University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

(USC Thesis Other)

Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ITS IMPACT ON NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBER EXTERNAL
RESPONSIBILITIES: A GAP ANALYSIS

by

Sharon Meyers

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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Sharon Meyers

ii

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my family. Your patience during the dissertation process
has been nothing short of remarkable. The process of writing is often referred to as a labor of
love. However, I think a true measure of love is supporting someone through an incredibly
difficult process by being their biggest cheerleader. When they say you “earn” a doctorate, they
weren’t kidding! Even though I wrote this dissertation, I truly believe we earned it as a family.

iii

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my husband who always believed in me even when I did not believe in
myself. Your loving support allowed me to accomplish a goal I never thought possible. I am
forever grateful for your partnership on this journey called life. Thank you to my son and
daughter who encouraged me to reach for my dreams despite the obstacles. You told me often
how proud you are, and that meant more to me than you will ever know. Thank you to my
granddaughter who continually reminds me of the joys in life. Even though I started this life
with very little, my plan was always to finish strong. I hope you will see that you do not have to
play the cards you are dealt in life. You are the only one who can change your life for the better.
Thank you to my fellow members of Cohort X who made the journey with me, pushed
me, and allowed me to think critically about my research interests. Each of you provided your
unique influence and without it I would not have been successful in this endeavor. Most
importantly, thank you to the “mini-c” for helping me understand the complexity of
assignments, answering my completely obvious questions, and for reading my work over and
over without complaint. We started the journey together at immersion and I cannot thank you
enough for your unwavering and uplifting support. I truly hope we remain lifelong friends.
Thank you to my dissertation committee for sharing your knowledge and wisdom, and for
influencing the lens through which I view challenges in my problem space. Finally, thank you
to my incredible chair, Dr. Yates, for your guidance, leadership, and mentorship. Our weekly
meetings were a joy, and because of it, you only had to talk me off the ledge once! I know I
questioned the process often but your reassurance that everything will work out allowed me to
move forward confidently. I cannot imagine having a better chair. Your students are truly lucky
to have you by their side. Fight On!

iv

Table of Contents

Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ......................................................................... 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice .............................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 2
Organizational Performance Status ..................................................................................... 3
Related Literature................................................................................................................ 4
Importance of Addressing the Problem .............................................................................. 6
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 7
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..................................................................................... 7
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals .......................................................................... 8
Stakeholder Group of the Study .......................................................................................... 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................. 9
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 10
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................ 13
Understanding Board Role Ambiguity ............................................................................. 13
Board of Directors for Nonprofit Organizations ............................................................... 14
Difference Between For-Profit and Nonprofit .......................................................... 14
The Purpose of a Nonprofit Board ............................................................................ 16
Board Structure and Design ...................................................................................... 18
Board Member Recruitment and Value Alignment .................................................. 21
Nonprofit Board Roles and Responsibilities..................................................................... 22
Conflicting Board Roles and Responsibilities .......................................................... 22
Internal and External Roles and Responsibilities ..................................................... 24
Role-Related Organizational Demands..................................................................... 26
Perceptions on Role Performance ............................................................................. 27

v

Methods to Learn Board Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................ 29
New Board Member Orientation .............................................................................. 29
Ongoing Learning Throughout Tenure ..................................................................... 31
Nonprofit Board Accountability ....................................................................................... 32
Board Self-Evaluations ............................................................................................. 32
Chief Executive Feedback ........................................................................................ 33
Managing Expectations and Stakeholder Accountability ......................................... 34
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework ............................................. 36
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ............................... 37
Knowledge and Skills ............................................................................................... 37
Motivation ................................................................................................................. 46
Organization .............................................................................................................. 52
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context ................................................................................. 57
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS ................................................................................................. 65
Introduction to the Methodology ...................................................................................... 65
Sampling and Recruitment ................................................................................................ 66
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................ 66
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale .................................................. 66
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale .......................................... 67
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale............................................................... 68
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale ...................................... 68
Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale .............................................. 69
Document Analysis Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale .............................. 70
Data Collection and Instrumentation ................................................................................ 70
Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 71
Interviews .................................................................................................................. 71
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................... 72
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments .............. 72
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 81
Surveys ...................................................................................................................... 82
Interviews .................................................................................................................. 82
Documents and Artifacts........................................................................................... 83

vi

Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 83
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 85
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 86
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 89
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................ 90
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 90
Survey Participants ................................................................................................... 91
Interview Participants ............................................................................................... 95
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 96
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes.................................................................... 98
Factual Knowledge ................................................................................................... 98
Conceptual Knowledge ........................................................................................... 101
Procedural Knowledge ............................................................................................ 106
Metacognitive Knowledge ...................................................................................... 113
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .................................................................. 116
Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................................... 117
Utility Value............................................................................................................ 125
Intrinsic Value ......................................................................................................... 128
Attribution ............................................................................................................... 133
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ............................................................... 139
Cultural Models ...................................................................................................... 139
Cultural Settings...................................................................................................... 147
Summary of Validated Influences .................................................................................. 153
Knowledge .............................................................................................................. 153
Motivation ............................................................................................................... 154
Organization ............................................................................................................ 155
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION ......................................... 157
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................. 157
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences ......................................... 157
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................... 158
Motivation Recommendations ................................................................................ 164
Organization Recommendations ............................................................................. 170
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................. 176

vii

Implementation and Evaluation Framework ........................................................... 176
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations .................................................... 177
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ................................................................. 178
Level 3: Behavior .................................................................................................... 179
Level 2: Learning .................................................................................................... 184
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................... 189
Evaluation Tools ..................................................................................................... 189
Data Analysis and Reporting .................................................................................. 191
Summary ................................................................................................................. 192
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ................................................................... 193
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 193
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 195
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 196
References ................................................................................................................................... 199
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 210
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 214
Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol ................................................................................. 217
Appendix D: Information/Facts Sheet ........................................................................................ 219
Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Tool ................................................................................... 221
Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Tool ....................................................................................... 222

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ...... 8
Table 2: Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment ......... 45
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments ..................... 51
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influences Assessment .......... 56
Table 5: Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments ............ 72
Table 6: Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of External Responsibilities ............................. 98
Table 7: Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of External Responsibilities .................... 102
Table 8: Survey Results for Identifying Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge ................ 106
Table 9: Survey Results for Cultivating Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge ............... 109
Table 10: Survey Results for Soliciting Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge ................ 111
Table 11: Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of External Responsibilities.............. 114
Table 12: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Identify Potential Donors .................................. 117
Table 13: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Cultivate Potential Donors ................................ 120
Table 14: Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Solicit Potential Donors ..................................... 122
Table 15: Survey Results for Utility Value of External Responsibilities ................................... 125
Table 16: Survey Results for Intrinsic Value of External Responsibilities ................................ 129
Table 17: Survey Results for Attribution of Fundraising ........................................................... 133
Table 18: Survey Results for Attribution of Advocacy .............................................................. 135
Table 19: Survey Results for Attribution of Community Outreach ............................................ 137
Table 20: Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Model of Expectations .......................... 140
Table 21: Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Model of Accountability ....................... 144
Table 22: Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Setting of Education .............................. 148
Table 23: Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Setting of Statement of Expectations .... 151
Table 24: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ........................................... 153
Table 25: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................ 154
Table 26: Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ...................................... 155
Table 27: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 158
Table 28: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 165
Table 29: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 171
Table 30: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ..................... 178

ix

Table 31: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 180
Table 32: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 182
Table 33: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ..................................... 188
Table 34: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 189

x

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation
Within Organizational Cultural Models and Settings .................................................... 60
Figure 2: Gender for Survey Participants ..................................................................................... 92
Figure 3: Years of Service for Survey Participants ...................................................................... 92
Figure 4: Tenure of Service for Survey Participants .................................................................... 93
Figure 5: Community Membership for Survey Participants ......................................................... 94
Figure 6: Education Level for Survey Participants ....................................................................... 94
Figure 7: Tenure of Service for Interview Participants ................................................................ 95
Figure 8: The New World Kirkpatrick Model ............................................................................ 177
Figure 9: Sample Monthly Dashboard for Board Engagement .................................................. 192

xi

Abstract
This study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework as a systematic and
analytic model to identify performance gaps between organizational and stakeholder goals, and
desired outcomes. The purpose of this improvement study was to understand how role ambiguity
impacts the Resilience Rare Foundation (a pseudonym) Board members from meeting their
external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Mixed methods
were used to collect survey data from 45 participants, interview data from seven participants, and
12 organizational Board documents to identify and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organization root causes that may contribute to Board members failing to meet their external
responsibilities. The validated assumed causes for declarative factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, self-efficacy, utility value,
intrinsic value, attributions, cultural models, and cultural settings were identified, and validated
causes were assessed and classified as either assets or needs. The results and findings showed
that Board members struggle with their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach creating greater role ambiguity in achieving organizational goals. Based on
the findings, solutions drawn from the research literature are offered to address these challenges.
The study demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically apply the gap analysis
framework to mitigate Board role ambiguity when performing the external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.
Keywords: nonprofit, Board of Directors, fundraising, advocacy, community outreach

1

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Board members play a critical role in governing U.S. nonprofit organizations, and the
need to understand nonprofit Board role ambiguity is greater than ever. Nonprofit Board role
ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the Board role or responsibility, how
it should be performed, and its interpretation (Bruni-Bossorio et al., 2016). According to the
2017 National Index of Nonprofit Board Best Practices published by BoardSource (2017), 54%
of the 1,700 Board members surveyed in the U.S. do not understand their roles and
responsibilities as a Board member. Upon closer inspection, the study also revealed Board
members appear to have a modicum of understanding for their internal fiduciary and
organizational oversight responsibilities, but struggle to understand their external responsibilities
of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach (BoardSource, 2017). Indeed, a concerted
effort to provide clearly defined board roles and responsibilities results in a positive influence on
Board member performance and the ability to serve those in need (Hodge and Piccolo, 2011).
Board role ambiguity is often linked to the success or failure of a nonprofit (Doherty &
Hoye, 2011; Brown, 2007) and is contradictory to the mandate from the Internal Revenue
Service (2008) to be knowledgeable and effective board members. Moreover, as nonprofits
strive for market share and sustainability in a highly competitive landscape, a Board member’s
understanding of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach is vitally important. To that
end, the focus of this study was to determine the influence of role ambiguity at a single
nonprofit to assess the validity of an evidence-based improvement model to provide greater
clarity for Board member roles and responsibilities.

2

Organizational Context and Mission
The Resilience Rare Foundation (RRF, a pseudonym) is a national nonprofit that serves
individuals and families in the U.S. living with a rare disorder. Located in a metropolitan area on
the East Coast of the U.S., the RRF was created to be a strong voice for an often-marginalized
patient community. As noted on their website, the RRF has a staff of 30 full-time employees and
50 Board of Directors representing 50 chapters across the U.S. The mission of the RRF is to
advocate for people living with a rare disorder and ensure their voices are heard. The principal
roles and responsibilities of the RRF include advocating at the local, state, and federal levels for
safe and affordable treatment; providing online and in-person education for individuals and
families in collaboration with its chapters; gathering patient-centered research to aid in
awareness; and providing emergency financial assistance to individuals and families with a rare
disorder living below the poverty line.
The focus of this research was the Board of Directors (“Board”) at the RRF. The Board is
made up of an executive committee and Board members (“Board Members”) representing each
chapter from across the U.S. Officer positions include a Board Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary,
Treasurer, a Member-at-Large, and a Past Chair. Currently, there are 40 Members and 10
Officers representing all 50 chapters. The RRF utilizes a federated model with each of the 50
chapters submitting one delegate to serve a two-year term. The bylaws dictate each member can
only serve three consecutive two-year terms or six years.
The Board’s overarching mission at the RRF is to provide fiscal and operational
oversight and to ensure strategic direction aligns with organizational direction. The RRF strives
to be a high-functioning Board to serve the needs of the rare community. To carry out the

3

mission, Board members must fully understand and embrace their roles and responsibilities to be
a high-performing Board.
Organizational Performance Status
In order to fulfill its external roles and responsibilities for fundraising and to meet
performance metrics set by the Chief Executive, the RRF Board must actively engage in making
a personal commitment to give. To effectively solicit a gift from a donor, Board members must
fully engage with the organization by making a personal gift first. Board member giving is a
public commitment that conveys a vested interest in the work of the organization (Nonprofit
Research Collaborative, 2015). BoardSource (2010a) reports only 68% of nonprofits require
members to make a personal contribution annually. Nationally, Board giving hovers at 74%, and
only 46% of nonprofits realize 100% of Board member giving (BoardSource, 2010a).
Additionally, in the U.S., Board giving to the organization accounts for 10% of the total
organizational giving (Nonprofit Research Collaborative, 2015).
According to Lapin (2018), Board giving is positively correlated with overall fundraising
success more than any other factor. The RRF reports 90% of Board members give but the
percentage of total organizational giving is only 0.0009%. The failure of the RRF Board to
achieve 100% Board giving at a substantial level directly affects total organizational giving and
fundraising success. To address this issue at other organizations, many nonprofits have
mandatory giving policies for Board members (Lapin, 2018). The RRF needs a mandatory giving
policy to increase Board giving to fully engage in the external responsibility of fundraising.
Currently at the RRF, no mandatory Board giving policy exists.

4

Related Literature
Although volunteers compose more than one-third of the nonprofit labor force in the
U.S., studies indicate high levels of dissatisfaction with the nonprofit Board experience due to
role ambiguity (Doherty & Hoye, 2011; Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018; Walton et al., 2016;
Wright & Millesen, 2008). Board members lack a clear understanding of the inherent differences
between for-profit and nonprofit Boards which contributes to overall ambiguity and increases
organizational liability (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; McDonald, 2007; Zhu et al., 2016). The
Internal Revenue Service mandates all U.S. nonprofits require a Board, but research shows
Board members fail to understand their unique purpose and the Board’s role in the organization
causing greater ambiguity (Internal Revenue Service, 2008; Lakey, 2002). In addition, Board
members hold a position of trust in the community as the watchdogs of a nonprofit, and a lack of
clarity for the role of governance jeopardizes that position (Brown, 2007; Cornforth, 2012; Stone
& Ostrower, 2007). However, nonprofit Board members simply do not fill a seat. Literature
relating to the recruitment of competent and capable Board members increases resources and
organizational performance, and conversely, poor recruitment can weaken the organization due
to ambiguity (Brown, 2007; Internal Revenue Service, 2008; Walton et al., 2016). Finally,
nonprofit Boards should be a heterogeneous reflection of the community it represents, but studies
show that nonprofit boards are no more diverse today, and the lack of diversity among Board
members creates a social conflict that causes ambiguity when representing the communities
served (BoardSource, 2017; Buse, et al., 2016; Daley, & Marsiglia, 2001; DiAngelo, 2018).
Successful Board members need clear roles and responsibilities to carry out the mission
of the organization, but there is little consensus in the literature and in the nonprofit industry to
provide role clarity (BoardSource, 2016; Brown & Guo, 2010; Cumberland et al., 2015; Doherty

5

& Hoye, 2011; Stone, & Ostrower, 2007). To provide a modicum of clarity, most Board roles
and responsibilities found in the literature can be culled into two areas: internal and external
responsibilities (Bernstein et al., 2015; BoardSource, 2017; Brown & Guo, 2010; Nonprofit
Research Collaborative, 2015).
Internal responsibilities are defined as activities that take place within the boardroom
such as organizational and fiduciary oversight, supervision of the executive director/CEO, and
strategic planning for the nonprofit organization (Bernstein et al., 2015). External responsibilities
are defined as activities taking place outside of the boardroom to include participating in
organizational fundraising, advocacy on behalf of the organization, community-building, and
outreach to position the nonprofit as a leader in the community (BoardSource, 2017). Additional
levels of complexity also stem from changing organizational demands placed on Board members
which increases ambiguity due to shifting roles and responsibilities (Brown, 2007; Brown &
Guo, 2010; Coule, 2015; Miller-Millesen, 2003). Finally, studies show unclear demands on role-
performance by the organization thrust Board members into sink or swim scenarios in highly
ambiguous environments (Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Lee & Nowell, 2015; Maier et al., 2016;
Willems et al., 2014).
To mitigate the problem of role ambiguity for Board members, the literature points to
several areas to increase role clarity during Board tenure. Studies show nonprofit Boards need
clearly defined Board roles and responsibilities starting at orientation to provide clarity of
purpose and alleviate role ambiguity (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2007, Wright & Millesen,
2008). Moreover, a single introduction to roles and responsibilities is not enough exposure to
alleviate role ambiguity. Research shows ongoing learning throughout tenure is the preferred
delivery method to provide role clarity (BoardSource, 2017; Brown, 2007; Ebrahim, 2010;

6

Herman & Renz, 2000). Board members must also be evaluated regularly to uncover areas of
ambiguity and receive feedback from Chief Executives to identify areas of growth and clarity
(Brown, 2007; Harrison & Murray, 2015; Herman & Renz, 2000; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011;
Saksida et al., 2017; Wright & Millesen, 2008). Finally, considerable research focuses on
increased internal and external accountability to help alleviate Board role ambiguity to
effectively serve people in need in the community (BoardSource, 2017; Campbell, 2002;
Ebrahim, 2010; McDonald, 2007; Olinski & Hellman, 2017; Saksida et al., 2017).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is important to address this problem for a variety of reasons. Nonprofit Board members
are charged with the public’s trust in guiding organizations in the effective and efficient
administration of its purpose, and research shows role clarity is positively associated with
organizational commitment (Saksida et al., 2017). The lack of Board role clarity is likely to have
a direct influence on the organization’s overall performance fiscally and organizationally (Hodge
& Piccolo, 2011). Furthermore, financial and competitive pressures within the nonprofit sector
have led to an increased emphasis on Board member effectiveness since nonprofits are under
increasing pressure to secure financial resources similar to their public and private counterparts
(Lee & Nowell, 2015; Aulgur, 2016; Coule, 2015). Finally, nonprofit Boards are responsible for
building social capital and community, solving socio-economic problems, and providing for the
public good, and role ambiguity undermines those efforts (Harrison & Murray, 2015). Board
members play a critical role in governing nonprofit organizations, and the need for
knowledgeable and effective Board members has never been greater (Internal Revenue Service,
2008). Thus, it is important to understand Board role ambiguity and its impact on Board roles
and responsibilities in U.S. nonprofit organizations.

7

Organizational Performance Goal
The RRF goal is to secure $10 million in revenue to support organizational initiatives by
December 2020. The Board of Directors, Board Chair, and CEO of the organization established
this goal in accordance with its mission in 2015 during a strategic planning session when
fundraising revenue hovered around $3.5 million. The organization views the $10 million
fundraising revenue goal as a significant milestone to fully realize its mission to help people
living with a rare disorder living in the U.S. The $10 million fundraising goal is not an arbitrary
goal. In the U.S., nonprofits are classified based on their fundraising revenue. Small nonprofits,
the predominant group in the nonprofit industry, raise $1 million to $5 million in revenue yearly
(Frailey, 2017). Mid-size nonprofits raise $5 million to $10 million in revenue yearly (Frailey,
2017). Finally, large nonprofits raise $10 million to $50 million in revenue yearly (Frailey,
2017). The RRF is currently a mid-sized nonprofit raising $6 million yearly with the goal of
reaching the next echelon of $10 million to be classified as a large nonprofit. The achievement of
the RRF’s goal in this matter was measured by fundraising pledges and gifts booked during the
2020 calendar year.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
All U.S. nonprofits require a Board, and all depend on the effectiveness of their Boards to
succeed (Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018). The RRF depends on the Board of Directors to
provide fiscal and operational oversight and to participate in fundraising efforts. Additionally,
the CEO and Board Chair actively participate in fundraising efforts as well as provide executive
leadership to the organization. Finally, the Development staff role is to secure fundraising
revenue for the organization to meet its mission and will raise the bulk of funds needed to reach
the organizational goal of $10 million. Therefore, this study considered three stakeholder groups

8

to achieve the organizational goal: 50 RRF Board members, Chief Executives to include the
CEO and Board Chair, and five RRF Development staff.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1 below shows the relationship between the organizational mission, organizational
goal, and the performance goals for Board of Directors, Chief Executives and Development staff.
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Organizational Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals

Organizational Mission
The mission of the RRF is to assist, educate, and advocate for people living with a rare
disorder living in the U.S.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2020, the RRF will secure $10 million in revenue to support organizational
initiatives.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Board of Directors Chief Executives Development Staff
By December 2020, 100% of
RRF Board will meet their
performance metrics set by
Chief Executives for their
external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach.
By December 2019, the
CEO and Board Chair, as
Chief Executives, will
collaboratively set
individual Board member
goals.
By September 2019, RRF
Development will determine
baseline participation in external
responsibilities, and create a tool
to measure ongoing participation
in external responsibilities.

Stakeholder Group of the Study

While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the RRF’s goal to secure $10
million in revenue to support organizational initiatives, the stakeholder of focus in this study was
the RRF Board of Directors. In 2015, the Board, Board Chair, and the CEO established an
organizational objective during a strategic planning session to increase Board member

9

participation in fundraising. In 2015, Board members participated very little in fundraising and
did not personally give to the RRF. Shortly thereafter, the RRF began to capture Board giving
and participation in fundraising events. As the organization grew, the need to create better
fundraising goals and clearly defined fundraising duties for individual Board members increased.
The stakeholder goal supported by the CEO, Board Chair, and development staff, is
100% of RRF Board members will meet their external responsibilities for fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach set by Chief Executives by December 2020. The behaviors needed to
reach the goal for each Board member is to understand and participate in their external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. The CEO, Board Chair and
Development staff activities related to this goal included a baseline to measure current
participation in external responsibilities, tracking individual Board members efforts going
forward, and designing education materials to alleviate role ambiguity as new Board members
are onboarded. Failure to accomplish this stakeholder goal will lead to a loss in revenue, which
adversely impacts the organization’s ability to provide support for people living with a rare
disorder in the U.S.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis based on the Clark and Estes
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, and its impact on RRF Board
members meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. While a complete gap analysis would focus on organizational participation in external
responsibilities, for practical purposes, the stakeholder of focus in this study was only the RRF
Board of Directors. As such, the questions guiding this study are:

10

1. What is the RRF Board’s knowledge and motivation related to meeting their performance
metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020?
2. What is the interaction between the RRF’s culture and context and the Board’s
knowledge and motivation to meet their performance metrics set by Chief Executives for
their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy and community outreach by
December 2020?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions to meet external responsibilities?
Methodological Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model was used as a systematic and analytic
framework to identify performance gaps between organizational and stakeholder goals and
desired outcomes. The conceptual framework specifically examined assumed knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences (KMO) impacting stakeholder performance as a
cornerstone of the study. These influences were validated using surveys, interviews, and
document analysis. Evidence-based solutions were recommended and comprehensively
evaluated.
Definitions
Board role ambiguity: Nonprofit Board role ambiguity refers to lack of clarity regarding
the nature of the Board role or responsibility, how it should be performed, and its interpretation
(Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016).

