University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Management practices of social wealth funds: an exploratory study

(USC Thesis Other)

Management practices of social wealth funds: an exploratory study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Management Practices of Social Wealth Funds: An Exploratory Study
by
Jay Maharjan

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 2021

© Copyright by Jay Maharjan
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jay Maharjan certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Lawrence O. Picus
Jennifer Phillips
Helena Seli, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

Abstract
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic impacted state budgets, forcing the states to explore reserve
funds to balance the budget, and at the same time, to finance public programs such as K-12
education, healthcare, and medical research. Social Wealth Funds (SWF), a type of public fund
that operates out of 12 states, is uniquely positioned to provide the supplemental funding. The
purpose of the study was to conduct a qualitative inquiry to understand how the SWF managers’
knowledge, motivation and organizational policies influenced their effectiveness to maximize
Return on Investment (ROI). The study participants were the SWF managers based in the United
States. Data was collected from the interviews with the SWF managers and based on the analysis
of the public documents related to SWFs. Contrary to the extant literature, the findings
demonstrated that SWFs can serve as an effective stabilization fund. Furthermore, the interview
data corroborated that political economy influenced the intrinsic motivation of the US-based
SWF managers and their strategies to diversify portfolios. The most significant recommendation
that emerged from this study is the states’ need to provide adequate resources to SWF managers
and use evidence-based methods to assess and amend the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
Keywords: Social wealth fund, political economy, public policy, intrinsic motivation

vi

Dedication
This study is dedicated to the victims of the COVID-19 pandemic.

vii

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this moment to convey my gratitude to professors, mentors,
colleagues, friends, and family members for their invaluable support in this journey. Returning to
college after over a decade to pursue a doctorate, was one of the best decisions I have made in
my life. I am grateful to all those who believed in me and supported me all along. In my graduate
program at the USC Price School of Public Policy, I was fortunate to have Dr. Robert Denhardt
and Dr. Richard Culley as two of my professors and mentors. I learned about the Rossier Doctor
of Education (Ed.D.) program through Dr. Culley when I was still in my first semester at the
Price school.
As I formally transitioned into the Ed.D. program at the Rossier school, I had an
enormous support from my cohort 9 at the Price School. I reached the transformational phase of
my learning in the Ed.D. program at the Rossier school right after I started working on the
dissertation with my committee chair Dr. Helena Seli. I am grateful to have Dr. Seli as my chair.
Dr. Seli has been very thoughtful and has offered me with the guidance and the discipline
necessary to learn and succeed in the program. I am grateful to have the two other members of
my committee, as well. I am thankful for the invaluable learning opportunity that Dr. Lawrence
Picus and Dr. Jennifer Phillips have provided me.
I would like to take this moment to also thank Dr. Michael Deer, who helped me with my
early drafts. Leading to my dissertation proposal defense on August 14, 2020, and as I prepared
for my final dissertation, I am thankful for the guidance of Dr. Susanne Foulk. Lastly, I would
like to thank my friends from the cohort 12. We spent numerous hours taking classes together,
researching, collaborating, presenting, and debating, which I will always cherish.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 1
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 2
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 3
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 4
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 5
Context and Mission of the Field of Study ......................................................................... 6
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 7
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Stakeholder Competency of Focus ......................... 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework ........................................... 9
Definition ............................................................................................................................ 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Social Wealth Funds ......................................................................................................... 11
Social Wealth Fund Managers .......................................................................................... 19
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’
Framework ............................................................................................................ 20
Fund Managers’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ........................ 21

ix

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 36
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 36
Overview of Methodology ................................................................................................ 36
Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan ........................................................ 37
Ethics and Role of Researcher .......................................................................................... 42
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 44
Results Research Question One: What are the Fund Managers’ Knowledge and
Motivation Related to Managing Social Wealth Funds to Maximize the Return on
Investment? ........................................................................................................... 45
Summary of Findings for Research Question One ........................................................... 57
Results Research Question Two: How Does the Organizational Culture and Context
Impact the Fund Managers’ Capacity to Manage Social Wealth Funds to
Maximize the Return on Investment? ................................................................... 58
Summary for Research Question Two .............................................................................. 68
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendation .......................................................................... 71
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 71
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 74
Integrated Recommendations............................................................................................ 79
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 82
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 83

x

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 83
References ..................................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 97
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 100
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 103
Appendix D: Participant Responses to Knowledge Influences .................................................. 105
Appendix E: Participant Responses to Motivation Influences ................................................... 107
Appendix F: Participant Responses to Motivation Influences .................................................... 109

1

List of Tables
Table 1: Largest Social Wealth Funds 12
Table 2: Largest Social Wealth Funds in the United States 17
Table 3: Knowledge Influences and Types 23
Table 4: Motivation Influences 27
Table 5: Organizational Influences 32
Table 6: Research Methodologies 36
Table 7: KMO Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 69
Table 8: Management Practices of Social Wealth Funds: A Logic Model 80

2

List of Figures
Figure 1: Accountability Triangle 30
Figure 2: Iron Triangle of Project Management 31
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 33
3

List of Abbreviations
SWF Social Wealth Fund

ROI Return on Investment

IMF International Monetary Fund

OPEC The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

ESG Environmental, Social, Corporate Governance

IRB Institutional Review Board

SOE State Owned Enterprise

PSF Permanent School Fund

MBA Master of Business Administration

CFA Certified Financial Analyst

KPI Key Performance Indicator

CIO Chief Informational Officer

GP General Partner

TIPS Treasury Inflation Protected Securities

MPT Modern Portfolio Theory

4

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
A Social Wealth Fund (SWF), a type of public fund that invests in companies without
taking control of their productive assets (Fotak & Megginson, 2013), is a source of practical
revenue for states, used for public projects such as funding for education, healthcare, and
medical research (Lansley, 2016). Despite a long history of these funds in the United States, the
management practices of SWFs are misunderstood and inconsistent in terms of how assets are
allocated, and the return on investments (ROI) utilized (Castelli & Scacciavillani, 2012). In
2018, seven out of the 12 states with SWFs had budget shortfalls ("State budget shortfalls, SFY
2017 and SFY 2018," 2018). During the current COVID-19 pandemic, all the 12 states are facing
challenges to balance their budgets according to “State actions to close budget shortfalls in
response to COVID-19” (2020). This problem of scarcity in resources that the states are facing,
especially during the challenging economic times, warrants a closer look at how SWF managers
are operating their funds, and the strategies they are leveraging to maximize return on investment
(ROI).
Background of the Problem
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, all twelve states where the
SWFs are based, are facing budget shortfalls. In many cases, the states must be creative in
transferring money from the reserve funds to balance their annual budgets. In Utah, the
legislatures directed up to 5% in budget cuts, and aligned the state revenue funds to address the
budget deficit. Additionally, the legislatures in Utah eliminated a pay increase for the state
workers. In Alabama, the state lawmakers cut $300 million from the 2021 budget for education.
The governor of Idaho ordered 1% budget cut across the board, and additional 5% cut across the
board for the state agencies. In Louisiana, the state legislatures projected 10% cut, along with
5

laying a plan to strip $ 60 million in raises for worker pay. In Oregon, the state reported a
spending cut by $ 400 million, and 17% budget cut across the board. In West Virginia, the
governor of the state used $ 68.6 million in reserve funds to balance the budget. In Colorado,
their K-12 education budget was cut by 10%, the legislatures in the state pulled $380 million
from various state cash and trust funds. In addition, the legislatures in Colorado increased
Medicaid co-pays to offset costs due to rising enrollment during the pandemic. Moreover, the
state legislatures in New Mexico reported 22 - 30% cuts across the board, whereas Wyoming and
North Dakota directed 20% and 5 - 15% budget cuts respectively (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2020).
Regardless of the budget challenges caused by the pandemic, the funding for public
sector investments in projects such as K-12 education, healthcare, and health-related R&D is on
decline (Leachman et al., 2017; Pece, 2020). Case in point, despite the growing need for health-
related research in finding cure for cancer, the public funding is disproportionately related to
research opportunities in cancer research, and as a result, as Pece (2020) pointed out, “Promising
science is going unfunded.”
Importance of Addressing the Problem
During both the challenging and non-exigent circumstances, it is important for the states
to address the problem of scarcity in funding, as ignoring the issue may contribute to depriving
the public from the indispensable services, when they would need the most. The 2020 – 2021
COVID-19 pandemic has brought to the fore a strong relevancy of needing to address the
problem of practice and studying the management practices of SWF managers. During the times
of economic challenges, the effectiveness of SWF managers in the context of their management
practices leading to high ROIs, can help provide supplemental funding for the states. Lansley’s
6

(2016) book “A Sharing Economy: How Social Wealth Funds Can Reduce Inequality and Help
Balance the Books” explained SWFs as “collectively held financial funds and fully owned by the
public used for the benefit of society as a whole” (p. 29). An effective SWF manager who is also
guided by the principle of social good, can maximize the utility of the ROI by investing in
initiatives that generate higher public outcome, such as cure for cancer, better education system,
and equitable healthcare programs.
Context and Mission of the Field of Study
SWFs have been around for over a century (Firzli & Franzel, 2014). According to Firzli
and Franzel (2014), the first SWFs started in the United States in the 19th century were non-
federal state-owned funds. The primary goal of SWFs is to amalgamate assets that generate
income from investments and utilize the ROIs from these assets to invest in socially beneficial
projects (Bruenig, 2018). SWFs are also referred to as “citizen’s wealth funds” or “sovereign
wealth funds” (Firzli & Franzel, 2014). Most of the SWFs are managed by fund managers, who
are public servants, or government employees within the state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Public
policies passed by the state legislatures, under the guidance of the US Treasury, set the
management guidelines for the SWFs. The US Treasury enforces financial policies at the Federal
level to make sure that the SWF originating states follow the federal financial guidelines, and the
SWF managers are not involved in investment activities in the regions restricted by the Federal
Government. At the state level, financial policies set forth by the legislatures act as the
overarching governance for the SWFs. The goal of this field study was to assess public policies
influencing the SWFs based in the United States, in relation to understanding the knowledge and
motivation influences of SWF managers, and how these funds are governed to improve ROIs.
The goal of the field study also included exploring how the funds were invested to benefit public
7

projects such as education, healthcare and ground-breaking medical research that benefit the
society.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The primary stakeholders are the recipients of the SWFs in the fields of education,
healthcare, and medical research, including students, teachers, medical professionals, and
researchers. The policymakers at the state and the national levels are important stakeholders for
this field study, as well. The policymakers are the elected officials voted by the public to make
legislations and advocate for causes that benefit the society. This stakeholder group’s
understanding of how the public sector funding for education, healthcare and medical research
works is critical. The third and the primary stakeholder group identified for this study is the
group of the US based SWF managers. The SWFs in the United States are operated by fund
managers who are responsible for evaluating, prioritizing, and investing the funds in right
portfolio companies (Bruenig, 2018). The SWF managers fall under three categories: in-house
fund managers who are public servants, the fund managers at the state-owned enterprises (SOEs)
and the fund managers from the private sector who manage the entire funds on the behalf of the
states. This study focused on the first two categories of the fund managers as these groups were
directly affiliated with the government and fell directly under the purview of the public policies
of the state governance. The SWF managers were financial professionals with background in the
private sector and public sector asset allocation and investment banking.
Stakeholder Group for the Study and Stakeholder Competency of Focus
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the study used the SWF managers as the stakeholder group for the study. The
performance goal of SWF managers is to effectively manage social wealth funds to maximize the
8

Return on Investment (ROI) while being accountable to the public. A higher ROI in a SWF leads
to more opportunities for the SWF to make investments in the projects that benefit the public.
The financial crisis of 2007-2008 forced many SWFs to bring their fund management activities
in house (Aguilera et al., 2016). Prior to the financial crisis, SWFs delegated investment
management activities to external fund managers such as The Goldman Sachs group and
Investment Banking Company (UBS) (Aguilera et al., 2016). During the financial crisis, these
external fund managers were unsuccessful in giving reasonable return on investment to the
SWFs (Dixon & Monk, 2013). Furthermore, this practice resulted in SWFs having to pay more
in management fees (Hoskisson et al., 2013). Hoskisson et al. (2013) added the financial crisis
changed the relationship between SWFs and outside fund administrators and brought a new
practice to build in-house SWF management teams. The research found it salient to initiate a
study to understand the KMO influences pertinent to effectiveness of in-house investment
development capabilities. Understanding the effectiveness of SWF managers offered
generalizable insights into measuring utility within the administrative sphere of the public funds.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to understand how a SWF is being managed effectively to
maximize Return on Investment (R.O.I.). While a complete performance evaluation would focus
on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder used for this analysis was the SWF
managers. The analysis focused on SWF managers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences related to managing social wealth funds to maximize the return on investment, while
being accountable to the public.
The questions that guided this study were the following:
9

1. What are the fund managers’ knowledge and motivation related to managing social
wealth funds to maximize return on investment?
2. How does the organizational culture and context impact the fund managers’ capacity to
manage social wealth funds to maximize the return on investment?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences?
Overview of the Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study used the conceptual framework of Clark and Estes (2008) and a qualitative
methodological framework. According to Clark and Estes, a gap analysis is a systemic, analytical
method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences. The classical gap analysis was adapted to an exploratory model and
implemented as the conceptual framework for this study. Assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that impact SWF managers’ capacity to manage social wealth funds
while maximizing the return on investment were generated based on the context-specific and
general learning and motivation theory. The study used the qualitative methodological
framework to explore these influences, leveraging qualitative data collected during individual
interviews and document analysis.
Definition
The following section provides definitions of frequently used terms used in this study
Social Wealth Fund: Social Wealth Fund is a form of public fund that invests in companies
without taking control of their productive assets (Bruenig, 2018).
Fund Managers: Fund managers are investment management professionals who handle different
types of securities and assets to meet specified investment goals for the benefit of the investors.
10

Fund managers in a SWF are responsible for evaluating and allocating the funds that the public
holds in a SWF. For the purposes of this study, a fund manager was also a representative of the
management team of a state-owned enterprise (SOE), as defined by (Bruenig, 2018).
Venture Capital: Venture capital is a type of fund that makes investments in early-stage
companies that offer high potential but high-risk opportunities for investors (Gompers & Lerner,
2001). Venture capital has become an important intermediary in financial markets for early-stage
businesses to get funded (Sahlman, 1990).
Organization of the Study
Five chapters organize this study. This chapter offers background on the key concepts
and terminology commonly found in a discussion about large-scale investment management. The
organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders and the framework for the public-private
investment model are addressed in Chapter One. The next chapter, Chapter Two provides a
review of current literature related to the scope of the research. Chapter Two also presents the
SWF managers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that are explored via this
research work. Chapter Three details the methodology related to choosing participants, collecting
data, and analyzing the data. Chapter Four includes the assessment and analysis of the collected
data. Chapter Five provides recommendations for practice and future research.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The purpose of this literature review is to study domestic and international social wealth
funds, in relation to the public policies and political economies that impacted these funds. The
second section focuses on the conceptual and theoretical framework governing the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences on the management of these funds. Webster and
Watson (2002) describe literature review as a requisite feature of a scholarly project that reveals
areas where new research is needed.
Social Wealth Funds
According to Firzli and Franzel (2014), the first SWFs started in the United States in the
19
th
century were non-Federal state-owned funds. The primary goal of SWFs is to amalgamate
assets that generate income and utilize the ROIs from these assets to invest in socially beneficial
projects (Bruenig, 2018). However, the study found a series of literature and meta-literature that
asserted conflicting motives behind founding SWFs (Alhashel, 2015; Hatton & Pistor, 2011).
International SWFs
According to the SWF Institute (2019) report, Norway leads the group of SWFs, with $
1.09 trillion in assets under its management. Kuwait Investment Authority, founded in 1953, is
considered one of the early large-scale SWFs (SWF Institute, 2019). As per the following graph,
all top 10 SWFs based on asset size are based outside the United States.

