning Following the completion of the workshop, CEFA officers will be able to: 1. Value the benefits of working collaboratively in developing strategies that result in undergraduate revenue exceeding expenses. (Value). 2. Be confident they can positively contribute to the goals outlined in strategic plan and the desired results of this plan (Self-Efficacy). 3. Provide an explanation of ways in which financial and human resource policies and procedures can be improved to better align with goal attainment (K-P). 155 4. Produce a report that can be presented to the board of trustees that will provide an overview of the workshop and the outcomes that were developed as a result of their collaboration (K-M). Program The workshop program will begin with a full day training that will consist of eight total hours. The chief human resource and chief procurement officers will work to hire a professional external to the RPI to develop this full-day experience targeted to CEFA officers. It will consist of job aids, practical exercises, and informal and formal assessments to reinforce the goal of helping the CEFA officers to develop concrete change recommendations to financial and human resource policies and procedures that hinder revenue generation. The chief human resource officer and the chief procurement officer will work with the CEFA officers to assess and evaluate the program upon completion. Following the training, the President will join the CEFA officers for a two-hour de-brief discussion session. CEFA officers will share with the President the policies and procures they deem to be opportunities to address organizational deficiencies. Following the debrief session, CEFA officers will collaborate with other institutional stakeholders to co-author a formal report that outlines current policies and procedures and recommended changes to better support goals. To address a vision for a culture of improvement in the organization, the President will agree to communicate an overview of the learnings to CEFA officers at a later meeting. The CEFA officers will have a chance to provide feedback to the President as to whether there is alignment on their understanding of financial and human resource policies and procures and places they can be improved. 156 Evaluation of the Components of Learning Understanding opportunities to align financial and human resource policies and procedures to revenue goals will allow the participants to apply what they learn to successfully plan a series of strategies where revenues exceed expenses by 5% for a period of five years. Additionally, intrinsic motivation drivers will lead stakeholders to value the content of the workshop to a much greater extent - leading to positive attitudes. Confidence to do the job must be developed through consistent and honest feedback. Ultimately, the motivation and self- confidence elements of this program will lead to an increased commitment of those in the workshop (Clarke & Estes, 2008; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2012; Krathwohl, 2002). Table 23 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning. 157 Table 23 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program. Method or Activity Timing Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.” CEFA officers able to summarize the research on financial and human resource best practices During in-person workshop CEFA officers clarify policy and procedure content they need more information on During in-person workshop CEFA officers conduct a practice mapping activity to understand impact of policies and procedures During in-person workshop Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.” Trainers to evaluate oral break-out sessions to determine participants’ words that reflect their beliefs that the training will benefit their work and the organization During in-person workshop Participants reflect openly on their learnings with one another After the in-person workshop Discussion of roadblocks that come up in the practice activities After the in-person workshop Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.” Discussions during in-person training During in-person workshop Self-efficacy survey to CEFA officers After the in-person workshop Commitment “I will do it on the job.” An individual action plan is developed by CEFA officers and President for next steps on how to apply learning to the job After the in-person workshop 158 Level 1: Reaction Table 24 outlines the methods and timing that will be used to measure the reaction of participants to the key drivers. Interventions are broken down to specifically cover methods that will engage participants, reinforce job relevance, and promote student satisfaction. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) believe this level one reaction should be simple, inexpensive, and easy to assess whether participants are happy and engaged with the program. The data collected will be used to inform the design of future annual workshops to best meet the needs of the CEFA officers. Table 24 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing Engagement Attendance records Start of workshop and workshop Level of professional dress Start of workshop and workshop Level of laughter during the program breakouts and reporting During workshop and workshop Verbal pulse-checks by trainers asking for thumbs up or thumbs down checks During workshop and workshop Relevance Anonymous survey End of workshop Customer Satisfaction Anonymous survey End of workshop 159 Limitations and Delimitations Limitations in qualitative research are variables that have the potential to serve as research weaknesses and are out of the control of the researcher (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam, 2016; Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2019). The first potential limitation was the timing during which the interviews took place. Interviews took place in the months of December and January. Participants were able to schedule a meeting using a Calendly link sent by me. The result was that the meetings varied by time and day of week. Some took place either immediately before or immediately after their school’s holiday break or during an early morning or late evening hour to accommodate the schedule of the participants. The result was that not all participants were equally articulate or perceptive (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I felt that the time of year could have been a distraction as some individuals seemed excited to start holiday break or tired because of being off for some time. To combat this, I spent intentional time to build rapport, explain the goals of the study, allow time for questions, and was prepared to ask specific prompts to elicit responses that were unique to each person being interviewed. In this study, the number of volunteers, the fact that much of the data relied on self- reports, and participants’ willingness to share confidential information about their organization were potential limitations. To address the number of volunteers, I remained flexible to using both convenience and snowballing sampling techniques. Further, I focused on my identity as a student and not as a CEO to engender a genuine desire to want to advance research in the field of higher education. Each CEFA officer was offered a copy of the research when completed, which hopefully motivated participation. To combat the veracity of self-report data, I took advantage of the semi-structured format of the interview and asked deep and meaningful probes to garner data 160 that was rich and contextualized. My master’s degree in counseling and psychological services helped me to build trust and genuinely help the respondents feel listened to and valued. Another limitation could have been the influence of my current role as a CEO at an RPI. This had the potential to inhibit the candor of the participants in fear that the content provided could be used as a competitive advantage. I assured each respondent that I was only acting in my role as a doctoral student at USC and that the confidential answers they provided would not be used by me directly within my organization. While different respondents had differing abilities to perceive and articulate questions, I was pleased overall with the level of specific details and examples that the participants shared during the interview. A final limitation could have been the racial/ethnic makeup of my sample. Only one of the participants identified as non-Caucasian. The lack of diversity among participants could have influenced the findings of this study. Delimitations are the decisions I make. They served as the boundaries for the study and what the consumer of the research reasonably expects the researcher to do (Crewell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The three components I focused on were ensuring clear purpose, selecting the right participants, and adhering to the conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure clear purpose, the interview questions aligned directly with each research question, which were reviewed and revised by my dissertation committee. To select the right participants, I ensured that each participant had the experience to speak to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences of unique organizational collaboration. To