11

Chief Executives: Nonprofit Chief Executives are defined as the executive director/CEO
of the organization and the chair of the Board, who acts on behalf of the Board, as primary
executive-level leaders of the organization (Olinski & Hellman, 2017).
Cultivation: Cultivation is an introductory letter, phone call, personal visit, invitation to
an event, or anything that actively engages the potential donor with the organization (Rosso,
2003).
External Board member responsibilities: Activities that take place outside of the
boardroom to include participating in organizational fundraising, advocacy on behalf of the
organization, community-building, and outreach to position the nonprofit as a leader in the
community (BoardSource, 2017).
Governance: Derived from the Latin root meaning to steer or give direction, governance
is defined as systems and processes to ensure organizational direction in alignment with the
mission (Cornforth, 2012).
Identification: The process of determining through investigation, research, or analysis
viable candidates to serve as donors, participants, or leaders (Rosso, 2003).
Internal Board member responsibilities: Activities that take place within the boardroom
such as fiduciary oversight, supervision of the executive director/CEO, and strategic planning for
the nonprofit organization (Bernstein et al., 2015)
Solicitation: Volunteers or staff who ask for donations or contributions for a campaign or
development program (Rosso, 2003).
Organization of the Study
This study utilized the five-chapter dissertation model. Chapter One introduced the
problem of practice of role ambiguity and delineated nonprofit Board internal and external roles

12

and responsibilities. Chapter One also introduced the organization’s mission, performance goals,
key stakeholders, research questions, key definitions, and the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
analysis framework. Chapter Two is a review of the current literature which defines the scope of
the study and further explores ambiguity surrounding nonprofit Board roles and
responsibilities. Additionally, Chapter Two introduces the conceptual framework which includes
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter Three provides the
methodology for the selection of participants, data collection, and analysis. Chapter Four
presents the results and findings from data collection through analysis. Finally, Chapter Five
offers solutions to close perceived gaps, based on the literature and data, as well as
recommendations to increase participation in Board external responsibilities.

13

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter reviews literature related to the possible root causes of Board member role
ambiguity in nonprofit organizations. The first section begins with an overview of the Board of
Directors for nonprofit organizations by focusing on the role of the Board, Board structure,
Board member recruitment, and community representation. The second section examines the
complexity of Board roles and responsibilities and role-related organizational demands. The third
section continues with a review of effective nonprofit learning methods to include Board
orientation, ongoing education, and the importance of understanding organizational
initiatives. The fourth section reviews Board member accountability by utilizing evaluation,
feedback, and expectation management. The chapter concludes with the Clark and Estes (2008)
gap analysis conceptual framework of specific knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on role ambiguity which the RRF Board must address to effectively reach
organizational goals.
Understanding Board Role Ambiguity
Board members play a pivotal role in governing nonprofit organizations, and the need for
a knowledgeable and effective Board has never been greater (Internal Revenue Service, 2008). A
challenge facing many nonprofit organizations is cultivating and managing an engaged Board.
Although volunteers compose more than a third of the nonprofit labor force in the United States,
studies indicate high levels of dissatisfaction with the nonprofit Board experience due to role
ambiguity (Doherty & Hoye, 2011; Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018; Walton et al., 2016;
Wright & Millesen, 2008). Board role ambiguity refers to a lack of clarity on the nature of the
role, its performance, and interpretation (Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016). According to BoardSource
(2017), 54% of Board members surveyed do not understand their roles and responsibilities.

14

Concerted efforts to provide clearly defined Board roles and responsibilities suggest a positive
outcome on fiscal performance and the ability to serve those in need (Cumberland et al., 2015;
Doherty & Hoye, 2011; Ferkins & Shilbury, 2015; Hodge & Piccolo, 2011; Zhu et al.,
2016). Surveys of nonprofit Board members and Chief Executives show effective Board
learning, starting at orientation and continuing throughout tenure, helps to alleviate role
ambiguity (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2007; Wright & Millesen, 2008). Additionally,
financial and competitive pressures within the nonprofit sector has led to an increased emphasis
on Board member accountability since nonprofits are under pressure to secure financial resources
similar to their public and private counterparts (Aulgur, 2016; Coule, 2015; Ebrahim, 2010; Lee
& Nowell, 2015; Nicholson et al., 2012; Saksida et al., 2017). In the next section, the differences
between for-profit and nonprofit organizations are examined in connection with Board roles at
the organization.
Board of Directors for Nonprofit Organizations
Difference Between For-Profit and Nonprofit
Profitability is one difference between for-profit and nonprofit Boards, but a clear
understanding of the inherent differences reduces ambiguity and organizational liability for
nonprofit Board members. Zhu et al., (2016), after analyzing 317 for-profit and nonprofit
organizations, found Boards operate within predefined boundaries based on revenue, mission,
and organization type. According to Zhu et al. (2016), for-profit organizations derive revenue
from goods and services whereas nonprofits derive revenue from donors or sponsors. Sources of
revenue is a simple surface-level identifier for nonprofit and for-profit organizations, but an
understanding of Board member responsibilities within the respective organizational type is
worthy of further exploration.

15

While there are many similarities and differences among for-profit and nonprofit Board
service, Epstein and McFarlan (2011) state one main differentiator is compensation. According
to the authors, for-profits are governed by paid Boards leading a paid staff whereas nonprofits
are governed by volunteer Boards leading a paid staff (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011). The authors
also contend compensation often dictates Board size because for-profits tend to have smaller
paid Boards and nonprofits tend to have larger volunteer Boards (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011).
Additionally, Zhu et al., (2016) state for-profit Boards focus on the shareholders’ interests, and
nonprofit Boards focus on stewardship of resources on behalf of community stakeholders.
Finally, the driving force behind Board service is inherently different among for-profit and
nonprofit organizations. McDonald (2007) contends for-profit organizations are driven by profit
whereas nonprofits are driven by addressing an unmet need in the community.
For-profit and nonprofit Boards are also subject to varying levels of legal liability if they
fail to fulfill their duties. Zhu et al. (2016) argue for-profit Board members tend to be more
cautious due to the threat of lawsuits pertaining to shareholder interests, reputation, and market
share. Whereas, nonprofit Boards enjoy more latitude since lawsuits are mostly relegated to
Board member negligence (Zhu et al., 2016). Liability can also influence goal setting based on
the organization type. Epstein and McFarlan (2011) contend for-profits tend to focus on short-
term goals due to fluctuations in the market and nonprofits tend to focus on long-term goals if
cash flow will allow. Financial concerns are equally important to both for-profit and nonprofit
organizations, but the two diverge sharply when choosing between profit and mission.
While the mission is important to individual for-profit organizations, the mission of all
nonprofits is to address the unmet needs of society (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011; McDonald,
2007, Zhu et al., 2016). The mission to serve others is the sole reason why a nonprofit exists. In

16

fact, McDonald (2007) surveyed 112 nonprofit hospital administrators across the U.S. and found
mission influences every part of the organization including innovation efforts. When nonprofits
lose sight of their mission, scope creep or diffusion may occur (Epstein & McFarlan, 2011).
Ultimately, for-profit organizations are beholden to shareholders and need to realize a
profit, but the driving force behind nonprofits is to fulfill the mission to serve others. For-profit
and nonprofit Boards do share certain similarities, but significant differences arise in
profitability, volunteerism, philosophy, and an adherence to the mission to serve others.
Highlighting the differences between for-profit and nonprofit is foundational to further examine
nonprofit Boards and their organizational purpose.
The Purpose of a Nonprofit Board
All nonprofits require a Board, but many Board members fail to understand the Board’s
purpose. Ambiguity of purpose can set the tone for Board service, but it can also be avoided by
understanding the Board’s unique role in the organization. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service
(2008) encourages nonprofits in the U.S. to have active and engaged Boards who represent broad
public interest. Lakey (2002) states the reason nonprofit Boards are necessary is to assure
community stakeholders that the organization is in good hands. Additionally, the author contends
Board members are not meant to simply fill a seat but to be the voice of community interest
(Lakey, 2002). Stone and Ostrower (2007) define public interest as connecting to social issues in
order to provide a public benefit. Moreover, because nonprofits are tax exempt entities, Board
representation and membership from the community is needed to ensure public oversight.
Nonprofit Boards are the primary governing body at an organization and therefore hold a
position of trust in the community. Cornforth (2012) states that no agreed upon definition exists
for governance but suggests nonprofit governance centers on providing organizational direction,

17

oversight, and accountability to the community served. Moreover, according to the Internal
Revenue Service (2008), Board governance pertains to oversight and leadership through
adherence to the organizational mission. Lakey (2002) argues that oversight is the primary duty
of all Board members and defines it as managing expectations and ensuring organizational
objectives are met. The literature on governance posits that oversight also includes measures
such as collaboration with staff, setting strategic direction, community outreach, and
organizational performance (Cornforth, 2012; Internal Revenue Service, 2008; Lakey, 2002;
Stone & Ostrower, 2007).
Understanding the Board’s purpose as a governing body is important because there are
legal ramifications to Board service. Cornforth (2012) asserts that all Boards have a legal
responsibility to govern the organization and to ensure organizational duties are carried out. In
addition to the Board’s legal responsibility to govern, individual members are legally bound by
the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience to the organization (Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018;
Lakey, 2002). The author also adds these duties form the basis of good governance (Lakey,
2002). Stone and Ostrower (2007) contend the Board’s legal responsibility of care and loyalty
prevents the threat of self-interest for individual Board members. Lakey (2002) emphasizes the
Board’s role as governance is to ensure extraneous influences do not affect organizational
operations. Finally, the Internal Revenue Service (2008) believes that a well-governed nonprofit
is compliant with applicable tax laws and acts in the best interest of the organization.
Understanding the Board’s unique role in the organization provides clarity of purpose.
The Board’s purpose is to provide a governance structure for oversight and compliance to
maintain the organization’s nonprofit status and secure a position of trust in the community.

18

Clarity of purpose ensures effective Board service, but ambiguity can also surface as Board
members learn to navigate the Board structure and design.
Board Structure and Design
A strong Board structure, designed with clarity of purpose, creates an optimal culture for
Board members to grow. In an ideal environment, Board members understand what is expected
and how interactions with other Board members provide value. Good nonprofit governance
pertains to activities and expectations that are internally and externally imposed (Gazley &
Nicholson-Crotty, 2018). Board structure and design is an example of an area that is internally
and externally imposed and regulated so that Boards can effectively govern.
Nonprofit Boards are unique because they operate as a single entity, a legal body, and as
individual members (Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018). Because they operate as a group and as
individuals, the size of the Board is an important aspect of organizational structure. Boards that
are too small or too large may not adequately serve the needs of the organization (Internal
Revenue Service, 2008). Boards that are too small do not represent broad public interest and may
struggle with public oversight, and Boards that are too large may struggle with decision-making
and consensus building (Internal Revenue Service, 2008; Lakey, 2002). McKeever (2015) states
the average number of nonprofit Board members is 16 per Board. BoardSource (2017) contends
the perfect Board size does not exist. However, the average size would ensure the organization’s
structure exists in the Goldilocks zone between having too few or too many members. The
overarching reason size is a concern is because the Board functions as organizational leadership
and building a cohesive team is an important aspect of structure.
Leadership of the Board generally rests with the executive committee which is made up
of the Board chair and other officers (BoardSource, 2010b). Nonprofit Board leadership is an

19

important topic due to increased scrutiny of nonprofits (Cornforth, 2012). Nicholson et al.,
(2012) surveyed 118 Board members from eighteen nonprofits and found a strong correlation
between Board members functioning as a cohesive leadership team and increased organizational
effectiveness. Gazley and Nicholson-Crotty (2018) point out that even though nonprofit Boards
are a group of individuals, organizational governance is based on the actions of the group
functioning in a leadership capacity. The researchers also add that collegiality among Board
members creates an environment where the interests of the organization are of primary concern
(Gazley & Nicholson-Crotty, 2018). Finally, Lakey (2002) contends the purpose of Board
structure is to ensure the organization is in good hands and representative of the community.
Ideally, nonprofit boards would be a heterogeneous reflection of the community it
represents, but despite an effort to increase diversity, nonprofit Boards are no more diverse today
than they were 10 years ago. According to the 2017 BoardSource National Index, Board
members were “86% white in 1994, 91% white in 2004, 86% white in 2007, 84% white in 2010,
82% white in 2012, and 84% white in 2017” (BoardSource, 2017, p.11). In addition, since
BoardSource began tracking diversity data, the levels of diversity have remained unchanged with
people of color and ethnic minorities never representing more than 18% of Board membership
(Spicer, 2018). Furthermore, women comprise less than half of nonprofit Board membership
nationally at 43% but that number drops to 33% at larger nonprofits with revenues of $25 million
or more (Shankie, 2015). Despite an effort to increase diversity on nonprofit Boards, the full
inclusion of racial and ethnic minority Board members remains an elusive goal for many
nonprofit organizations (Buse et al., 2016; Sessler-Bernstein & Bilimoria, 2013).
Nonprofit Boards must routinely assess their level of diversity to ensure more
heterogeneity exists in the Board structure. For example, Harris (2014) conducted a survey on

20

college and university Boards and found nonprofit Boards are historically comprised largely of
white upper- and middle-class members. In addition, Daley and Marsiglia (2001) studied two
United Way organizations in mid-sized Arizona cities to determine if larger Boards were more
inclusive of women and people of color. The researchers found Board composition to be 80-86%
white and 54-60% male (Daley & Marsiglia, 2001). Moreover, Rhode and Packel (2014)
performed a comprehensive Board diversity analysis to ascertain if diversity improved corporate
financial performance, reputation, governance, and decision making. The researchers discovered
nearly three-quarters of corporate Board members of the largest American companies are white
men (Rhode & Packel, 2014). In a related study, Hafsi and Turget (2013) examined 100
companies from the S&P Index and reported Board members in North America remain largely
white, older, and male. Similarly, in a study of large nonprofits in Canada, Bradshaw (2012)
concluded that smaller, less geographically diverse organizations have Boards that are
disproportionately white. Even though nonprofit Boards are becoming more aware of the need
for greater diversity in its membership, heterogeneity is still not realized in structure and
community representation. Therefore, nonprofits must continually assess where bias or privilege
exists in its structure.
It is important to remember that a nonprofit Board seat is a position of trust, and a social
conflict exists when heterogeneity is not fully realized. By carefully structuring the Board to
represent the community, nonprofits can decrease role ambiguity and increase engagement
among Board members. Additionally, effective Boards with a strong structure work as a team,
provide leadership to the organization, and build a foundation of growth. When Board members
work in unison to design an effective and culturally diverse structure, ambiguity is minimized
but finding the right Board member to add value is equally important.

21

Board Member Recruitment and Value Alignment
Recruiting active and engaged volunteer Board members is an arduous task. However,
having the wrong Board member can result in organizational challenges that lead to greater
Board role ambiguity. The Internal Revenue Service (2008) asserts an active, informed, and
engaged Board is necessary for the successful oversight of a nonprofit. However, before
recruiting an individual to serve on a nonprofit Board, initial and ongoing motivations must also
be understood to reduce ambiguity. For instance, Miller-Stevens et al., (2014) held roundtables
in conjunction with the Georgia Center for Nonprofits and asked Board members from various
organizations about their motivation to serve and the attributes of a good Board member. The
researchers found individuals are initially attracted to serve on a Board because they are
passionate about the cause due to being personally affected in some way (Miller-Stevens et al.,
2014). A strong connection to the cause or mission is the favored type of Board member for
nonprofits. However, not all motivations are altruistic. Miller-Stevens et al., (2014) also contend
Board members are motivated to serve to widen networks, gain experience, increase employer
recognition, or simply because they were asked by another Board member to serve. Nevertheless,
despite their initial motivations to serve, Board members are likely to persist if they enjoy the
experience and continually gain satisfaction from it (Miller-Stevens et al., 2014).
According to Brown (2007), attraction and recruitment of potential Board members is the
most challenging aspect of building a nonprofit Board. According to BoardSource (2017), 52%
of Board chairs surveyed report difficulty in finding new members. Walton et al., (2016)
surveyed 470 North Carolina residents aged 50 and over to determine their propensity to serve
on a nonprofit Board and observed that means, motive, and opportunity were the overarching
factors to Board service. Indeed, effectively recruiting Board members is often an arduous

22

process but recruiting with intentionality is crucial. Intentionality means individuals are recruited
to serve a purpose on the Board by having the requisite skills and competencies to fill gaps
(Brown, 2007; Miller-Stevens et al., 2014). BoardSource (2017) states nonprofits must be
strategic about recruitment to meet organizational needs. Board recruitment requires a
commitment to identifying and cultivating talent, and a willingness to decline potential
candidates who do not align with recruitment goals or organizational values (BoardSource,
2017).
Obtaining competent and capable board members is important to bring needed resources
to strengthen the organization (Brown, 2007). Whether intentional or not, Board composition
reflects organizational values (BoardSource, 2017). According to Miller-Stevens et al., (2014)
belief systems and values determine an individual’s association with a organization. Walton et
al., (2016) maintain when Board member beliefs are aligned with institutional goals, they are
more connected. Finally, Lakey (2002) contends Board members must be in alignment with
community values to anticipate stakeholder needs. Board members do not simply fill a seat but
are motivated to volunteer for many reasons such as value alignment, social status, and
organizational connection. Understanding the Board’s purpose, structure, recruitment efforts, and
representation in the community creates clarity for Board members, but an area of considerable
ambiguity centers on Board roles and responsibilities.
Nonprofit Board Roles and Responsibilities
Conflicting Board Roles and Responsibilities
Board role ambiguity undermines efforts to serve others. Board members need clear roles
and responsibilities to successfully lead organizations to serve those in need. However, Stone
and Ostrower (2007) argue that a dearth of research on defined Board roles and responsibilities

23

poses a challenge to organizational governance. Similarly, Doherty and Hoye (2011) surveyed
159 Board members of sport organizations and found Boards with conflicting roles and
responsibilities are likely to underperform due to role ambiguity. Role ambiguity is defined as
lack of understanding of the actions needed to perform a job (Doherty & Hoye, 2011). The
researchers also contend conflicting roles and responsibilities are a by-product of vague
organizational goals and objectives exacerbated by conflicting expectations (Doherty & Hoye,
2011). However, the existing literature on roles and responsibilities does not provide added
clarity. In fact, Cumberland et al., (2015) after surveying 153 Board members of Better Business
Bureaus, assert well-defined Board roles and responsibilities remain elusive despite research in
the nonprofit sector.
While Brown and Guo (2010) maintain the literature includes a wide array of roles and
responsibilities for nonprofit boards, Cumberland et al., (2015) contend nonprofit Boards have
only four roles. Cumberland et al., (2015) believe, after reviewing the literature and surveying
Board members, the overarching roles are oversight of the organization, securing financial
support, organizational strategy, and representing the community served. Lakey (2002) asserts
the primary role of all Boards is simply oversight of the organization. Brown and Guo (2010)
contacted 121 nonprofit Chief Executives and identified 13 Board roles and responsibilities from
the data. BoardSource (2016), a leading organization in the nonprofit industry, suggest Boards
have three main roles which include establishing organizational identity, providing oversight,
and securing ongoing resources. Finally, Stone and Ostrower (2007) claim Boards have six roles
which include organizational oversight, legal and ethical responsibilities, alignment with the
mission, organizational strategy, hiring the Chief Executive and representation in the community.