12

Table 1
Largest Social Wealth Funds (in billion U.S. dollars)
Country Fund Assets
($ billions)
Established
Norway Norway
Government
Pension Fund
Global
1,098.82 1990
China China Investment
Corporation
940.6 2007
UAE Abu Dhabi
Investment
Authority
696.66 1976
Kuwait Kuwait Investment
Authority
592 1953
China-Hong Kong Hong Kong
Monetary Authority
Investment Portfolio
509.35 1993
Singapore GIC Private Limited 440 1981
China National Council for
Social Security
Fund
437.9 2000
China SAFE Investment
Company
417.84 1997
Singapore Temasek Holdings 375.38 1974
Qatar Qatar Investment
Authority
328 2005

Source. SWF Institute, 2019

13

The legislature of the government of Australia passed a bill in 2014 to launch a 20-
billion-dollar SWF. The SWF, known by the name of the Medical Research Future Fund, was
created to supplement the Australian government’s existing grants for medical research
(Cunningham et al., 2015). The Medical Research Future Fund is managed under the stewardship
of the Australian Treasury, with the mission to foster innovation in medical research and to
contribute to the economic growth of Australia (Fisk et al., 2014)
The Impact of Public Policies on International SWFs
The funds for most of the International SWFs come directly from the better management
of public assets (Lansley, 2016). In the United States, the Department of Treasury helps
individual states to manage their SWF funds by supporting them to set up an independent
corporation, known as state owned enterprise (S.O.E.) (Bruenig, 2018). The literature on SWFs
involved two points of views, which were policy centric management practices and non-policy-
based subjective fund management practices, as broadly outlined by Chhaochharia and Laven
(2008) and Alhashel (2015). The policy-based SWF management practices followed the
investment best practices, as per the guidelines of the international financial regulatory bodies.
Non-policy-based SWF management practices, however, lacked transparency, accountability,
and the funds are run “in a highly secretive way as little more than the investment wing of the
state” (Lansley, 2016, p. 9).
Kirshner (2009), in his study “Sovereign wealth funds and national security” dismissed
the notion of political agenda posed by these SWFs, categorizing SWFs as the “manifestations of
other pathologies - rather than the root cause of the postulated problem” (p. 305). Kirshner
presented empirical analysis and categorically stated that the SWFs exist only due to the demand
for transmission of wealth in the global economy. The burden of accountability and
14

responsibility needs to fall on the host nations (Kirshner, 2009). Haberly (2011), on the other
hand, criticized the implications of SWFs presented by Kirshner (2009) and emphasized the need
to conduct more studies centered around the “strategic use” of SWFs in the context of a national
development instrument.
Truman (2009), regardless of his differing viewpoint, presented a neutral voice for the
value that SWFs would provide in global development. Truman emphasized that to reap the
value that SWFs offered in ethical, fair, and equitable ways, there is an urgency to craft policy-
based governance structure under the regulation of international organizations such as the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD). Truman also presented a blueprint, along with a scorecard based on the
practices of 44 SWFs, including 34 non-pension funds and 10 pension funds. The scorecard
Truman developed contained 33 elements, within the structure, governance, accountability,
transparency, and behavior components, which found that the SWFs managed a pension fund
differently than the way it would manage a non-pension fund such as hedge funds or
entrepreneurial ventures. Truman made it a key criterion to assess if a SWF followed a separate
set of policies from the country’s fiscal policies, and if the SWFs that he studied had clear and
transparent investment strategies (Truman, 2009).
The Impact of Political Economy on International SWFs
The term “political economy” addresses the interaction of economic and political
processes (Steiner, 2003). Caporaso and Levine (1992) describes “political economy" as the
interrelationship between the political and economic affairs of the state. Although the term
“political economy” has been in active usage for the last three centuries, scholars have yet to
agree on a single definition (Caporaso & Levine, 1992). The term emerged sometime between
15

the 17th and the 18th

century, in the context of describing political influence on taxes and trade
policies (Aspromourgos, 2008). After the 18th century, the term represented a broader meaning,
including the structures of capitalist economics and free-market processes, explored further by
the renowned classical economists of the era such as David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus
and Adam Smith (Aspromourgos, 2008). There is a significant influence of political economy on
International SWFs (Yi-Chong, 2010). Yi-Chong pointed out that two-thirds of the world’s
SWFs are based in countries influenced by various degrees of political economy. Alhashel
(2015) discovered that the $6.65 trillion-dollar global SWF ecosystem had conflicting results in
terms of increasing value.
A review of research conducted by Chhaochharia and Laeven (2008) took a cautionary
position stating that the SWFs might have political objectives and could be infringing in national
interests. The research reveals that the SWFs invested with the goal to diversify away from the
core industries of their home countries. Still, they were biased in terms of investing only in the
countries that shared the same culture and values, raising further questions as to whether their
activities were limited to maximizing the return on their investments. Further, Chhaochharia and
Laeven (2008) found that the SWFs invested in firms that were in financial trouble, and these
SWFs offered only a short-term positive outlook, while their long-term return on investment,
diversification of portfolio and corporate governance remained poor.
Hatton and Pistor (2011) offered a third set of perspectives of International SWFs. Based
on their study, Hatton and Pistor found that the political economy played a key role in defining
the motivation for International SWFs. The researchers suggested that most of the SWFs they
studied fell somewhere in between the spectrum of the SWF behaviors that Alhashel (2015) and
Chhaochharia and Laeven (2008) presented. Hatton and Pistor (2011) explained this factor as the
16

influence of the political economy. Hatton and Pistor’s (2011) study on political economy is
relevant and insightful in terms of understanding how the political economy influences the
motivation of SWF managers. Hatton and Pistor concluded that the SWFs that they studied were
not entirely motivated by the economic incentives, nor were they influenced by the motivation to
exert their political views and policies on the receiving nations.
Domestic SWFs
The United States is home to the first SWF. The Permanent University Fund (PUF) was
established in 1854 as per the provisions set forth by the constitution of Texas. The monies
generated by the PUF supplement the budget of the University of Texas and the Texas A&M
University System, by as much as 50 percent (Matthews, 2006). Among the top 10 domestic
SWFs by asset size listed in Table 3, the PUF is considered the largest with $ 55.2 billion in
assets, followed by the Alaska Permanent Fund with $ 52.7 billion worth of assets under
management. The North Dakota Legacy Fund, with $3.8 billion in assets, is the newest SWF to
launch in the United States. In 2009, the North Dakota assembly passed resolution No. 3054, and
placed the proposition to start a SWF on the state’s 2010 general election ballot. The voters in
North Dakota approved the measure and permitted the state to start a perpetual revenue fund
from its depleting natural resources (Boubakri et al., 2016).

17

Table 2
Largest Social Wealth Funds in the United States (in billion U.S. dollars)
State Fund Assets
($ billions)
Established
Texas Permanent School
Fund & Permanent
University Fund
55.2 1854
Alaska Alaska Permanent
Fund
52.7 1976
New Mexico New Mexico State
Investment Council
Funds
20.2 1958
Wyoming Wyoming
Permanent/
Endowment Fund
12.6 1974
North Dakota North Dakota
Legacy Fund
3.8 2009
Alabama Alabama Trust Fund 2.5 1985
Utah State School Fund 2.0 1983
Oregon Oregon Common
School Fund
1.4 1859
Louisiana Louisiana Education
Quality Trust Fund
1.3 1986
Montana Coal Severance Tax
Trust Fund &
Public-School Trust
1.2 1976

Source: List of U.S. states by Sovereign Wealth Funds, 2020

18

The Impact of Public Policies in Domestic SWFs
Public policies influence the effectiveness of the public institutional investment funds
such as SWFs (Sorkin, 2010). Bruenig (2018) complemented Sorkin’s research to present cases
that the state level policies play a key role in shaping domestic SWFs. In contrary to the
governance structure of the International SWFs, in the United States, the state legislatures take
the leadership role. The states introduce, formulate and place policies on the general election
ballot as per the constitution of the respective states. At the Federal policy level, once the voters
approve a SWF, the respective states form independent state-owned enterprises (S.O.E.s) under
the governance of the U.S. Department of Treasury. The research by Sorkin (2010) indicated that
the public policies related to SWFs at the Federal level have changed during and after the
financial crisis of 2007-2008. According to Sorkin, the U.S. Department of Treasury loosened its
policies, and attempted to broker a deal for the fledgling Lehman Brothers to choose between
China Investment Corporation (CIC) and Korea Investment Corporation. The policies stemmed
from the changing views of the public during the financial crisis influenced the SWFs to bring
entire fund management activities in house (Aguilera et al., 2016).
The Impact of Political Economy in Domestic SWFs
This literature review did not yield specific scholarly literature to connect the
implications of the political economy and the governance of the existing SWFs in the United
States. Instead, the literature emerged about the SWFs in the United States are perceived as the
economic empowerment tools and framed as such to propose as the next big initiative to benefit
the society (Bruenig, 2018). The apolitical nature of the SWFs in the United States is further
supported by the notion that the Alaska Permanent Fund, a successful SWF in the United States,
was started as a bi-partisan economic development fund, founded by a conservative governor
19

representing the Republican party (Widerquist & Howard, 2012). In another instance, the $55.2
billion Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) was started in 1854 with the appropriation of $2
million in land grant by the Texas Legislature, solely for the improvement of the public schools
in the state of Texas (Texas State Teachers Association & Cooper, 1934).
Social Wealth Fund Managers
Even though SWFs are collectively held public funds created for the social good, the
SWF managers are solely responsible for administering and growing the funds. The SWF
managers are responsible for making decisions in terms of why, where, and how the investments
are made. Most of the SWF managers possess degrees in accounting, finance, education, public
administration, or business administration. Based on their study of fund managers who received
master’s degrees or higher, Chevalier and Ellison (1999) correlated a higher level of education
with greater intelligence and a stronger knowledge base. Further, Chevalier and Ellison found
that most of the successful fund managers were graduates of top universities, which offered them
informational advantage. As for the value of prior fund management experience, Lee et al.
(2008) found that the fund managers’ prior experience had a positive effect on the overall
performance of the fund. Studies have shown that it is important for SWF managers to have
cognitive skills to become effective fund managers. According to the study by Zhou (2010),
academic specialization and cognitive skills influence risk preferences. Zhou found a direct
relationship between a higher level of cognitive skills and academic specialization, and the fund
managers’ effectiveness to navigate risk tolerance, ambiguity tolerance and to excel in fund
performance in terms of excess returns. For instance, Carter and Irons (1991) found that the
students with Economics background made decisions differently than the students who majored
in non-Economics majors.
20

As SWF managers are responsible for overseeing large amounts of public funds, this
stakeholder group must have experience in investment due-diligence and management processes.
The Research by Fang and Wang (2015) showed that fund managers’ characteristics
systematically affected the fund performance. The SWF managers must also have expertise in
processes to identify and manage financial instruments. Research on fund managers’
characteristics conducted by Golec (1996) revealed having a graduate degree in business
administration (MBA) or financial analysis (CFA) is strongly associated with better
comprehensive performance, along with higher ROI.
Valuing the management of a SWF is a critical predictor of the fund managers’ efforts.
Public managers are believed to be less motivated by financial rewards, compared to private
organizations; and, this stakeholder group has lower levels of organizational commitment due to
inflexibility of “personnel procedures and the weak link between performance and rewards”
(Boyne, 2002, p.102). According to Bruenig (2018), there are two types of management entities
responsible for running a SWF. Depending on the size of a SWF, funds are either led by a middle
level fund management group within the government or managed by a SOE, which becomes a
fully owned entity of the Treasury Department as explained by Bruenig (2018) but operates
under the middle level SWF leadership.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences’
Framework
A modified gap analysis model is used as the conceptual framework for this study. The
gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) is a systematic, analytical method that helps clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization. According to Clark and Estes (2008), the steps in the
21

gap analysis process generally start with defining measurable goals, followed by the process of
identifying gaps in performance. Next, root causes are hypothesized and prioritized, followed by
coming up with solutions, and evaluating the results. In this modified gap analysis model,
potential root causes for gaps in performance are studied in the context of influences related to
knowledge, motivation and organizational (KMO) influences. The following sections shed light
on both context-specific and general literature on KMO influences.
Fund Managers’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The purpose of this section is to share fund managers’ KMO influences related to
effectively managing social wealth funds to maximize the Return on Investment (ROI) while
being accountable to the public. Furthermore, this section presents an examination of the relevant
literature that supports the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences SWF managers
need to be effective in their roles. The study uses the Clark and Estes (2018) Gap Analysis
Conceptual Framework to understand SWF managers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational and the external influences.
Fund Managers’ Knowledge Influences
Clark and Estes (2008) defined knowledge as one of “two cooperating psychological
systems” along with motivation, that explains how to perform tasks based on prior experience (p.
80). Krathwohl (2002) explained the meaning of knowledge in terms of four categories: factual,
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. Krathwohl explained factual knowledge as the topic-
centric basic facts, information and terminologies whereas conceptual knowledge includes the
underlying categories, principles, structure, or the related theory of a specific field. Procedural
knowledge, as explained by Krathwohl, involves being able to accomplish the necessary steps to
complete tasks. Lastly, metacognitive knowledge is the ability to self-reflect and to adapt
22

pertinent skills and knowledge, including strategies, assessing demands, planning one’s plans
and approach and monitoring progress (Krathwohl, 2002).
Expertise in Investment Management
Possessing knowledge is directly proportional to achieving goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
SWF managers are assumed to have expertise in processes to identify and manage financial
instruments. Clark and Estes asserted that the knowledge and skill enhancements are warranted
under two conditions: first, when attempting to accomplish performance goals and second, when
future challenges require a newer way of solving the problem. Both conditions for the knowledge
and skills development conditions are relevant in the case of SWF managers.
According to Al-Hassan et al. (2013), SWF management is a very skill-intensive process,
and it is important for SWFs to have dedicated, professional fund management staff to manage
investment processes effectively. Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, most SWFs outsourced their
fund management to outside agencies such as Goldman Sachs and UBS, which led to higher
transaction fees and lower ROIs (Aguilera et al., 2016). The 2008 financial crisis forced SWFs to
bring the investment management activities in house, which resulted in increase in profitability
by minimizing transaction fees and risky investments in the private sector (Clark et al., 2013;
Dixon & Monk, 2013). Further, Clark et al. (2013) added that by bringing the investment
management activities in house, SWFs have increased profitability and decreased transaction
fees.
Expertise in Processes to Identify and Manage Financial Investments
The established SWFs such as the PUF of Texas need their fund managers to possess
conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge, to stay aware of the newer sets of challenges
and investment opportunities in emerging sectors. On the other hand, fund managers in a newer
23

fund such as the North Dakota SWF would require foundational knowledge to accomplish
performance goals. Prior experience of having managed a SWF would help SWF managers in a
new challenge, being able to find a solution in what psychological researchers described as the
“knowledge transfer” problem (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 60). Clark and Estes describe
“knowledge transfer” as a psychological phenomenon to explain the ability to leverage
experience from the past to handle a new challenge. This study explores SWF managers’
expertise in processes to identify and manage financial investments.
Ability to Leverage Metacognitive Awareness to Construct a Purposeful Portfolio of
Companies
Kumar (1998) found a direct influence of metacognition on development of effective
decision-making skills. Kumar inquired in her research how novice and expert managers
processed metacognition differently. Her research revealed training novice hiring managers to
apply metacognition skills enhanced their effectiveness to pick the right candidates. Krathwohl
(2002) explained metacognitive knowledge involves first understanding what it means to be
metacognitive, and the second part is related to reflecting and regulating self. This study
explored the ability of SWF managers to leverage meta-cognitively aware decisions to construct
a purposeful portfolio of companies. Table 4 describes the three main knowledge influences that
impact the effectiveness of the SWF managers.

24

Table 3
Knowledge Influences and Types
Knowledge influence Knowledge type
Fund Managers need to have expertise in investment management
processes
Declarative

Fund Managers need to have expertise in processes to identify and
manage financial instruments
Procedural

Fund Managers need to be introspective and leverage metacognitive
awareness to construct a purposeful portfolio of companies
Metacognitive

Fund Managers’ Motivation Influences
In addition to knowledge, motivation is a key influence on performance. Understanding
the literature on motivation-related influences is pertinent in determining the SWF managers’
competency. Motivation is defined as a psychological system that helps human beings keep
moving and acts as an indicator of the amount of effort needed to spend on work tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2008). The three components of motivated performance, according to Clark and Estes
(2008), are active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Clark and Estes describe the first
component, active choice, as an intentional act to pursue a goal, whereas the second component,
persistence, is continuing in the face of distractions once the task is started. The third component
of motivated performance is related to mental effort, which helps people to work smarter and
develop novel solutions (Clark & Estes, 2008).
According to Maslow (1954), motivation is rooted in a person’s attempt at fulfilling five
basic needs: physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. An individual would be
likely to feel more motivated as they reach a higher level of the Maslow’s hierarchy. Sadri and
25

Bowen (2011) believe Maslow's hierarchy of needs is still a relevant tool to understand and
motivate staff. In their study, Sadri and Bowen describe motivation in the context of choosing an
activity, the amount of effort placed on the activity and based on the persistence to overcome
adversity to finish the activity.
Social cognitive theory is appropriate to examine the problem of practice, since it
addresses the broad-reaching important context of the environment (Bandura, 1986). Further, a
triadic co-determination model of social cognitive theory offers an explanation on how
individuals are influenced by both their behavior, and the environment they manage in (Bandura,
2001). Bandura’s (1988) study found that the behavioral and the environmental dimensions
would be useful in terms of understanding the effectiveness of individuals in the context of
regulating, thinking, planning, monitoring, and evaluating. SWF managers, regardless of the size
of the funds that they manage, are assumed to experience pressure from the senior leadership and
the taxpayers, as well as from the direct reports. The findings related to observational learning,
enhancing self-efficacy, and practicing self-evaluation, as described by Bandura (1977), are
relevant skill sets for SWF managers to be effective in their jobs.
Fund Managers’ Self-Efficacy for Managing Large Funds
In order to effectively manage social wealth funds to maximize the ROI while being
accountable to the public, SWF managers need to be able to confidently perform their assigned
tasks. Bandura (2000) described self-efficacy as individuals’ belief in their ability to complete a
task or attain a goal. The performance of individuals is governed by the beliefs about themselves
and in their environment (Clark & Estes, 2008). The study assumes SWF managers are self-
efficacious, in the context of determining engagement, continuing interest, and meeting the task
goals despite challenges. The efficacy expectancy is an effective way for middle managers to
26

self-regulate while identifying, organizing, initiating, and executing a course of actions that bring
about a desired outcome (Maddux et al., 1986).
Sloan (2014) revealed that working in the public sector leads to “Surface Acting.” The
psychological phenomenon of “Surface Acting” occurs when a workplace lacks emotional and
motivational resources (Halbesleben et al., 2013). “Surface Acting” may occur in the public
sector when employees fall for “Groupthink” and fail to display true emotions based on their
intrinsic motivation. To mitigate Surface Acting, Sloan stated that the “feelings of self-efficacy
may enable workers to view this emotional labor as a skill that can be effectively used at work
rather than an act that makes them feel self-estranged” (Sloan, 2014, p. 4).
Fund Managers’ Value for Managing Large Funds
According to Vroom (1964), the expectancy-value theory states that motivation is based
on two factors, first, expectancy, as in how probable the desired outcome is achieved based on
the effort to complete an action; second, value, as in how the desired task outcome is valued by
the individual. The task value has different dimensions: intrinsic, utility, attainment, and cost. In
other words, the study explored why fund managers chose to become fund managers. The study
inquired if the fund managers saw their SWFs as critical in solving societal challenges such as
cancer research.
Valuing the management of a SWF is assumed to be a critical predictor of the fund
managers’ efforts, which could come from valuing intrinsic and attainment related tasks.
SWF managers need to enjoy or have an interest in their roles, as in finding the intrinsic task
value, and to find importance for self, concerning the attainment task value of being a part of the
purposeful government employment. Expectancies could also be defined as specific beliefs
individuals have regarding their success on certain tasks, they carry out in the short-term future
27

or long-term future (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Understanding the compensation model for fund
managers at a SWF is critical in understanding its effect on their performance. Based on the
research of Swedish public mutual funds, Ibert et al. (2018) found a concave relationship
between compensation and performance, resulting in only a nominal impact of compensation on
performance of public funds. In another study, Khojasteh (1993) studied motivational
dimensions and constructs of managers in the public and private sectors and found the influence
of compensation is significantly greater in the private sector than in the public sector. The
following table describes the two main motivation influences that impact the effectiveness of the
SWF managers.