adhere to the conceptual framework of Clarke and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model, I made sure that each interview question was clearly aligned with an assumed KMO influence. One of the delimitations of the study was the decision to not triangulate by excluding document analysis on the second research question of this study. The initial research plan was to 161 triangulate using financial data from the Form 990 of each school. However, this was not done because of the influence of COVID-19 and the potential to breach participant confidentiality. I feared that the financial data reported publicly prior to COVID-19 would not be useful in triangulating current responses. Further, the reporting of this financial data could allow readers to make loop up financial data on the same public website to determine which RPIs participated. Triangulation was done in Chapter 4 around similarities and differences in the responses of each CEFA officer. Interviewing different types of CEFA officers allowed me to avoid making broad generalizations about all chief officers and allows the reader to gain insight as to how different chief officers view similar issues. This approach helped to inform more role-specific recommendations made in Chapter 5. It also allowed the reader to see how these differences informed overall conclusions and recommendations for future research. Another potential delimitation of the study was my choice to use a snowball sampling strategy to find my participants. During this process, I did not screen for CEFA officer gender or ethnicity. As seen in Table 8, the CEFA officer participants heavily skewed female and Caucasian, which may not be representative of the gender and ethnicity of all CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States. A final delimitation was to focus the scope of this study on undergraduate revenue. To have included other revenue sources, such as revenues generated from graduate and professional students, would have a required a different level of research and research questions. Given the limited amount of time of both the researcher and the participants, both groups could not be thoroughly covered in manner that was both reasonable and thorough. Further, other revenue sources, such as those generate through fundraising or research grants were not specifically identified when outlining the study’s problem. 162 Recommendations for Future Research The first recommendation for future research pertains to analyzing the financial performance of RPIs over distinct periods to better understand how external challenges impact undergraduate revenue generation. The ability for RPIs to balance undergraduate revenue and expenses is not a new topic. There are opportunities for researchers to study how various external challenges have impacted RPI revenue production in three timeframes to inform future ways to view collaboration. The first period would be prior to the Great Recession of 2008. The second would be the period between 2008 and 2020, which was until onset of COVID-19. The final would be a future analysis of how CEFA officers can collaborate to generate annual undergraduate revenue that exceed expenses in a post-COVID-19 world. Key research questions could focus on how COVID-19 has altered, positively and negatively, both collaborative strategies and revenue production. Research could also examine how COVID-19 federal relief dollars positively and negatively impacted both students and RPIs. The second opportunity for future research would be to analyze the impact of collaboration on the ability of RPIs to generate revenue that exceeds expenses across other distinct populations and then among all revenue sources. For instance, this study did not include analysis of graduate/professional students or revenue generated through fundraising or grant activities. Future research can analyze how CEFA collaboration, with the potential addition of a chief advancement officer, could lead to positive revenue generation across all revenue sources. Future studies can also look at CEFA collaboration with a focus on improving justice, diversity, equity, and inclusion (JEDI) efforts and how successful implementation of such efforts could support annual revenues exceeding expenses. 163 Based on responses given during the study, there are several other topics that could serve as opportunities for future research. One research topic could focus on how RPIs can use lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic as a competitive advantage. There also could be research done that specifically focuses on collective efficacy among senior leaders in higher education. I was struck by the degree to which COVID-19 seemed to diminish collective efficacy among CEFA officers; it could be valuable to explore this potential relationship further. The final topic for future research that emerged could focus on the role that a President has in ensuring annual revenues exceed expenses. As I interviewed the CEFA officers, I found myself wondering how Presidents at RPIs would answer the same questions. There is an opportunity to explore how collaboration between Presidents and Boards of Trustees can influence positive revenue generation at RPIs. Conclusion As the Vice President for Enrollment Management and Marketing at a regional, private institution (RPI) in the United States for the past eight years, I am struck by the lack of formal collaboration among chief enrollment, financial, and academic (CEFA) officers on strategies to generate revenue. I have observed an industry-silence when RPIs do not generate annual revenues that exceed expenses. This may seem irrational, as even if CEFA officers do everything right, we still cannot control customers who may be irrational or sporadic in decision making judgement from day to day. Still, among some, to admit a deficit in revenue can feel like admitting a lack of professional competence. This study is meant to provide hope. Research demonstrates that considerable market factors are jeopardizing the existence of RPIs in the United States (Bok 2015; Grawe, 2018, 2021; Kelderman, 2019; Langston & Scheid, 2014; Zemsky et al., 2020; Zierdt, 2009). There is also research that shows how leadership traits 164 and collaboration can lead to positive goal attainment (Cao et al., 2019; Carpenter, 2015; Kauppila & Tempelaar, 2016; Oreg & Berson, 2018; O’Reilly et al, 2014; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). However, there is no known research that looks specifically at how CEFA officer collaboration at RPIs positively impacts revenue generation. There is also a lack of research that helps to reduce the social stigma associated with an RPI failing to meet annual revenue projections. The purpose of the study was to explore how CEFA officers at multiple RPIs in the United States collaborate through shared knowledge and motivation to implement strategic initiatives that ensure annual undergraduate revenues exceed expenses. It was my hope to expand upon recent research conducted by Graw (2017, 2021) and Zemsky (2017, 2020) to shed light on how RPIs are addressing market challenges that are both within and out of their control. In the early stages of this research the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, providing new context to the challenges that already existed. Yet, no research exists on the long-term financial impacts of COVID-19 on RPIs. Further, separate from the loss of revenue, RPIs have experienced considerable increases costs because of deferred campus maintenance, costs of moving academic programs online, and large increases in the United States inflation rate. The qualitative data gathered in this study may lead to more questions than answers, which is good. Practitioners at RPIs will benefit from generating the questions that emerge from this research. The research also points to some easy opportunities for CEFA officers at RPIs to consider. Take the time to meet with purpose. Have fun. Facilitate opportunities to enhance student belonging, one student at a time. Question and fix policies and procedures that do not make sense. Be honest with your President and expect the same in return. 