24

Indeed, literature on Board roles and responsibilities exists but the lack of consensus only adds to
the problem of Board role ambiguity.
Overall, Board members perform many roles and responsibilities in the execution of their
duties. Based on the literature, defining normative roles and responsibilities is inherently
problematic since no two Boards are alike. Because nonprofit Board roles are inherently ill-
defined, the focus must be narrowed to simply internal and external roles and responsibilities to
provide a modicum of clarity.
Internal and External Roles and Responsibilities
The plethora of Board roles can be culled down to two focus areas, internal and external
responsibilities. With only two focus areas, Board members stand a greater chance of role clarity
to effectively carry out the mission to serve others. According to Bernstein et al. (2015), after
reviewing BoardSource survey data from 1,341 nonprofit CEOs and Board Chairs, the
researchers found Board roles fell into two categories, internal and external responsibilities. The
authors point out that internal responsibilities are activities that take place inside the Boardroom
such as organizational oversight and strategic planning, and external responsibilities are activities
that take place outside of the Boardroom such as fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach
(Bernstein et al., 2015). In addition, BoardSource discovered through performance ratings and
surveys that Boards are doing well with their internal responsibilities but struggle with their
external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach (BoardSource,
2017).
Bernstein et al. (2015), after reviewing survey data, contend a Board member’s
understanding of their internal responsibilities can directly impact external activities. For
example, if a Board member sees on the financial statements that the organization is

25

experiencing decreased revenue, they may be inclined to engage in fundraising efforts. Similarly,
BoardSource (2017) argues that Board members need to fully understand the internal services
and programs provided by the organization to effectively meet their external responsibilities.
Essentially, internal and external responsibilities do not occur in isolation but must be explored
in tandem to achieve role clarity.
In addition to internal responsibilities, the Board’s engagement with external
responsibilities is vitally important to build networks and increase organizational influence to
provide greater revenue, policy success, and to increase community connection (BoardSource,
2017). Internal responsibilities are often performed collectively as a group, whereas external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach are often singular endeavors.
According to BoardSource (2017), the singular nature of external responsibilities is precisely
what makes the activities more challenging, intimidating, and outside of the Board member’s
comfort zone. When ranking the most important role or responsibility as a Board member, the
literature consistently points to fundraising (Bernstein et al., 2015; BoardSource, 2017; Brown &
Guo, 2010). BoardSource (2017) asked Board members and Chief Executives to rank order their
most important responsibility and found fundraising at the top of the list. For most nonprofits,
fundraising is essential not only to the organization’s success, but to its very existence
(BoardSource, 2017). When Brown and Guo (2010) asked 121 Chief Executives to describe the
most important Board role, the researchers discovered fundraising topped their list of 13 roles.
Indeed, fundraising continues to be a challenging activity for Board members despite their
knowledge of its importance.
Too many roles and responsibilities add a level of complexity and ambiguity to Board
service and organizational performance. By culling down the plethora of roles to internal and

26

external responsibilities, clarity of purpose can be realized. However, organizational
environments also place undue demands on Board members creating role-related ambiguity.
Role-Related Organizational Demands
Nonprofit organizations are as diverse as the Board members who lead them.
Organizations can be a fertile ground for growth or place unrealistic demands on Board members
which adds to role ambiguity. Brown and Guo (2010) posit environmental uncertainty
contributes to changing or unrealistic demands on Board members. Miller-Millesen (2003)
describes this as resource dependency theory as nonprofits must respond to resource-based
pressure. For example, the size of the organization has a direct effect on environmental
complexity (Brown & Guo, 2010). Larger nonprofits with resource-rich environments cite varied
roles and responsibilities for Board members (Brown & Guo, 2010; Miller-Millesen, 2003).
Conversely, smaller nonprofits with resource-poor environments may only need Board members
to engage in resource-generating activities (Miller-Millesen, 2003). If a Board member enters a
resource-poor nonprofit with the expectation of only participating in internal activities, the
organizational complexity of a resource-poor environment may shift demands creating more
ambiguity. Essentially, resource-poor environments are more likely to focus on resource
generation with Board members, and larger resource-rich environments were more likely to
engage in complex roles such as oversight and strategy (Brown & Guo, 2010, Miller-Millesen,
2003).
Internal uncertainty also contributes to changing or unrealistic demands on Board
members. Miller-Millesen (2003) describes this as organizational theory since internal
considerations such as Board member needs and development affect behavior. Brown (2007)
suggests member composition such as race, age, and gender influence organizational demands.

27

For example, the Board may choose to strive for more heterogeneity based on current
membership thus changing demands. Brown (2007) also proposes Board member tenure and
skills must be continually assessed to decrease ambiguity as organizational demands change. If
the organization wishes to reach a younger audience but the Board is made up of older adults,
then the organization may choose to recruit younger members. Again, the Board is often a
reflection of the community served, and organizational demands may cause ambiguity if the
Board does not fully understand the needs of the organization.
A mismatch between the organization and Board member self-interest contributes to
unrealistic demands on Board members. Coule (2015) describes this as stewardship theory as all
stakeholders must share in the organizational goals and work toward the good of the
organization. The author contends individuals are motivated by self-interest and conflict exists
when Board members do not act on behalf of organizational interest (Coule, 2015). Indeed,
another primary role of the Board is to constrain the self-interest of members, so the entire Board
conforms to organizational goals (Coule, 2015). Resources, organizational factors, and
misalignment with goals all place role-related demands on the Board. Role-related demands pose
challenges and create ambiguity if organizations fail to communicate organizational needs or
pressures. However, Board members face additional challenges when perceived roles and
responsibilities based on performance are misaligned.
Perceptions on Role Performance
Perceptions on Board role performance are important due to competing organizational
performance demands. Role-related demands must align, or the Board may be labeled as
ineffective if ambiguity persists. Doherty and Hoye (2011) point out challenges with measuring
Board performance consists of changing organizational goals and objectives, differing

28

expectations on roles and responsibilities, and uncertainty on how to improve performance due to
the voluntary nature of Boards. Additionally, Stone and Ostrower (2007) observed the literature
suggests a mismatch between Board and staff perceptions of roles and makes effectiveness
difficult to conceptualize. Finally, Bruni-Bossio et al., (2016) found role ambiguity occurs in
performing unfamiliar roles, performing the wrong role, or disputes over who was responsible
for performing a role.
Bruni-Bossio et al., (2016) assert successful Board governance is contingent upon
successful role-performance relationships. More specifically, the need for role clarity is
important because organizational performance is often linked to Board effectiveness (Bradshaw
2012; Bruni-Bossio et al., 2016; Stone & Ostrower, 2007). The authors suggest nonprofits must
clarify role-performance relationships with other Board members, with Chief Executives, and
external stakeholders. To effectively manage role-performance relationships with other Board
members, Bruni-Bossio et. al., (2016) recommend focusing on collegiality, open discussion, and
achieving a unified voice in decision making. To effectively manage role-performance with the
Chief Executive, Bruni-Bossio et al., (2016) state involvement and oversight are necessary.
Finally, to effectively manage role-performance relationships with external stakeholders, Bruni-
Bossio et. al., (2016) maintain attentiveness, responsiveness, and ongoing communication with
the community served is important.
According to Lee and Nowell (2015), high functioning Boards understand their roles and
responsibilities and how it pertains to organizational performance. Willems et al., (2014)
highlight four areas of focus in organizational performance as financial, stakeholder, market, and
mission. The authors claim financial performance is simply resource generation, stakeholder is
community building, market is image or brand, and mission is adherence to the organizational

29

mission to serve others (Willems et al., 2014). Undoubtedly, Board members participate or
provide oversight in all areas of performance at some point in their tenure. As nonprofits
continue to experience increased emphasis on performance measurement and outcomes, role
clarity would increase Board member role-related performance in those areas.
Even though Board members are volunteers, perceptions on performance can pose role-
related challenges. Unclear performance measures, difficulty managing organizational
relationships, and ill-defined Board responsibilities can threaten Board effectiveness. Nonprofit
Board roles and responsibilities are complex and dynamic. By examining the plethora of
conflicting Board roles, culling to focus on internal and external roles, communicating role-
related organizational demands, and identifying perceptions on performance, a broader scope of
the problem of Board role ambiguity is revealed. Next, an examination of how Board members
learn their roles and what methods could prove effective is necessary to explore.
Methods to Learn Board Roles and Responsibilities
New Board Member Orientation
Nonprofit Boards need clearly defined Board roles and responsibilities beginning at
orientation to provide clarity of purpose and alleviate role ambiguity. Surveys of nonprofit Board
members and Chief Executives show a need for clearly defined Board roles and responsibilities
starting at orientation. Because Board members are not paid staff with experience, volunteer
management requires significant onboarding via orientation (Brown, 2007). For example, Wright
and Millesen (2008) collected data from 468 nonprofit Chief Executives and Board members
serving 93 nonprofits in the U.S. to examine role ambiguity. The researchers found orientation
rarely occurred among respondents and ill-defined Board roles and responsibilities are a
pervasive problem leading to greater role ambiguity (Wright & Millesen, 2008). The literature

30

also suggests busy Chief Executives put too little emphasis on role education and fail to orient
new Board members (Brown, 2007; Wright & Millesen, 2008). Additionally, Brown (2007)
surveyed 1,051 Chief Executives and Board chairs representing 713 nonprofits to determine
whether Board development practices resulted in highly competent Board members. The author
found role ambiguity that exists after orientation leads to weaker and less engaged board
members (Brown, 2007). Similarly, Bernstein et al., (2015) discovered Board role ambiguity
existing after orientation is a persistent problem in the nonprofit industry.
Additionally, Bernstein et al., (2015) distributed 5,052 surveys to Chief Executives
utilizing the BoardSource Nonprofit Governance Index to examine the impact of Board
performance on organizational performance. The researchers report comprehensive Board
training in orientation fosters role clarity and competence and leads to high-quality Board
performance (Bernstein et al., 2015). Brown (2007) posits purposeful training promotes self-
efficacy with roles and responsibilities and positively influences Board and organizational
performance. Finally, Bernstein et al., (2015) argue the ability to understand specific Board roles
and responsibilities requires deliberate action on behalf of the organization to educate Board
members and should not be taken lightly.
A concerted effort by nonprofits to provide an effective orientation clearly outlining
Board roles and responsibilities may alleviate role ambiguity and increase individual Board
member engagement. Activities such as orientation for new Board members and ongoing Board
training are important factors leading to high-quality Board performance (Bernstein et al., 2015).
Therefore, in addition to orientation, ongoing Board training throughout tenure is needed to
increase role clarity.

31

Ongoing Learning Throughout Tenure
Role-related learning cannot be a one-time event for Board members due to the changing
nature of organizations and Board responsibilities. Creating a learning environment that
embraces ongoing learning for Board members as roles change is a positive step to decrease role
ambiguity. According to Ebrahim (2010), building an organizational culture conducive to
learning requires a supportive environment, leadership, and concrete learning processes.
BoardSource (2017) also suggests offering structured and unstructured opportunities to learn
about Board roles and responsibilities. For instance, BoardSource (2017) proposes leveraging
Board meetings to provide structured organizational education as well as time for reflection to
aid in unstructured learning. Finally, taking time to assess the learning potential of the Board is a
valuable and often overlooked step worth considering (BoardSource, 2017).
To be effective, role-related learning needs to connect the individual, the Board as a
body, and the organization to reduce ambiguity. Brown (2007) advocates for education that
responds to the needs of individual Board members as well as the changing dynamics of
organizational performance and environmental pressures. Bernstein et al., (2015) contend Boards
that engage in ongoing efforts to develop their skills organically improve performance. Herman
and Renz (2000) posit Board learning and improvement efforts may result in the unintended
benefit of increased funding. Furthermore, the authors assert improvement efforts can also
provide significant gains in Board effectiveness (Herman and Renz, 2000).
Role-related learning in orientation and throughout tenure is a valuable endeavor to
increase Board performance and competence (Bernstein et al., 2015; BoardSource, 2017; Brown,
2007; Herman & Renz, 2000). Creating a supportive environment, providing structured and
unstructured learning, and conveying the value of ongoing learning throughout tenure provides

32

clarity on roles and responsibilities for Board members. However, Board members must continue
to learn and receive feedback on their performance throughout tenure to better understand their
roles and responsibilities as well as be accountable to the organization and the community
served.
Nonprofit Board Accountability
Board Self-Evaluations
Regular Board self-evaluations can increase fiscal and organizational effectiveness and
uncover critical areas of Board role ambiguity (Herman & Renz, 2000). Without self-reflection,
Boards lack an understanding of their contribution to role-related objectives and how to carry out
their duties with clarity. Cumberland et al., (2015) suggest a good practice is to evaluate
nonprofit Boards periodically because many problems are due to the lack of Board role clarity.
Harrison and Murray (2015) collected data from 1,446 Board member self-evaluations from 122
nonprofits focusing on Board effectiveness. The researchers found one of the few practices
linked to improved organizational effectiveness is regular evaluations to identify Board member
weaknesses and strengths early in tenure. (Harrison & Murray, 2015). Finally, Ebrahim (2010)
asserts nonprofits can create regular opportunities for critical reflection and analysis in order to
make effective progress toward organizational goals.
Research suggests periodic Board self-evaluations are directly correlated to fiscal
performance and organizational effectiveness. Hodge and Piccolo (2011) surveyed 112
nonprofits examining Board effectiveness and nonprofit health and found a positive correlation
exists between consistent Board evaluation and the overall financial health of an organization.
Additionally, drawing on surveys from 118 nonprofit Board members in education, research,
health, and social services, Nicholson et al., (2012) contend Board self-evaluation has become an

33

important tool to meet organizational expectations and demonstrate that Boards are discharging
their duties effectively. Herman and Renz (2000) also claim Board self-evaluation represents a
commitment to organizational performance. Overall, self-evaluations are an effective tool for
Board member role clarity and to increase self-efficacy (Harrison & Murry, 2015; Hodge &
Piccolo, 2011).
Regular self-evaluations identify Board strengths, weaknesses, and show a concerted
effort to increase performance. In addition to regular self-evaluations, Doherty and Hoye (2011)
point out a lack of understanding about how performance is evaluated causes further ambiguity.
To mitigate this, constructive feedback from Chief Executives is needed to clarify Board roles
and responsibilities and connect it to performance expectations.
Chief Executive Feedback
Regular feedback from nonprofit Chief Executives shows a direct correlation between
increased Board role clarity and engagement. Chief Executive feedback directed to individual
members or to the Board as a whole may include basic guidance or ongoing training to respond
to environmental or organizational pressures (Brown, 2007). For example, Olinske and Hellman
(2017) surveyed 140 nonprofit Chief Executives in the U.S. to understand the dynamics between
Chief Executives and Board members. Olinske and Hellman (2017) found Chief Executive
feedback was a determining factor of role clarity and engagement among Board members.
Additionally, Saksida et al., (2017) surveyed 647 nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom
to determine if human resource management practices influence Board behavior. The researchers
determined that feedback from Chief Executives increases confidence in Board members’ ability
to perform and master their role as well as confidence to carry out their work like paid
employees (Saksida et al., 2017). In a related study, Aulgur (2016) comprehensively examined a

34

single nonprofit to assess the disparity between Board performance and Board member’s self-
perception. Aulgur (2016) concluded Board role development needs to be a long-term endeavor
and the Board must be willing to routinely evaluate its performance through feedback from Chief
Executives to identify improvement areas. As the nonprofit industry landscape changes, timely
feedback from Chief Executives is needed more than ever to address Board role ambiguity.
Brown (2007) recommends Board members receive leadership development through coaching
and mentoring because role clarity increases with effective evaluative information. The author
also advocates going a step beyond Board evaluation to include one-on-one feedback with Board
members (Brown, 2007). According to Wright and Millesen (2008), evidence suggests Chief
Executive feedback reduces role ambiguity and regular feedback also increases Board
engagement. The author also points out, most Boards in the U.S. do not receive regular feedback
from Chief Executives thus increasing role ambiguity (Wright & Millesen, 2008).
Regular Chief Executive feedback helps Board members understand if they are
performing their roles and responsibilities effectively or if a course correction is needed. As with
paid employees, if Board members are not provided with role-related feedback from supervisors,
it is difficult to determine if individual efforts are providing organizational value. Indeed, regular
self-evaluations and consistent feedback on performance from Chief Executives are necessary to
mitigate Board role ambiguity. However, it is also important to take that information and utilize
it to manage organizational expectations and to increase accountability with stakeholders.
Managing Expectations and Stakeholder Accountability
Nonprofits are accountable to multiple stakeholders and constituents. As a result,
Ebrahim (2010) believes nonprofits often experience “multiple accountabilities disorder” (p.4).
As with culling the plethora of Board roles and responsibilities down to internal and external

35

responsibilities, expectations and accountabilities can also be culled down to internal and
external. Internally, Board members hold a leadership position within the organization so they
must manage expectations through accountability with Chief Executives and staff. Moreover,
BoardSource (2017) maintains it is also important for Board members to understand
organizational initiatives to manage expectations with internal stakeholders. Additionally, an
understanding of the work of the organization leads to stronger Board engagement and
relationships with leadership (BoardSource, 2017). Finally, Olinske and Hellman (2017) believe
creating a harmonious relationship within the organization is important to managing
expectations. Indeed, Board member alignment with the mission pulls all stakeholders together
for a common purpose (McDonald, 2007).
Externally, Saksida et al., (2017) contend accountable organizations build trust with the
community. Moreover, aligning and managing expectations with external stakeholders is
necessary for organizational survival. However, constant demands from stakeholders makes
accountability relationships challenging (Ebrahim, 2010). Nonprofits are under pressure from
external stakeholders to focus on sustainability and growth (McDonald, 2007). To carefully
manage community organizational expectations, Campbell (2002) suggests focusing on
community-wide outcomes. Ebrahim (2010) points out trust, transparency, and aligning with the
mission are needed to manage expectations through accountability with stakeholders.
Aligning and managing expectations internally and externally with stakeholders creates
harmony, builds trust and provides clarity of purpose for the Board. Nonprofits are accountable
to many stakeholders, but through routine self-evaluation, constructive Chief Executive
feedback, and managing expectations for all stakeholders, nonprofit Board role clarity is

36

achievable. However, unknown knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences can hinder
Board members from achieving the desired goal of role clarity.
The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Conceptual Framework
Organizational change or improvement must start with clearly defined goals and an
effective model to identify barriers to goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). As such, this
study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model as a systematic, analytic framework
to identify performance gaps between organizational and stakeholder goals and desired
outcomes. The conceptual framework specifically examined knowledge, motivation and
organizational (KMO) influences impacting stakeholder performance as a cornerstone of the
study (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge and skills are divided into four cognitive types in
relation to stakeholder performance: a) factual, b) conceptual, c) procedural, and d)
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Motivational influences examined in this study
included active choice, persistence, and effort as key components of stakeholder performance
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Additional motivational theories considered when identifying
performance gaps were self-efficacy theory, attributions, and expectancy-value theory (Rueda,
2011). Finally, organizational influences such as workplace culture, resources, and work
processes have a direct effect on stakeholder performance (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Each aspect of the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis is discussed as it pertains to the
stakeholder performance goal of RRF Board members meeting their performance metrics set by
Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach by December 2020. The first section assessed the knowledge and skills pertaining to the
stakeholder performance goal and assumed knowledge influences. The second section explored
motivational theories and assumed influences as it relates to the stakeholder performance goal.

37

The third and final section examined the organizational influences on the stakeholder
performance goal as well as the impact of cultural models and settings. Each assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the stakeholder performance goal was
examined in greater detail through the methodology discussed in Chapter Three.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Every day in the U.S., nonprofits provide for the public good and solve socio-economic
problems (Harrison & Murray, 2015). Clark and Estes (2008) assert organizations need to
identify fundamental knowledge and skills to adapt to change and solve important
problems. Rueda (2011) defines knowledge and skills as the things a person needs to know to
carry out an activity. Clark and Estes (2008) also define knowledge as the theoretical
understanding of a subject and the skills to know how to complete the corresponding task. This
section reviews literature focused on the knowledge- and skill-related influences relevant to the
successful achievement of the RRF Board meeting their external responsibilities for fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach.
Clark and Estes (2008) state there are three causes of performance gaps: knowledge,
motivation and organizational barriers. The authors also maintain it is difficult to realize change
without first identifying the causes of knowledge and skill gaps affecting organizational
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, in the context of the RRF, a knowledge and
skill gap may be Board members do not know whom to ask for money or they may not have the
knowledge and skills to fundraise for the organization. As nonprofits strive for market share and
sustainability in a highly competitive landscape, the Board’s knowledge and skill relating to its
external responsibilities is of great importance as it strives to reach the organization’s $10

38

million revenue goal. Therefore, to meet their organizational and stakeholder goals at the RRF,
an in-depth examination of knowledge and skill performance gaps is needed.
Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2011) identify four knowledge types to better understand a
performance problem: declarative factual, declarative conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive. Declarative factual knowledge refers to the lexicon, facts, or the foundational
elements (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011) to solve a performance problem. For example, RRF
Board members must understand the lexicon used by the Internal Revenue Service to receipt and
process a charitable donation.
Declarative conceptual, refers to knowledge of the interrelated theories, structure, or
concepts to solve a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). An example, again
using fundraising, is the RRF Board members need conceptual knowledge to match the needs of
the organization with the desires of the donor to meet the organizational goal. Procedural, refers
to knowledge of the algorithms, techniques, or steps needed to solve a performance problem
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Quite simply, it is the process Board members must use to
meet their internal and external responsibilities. An RRF example would be the multi-step
process to identify, screen, nominate, elect, and ultimately induct a new Board member.
The final type, metacognitive, refers to the knowledge of strategy, cognition, and self-
awareness needed to solve a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). According
to Swap et al., (2001), metacognition is the self-awareness of a problem or challenge that assists
in understanding or seeking out additional information when gaps in knowledge occur. An
example of metacognition, in the context of the RRF, is Board members need to reflect on their

39

own knowledge gaps before functioning as an advocate or mouthpiece for the organization as to
not convey false or misleading information.
Achieving a greater understanding of the four knowledge types is important because each
type uniquely influences problem solving and assessment (Clark & Estes, 2008). Additionally, a
review of the current scholarly literature in this study highlights four knowledge influences the
RRF Board members must understand to effectively meet their external responsibilities. Note
that Table 2 at the end of this section categorizes the four knowledge influences, types, and
influence assessments for RRF Board members.
Board Members Need a Baseline Knowledge of External Responsibilities in
Orientation. Understanding the influence of knowledge and skills is an important aspect to
facilitate change in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Nonprofit Board members need
knowledge of their most pressing roles and responsibilities to facilitate positive organizational
change and to solve difficult societal problems. According to the Internal Revenue Service
(2008), successful Boards consist of members who are knowledgeable and engaged in their
service to the organization. To be successful, the RRF must provide their Board with clearly
defined roles and responsibilities to be knowledgeable and engaged Board members. This type of
knowledge influence is classified as declarative factual because it refers to the lexicon, facts, or
foundational elements needed to solve a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Surveys of nonprofit board members and Chief Executives show a need for clearly
defined board roles and responsibilities starting at orientation (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown,
2007; Wright & Millesen, 2008). According to BoardSource (2017), a comprehensive orientation
for new Board members includes both an introduction to their roles and responsibilities and to
the work of the organization. However, only 56% of nonprofit organizations nationwide provide