Table 4
Motivation Influences
Motivation influences
Self-efficacy Fund Managers need to be confident in their expertise to
manage large funds despite the challenges.

Value Fund Managers’ intrinsic interest to improve health outcomes
must outweigh the low compensation for their work as
government employees.

28

Fund Managers’ Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivation, organizational influences can play an important
role in determining whether stakeholders can be successful in performing their roles in the
organization and achieving their goals. According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001),
organizational influences can be categorized based on cultural models and cultural settings. The
cultural models represent “shared mental schema or normative understandings of how the world
works, or ought to work” (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001, p. 47). The cultural model approach
integrates cognitive, anthropological, and sociological research (Cole, 1996; D’Andrade, 1995;
Quinn & Holland, 1987; Shore, 1996). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described the cultural
model as a norm, in relation to the research in sociology, and that the people who are a part of a
cultural model are not even aware that the model exists. A cultural setting, on the other hand, is
formed simply when two or more people come together over time, to accomplish something
(Sarason, 1972, p. ix). Multiple researchers agree that the cultural models and cultural settings
complement each other and fits well in defining what a culture represents (Cole, 1996;
Gallimore, Goldenberg, & Weisner, 1993; Weisner, 1984). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001)
made a perceptive observation that a culture can also be defined as an absence of settings.
Barney (1986) offered a variation in the definition of culture stating that a culture provides
guidance to its members on how to recognize, respond and consistently adapt to environmental
changes. Kautz et al. (2009) added that an organizational culture would influence the social
structure of an organization.
Balogun and Johnson (2004) found that the schemas altered significantly when the
middle managers transitioned between different change processes. Higgins (2007) made a case
for the middle managers that it is challenging for this stakeholder group to attain terminal values,
29

as in the desired end states of freedom and independence to make decisions. Due to a lack of
uniform and consistent role description and employment contracts, the managers at this meso
level are assumed to be less cognizant of intrinsic and attainment task values. There is an
assumption among middle managers that they are minimally prepared in terms of their self-
efficacy skills due to a limited access to resources for developmental needs. Multiple studies
have shown that it is important for the middle managers to have access to additional resources to
meet their developmental needs (Robertson & Sadri, 1993). Table 6 highlights the cultural
setting influences on SWF managers.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: Policies to Foster Intrinsic Motivation
Lavigna (2013) revealed that highly engaged, intrinsically motivated government
employees are 20% more productive. In his book, Lavigna recommended government agencies
not to implement one-size-fits-all policies to foster intrinsic motivation. Based on another
research, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) recommended government agencies to implement policies
to offer managers a choice to make autonomous decisions. Based on the research of the public
sector employees in the United Kingdom government, Georgellis et al. (2011) recommended the
public sector to nurture intrinsic motivation, by crafting policies that support empathetic and
supporting culture. This study explored the need to understand and develop policies to identify
intrinsic motivation among SWF managers.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: Providing Adequate Resources
Understanding resource adequacy in public organizations is an important aspect of
introducing and improving policies to improve public sector performance. As there are a limited
number of SWFs in the world and the practice of in-house fund management is a newer concept
that emerged only after the 2009 financial crisis, this study chose to base its research on
30

estimating resource adequacy for SWF managers from the field of education. In education, the
overarching governance allocates resources to schools based on either the Professional
judgement approach or the Evidence based method (Chidester, 2019).
According to Chidester (2019), in the Professional judgement approach, the governing
body estimates administrative and operational costs, whereas, in the Evidence based method, the
schools use peer-reviewed findings of effective models, where the method uses the professional
craft skills of the teachers and add up all elements for total cost. Further, Chidester explained in
her lecture the Evidence based resource adequacy method emphasizes the culture of inquiry as
highlighted by Dowd (2005) and encourages hands-on practitioners to move to the center stage,
to fully utilize peer-reviewed research of effective models from other school districts. Though
both methods leverage research-driven evidence, Chidester highlighted the Judgement Panel
based model uses the professional panels for “reality check.” Furthermore, this literature review
finds the research by Burke (2005) on the following ‘accountability triangle’ relevant for the
research on SWF managers, in terms of how political accountability of the host states in
providing adequate resources can affect the effectiveness of SWF managers to deliver higher
ROIs, while being accountable to the public.

31

Figure 1
Accountability Triangle
Political Accountability

Professional Accountability Market Accountability

Cultural Setting Influence 3: Establishing Key Performance Indicators
To enhance the effectiveness of a SWF, the states or nations where the SWFs are located
need to periodically assess and amend key performance indexes (KPIs) of the public sector led
investment projects. Despite the need to closely monitor KPIs, there are no commonly agreed
practices of performance measurement for large public projects. Ogunlana (2010) investigated
the perception of KPIs within an International public sector led project, where he found the
traditional metrics to measure large public sector projects based on the following “iron triangle”
to keep projects on time, under-budget and according to specifications, have limitations.

32

Figure 2
Iron Triangle of Project Management
On time

Under-budget Compliance to specifications

Furthermore, Ogunlana (2010) emphasized the importance for International public
agencies to move away from over-reliance on quantitative methods to evaluate performance and
add qualitative methods to measure large-scale development projects. Ogunlana highlighted this
practice would help government agencies to measure KPIs including efficient use of resources,
effectiveness of investments, perspective of stakeholders, and ways to mitigate conflicts and
disputes.
Cultural Setting Influence 4: Providing Professional Development Opportunities
Gurdjian and Lane (2014) found that organizations overlooking context is one of the
main reasons that leadership development programs fail. Since managing a SWF fund is different
from managing other funds, the states need to be mindful of the qualifications of SWF managers
and to make sure that their skill sets, and leadership styles are complementary to the mission of
the SWFs. Williams (2013) blamed the old logic, as in blaming on individual behaviors as the
primary factor for organizational failures. Instead of looking at the public sector employees from

33

the deficit cognitive frame as outlined by Bensimon (2005), Williams claimed the challenges of
organizational behavior and performance stem from ineffectively managed systems, instead.
Gurdjian and Lane (2014) summarized best in their study that systemic change is critical to
sustain individual behavior change. The following table describes the four main organizational
influences that impact the effectiveness of the SWF managers.

Table 5
Organizational Influences
Organizational Influences
Cultural Setting Influence 1 / Policies The organization/state needs to understand and
develop policies to identify intrinsic motivation
among fund managers.
Cultural Setting Influence 2 / Resources The organization/state needs to meet resource
adequacy requirements of the fund managers.
Cultural Setting Influence 3 / Policies The organization/state needs to periodically
assess and amend K.P.I.s (a set of indicators that
help identify how progress will be measured for
goals and strategies).
Cultural Setting Influence 4 / Resources The organization/state needs to offer personal and
professional leadership development and
procedural training opportunities to the fund
managers.

34

Public policy
Conceptual Framework
The key concepts in the framing of this study are related to understanding and enhancing
knowledge, motivation, and organizational and external policies, while leveraging a modified
gap analysis framework. The study included all three components of the gap analysis framework,
and the influences of external factors such as public policy and political economies of where the
SWFs are located.

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework

Political Economy

Fund
manager
knowledge
Fund
manager
motivation
Social
wealth
fund
culture and
governance

35

Conclusion
This literature review identified the gaps in challenges related to fund management
between domestic and international SWFs. The goal of the literature review was to understand
the SWFs outside of the United States, in relation to the knowledge, motivation and the influence
of politics on their fund managers. A deeper understanding of how SWFs outside the United
States functioned was critical in understanding the influences on the SWFs based in the United
States. The literature review found that the SWFs outside the United States were influenced by
various degrees of the political economy. The incentives for the international SWFs to increase
ROI were not clear, and at best were contextually and situationally driven. Finally, the literature
review presented the assumed KMO influences that fund managers need to succeed in
maximizing ROI, while being accountable to the public.

36

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this field was to identify knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences affecting social wealth fund managers based in the United States. Due to the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic, the researcher conducted the study online via Zoom. The study used a
modified gap analysis based on the framework outlined by Clark and Estes (2004). This chapter
covers the following areas of the research study: research questions, overview of methodology,
design and methodology, data collection methodologies, instrumentation, ethics, limitations, and
delimitations of this study.
Research Questions
The following guiding questions drove this study:
1. What are the fund managers’ knowledge and motivation related to managing social
wealth funds to maximize the return on investment?
2. How does the organizational culture and context impact the fund managers’ capacity to
manage social wealth funds to maximize the return on investment?
3. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences?
Overview of Methodology
The overall design of this study was qualitative. The study used interviews as the primary
method used for data collection. The second set of data collection involved document analysis of
organizational documents about management of social wealth funds. A non-probability,
purposeful sampling method was used for the study.

37

Table 6
Research Methodologies
Research Questions Interview Document
Analysis
1. What are the fund managers’
knowledge and motivation
related to managing social
wealth funds to maximize the
return on investment?

X

X
2. How does the organizational
culture and context impact the
fund managers’ capacity to
manage social wealth funds to
maximize the return on
investment?

X

X
3. What are the recommendations
for organizational practice in the
areas of knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influences?

X

Data Collection, Instrumentation and Analysis Plan
The study conducted interviews and document analysis to explore knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences. Based on the research by Foucault (1977), Gubrium et
al. (2012) explained interviews as social arenas that provide both “vehicles and sites through
which people construct and contest explications for their views and actions” (p. 4). Document
analysis is a transparent process that enables researchers to assess raw data in the context of the
“meanings, symbolic qualities, and expressive contents” (Krippendorff, 2013, p. 49).

38

Interview
Gubrium et al. (2012) described interviews as the dialogue that elevates a collaborative
environment and the awareness among participants. The study included interviews with seven
fund managers at the SWFs based in the United States. The fund managers were critical
stakeholders within the SWFs as they were responsible for making key investment decisions.
The interview focused on understanding the knowledge, motivation, and organizational policy
influences on the SWF managers to understand the purpose, values and competencies driving the
best practices of SWF managers. The researcher used two forms of recording devices, one digital
and the other one using a tape.
Participating Stakeholders
The principal investigator conducted interviews with seven SWF managers who were
mid-career, middle management professionals working for the states or the state-owned
enterprises appointed by the respective states. During and after the interviews, the researcher
requested SWF managers for any relevant researcher-generated documents. Once the SWF
managers provided the documents, the study assessed the material for authenticity and accuracy.
Instrumentation
While conducting interviews with the SWF managers, the principal investigator served as
the instrument. The researcher invited the SWF managers to participate in interviews over Zoom.
The researcher followed a semi-structured style to enrich interviewees’ opinions, feelings,
sensory perceptions, and experiences (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, to collect high-quality, valid
data, the researcher followed a neo-positivist paradigm to minimize bias (Patton, 2002).
There were 18 questions, included in Appendix A, and each interview took around one
hour, except for one interview that lasted for two hours. The researcher kept the information
39

related to the interviews confidential and only shared in a summarized version along with other
answers, with no identifiable information. Upon completion of the interview sessions, the
recordings were uploaded to a secured server and deleted from the original device. The
researcher used the transcription of the interview analysis using a pseudonym to protect the
identity of the participants. The researcher provided the participants with the Interview
Information Sheet included in the Appendix B.
Data Collection Procedures
The researcher leveraged emails, public websites of the SWFs and the public LinkedIn
profiles to invite the participants for the study. The researcher conducted interviews using the
video conferencing software Zoom. The data from the interviews were securely stored in the
cloud under a pseudonym to maintain anonymity and an extra layer of security. Purposeful
sampling was used as a part of qualitative research to identify and select cases that are rich in
information using criterion sampling (Patton, 2002).
Data Analysis
The purpose of data analysis is to find meaning in the collected data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015; Simon, 2011). Coding the data and identifying themes based on the data, in relation to the
study’s research questions, are the prerequisites of analyzing the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The data analysis for this research involved three steps of coding interview transcripts. The
researcher used Atlas.ti 9.0 to create an electronic codebook as described by Merriam and Tisdell
(2015). The three steps of data analysis that were used for this study included identifying a priori
codes from the conceptual framework, adding open codes, and identifying the themes and
correlating to each of the research questions. The codes were categorized and linked to KMO
influences from the theoretical and conceptual frameworks.
40

Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative findings were of the utmost importance
for the principal investigator. To ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the findings from the
interviews, the study followed the protocol of peer review, reflexivity, and member checks or
respondent validation as described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016). The credibility of the study
was maintained by triangulating the interview data with the data from the document analysis. In
addition, to maintain credibility and trustworthiness, the researcher collected rich and descriptive
data from the research participants. During the interviews, the researcher followed up with
questions as appropriate to gain additional descriptions and insights from the participants.
Finally, to ensure credibility and trustworthiness, the researcher made sure that the data was
collected until a point of saturation was reached.
Document and Artifact Analysis
Glaser and Strauss (2017) described documentary materials as having the same validity
as other research methodologies such as observations and interviews. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) found public records and personal documents are two most common types of documents
used in qualitative research. Merriam and Tisdell explained public records as the official,
ongoing records of a society’s activities. Qualitative action research such as this study found
value in research-generated documents or artifacts. Glaser and Strauss (2017) offered a
perspective related to why analyzing documents and artifacts is as valid as conducting a
fieldwork:
When someone stands in the library stacks, he is, metaphorically, surrounded by voices
begging to be heard. Every book, every magazine article, represents at least one person
who is equivalent to the anthropologist’s informant or the sociologist’s interviewee. In
41

these publications, people converse, announce positions, argue with a range of eloquence,
and describe events or scenes in ways entirely comparable to what is seen and heard
during fieldwork (p. 163).
The researcher analyzed the social wealth fund documents related to benchmarking
studies, investment plans, business process and methodology documentation and organizational
updates.
Data Collection Procedures
The principal investigator collected documents from the public sources such as the U.S.
Department of Treasury website, the Library of Congress E-Resources Online Catalog, the
websites belonging to respective social wealth funds, and the virtual public and university-based
libraries. As the SWF managers were forthcoming with the data related to their funds, the
researcher didn’t have to exercise The United States Freedom of Information Act of 1966. Keen
(1992) published a study that had prepared the researcher to be aware of the benefits of the
Freedom of Information Act for sociological research, whereas Adler and Profozich (1983) had
published a user’s guide to effectively utilize the Freedom of Information Act. In addition to
documents collected from the public sources, the researcher requested for supporting documents
from two of the participants after completing the interviews.
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described data analysis as a process to explore answers to the
research questions. Glaser and Strauss (2017) posited qualitative data analysis as a comparative
process. Merriam and Tisdell described the best way to effectively analyze data was to conduct
the process concurrently with the collection of data. As soon as the process of collecting data for
the study started, the researcher organized the findings into different categories. Marshall and
42

Rossman (2016) described these categories as “baskets into which segments of texts are placed”
(p. 224). Different categories were created within a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The final data
from the study were analyzed manually. While analyzing the documents, the researcher followed
a checklist outlined by Merriam and Tisdell based on the work of Guba and Lincoln (1981) and
Clark (1967), which guided the researcher to validate the documents for authenticity and
accuracy.
Ethics and Role of Researcher
The study followed the ethical research principles, in terms of respecting the participants
by not pressuring them. The researcher believed that it was critical to communicate with the
participants that the engagement was voluntary, confidential, and anonymous. The principal
investigator did not gather any data prior to the approval from the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The study may serve the interests of the public and the entrepreneurial ecosystem,
including biotech entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. This researcher made sure that the final
research document did not include sensitive information obtained during the data collection. The
researcher is a member of the public and the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The researcher had no
relationship with the participating SWFs and the SWF managers mentioned in the study. The
researcher conducted an unbiased study, to present the findings as a field study to highlight the
practices of the SWF managers.
The researcher used the Information Sheet for Exempt Research to help participants to
plan to volunteer for the research study. The informed consent document was mandated under
the Federal regulations 45 CFR46.116. The Federal assurance policies play a critical role in
43

protecting human research subjects (Sugarman, 2000). The researcher kept the information
confidential by only sharing in a summarized version along with other answers, with no
identifiable information. Upon receiving permission from the participants, the researcher
recorded the interviews. The researcher uploaded the information to a secured server and deleted
all the information from the original devices. The researcher may keep the data indefinitely.
Furthermore, the study stored the transcription of the interviews under a pseudonym to protect
the participants’ identities. In addition, to protect confidentiality, the study took the following
measures: encrypted sensitive files, managed data access, physically secured devices, and paper
documents, securely disposed data, devices, and paper records. The participation in these studies
was voluntary, and the researcher did not pay the participants to take part in the study.