165 I would be remiss if I did not confess that during this study, I found myself hyper-aware of my own relationships with the chief finical and chief academic officer in my organization. Coincidentally, I received two new CEFA colleagues while conducting this research. As I analyzed the data and generated recommendations, I wondered whether I would be able to succinctly model what a collaborative relationship among CEFA officers could look like. It is not an easy task. CEFA officers deal with a broad set of stakeholders and time is often very limited (Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Hommell et al., 2011; Lapoovsky & McKeoewn-Moak, 2010; Maguire & Butler, 2008). COVID-19 has heightened stress levels (Galloway, 2021; West, 2020). What I realized is that research and recommendations are important, but so is personal reflection. My two new CEFA colleagues helped me with this research. Their engagement and casual joint reflection have strengthened our professional relationship. There is power in asking colleagues for help and taking time to reflect together. There was a story shared with me by one of the participants in this study that I did not include in the Chapter 4 analysis. This person is currently a seasoned chief enrollment officer but shared the story of when they interviewed for their first CEO job. Their RPI hired a well-known author and consultant to provide career guidance, and this CEO asked their consultant for help with their upcoming interview. They were nervous. Without much explanation, the consultant provided a series of research articles about collaboration. The CEO wondered why that was all the consultant offered, instead hoping for more concrete tips to help with the actual interview. However, when the interview was over, and they got the job, the consultant called and asked how it went. With much gratitude, the CEO shared that the most frequent question they were asked during the interviews was how they planned to collaborate with others in the organization. It was a question asked repeatedly and an important lesson about the relationship between 166 collaboration and success in higher education. It also speaks to the fact that as one gains experience, they come to learn much more overtly how important this collaboration is. This study highlights the need for greater collaboration among CEFA officers at RPIs in the United States. There are opportunities to collaborate to generate revenue that exceeds expenses, but the goals should be greater. In fact, the desire to generate revenue should be driven by shared values, shared purpose, and a mutual desire to make a difference in the lives of the students we work with each day. Our organizations do more than generate revenue. We educate. We have the chance to close equity gaps. We have the chance to make a difference and improve life outcomes. When implemented correctly, the evidence-based recommendations from this study are expected to help RPI leaders understand their role in sustaining the value RPIs bring to our society. 167 References Adams, P., & Buetow, S. (2014). The place of theory in assembling the central argument for a thesis or dissertation. Theory and Psychology, 24(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313517523 Agocs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017939404578 Alavi, S. B., & McCormick, J. (2018). Why do I think my team is capable? A study of some antecedents of team members' personal collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1147-1162. Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing (1st ed.). Longman. Alheit. (2013). Identifying configurations of higher education: Reflections on concepts that compare complex cultural settings. Studies in the Education of Adults., 45(2), 194–209. Arya, B., & Lin, Z. (2007). Understanding collaboration outcomes from an extended resource-based view perspective: The roles of organizational characteristics, partner attributes, and network structures. Journal of Management, 33(5), 697-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305561 Aucejo, E. M., French, J., Ugalde Araya, M. P., & Zafar, B. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey. Journal of Public Economics, 191, 104271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104271 Audretsch, D. & Belitski, M. (2021). Three-ring entrepreneurial university: in search of a new 168 business model. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 46(5), 977–987. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1896804 Bhagat, & Kim, D. J. (2020). Higher education amidst COVID-19: Challenges and silver lining. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 366–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1824040 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive-development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,28(2), 117-148. Bandura, A. (1996). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. International Journal of Psychology, 31(3-4), 32-51. Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith and M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford University. Bastedo, M. N., Altbach, P. G., & Gumport, P. J. (2016). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges. Johns Hopkins University Press. Baum, S., Kurose, C., & McPherson, M. (2013). An overview of American higher education. The Future of Children, 23(1), 17-40. https://go-gale- com.libproxy1.usc.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONEandsw=wandissn=10548289andv=2.1andit=rand id=GALE%7CA335734304andsid=googleScholarandlinkaccess=abs 169 Berman, J. (2013). Utility of a conceptual framework within doctoral study: A researcher’s reflections. Issues in Educational Research, 23(1), 1–. Boeckenstedt, J. (2022, March 22). Will your college survive the demographic cliff? National trends are interesting – but enrolling students is a local challenge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www.chronicle.com/article/will-your-college-survive-the- demographic-cliff Bolman, L. G., and Gallos, J. V. (2021). Reframing academic leadership (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Bok, D. (2015). Higher education in America. Princeton University Press. Bransberger, P. & Michelau, M.K. (2017). Knocking at the college door. Projections of high school graduates. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. Braxton, J. M. (2014). Rethinking college student retention (First edition.). Jossey Bass. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, March 9). Occupational outlook handbook, 2022. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm Burki, T. K. (2020). COVID-19: Consequences for higher education. The Lancet Oncology; Lancet Oncol, 21(6), 758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30287-4 Cao, Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science (Providence, R.I.), 20(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426 Cao, X. (2020). COVID-19: Immunopathology and its implications for therapy. Nature Reviews. Immunology, 20(5), 269-270. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-0308-3 170 Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0046 Chwalisz, K. D., Altmaier, E. M., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Causal attributions, self-efficacy cognitions, and coping with stress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 11, 377- 400. Cimera, R. E., & Cowan, R. J. (2009). The costs of services and employment outcomes achieved by adults with autism in the US. Autism, 13(3), 285-302. Clark, R. E. (2005). 5 research-tested team motivation strategies. Performance Improvement (International Society for Performance Improvement), 44(1), 13–. Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: the role of goal importance congruence in top management teams. The Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81–96. Creswell, J. W. & Crewsell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications. Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: a guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Information Age Pub Inc. Davis, G. M., Hanzsek-Brill, M., Petzold, M. C., & Robinson, D. H. (2019). Students’ sense of belonging: The development of a predictive retention model. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i1.26787 Department of Developmental Services. (2008). Fact book. http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/factbook_11th.pdf 171 DePietro, A. (2020). Impact of coronavirus (COVID-19) on college tuition and finances. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdepietro/2020/06/02/impact-covid-19-tuition- finance/ Dennis, M. (2012). Anticipatory enrollment management: Another level of enrollment management. College and University, 88(1), 10. DesJardins, S. L. (2001). Assessing the effects of changing institutional aid policy. Research in Higher Education, 42(6), 653-678. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012249427051 Dickler, J. (2021). Fewer kids are going to college because they say it costs too much. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/14/fewer-kids-going-to-college-because- of-cost.html Ebersohn, L. (2012). Adding “flock” to “fight” and “flight”: A honeycomb of resilience where supply of relationships meets demand for support. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 22(1), 29-42. Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101859–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859 Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yeager, D. S. (2018). Handbook of competence and motivation. Guilford Press. Ezarik, M. (2022, February 1). Seeing student for who they are and where they’ve been. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/02/01/survey-precollege-life- influences-how-seen-students-feel 172 Frey, Thomas. (2013). By 2030 50% of colleges will collapse. Futurist Speaker (blog), July 5. https://futuristspeaker.com/business-trends/by-2030-over-50-of-colleges-will-collapse/. Fulford, A. (2016). Higher education, collaboration and a new economics. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12152 Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5 Galloway, S. (2020). Post carona: from crisis to opportunity. Portfolio/Penguin. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.003 George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M.A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77-93). John Wiley. Gerwick, M. A. (2013). Strategies for effective meetings. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 44(4), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20130215-68 Giles, & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X05278189 Gonzalez, De la Rubia, M. ., Hincz, K. ., Comas-Lopez, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., & Sacha, G. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 confinement on students’ performance in higher education. PloS One, 15(10), e0239490–e0239490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239490 173 Grawe, N. D. (2021). The agile college. Johns Hopkins University Press. Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team efficacy, potency and performance: Interdependence and level-analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 87, 819-832. Harris, E., Petrovits, C. M. & Yetman, M. H. (2015). The effect of nonprofit governance on donations: Evidence from the revised Form 990. The Accounting Review, 90(2), 579– 610. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50874 Heller, H. (2016). The capitalist university: The transformations of higher education in the United States since 1945. Pluto Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1gk07xz Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2016). The changing landscape of tuition and enrollment in american public higher education. RSF: Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(1), 42-68. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.1.03 Hladchenko, M. (2015). Balanced Scorecard – a strategic management system of the higher education institution. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(2), 167– 176. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2013-0164 Hindle, T. (1998). Managing meetings. DK Publications. Hommel, U., Fabich, M., Schellenberg, E., & Firnkorn, L. (2011). The strategic CFO: Creating value in a dynamic market environment. Springer Science and Business Media. Hood, J. H. (2013). The “how to” book of meetings: Conducting effective meetings. Word Craft Global. Horn, M. B. (2020). Education, disrupted. MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(2), 1–5. 174 Jalal, A., Jalal, A., Khaksari, S., & Khaksari, S. (2019). Effects of tuition discounting on university’s financial performance. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 52(2), 439-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-018-0715-8 Johnson, Steven. (2019, May 10). Private colleges set new record on tuition discounts. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www-chronicle-com/article/Private-Colleges-Set- New/246281. Kalsbeek, D. H. & Zucker, B. (2013). Reframing retention strategy: A focus on profile. New Directions for Higher Education, 2013(161), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20042 Kanwar, & Carr, A. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on international higher education: New models for the new normal. Journal of Learning for Development, 7(3), 326–333. Kauppila, & Tempelaar, M. P. (2016). The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behaviour and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1019–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12192 Kecojevic, A., Basch, C. H., Sullivan, M., & Davi, N. K. (2020). The impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on mental health of undergraduate students in New Jersey, cross-sectional study. Plos One, 15(9), e0239696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239696 Kelderman, E. (2019, June 7). Enrollment shortfalls spread to more colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www-chronicle-com/article/Enrollment-Shortfalls-Spread/24634 Kesenne, S. (2015). Revenue sharing and absolute league quality; Talent investment and talent allocation. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 62(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjpe.12062 Kezar, A. J., & Lester, J. (2009). Organizing higher education for collaboration : A guide for campus leaders (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. 175 King, M. (2010). Collaboration. Community and Junior College Libraries, 16(4), 229–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763915.2010.522932 Kiran, Ramji, N., Derocher, M. B., Girdhari, R., Davie, S., & Lam-Antoniades, M. (2019). Ten tips for advancing a culture of improvement in primary care. BMJ Quality & Safety, 28(7), 582–587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008451 Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’ s four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press. Kohm, & Nance, B. (2009). Creating collaborative cultures. Educational Leadership, 67(2), 67–72. Kontostavlou, E. Z., & Drigas, A. (2021). How metacognition supports giftedness in leadership: A review of contemporary literature. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning, 14(2), 4-16. 10.3991/ijac.v14i2.23237 Korn, M. (2017). Sweet briar college's struggles persist; school still relies on donations to cover operating costs two years after rescue. WSJ Pro.Bankruptcy, http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest- com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1956873133?accountid=14749 Kotlar, J., Massis, A., Wright, M., & Frattini, F. (2018). Organizational goals: Antecedents, formation processes and implications for firm behavior and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews: IJMR, 20, S3-S18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12170 Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A review of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 176 Kunnari, I., Ilomäki, L., & Toom, A. (2018). Successful teacher teams in change: The role of collective efficacy and resilience. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 30(1), 111-126. Langston, R., & Scheid, J. (2014). Strategic enrollment management in the age of austerity and changing demographics: Managing recruitment, leveraging, revenue, and access in challenging economic times. Strategic Enrollment Management Quarterly, 2(3), 191-210. Lapovsky, L., & McKeown-Moak, M. P. (2010). Roles and responsibilities of the chief financial officer: New directions for higher education, number 107. John Wiley and Sons. Lawson, R., & Ventriss, C. (1992). Organizational change: The role of organizational culture and organizational learning. The Psychological Record, 42(2), 205-219. LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019). Planning and leading effective meetings. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(3), 696–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00330-z Lederman, D. (2019). The mood brightens: A survey of Presidents. Inside Higher Education. March 8. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/2019-survey-college- and-university-Presidents. Lent, R. W., Schmidt, J., & Schmidt, L. (2006). Collective efficacy beliefs in student work teams: Relation to self-efficacy, cohesion, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), 73-84. Leuhusen, Fredrik C. A. P. (2017). Why Revenue Diversification Matters (Doctoral Dissertation). ProQuest. (10286178). Levin, H. M., McEwan, P. J., Belfield, C., Bowden, A.B., & Shand, R. (2018). Economic evaluation in education: Cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analysis (3rd ed.) SAGE 177 Publications, Inc. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current directions in psychological science, 15(5). 265. Love, E., & Edwards, M. (2009). Forging inroads between libraries and academic, multicultural and student services. Reference Services Review, 37(1), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320910934968 Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Allen Lane, an imprint of Penguin Books. Lundy, K., Ladd, H., McKay, C., Swoap, K., & Gagnon, S. (October, 2020). Quantifying the impact of excess capacity in higher education. EY-Partheon Study. Lynette, J. O. (2012). FCS careers: Provost brings family focus to higher education. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 104(1), 63. Maguire, J., & Butler, L. (2008). A new formula for enrollment management. Trafford Publishing. Marcus, Jon. (2017, June 29). Universities and colleges struggle to stem big drops in enrollment. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/universities-colleges-struggle-stem- big-drops-enrollment/. Martin, R. E. (2002). Tuition discounting: Theory and evidence. Economics of Education Review, 21(2), 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(00)00053-4 Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education. McCann, D. (2019). A university CFO stretches his wings. CFO.Com, 178 http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/trade- journals/university-cfo-stretches-his-wings/docview/2193294066/se-2?accountid=14749. McEwan, E. K. & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. What’s good, what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Corwin. McGee, J. (2015). Breakpoint: the changing marketplace for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. McGee, H., & Johnson, D. (2015). Performance motivation as the behaviorist views it. Performance Improvement (International Society for Performance Improvement), 54(4), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21472 Meister, D. G., & Ahrens, P. (2011). Resisting plateauing: Four veteran teachers’ stories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 770-778. Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. Moody, Josh. (2019, February 15). A guide to the changing number of U.S. universities. U.S News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2019- 02-15/how-many-universities-are-in-the-us-and-why-that-number-is-changing. Moon, H., Mariadoss, B. J., & Johnson, J. L. (2019). Collaboration with higher education institutions for successful firm innovation. Journal of Business Research, 99, 534-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.09.033. Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor's new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-) equity. In The Gender Question In Education (pp. 105-122). Routledge. Morse, R., & Brooks, E. (2020, September 13). Best colleges ranking category definitions. U.S 179 News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/best- colleges/articles/ranking-category-definitions Murray, W. C. & Holmes, M. R. (2021). Impacts of employee empowerment and organizational commitment on workforce sustainability. Sustainability, 13(6), 3163–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063163 National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2022). Overview: Fall 2021 Enrollment Estimates [Data set]. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/ Newman, A., Tse, H. H. M., Schwarz, G., & Nielsen, I. (2018). The effects of employees' creative self-efficacy on innovative behavior: The role of entrepreneurial leadership. Journal of Business Research, 89, 1-9. Nurturing an organization’s high achievers through strategic talent development: An asymmetric approach to talent management investment. (2020). Strategic Direction (Bradford, England), 36(3), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-12-2019-0236 Oreg, & Berson, Y. (2018). The Impact of Top Leaders’ Personalities: The Processes Through Which Organizations Become Reflections of Their Leaders. Current Directions in Psychological Science : a Journal of the American Psychological Society, 27(4), 241– 248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417748397 O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & Doerr, B. (2014). The Promise and Problems of Organizational Culture: CEO Personality, Culture, and Firm Performance. Group & Organization Management, 39(6), 595–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114550713 Pandey, Bansal, S., Goyal, S., Garg, A., Sethi, N., Pothiyill, D. I., Sreelakshmi, E. S., Sayyad, M. 180 G., & Sethi, R. (2020). Psychological impact of mass quarantine on population during pandemics-The COVID-19 Lock-Down (COLD) study. PloS One, 15(10), e0240501– e0240501. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240501 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Parrott, S. A. (2008). Tuition discounting to optimize enrollment and revenue. Tertiary Education and Management, 14(3), 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880802246218 Pavlov, O. V., & Katsamakas, E. (2020). Will colleges survive the storm of declining enrollments? A computational model. Plos One, 15(8), e0236872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236872 Persson, S., Blomqvist, K., & Lindström, P. N. (2021). Meetings are an important prerequisite for flourishing workplace relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15), 8092–. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158092 Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667 Rine, P. J. (2019). The discounting dilemma: Institutional benefits, unintended consequences, and principles for reform. Christian Higher Education, 18(1-2), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15363759.2018.1543242 Robin, M. H. (2003). Interview with John (Jack) Maguire chairman, maguire associates. College and University, 79(1), 33. Rollins, Judy A, PhD., R.N. (2020). The coronavirus: Exposing our nation's vulnerabilities. 181 Pediatric Nursing, 46(2), 57-59. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press. Rycroft-Malone, J., Burton, C., Wilkinson, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Baker, R., Dopson, S., Graham, I., Staniszewska, S., Thompson, C., Ariss, S., Melville-Richards, L., & Williams, L. (2016). Collective action for implementation: a realist evaluation of organisational collaboration in healthcare. Implementation Science: IS, 11(1), 17–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0380-z Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2011). "Yes, I can, I feel good, and I just do it!" on gain cycles and spirals of efficacy beliefs, affect, and engagement. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(2), 255-285. Sanderson, W. C., Rapee, R. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1989). The influence of an illusion of control on panic attacks induced via inhalation of 5.5% carbon dioxide-enriched air. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 157-162. Schein, E. H. (2004). Learning when and how to lie: A neglected aspect of organizational and occupational socialization. Human Relations (New York), 57(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704043270 Schunk, D. H., & Gunn, T. P. (1986). Self-efficacy and skill development: Influence of task strategies and attributions. Journal of Educational Research, 79, 238-244. Seidman, Astin, A. W., Berger, J. B., Bibo, E. W., Burkum, K. R., Cabrera, A. F., Crisp, G., Gansemer-Topf, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & LaNasa, S. M. (2012). College Student Retention:Formula for Student Success. (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 182 Sellers, T. P., Valentino, A. L., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2016). Recommended practices for individual supervision of aspiring behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 274–286. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40617-016-0110-7. Seltzer, Rick. (2018). “Moody’s: Private-College Closures at 11 Per Year.” Inside Higher Ed, July 25, www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/07/25/moodys-private-college- closures-11-year. Simon, M. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: recipes for success (2011 Ed.). Smith, Clayton A. (2001). The relationship between institutional enrollment performance and enrollment management effectiveness factors. The Journal for College Student Retention, 2(4), 367. ProQuest. https://search-proquest- com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/196710629/5C74BF737C39405CPQ/1?accountid=1474 9 Soliday Hong, S., Yazejian, N., Guss, S., Stein, A., Connors, M., Horm, D., & Kainz, K. (2019). Broadening the Definition of Collaboration in Early Care and Education. Early Education and Development, 30(8), 1084–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1656987 Son, C., Hegde, S., Smith, A., Wang, X., & Sasangohar, F. (2020). Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United states: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(9), e21279. https://doi.org/10.2196/21279 Son, J., Park, O., Bae, J., & Ok, C. (2020). Double-edged effect of talent management on organizational performance: the moderating role of HRM investments. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(17), 2188–2216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1443955 Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D. (2001). A meta-analysis of the relationship between collective efficacy 183 and group performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC. Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Wics: A model of giftedness in leadership. Roeper Review, 28(1), 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190509554335 Stowe, K., & Komasara, D. (2016). An analysis of closed colleges and universities. Planning for Higher Education, 44(4), 79. Thelin, J. (2019). A history of American higher education (Third Edition.). Johns Hopkins University Press. Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process. Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022 Tracy, S. J. (2013). Qualitative research methods. Wiley-Blackwell. Tushman, & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). The Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852 Vander Schee, B. A. (2007). Organizational models for enrollment management at small colleges. College and University, 82(3), 13. Vander Schee, B. A. (2009). Embracing enrollment management: A comprehensive approach to college student marketing. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 13(1), 1. Weber, C., Weidner, K., Kroeger, A., & Wallace, J. (2017). Social value creation in Inter‐Organizational collaborations in the Not‐for‐Profit sector – give and take from a dyadic perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 929-956. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12272. Weiss, R. D. (2011). Handbook of motivation and change: A practical guide for 184 clinicians edited by Levounis Petros, M.D., M.A., and Arnaout Bachaar. American Psychiatric Publishing. West, Charlotte. (2020, November/December). Enrollment effects. The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB), 28(6). https://agb.org/trusteeship-article/enrollment-effects/. Wilson, J. L. (2018). A framework for planning organizational diversity: Applying multicultural practice in higher education work settings. Planning for Higher Education, 46(3), 23-31. http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/scholarly- journals/framework-planning-organizational-diversity/docview/2078624940/se- 2?accountid=14749 Wilson, J.L., Meyer, K.A. & McNeal, L. (2012). Mission and diversity statements: What they do and do not say. Innovative Higher Education, (37), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9194-8 Woodhouse, Kellie. (2015, June 25). Discount much? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/25/what-it-might-mean-when-colleges- discount-rate-tops-60-percent. Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the Job Demands-Resources Model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 121-141. Yelon, S., & Williamson, J. (2016). Integrating a culture of improvement into skill training. Performance Improvement (International Society for Performance Improvement), 55(7), 21–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.21605 Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux 185 (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment (pp. 305–328). Springer. Zemsky, R., & Shaman, S. (2017). The market imperative: Segmentation and change in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press. Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Baldridge, S. C. (2020). The college stress test: Tracking institutional futures across a crowded market. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zierdt, G. L. (2009). Responsibility-centered budgeting: An emerging trend in higher education budget reform. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(4), 345-353. Zimmerman, B. (2018). Higher education in peril? predictions and reality. Liberal Education, 104(4), 18-22. 186 Appendix A: Pre-Interview Recruiting Communications Pre-Interview—Initial Email to Request Study Participation The following email will be sent to a list of CEFA officers at a large number of RPIs in the United States. Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________ My name is Bryan Gross and I am a doctorate student at the University of Southern California. I am conducting research on collaboration strategies chief enrollment, academic and financial officers incorporate at regional, private universities in order to ensure revenue exceeds expenses. My goal as a student practitioner is to provide insight to our field as to how we might be able to collaborate to overcome some of the challenges we are facing. Ultimately it is my hope that this information will benefit the students we serve on our campuses. I assure you that information acquired will not be used in any way within my organization. I have received IRB approval and am in the stage of my dissertation where I am gathering data. I am conducting one-hour interviews with chief enrollment, finance and academic officers. All participant and organizational information will be completely confidential. While I know how busy you are, it would mean the world to me if you would consider giving me an hour of your time. If you do, I will share the findings of the study with you in order to hopefully benefit your organization and the students you work 187 to serve. It would be my hope that some of these findings could be of professional value to you. I would like to schedule an hour with you in the next week at a time and date that is most convenient to you. Please feel free to reply to this email with some dates and times that work best. I have also included a link to Calendly in case it is easier for you to use this method to schedule an hour block of time to be interviewed. <>. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Best regards, Bryan Bryan J. Gross Doctoral Candidate Rossier School of Education The University of Southern California www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-j-gross Pre-Interview—Follow Up Email (2) to Request Study Participation Note: minor variations of this email will be sent up to 5 total times, each week for five weeks. Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________ I am following up on an email I sent last week. I understand that you receive many emails each day, but am hoping you can help a colleague in the field. My name is 188 Bryan Gross and I am a doctorate student at the University of Southern California. I am conducting research on collaboration strategies chief enrollment, academic and financial officers incorporate at regional, private universities in order to ensure revenue exceeds expenses. I have received IRB approval and in the stage of my dissertation where I am gathering my data. This summer I am conducting one-hour interviews with chief enrollment, finance and academic officers. All participant and organizational information will be completely confidential. While I know how busy you are, it would mean the world to me if you would consider giving me an hour of your time. If you do, I will share the findings of the study with you. It is my hope that these findings will be of professional value to you and your students. Below is a link to Calendly, where you can schedule an hour block of time to be interviewed. <>. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Best regards, Bryan Bryan J. Gross Doctoral Candidate Rossier School of Education The University of Southern California 189 Pre-Interview—Email to Confirm Participation for Study Following the scheduling of a participant the email below will be sent to confirm interview appointments. Dear Dr., Ms., or Mr. ___________ Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in my research study concerning the topic of collaboration strategies chief enrollment, academic and financial officers incorporate at regional, private universities in order to ensure revenue exceeds expenses. You should have received a Zoom link when you registered for an interview. In case you do not have it, your Zoom link is: <<ZOOM LINK>>. As a reminder your identity will be known only to me, and I am conducting this study for my doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California. I am attaching a pdf file to this email regarding the formal notice of participant rights and the protocol surrounding how the information you provide will be used and protected. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Thank you so very much for taking time out of your schedule to assist me with this research and I look forward to our conversation on <<DATE>>, <>. Best regards, Bryan 190 Bryan J. Gross Doctoral Candidate Rossier School of Education The University of Southern California 191 Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research University of Southern California Rossier School of Education 3470 Trousdale Pkwy Ste 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90089 INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH STUDY TITLE: The Role of Collaboration Among Senior Higher Education Leaders in Ensuring Revenues Exceed Expenses at Regional, Private Universities PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Bryan J. Gross, Doctoral Candidate FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Jennifer Phillips You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to explore the role of collaboration among chief enrollment, finance and academic officers in ensuring revenues exceed expenses at regional, private universities. I hope to learn how executives, such as yourself, are coping with internal and external challenges in your efforts to generate revenue and cut expenses each year. You are invited as a participant because of your specific role within your organization, which fits the defined research population of the study. PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT You are asked to participate in a Zoom meeting to be interviewed about the research topic. The interview is expected to last no more than one hour. While it is unlikely, it is possible that the researcher may have a desire to conduct a subsequent follow-on conversation. Should that need arise you will be contacted for permission for such additional activity and a time to your convenience will be scheduled. All interaction for you and your organization is confidential and anonymous. Neither your or your organization will be named or alluded to in a manner that would provide identification. While it is the desire of the researcher to record the conversation for subsequent confidential and anonymous transcription so that your responses can be accurately analyzed, such recording is purely voluntary on your part and is not a condition for participation. The researcher will take notes as an alternative during the interview as needed. 