40

orientation and onboarding education for new Board members outlining their roles and
responsibilities (Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations, n.d). The RRF must provide
formal orientation to onboard all new Board members outlining their roles and responsibilities
and the work of the organization to alleviate role ambiguity.
The primary area of focus in this study is RRF Board members must understand their
external responsibilities. According to BoardSource (2017), Board members understand their
internal responsibilities but struggle to understand their external responsibilities. BoardSource
(2017) states external responsibilities are simply outside of their comfort zone and highly
intimidating. The RRF Board also struggles with their comfort level, and as such, the RRF Board
needs clearly delineated education on their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy and
community outreach to address gaps.
Board Members Need to Understand the Relationship Between Their Participation
in External Responsibilities and Its Effect on Organizational Performance. Board members
help organizations stay true to the mission and purpose (Wright & Millesen, 2008; Brown 2007).
Without a baseline knowledge of responsibilities and the relationship to performance, the Board
could not adequately ensure financial resources for the organization (Miller-Millesen, 2003).
Overall, Board members need to be organizational experts (Coule, 2015) rather than occasional
participants in their external responsibilities and how it affects performance. Without expert
organizational knowledge, Board members may relegate themselves to their comfort areas of
meeting attendance and fiduciary responsibilities. Therefore, the RRF Board needs to understand
the relationship between its external responsibilities and increased organizational performance.
This type of knowledge influence is classified as declarative conceptual because it refers to the

41

interrelated theories, structure, or concepts to solve a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011).
RRF Board members also need to understand the relationship between their fundraising
participation and greater organizational performance. Some nonprofit Boards downplay their
fundraising efforts, but it is essential for Board members to be an active participant in ensuring
the financial health of the organization (Lapin, 2018). According to BoardSource (2017), Board
members rate fundraising as the most challenging area of Board service, but overwhelmingly rate
fundraising as the most important area to improve performance. While fundraising certainly
poses challenges, RRF Board members need to understand the organization will struggle to
increase resources without participation in fundraising. BoardSource (2017) also suggests setting
expectations for fundraising when Board members are recruited. New and tenured RRF Board
members must understand fundraising is positively correlated to greater organizational
performance, without it, the RRF would not have the resources to exist.
RRF Board members need to also understand the relationship between their advocacy
efforts and organizational performance. Advocacy is defined as any behavior or action that
supports, recommends, argues, or defends a mission or cause (BoardSource, 2016). When Board
members were surveyed regarding the three most important areas to focus as a Board to increase
organizational performance, advocacy was second only to fundraising (BoardSource, 2017). The
RRF needs to understand, as an advocacy organization, their role is to be an advocate for the
organization as well as the community it serves. They need to understand their advocacy efforts
are important to promoting the mission of the organization as well as those in need.
RRF Board members need to understand the relationship between their community
outreach efforts and organizational performance. Board member engagement with community

42

outreach benefits the nonprofit in multiple ways, including greater visibility, recognition, and
ultimately has a positive impact on fundraising as the potential donor pool expands (Bernstein et
al., 2015). RRF Board members need to understand their interaction with the community results
in an increase in like-minded people to support the work of the organization which ultimately
increases organizational performance and revenue.
Board Members Need to Know How to Identify, Cultivate, and Solicit Donors as a
Part of Their External Responsibilities. Organizations that achieve long-term success
generally have Boards who actively participate in strategy and resource development such as
fundraising (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). Landsdowne (2000) asserts the first principle of
fundraising is Boards are responsible for ensuring the organizational mission is realized, and
necessity dictates it includes securing resources for the organization. However, according to
Rosso (2003) fundraising does not happen in a vacuum; it takes planning and rigorous execution.
The author also states fundraising also follows an ongoing cycle of identifying, cultivating, and
soliciting donors (Rosso, 2003). The RRF Board needs to actively participate in strategy and
resource development by obtaining knowledge of the fundraising cycle and procedural steps on
behalf of the organization. This type of knowledge influence is classified as procedural because
it refers to knowledge of the algorithms, techniques, or steps needed to solve a performance
problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
The first procedural step RRF Board members need to understand is how to find potential
donors. Finding donors is an achievable task since nearly 90% of U.S. households contribute in
some form to charities (BoardSource, 2010). The Nonprofit Research Collaborative (2015) states
78% of Board members ask friends or associates to engage with the organization. The easiest

43

way for the RRF to find friends and associates to engage with the organization is to increase their
knowledge of the organization and to be its biggest champion.
The next procedural step RRF Board members need to understand is how to cultivate
donors. Rosso (2003) describes cultivation as an introduction letter, phone call, personal visit,
invitation to an event or anything that actively engages the potential donor with the
organization. Duca (1996) points out that Board members must use their influence to help open
doors to potential donors. For many nonprofits, finding sources of revenue is becoming more
difficult (Walker, 2012). The RRF Board needs knowledge on how to effectively cultivate
donors to increase needed resources.
The final procedural step RRF Board members need to understand is how to solicit
donations from potential funders. Landsdowne (2000) emphasizes the Board must make a
personal financial commitment before asking anyone else to give. It shows a vested interest in
the organization and leadership. RRF Board members need to know personal giving makes the
job of asking more comfortable because of their own commitment. Additionally, RRF Board
members need to understand soliciting gifts from others means more people in the community
can be helped. RRF Board members also need to know their giving begets others to give when
they tie it back to the organizational mission. Overall, RRF Board members need to know a
nonprofit is affected more by those who were not asked to give, than those who said no (Panas,
2012).
Board Members Need to Reflect on Their Strategies to Meet External
Responsibilities. Reflection shows a direct correlation between increased role clarity and
engagement, as well as the ability to respond to the changing dynamics of organizational
performance and environmental pressures (Brown, 2007). Furthermore, Aulgur (2016) found that

44

Board role development must be a long-term endeavor, and the Board must willingly assess its
progress to goal achievement through feedback and reflection. Moreover, reflection is necessary
to facilitate effective learning and training (Clark & Estes, 2008), relative to core performance
for external roles and responsibilities. With all feedback, a level of introspection is required, and
therefore this knowledge influence can be classified as a metacognitive. Metacognition refers to
internal knowledge of the task at hand, and reflection on the strategies needed to carry out the
task (Baker, 2009). RRF Board members need to reflect on their own internal knowledge to meet
external responsibilities. Learning depends on relevant knowledge, memory, and reflective
strategies to achieve goals (Baker, 2009). To achieve objectives, learners must understand the
subject matter and what must be done with the information (Krathwohl, 2002). Nicholson et al.,
(2012) found self-evaluation and reflection is an important tool to meet organizational
objectives. The RRF board needs to be subject matter experts on their external responsibilities to
meet organizational objectives.
RRF Board members also need to reflect on the task of performing external
responsibilities. Panas (2010) recommends that if Board members do not feel excitement about
the organization and are not willing to share that excitement with others, then it might not be the
right fit. RRF Board members need to reflect on their excitement towards external
responsibilities. If they are not passionate about the mission or excited about the cause, upon
reflection, they may not be a good fit.
RRF Board members need to reflect on their strategy to perform external responsibilities.
Individuals can readily apply knowledge if they first reflect on their own strategies to assess
performance (Baker, 2009). Boards that regularly reflect on their duties perform at higher levels,
emphasizing its importance (BoardSource, 2017). The RRF Board members need to determine

45

what strategies were successful and what led to growth for their external responsibilities. Above
all, the RRF depends on the Board to fully understand its external responsibilities to meet the
goal of raising $10 million in revenue in support of initiatives.
Table 2 below summarizes the four knowledge influences with the corresponding types,
and knowledge influence assessments necessary for the RRF Board to meet their external
responsibilities to achieve the goal of securing $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives.
Table 2
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the RRF is to assist, educate, and advocate for people living with a rare
disorder living in the United States.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2020, the RRF will secure $10 million in revenue in support of organizational
initiatives.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By December 2020, 100% of RRF Board will meet their performance metrics set by Chief
Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Board members need a baseline
knowledge of external
responsibilities in orientation.
Declarative
(Factual)
Survey to demonstrate Board
member knowledge.

Interview questions to assess
knowledge, and document
analysis of orientation materials.

46

Board members need to
understand the relationship
between their participation in
external responsibilities and its
effect on organizational
performance.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Interview asking the Board to
talk about their actions with
respect to external
responsibilities and its effect on
organizational performance.

Interview asking Board
members to describe the
financial needs of the
organization, ways to advocate
for the organization and
potential donors.
Board members need to know
how to identify, cultivate, and
solicit donors as a part of their
external responsibilities.
Procedural Interview questions asking
Board members to convey the
steps to identify, cultivate, and
solicit donors.

Document analysis with
preassigned measurables
outlining activities (donor pool,
contacts with potential donors,
meetings established, number of
“asks”).
Board members need to reflect
on their strategies to meet
external responsibilities.
Metacognitive Interviews asking Board
members to talk about their
thought processes or strategies
and identify areas needing
additional clarification and
attention.

Motivation
According to Rueda (2011), motivation is defined as the impetus to achieve goals. Clark
and Estes (2008) contend motivational causes are more complex, but that there are three
common components: active choice, persistence, and effort. The authors define active choice as
the fortitude to start an activity, persistence as the ability to work toward a goal despite
challenges, and mental effort as the willingness to generate new learning and knowledge (Clark
& Estes, 2008). An example of the components, as it relates to fundraising at the RRF, would be

47

Board members must make an active choice to approach a donor to give to the organization, they
must persist to get a meeting with the potential donor, and they must exert mental effort on
aligning organization needs with the desires of the donor. A review of the current scholarly
research highlights several motivational theories the RRF Board members can utilize to
effectively meet their external responsibilities for fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. Finally, this study looked at four motivational influences: individual self-efficacy,
utility and intrinsic values and attributions with corresponding knowledge influence assessments
to achieve high-performance outcomes. Table 3 at the end of this section categorizes the
motivation influences and the corresponding influence assessment for RRF Board members.
Self-Efficacy Theory
Pajares (2009) defines self-efficacy as how capable one feels at achieving a goal or an
activity. Additionally, the author asserts self-efficacy beliefs are the foundation for motivation,
and without it, individuals would likely not pursue an endeavor (Pajares, 2009; Bandura, 2000).
Bandura (2000) claims self-efficacy is not the same as self-esteem. The author goes on to say
self-efficacy is based on the capacity to do the task whereas self-esteem is a judgement of self-
worth (Bandura, 2000). Furthermore, Pintrich (2003) suggests when people believe they are
capable, they try harder, persist longer, and perform better. Moreover, Clark and Estes (2008)
stress self-efficacy stems from individual experiences, interpretations, and beliefs about their
ability to perform a task.
Individual Self-Efficacy. Board members must be confident they can take steps to
identify, cultivate, and solicit donations from potential donors as a part of their external
responsibilities. Self-efficacy is important because RRF Board members must believe they can
meet their external responsibilities. For example, if an RRF Board member was not efficacious

48

enough to participate in the fundraising process, their external responsibility to the organization
would not be met. Undoubtedly, fundraising can seem like a daunting task and cause internal
doubt but knowing how to meet external responsibilities is critical for performance (Cumberland
et al., 2015). Nicholson et al, (2012) found high self-efficacy for Board roles, skills, and
available resources are positively correlated with individual or organizational performance. The
RRF Board must understand their individual self-efficacy in identifying, cultivating, and
soliciting donations from potential donors is important to meeting the organizational goal.
Expectancy-Value Theory
Rueda (2011) defines values as the importance attached to a task. The author also defines
expectancy as the competency level one expects on a task or activity. Therefore, expectancy-
value theory encompasses two dimensions: the expectation of success and the perception of
value attached to the task or goal (Eccles, 2006). Ultimately, the theory focuses on if the
individual can do the task and if the individual wants to do the task (Eccles, 2006). For example,
RRF Board members may resist their external responsibility of fundraising because they expect
to fail, and they simply do not want to participate in fundraising.
Additionally, there are four core beliefs pertaining to expectancy-value theory: attainment
value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost belief (Eccles, 2006, Rueda, 2011). Attainment value
is linked to individual preferences, and intrinsic is linked to the activity being pleasurable
(Eccles, 2006; Rueda, 2011). Utility value is usefulness with a future goal, and cost value refers
to the return on investment of time, effort or another metric assigned (Eccles, 2006; Rueda,
2011). Clark and Estes (2008) suggest, to increase motivation for a goal, values must be aligned.
Moreover, according to Eccles (2006), expectancy and value are strong predictors of

49

performance. Overall, achieving a greater understanding of expectancy-value theory is important
because each uniquely influences external responsibility goal achievement for Board members.
Utility Value. RRF Board members must find external responsibilities to be useful to
secure needed resources for the organization. Rueda (2011) emphasizes utility value is the
usefulness of participating in an activity to reach goals. RRF Board members need to believe
their efforts will bring about a meaningful outcome. Brown (2007) also asserts Board activities
which include value alignment leads to higher performing Boards. According to Miller-Stevens
et al., (2014) belief systems and values determine an individual’s association with a particular
organization. RRF Board members specifically chose the organization due to value alignment,
and they need to feel their work is useful. Simply filling a Board seat does not provide utility
value.
Intrinsic Value. RRF Board members need to feel engaged and enjoy the process of
participating in external responsibilities to provide organizational resources. Rueda (2011)
asserts intrinsic value as the enjoyment of participating in an activity. Eccles (2006) further
clarifies intrinsic value also applies to the expectation of participating in a task in the future. RRF
Board members must be engaged and enjoy their external responsibilities to the point of being
motivated by it. Board members will likely continue to serve if they are enjoying their service
and getting something out of the experience (Miller-Stevens et al., 2014). Investment by the RRF
to create a positive and enjoyable climate for Board members will naturally increase intrinsic
value.
Attribution Theory
Attribution theory examines the need to know why circumstances occur and how that
correlates to motivation (Anderman & Anderman, 2009). The authors further explain that

50

individuals try to make sense of their environment by trying to understand why events happen
(Anderman & Anderman, 2009). For example, a donor may decline an invitation to give to the
RRF and Board members try to understand if their efforts caused the refusal or if it was
circumstances outside of their control. Weiner (2007) proposes that individuals try to understand
what happened and focus on their own attributions. Finally, Pekrun (2011) posits emotions are
central to attribution due to their influence on the success or failure of the endeavor. RRF Board
members are human and an examination of their attributions and its effect on motivation would
be beneficial to achieving their external responsibilities.
Locus of Control. Board members need to attribute success or failure in external
responsibilities to their own efforts. The locus dimension in attribution theory refers to whether
the cause of the event is perceived as internal to the individual or to external forces (Anderman
& Anderman, 2009). The authors also assert only internal attributions can be controlled. If an
RRF Board member believes they failed to raise money for the organization because they lack
ability, it is an internal attribution. If an RRF Board member believes lack of fundraising revenue
is due to the current economic climate, it would be an external attribution. Likewise, success or
failure in each area can cause positive attributions for RRF Board members or negative
attributions respectively. RRF Board members need to attribute their success or failure to their
own efforts thereby denoting a locus of control.
Table 3 below summarizes the four motivation influences with the corresponding
motivation influences assessments necessary for the RRF Board to meet their external
responsibilities to achieve the goal of securing $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives.

51

Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission of the RRF is to assist, educate, and advocate for people living with a rare
disorder living in the United States.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2020, the RRF will secure $10 million in revenue in support of organizational
initiatives.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By December 2020, 100% of RRF Board will meet their performance metrics set by Chief
Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach.
Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Individual self-efficacy –Board members are
confident they can take steps to identify, cultivate,
and solicit donations from potential donors as a part
of their external responsibilities.
Survey asking Board members to rate
their individual confidence areas in the
donor solicitation process.

Interview to determine strengths and
weaknesses.
Value (Utility)—Board members must find external
responsibilities to be useful to secure needed
resources for the organization.
Survey asking Board members if they
value external responsibilities.

Interview to determine if Board
members feel their time is being used
wisely and if contributions matter to the
overall goal.
Value (Intrinsic) -Board members need to feel
engaged and enjoy the process of participating in
external responsibilities to provide organizational
resources.
Survey asking Board members to rate
their personal engagement with external
responsibilities.

Interview to determine Board member
enjoyment while participating in
external responsibilities.

52

Attribution-Board members attribute success or
failure in external responsibilities to their own
efforts.
Survey to assess Board member’s
perception of their success as a result of
their efforts.

Interviews to ask Board member’s
perception of their success as a result of
their efforts.

Organization
Change is often seen as tenuous in nonprofit organizations, but the Board’s true value is
its ability to lead through times of significant change (Jaskyte, 2017). According to Clark and
Estes (2008), effective change results in the systematic analysis of performance gaps. Change
must occur at the RRF to realize its goal of 100% of the Board meeting their performance
metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach by December 2020. To address needed change and identify performance
gaps, this section presents general organization theory, cultural models, cultural settings, and the
respective influences affecting the RRF Board’s ability to meet their goal.
General Organization Theory
Schein (2004) defines culture as a constantly evolving shared history or characteristics of
a group that shapes organizational thinking. Erez and Gati (2004) define organizational culture as
visible and invisible group learning driven by shared values. Defining culture is a challenging
endeavor, but most agree culture is visible and vitally important (Schein, 2004; McLaughlin,
2002). Moreover, Erez and Gati (2004) believe culture is shared meaning and an individual
cannot be culturally tied to the group if they do not prescribe to the group’s shared meaning.
Schein (2004) asserts culture is focused on group integration and solving organizational
problems through adaptation.

53

This section reviews literature focused on the organizational influences relevant to the
successful achievement of the RRF Board meeting their external responsibilities for fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach. This study focused on the RRF Board member’s
organizational performance gaps to effectively meet their external responsibilities. Clark and
Estes (2008) contend organizational culture greatly influences performance and problem-solving
and improvement efforts must understand the organizational culture to be successful.
Additionally, Peter Drucker is often credited as saying, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”
(Cave, 2017). The importance of understanding organizational culture in problem solving and
strategy development cannot be understated. For example, in the context of the RRF, an
organizational gap may be even though Board members are expected to meet their external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach, they are not given formal
education on what those duties entail. Additionally, the organization’s cultural models and
cultural settings may cause additional role ambiguity. Therefore, to meet the organizational and
stakeholder goals at the RRF, an in-depth examination of cultural models and cultural settings, as
it pertains to organizational performance, is needed.
Cultural Models
Drawing on sociocultural theory that posits learning is social in nature, culture is
important to learning and performance (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). Gallimore and Goldenberg
(2010) define cultural models as social learning via culture and context through a shared mental
schema. The authors also add cultural models are often invisible and unnoticed among members
of a group (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). An example of a cultural model at the RRF is Board
members must hold each other accountable for meeting external responsibilities. Finally, cultural
models develop over time and apply to organizations and individuals within an organization

54

(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). The RRF needs to understand its cultural models to meet
organizational expectations and accountability for external responsibilities.
There is a Culture of Meeting Expectations for External Responsibilities Among
Board Members. Aligning and managing external expectations fosters a culture of harmony,
builds organizational trust, and provides clarity of purpose for the Board (BoardSource, 2017;
Campbell, 2002; Ebrahim, 2010; McDonald, 2007; Saksida et al., 2017; Olinske & Hellman,
2017). According to BoardSource (2017), Chief Executives give Board members an average
rating in meeting expectations for external responsibilities. Almost 40 years ago and still true
today, Provan (1980) noted when nonprofit resources are tight, a strong emphasis is placed on
Board member’s external responsibilities and performance. For the RRF, the organization needs
to hold Board members accountable for meeting external responsibilities. Equally important,
other Board members must model the behavior to set expectations for others to follow.
There is a Culture of Accountability for External Responsibilities Among Board
Members. Nonprofits are accountable to many stakeholders and it is often difficult to determine
which stakeholder receives priority (Ebrahim 2010). The RRF needs, first and foremost, to hold
Board members accountable to the organization for meeting external responsibilities. According
to Saksida et al., (2017), accountability builds trust within the organization and externally with
the community. Accountability in its most basic form is simply trust. BoardSource (2017)
recommends cultivating a culture of trust, respect, and mutual accountability within the Board by
creating opportunities to engage with others to deepen their understanding and their shared
commitment to the work of the organization. The RRF Board needs to develop an accountable
environment focused on external responsibilities by capitalizing on their shared commitment to
the communities served.