44

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with an overview of the findings from
a qualitative study designed to explore the management practices of SWFs. The findings are
based on the interviews with seven SWF managers based in the United States, conducted
between November 17, 2021 and December 23, 2021. Two sections organize this chapter. The
leading section includes the themes that emerged from the research question: What are the fund
managers’ knowledge and motivation related to managing social wealth funds to maximize the
return on investment? The second section includes the themes that emerged from the research
question: How does the organizational culture and context impact the fund managers’ capacity to
manage social wealth funds to maximize the return on investment?
Participants
Seven participants, collectively responsible for overseeing $367.7 billion in assets, agreed
to participate in hour-long interviews via Zoom. According to the Sovereign Wealth Fund
Institute, there are 12 SWFs in the United States, based out of Texas, Alaska, New Mexico,
Wyoming, North Dakota, Alabama, Utah, Oregon, Louisiana, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. The
principal investigator reached out to 15 SWF managers representing all the 12 states. Seven out
of the 15 invited SWF managers participated in the study. Out of the remaining eight invitations,
two SWF managers responded favorably. At another SWF, a Human Resources team member
processed the interview request but did not get back to the researcher with a confirmation. An
invitee in another SWF chose not to participate after initial correspondence by email, stating his
position was irrelevant as the SWF fund in his state was managed entirely by an outside
consulting corporation. Out of the two SWF managers who responded favorably, one manager
45

could not participate at the time of the request but was open to future requests. Four invitees
from those remaining did not return responses.
Because of the sensitivity of the information that the SWF managers shared and as per
the pre-interview confidentiality agreement, SWF managers' identities remained confidential. As
per Table 1, the principal investigator has given the code names for each of the seven SWF
managers, beginning with initials S, W, and F, followed by Indo-Arabic numerals 1 through 7.
The exact names, geographic location, or the exact sizes of the SWFs are not disclosed in the
study. All participants were male, ethnicity will not be disclosed for anonymity.
This study is based on eight hours of interview data and the findings from document
analysis of the 12 social wealth funds in the United States. The ATLAS.ti 9.0 software tracked a
priori codes related to the research questions based on the KMO framework. The principal
investigator generated a set of themes from the codebook next. The seven participants agreed to
follow-up meetings and member check-ins. Along with the data collected from the document
analysis, a data saturation point was reached.
Results Research Question One: What are the Fund Managers’ Knowledge and Motivation
Related to Managing Social Wealth Funds to Maximize the Return on Investment?
The purpose of the first research question was to understand how the SWF managers’
knowledge and motivation influences were related to the Social Wealth Funds' ROI. The
following sections include the findings on the SWF managers’ expertise in investment
management processes, the SWF managers’ metacognitive knowledge related to investment
activities, and the fund managers’ ability to handle due diligence processes. Additionally, the
sections cover the fund managers’ confidence level in overseeing large funds and the fund
managers’ intrinsic commitment for improving public’s outcomes.
46

Fund Managers’ Robust, Nuanced Expertise in Investment Management Processes
The interviews sought to explore the SWF managers’ levels of expertise in managing
investment processes. The analysis revealed that all seven SWF managers implemented varied
strategies to balance risk and achieve their intended goals. According to the literature review,
possessing knowledge is found to be directly proportional to achieving goals (Clark & Estes,
2008). Al-Hassan et al. (2013) found in their study that SWF management is a highly skill-
intensive process. Revealing the robust processes that his fund uses, SWF2 described the inner
working of his fund in the following manner:
There is Black Rock Ladden Management System, that we use to manage our risk. We
use Northern Trust Passport system. Northern Trust is our custodian, they are technically
the book of records for all our valuations, so we get daily group valuations in the vast
majority of our assets, highly majority, probably 70 percent. We have internal Excel
Spreadsheets and other types of models that we use, in order to keep track of everything.
But, for the most part, it is probably our Northern Trust Custodian system called
Passport. Black Rock Ladden Risk Management System is kind of what we use for doing
sensitivity analysis, to design different types of shocks to our investments.
Based on the different asset classes that his fund invests in, SWF5 described his fund’s processes
in the following manner:
We have equities, which are composed of essentially all kinds of public equities, the large
cap, small mid-cap, international and emerging market equities. That is our equity
allocation, and then we have fixed income, which is essentially, a portfolio that is
benchmarked as the Bloomberg Agg, portfolio that is the US long treasuries. We have a
portfolio of TIPS, Treasury Inflation Protected securities, and then we also invest in
47

emerging market debt in local currency, then and we have commodities, we invest in
commodities, then we have what we call alternate asset, private equity, it is real estate, it
is hedge funds.
SWF4 shared that his fund has a diversified portfolio and uses publicly traded securities out of
many of the publicly traded markets. Additionally, SWF4 explained, “In terms of modeling, we
use BlackRock Aladdin Risk management system, to model for risk, and we just use the standard
mean variation optimization model for asset allocation.” SWF7 was less forthcoming with the
details and summarized how members in his organization used Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)
to mitigate risk.
In the spirit of openness to innovation and creativity, SWF3 explained that he was more
aggressive in investing in high-risk venture capital domain and noted, “We have a private equity
allocation, and then we break that down into sub-sectors, now we are looking at the venture
space.” Six out of the seven SWF managers interviewed for this study leveraged outside
investment consultants to keep pace with the latest investment trends.
As per the comment by SWF4, the general investment management processes included
looking at the parameters such as “the experience, the background of the group… what their
philosophy is, what their approaches are, what the playing field for them is, what the opportunity
looks like” to evaluate characteristics from the viewpoint of financial outcomes. SWF5 shared
that his team made a timely investment in pharmaceutical companies during the COVID-19 as
soon as the pandemic's nationwide lockdown started. SWF5 generated strong ROI, having
invested in pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Moderna.
To generate the most ROI, given the size of his fund, which was over $50 billion, SWF7
reflected, “Venture capital funds which ranged from a half a million dollars to a billion-dollar at
48

most, was not worth the time.” SWF7 added, “We might get 25 to 30 million; that is too small
bite-size.” SWF5 explained that the 70% of his fund was co-invested with large private equity
partners. According to the findings, the fund managers balanced equity and debt investing.
SWF2 commented, “When equity markets were tanking, our debt investments were, which are
senior in capital structure, secured so we have a good position in the collateral.”
Being mindful of the need to diversify, the SWF managers reported how they excluded
investing in commodities that were already prevalent in their home states. SWF2 noted, “We
didn’t want oil, gas or commodity exposure because we have oil, gas and commodity exposures
already.” In relation to national security, SWF5 offered an insight that the state legislatures in his
state would sometimes have country-specific restrictions on the index funds they invested in.
SWF5 disclosed that the legislatures in his state restricted fund managers from purchasing bonds
and securities issued by Iran and Sudan. In other instances, the countries that did not do business
with Israel were restricted from the investment opportunities.
For some SWF funds, buying private debt was their core competency. At the time of
conducting this study, buying a private debt over $300 million was in short supply. As SWF5
would disclose later, “The Federal Reserve has been paying a lot of the corporate debt, so if
people want to buy something today, it is very difficult, because the Fed owns it.” Also, the SWF
managers interviewed for this study were buying local currency debt. The findings showed that
the SWF managers were actively involved in investment activities in emerging markets (EM)
and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) markets. SWF2 added, “We are basically all
over the emerging market; we are in China, South Africa, India, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, we are
all around the world.”
49

The interview data indicated that the SWF managers implemented a nuanced approach in
finding the most appropriate private equity company to collaborate with to realize strong ROIs.
According to SWF5, “A healthy revenue stream or an initial public offering (IPO), or potentially
having some other companies buy eventually” would be pre-requisites for picking the established
private equity company. With over $50 billion in assets, the fund managers at SWF funds
indicated additional challenges working with private equity companies. The comments from four
out of the seven fund managers reflected the same approach. In addition to these private funds
being smaller in fund size, they are not transparent with their data and investment strategies.
SWF5 shared the length that his fund would need to go to maintain a sound investment
management process when dealing with private companies. He mentioned:
You will have to really go into the private equity company and look at the books and
make copies of the book. You will have to have a photographic memory to look at it. But,
once you are investing in the company, they will open up its private company; they don’t
want to release too much of the data to the public.
The Interview data indicated that the SWF managers were continuously looking for ways to
minimize their investment portfolio risk and increase ROIs. SWF3 shared his vision, “We're
looking for something that's differentiated, something that might add value, or not necessarily
looking to just add managers, we're looking to replace managers, find somebody better.” SWF3
noted that 25% of resources were dedicated to investment in his fund's legacy funds, and 75% of
the funds were dedicated to active investment activities.
In summary, the SWF managers interviewed for this study used complex, yet effective
investment management processes, based on Modern Portfolio Management theory. The SWF
managers diversified their portfolios, making room for equity and debt investing in the private
50

sector, and indexed investing in the public sector while maintaining the process-related goals to
minimize investment risks and process-related fees and increasing ROI.
Fund Managers’ Mastery of Due Diligence Processes
The interviews intended to explore fund managers’ mastery of due diligence processes in
managing investments. All seven fund managers shared that due diligence was an integral part of
their investment management processes. To invest with a private equity company, the fund
managers reported spending six months going for a “deep dive” to make sure the validated and
the complementary funds were picked. Five out of the seven SWF managers used two different
forms of due diligence: investment due diligence and operational due diligence.
SWF2 indicated that due diligence in the public sector is “very simple,” indicating that
the public data would be readily available, whereas private equities are secretive about their data.
However, SWF7 viewed this matter differently and described strong due diligence required in
the public sector investments, as well. SWF7 explained that his team conducted over 100
meetings concerning investment strategies in the public sector. As for his views related to
investing in the private sector, SWF7 elaborated on his previous statement that General Partners
(GPs) are building funds on a recurring basis and a history of successful investment activities is
key. SWF7 explained:
Each fund requires due diligence because it is a unique instrument. So, it's continual
open-door policy talking to managers seeing what's going on, seeing who the GPs are,
where the leads are coming from, what the focus of the fund is, so I’d say that's the same
thing, whether it be public or private markets, it's just continual research on what's going
on in the marketplace.
51

The interview data demonstrated that the top performing SWF managers engaged in both the
investment and operational due diligence processes. Emphasizing the value of planning ahead,
SWF4 shared similar views as the other participating fund managers, “Our bond portfolio is
intentional.” SWF5 emphasized the value of properly designing the inputs and investment
activities and added, “We have an opportunistic credit portfolio, a lot of that is private credit.”
The fund managers at SWF funds with over 50 billion dollars in assets, shared they would spend
six months “doing a deep dive” with their private market managers. SWF3 shared his thinking
that the due diligence process should emphasize picking two or three complementary managers,
each focusing on different markets such as “upper end of the middle market” or the “lower end
of the middle market.” SWF4 stated that his fund was very client-focused and emphasized the
importance of ensuring his fund achieved the clients’ objectives.
In summary, the SWF managers’ ability to strategically break down the due diligence
processes to recognize that the vetting processes are contextually driven indicated that they had
mastered the due diligence processes, resulting in strong ROIs for their respective funds. The
SWF managers leveraged investment due diligence and operation due diligence as the two
matrices to measure the organizational investment processes' effectiveness. The interview data
revealed that the SWF managers understood that the due diligence needs for the private and the
public sectors are different.
Fund Managers’ Mixed Levels of Metacognitive Knowledge
The interview questions probed for the SWF managers’ ability to reflect on their
investment decisions. According to the data, how each SWF manager reflected on his role as a
fund manager varied widely. Two out of the seven participants operated from the agency of
leadership and explored beyond the financial parameters to bring “social good” thinking into the
52

investment processes. Three out of the seven fund managers took a neutral position and
expressed openness in considering socially good parameters for investment activities. The
remaining two participants' views contradicted with the rest and unequivocally aligned with the
perspective that the reflective course of thinking had no place in investment decisions.
SWF3 expressed in simple terms, “So, it is an evolving process.” SWF6, a manager at an
SWF with less than 50 billion dollars in assets, embraced a sense of humility and emphasized the
value of leadership thinking in his decision making, “We are also trying to learn from what other
people are doing.” Three out of the seven fund managers reasoned that investing in socially good
companies brought intrinsic motivation in them. SWF3 shared his candid views as he admitted,
“Sometimes we will look at something that is socially good, as an added benefit and quite
frankly, I think we feel good when we can do that.” Furthermore, SWF3 perpended how he
managed to convert his situational interest into individual interest, referring to his journey:
Sure, it really wasn’t something I wanted to do when I was in high school or even when I
started college. I actually started as a music major. But as I went along, you know, I got
more interested in the financial field, and my undergraduate degree was in finance and I
started working in finance. And, then when I was working on my MBA, I ended up
getting involved in investments which I found fascinating, then worked on my CFA and
move through various positions over time.
SWF7 contemplated the power of collaboration and mentorship and expressed, “It is just
amazing how much your true leaders in the industry are willing to share their wisdom,
knowledge, and experience to help bring you along.” Emphasizing the importance of avoiding
the mindset of Groupthink, SWF4 saw the opportunity to influence his fellow SWF managers by
53

believing in collaborative work, “There is nothing wrong with sharing an idea that’s not the best
idea, it is important to put it out there.”
The five out of the seven fund managers followed a stricter set of guidelines, as in
focusing on ROIs, and accepting that their personal values and perspectives did not matter.
However, the remaining two participants assured that they were deeply driven by purpose and
leadership values. For example, SWF6 recapitulated, “You also got to be thinking about how
much are we planning for the future.”
In summary, the SWF managers’ choice to reflect on their investment decisions varied
widely, with outliers choosing to either manage funds based on the investment best practices or
invest with a conscience. The first set of outliers was influenced by the regulators' compliance
parameters and the overarching legislative governance that the SWF managers believed that they
were not there to make investment decisions based on social implications. In essence, they
believed that their values and perspectives did not matter. The second set of outliers embraced an
intentional approach, following a purposeful leadership philosophy of doing what is right for the
public's good. This category of fund managers not only believed it was important for them to
look through the lens of social values, but they also felt that it was their duty as a steward of the
public’s inter-generational funds that must be conserved. SWF7 conveyed that there are only ten
to twelve social wealth funds in the United States, and these funds are responsible for safe-
guarding transformational wealth of the American citizens.
Fund Managers’ High Level of Confidence in Managing Large Funds
The interview attempted to gauge the SWF managers’ confidence in managing large
funds. All participants interviewed for this study reported that they were highly confident with
their investment activities. SWF5 explained exceptionally high confidence in his team, claiming
54

that his fund has been “around for hundreds of years. So, a lot of processes.” SWF5 divulged
further, “We have very strong processes for everything.”
SWF2 related the strong competence of his team members to high confidence levels, “As
an agency, as a group, we are all pretty adept.” In response to an inquiry related to his personal
confidence level, SWF4 said forthrightly, “Very. We are a professional outfit.” SWF6 attributed
his high level of confidence to a regimented process and client-focused culture within his fund.
Probing further, however, two out of the seven fund managers acknowledged the
concerns about making the short-term investments during the pandemic. Although SWF2 was
highly efficacious in managing the funds over a five to 10-year period, he affirmed a serious
impact that the pandemic caused on the fund managers’ confidence:
We have done a lot of crazy scenarios that the Fed has… we had to do a lot of Fed stress
tests, things that were really quite preposterous, and I am glad they never occurred, but
nobody foresaw the kind of the impact of the pandemic.
Besides the impact of the 2020 pandemic as felt by SWF2, which in his own words “was
probably the toughest shock,” all participating fund managers were highly confident in
themselves and of the teams that they managed. In the context of the new hires, SWF4 approved
of their level of confidence as well and assured, “There has been no manager that we have hired
as a new manager who has not met our expectations.” Despite the challenges brought on by the
Pandemic, SWF2 expressed a high level of confidence in terms of the results they have achieved,
“So, our 1, 3, 5, 7 numbers are all good. Our 10-year numbers are good. The process proves itself
in that regards.” SWF3 boasted “pretty deep” due diligence processes that his team follows, as
for his high level of confidence in managing large funds.
55