192 There is no ‘prework’ necessary for the interview, and it will be held at a time that is to your convenience and with respect to your schedule and responsibilities. CONFIDENTIALITY The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the findings of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. Audio recordings, if made, will not have any direct reference to the full name or organization of the participant and will be used solely for the purpose of analyzing the transcript for relevant content. The recordings will remain in the sole possession of the research team and will be destroyed not later than one year from completion and final approval of the study. The study is expected to be fully completed by December 2021. For this study the Research Team is the researcher and the Chair of the researcher’s dissertation committee. Audio recordings, if made, will not be started until the preliminary and identifying remarks of the participant, and their organization, are concluded. The researcher will refer to the participant by an arbitrary identification to maintain confidentiality and anonymity. As a part of the research study the recordings will be transcribed by a bonded academic paper transcription company. If a participant desires a copy of that transcript will be provided for review, editing, of declination of participation. INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about this study, please contact Bryan J. Gross: bjgross@usc.edu , (203) 305-7110, or Dr. Jennifer Phillips: jlp62386@usc.edu . IRB CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. USC IRB Information Sheet Template Version Date: 01/30/2021 193 Appendix C: Interview Protocol Research Questions: RQ1. In what ways does knowledge and motivation impact collaboration among CEFA officers in their ability to generate revenue that exceeds expenses? RQ2. How do the organizational and external influences impact chief enrollment, finance and academic officer’s ability to collaborate in order to generate revenue that exceeds expenses? Introduction to the Interview: Hi. My name is Bryan Gross and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California. I am currently working on my dissertation, which examines collaboration among leaders in higher education. Your time today is extremely valuable and very much appreciated. I want to first let you know that all of your answers will be kept strictly confidential. No one reading my research will be able to identify any of your responses by your name or your institution. Further, there will be no specific details shared about any of your responses in order to prevent a reader from making an educated guess regarding what institution you work with. I will be recording our interview so I can go back and listen to the answers you provide after we are done speaking. After our interview, I will send you the transcription of our conversation for your review. You will have a chance to make any edits you wish to your responses after the interview. No component of this recorded interview will be shared with anyone else other than the two of us. You have the right to stop this interview at any time for any reason. With this said, do I have your permission to record this session and move forward with this interview? Are there any general questions regarding this interview or about the study in general? 194 Table C1 Interview Protocol Crosswalk Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) Please tell me your name, formal title, the organization you work at and the length of time at your organization? What are the offices you directly supervise? How long have you been a chief X officer throughout your career? Background or demographic Background or demographic Background or demographic Please describe the ways in which your organization generates revenue. Be prepared to provide examples if the interviewee is stuck. Examples include recruitment of new students, retention of current students, and fundraising. What other revenue generation opportunities you may be missing, if any, that you have not employed? #1 K-Metacognitive Knowledge Please describe how goal are developed that result in revenue generation in Is this inclusive of all ways in which revenue is generated? #1 K-Procedural Knowledge 195 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) your organization? Please describe the ways in which you monitor and self-regulate your behaviors in efforts to cut expenses. Please tell me if you can think of anything else. #1 K-Metacognitive Knowledge How are the goals that result in the reduction of expenses developed in your organization? Please be inclusive of all of the ways in which expenses are cut. #1 K-Procedural Behavior or Experience Can you describe the level of collaboration that occurs when your organization develops goals to generate revenue and cut expenses? What is the level of collaboration with your colleagues on senior staff? Among all faculty? Among all the staff? #1 O-Cultural Model Influence 1 Behavior or Experience Now I would like to talk about your senior level colleagues, specifically the President and Why do you think this is? Are there any others you would like to discuss? #2 O-Cultural Settings Influence 2 Behavior or Experience 196 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) board of trustees. Please describe the extent to which these aimed at generating revenue and cutting expenses? Can you give me an example of a revenue generation strategy, if any, you have collaborated on with another senior leader in the past year? Can you tell me more about that strategy? Were there any other senior leaders involved? #1 K-Metacognitive Behavior or Experience I’d like to talk about the policies and procedures in your organization. In what ways do they support collaboration in obtaining revenue and cutting expenses, if at all? Please elaborate. Can you give me an example of one of these policies and procedures? Are your structures and resources aligned to your revenue goals? #2 O-Cultural Settings Influence 2 Opinion or Belief 197 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) What are the external market factors, if any, in the year 2021-22 that influence your organization’s ability to generate revenue? Be prepared to provide examples, such as declining demographics or family, change in consumer mindset and tuition discounting practices. Can you tell me a little more about how you acquired this information? How do you see this changing in the next five years? #1 K-Declarative Opinion or Belief How well do you feel the employees in your organization are collaborating? Does this help or hinder revenue generation? Can you provide me with an example of this? #2 O-Cultural Model Influence 1 Opinion or Belief 198 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) Please describe how useful you believe collaboration is with (the other two CEFA officers), if at all, to reduce expenses in your organization. Can you tell me a bit more about that? What specific role have you played in this? Is there anything you would do the same or differently in the future? #1 M-Utility Value Opinion or Belief Please describe how useful you believe collaboration is with (the other two CEFA officers) towards generating revenue. Can you tell me a bit more about that? How does this make you feel? Is this level of collaboration consistent over time? #1 M-Utility Value Opinion and Feelings How confident are you that, in collaboration with the (other 2 CEFA officers), your (CEFA colleague) will have the ability to identify strategies that result in the generation of revenue that exceeds expenses? Can you tell me more about that level of confidence? How would you rate your confidence in a scale from 1- 10, with one being the lowest and ten being the highest? #1 M-Collective Efficacy Feelings 199 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) Please state the goals your organization has to generate revenue in the next five years? If five years is too much, how about for the year ahead only? #1 K-Declarative Knowledge What is your level of understanding of the actions the (other 2 CEFA officers) are taking towards achieving those goals? Is this a comprehensive list or are there other actions you want to add? #1 K-Declarative Knowledge State the goals your organization has to cut expenses in the next five years? If five years is too much, how about for the year ahead only? #1 K-Declarative Knowledge Ask this question explicitly if it does not come out in the interview. Describe your confidence in the level of collaboration with your chief financial officer? What works well? What can be improved? Why? #2 O-Cultural Model Influence 1 Experience and Behavior 200 Interview questions Probes RQ addressed Key concept addressed Q type (Patton) Chief academic officer? Chief enrollment officer? Pick 2 relevant to the person being interviewed. Are you willing to share your preferred gender pronoun and your identified race and/or ethnicity? Background or demographic Background or demographic Background or demographic Is there anything I did not ask that you would like to add to any of these discussion topics? Is there anything you wish I would have askes? Conclusion to the Interview: This is the end of our interview. I want to thank you so very much for your time today. Your answers have been extremely valuable. I will be sure to send you the transcript of this 201 conversation to review and the findings of my study before they are published. Do you have any questions for me? If you think of any questions after we leave this session please feel free to reach out to me. Have a wonderful day.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The emerging majority in the United States health professions: a gap analysis innovation model for Latinx recruitment planning within higher education