55

Cultural Settings
Sociocultural theory also applies to cultural settings. Cultural interactions and culturally
organized activities influence settings, and the development of groups and individuals within a
group (Scott & Palinscar, 2006). Gallimore and Goldenberg (2010) define cultural settings as the
manifestation of behavior when individuals or groups come together to accomplish an
organizational task. A cultural setting is also known as the who, what, when, where, and why of
a specific environment (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). An example of a cultural setting at the
RRF is orientation for new Board members with a defined agenda. Moreover, a cultural setting
also defines the innate social context of the organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). The
RRF needs to understand its cultural settings for orientation, and a Statement of Expectations for
Board members to meet external responsibilities.
The Organization Educates Board Members on the Importance of External
Responsibilities. Nonprofit Board members need clearly defined board roles and responsibilities
to provide clarity of purpose and higher competency levels (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2007;
Wright & Millesen, 2008). Board education can be structured or unstructured in an
organizational setting (BoardSource, 2017). For the RRF, the organization needs to educate
Board members on the importance of external responsibilities. Without structured or
unstructured education on Board external responsibilities, the RRF Board cannot realize its goal
of reaching $10 million in revenue due to role ambiguity.
The Organization has a Statement of Expectations Outlining External
Responsibilities for Board Members. Board members help organizations stay true to the
mission and purpose (Wright & Millesen, 2008; Brown 2007). Without a baseline knowledge of
responsibilities and the relationship to performance, the Board could not adequately ensure

56

resources for the organization (Miller-Millesen, 2003). To be effective in meeting their external
responsibilities, Board members need to achieve a level of role mastery (Coule, 2015). A
Statement of Expectations improves role clarity which could improve role mastery. A Statement
of Expectations is not a legal document but an internal agreement outlining what is expected of
Board members during tenure. It may encompass personal giving, fundraising, community
outreach, advocacy, and administrative service to the organization. The purpose of the Statement
of Expectations is twofold: 1) to apprise new Board members of the commitment they will be
asked to make; 2) to inform the public of what the organization expects of its members
(BoardSource, n.d.). The RRF Board needs a formalized Statement of Expectations outlining the
organization’s needs and the Board member’s formal commitment to meeting those needs.
Table 4 below summarizes assumed organizational influences and the suggested
organizational influence assessment.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influences Assessment
Organizational Mission
The mission of the RRF is to assist, educate, and advocate for people living with a
rare disorder living in the United States.
Organizational Global Goal
By December 2020, the RRF will secure $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives.
Stakeholder Performance Goal
By December 2020, 100% of RRF Board will meet their performance metrics set by
Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Assessment

57

Cultural Model Influence 1: There is a
culture of meeting expectations for
external responsibilities among Board
members.
Survey questions (Likert-scale) and
interviews to determine baseline
organizational expectations and Board
encouragement to meet expectations.
Cultural Model Influence 2: There is a
culture of accountability for external
responsibilities among Board members.
Survey questions (Likert-scale), interviews,
and document analysis to assess
organizational accountability methods and
support among Board members.
Cultural Setting Influence 1: The
organization educates Board members on
the importance of external
responsibilities.
Survey questions (Likert-scale), interviews,
and document analysis to assess education
methods and its influence on organizational
performance.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: The
organization has a Statement of
Expectations outlining external
responsibilities for Board members.
Interviews and document analysis to identify
a Statement of Expectations and to determine
applicable content and value.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
Clark and Estes (2008) assert all knowledge is inherently conceptual because it is
obtained by organizing learned facts and concepts. However, conceptual learning lacks a defined
structure. A conceptual framework is a defined structure that organizes concepts, ideas,
relationships, and variables to augment or explain what is being studied (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Maxwell, (2013) asserts the conceptual framework’s main purpose is
to coalesce ideas and assumptions presented in the literature with personal experience to
construct a tentative theory to justify the research. Additionally, the conceptual framework is
driven and designed by the research questions in the study with the goal of advancing knowledge
and scholarly discourse (Maxwell, 2013; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). Moreover, a conceptual
framework is not simply unearthed in the process of gathering research, it is deliberately drawn
from empirical and theoretical literature, personal experience, and thought experiments (Merriam

58

& Tisdell, 2016). As such, a well-organized study should only focus on the most pertinent
variables and try to avoid every conceivable variable in the study (Krieger, 2012). Finally,
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) contend a conceptual framework provides parameters to keep
literature, theories, and personal experiences within the confines of the study.
For this study, the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences
were presented previously in the chapter as separate aspects affecting the RRF Board member’s
goal to meet their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. However, according to Clark and Estes (2008), the KMO influences do not exist in
isolation and must be collectively addressed to achieve the goal. By following the
recommendation of Clark and Estes (2008) to address the interactions of the KMOs, the study
yielded additional insights as well as hidden influences. The KMO influenced the conceptual
framework in this study, and previous research, theory, and data gleaned from the study
ultimately developed a comprehensive Board external responsibilities program to achieve the
stakeholder goal at the RRF. Therefore, the constructed framework and the interaction of the
following theories further informed the study.
Clark and Estes (2008) contend relevant research can focus efforts on variables that have
the greatest impact on the goal. A theory from the literature, self-efficacy theory (Bandera, 2000;
Pajares, 2009), impacts the conceptual framework in this study. Self-efficacy influences the RRF
Board member’s ability to assess their capability to meet the goal. Board members need to be
confident they can take steps to identify, cultivate, and solicit donations from potential donors as
a part of their external responsibilities (BoardSource, 2017; Cumberland et al., 2015; Nicholson
et al., 2012). If the organization educates Board members on their external responsibilities, they

59

will be confident and motivated due to high self-efficacy to draw on their knowledge to
procedurally identify, cultivate, and solicit donors as a part of their external responsibilities.
A second theory from the literature impacting the conceptual framework in this study is
expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 2006; Reuda, 2011). Expectancy-value theory is simply
defined as the competency level one expects on a task or activity (Rueda, 2011). Expectancy-
value theory encompasses two dimensions that include the expectation of success and the
perception of value attached to the task or goal (Eccles, 2006). Ultimately, the theory focuses on
two specific questions, “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want to do the task?” (Eccles, 2006).
Moreover, according to Eccles (2006), expectancy and value are strong predictors of
performance.
Additionally, Board members need to find utility in carrying out the external
responsibilities as well as intrinsic value (Brown, 2007; Miller-Stevens et al., 2014). Intrinsic
value pertains to the enjoyment or satisfaction one derives from participating in an activity
(Rueda, 2011). If the culture dictates RRF Board members must meet expectations for external
responsibilities, they will cognitively understand the relationship between participating in
external responsibilities and its effect on organizational performance. In turn, they will be
motivated by its usefulness in meeting organizational expectations and derive some intrinsic
value from the activity.
A third theory from the literature impacting the conceptual framework in this study is
attribution (Anderman & Anderman, 2009; Pekrun, 2011). Board members need to attribute
success or failure in external responsibilities to their own efforts (Brown, 2007; BoardSource,
2017). If Board members feel successful and motivated raising money through their efforts, they
will reflect on their strategies of what was successful, so it can be repeated. Likewise, if they

60

have knowledge of how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors, they will be motivated to
attribute success to their efforts. Moreover, if the organization has a Statement of Expectations
policy outlining Board involvement in fundraising, individual Board members may attribute
alignment with the policy as a motivating influence. The interplay of the concepts discussed in
this section coalesce below in Figure 1 to illustrate the important and impactful relationships in
the conceptual framework.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Within
Organizational Cultural Models and Settings

Figure 1 introduces the conceptual framework and highlights the interaction of Board
member knowledge and motivation within the RRF organizational cultural models and settings
to achieve the goal of 100% of RRF Board meeting their performance metrics set by Chief

61

Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach
by December 2020. In the figure, the larger cardinal-colored circle represents the RRF as the
organization of study and the cultural models and settings existing within it. The cultural model
influences include an organizational culture of meeting expectations (BoardSource, 2017;
McDonald, 2007) and a culture of accountability (Campbell, 2002; Ebrahim, 2010) for Board
members. The cultural settings influences include education on external responsibilities
(Bernstein et al., 2015; Wright & Millesen, 2008), and a statement of expectations policy
(Olinske & Hellman, 2017; Saksida et al., 2017) for Board members.
The organization, cultural models, and cultural settings exist within the larger cardinal-
colored space due to its overarching and significant impact. Additionally, Clark and Estes (2018)
stress culture is so significant that it can affect strategies positively and negatively. More
specifically, the organizational cultural setting impacts knowledge and motivational influences.
In the context of the RRF Board, if the Board wanted to initiate a new strategy to identify,
cultivate, and solicit donors, but the organizational culture did not encourage such activities, the
culture would negatively impact Board members carrying out their strategy. Likewise, if the
organization taught Board members how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors, and the culture
supported it, then creating a strategy to find new donors would be positively impacted. The
importance of the organization and the respective culture cannot be overstated.
Within the organization exists the stakeholders of the study, the RRF Board members are
denoted by the gold circle nested inside the cardinal-colored circle. Inside the gold circle is a
green box containing the four knowledge influences, and a second green box containing the four
motivation influences. The knowledge influences include education on external responsibilities
in orientation (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown 2007); Board participation in external

62

responsibilities and its effect on performance (Coule, 2015; Wright & Millesen, 2008);
knowledge of how to identify, cultivate and solicit donors (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011; Duca, 1996);
and time to reflect on strategies to meet external responsibilities (Aulgur, 2016, Panas,
2010). The knowledge influences were selected based on generalized performance problems
found in the literature and problem areas causing the greatest concern at the RRF. The
motivation influences include self-efficacy as Board members take steps to identify, cultivate,
and solicit donations from potential donors (Cumberland et al., 2015; Nicholson et al., 2012);
utility value of participating in external responsibilities as a useful endeavor for the organization
(Brown, 2007; Miller-Stevens et al., 2014); intrinsic value to feel engaged in the process of
meeting external responsibilities (BoardSource, 2017; Miller-Stevens et al., 2014); and
attribution so Board members attribute success or failure in external responsibilities to their own
efforts (BoardSource, 2017; Brown, 2007). The motivation influences were selected based on
applicable theories and perceived RRF Board member performance gaps identified by Chief
Executives. The knowledge influences have a direct effect on Board members as well as the
motivational influences. Knowledge and motivation influences are related directly to the Board
members and therefore are nested inside the gold circle. Additionally, knowledge and motivation
influences can be intertwined as they influence the Board member. For example, Board members
need to reflect on strategies to meet external responsibilities, and due to that reflection time,
Board members may attribute their own steps as helpful to meeting the goal.
In the final section, the black arrow points from the RRF organization to the black box
which includes the stakeholder goal. The reason the goal falls outside of the larger cardinal-
colored circle is the organization, board members, and KMOs all coalesce to achieve the
goal. The goal does not influence the organization, Board members, or the KMOs. Hence, the

63

entire conceptual framework is purposefully designed to achieve the goal of 100% of RRF Board
will meet their performance metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020.
Conclusion
The purpose of this improvement study was to understand how role ambiguity impacts
the RRF Board members from meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach. Wright and Millesen (2008) posit Board role ambiguity adversely
affects engagement with the organization on multiple levels. Therefore, the general literature
review in this study examined ambiguity pertaining to the structure and culture of nonprofit
Boards, the conflicting nature of roles and responsibilities, barriers to learning roles and
responsibilities, and role-related accountability challenges with internal and external
stakeholders. Finally, the review further examined the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences specifically related to Board member performance gaps with external
responsibilities.
In this chapter, the knowledge influences centered on factual knowledge of external
responsibilities in orientation, conceptual knowledge of external responsibilities and its effect on
organizational performance, procedural knowledge to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors, and
metacognitive knowledge of strategies to meet external responsibilities. The motivation
influences focused on self-efficacy, utility and intrinsic value, and attributions to meet external
responsibilities. The organizational influences included the cultural models of meeting
expectations and accountability for external responsibilities, and cultural settings of the
importance of external responsibilities education along with a formalized Statement of
Expectations. To provide a conceptual framework, this chapter utilized the Clark and Estes

64

(2008) gap analysis to examine the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impacting the organizational goal to secure $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives. Finally, Chapter Three describes the study’s methodological approach
of these influences.

65

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Introduction to the Methodology
This improvement study sought to identify performance gaps impacting the Resilience
Rare Foundation (RRF) Board goal of meeting its external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach in support of the organization’s efforts to reach $10 million
in revenue. This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework with an
embedded mixed method approach. Creswell and Creswell (2018) state a mixed methods
approach collects and analyzes both quantitative and qualitative data. According to Johnson and
Christensen (2014), mixed methods provides a big-picture view and gleans the most information
from the data. This chapter further outlines the research design and methodology used, data
collection and instrumentation, and the data analysis. The questions guiding the study are:
1. What is the RRF Board’s knowledge and motivation related to meeting their performance
metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020?
2. What is the interaction between the RRF’s culture and context and the Board’s
knowledge and motivation to meeting their performance metrics set by Chief Executives
for their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy and community outreach by
December 2020?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions?
The chapter begins with a description of the participating stakeholders and continues with
an explanation of the methods used and sampling criteria for both the quantitative and qualitative
phases of the study.

66

Sampling and Recruitment
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study is the RRF Board of Directors. The RRF is
a national nonprofit with a mission to assist people living with a rare disorder in the U.S. The
RRF depends on its Board to participate in their external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach in support of the organizational goal to secure $10 million in
revenue. The RRF has 50 Board of Directors representing 50 chapters across the United States.
The RRF utilizes a federated model with each of the 50 chapters submitting one delegate to serve
a two-year term.
The RRF Board members in this study were selected to participate in different sampling
methods due to the mixed method approach and the explanatory design of the research. The
explanatory design is a multi-stage approach encompassing quantitative and qualitative data
collection points respectively (Creswell & Creswell 2018). As such, the following sections
describe the mixed method approach coupled with an explanatory design used for the surveys,
interviews, and document analysis.
Survey Sampling Strategy, Criteria, and Rationale
There are on average 1.4 million nonprofits in the U.S. with 16 Board members each,
which equates to approximately 22,400,000 Board members (Internal Revenue Service, 2008;
McKeever, 2015). It would be impossible to survey all 22,400,000 Board members. Therefore,
this study utilized the RRF Board as a sample population from the nonprofit industry. A sample
is used by researchers to generalize characteristics from the larger population, in this case the
nonprofit industry, by studying smaller representative populations (Johnson & Christensen,
2014). Surveys are often used as a data collection instrument using self-reported information to

67

answer the research questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). For this study, a census survey
was sent to all current Board members (N=50). Census is defined as surveying all members of
the respective group or population (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Finally, all RRF Board
members represented a sample of U.S. Board members to better understand performance gaps
impacting their ability to meet expectations for external responsibilities.
Criterion 1. Current Chapter Representation
The RRF consists of current and past Board members. Current Board members are
representatives from local chapters across the U.S. To effectively assess the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences pertaining to external responsibilities, Board members
must be current and represent one of the 50 chapters.
Criterion 2. Good Standing
There is a distinct difference between current Board members and ones in good standing
at the RRF. A requirement at the RRF is Board members must make a minimum financial
contribution to the organization to be in good standing. Good standing may also be linked to
motivational influences.
Criterion 3. Orientation Completed
RRF Board members receive baseline education about the organization at the beginning
of tenure. Without it, Board members cannot effectively discuss knowledge and organizational
influences with external responsibilities.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The census survey was sent to all 50 RRF Board members. The RRF Board Chair was
contacted and the researcher received permission to survey all 50 Board members with the caveat

68

findings, at the discretion of the researcher, will be reported to the full Board upon completion of
the study.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
A qualitative interview is a data collection method where the interviewer may ask
interviewees open-ended questions pertaining to the research questions and study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018; Johnson & Christensen, 2014). Interviews are often one-on-one endeavors and
highly participatory in nature (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The interview questions in this
qualitative phase followed an explanatory design whereby the researcher collected the
quantitative data from the survey, analyzed the results, and the analysis drove additional
interview questions. The purpose of the interview was to learn about the research phenomenon
through exploration (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through interviewing, the researcher uncovered
additional knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences not previously discovered in the
quantitative survey process that further explained performance gaps impacting the Board’s
ability to meet expectations for external responsibilities.
Criterion for the Interviews
The criterion for the interviews is the same as the survey above.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
At the end of the quantitative survey, recipients were asked to participate in an interview
with the researcher for the qualitative phase. From the list of participants willing to be
interviewed, the researcher created the pool of participants. The researcher interviewed seven
Board members, which is also 14% of current sitting Board members. To allow for maximum
diversity among members, two of the seven participants were in their first term, two were
midterm, and three were seasoned Board members in their last term of their tenure.

69

Document Analysis Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Documents used in research refers to any printed materials or artifacts relevant to the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Boards provide oversight for the organization and are required
to keep detailed records of their activities (Internal Revenue Service, 2008). While Boards across
the U.S. have a plethora of valuable documents to assess, for the purpose of this study, official
documents that pertain to the RRF Board were used. According to McEwan and McEwan (2003)
document analysis can fill in missing information in the study not covered in other quantitative
and qualitative data collection methods. Along with interviews, document analysis helps to
increase the validity of qualitative data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Therefore, for this study,
sample documents outlining expectations for external responsibilities were analyzed to assess
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence.
Criterion 1. Orientation Materials
As new RRF Board members begin their tenure, they must complete orientation.
Education is delivered formally with an orientation manual and staff-led instruction. To assess a
baseline knowledge of external responsibilities, the orientation manual as well as other Board
documents were reviewed.
Criterion 2. Measurement Tools for External Responsibilities
Chief Executives and development staff at the RRF currently have the tools to measure
Board member participation in external responsibilities. A thorough analysis of the data
collection tools provided insight into knowledge and motivational influences.

70

Criterion 3. Statement of Expectations
A Statement of Expectations is a policy outlining what is expected of Board members
throughout tenure. An analysis of this document uncovered additional knowledge, motivation
and organizational influences and gaps.
Document Analysis Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
Chief Executives at the RRF provided permission for the researcher to have access to the
orientation manual, measurement tools, and policies pertaining to the Board. As the orientation
manual and Statement of Expectations changes periodically, it is important to have access to the
most recent version. The researcher also gained access to the organization’s database to access
measurement tools which was pre-approved.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
For this study, three methods of data collection were chosen which include surveys,
interviews, and document analysis. The mixed-methods approach provides the researcher both
quantitative and qualitative data to understand the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences RRF Board members face in achieving their stakeholder goal of
meeting performance metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Additionally, the stakeholder goal directly
supports the organizational goal to secure $10 million in revenue for organizational initiatives by
December 2020. The following sections discuss, in greater detail, the three methods used for data
collection in this study.

71

Surveys
The researcher administered surveys used in this study via an online link through
Qualtrics. The surveys were sent via email to RRF Board members on August 26, 2019, with a
request to complete the survey by September 13, 2019. The quantitative survey consisted of five
demographic questions; six questions to assess knowledge influences; four questions to assess
motivational influences; and four questions to assess organizational influences for a total of 19
questions. Based on field testing, the survey took approximately 15 minutes for RRF Board
members to complete. Appendix A presents the survey protocol.
Interviews
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the purpose of interviewing is to obtain unique
information which only the person can provide. The researcher conducted seven one-time
interviews with RRF Board members who indicated at the conclusion of the survey their
willingness to participate in the interview process. The interviews were formal in nature and
conducted via Zoom online due to the varied geographical locations of Board members. To truly
observe what is in the mind of a person, one must ask probing questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016; Patton 2002; Weiss, 1994). Therefore, the protocol used was a mix of structured and
unstructured questions allowing for greater exploration into what cannot be observed by the
researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative interview consisted of 34 semi-structured
questions to further understand KMO influences lasting between 45-60 minutes. The
interviewing window was September 18, 2019, through October 11, 2019.
The composition of the stakeholder interview group represented two Board members in
their first two-year term, two in four second two-year term, and three in their third two-year

72

term. Interviewee responses were recorded with prior informed consent and transcribed for data
analysis. Appendix B presents the interview protocol.
Documents and Artifacts
In this study, document analysis assisted in validating and triangulating qualitative data
which can be susceptible to interpretation (Maxwell, 2013; McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The researcher collected orientation materials, presentations, database entries,
job aids, and preassigned Board metrics, and other documents made available by the
organization, to assess knowledge, motivation and organization influences. The document
collection window was from September 9, 2019, through September 13, 2019. Appendix C
presents the document analysis protocol.
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments
Table 5 below shows each KMO influence and the method and measure of the
influence. By examining the respective rows, the alignment of the methods and measures are
demonstrated.
Table 5
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments

Knowledge
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Influence
Assessment
Surveys Interviews Documents

Declarative
(Factual): Board
members need a
baseline
knowledge of
external
responsibilities
in orientation.
Survey to
demonstrate
Board member
knowledge.

Interview
questions to
assess
knowledge,
and document
analysis of
Multiple choice:
Of the following, which
are external
responsibilities of a
Board member.
(Check all that apply)

a. Fundraising
b. Monitoring and
managing financial
resources
As a Board
member, please
tell me your
understanding
of fundraising
with regard to
your external
responsibilities.

What is your
understanding
Orientation
manual for
Board
members

Board
orientation
syllabus and
presentation
materials.

73

orientation
materials.
c. Advocacy
d. Providing oversight
e. Approving minutes
f. Attending meetings
g. Community
outreach
h. Managing CEO and
staff
of advocacy as
a Board
member?

What is your
understanding
of community
outreach as a
Board member?

Probe: Can you
give me an
example?
Declarative
(Conceptual):
Board members
need to
understand the
relationship
between their
participation in
external
responsibilities
and its effect on
organizational
performance.

Interview
asking Board
to talk about
their actions
with respect to
external
responsibilities
and its effect
on
organizational
performance.

Interview
asking Board
members to
describe the
financial needs
of the
organization,
ways to
advocate for
the
organization
and potential
donors.
Two column matching
test:
Match the external
responsibilities in
Column A with the
respective roles in
Column B.

Column A
(may be used more than
once):
a. Fundraising
b. Advocacy
c. Community
Outreach

Column B:
a. Speaking to
legislators
b. Recommending
potential donors
c. Connecting people
with the
organization
d. Cultivating donors
e. Speaking in front of
community groups
f. Finding diverse
Board members
g. Asking for financial
support
h. Educating others
about the disorder
Describe how
your
participation in
fundraising
affects
organizational
performance.

Describe how
your
participation in
advocacy
affects
organizational
performance.

Describe how
your
participation in
community
outreach affects
organizational
performance.

Probe: Knowing
there is a
relationship to
organizational
performance,
how does it
make you feel?
Board
member
activity in
Salesforce as
part of the
organization-
al financial
goal, or
activity
captured
relating to
advocacy or
community
outreach.

74

Procedural:
Board members
need to know
how to identify,
cultivate, and
solicit donors as
a part of their
external
responsibilities.

Interview
questions
asking Board
members to
convey the
steps to
identify,
cultivate, and
solicit donors.

Document
analysis with
preassigned
measurables
outlining
activities
(donor pool,
contacts with
potential
donors,
meetings
established,
number
of “asks”).
Multiple choice.
Choose the best
answer to complete
the sentence.

The CEO has asked
you to identify
potential donors for the
organization.

Your first step to
identify a potential
donor is to…
a) Identify people
or companies who
have the ability to
give.
b) Identify people
you know in your
network.
c) Take the person
out to lunch
d) Identify people
or organizations by
connection, belief,
and ability.
e) Identify others who
believe in the cause.

Multiple choice.
Choose the best
answer to complete
the sentence.

After you identified a
potential donor, your
next step to cultivate
the donor is to……
a) Understand what
the donor finds
important or values.
b) Ask the donor for a
donation.
c) Get the donor
involved in the
organization.
Explain your
process to
identify donors.

Explain your
process to
cultivate
donors.

Explain your
process to
solicit donors
for money.

Probe: Can you
give me a real-
life example?
Moves
management
in Salesforce
for the Board
members

Determine
preassigned
measurables

Documents
outlining
responsibil-
ities in
orientation,
or online,
Board portal

75

d) Be the
organization’s biggest
cheerleader.

Multiple choice. Choose
the best answer to
complete the sentence.
After you have
identified and cultivated
a potential donor, your
final step to solicit the
donor is to….
a) Make the ask face-
to-face.
b) Strategize on
who is the best
person to make the
ask.
c) Ask when the
donor is ready.
d) See if they know
someone else who
would like to give.
e) Not wait too long
to make the ask.
Metacognitive:
Board members
need to reflect
on their
strategies to
meet external
responsibilities.