Commenting on the role of personal development and leadership development in shaping
confidence, SWF3 undermined the importance, “I don’t feel it’s necessary for myself and for my
staff, but I’ll just leave it there.” Another SWF manager explained that a 166-year history of his
fund prepared his team in making the right investment decisions confidently. SWF5 noted how
the independent research conducted internally and the due diligence activities performed by the
outside consultants complemented building a highly efficacious investment culture.
In summary, the interview findings highlighted that the fund managers are highly
confident, as they described that their organizations have competent staff and proven investment
processes. However, the fund managers shared a common concern that, albeit for the short term,
unforeseeable events such as the COVID-19 pandemic can hurt the confidence level of the fund
managers in the short term.
Fund Managers’ Low Priority for Social Good
The findings from the interviews revealed that two out of the seven fund managers
communicated low intrinsic commitment to invest in funds that focused on social good. They
believed that they had to operate the funds as per the strict investment guidelines mandated by
their states, without leaving any room for their own discretion. The fund managers indicated that
the “social good” aspect of the investment was not a priority for them. The participants, when
pressed whether they would invest in a company with a social-good component in the same way
they would invest in a company without it, given all the investment parameters are statistically
equal, three out of the seven responses were less enthusiastic. In contrast, the remaining two
participants simply said it would not matter.
A response from SWF7 was, “So, my own values really don’t matter. Our policy
priorities are set out in law.” SWF3 explained, “So, we do not go out with the goal of providing
56

social good, in general. Put a little asterisk on that and say, okay, if we can find an attractive
financial investment that also provides a social good, we will certainly do it.” SWF3 commented
further, “You know, maybe some of us would like to do more, if you will, social investing or
social good or not invest in certain things. That’s not what we are supposed to be doing.” Yet,
SWF5 viewed differently on this topic than SWF3, and offered a reminder to all stakeholders
that the investors would stop partnering with the SWFs if the funds were not more socially
responsible. SWF5 was optimistic about a sense of progressive thinking he had seen as of late
among his colleagues, “That’s probably one of the best things that’s happened today.”
However, the comments by six out of the seven participants reinforced the statement by
SWF3 that “socially good does not necessarily enter. It is great if it is socially good, but the
objective is to our returns,” When this interview question was framed differently, SWF4 re-
emphasized, “There would be no bias, one way or the other.” SWF7 circumvented the binary
narrative, and offered the following perspective, instead:
It’s the function of what’s held in a portfolio. If there are two different types of strategies
and let’s say they are exactly same, and you just define one a socially good and the other
one not socially good, it is the function of how they interact or how they relate to the
existing portfolio. Is it going to be a diversifier?
In another instance, it is reflective of the fund managers’ apathy on the purpose behind the roles
that they held, when SWF3 expressed, “I don’t know if anybody ever thinks they get paid as
much as they should, but I can’t complain about where I stand in the pecking order.”
In the context of assessing the SWF assets from the public policy field, SWF6 didn’t feel
that he was motivated intrinsically by the policies that his state’s legislatures crafted. He stated,
“The end of the day, ultimately, we are investors, we have to come to our conclusions based on
57

investment decisions and prudent decisions in those areas, but at the same time, we also take
direction from the policymakers.”
In summary, the interview findings revealed that there were no intentional measures or
policies on the part of the leadership stakeholders to make sure the SWF managers were
motivated intrinsically to invest in improved public outcome. As described by the participants,
this lack of awareness on the part of the legislative body pushed the SWF managers to focus on
objectively driven goals only. Furthermore, the findings revealed that a lack of appreciation from
the public is hurting the morale of the fund managers, as well.
Summary of Findings for Research Question One
The findings for the research question one revealed that the knowledge and motivation
influences of the fund managers impacted the Social Wealth Funds' ROI. The interview
responses validated a rationale that the investment management decisions are contextual and
situationally driven. Positioning the investment activities at a right time upon following rigorous
due diligence processes, is critical in securing high ROIs. Evident from the findings, the utility of
the SWF managers was higher for investment activities in the public sector versus the private
sector. The findings, however, exposed the strategies that the effectual SWF managers used to
maximize ROI in the private sector, as well.
The qualitative data revealed that the SWF managers used due diligence processes that
were intentional. The findings also divulged that accountability for the investment activities was
a formative process. Furthermore, the study unraveled that there were three types of SWF
managers: the compliance driven fund managers who strictly followed investment best practices,
the managers who were indifferent in relation to their position for reflective thinking in
investment processes, and the fund managers who operated from the agency of leadership.
58

Moreover, the study discovered that a high level of confidence among fund managers
stemmed from the SWF funds being around for a long time and the fund managers believing that
their respective SWFs followed strong processes. The fund managers credited rigorous vetting of
the funds for their high levels of confidence. The findings based on the research question one
revealed an emphasis on objectively driven goals, and the public and the legislatures not
understanding the value of a SWF has contributed to low intrinsic motivation among the fund
managers.
Results Research Question Two: How Does the Organizational Culture and Context Impact
the Fund Managers’ Capacity to Manage Social Wealth Funds to Maximize the Return on
Investment?
The purpose of the second research question was to understand how the organizational
culture and context influenced the fund managers’ capacity to manage social wealth funds to
maximize the return on investment. The following sections comprise of the findings related to
the fund managers’ perception of the states’ support for their motivation, the states’ outlook for
resource adequacy requirements of SWF managers, the states’ definition of KPIs for SWF
managers, and the states’ provision for personal and professional leadership development and
procedural training opportunities for SWF managers.
States’ Lack of Organizational Emphasis on Supporting Fund Managers’ Intrinsic
Motivation
The interview findings revealed that all seven SWF managers expressed that they were
excited and motivated when they started working as fund managers. However, the interview data
revealed that the fund managers started losing intrinsic motivation over the years of employment.
In alignment with the themes on SWF managers’ intrinsic motivation and terminal values that
59

emerged from the literature review, all seven fund managers revealed what invigorated their
innate impetus. SWF2 grew up in a blue-collar family and was the first person in his family to
graduate from college. His father was a steelworker, and the rest of his family were janitors and
greenkeepers. SWF2 attended a prestigious business school. Upon completing his business
degree, SWF2 worked for a private equity company on Wall Street. Although his newfound
wealth working for a company that focused on leveraged buyouts was intellectually fulfilling,
SWF2 yearned for a purposeful career in serving the public.
Later, SWF2 was excited to join the multi-billion-dollar social wealth fund that he
currently manages. Although he remained optimistic about his purposeful work as a fund
manager in the public sector, it was evident from the interview data and how he shared his
experience that the states failed to excel in addressing the SWF managers' intrinsic motivation. In
his own words, SWF2 conveyed the underlying motivation behind his move into the public
sector:
Late eighties or early nineties, I worked in leveraged capital; we would fund buyouts, rip
apart companies and people would lose out jobs. It was very intellectually stimulating
and can make good money on it, but you feel a little bit better if you are helping out
teachers and public employees, including myself, you know, safeguarding sovereign
wealth funds to create inter-generational equity, help keep workers compensation
insurance premiums low, which helps grow the economy in the state. That’s an easy
story, an easy stuff, and I would say we need to do a better job at paying people, and that
will come in time, and just chances are that any work that I do will benefit my successor
more than anything else, if that makes sense.
60

To give further context to the above quote, most of the SWF managers interviewed for this study
conveyed that they were intrinsically motivated when they started their careers as a SWF
manager. SWF4 expressed wholeheartedly, “That’s really all I wanted to do,” referring to his
first job as a fund manager working for a SWF in a midwestern state. To provide further context,
SWF4 elaborated the circumstances behind his motivation to work for a SWF, “I went to a
university back in the 1980s. Prior to that, we had a big inflation in really bad financial markets,
and it put the US pension system, really set that back. So, the funding levels fell, funding costs
rose.” He explained further that it was a challenging time, and he concentrated on “studying the
health or lack thereof the US Pension system” in college. He elucidated that he had been trying
to “influence the industry in a positive way.” The challenge of the fund managers as perceived
by the researcher, however, lay when it came to sustaining the same level of intrinsic motivation.
Most of the SWF managers explicated that they have had to move between multiple SWFs to
sustain their careers. Comments by SWF2, SWF3, SWF4, SWF5, and SWF7 supported the
notion that the states could do more to create an equitable, stable work environment in terms of
compensation and understanding the long-term intrinsic motivation crucial to managing funds of
these sizes.
Furthermore, the interview data revealed that the regional political economy impacted six
out of the seven fund managers' intrinsic behavior, excluding SWF7. Even though he considered
himself a technocrat, a participant who was a Democrat avowed the adverse implication of a tax
policy by the recently elected governor in his state, who was a Republican. In another instance, a
SWF manager talked openly about how the fiscally conservative policies in his state benefited
the state, which allowed the SWF managers to think long-term, which he reported as “the best
way to grow wealth is to save money as opposed to spending it.”
61

SWF3, while reflecting on the factors that held back the intrinsic motivation of the fund
managers, expounded the short-sightedness of the policymakers, “The legislature has to approve
our budget. That means they also have to approve the hiring of people …. they are often very
sticky about that, not wanting new positions.” Furthermore, SWF3 elaborated that he was aware
that some of the states were “Starting to go to some sort of incentive bonus system.” SWF3
added, “We don’t have that option. We are working on compensation.” In addition, SWF3
offered insights into how the legislature functioned in his state, “The legislature will provide
raises, but it’s usually across the board. So, there’s not much in the sense of like performance pay
or anything like that.” SWF6 shared views of the lawmakers that the leadership in his state failed
to incentivize their intrinsic motivation and were overly concerned, instead - of the fund
managers “taking additional risk with public dollars to get something for themselves.” At one
point during the interview, SWF6 showed despondency that the public in his state was unaware
of the value that his SWF brought to the state, serving as a reminder that “Social wealth funds
make billions.”
In summary, the fund managers reflected that the states lacked organizational emphasis
on supporting fund managers’ intrinsic motivation. The SWF managers shared their journey of
joining the government service with an aspiration to serve the public. However, the SWF
managers manifested signs of serious frustrations over the states’ austere objectives to focus on
generating maximum ROI, regardless of the context for investment activities and the exigencies
of the public. In the absence of the states addressing these concerns and reprioritizing objectives,
data showed that there may be little inducement for SWF managers to stay resolute in making
purposeful investments.

62

States’ Failure to Meet Resource Adequacy Requirements of Fund Managers
The interview data revealed that all seven SWF managers expressed that the legislatures
did not fully meet the fund managers' resource adequacy needs, as in providing with the number
of personnel needed to fulfill their fund management responsibilities. In accordance with the
literature review for this study, it is important for the SWF managers to have access to ancillary
resources to meet their development needs.
The interview data revealed that the states represented in this study have retention and
recruitment challenges. Primarily because of the low pay as shared by the SWF managers, two
out of the seven participants complained that the entry-level investment personnel in their funds
viewed SWFs as steppingstones for better-paying jobs elsewhere. Even the intrinsically
motivated veteran fund managers felt that their strategically driven investment activities might
not be valued. SWF2 implied cautiously that his work might not be judged based on long-term
results. Based on the interview data, it was clear that three out of the seven SWF managers did
not believe they were not being judged circumspectly, and they would be replaced before the
state had a chance to see returns on their long-term investments. The SWF managers shared that
their funds had inadequate resources to be fully effective in their roles as fund managers.
Furthermore, SWF3 confessed that a certain level of uncertainty existed, which stemmed from
the states’ lack of organizational emphasis on supporting fund managers’ need for resources to
manage SWFs.
SWF3’s quote was revealing as for how the states viewed the fund managers’ resource
adequacy needs, “I’ll just say it’s been okay. Sometimes, we do run into frictions there. It is not
uncommon that the organization will, let’s say, request six new positions; almost every time it
63

goes into legislature, they cut that down.” Furthermore, SWF3 brought up interesting dynamics
of how the states looked at the resource adequacy needs:
I would not say we were underpaid; we were understaffed. So, relative to the other peers,
we are doing better so that always created the problems, like – ‘well, you guys are doing
better than them, why do you need more staff?’ so, it was a lack of vision on the
legislators’ behalf. They are just legislatures, they don’t know any better, but the
argument was compelling enough that we are an asset management company with 110
billion dollars in asset. We should be accorded the same resources and the same tools so
that we can get to continue to do what we are doing. So, I would say we are probably
closer to the median now, we are not quite there. We are still pretty lean, but much better
off than five, six years ago.
SWF3 offered an additional perspective that the private assets in his SWF were run by outside
managers, as managing private assets required specialized expertise and resources. As for
managing the public funds internally, SWF3 shared that the compensation structure would make
it very difficult to hire internally. SWF2, another manager at a fund that handled less than 50
billion dollars in assets, shared, “when you get to a bigger plan, they will have a dedicated tech
allocation. We have never done that.”
SWF7 shared similar views as expressed by SWF3, that size of the fund was an important
factor. Since SWF7 belonged to a fund that managed over 50 billion dollars in assets, his fund
insourced public equity index funds and bond portfolio management. SWF7 offered an important
insight from the SWFs across the United States that, as of late, his peers at other US-based SWFs
are starting to bring their fund management activities inhouse, as well.
64

In summary, all participating SWF managers indicated that their SWFs were under-
supported for resources by their states. However, the SWF managers admitted that it is
contextual and situational as for when the resources to run social wealth funds are considered
adequate. The findings revealed that a decision to bring fund management activities in house,
would depend on the resources made available to the funds by the states.
States’ Lack of Clearly Defined KPIs for Fund Managers
The interview questions inquired about the ways that the states defined KPIs for SWF
managers. The data based on interviewing the seven SWF managers, including the three SWF
managers with over 50 billion dollars in assets, revealed that these fund managers had to rely on
a lot of guesswork as for the policies governing their funds and the expectations from the fund
managers. All seven fund managers agreed that the ROI's accuracy was the only KPI that was
well defined.
SWF1 expressed sentiments of the conservative leadership in his state, “You know, the
current leadership in the house and the senate are fairly fiscal conservatives and, you know, they
want to get the most bang for every penny.” SWF2 expressed the lack of proper KPI measures in
his state in the following manner:
Our private equity portfolio over a long term is not performing as well as I would like it
to be. It is largely a function of the legacy investments that we have had prior to my
arrival, so, probably, a decade ago, a very smart gentleman who did a lot of great things
in many areas, was doing some direct investing in private equity, which is really tough to
do, it was a one-man team. And, we still have some of those private equity investments
that are a bit challenged.
65

When pressed for details, SWF2 circumvented the topic, “listen, in the private market, there is a
very wide disparity between the best and the worst.”
A common theme that emerged from the topic of KPIs was that in the absence of clear
KPIs mandated by the states, the SWF managers clarified that they had no choice but to rely on
outside investment consultants. Another sentiment heard from the fund managers was that in the
absence of strong KPIs and the tolerance for long-term investments based on strategic thinking,
the fund managers at smaller funds had no choice but to choose short-term investors.
SWF2 shared the concern of the other participants, “It is really easy falling to the trap and
just do what is right in front of you. If you do that for too long, you are going to miss the big
opportunity.” Without objectively outlined KPIs, SWF5 had to keep it simple, “I just say we are
confident that we have got pretty good processes and policies in place.” When pressed for
clarification, SWF5 added, “No, they just give us restrictions in terms of, mostly related to
political issues.”
Even though KPIs that these fund managers followed were mostly general, SWF7, the
most structured fund manager among all, articulated the strict KPIs that he followed when
working with private equity partners. SWF7 articulated the ways his SWF would measure the
partners in the private equity space “GPs are coming to market with their second, third, fourth,
fifth, sixth, eighth fund and if we have had them as a GP before, chances are, we might fund the
follow-on fund.”
In summary, the findings showed that the state policies failed to define KPIs as a
measurable value. The interview data revealed that the fund managers recognized a lack of
strong KPIs mandated by the states. Repeating the sentiments of the SWF managers interviewed
for this study, a set of properly designed KPIs would offer the states an opportunity to
66

understand the SWF managers' performance and reward them accordingly to boost their intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation to increase ROI.
States’ Lack of Effective Personal and Professional Leadership Development and Training
Opportunities for Fund Managers
The interview questions examined whether and how the states provide personal and
professional leadership development and procedural training opportunities for the SWF fund
managers. SWF1, SWF3, and SWF4 shared that their states could be more aware of the context
before offering inexact personal and professional leadership development and procedural training
opportunities. Related to irrelevant training and development programs, SWF3 shared:
There are some supervisory or management classes that are available from time to time
through the State Personnel organization, State Personnel Office, excuse me, which is
separate from us. In general, I haven’t found them to be terribly helpful. We don’t do a
lot in that front, quite frankly, I am not sure if we need to, though.
SWF1 was similarly less optimistic and dismissed the state-organized training programs, “we do
have some organized processes trying to keep our staff up to speed.” Among the seven
participants, SWF2 was the most efficacious about his state’s leadership and personal
development initiatives. He stated, “I have been taking classes, on top of four investment sub-
committee meetings, it was called ADKAR, with Prosci – Awareness, Desire, Knowledge,
Ability and Re-enforcement” and believed that his state was doing a “wonderful job using team
and other virtual training mechanisms” to keep the team members focused.
As a fund manager at one of the largest social wealth funds, SWF5 shared that he has
joined the growing line of organizational leaders to support training courses. SWF5 indicated
that he has been “approving more and more web-based courses.” SWF4 explained that his fund
67

offered standard investment training programs such as CFA, the Charter Financial Analyst
program. SWF5 added that the leadership at his fund was open to encouraging members to
pursue continued education. SWF5 explained further that his CIO encouraged his team not only
to look “at training and continued education in asset classes they manage,” but also in “continued
education in terms of leadership and management, continued education in terms of leadership
and management, continued education in terms of administration.” This included courses on how
to manage individuals, which SWF5 found to be very important.
Overall, four out of seven fund managers believe that their funds were “continually”
offering training and personal development classes. The fund led by SWF2, conducted trainings
in his state after first engaging the GALLOP to do a member engagement survey. Furthermore,
SWF2 approved of the survey and explained his leadership philosophy, “We can learn from
other people’s perspectives. So, we really do attempt to encourage and engage all of our staff
members.” He added that the Governor in his state “tries to set the tone at the top, to say, let’s
make sure we engage with all of our people. We really want them to share their best ideas.”
In summary, the findings from the interviews revealed that each SWF valued trainings
and personal development programs differently. Even though six out of the seven SWF fund
managers believe in the value of learning, the fund managers were not excited about the trainings
and the personal development program their organizations currently offered. They expressed that
more work was left in the areas of training and evaluation. As a participating SWF fund manager
with a strong sense of leadership philosophy would put it, “There are some days that are tough.
But, if you stay open to change and learning, you are probably going to continue developing and
hit your peak, and that is what it is all about.”
68

Summary for Research Question Two
The themes that emerged from the research question two revealed that the organizational
culture of SWFs and the context in which the SWFs make investments, influenced the fund
managers’ capacity to manage social wealth funds to maximize the return on investment. The
principal investigator analyzed the interview data and the supporting documents, for the states’
emphasis on supporting SWF managers’ intrinsic motivation, the states’ outlook for resource
adequacy, the states’ definition of KPIs, and the states’ provision for training and development
opportunities for SWF managers.
The data showed that the state legislatures were unaware of the need to recognize the
intrinsic motivation of the SWF managers. The findings revealed that the lack of intrinsic
motivation was further exasperated by the states consistently not providing the SWF managers
with adequate resources, in terms of personnel and relevant development programs - to perform
their jobs. The findings highlighted that the state legislatures lacked a clear vision to develop
well-defined KPIs. Re-iterating the views of the SWF managers interviewed for this study, a set
of properly designed KPIs would offer the states an opportunity to understand the SWF
managers' performance and reward them at a level necessary - to invigorate their intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation.
Summary
The nine themes that emerged from the two research questions organized the chapter. The
two research questions helped the principal investigator to understand how SWF managers’
knowledge and motivation influences impacted SWFs’ ROI, and how the organizational culture
and context impacted the fund managers’ capacity to manage social wealth funds to maximize
ROI? SWF managers had resilient attitudes towards mastery of investment management
69

processes in both the public sector and the private sector investments. However, it was evident
from the findings that the fund managers under-resourced to manage private sector investments.
Also discernible from the findings was that the fund managers followed a stringent due diligence
process. Furthermore, the highly effectual SWF managers were intentional about following the
rigorous due diligence processes. The findings also uncovered that the successful fund managers
made accountability of their investment activities a formative process by embedding KPIs related
to accountability during the operational and investment due-diligence processes.
According to the data, the fund managers shared that they were highly confident partly
because of the long history of the funds that they were a part of. In addition, the data showed that
the fund managers believed that the state legislatures were oblivious of the purpose behind the
creation of SWFs and how recognizing the intrinsic motivation of the fund managers could lead
to better ROIs. Also apparent from the interviews was that the lawmakers’ lack of clear vision
led to the ill-defined KPIs.