PDF

Optimizing leadership and strategy to develop an expenditure-reduction plan: an improvement study

PDF

Collaboration among interdisciplinary teaching teams: a gap analysis

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

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

PDF

Taking the pulse on accountability: an innovation study

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

Online graduate program retention: exploring the impact of community on student retention rates from the perspectives of faculty and alumni

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Intergenerational succession in family firms in the Philippines

PDF

ReQLes technology's this is your life: an innovation study

PDF

Principals’ leadership influence on teachers’ capacity to enact 21st-century skills curriculum

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

Factors influencing first-term naval aviator career continuation: a gap analysis

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

Internal affairs: understanding challenges low-income college students face in unpaid entertainment industry internships

PDF

Cultivating workplace belonging through managerial impact

Asset Metadata

Creator Gross, Bryan Jeffrey (author)

Core Title Can collaboration among senior higher education leaders ensure organizational survival?

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/28/2022

Defense Date 04/15/2022

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

Tag chief academic officier,chief enrollment officier,chief financial officer,collaboration,college rankings,declining demographics,enrollment management,gap analysis,Higher education,higher education budget,OAI-PMH Harvest,private university,regional,Revenue,tuition discounting

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Donato, Adrian (committee member)

Creator Email bgross3692@gmail.com,bjgross@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111136617

Unique identifier UC111136617

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gross, Bryan Jeffrey

Type texts

Source 20220428-usctheses-batch-934 (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