Interviews
asking Board
members to
talk about their
thought
processes or
strategies and
identify areas
needing
additional
clarification
and attention.
Multiple choice. Choose
the best answer to
complete the sentence.
I self-reflect on my
external responsibilities
by….
a) Thinking about the
effectiveness of my own
fundraising strategies to
raise money for the
organization.
b) Deciding what needs
to be changed in my
approach to legislators
when I advocate for the
rare community and the
organization.
c) Deciding how to
appropriately engage in
community outreach
Describe your
thought
processes to me
as you
navigated
through a
fundraising
experience?

Describe your
thought
processes to me
as you
navigated
through an
advocacy
experience.

Describe your
thought
processes to me
Guides from
the
organization
on what to do
before,
during and
after the
meeting.

76

efforts on behalf of the
organization.
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

as you
navigated
through a
community
outreach
experience.

Probe: Why did
you make those
choices? Were
there outside
influences?

Probe: Why did
you follow that
mental process
versus another?
Probe: When
you reflect,
what changes
would you
make to your
thought
processes?
Motivation
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Influence
Assessment
Surveys Interviews Documents
Individual self-
efficacy: Board
members are
confident they
can take steps to
identify,
cultivate, and
solicit donations
from potential
donors as a part
of their external
responsibilities.
Survey asking
Board members
to rate their
individual
confidence areas
in the donor
solicitation
process.
Interview to
determine
strengths and
weaknesses.
(5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Not
confident; 2-Rarely
confident; 3-Neutral;
4-Somewhat
confident; 5-Very
confident)
As of right now,
please rate your
confidence level in
being able to:
a) identify potential
donors.
b) cultivate potential
donors.
c) solicit potential
donors.
Tell me about a
time when you
felt confident
identifying
potential
donors.
Discuss an
experience
where you
confidently
cultivated a
potential donor?
Describe the
last time you
felt confident
soliciting
donors?

77

Probes:
What impacts
your
confidence?
What do you
think increases
your
confidence?
Are you more
confident alone
or in a group
when you
solicit people
for money?
Value (Utility):
Board members
must find
external
responsibilities
to be useful to
secure needed
resources for the
organization.
Survey asking
Board members
if they value
external
responsibilities.

Interview to
determine if
Board members
feel their time is
being used
wisely and if
contributions
matter to the
overall goal.
Multiple choice:
Organize the
sentences in order of
what you value
most. 1-most
important and 5-
least important:

a. Participating in
fundraising to
secure
organizational
resources.
b. Community
outreach to build
a stronger
network of like-
minded people.
c. Advocating on
behalf of the
organization to
stay relevant.
d. Working my
networks to
build future
donors.
e. Talking to
legislators about
policies
important to the
community.
How does your
participation in
fundraising
impact
organizational
resources?

How does your
participation in
advocacy
impact
organizational
resources?

How does your
participation in
community
outreach impact
organizational
resources?

Probe: Can you
give me an
example?

Do you set your
goals to match
organizational
goals?

78

Value
(Intrinsic):
Board members
need to feel
engaged and
enjoy the
process of
participating in
external
responsibilities
to provide
organizational
resources.
Survey asking
Board members
to rate their
personal
engagement
with external
responsibilities.
Interview to
determine Board
member
enjoyment while
participating in
external
responsibilities.
Multiple
choice: Complete
the following
sentence.
I enjoy: (check all
that apply):
a. Finding
potential donors
to ask for
money.
b. Telling others
about the
organization.
c. Thanking donors
for their gift to
the organization.
d. Matching the
desires of the
donor with the
needs of the
organization.
e. Meeting like-
minded people
to engage with
the organization.
f. Ensuring the
organization has
enough
resources.
g. Meeting with
legislators to
advocate for the
cause.
h. Asking for
money during
the fundraising
process.
Walk me
through what
you find
enjoyable or
engaging when
participating in
fundraising?

Walk me
through what
you find
enjoyable or
engaging in
advocacy?

Walk me
through what
you find
enjoyable or
engaging in
community
outreach?

Probe: Why do
you feel this
way?

Attribution:
Board members
attribute success
or failure in
external
responsibilities
to their own
efforts.
Survey to assess
Board member’s
perception of
their success as
a result of their
efforts.

Interviews to
ask Board
(All questions below
are 5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Strongly
Disagree; 2-
Disagree; 3-
Undecided; 4-Agree;
5-Strongly Agree)
With regard to your
external
To what or
whom do you
attribute your
successes or
failures in
fundraising?

To what or
whom do you

79

member’s
perception of
their success as
a result of their
efforts.

responsibilities, rate
your level of
agreement with the
statements below:

a. I attribute my
success or failure in
fundraising to my
own efforts.
b. I attribute my
success or failure in
advocacy to my own
efforts.
c. I attribute my
success or failure in
community outreach
to my own efforts.
attribute your
successes or
failures in
advocacy?

To what or
whom do you
attribute your
successes or
failures in
community
outreach?

Probe: Can you
tell me more
about that?
Can you give
me an example?
Organization
Assumed
Organization
Influences
Organization
Influence
Assessment
Surveys Interviews Documents
Cultural Model
Influence 1:
There is a
culture of
meeting
expectations for
external
responsibilities
among Board
members.
Survey questions
(Likert-scale)
and interviews to
determine
baseline
organizational
expectations and
Board
encouragement
to meet
expectations.
My organization
has a culture of
meeting
expectations for
external
responsibilities
among Board
members.

(5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Strongly
Disagree; 2-
Disagree; 3-
Undecided; 4-
Agree; 5-Strongly
Agree)

What are the
expectations
among Board
members for
fundraising?

What are the
expectations
among Board
members for
advocacy?

What are the
expectations
among Board
members for
community
outreach?

Probe: Why do
you think that
occurs or does
not occur?
Obtain Board
expectations
in Board
materials or in
database.

80

Cultural Model
Influence 2:
There is a
culture of
accountability
for external
responsibilities
among Board
members.
Survey questions
(Likert-scale),
interviews, and
document
analysis to
assess
organizational
accountability
methods and
support among
Board members.
Board members at
my organization
hold each other
accountable for
external
responsibilities.

(5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Strongly
Disagree; 2-
Disagree; 3-
Undecided; 4-
Agree; 5-Strongly
Agree)

Explain how
Board members
hold each other
accountable for
meeting the
external
responsibility of
fundraising.

Explain how
Board members
hold each other
accountable for
advocacy.

Explain how
Board members
hold each other
accountable for
advocacy.

Probe: Can you
give me a
concrete
example of
this?
Obtain
measures of
accountability
for Board
members in
Board
materials or in
database.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1: The
organization
educates Board
members on the
importance of
external
responsibilities.
Survey questions
(Likert-scale),
interviews, and
document
analysis to
assess education
methods and its
influence on
organizational
performance.
My organization
educates Board
members on the
importance of
external
responsibilities.

(5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Strongly
Disagree;
2-Disagree; 3-
Undecided; 4-
Agree; 5-Strongly
Agree)
How does the
organization
educate Board
members on the
importance of
fundraising?

How does the
organization
educate Board
members on the
importance of
advocacy?

How does the
organization
educate Board
members on the
importance of
Obtain and
review current
orientation
materials or
supplemental
materials to
educate Board
members on
fundraising,
advocacy, and
community
outreach.

81

community
outreach?

Probe: What
else could the
organization do
or how could
they do it
better?
Do you think
the education is
effective?
Cultural Setting
Influence 2: The
organization has
a Statement of
Expectations
outlining
external
responsibilities
for Board
members.
Surveys,
interviews and
document
analysis to
identify a
Statement of
Expectations and
to determine
applicable
content and
value.
My organization has
a Statement of
Expectations
outlining external
responsibilities for
Board members.

(5-point Likert
Scale: 1-Strongly
Disagree;
2-Disagree; 3-
Undecided; 4-
Agree; 5-Strongly
Agree)
If you could
design a
statement or
policy listing
the most
important
expectations for
Board service,
what would
they be?

Probe: Tell me
why you chose
those
expectations
over others?
Obtain current
Statement of
Expectations
for Board
members or
similar
document.

Data Analysis
Maxwell (2013) asserts planning for data analysis must be an integral part of the study
design and not decided once all the data are collected. Data analysis is defined as the process of
synthesizing and organizing data into patterns or themes to make meaning (Bogdan & Biklin,
2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data collection and
analysis is a dynamic process that must be completed simultaneously. Therefore, in this mixed-
methods study, the researcher analyzed quantitative data from surveys and qualitative data from
interviews and documents to further the emergent design. A quantitative and qualitative method
provides a wealth of information to strengthen data for analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).

82

The following sections describe the systematic process utilized to collect and analyze data in this
study.
Surveys
The most efficient way to analyze data is through the creation of frequencies (Salkind,
2014). Quantitative analysis in this study utilized class intervals in which frequencies are
calculated. Because the quantitative portion of the study is a census, the researcher also
calculated measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) in
responses. Measures of central tendency and dispersion increase understanding of participant
responses (Johnson & Christenson, 2014). The census and subsequent analysis were conducted
utilizing Qualtrics software. Finally, a descriptive statistical analysis was conducted once all the
surveys were submitted, and findings are presented as a narrative with corresponding tables in
Chapter Four.
Interviews
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend analyzing data from interviews immediately
upon completion to foster an emergent design. Therefore, in this study after interviews were
completed, the researcher immediately wrote analytic memos by documenting thoughts,
concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and
research questions. Finally, interviews were transcribed and coded for greater depth of analysis.
In this study, data analysis for interview transcripts evolved in three phases. In the first
phase of data analysis, the researcher used open coding to find empirical codes and then
determined a priori codes gleaned from the conceptual framework. In the second phase of data
analysis, the researcher sorted aggregated empirical and a priori codes into axial and analytical
codes. In the third and final phase of data analysis, the researcher identified axial codes and

83

themes from the interview transcripts in relation to the conceptual framework and study
questions. Themes from the data identified gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture relating to RRF Board member’s external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach. Themes outside of the conceptual framework were also captured in this
process. Finally, a codebook was created during data analysis which included the frequency of
themes highlighted in the transcripts and are presented as findings in narrative form with
corresponding tables in Chapter Four.
Documents and Artifacts
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) state documents are physical or online sources of data
existing in a natural setting prior to the commencement of the study. In this qualitative portion of
the study, the researcher analyzed documents for evidence consistent with the concepts found in
the conceptual framework to include knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
These secondary sources of qualitative data help to triangulate data derived from the study to
increase reliability and validity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Finally, the findings from
document analysis are presented in narrative form in Chapter Four.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Research credibility and trustworthiness is often linked to a study’s rigor, methods of data
collection, and trustworthiness of the researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, (2002).
Challenges with credibility and trustworthiness occur when the researcher is also the primary
instrument of data collection in the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It is
important, in this study, to limit bias since the researcher conducted interviews with participants
and subsequently coded and analyzed the data collected. This section describes the steps the

84

researcher took to minimize inherent bias and increase credibility and trustworthiness throughout
all phases of the study.
The first strategy the researcher used to increase credibility and trustworthiness was the
use of triangulation. Triangulation is defined as purposefully seeking out multiple sources of data
and utilizing various sampling methods to increase credibility and validity (Creswell & Creswell,
2018; Johnson and Christensen, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such, in
this study, the researcher triangulated data from multiple sources to include surveys, interviews,
and documents to increase credibility and trustworthiness while limiting researcher bias.
The second strategy the researcher used to increase credibility and trustworthiness was to
engage in member checks. Maxwell (2013) states member checks involve taking ambiguous
information back to the respondent or participant for clarification. The author also adds member
checks are highly effective in reducing misinterpretations and ambiguous meaning as well as
reducing researcher bias (Maxwell, 2013). During the data analysis phase of the study, if
ambiguous information arises, the interviewee was contacted to schedule a follow-up interview
with supplemental questions to clarify ambiguous information.
The third and final strategy the researcher used to increase credibility and trustworthiness
is an awareness of reflexivity. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define reflexivity as the researcher’s
awareness of what is being studied and how the research process affects the researcher. The
researcher, in this study, has 15 years of experience as a fundraiser, Board management, and
nonprofit leadership. Undoubtedly, the researcher exercised extensive reflection and reflexivity
when proceeding through interviews and document analysis to mitigate assumptions and bias.
In summary, Creswell and Creswell (2018) suggest researchers should clearly outline the
steps they will take to provide a credible study. Furthermore, Merriam and Tisdell (2016)

85

recommend the researcher should reflect in every phase of the study whether the findings are
credible based on data presented. Essentially, as the primary instrument of the study, the
researcher must conduct the study ethically and in a trustworthy manner to ensure the validity of
the findings.
Validity and Reliability
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), researchers must conduct investigations in an
ethical and rigorous manner in order to contribute valid and reliable knowledge to an area of
study. Validity refers to the researcher seeking accurate information, and reliability refers to
consistency in the approach to obtaining data in sampling (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Validity
and reliability are also dependent upon asking clear and concise questions to elicit intended
results (Robinson & Firth Leonard, 2019). In this study, a survey was sent to all 50 Board
members with an aim to have 80% (n=40) of the population take part in the study. The large
number of participants aids in validity by providing enough data to reliably generalize about the
population (Johnson & Christenson, 2014). Additionally, in the study, participants self-selected
to be interviewed. The interviewees were selected purposefully based on tenure and randomly
within the tenure range. According to Krueger and Casey (2009), this will reduce bias in
selection and increase the study’s reliability.
In every study, the possibility exists for the researcher to make incorrect or erroneous
assumptions, explanations, or interpretations. Maxwell (2013) defines those situations as threats
to validity. In this study, threats to validity include maturation, mortality, and diffusion.
Creswell and Creswell (2018) define maturation as participants changing or maturing during the
experiment. At any time, Board members can gain additional knowledge during tenure or
participate at varying levels in their external responsibilities. Therefore, Board members were

86

grouped into length of tenure in each of the sampling methods. Creswell and Creswell (2018)
also define mortality as participants leaving the study for various reasons. Because Board
members are volunteers and chosen to be representatives at the discretion of the chapter, the
threat of mortality is significant. Therefore, the researcher performed data collection within a six-
week window to abate the threat of mortality. Finally, Creswell and Creswell (2018) define
diffusion as communication among groups that could pose a threat to the study. To alleviate this
type of threat in the study, the researcher asked Board members to not discuss the survey or
interviews with colleagues until the sampling period ends.
Ethics
The approach to conducting research in this study centers on the researcher acting
ethically before the study, during data collection and analysis, and after the study (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), trustworthiness of data is
inexplicably linked to the trustworthiness of the researcher. Therefore, to conduct the study in an
ethical and trustworthy manner, the researcher was cognizant of several areas of responsibility to
mitigate ethical concerns relating to RRF Board members as human-subject participants.
Prior to data collection, the researcher’s first responsibility is to address ethical
considerations with respect to human subjects by submitting the research plan to the University
of Southern California Internal Review Board (IRB) for review and approval. In addition to IRB
approval, the researcher is also bound by an industry-specific code of conduct to ensure
interactions with nonprofit Board members are respectful, truthful, and professional (CFRE,
n.d.). Moreover, researchers have a responsibility to interact ethically with human-subject
participants by doing no harm, obtaining informed consent, and maintaining confidentiality
(Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

87

In this mixed methods study, all RRF Board members were asked to participate in a
survey. At the end of the survey, Board members self-selected to participate in the interview
process. For the survey portion of the study, an email with an attached information/facts sheet
about the study was sent to all Board members prior to participation (see Appendix C). It is the
responsibility of the researcher and an IRB guideline to provide information prior to data
collection (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In addition, the email to survey participants included a study
information document clearly outlining the purpose, collection methods, potential benefits and
risks, and how data gleaned from the study will be utilized (Merriam & Tisdell, (2016).
Furthermore, Glesne (2011) emphasizes researchers have a responsibility to ensure no harm
comes to their participants during the data collection process. As such, the study
information/facts sheet also emphatically stated participation in the survey is anonymous,
confidential, voluntary, and may be withdrawn at any time (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Patton (2002) also suggests highlighting reciprocal benefits of participating in the
study. Therefore, the study information/facts sheet stated no tangible benefits or incentives will
be offered for participation, but all participants will receive a thank you note at the conclusion.
For the interview section of the study, Board members participating in interviews also
received a study information/facts sheet, similar to survey participants, but with additional
information regarding the online interview platform which highlights further confidentiality
measures such as an explanation of the audio file and transcript storage in password-protected
files (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Therefore, the audio file
and transcript of this interview was in the researcher’s possession only in a password-protected
file stored on the researcher’s personal computer. Rubin and Rubin (2012) assert ethical behavior
in the interview process is honest, trustworthy, respectful, and without pressure. Before

88

beginning the interview, Board members were asked for permission to record the session and a
transcript of the conversation was provided upon completion. Board members were also
informed that they can stop the conversation at any time with no undue pressure to continue,
conversations are strictly confidential, and all participants will be deidentified in the study.
According to Glesne (2011), researchers are responsible for understanding and navigating
the boundaries of their relationships with participants. Hence, it is important to address the
organizational role of the researcher to provide clarity and alleviate undue influence (Rubin &
Rubin, 2012). The researcher in this study is a staff member at the organization. The RRF Board
provides leadership and oversight to the organization, and the researcher works with the Board in
a subordinate role. Due to the subordinate nature of the researcher, participation in the study does
not pose undue influence and did not result in a limitation of questions due to the participant's
willingness to share their thoughts in order to improve organizational outcomes. By helping
Board members understand their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach, the researcher assumes the role of “advocate and champion of the cause”
proposed by Glesne (2011).
Finally, Maxwell (2013) contends the researcher brings a potential bias to the study based
on their background, identity, and history which must be addressed. As the research instrument,
the researcher must be fully cognizant of potential bias and its impact on data collection and
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher in this study recognizes 15 years of nonprofit
industry experience, particularly in the external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach. However, the researcher is not a Board member, and the experiences of a
staff member versus a Board member are quite different. Hence, the purpose of this study was
not to convey the researcher’s expertise with external responsibilities, but to ultimately gain a

89

privileged and unique perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994) from
the mind of a Board member. By recognizing and articulating the multitude of ethical
responsibilities in the study, the researcher can ensure trustworthiness of self and the data
(Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
Throughout the study, there are limitations and delimitations the researcher must
consider. Limitations are defined as lack of assurance in obtaining factual and objective
information from research respondents (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Information gleaned from
respondents is outside the locus of control of the researcher and subjective in nature. Therefore,
there are several limitations in this study. First, the study was dependent upon the respondent’s
truthfulness. Second, Board members enter their tenure in stages, so some are seasoned, and
some are new. Third, learning materials have changed over time and not all Board members were
privy to the most recent materials. Fourth and finally, the study does not take into account mood
or engagement with the organization.
Delimitations are implications on the study caused by decisions made by the researcher.
Therefore, there are several delimitations affecting this study. First, data collected was only from
Board members. It did not include staff or Chief Executives. Second, data from the quantitative
phase was collected first and then qualitative data was collected. It was not done concurrently.
Third, the study was conducted prior to the improvement being introduced to guide
implementation. Fourth and finally, the purpose was to identify gaps and offer subsequent
improvement methods. It was not intended to be an evaluative study.

90

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework was used to assess the
assumed causes discussed in Chapter 3 to understand how the knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational influence impacted the RRF Board members from meeting their external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. The results were organized
into the assumed causes of knowledge, motivation, and organization. Multiple sources of
quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the assumed causes. Specifically,
surveys, interviews, and organizational Board documents were collected to understand the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational challenges Board members face while
meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy and community outreach.
The data were collected via surveys, organizational Board documents, and interviews
respectively. Due to organizational leadership changes and the tenure ending for certain Board
members, an anonymous survey sent to all Board members was disbursed first. While the survey
was live, organizational Board documents were collected and analyzed over a five-day period.
Once the collection window closed for the survey, an email was sent to all Board members
asking to participate in a one-hour interview to delve deeper into the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational challenges to meeting the external responsibilities. The data
collection process concluded with interviews being conducted online via Zoom over a two-week
period.
Participating Stakeholders

The stakeholder group in this study were the RRF Board members. Board members were
the sole provider of survey data as well as interview data. The population consisted of 50 Board
members representing 50 chapters across the U.S. serving the rare community. The Board

91

members in this study were selected to participate in different sampling methods due to the
mixed method approach and the explanatory design of the research. This section provides
demographic data on the Board members who participated in the survey followed by a
description of the interview participants.
Survey Participants
The quantitative data collection method was sent via email to all 50 Board members
across the U.S. requesting they complete the anonymous survey within two weeks. At the
conclusion of the survey window, 45 out of 50 Board members completed the survey. However,
responses were not required so not every survey question had 45 responses. The first five
questions in the survey were demographic questions about the participants.
The first demographic question in the survey explored the gender of participants. The
literature suggests that Board members are predominantly male, but this study sought a more
balanced gender representation from the RRF Board. Figure 2 below shows a more balanced
gender representation exists in Board member survey participation for the quantitative portion of
the study. Survey respondents for the quantitative portion of this study were 57.78% female,
40% male, and 2.22% preferred not to disclose gender. While predominantly female, the
distribution is more balanced than expected based on the literature for male-female Board
membership.

92

Figure 2
Gender for Survey Participants

The second demographic question in the survey explored the years of service of
participants. RRF Board members serve a two-year term which can be repeated three times for a
total of six years during their tenure. This study sought a wide distribution of years of service for
Board members which the figure shows. Figure 3 below shows how tenure was represented in
Board member responses for the quantitative portion of the study. The largest percentage of
respondents were in their first year of service at 34.88%; followed by three years of service at
25.58%; then 2 years of service at 18.60%, then 6 years of service at 13.95%, then 4 years of
service at 4.65% and finally 5 years of service at 2.33%.
Figure 3
Years of Service for Survey Participants

93

The third demographic question in the survey explored the term of service for Board
members as first term for year one and two; second term for year three and four; and third term
for year four and five. Figure 4 below shows the first term of tenure has the highest percentage of
respondents at 53.49%; second term at 35.58% and third term at the lowest at 20.39%. This study
sought a wide distribution of early-, mid-, and late-tenure Board members which the figure
shows. Even though the first term has the highest percentage, Board members still have enough
time to gain clarity on external roles and responsibilities. Board members in all stages of tenure
can provide a breadth of information needed regarding knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences spanning several years at the organization.
Figure 4
Tenure of Service for Survey Participants

The fourth demographic question in the survey explored whether participants were a
member of the rare community. The reason this question is germane is Board members are
selected to serve as a representative of their local chapter, and since the rare community often
feels marginalized, enough community-member respondents would add credibility in the eyes of
the larger community. Therefore, this study sought more than 50% of Board survey participants
as community members. Figure 5 below shows the distribution of Board survey participants as
86.36% community members and 13.64% who are not which satisfies the 50% desired threshold.