70

Table 7
KMO Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Influence Asset or Need
Knowledge Influence 1
(Expertise in Investment Management Processes)
Knowledge Influence 2
(Identify and Manage Financial Instruments)
Knowledge Influence 3
(Metacognitive awareness)

Asset

Asset

Need

Motivation Influence 1 – Self Efficacy
(Confidence to manage large funds)
Motivation Influence 2 – Value
(Intrinsic Interest for Improved Public Outcome)

Asset

Need

Organizational Influence 1
(Policies to Identify Intrinsic Motivation)
Organizational Influence 2
(Meet resource adequacy requirements)
Organizational Influence 3
(Assess and amend KPIs)
Organizational Influence 4
(Need to offer developmental opportunities)

Need

Need

Need

Need

71

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendation
The purpose of chapter five is to present the findings of a qualitative study of social
wealth fund (SWF) managers’ practices of investment activities. The chapter focuses on the
discussion of the findings and recommendations. In addition, the chapter includes the
recommendations for practice, integrated recommendations, limitations and delimitations,
recommendations for future.
Discussion of Findings
The data demonstrated that the policies at the state and the federal levels impacted seven
out of the seven participating SWF managers. This data aligned with the literature review that the
federal and the state level policies influenced the public institutional funds such as SWFs
(Bruenig, 2018; Sorkin, 2010). As a theme for his book, Finkelstein (2006) emphasized that the
public fund investing is impacted by multiple layers of policies, yet they are “broadly stated and
nonprescriptive” (p. 14). One of the states included in the study restricted its SWF managers
from investing in the countries that are considered as the state sponsors of terrorism by the US
Government. The same state had additional policies in place to limit investment activities with
the nations that refused to conduct business with Israel.
The data revealed that seven out of the seven SWF managers were impacted by political
economy. This data contradicted the findings from the extant literature on this topic. Bruenig
(2018) positioned the domestic SWFs as economic empowerment tools and framed as such to
propose as the next big initiative to benefit the society. Although some of the SWFs were started
as and still included certain components of an economic development fund, the findings revealed
that each SWF was influenced by parameters related to the political economy of the region. As
cited in Clark et al. (2013) , Cohen (1986) contended that “high finance can no longer be kept
72

separate from high politics” (p. 3). Cohen was raising the alarm in the context of “International
Banking and American Foreign policy.” Moreover, Balding (2012) discovered that International
SWFs were immune to regulations, and political economy complemented the sustainable
competitive advantage of these International funds. The literature review laid the foundation for
this study that the International SWFs were driven by the motives other than solely generating
ROI, and the influence of political economy was widespread among the SWFs outside the US.
However, the findings from this study revealed that political economy influenced the SWF
management activities in the US, as well. At least in one instance, as disclosed by a participating
SWF manager, a SWF with over $50 billion in assets was involved in “pay-to-play” activities.
According to media reports and the interview data from this study, the affiliated state has settled
lawsuits against the involved parties and has since overhauled the due diligence processes after
the incident took place over a decade ago. To protect the identity of the participants in this study,
the researcher chose not to disclose the source of the media reports. Furthermore, the study
uncovered that the politically motivated economic activities among the leadership in some of the
states impacted the states’ policies on taxes and the strategies to diversify SWFs’ portfolios.
The data uncovered that three out of the seven SWF managers who adopted
Environmental, Social and Governance standards (E. S. G.) within their investment decisions,
secured a higher ROI, compared to the remaining SWF managers who were unconcerned about
the growing awareness of the E. S. G. The extant research on the topic has mixed findings, as
well. A study conducted between 2010 and 2017 by Bennani et al. (2018) revealed that the assets
investing in E. S. G., have produced U-shape pricing of stocks, indicating that a clear conclusion
regarding its impact on ROI could not be drawn from Bennani et al.’s (2018) research. The study
found that the adoption of E. S. G. strategy is slow in the US and being implemented by the
73

private investment advisory companies first, and it is gradually garnering the interest of the
managers in the public funds.
The data showed that the management practices of the SWF managers directly impacted
the levels at which their funds contributed to their states as a stabilization fund. Outside of the
findings from this study, the scholars have disparate perspectives on the topic. Lindset and Mork
(2019) warned that it is logical to use the proceeds of a SWF to augment government revenues
only in a developed economy with a large SWF. Even in that case, the scholars warned that this
practice could cause complications. On the other hand, the findings from the study by Kunzel et
al. (2011) are more aligned with the conclusion from this study that SWFs could play an
important role as a stabilizer fund and in appropriate position to provide the funding for the
betterment of the better public outcome.
The data revealed that all SWF managers possessed the expertise in investment
management required to build a successful SWF portfolio of companies that generated high ROI.
As per the literature review, the study by Al-Hassan et al. (2013) complemented this study that
the responsibility to manage SWFs is a skill-intensive process. Aguilera et al. (2016) pointed out
that most SWFs brought their fund management activities internally after the 2008 financial
crisis when the turbulent event forced the SWF managers to assess their risks. Further
documented in the literature by Clark et al. (2013) and Dixon and Monk (2013), the SWF
managers made the shift to save on the transaction fees and minimize risky investments in the
private sector. The data confirmed that the SWF managers brought the investment activities
internally to lower the fees. However, most of the SWF managers interviewed for this study did
not agree with the hypothesis related to the risks affiliated with the private sector investments, as
presented by Clark et al. (2013) and Dixon and Monk (2013). Instead, the study revealed that
74

most of the SWF managers saw the opportunity during the tumultuous times and pursued private
sector investment activities even more aggressively. Moreover, the SWF managers confessed
that those investment activities in the private sector generated some of the highest returns for
their funds.
Recommendations for Practice
The following section includes recommendations for the states to support the
effectualness of the SWF managers. The four recommendations included in the following
sections are related to the states’ need to meet resource adequacy needs of SWF managers, the
states’ need to assess and amend KPIs, the states’ need to expand development opportunities, and
the states’ need to support fund managers in constructing a purposeful portfolio of companies to
invest in. According to the findings, the overarching governance of SWFs varied by state.
Cabinet and non-cabinet level state agencies govern SWFs in some of the states, whereas,
diverse sub-committees within state legislatures oversee SWFs in other states. A separate section
on the integrated recommendations will follow the four recommendations.
Recommendation 1: States to Meet Resource Adequacy Requirements
This study’s data indicated that most of the SWF managers did not receive adequate
resources from the states to perform their jobs. According to Waters et al. (2003), organizational
effectiveness is directly proportional to the manner that the staff’s resource needs are being
fulfilled. Prior to allocating budget items, it is imperative that special legislative sub-committees
within the state legislatures maintain a regular communication strategy that assesses the needs of
the SWF managers. In addition, this sub-committee ought to monitor the ongoing use of
resources and investigate the possible gaps. It is the responsibility of the state governments to
corroborate that the SWF managers are also fiscally responsible. Moreover, the states need to
75

ensure that the allocation of resources are aligned with the goals of the SWFs. The research work
by Clark and Estes (2008) aligned with those of Waters et al. (2003) that allocating adequate
resources needs to be an integral component of change efforts that ensure everyone has the
resources, as in equipment, personnel and time, needed to perform their responsibilities. Instead
of making everything a priority, the state legislatures need to emphasize evidence-based
decisions to allocate resources equitably. Clark and Estes (2008) stated that for organizations to
offer adequate resources, it is important to establish strategic priorities. The research work by
Johnson (2006) revealed that the effective leaders consider equity in the resource allocation
process. Aligning with the strategies based on the principle set forth by Johnson (2006), the
states need to monitor the use of resources so that all members of the workforce, including their
own, have access to the resources that they need to perform their jobs effectively.
Recommendation 2: States to Assess and Amend KPIs
The data from the study indicated that the states did not have uniform protocols to assess
and amend Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The research work of Vroom (1964), Waters et al.
(2003) and Kluger and DeNisi (1996) postulated that organizational effectiveness increases when the
leaders use valid and reliable data to make decisions and assess key objectives. Ogunlana (2010)
stated that the traditional metrics to measure large public sector projects have severe limitations.
For large-scale projects, such as investment activities of a SWF, Ogunlana (2010) discouraged
leaders from overreliance on quantitative methods, and to find an equal if not greater value in
qualitative methods to measure the public sector led large-scale investment activities. As per the
Table 6, the researcher includes KPIs in the input, activities, and the output portions of the logic
model – to study intended outcome and understand measurable impact on SWF managers.
Shulha et al. (2016) explained that evaluating KPIs are most effective when leaders foster
76

meaningful relationships with their followers and evaluate the indicators in an environment that
is respectful, trustworthy, transparent, structured, and culturally competent, while sustaining
interactivity. The findings from this study indicate that there was a disconnection between the
SWF managers and the overarching legislative body. In their study on evidence-based
performance indicators, Shulha et al. (2016) summarized the theme of a collaborative evaluation,
“We may be the evaluation experts, but they are subject matter ‘program content’ experts and
both are very important” (p. 201).
With frequent changes in the expectations of performance indicators that come with the
change in the state leadership, this study’s findings revealed that the SWF managers would be
required to adopt to a new change situation, instead of the fund managers getting an opportunity
to lead. As Patton (1990) described, “Change is not necessarily progress. Change is adaptation”
(p. 41). It is imperative that the states design the inputs and activities for SWF managers properly
in a formative manner - to generate the outcomes that reflect the purposeful change that is
intentional.
Recommendation 3: States to Expand Development Opportunities
The data revealed that most of the states were not aware that they did not offer relevant
development programs for the SWF managers. Farrell and Marsh (2016) highlighted that
measuring the learning process is crucial in decision-making processes. The apposite training
and development programs can help in building sound accountability systems, and measured
accountability systems lead to improvement in organizational performance. Most of the SWF
managers who participated in the study believed that the level of development opportunities that
their states have provided them is neither adequate nor relevant.
77

The states need to measure the relevancy of their development programs and only keep
the programs that add value to increasing the effectiveness of SWF managers. Dowd and Shieh
(2013), and Golden (2006) added that to develop an effective learning process, the systems of
accountability should address how learning is measured. This study revealed that the
stakeholders in the public policy arena, as in legislatures and local and federal regulatory bodies,
focused on the traditional evaluation model, which has been primarily a compliance driven
process.
Recommendation 4: States to Support Fund Managers in Constructing a Purposeful
Portfolio
The data from the study revealed that the participating SWF managers did not receive
consistent support from their states in the process of constructing a purposeful investment
portfolio. Further, the data suggested that the SWF managers yearn for encouragement from their
states to invest in purposeful projects with the better public outcome. In the literature review, the
study by Lavigna (2013) warned that the government agencies that implement one-size-fits-all
policies to foster intrinsic motivation can lead to 20% loss in productivity. Because of the
distinctive purpose of the SWFs to generate ROI, while being accountable to the public, the
states need to craft a plan specifically for the governance of SWFs. This plan ought to include a
guide that supports SWF managers in constructing a purposeful portfolio.
One way to do so is by addressing how the SWF managers are influenced in terms of
knowledge, motivation and policies governing their fund management practices. The states may
consider adopting organizational change theories and development models such as the nudge
theory and ADKAR, as highlighted by Gilani et al. (2018). Furthermore, the states need to
explore additional development models such as Viable System Model and Lewin’s Three-Stage
78

model of Change (Burnes & Bargal, 2017; Espejo & Harnden, 1990). These theories and models
can help understand how SWF managers are being influenced in the context of sense making
theories, scientific management theories and theories of culture.
The Nudge theory focuses on the feelings related to the need for change, instead of
imposing a rational explanation for the need to change, as documented in the case studies by
Murakami and Tsubokura (2017). Constructing a purposeful portfolio is an intentional effort on
the part of SWF managers. The study revealed that all the participating SWF managers have the
necessary knowledge and skills to perform their assigned jobs, but whether they will choose to
reflect deeply prior to making an investment decision is explained further by the Eccles and
Wigfield’ (2000) expectancy value theory. Knowles (1980) believes that adults respond better,
when they see the relevance of the information, request, or task. As in the case of the SWF
managers from this study, the leaders who are intrinsically motivated, yet when their espoused
values do not align with the organization’s culture, they will not be successful as a leader
(Schein, 1980).
Additionally, regarding learning and motivation, Pajares (2006) explained that learning
and motivation are increased when learners have high task-related expectancy for success. The
states need to recognize and value personal interest that the SWF managers bring to the
organization. The study by Schraw and Lehman (2009) highlighted that activating and building
upon personal interest leads to an increase in learning and motivation. Yough and Anderman
(2006) shared similar research that positive motivation is a byproduct of emphasizing on
mastery, personal development, learning and progress.
79

Integrated Recommendations
The purpose of this section is to present a summary of the four recommendations and
recommend an evaluation plan based on the Kellogg Logic Modeling in Table 6. The Logic
Model addresses the input, activities, output, outcome, and output parameters based on the
findings from this study – focusing on the need for the states to meet resource adequacy
requirements, assess and amend KPIs, expand development opportunities, and to support fund
managers in constructing a purposeful portfolio. Hernandez (2000) described the Logic model as
a source to help organizations study both the outcome and outcome-relevant information.
Frechtling (2007) outlined the Logic Model as a contextually driven tool that “describes the
theory of change underlying an intervention, product, or policy” (p. 1). Moreover, Frechtling
(2007) believed that the model can be transformative when used thoughtfully, and in a proper
context. However, the scholars in the field, including Frechtling (2007) have expressed
reservations on the value of the Logic model. In another study, Miller (2013) controverted a full
efficacy of the evaluation model, implying that the model is primarily useful for comparing
evaluation theories, and not appropriate for assessing evaluation theories. Upon evaluation of the
varied dimensions of the findings on the utility of the Logic model, and in the context of the
philosophical underpinnings of this qualitative study, the researcher acceded the findings by
Hernandez (2000) and Frechtling (2007) and decided to focus on the utility of the Logic model
as a broad strategic measure: to assess and recommend the “outcome-relevant information.”
Based on the findings of this study, four recommendations are put forth using Logic
model. The four recommendations, as elaborated in the earlier section of this chapter, include
meeting the resource adequacy needs of SWF managers, assessing and amending KPIs,
expanding development opportunities and helping the states to support fund managers in
80

constructing a purposeful portfolio. It is recommended that the states use the Logic model to
outline “activities” based on these four recommendations. Next, the states would need to include
the results from the four recommendations in the “output” section. The “input” section includes a
list of resources required to accomplish the established set of activities. Moreover, an effective
“outcome” section is contingent upon the states choosing to fulfill the four activities, in a time
span of one to three years. The “impact” column includes the intended impactful changes that the
states could accomplish in seven to 10 years.
The literature review in chapter three indicated that enhancing the effectiveness of a SWF
required that the states or nations where the SWFs are located, periodically assess, and amend
key performance indexes (KPIs) of the public sector led investment projects. Ogunlana (2010)
conducted a study and found that the traditional metrics to measure large public sector
investments had limitations. The study by Ogunlana (2010) revealed that the traditional
performance measures could contribute to depriving the public sector fund managers from
bringing the social good variables in the investment decision-making processes. The Logic
model offers the states an opportunity to assess their current performance metrices effectively, as
well as to amend the existing KPIs – based on the long-term intended impact of the SWF fund
management activities.
The roles of the SWF managers demand cognitive skills and mastery in institutional
investments at both the strategic and the tactical levels. Understanding the knowledge,
motivation and organizational policy influences of the fund managers means that the political
stakeholders and the public can address those needs and support the SWF managers in
constructing a purposeful portfolio of companies. The recommendations included in this chapter,
if used in the appropriate context, will lead to the better management of public assets, and
81

maximize the utility of the ROI in projects and initiatives that generate higher public outcome,
such as a cure for cancer, better public schools, secured retirement for teachers and public
servants, and healthcare subsidies for the elderly.