94

Figure 5
Community Membership for Survey Participants

The fifth and final demographic question in the survey explored the education level of
participants. While education levels vary among Board members, this study sought a wide
distribution of educational levels among Board members. Figure 6 below shows the distribution
of education levels among Board survey participants as 6.82% possess a high school diploma;
none of the participants possess a technical degree; 18.18% have some college; 34.09% possess
an undergraduate degree; and 40.91% possess a graduate degree. While undergraduate and
graduate degrees are predominant, the levels do have a wide distribution to accommodate all
educational backgrounds.
Figure 6
Education Level for Survey Participants

95

Interview Participants
As described in Chapter Three, the researcher hoped to include 12 Board members in the
qualitative portion of the study but ultimately ended up with seven Board members due to
unforeseen leadership changes and upcoming changes in tenure. After the survey, an email was
sent to all 50 Board members asking for their participation in a one-hour interview held online
via Zoom. Based on that request, seven of the 50 Board members agreed to be interviewed and
interviews were scheduled over a two-week period. Upon further examination, and purely at
random, the interview participants were a perfect cross section of the Board. Participants 2 and 4
were in their first term, Participants 1 and 6 were in their second term, and Participants 3, 5, and
7 were in their third term. While the study sought to achieve a cross section of the Board, due to
organizational changes, the sample was gleaned at random. Figure 7 below shows the
distribution of interview participants based on tenure. Additionally, all interview participants
were community members thereby increasing the credibility of the study with community
members. All interview participants completed the interviews online via Zoom.
Figure 7
Tenure of Service for Interview Participants

96

Determination of Assets and Needs
This study utilized three sources of data: surveys, interviews, and Board documents. The
mixed methods design helped to triangulate data sources. For example, survey data may reveal
Board members believe a Statement of Expectations exists. Interviews provide rich detail about
existing Board expectations. Finally, document collection and analysis triangulate the data by
confirming the documents exist. These three data sources were also used as the criteria for
determining whether the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization causes were either
assets or needs.
The survey was sent to all 50 RRF Board members of which 45 participated, though not
all completed every question since it was not required. The following criteria were used to
determine if the assumed causes are an asset or a need from the survey data. Because the purpose
of this study is to understand Board role ambiguity, survey responses for factual knowledge and
conceptual knowledge were all determined to be an asset at a higher threshold. Furthermore, the
research literature highlighted the need to clearly delineate external responsibilities from the
plethora of Board roles to identify fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach as of
paramount importance as well as the ability to match the role with its respective activity. Since
this study focused on role ambiguity for Board members, factual and conceptual knowledge were
determined to be an asset at a higher threshold of 90% whereas all other influences were
determined to be an asset at 70%. Factual and conceptual knowledge drives role clarity for
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Finally, the utility and intrinsic value questions
asked participants to rate the value or enjoyment of activities and was determined to be an asset
if fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach were all rated equally in the top three to
ensure ambiguity or disparity among external responsibilities does not exist.

97

After the survey, Board members were asked to participate in interviews of which seven
chose to do so. The interviews were one-hour long via Zoom online. The following criteria were
used to determine if the assumed causes were an asset or a need from the interview data. Because
the purpose of this study was to understand Board role ambiguity, interview responses were
deemed an asset if six of the seven interview participants or 86% gave responses confirming the
correct influence. Several influences were broken down into fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach questions as well as identifying, cultivating, and soliciting for fundraising
questions. When the answers were broken down and one area did not meet the threshold, it was
considered a need. For example, participants may have understood their strategies for fundraising
and community outreach but failed to understand strategies for advocacy which would make the
influence a need because ambiguity exists. Finally, the interviews did not reach a saturation point
simply because only seven Board members volunteered and information from Board members
did not overlap greatly. Each interview participant provided their own unique voice to the semi-
structured questions which made the process highly valuable.
For document analysis, documents were collected which include items such as the
onboarding manual, job descriptions, annual agreement, Board portal documents, online
learning, and videos. The following criteria were used to determine if the assumed causes are an
asset or a need from the document analysis. Documents were analyzed to either verify statements
made during interviews or were used to verify assumed influences. For example, a Board
member may state education on external responsibilities was provided in orientation. Document
analysis was used in this study to determine if information about external responsibilities existed
in the onboarding manual or in other orientation documents.

98

Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
Board member knowledge causes were assessed below through surveys, interviews, and
document analysis. Additionally, the results and findings were discussed for the assumed
influences of factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
metacognitive knowledge. Finally, each assumed knowledge influence was determined to be an
asset, or a need based on the results and findings.
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. Board Members Need a Baseline Knowledge of External Responsibilities in
Orientation
Survey Results. Board members were asked to identify their external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach out of a list of six options. As seen in Table 6,
the correct responses were #1, #4, and #6. To be considered an asset, all three external
responsibilities must reach the threshold of 90% accuracy. Board members correctly identified
all three external responsibilities and met the 90% threshold for each. Therefore, based on the
results of the survey, this influence is determined to be an asset. See Table 6.
Table 6
Survey Results for Factual Knowledge of External Responsibilities
# Factual Knowledge Item Percentage Count
Of the following, which are external responsibilities of a
Board member?
n = 43
1 Fundraising* 90.70% 39
2 Monitoring and managing financial resources 69.77% 30
3 Advocacy* 100% 43
4 Providing oversight 83.72% 36

99

5 Approving minutes 74.42% 32
6 Community outreach* 100% 43
*External responsibility of a Board member
Interview Findings. When asked to convey their understanding of fundraising as a
Board member, six of the seven participants interviewed understood their external responsibility
making this an asset. Participants 1 and 2 stated, “Fundraising is not only giving personally but
also soliciting funds from people inside your network, such as friends and family as well as
outside your network.” Participant 3 took a pragmatic view and saw fundraising as “identifying
or initiating some sort of conversation with donors.” The financial health of the organization was
important to Participants 4 and 5 who contend, “Board members have a fundamental obligation
to reach out to potential donors.” Participant 3 understood the concept of fundraising well but
advocated for “bringing in staff who can close the deal.” Participant 7 disagreed with that
statement and said, “I think you can do your own individual fundraising and also go out and
solicit your own donations.”
When asked to convey their understanding of advocacy as a Board member, all
participants knew and were able to articulate their external responsibility making this an asset.
Participants 1, and 6 assert “advocacy is just raising awareness by going to legislators or
reaching out to your representatives about the cause.” Participants 2 and 5 agree and note that
“advocacy sparks awareness by giving a face to a cause to be remembered.” Participant 6
understood advocacy is multi-pronged and points out the differences to be “advocacy for the
organization, advocacy for community members, and personal advocacy.” Participants 1 and 6
also stated, “Advocacy is interacting with people to share the unique, and not always commonly
known, information about the cause.” Participant 3 understood the purpose of advocacy but felt
“efforts should be directed by organizational staff.”

100

Finally, when asked to convey their understanding of community outreach as a Board
member, all participants fully understood community outreach as it pertains to their external
responsibilities making this an asset. Participants 2 and 5 argue community outreach refers to
“the needs, the gaps, the challenges, the obstacles, and keeping track of what is going on in the
community.” Participants 2 and 3 also conveyed the importance of “keeping an ear to the ground
to make sure Board members are serving the needs of the community.” Participants 1 and 4
suggest “letting people know what the organization does by physically being out in the
community and talking about it.” Participant 6 stated it is important to “really listen to what the
needs are, to learn where they are coming from, and then show what the organization has to offer
to improve their quality of life.” Finally, Participant 7 contends the easiest way to participate in
community outreach is “to be a champion for the organization in the community.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.

Document Analysis. During orientation, Board members are given a job description and
an onboarding manual. The Board member job description states, “A Board Member participates
in the organization’s fiscal health and fundraising.” The document outlines a key result of
fundraising is “ensuring enough funding exists to sufficiently carry out the strategic plans of the
organization.” The document also suggests personal giving as well as engaging others to give.
The job description briefly addresses advocacy and community outreach by recommending
Board members “represent the organization positively to individuals, the public, and other
organizations.” Therefore, this document is an asset.
The onboarding manual is a more expansive document that outlines Board member key
responsibilities, speaking on behalf of and representing the organization, acting as a champion,
and a quarterly self-check. A key responsibility, per the document, is to be “actively curious,

101

engaged in the community, and interested in strategically contributing to the organization.” The
manual emphasizes a champion is a role model and a representative of the organization but does
not clearly outline the organizational need for advocacy and community outreach as it does with
fundraising. Finally, in the self-check section, the responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach are clearly outlined with measurable steps and methods of accountability.
Therefore, this document is also considered an asset.
Summary. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to identify their
external responsibilities from a list of options, they correctly identified all three external
responsibilities and met the 90% threshold for each which makes it an asset. Similarly, when
interview participants were asked to convey their understanding of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach, the majority understood their external responsibilities making this an asset
as well. Finally, when examining the Board member job description and onboarding manual,
factual knowledge of external responsibilities exists in orientation making the two documents an
asset. Based on the results and findings, this influence is an asset.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Board Members Need to Understand the Relationship Between Their
Participation in External Responsibilities and its Effect on Organizational Performance
Survey Results. Board members were asked to match eight roles to its respective
external responsibility of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. The correct roles
matching for fundraising were #2, #4, and #7. The correct roles matching for advocacy were #1,
and #8. Finally, the correct roles matching for community outreach were #3, #5, and #6. Each
role must reach a threshold of 39 out of 43 matches or 90.6% accuracy to be considered an asset
since Board role ambiguity is the focus of this research.

102

For fundraising, Board members correctly matched all three roles and met the 90.6%
threshold for each making this an asset. For advocacy, Board members correctly matched
speaking with legislators and met the 90.6% threshold but failed to meet the threshold for
educating others about the disorder making this a need. One may argue that educating others
about the disorder could be advocacy or community outreach. However, in this context,
educating others about the disorder is advocacy since the purpose is to influence legislation or
reduce marginalization versus a casual conversation with community groups which is listed as a
separate role. Finally, for community outreach, Board members did not meet the 90.6% threshold
for any of the roles making this a need. Based on the results of the survey, Board members
correctly matched the roles related to fundraising but did not correctly match the roles related to
advocacy or community outreach therefore making the entire survey question a need. See Table
7.
Table 7
Survey Results for Conceptual Knowledge of External Responsibilities
# Conceptual Knowledge Item
Match the roles with the external
responsibilities). Drag and drop items
into each box. The box can have more
than one item. n = 43

Fundraising
Matched

Advocacy
Matched

Community
Outreach
Matched
1 Speaking with legislators 0 43 0
2 Recommending potential donors 43 0 0
3 Connecting people with the
organization
1 4 38
4 Cultivating donors 42 0 1
5 Speaking in front of community groups 0 11 31
6 Finding diverse Board members 1 5 37

103

7 Asking for financial support 41 2 0
8 Educating others about the disorder 0 31 12

Interview Findings. When asked to explain how fundraising efforts affect organizational
performance as a Board member, six of the seven participants interviewed understood their
external responsibility making it an asset. Participant 1 stated, “If everybody stopped
fundraising, then the organization would eventually fall apart.” Participants 2 and 4 understood
the downstream effect of lack of participation in fundraising. Participant 2 said, “Every dollar we
generate goes directly to programs and services, and without it, we would not be able to do a lot
of the programs we’ve grown to love in this community.” Participant 4 supported that assertion
by adding, “It’s a responsibility of the Board to fill gaps in the income stream so we can continue
to provide benefits, prosper, and grow our programs. Participants 5 and 7 understood how
fundraising improves the organization through Board participation. Participant 5 conveyed, “The
Board can have a positive effect if we are successful at it.” Similarly, Participant 7 shared, “I'd
like to think that it improves because whatever you do helps, and something is always better than
nothing even if you start small.” Participant 3 stated, “Everyone serves a role in fundraising and I
am one piece of the puzzle.” However, Participant 6 thought the staff and CEO were responsible
for fundraising and felt the Board’s role was unclear.
When asked to explain how advocacy efforts affect organizational performance as a
Board member, only 3 of the 7 participants interviewed clearly understood their external
responsibility making it a need. Participants 3, 4 and 6 understood how their advocacy efforts
affect organizational performance. Participant 3 said, “As a Board member, we have an
opportunity to help guide advocacy efforts by proactively reaching out to our legislators.
Participant 2 conveyed, “If I can help support the people who create bills, then that supports the

104

organization and what we do nationally.” Participant 4 believes personal experiences fuel
passion for advocacy to ensure information gets into the hands of people who make a difference.
Conversely, Participants 1, 2, and 5 felt advocacy and community outreach significantly
overlap and could not differentiate between the two. Participant 1 said, “Through advocacy and
community outreach, the organization could find new groups of people to help.” Participant 2
shared the purpose of advocacy and community outreach is to figure out what is needed in the
community so the organization can develop programs around it.” Likewise, Participant 5
maintains fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach all overlap. Finally, Participant 7
contends, “I'm not strong with advocacy and I don't know if my performance does anything to
help.”
When asked to explain how community outreach affects organizational performance as a
Board member, all participants interviewed understood their external responsibility making it an
asset. The consensus was, because Board members are often community members, they are
comfortable with bringing new community members into the fold. Participant 2 summed it up by
saying, “Community outreach is simply communicating with people to find out what is needed
and then developing programs to bring people into the organization.” Participant 1 believes
success at community outreach is simply talking to people, sharing personal stories, or telling
people about an event at the organization. Participant 7 maintains, “The purpose of community
outreach is to convey it’s a good organization and provides good services.” Participants 3, 5, and
6 consider community outreach as one of the primary reasons for being on the Board because it
helps the organization, makes an impact, and is vitally important to growth.” Participant 7
concluded by saying, “You can be successful at community outreach simply by being a
champion of the organization.”

105

Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. After reviewing Salesforce, the organization’s database, to
determine if Board member activity in fundraising is captured, no evidence of Board member
participation affecting organizational performance was found. Additionally, while certain Board
members attended formal advocacy and community outreach events, there is no evidence to
connect their efforts to organizational performance. Finally, while the organization does provide
a quarterly self-check listing key responsibilities as a Board member, the document is for self-
use and is not captured in Salesforce nor does it connect those efforts to organizational
performance. Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, this is a need.
Summary. Survey results show that when asked to match a role with the respective
external responsibility of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach, Board members
correctly matched roles related to fundraising but failed to match roles related to advocacy and
community outreach making this a need. When interview participants were asked to convey how
their external responsibilities affect organizational performance, Board members understood
fundraising and community outreach but failed to understand advocacy. While the majority of
external responsibilities were understood, failing to understand even one responsibility and how
efforts affect organizational performance as a Board member makes this a need since ambiguity
still exists. Finally, no evidence was found during document analysis connecting Board member
external responsibilities to organizational performance making it a need. Based on the results and
findings, this influence is a need.

106

Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. Board Members Need to Know How to Identify, Cultivate, and Solicit Donors as a
Part of Their External Responsibilities
This influence was assessed in three parts: identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors.
Three separate survey questions were discussed below as well as the corresponding interviews
and document analysis.
Survey Results: Identify. Board members were asked to choose the best answer out of
five options to convey their procedural knowledge to identify potential donors as a part of their
external responsibilities. As seen in Table 8, while #1, #3, and #5 were all good responses and
would certainly contribute to identifying potential donors, the best answer that encompasses all
three is response #4. To be considered an asset, response #4 must reach a threshold of 70%
accuracy or 30 responses. Board members incorrectly identified #4 as the best answer and did
not meet the 70% threshold. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is
determined to be a need. See Table 8.
Table 8
Survey Results for Identifying Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge
# Procedural Knowledge to Identify a Potential Donor Percentage Count
Choose the best answer to complete the sentence. The
CEO has asked you to identify potential donors for the
organization. Your first step to identify potential donors is
to...
n = 43
1 Identify people or companies who have the ability to give. 27.91% 12
2 Identify people you know in your network. 39.53% 17
3 Take the person out to lunch. 0% 0
4 Identify people or organizations by connection, belief, and
ability. *
20.93% 9

107

5 Identify others who believe in the cause. 11.63% 5
*Preferred answer for identifying potential donors
Interview Findings: Identify. When Board members were asked to explain their process
to identify potential donors, all participants interviewed clearly understood their external
responsibility making it an asset. Participant 2 began by saying, “I start with myself. I have to be
a donor first before I can identify others who want to give.” Furthermore, Participants 2 and 7
said they initially reach out to significant others like family and friends for go-to support.
Participants 2, 3, and 6 all recommend looking at immediate relationships or those within a circle
of influence as well as relationships through employment. For example, Participant 6
recommends asking the question, “Who do I interact with on a daily basis that may show
interest?” Participants 1 and 5 suggest thinking about the type of people who may give such as
those connected to the community, those who want to help, or simply people needing a tax write
off. Similarly, Participants 1 and 5 believe, “If you explain to people what the organization does
and why we do it, a lot of times individuals are prone to help the cause.” However, stepping
outside of one’s comfort zone can pose challenges. Participant 2 commented, “I really haven’t
approached anyone outside of my comfort zone. I just go after the people I know who have
supported me in the past.” Likewise, Participant 7 reported being uncomfortable with
approaching outsiders but felt comfortable talking about the organization once the connection is
made. Finally, regardless of the approach or comfort level, Participant 1 stated, “As Board
members, I feel it’s our duty if we see an opportunity to make that connection with a potential
donor.”
Observation: Identify. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Identify. After reviewing Board documents to find information on
identifying potential donors, education and instruction exists making the Board documents an

108

asset. Board training videos highlight ways to invite others to give or engage with the
organization. In addition, the onboarding manual states, “Never underestimate the reach you
have through your spheres of influence and personal contacts.” The document also suggests
telling family and friends about the organization, so they are ready to provide support. Finally,
the onboarding manual recommends sending names of potential donors directly to fundraising
staff. Therefore, due to the education and training materials provided to identify potential donors,
this is an asset.
Summary: Identify. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to
choose the best answer out of a list of options to convey their procedural knowledge of
identifying potential donors, Board members did not choose identifying people or organizations
by connection, belief, and ability as the best answer making this a need. When Board members
were asked to explain their process to identify potential donors, all participants interviewed
clearly understood their external responsibility making it an asset. Finally, after reviewing Board
documents to find information on identifying potential donors, education and instruction does
exist making the Board documents an asset. Overall, the results and findings were mixed for this
influence which leads to further ambiguity. Based on the results and findings, this influence is
considered a need.
Survey Results: Cultivate. Board members were asked to choose the best answer out of
four options to convey their procedural knowledge to cultivate potential donors as a part of their
external responsibilities. As seen in Table 9, while #3 and #4 were good responses and would
certainly contribute to cultivating potential donors, the best answer is response #1 which is
understanding what the donor finds important or values. To be considered an asset, response #1
must reach a threshold of 70% accuracy or 30 responses. Board members incorrectly identified

109

#1 as the best answer and did not meet the 70% threshold. Therefore, based on the results of the
survey, this influence is determined to be a need. See Table 9.
Table 9
Survey Results for Cultivating Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge
# Procedural Knowledge to Cultivate a Potential Donor Percentage Count
Choose the best answer to complete the sentence. After
you identified a potential donor, your next step to cultivate
the donor is to....
n = 43
1 Understand what the donor finds important or values. * 65.12% 28
2 Ask the donor for a donation. 0% 0
3 Get the donor involved in the organization. 25.58% 11
4 Be the organization’s biggest cheerleader. 9.30% 4
*Best answer for cultivating potential donors

Interview Findings: Cultivate. When Board members were asked to explain their
process to cultivate potential donors, all participants interviewed clearly understood their
external responsibility making it an asset. Participants 2, 3 and 7 believe telling personal stories
is the easiest way to cultivate potential donors by pulling on the heartstrings. Participant 3 said,
“I tell my story because I want people to know why I am reaching out, what it means to me, or
why I am doing it.” Similarly, Participant 7 said, “I talk about my personal connection with my
son and what the organization is doing to help. That's literally all I did!” As with the survey,
determining what the donor finds important aids in cultivation. Participants 1 and 6 found
sharing similar interests made cultivation easier as well as finding out what matters most to the
donor. Several Board members conveyed that determining what the donor values helps with
cultivation. Participants 2, 3 and 7 also felt it was important to explain where the money is going
and why it is being raised. Once a connection is made, continuous personal follow up with the

110

donor aids in cultivation. Participant 5 points out, “I get their information and try to stay in
contact.” Participant 4 states, “I tell them that I’m going to follow up with them later and we're
going to set up a time to have a conversation.” Finally, Participants 4 and 6 contend keeping the
conversation going by telling the donor about things that are happening at the organization is
effective cultivation.
Observation: Cultivate. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Cultivate. After reviewing Board documents to find information
on cultivating potential donors, education and instruction exists making the Board documents an
asset. Board training videos suggest ways to champion the organization, share stories, truly listen
to the donor, and encourage potential donors to engage with the organization. In addition, the
onboarding manual states Board members should, “Share your personal story, your hardships
and how the organization has helped you or the community.” Therefore, due to the education and
training materials provided to cultivate potential donors, this is an asset.
Summary: Cultivate. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to
choose the best answer out of a list of options to convey their procedural knowledge of
cultivating potential donors, Board members incorrectly chose understanding what the donor
finds important or values making this a need. When Board members were asked to explain their
process to cultivate potential donors, all participants interviewed clearly understood their
external responsibility making it an asset. Finally, after reviewing Board documents to find
information on cultivating potential donors, education and instruction does exist making the
Board documents an asset. Overall, the results and findings were mixed for this influence which
leads to further ambiguity. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this influence is
considered a need.