Table 8
Management Practices of Social Wealth Funds: A Logic Model
Resources Activities Output Outcome Impact

Needs and Resource
Assessments

Outline of Intended
Results (checklist – based
on useability and
reliability parameters –
ways to measure ROI)

Blueprint of Alternative
Measures
(checklist – measurements
for intended results)

Composite Indices

Performance Measures
(Data definition tables)

A Plan to set Targets and
Thresholds (Desired
performance level)

Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis to bring private
fund management in-
house

Economic Feasibility
Analysis of bringing
private fund management

States to meet
resource
adequacy
requirements

States to assess
and amend
KPIs

States to
expand
development
opportunities

States to
support fund
managers in
constructing a
purposeful
portfolio

Needs assessment
report, including
Migration Strategy

Effectiveness of
intended results

Effectiveness of
alternative measures

Composite Indices

Performance measures

A Plan for Targets and
Thresholds

Data on different
dimensions of the
objective’s intended
results

A Plan with a clear
indication of how the
funds are performing

Perspective regarding
opportunity cost to bring
private investment
activities in house.

1 -3 years

Higher
investments
in
education,
healthcare,
and cancer
research

Increased
collaboratio
n with
biotech
venture
funds

4 -6 years

Higher ROI
from the
private
sector
investment

Increase in
ROI from
the public
sector
investments

7 -10
years

Quality of
healthcare

Improved
health
outcomes
and equity

Higher
sustainabil
ity and
social
impact

Reduction
in cancer
mortality
rate

82

activities in house.

Structural Feasibility
analysis to bring private
fund management
activities in house

Operational Feasibility

Analysis to bring private
fund management
activities in house

Economic Analysis of
inhouse private sector
investment by SWFs

Cost-Utility analysis on
inhouse investing
activities in the public
sector versus the private
sector

Diversity Index
Equity Index

E.S.G. checklist

Analysis of competitive
scenarios, in-house
investment in the public
versus private sectors

Recommendation for
Structural Feasibility
analysis, as in how the
solution will fit into
existing structure.

Analysis on the inside
operations on how a
deemed process will
work.

Economic analysis
report on the study of
the process as for how
funds are invested in the
context of effectiveness
for ROI.

Cost-utility report on
how procurement
decisions are made.

Recommendations for Future Research
The literature review included in chapter two and the research findings section from
chapter four asserted that there is an opportunity for SWF stakeholders to work together to serve
the public. There is a transformational leadership opportunity for the states and the SWF
managers to work in tandem to solve the pressing societal challenges as mentioned above. This
qualitative study to understand the management practices of social wealth funds only marginally
introduced the many areas on which future researchers can build. Further research ideas could
83

include the following: a comparative study on the impact of incentives on SWF managers
belonging to different asset classes; an exploration of the relationship between varied knowledge
levels of the domestic and international SWF managers in relation to the effectiveness of their
funds; the impact of SWF managers’ sensemaking and Leadership in investment decisions, an
exploration of risk-taking and risk aversive behaviors of SWF managers, the economics of social
wealth funds.
Limitations and Delimitations
Simon (2011) described limitations as the potential weaknesses in the study that are
beyond the control of a researcher. On the other hand, a researcher has control of the study’s
delimitations. According to Simon, delimitations are those factors that limit the scope of the
research and can define the boundaries of a study. The study was limited by virtue of there being
a small population of potential participants. In addition, the study assumed limitations in terms of
truthfulness of the collected data. The researcher made the intentional choice to conduct a
qualitative study, and introduce limitations, in relation to picking a purposeful sample of only
seven SWF managers. The researcher had no control over the SWF managers’ level of candor
and the knowledge related to the capabilities necessary to make effective strategic decisions to
pick the right portfolio companies. However, as the delimitations, the researcher had control over
the methodological framework, research objectives, and research questions. Furthermore, the
researcher had control over inclusion and exclusion criteria, as in defining the specific population
of SWF managers for this study.
Conclusion
Within the overarching state-level public policy field, the study included the findings
from a qualitative research of SWF managers practices of investment activities. The study
84

uncovered that SWFs have no uniform culture. The SWF investment activities are contextually
and situationally driven by no one set of rules. The SWF managers do not follow the standard
institutional investment guidelines and are considered the leaders in the institutional investment
management domain. Consequently, the SWF managers have in their discretion the capacity to
guide the trajectory of the asset management practices. The SWF managers use innovative
methods to invest in equity, debt, and alternative assets. However, the states do not always
provide the SWF managers with the resources that they need.
This study revealed that the SWF stakeholders from the public policy field, as in the
legislatures and the local and federal regulatory bodies focused on the compliance-driven
traditional evaluation model only. As a result, these regulatory bodies appear to be missing the
opportunity to embed developmental evaluation measures around SWF managers’ shared values.
The SWF managers are also missing an opportunity to include relevant training and leadership
development programs. Based on the study, there is a need for all stakeholders within the SWF
ecosystem to come together, guided by the transformational leadership philosophy and build
robust development measures and tracking mechanisms. Furthermore, based on the findings and
the literature review, the study revealed that the SWF managers are in a unique position to lead
with an agency of the “transformational leadership.” This crucial stakeholder group has an
opportunity to choosing to make the lasting impact on the generations to come, by helping to
tackle pressing challenges in the society - ranging from funding education, healthcare research to
fighting climate change, and tackling public health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

85

References
Adler, A., & Profozich, A. (1983). Using the Freedom of Information Act: A step by step guide.
Center for National Security Studies.
Aguilera, R. V., Capapé, J., & Santiso, J. (2016). Sovereign wealth funds: A strategic governance
view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(1), 5-23.
Alhashel, B. (2015). Sovereign wealth funds: A literature review. Journal of Economics and
Business, 78, 1-13.
Al-Hassan, A., Papaioannou, M. M. G., Skancke, M., & Sung, C. C. (2013). Sovereign wealth
funds: Aspects of governance structures and investment management. International
Monetary Fund.
Aspromourgos, T. (2008). The science of wealth: Adam Smith and the framing of political
economy. Routledge.
Balding, C. (2012). Sovereign Wealth Funds: The new intersection of money and politics. Oxford
University Press.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager
sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523-549.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1988). Organizational applications of social cognitive theory. Australian Journal of
Management, 13(2), 275-302.
Bandura, A. (2000). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness.
Handbook of principles of organization behavior.
86

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.
Ben‐David, Itzhak, Franzoni, F., Landier, A., & Moussawi, R. (2013). Do hedge funds
manipulate stock prices? The Journal of Finance, 68(6), 2383-2434.
Bennani, L., Le Guenedal, T., Lepetit, F., Ly, L., Mortier, V., Roncalli, T., Sekine, T. (2018).
How ESG investing has impacted the asset pricing in the equity market.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3316862
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New directions for higher education, 2005(131), 99-111.
Boubakri, N., Cosset, J. C., & Grira, J. (2016). Sovereign wealth funds targets selection: A
comparison with pension funds. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions
and Money, 42, 60-76.
Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: what’s the difference? Journal of
management studies, 39(1), 97-122.
Bruenig, M. (2018). Social Wealth Fund for America. People’s Policy Project.
Burke, J. C. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. Jossey-Bass.
Burnes, B., & Bargal, D. (2017). Kurt Lewin: 70 years on. Journal of Change Management,
17(2), 91-100.
Caporaso, J. A., & Levine, D. P. (1992). Theories of political economy. Cambridge University
Press.
87

Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. D. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why? Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 5(2), 171-177.
Castelli, M., & Scacciavillani, F. (2012). The new economics of sovereign wealth funds (Vol.
658). John Wiley & Sons.
Chevalier, J., & Ellison, G. (1999). Are some mutual fund managers better than others? Cross‐
sectional patterns in behavior and performance. The Journal of Finance, 54(3), 875-899.
Chhaochharia, V., & Laeven, L. (2008). Sovereign wealth funds: Their investment strategies
and performance. CEPR Discussion Paper, (6959).
Chidester, M. (2019). Lecture Unit 8: Accountability and Resource Adequacy [PowerPoint].
University of Southern California EDUC 522. https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu
Clark, C. (1967). The conditions of economic progress. (n.p.)
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing.
Clark, G. L., Dixon, A. D., & Monk, A. H. (2013). Sovereign wealth funds: Legitimacy,
governance, and global power. Princeton University Press.
Cohen, B. J. (1986). In whose interest? international banking and American foreign policy. Yale
University Press.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Harvard.
Cunningham, A. L., Anderson, T., Bennett, C. C., Crabb, B. S., Goodier, G., Hilton, D., Koff, E.,
Trapani, J. (2015). Why Australia needs a medical research future fund. Medical Journal
of Australia, 202(3), 123-124.
D'Andrade, R. (1991). The identification of schemas in naturalistic data. (n.p.).

Dixon, A. D., & Monk, A. H. (2013). Will collaboration and co-investment gain ground?
88

Sovereign Wealth Fund Annual Report 2012.
Dowd, A.C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to assess
community college performance. University of Massachusetts, Lumina Foundation for
Education.
Dowd, A. C., & Shieh, L. T. (2013). Community college financing: Equity, efficiency, and
accountability. The NEA almanac of higher education, 37-65.
Eccles, J. S. & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 109-132.
Espejo, R., & Harnden, R. (1990). The viable system model. Systems practice, 3(3), 219-221.
Fang, Y., & Wang, H. (2015). Fund manager characteristics and performance. Investment
Analysts Journal, 44(1), 102-116.
Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2016). Metrics matter: How properties and perceptions of data
shape teachers’ instructional responses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3),
423-462.
Finkelstein, B. (2006). The politics of public fund investing: How to modify wall street to fit main
street. Simon and Schuster.
Firzli, M. N. J., & Franzel, J. M. (2014). Non-federal sovereign wealth funds in the United
States and Canada: Public asset accumulation and investment in developed economies
(Fonds Souverains d’Amérique du Nord: Accumulation de Capital et Choix
d’Investissement). Revue Analyse Financière, No. 52, 1-3.
Fisk, N., Grounds, M. M., Chairman, V. C., & McCluskey, J. (2014). Australia’s medical
research sector advocates for the Medical Research Future Fund. Australasian
BioTechnology, 24(3).
89

Fotak, V., Gao, J., & Megginson, W. L. (2013). The financial role of sovereign wealth funds.
The Oxford handbook of corporate governance.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Penguin.
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation (Vol. 5). John Wiley &
Sons.
Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C. N., & Weisner, T. S. (1993). The social construction and
subjective reality of activity settings: Implications for community psychology. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 21(4), 537-560.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Georgellis, Y., Iossa, E., & Tabvuma, V. (2011). Crowding out intrinsic motivation in the public
sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 473-493.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq073
Gilani, H. R., Kozak, R. A., & Innes, J. L. (2018). A Change management model for the
adoption of chain of custody certification in the British Columbia value-added wood
products sector. Journal of Change Management, 18(3), 240-256.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Routledge.
Golden, B. (2006). Transforming healthcare organizations. Healthc Q, 10(10-9), 4.

Golec, J. H. (1996). The effects of mutual fund managers' characteristics on their portfolio
performance, risk and fees. Financial Services Review, 5(2), 133-147.
Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic
90

Perspectives, 15(2), 145-168.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of
evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass.
Gubrium, J. F., Holstein, J. A., Marvasti, A. B., & McKinney, K. D. (Eds.). (2012). The SAGE
handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft. Sage Publications.
Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014). Why leadership-development programs fail.
McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 121-126.
Haberly, D. (2011). Strategic sovereign wealth fund investment and the new alliance
capitalism: A network mapping investigation. Environment and Planning A, 43(8), 1833-
1852.
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to
the “COR” understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory.
Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334-1364.
Hatton, K., & Pistor, K. (2011). Maximizing autonomy in the shadow of great powers: The
political economy of sovereign wealth funds. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 50, 1.
Hernandez, M. (2000). Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability.
Education and Treatment of Children, 24-40.
Higgins, G. E. (2007). Digital piracy: An examination of low self-control and motivation using
short-term longitudinal data. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(4), 523-529.
Hoskisson, R. E., Shi, W., Yi, X., & Jin, J. (2013). The evolution and strategic positioning of
private equity firms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(1), 22–38.
Ibert, M., Kaniel, R., Van Nieuwerburgh, S., & Vestman, R. (2018). Are mutual fund managers
paid for investment skill? The Review of Financial Studies, 31(2), 715-772.
91

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective
on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
Johnson, L. A. (2006). The effect of audit scope and auditor tenure on resource allocation
decisions in local government audit engagements. Accounting Forum, 30 (2), 105-119.
Kautz, K., Pedersen, C. F., & Monrad, O. (2009). Cultures of agility–agile software
development in practice. The 20th Australasian Conference on Information.
Keen, M. F. (1992). The Freedom of Information Act and sociological research. The American
Sociologist, 23(2), 43-51.
Khojasteh, M. (1993). Motivating the private vs. public sector managers. Public Personnel
Management, 22(3), 391-401.
Kirshner, J. (2009). Sovereign wealth funds and national security: The dog that will refuse to
bark. Geopolitics, 14(2), 305-316.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminary feedback intervention theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 255-284.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy
(revised and updated). Cambridge Adult Education.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage
publications.
Kumar, A. E. (1998). The influence of metacognition on managerial hiring decision making:
92

Implications for management development (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University). http://hdl.handle.net/10919/30644
Kunzel, P., Lu, Y., Petrova, I. K., & Pihlman, J. (2011). Investment objectives of sovereign
wealth funds-a shifting paradigm (IMF No. 11/19). International Monetary
Fund.
Lansley, S. (2015). How social wealth funds could help tackle inequality. The Political
Quarterly, 86(4), 563-572.
Lavigna, R. (2013). Engaging government employees: Motivate and inspire your people to
achieve superior performance. Amacom.
Leachman, M., Masterson, K., & Figueroa, E. (2017). A punishing decade for school funding.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29.
Lee, J. S., Yen, P. H., & Chen, Y. J. (2008). Longer tenure, greater seniority, or both,
evidence from open-end equity mutual fund managers in Taiwan. Asian Academy of
Management Journal of Accounting & Finance, 4(2), 1-20.
Lindset, S., & Mork, K. A. (2019). Risk taking and fiscal smoothing with sovereign wealth funds
in advanced economies. International Journal of Financial Studies, 7(1), 4.
List of U.S. states by Sovereign Wealth Funds. (2020, May 17). In Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_sovereign_wealth_funds
Lutz, C. (1987). Goals, events, and understanding in ifaluk emotion theory. Cultural models in
language and thought, 290.
Maddux, J. E., Norton, L. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (1986). Self-efficacy expectancy, outcome
expectancy, and outcome value: Relative effects on behavioral intentions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4), 783-789.
93

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research (6th ed.). Sage.
Maslow, A. (1954). H.(1954). Motivation and personality. Harper and Row.
Matthews, C. R. (2006). The early years of the Permanent University Fund from 1836 to 1937
(Doctoral dissertation). https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Miller, R. L. (2013). Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation
practice? Evaluation and program planning, 38, 77-80.
Murakami, M., & Tsubokura, M. (2017). Evaluating risk communication after the Fukushima
disaster based on nudge theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 29(2).
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2020). FY 2020 State budget status. ncsl.org
Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance
indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-236.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence. Self-efficacy beliefs of
adolescents, 5, 339-367.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry: A personal,
experiential perspective. Qualitative social work, 1(3), 261-283.
Pece, C. (2020). State government R&D expenditures decline 4% in FY 2019; Health-related
R&D declines 2%. NSF. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21300
Quinn, N., & Holland, D. (1987). Culture and cognition. Cultural models in language and
94

thought, 1.
Robertson, I. T., & Sadri, G. (1993). Managerial self‐efficacy and managerial performance.
British Journal of Management, 4(1), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8
8551.1993.tb00160.x
Sadri, G., & Bowen, C. R. (2011). Meeting employee requirements: Maslow's hierarchy of needs
is still a reliable guide to motivating staff. Industrial Engineer, 43(10), 44-49.
Sahlman, W. A. (1990). The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations. Journal
of financial economics, 27(2), 473-521.
Sarason, S. B. (1972). The creation of settings and the future societies. Brookline.
Schein, E. H. (1980). Organizational psychology. Prentice-Hall.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. (n.p.).
Shore, B. (1998). Culture in mind: Cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford
University Press.
Shulha, L. M., Whitmore, E., Cousins, J. B., Gilbert, N., & Al Hudib, H. (2016). Introducing
evidence-based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Results of an
empirical process. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 193-215.
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 Ed.).
Dissertation Success, LLC.
Sloan, M. M. (2014). The consequences of emotional labor for public sector workers and the
mitigating role of self-efficacy. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(3),
274-290.
Sorkin, A. R. (2010). Too big to fail: The inside story of how Wall Street and Washington fought
95

to save the financial system--and themselves. Penguin.
Steiner, P. (2003). Physiocracy and French pre-classical political economy. A Companion to the
History of Economic Thought, 61-77.
Sugarman, J. (2000). The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects.
Academic Medicine, 75(7), 687-692.
SWF Institute. (2019). Top 100 largest fund rankings by total assets. Swfinstitute.org
Texas State Teachers Association, & Cooper, L. B. (1934). The Permanent School Fund of
Texas. Texas State Teachers Association.
Truman, E. M. (2009). A blueprint for sovereign wealth fund best practices. Revue D'economie
Financiere, 9(1), 429-451.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.
Waters, T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. (2003). Balanced leadership. McREL.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a
literature review. MIS quarterly.
Weisner, T. S. (1984). Ecocultural niches of middle childhood: A cross-cultural perspective.
Development During Middle Childhood: The Years From Six to Twelve, 335-369.
Widerquist, K., & Howard, M. (Eds.). (2012). Alaska’s permanent fund dividend: Examining its
suitability as a model. Springer.
William A. Sahlman, (1990), The structure and governance of venture-capital
organizations, Journal of Financial Economics, 27, (2), 473-521.
Williams, R. (2013). Why leadership development fails to produce good leaders. Psychology
Today, https://www.Psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success//201310/why-
leadershipdevelopment-fails-produce-good-leaders
96

Yi-Chong, X. (2010). The political economy of sovereign wealth funds. The Political
Economy of Sovereign Wealth Funds (pp. 1-25). Palgrave Macmillan.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. (n.p.).
Zhou, Z. (2010). Impact of academic experience in economics on risk preferences and
rationality: An empirical investigation. (n.p.).

97

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Interview Opening Remarks
I really appreciate you for agreeing to participate in this study. This study is a part of my
Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) in Organizational Change and Leadership with the University of
Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education. My primary problem of practice is
related to understanding the effectiveness of social wealth funds in Public-Private Investment for
cancer research. The interview is expected to take around one hour. The interview has 18
questions, and there are no right or wrong answers. Please feel free to skip any question you
don’t feel comfortable to answer and stop the interview at any time.
I will keep all your information confidential and will only share in a summarized version
along with other answers, with no identifiable information. With your permission, I would like to
record the interview for reference purposes. Upon completion of this session, I will upload the
recording to a secure server and delete it from the original device. I will store your transcription
under a pseudonym to protect your identity.
Do I have your permission to record the interview?
Do you mind if I take notes for future references?
Do you have any questions before I start this interview?
Please review the Information Sheet created for this study. Again, thank you for agreeing
to take part in this interview.

Interview Questions
1. What were the job responsibilities in your previous role? (RQ 1; Procedural knowledge)
98

2. What types of financial instruments and models do you use? Can you describe how they
are relatable to instruments used in the private equity industry? (RQ 1; Procedural
knowledge)
3. How well do you feel positioned to manage financial instruments? (RQ 1; Motivation)
4. How comfortable are you with the protocols and processes to manage a large fund? (RQ
2; self-efficacy)
5. How would you describe the due diligence process of picking portfolio companies in
which you invest? (RQ 1; Procedural knowledge)
6. How well do you feel that the social wealth fund that you currently manage is positioned
to invest in private sector led cancer research? (RQ 2; efficacy)
7. Could you give examples of your investment in a portfolio of public versus private
companies? (RQ 1; Declarative knowledge)
8. Can you walk me through how you make decisions about investing in public companies
versus private companies? (RQ 1; Procedural and metacognitive knowledge)
9. Research has shown that after the 2008 financial crisis, social wealth funds have moved
away from investing in private companies. Some would say that it is a bad idea. What
would be your response to that? (RQ 1; Value)
10. In the context of your responsibilities, how would you prioritize investment in healthcare
projects such as cancer research? (RQ 1; Value)
11. How might you go about articulating the steps necessary for a private biotechnology
venture capital fund to be included in the investment by your fund? (RQ 1; Procedural
knowledge)
99

12. In what ways does your organization motivate fund managers to grow the fund? (R3;
O/E)
13. Why do you manage social wealth funds? How is your compensation and recognition
aligned, if at all, with your motivation for your work? (R3; motivation)
14. In what ways, if at all, does your organization respond to the adequacy of resources in
order to help you manage funds effectively to maximize return on investments? (R3;
O/E)
15. In what ways, if at all, does your organization conduct management and leadership
training to help you maximize return on investments? (R3; O/E)
16. What are the processes that your organization uses to assess and amend K.P.I.s?
(R3; O/E)
17. In what ways, if any, do your own values align when you make social wealth fund
investments? (R1; Value, intrinsic)

100

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH

STUDY TITLE: Management Practices of Social Wealth Funds

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Jay Maharjan

FACULTY ADVISOR: Helena Seli, Ph.D.

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 practices of Social Wealth Fund managers. You are
invited as a possible participant because you are a fund administrator of a social wealth fund or a
large public investment fund.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMEN
101

If you decide to take part, you will be asked to participate in an interview in person or online.
The interview is expected to last for one hour. You are not obligated to answer all the questions.
You can request to stop the interview at any time.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.

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 results of the research are published
or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. The information will be
kept confidential by only sharing in a summarized version along with other answers, with no
identifiable information. With the permission of the participants, the interviews may be recorded.
The information will be uploaded to a secured server and deleted from the original device. The
transcription of the interviews will be stored under a pseudonym to protect the participants’
identities. The data may be kept indefinitely. Immediately after the interview session, the
information will be uploaded to a secure server and permanently deleted from the original
device.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Jay Maharjan, maharjan@usc.edu,
626-354-2136, Faculty advisor: Helena Seli, Ph.D., helena.seli@rossier.usc.edu.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
102

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.

103

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol
The researcher plans to leverage document analysis to understand the experience and
practice of SWF managers. Not all necessary documents are available publicly. Some of the
documents will need to come from the participants. The documents will include the
qualifications of the SWF managers, the types of resources the managers have access to in order
to improve competency and the compensation means that these funds are used to keep its
managers intrinsically motivated. Prior to exploring relevant documents, per above, the
researcher will use the following checklist to validate the documents for accuracy and
authenticity, as outlined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) citing Guba and Lincoln (1981) and
Clark (1967).
1. What is the history of the documents?
2. Is the document complete, as originally constructed?
3. Has it been tampered with or edited?
4. If the document is genuine, under what circumstances and for what purposes was it
produced?
5. Who was/is the author?
6. What was he trying to accomplish? For whom was the document intended?
7. What was/is the maker’s bias?
8. What were the maker’s sources of information? Does the document represent an
eyewitness account, a secondhand account, a reconstruction of an event long prior to
the writing, an interpretation?
104

9. Do other documents exist that might shed additional light on the same story, event,
project, program, context? If so, are they available, accessible? Who holds them? (p.
238-239)
Document analysis will be guided by the following questions:
1. What do the documents reveal about the quality and the frequency of investment
management and leadership training being offered to social wealth fund managers?
2. What do the documents reveal about the effect of political economy on the decisions
that fund managers make, especially with their decisions to invest in private versus
public companies?
3. What do the documents reveal about the fund managers’ choices to invest in the
private versus public companies?
4. What do the documents reveal about the fund managers’ decisions to invest in private
biotechnology venture capital funds?
5. What do the documents reveal about the way fund managers are compensated based
on a geographical region? In other words, what is the compensation model of social
wealth managers in the US? How does the geography impact the way fund managers
are compensated? (e.g., what is the difference in compensation for fund managers in
Texas versus Alaska)?
6. What do the documents reveal about the performance indicators (KPIs) being used to
evaluate the performance of fund managers?

105

Appendix D: Participant Responses to Knowledge Influences
Interview Questions Participant Comments
What types of
financial instruments
and models do you
use? Can you
describe how they
are relatable to
instruments used in
the private equity
industry?
(Procedural
knowledge)

“We are going to base it upon their track record, with their 5 -10-year
track record.” – SWF2

“we have a private equity allocation and then we break that down into
sub sectors. ”- SWF3

“We don’t target it, we will certainly look at the company, look at the
sector, and we would look at what the position of the company is,
relative to the sector, by sector.” – SWF5

“I would say that venture capital is an area that we don’t really get
into, because bite size is too small. Our fund is large.” – SWF7

“We use consultants in that space, 70 percent or so outsourcing is
done by the consultants.” – SWF11
Could you give
examples of your
investment in a
portfolio of public
versus private
companies?
(Declarative
knowledge)

“In the US, we invest in the index funds period.” - SWF3

“In public companies, we have index portfolios. So, that is the core
competence. We buy private debt. We buy local currency debt. We are
basically all over the emerging market.” – SWF5

“whether it be public or private markets. It's just continual research on
what's going on in the marketplace.” – SWF7
Can you walk me
through how you
make decisions
about investing in
public companies
versus private
companies?
(Procedural and
metacognitive
knowledge)

“We have index portfolios. So, the state legislature occasionally will
put a restricted lists, in the things we can purchase. We purchase debt
of whole private companies.” – SWF

“There would have to be a history of responsibility and performance
from another fund, there is also the associated infrastructure, needs to
be associated experience with everything else, as well.” – SWF7

“well, that would start at the asset allocation level, making that
decision, how much revenue centers. And then we just hire a
manager.” – SWF11

“There would have to be a history of responsibility and performance
from another fund, there is also the associated infrastructure, needs to
be associated experience with everything else, as well.” – SWF7
106

“well, that would start at the asset allocation level, making that
decision, how much revenue centers. And then we just hire a
manager.” – SWF11
How might you go
about articulating the
steps necessary for a
private
biotechnology
venture capital fund
to be included in the
investment by your
fund? (Procedural
knowledge)

“We are going to base it upon their track record, with their 5 -10-year
track record, so we are probably not the best at identifying the newest
emerging managers if that makes sense. I know we could do better if
we did. But we are not staffed to do it.” – SWF2

“we have a private equity allocation and then we break that down into
sub sectors. We would work with a consultant to screen the various
funds that are available at a certain time. And by the way, we also
keep in touch with funds that we think may be attractive, that are not
in the market yet. We would probably compare them to other
biotechnology companies, and we would do a standard due diligence
of that group. And, you certainly look at such things as the experience,
the background of the group, How they have done in the past that, if
they have performance history, what their philosophy is, what their
approaches, what the playing field for them is, what the opportunity
looks like, trying to evaluate all those characteristics again, from the
viewpoint of financial outcomes.” – SWF3

“We don’t target it.” – SWF5

“I would say that venture capital is an area that we don’t really get
into, because bite size is too small.” – SWF7

107

Appendix E: Participant Responses to Motivation Influences
Interview Questions Participant Comments
Why do you manage
social wealth funds?
How are your
compensation and
recognition aligned,
if at all, with your
motivation for your
work? (Efficacy-
motivation-value)
“I think it is desire for a greater good.” – SWF2

“I'm motivated by a couple of things. I like what I do. I find it
intellectually stimulating. In addition, I do take pride in the fact that
we are helping the state's educators financially of providing them a
good retirement.” – SWF3

“From my side, I really believe in the objective of the funds. Every
year, the fund distributes almost two billion dollars in income, through
the schools.” – SWF5

“So, it's the ability to call together kind of a world class portfolio, not
for the complexity shake, but for the benefit of the plan.” – SWF7

“One of the things that motivates me is, the ability that we have to
leverage these dollars into improvement of public policy, either
through education funding towards, or in some cases expansion of our
economy.” – SWF6

“For myself, I have managed public funds for almost 35 years. That’s
what I went to university to learn how to do, got into right out of
university, and have been working for funds, the first three were
pensions, public pensions, this last one has been sovereign wealth
fund. We did have one sovereign wealth account, at the first account I
worked at in (the state).” – SWF4

“So, that’s just what I have been wanting to do, trying to make things
better, understand the position they were in, and trying to influence the
industry in a positive way.” – SWF2

How comfortable are
you with the
protocols and
processes to manage
a large fund?
(Efficacy-
motivation)
“Super confident. So, again, we have daily valuation reporting with
investment managers through record keeping system. I am very
comfortable with the kind of the risk controls we have set up for the
technologies that we use.” – SWF2

“Very confident in our ability to do it. I, myself, have been in the
investment markets for over 30 years, the staff, as well. Most of them
have a fair amount of experience. Certainly, the senior staff do. So
yes, we're able to manage them pretty well.” – SWF
108

How well do you
feel that the SWF
that you currently
manage is positioned
to invest in private
sector led cancer
research? (Efficacy-
motivation)

“We don't have anything in specific there, at least to my knowledge. I
don’t think we even necessarily pursue something like that.” – SWF5

“Well, in the private equity side, we invest in healthcare -
Pharmaceuticals as well as Hospitals and Research companies, so, it’s
a part of our asset allocation. That isn't something that you concentrate
on specifically in a sector.” SWF5

Research has shown
that after the 2008
financial crisis,
social wealth funds
have moved away
from investing in
private companies.
Some would say that
is a bad idea. What
would be your
response to that?
(Motivation-Value)

“I can’t speak to that, that could very well be the case, all I am saying,
we are investing more in the private markets now than we ever have.”
– SWF5

“I think that it is largely a question of scale. We insourced the public
equity that we run are index funds, and we insourced our bond
portfolio management.” – SWF7

“For us, it was a little different because actually we got into the
private market in 2008 and 2009 at the bottom of the market. For us, it
was a great timing.” -SWF5

“I'd say we have the opposite tact as a function of the allocations we
have in those funds. Public markets are relatively efficient.” -SWF7
In the context of
your responsibilities,
how would you
prioritize investment
in healthcare projects
such as cancer
research?
(Motivation – value)
“We have no dedicated sector allocations to healthcare.” – SWF2

“Our main overriding goal is to secure retirement for our members
that is strictly a financial goal. So, we do not go out with the goal of
providing social good, in general.” – SWF3

109

Appendix F: Participant Responses to Motivation Influences
Interview Questions Participant Comments

In what ways, if at
all, does your
organization respond
to the adequacy of
resources in order to
help you manage
funds effectively to
maximize return on
investments? (O/E)

“We meet with the Governor and the state legislatures in an attempt to
build strong relationships to help them fund our organizations at a
reasonable level, (and) to help them understand what we do and help
them understand that we are doing a pretty good job and help them
understand that you really should try to pay people close to a market
rate.” – SWF2

“The legislature has to approve our budget. That means they approve
also the hiring of people that the number of people we have on staff
and they are often very sticky about that, not wanting to new
positions. And, also, there is a budget constraint, like I said, depending
on the year, sometimes that works out. Okay. Often, they've been
pretty tight with the purse strings. It gets a little difficult sometimes.”
– SWF3

“well, certainly, we get the resources that we need, and you know, I
don’t think any of the managers have any shortfalls in terms of
analytics that they can use.” – SWF5

“So, I'd say it's a function of who's in charge of upper management to
go through legislature, advocate for our budget and we've got quite a
few more people, we got world class systems, that make us really
resilient and makes us more productive.” - SWF7

In what ways, if at
all, does your
organization conduct
management and
leadership training to
Interview Questions
help you maximize
return on
investments? (O/E)

“The governor really wants to instill growth mindset in everybody,
they actually engaged GALLOP to do a state-wide survey of member
engagement. It goes out to every member of the state employees.” –
SWF2

“We are open. Our CIO always encourages people to do continued
education (in terms of asset classes, leadership and management,
administration. I am approving more and more web-based courses, so
it continues. Investment field is always evolving.” – SWF5

“So, I'd say continually. So, you're talking about the soft skill sets that
people need to have in order to, you know the diversity issues, not the

110

diversity issues, but diversity pushes, just a recognition of other
people's thoughts and ideas, awareness on training or cybersecurity.
So best practices is another term that's probably not used very
appropriately, but you just try to bring ideas and socialize them. And
if everyone's on board, we just tried to move forward with that.” –
SWF7

“I use the CFA Charter Financial Analyst program with all of our
folks. Some of the investors have the KAYA, the Charter alternate
investment analyst designation. I would say more than half of the staff
with the masters or doctorate level.” – SWF11

“So, we have, there's several ways that we can go about this, there are
independent courses, you know, professional development courses and
support that; also, we have an internal training Program, where we
have trainers within the department, you know, a communication and
education team.” – SWF1

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study

PDF

Improving the representation of female executives in a large utility provider: a modified KMO framework

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

Utilizing data analytics in the field of physical security: an exploratory study

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study

PDF

Practice ready curriculum in law school education: an exploratory study

PDF

Judiciary employees engagement and motivation: the impact on employee and organizational success: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students

PDF

Gender-based leadership barriers: an exploratory study of the underrepresentation of women of color in technology

PDF

Your soft skills are showing: organizational efforts to develop soft skills

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

Emotional intelligence self-perceptions in non-clinical leaders: an examination into a healthcare organization

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

An exploratory inductive study of veteran transition assistance and underemployment

Asset Metadata

Creator Maharjan, Jay (author)

Core Title Management practices of social wealth funds: an exploratory study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-05

Publication Date 05/04/2021

Defense Date 04/16/2021

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

Tag intrinsic motivation,OAI-PMH Harvest,political economy,Public Policy,social wealth fund

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Phillips, Jennifer (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email jaymaharjan22@gmail.com;maharjan@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11668927

Unique identifier UC11668927

Identifier etd-MaharjanJa-9595.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MaharjanJa-9595

Dmrecord 460661

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Maharjan, Jay

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

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

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

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