111

Survey Results: Solicit. Board members were asked to choose the best answer out of
five options to convey their procedural knowledge to solicit potential donors as a part of their
external responsibilities. As seen in Table 10, while #1, #2, and #5 were good responses and
would certainly contribute to soliciting potential donors, the best answer is response #3 which is
ask when the donor is ready. To be considered an asset, response #3 must reach a threshold of
70% accuracy or 30 responses. Board members incorrectly identified #3 as the best answer and
did not meet the 70% threshold but overwhelmingly answered #1, making the ask face-to-face.
While making the ask face-to-face provides instant verbal and nonverbal feedback, it is certainly
not the best or only way to solicit donors. Donor solicitations are made over the phone, via email,
in writing, through another person, grant applications, or any method the donor prefers. Overall,
the best way to solicit is to ask when the donor is ready. Professional fundraisers understand
when the time is right and the best approach. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this
influence is determined to be a need. See Table 10.
Table 10
Survey Results for Soliciting Potential Donors as Procedural Knowledge
# Procedural Knowledge to Solicit a Potential Donor Percentage Count
Choose the best answer to complete the sentence. After
you have identified and cultivated a potential donor, your
final step to solicit the donor is to....
n = 43
1 Make the ask face-to-face. 51.16% 22
2 Strategize on who is the best person to make the ask. 30.23% 13
3 Ask when the donor is ready. * 2.33% 1
4 See if they know someone else who would like to give. 2.33% 1
5 Not wait too long to make the ask. 13.95% 6
*Preferred answer for soliciting potential donors

112

Interview Findings: Solicit. When Board members were asked to explain their process
to solicit potential donors, all participants interviewed understood their external responsibility,
but the most admitted to having trouble asking for money making it a need. Participant 2
confessed, “The ask is tough especially if it's someone I'm not too familiar with.” Also,
Participant 7 said, “I have a hard time asking for money, so I usually ask my family.” Participant
4 maintains, “I'm more comfortable identifying individuals, making the introductions, setting up
and attending meetings, but I feel more comfortable having someone else do the ask.” Participant
3 felt practice helps but it is still difficult soliciting donors. Furthermore, like the survey,
Participants 2 and 4 thought the ask must be face-to-face to be effective. For example,
Participant 2 thought, “It’s tougher for someone to say no to your face especially after you've
laid out the benefits.” Participant 4 also believed the ask needs to be face-to-face but said, “It's
100% easier to read the individual in person and whether or not I'm hitting points of interest.”
Conversely, Participant 5 states, “My mantra is you don’t get unless you ask. We need money to
help others. We just can't do it off sweat equity and volunteers.” Finally, Participants 1 and 7
affirm, “I know it's not immediate but the third- or fourth-time people hear something, they are
more likely to give.”
Observation: Solicit. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Solicit. After reviewing Board documents to find information on
soliciting potential donors, minimal education and instruction exists making the Board
documents a need. Board training videos suggest personal giving and working with staff to ask
for money. The onboarding manual states, “Remind yourself that you are not asking for money
for yourself. You are not begging. You are asking on behalf of a cause you believe in.” The
education and training materials do not discuss the donor, only the person asking for money. It

113

does not discuss determining when the donor is ready, the delivery, or the timing which would
greatly benefit the organization. The documents only address allaying fears versus providing
actual training or education. Therefore, due to the lack of education and training materials
provided to solicit potential donors, this is a need.
Summary: Solicit. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to choose
the best answer out of a list of options to convey their procedural knowledge of soliciting
potential donors, Board members did not choose the correct answer, asking when the donor is
ready, making this a need. When Board members were asked to explain their process to solicit
potential donors, the majority admitted to having trouble asking for money making it a need.
Finally, after reviewing Board documents to find information on soliciting potential donors,
minimal education and instruction exists making the Board documents a need. Therefore, based
on the results and findings, this influence is considered a need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 1. Board Members Need to Reflect on Their Strategies to Meet External
Responsibilities
Survey Results. Board members were asked to self-reflect on their strategies to meet
their external responsibilities and to choose the best answer out of a list of five options. As seen
in Table 11, while #1, #2, and #3 were good responses and would certainly contribute to
metacognition, the best answer that encompasses all three is response #4 which is all the above.
Self-reflection is an important factor in alleviating role ambiguity, and to be considered an asset,
response #4 must reach a threshold of 70% accuracy or 30 responses. Board members correctly
identified response #4 as the best answer and met the 70% threshold. Therefore, based on the
results of the survey, this influence is determined to be an asset. See Table 11.

114

Table 11
Survey Results for Metacognitive Knowledge of External Responsibilities
# Metacognitive Knowledge Item Percentage Count
Choose the best answer to complete the sentence. I self-
reflect on my external responsibilities by...
n = 42
1 Thinking about the effectiveness of my own fundraising
strategies to raise money for the organization.
4.76% 2
2 Deciding what needs to be changed in my approach to
legislators when I advocate for the community and the
organization.
0.00% 0
3 Deciding how to appropriately engage in community
outreach efforts on behalf of the organization.
16.67% 7
4 All of the above. * 76.19% 32
5 None of the above. 2.38% 1
*All-encompassing answers for self-reflection on strategies.
Interview Findings. When Board members were asked to describe their thought
processes or mental steps as they navigated through a fundraising scenario, 6 of the 7 participants
interviewed understood strategies for fundraising making this an asset. The fundraising strategy
for Participant 1 focused mainly on social media and said, “I put it all out there; I'm an open
book. It’s organic but I do think about every picture and blog and how it will tell a story.”
Participant 3 also utilized social media and stated, “I decided what I had to do in my head, why I
wanted to do it, and the purpose for it to create my story online as I reached out to others.”
Moreover, the fundraising strategy for Participant 2 includes hitting the ground running, going to
different businesses to talk about the organization, and how the money is used to help people in
the community. Participant 7 preferred utilizing email versus face-to-face solicitations and said,
“Email was easy because I think I can say more in an email than face-to-face because it is tough

115

for me.” Finally, Participants 4 and 5 recommend tailoring fundraising events to appeal to the
masses to strategize on multiple fundraising efforts.
When Board members were asked to describe their thought processes or mental steps as
they navigated through an advocacy scenario, only four of the seven participants interviewed
understood their external responsibility making this a need. Participants 2, 3, and 7 all believe in
a consistent strategy for advocacy. For example, Participant 2 recommends, “You don’t have to
be an expert, but I find you always need a game plan on the legislation you are trying to
influence and a personal story to tie it together.” Participant 7 added, “I am an expert on telling
my story.” Participant 4 makes a point of going to town meetings to meet local representatives
and states, “I want them to be more familiar with who we are, what we do, and what our
expectations are with regards to supporting bills that are important to us. If you humanize it, it
makes it a little bit easier to support our community.”
When Board members were asked to describe their thought processes or mental steps as
they navigated through a community outreach scenario, six of the seven participants interviewed
understood their external responsibility making this an asset. Participants 3 and 7 maintain the
best strategy with community outreach is “to offer comfort and understanding to the newly
diagnosed, that it will be okay, and to let them know they are not alone.” Participant 1 states,
“My strategy when a new family comes along is to make sure I get them connected locally and
nationally.” Participants 2, 3 and 4 all maintain “telling how the organization has impacted me
and my family” is the most common strategy for community outreach. Finally, Participant 5
contends an effective strategy is determining the needs of the audience so the organization can
provide services and fill gaps.

116

Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. Document analysis for this influence showed a dearth of self-
reflective education and information. Therefore, this influence is a need.
Summary. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to self-reflect on
their strategies to meet their external responsibilities and to choose the best answer out of a list of
five options, Board members correctly chose the correct answer, all the above, making this an
asset. However, when interview participants were asked to reflect on strategies to meet external
responsibilities, the participants understood strategies for fundraising and community outreach
but failed to understand strategies for advocacy making this a need. Again, unclear strategies in
one external responsibility creates role ambiguity for Board members. Furthermore,
organizational documents encouraging Board members to engage in self-reflection are
nonexistent thereby making this a need. Overall, the results and findings were mixed for this
influence which leads to further ambiguity. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this
influence is considered a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Board member motivational causes were assessed below through surveys, interviews, and
document analysis. Additionally, the results and findings were discussed for the assumed
motivation influences of self-efficacy, utility value, intrinsic value, and attribution. Finally, each
assumed motivation influence was determined to be an asset, or a need based on the results and
findings.

117

Self-Efficacy
Influence 1. Board Members are Confident They Can Take Steps to Identify, Cultivate, and
Solicit Donations from Potential Donors as a Part of Their External Responsibilities
This influence was assessed in three parts: identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors.
Three separate survey questions are discussed below as well as the corresponding interviews and
document analysis.
Survey Results: Identify. Board members were asked to rate their confidence level in
being able to identify potential donors. As seen in Table 12, the scale ranged from not confident
to very confident. Identifying donors is the first step in the fundraising process and Board
members need to feel efficacious enough to perform the job well to mitigate role ambiguity.
Based on the responses for somewhat confident and very confident, Board members achieved a
combined result of 57.14% in self-efficacy to identify potential donors. To be considered an
asset, Board member responses for somewhat confident and very confident must reach a
threshold of 70% but did not meet that threshold for self-efficacy in identifying potential donors.
Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is determined to be a need. See
Table 12.
Table 12
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Identify Potential Donors
# Self-Efficacy Identification Motivation Item Percentage Count
As of right now, please rate your confidence level in
being able to identify potential donors.
n = 42
1 Not confident 9.52% 4
2 Rarely confident 16.67% 7
3 Neutral 16.67% 7

118

4 Somewhat confident 45.24% 19
5 Very Confident 11.90% 5

Interview Findings: Identify. When Board members were asked to describe a time that
they felt confident identifying a donor, all seven participants interviewed were efficacious in this
external responsibility making it an asset. For Participants 1 and 7, they felt comfortable
identifying a donor if they had a personal connection. For example, Participant 1 said, “I have
confidence when I know somebody, and I know that it’s not going to be awkward if they say
no.” Likewise, Participant 7 stated, “I am more confident when I have a relationship with that
person, and I know that they are already interested in giving.” Additionally, Participants 3, 5, and
6 felt an interest in donating made it easier to identify potential donors. Participant 5 likens
identifying potential donors with fishing, “When you are speaking with somebody and they are
engaged, asking questions, and curious, I feel more confident because you've kind of got them
hooked.” Furthermore, Participants 5 and 6 believe targeted interest in the organization’s
program, service, or product builds confidence identifying donors because the organization
becomes the “belle of the ball.” Moreover, Participants 2 and 4 felt more confident looking to
prior donors as someone who may give again. Participant 2 said, “We generally know who the
givers are and who aren’t in our circle or networks.” Finally, Participants 2 and 7 posit the best
way to have confidence in identifying potential donors is to understand the work of the
organization and match those with the interests or values of others.
Observation: Identify. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Identify. Documents were reviewed for this influence and found
limited education and training on skill building to identify donors. While the onboarding manual
does state, “Never underestimate the reach only you have through your spheres of influence and

119

personal contacts,” no evidence or training was found on how to properly identify donors by
fundraising staff. Therefore, based on the lack of instruction, this influence is a need.
Summary: Identify. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to rate
their confidence level in being able to identify potential donors, Board member responses for
somewhat confident or very confident failed to meet the threshold for self-efficacy in identifying
potential donors making this a need. However, when interview participants were asked to
describe a time that they felt confident identifying a donor, all seven participants interviewed
were efficacious in this external responsibility making it an asset. Additionally, organizational
documents were reviewed for this influence and found limited education and training on skill
building to identify donors making this a need. Overall, the results and findings were mixed for
this influence which leads to further ambiguity. Therefore, this influence is considered a need.
Survey Results: Cultivate. Board members were asked to rate their confidence level in
being able to cultivate potential donors. As seen in Table 13, the scale ranged from not confident
to very confident. Cultivating donors is the second step in the fundraising process and Board
members need to feel efficacious enough to perform the job well to mitigate role ambiguity.
Based on the responses for somewhat confident and very confident, Board members achieved a
combined result of 47.61% in self-efficacy to cultivate potential donors. To be considered an
asset, Board member responses for somewhat confident and very confident must reach a
threshold of 70% but did not meet that threshold for self-efficacy in cultivating potential donors.
Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is determined to be a need. See Table
13.

120

Table 13
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Cultivate Potential Donors
# Self-Efficacy Cultivation Motivation Item Percentage Count
As of right now, please rate your confidence level in
being able to cultivate potential donors.
n = 42
1 Not confident 2.38% 1
2 Rarely confident 26.19% 11
3 Neutral 23.81% 10
4 Somewhat confident 35.71% 15
5 Very Confident 11.90% 5

Interview Findings: Cultivate. When Board members were asked to describe a time
when they felt confident cultivating a donor, six of the seven participants interviewed were
efficacious in this external responsibility making it an asset. For Participants 1 and 7, they felt
comfortable cultivating a donor if they possess personal knowledge about the organization or
event. For example, Participant 1 said, “You have more confidence if you have personal
knowledge about what you're fundraising for. If you are asked a question, you can answer it.”
Likewise, Participant 7 conveyed asking for money is difficult but personal knowledge about the
event makes “talking it up” easy with potential donors. Additionally, Participant 6 believes
cultivation is a learned skill that must be built as a Board member. Specifically, Participant 6
stated, “I wanted to be a good cultivator, so I started to educate myself on it. I listened to several
books on tape and podcasts about nonprofits. I felt that really solidified my confidence.”
Furthermore, Participants 3, 4, and 6 suggest ongoing involvement with the organization is
necessary for good cultivation. Participant 4 said, “I spent time talking to a donor over a couple
of weeks, invited them out for coffee, and talked to them about the organization.” Similarly,

121

Participant 3 emphasized, “You want to create a roadmap for the potential donor to get involved
with the organization or event.” Finally, Participant 5 emphatically points out, “If you want to
survive and exist, you must be confident in cultivating relationships to create lasting
relationships, collaboration, and partnerships. That's just the way it is for nonprofits. People are
afraid to ask for money, but they don’t realize it’s just cultivating relationships.”
Observation: Cultivate. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Cultivate. Documents were reviewed for this influence and found
limited education and training on skill building to cultivate donors. While the onboarding manual
does state the importance of championing the cause and training videos do discuss telling
personal stories, little evidence or training was found on how to properly cultivate donors by
fundraising staff. Therefore, based on the lack of instruction, this influence is a need.
Summary: Cultivate. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to rate
their confidence level in being able to cultivate potential donors, Board member responses for
somewhat confident or very confident failed to meet the threshold for self-efficacy in cultivating
potential donors making this a need. However, when interview participants were asked to
describe a time that they felt confident cultivating a potential donor, most participants
interviewed were efficacious in this external responsibility making it an asset. Additionally,
organizational documents were reviewed for this influence and found limited education and
training on skill building to cultivate donors making this a need. Overall, the results and findings
were mixed for this influence which leads to further ambiguity. Therefore, this influence is
considered a need. Indeed, the organization would benefit from additional training or education
to increase Board member self-efficacy in cultivating potential donors.

122

Survey Results: Solicit. Board members were asked to rate their confidence level in
being able to solicit potential donors. As seen in Table 13, the scale ranged from not confident to
very confident. Soliciting donors is the third and final step in the fundraising process and Board
members need to feel efficacious enough to perform the job well to mitigate role ambiguity.
Based on the responses for somewhat confident and very confident, Board members achieved a
combined result of 41.46% in self-efficacy to solicit potential donors making it the lowest out of
the three fundraising steps. To be considered an asset, Board member responses for somewhat
confident and very confident must reach a threshold of 70% but did not meet that threshold for
self-efficacy in soliciting potential donors. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this
influence is determined to be a need. Of interest, the response with the highest ranking was
neutral which could be viewed as apathy. However, if Board members do not participate in
solicitations, receive proper training, or get regular feedback on performance, then confidence
levels could be neutral due to a lack of experience, education, or information. See Table 14.
Table 14
Survey Results for Self-Efficacy to Solicit Potential Donors
# Self-Efficacy Solicitation Motivation Item Percentage Count
As of right now, please rate your confidence level in
being able to solicit potential donors.
n = 41
1 Not confident 12.20% 5
2 Rarely confident 17.07% 7
3 Neutral 29.27% 12
4 Somewhat confident 26.83% 11
5 Very Confident 14.63% 6

123

Interview Findings: Solicit. When Board members were asked to describe a time that
they felt confident soliciting a donor, five of the seven participants interviewed were efficacious
in the execution of this external responsibility, but all personally struggled with this external
responsibility making it a need. Participants 1, 2 and 4 felt solicitations were easier if proper
identification and cultivation were already successfully completed. For example, Participant 4
said, “If there is genuine interest on the donor’s part and a desire to support the organization, I
think it makes it a little easier to write those checks or click that donate button.” Likewise,
Participant 2 conveyed, “More times than not, asking is not bad if the message is communicated
effectively. Like the old basketball saying goes, you miss 100% of the shots you never take. You
never know until you ask.” Moreover, Participant 1 adds, “When you identify well and the
cultivation has gone well, there is a natural progression to make the ask.” Additionally,
Participant 3 maintains solicitations are easier if there is an established connection with the
organization. Participant 3 stated, “I'm the most confident when I know somebody has donated
already or they made a contribution in the past.” Furthermore, Participants 1, 4, and 5 suggest
practice makes perfect when soliciting donors. For instance, Participant 4 understood the steps in
the fundraising process but said, “You're asking someone to part with money and you don't know
their financial situation. You don't want them to feel obligated. Getting rejected is hard and you
do get rejected a lot, so you have to develop a really thick skin.” Nevertheless, developing a thick
skin when soliciting donors is extremely uncomfortable for Participants 6 and 7. Participant 7
said, “I just have a hard time asking because it makes me uncomfortable. I guess I worry that
people will say no, or it is going to hurt my feelings or something.” Finally, Participant 6
remarked, “In our society, we are trained that asking for things is a weakness so the process of

124

asking for money is incredibly painful to me. I think having the ability to read people to ask for
money must be a gift that some people possess.”
Observation: Solicit. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Solicit. After reviewing the Board documents, the only item
relating to self-efficacy in solicitations is in the onboarding manual which recommends “Board
members should be as confident about asking for support as they are about this cause.” However,
the document also states, “While sometimes asking for funding is considered an uncomfortable
responsibility for a Board Member, it truly does not have to be. Professional staff are experts at
fundraising and will work closely with you to drive fundraising efforts.” The statements vacillate
between encouraging self-efficacy to turning the responsibility over to professional staff thereby
creating greater ambiguity. Therefore, due to the lack of clarity and dearth of information, this
influence is a need.
Summary: Solicit. Survey results show that when Board members were asked to rate
their confidence level in being able to solicit potential donors, Board member responses for
somewhat confident or very confident failed to meet the threshold for self-efficacy in cultivating
potential donors making this a need. Similarly, when interview participants were asked to
describe a time that they felt confident soliciting a potential donor, most participants interviewed
were efficacious with the execution but personally struggled with this external responsibility
making it a need. Additionally, organizational documents were reviewed for this influence and
found limited education and training on skill building to solicit donors making this a need.
Therefore, based on the results and findings, this influence is considered a need.

125

Utility Value
Influence 1. Board Members Must Find External Responsibilities to be Useful to Secure
Needed Resources for the Organization
Survey Results. Board members were asked to organize five sentences based on what is
valued most as it pertains to fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. As seen in Table
15, the responses from the survey are given a weighted score. Based on what is most valued to
least valued, Board members ranked responses in the following order: #2, #3, #5, #1, and #4.
From the survey, Board members valued community outreach and advocacy responsibilities
significantly higher than fundraising responsibilities. To be considered an asset, Board members
must value fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach equally among the top three
responsibilities. Based on the results, Board members placed little value on fundraising and
relegated it to the bottom of the list making this influence a need. See table 15.
Table 15
Survey Results for Utility Value of External Responsibilities
# Utility Value Motivation Item Percentage Count
Organize the sentences in order of what you value most. n = 41
1 Participating in fundraising to secure organizational
resources
4.88%

2
2 Community outreach to build a stronger network of like-
minded people
51.21% 21
3 Advocating on behalf of the organization to stay relevant 31.71% 13
4 Working my networks to build future donors 2.44% 1
5 Talking to legislators about policies important to the
community
9.76% 4

126

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked if they are motivated to
participate in fundraising to secure organizational resources, six of the seven participants
interviewed found value in this activity making this an asset. Participant 7 conveyed knowing it
helps with organizational resources makes it more comfortable. Participants 1 and 2 maintain
personal giving or feeling emotionally invested helps connect fundraising to organizational
resources. Participants 2, 3, and 4 were all motivated by seeing the bigger organizational picture
with fundraising. For example, Participant 3 stated, “Without fundraising, there is probably no
organization and that is motivating. When I think about organizational resources, I think that a
lot about fundraising and knowing you have to keep the lights on.” Similarly, Participant 2 said,
“Fundraising keeps the wheels turning. You have to know how it will be utilized and how it will
benefit individuals, families, and the greater good.” Finally, Participant 5 points out, “Nobody
likes fundraising, but it has to be done because you don't survive without it. I won’t say it isn’t
without challenges, but there is a certain art to it, and it gets a little bit easier because it's the
same process over and over.”
When Board members were asked if they are motivated to participate in advocacy to
secure organizational resources, five of the seven participants interviewed found value in this
activity making this a need. Participants 1 and 5 both found personal value in advocacy to impact
organizational resources. For instance, Participant 1 said, “It does motivate me knowing that my
participation in advocacy impacts resources. I feel like I'm able to indirectly bring in extra
resources so that others can benefit from additional programming and advocacy training. It feels
good knowing that something I do creates a positive impact for the organization.” Moreover,
Participant 2 added, “Yes, it is very motivating and very rewarding. We need people to
understand our role in the community and be willing to help in that regard.” Participants 2, 3, and

127

4 found spreading the word through advocacy adds value because it helps the community and
leads to greater resources. Participant 2 commented, “You have to spread the word about why
you are advocating or raising funds because it is definitely linked to organizational resources.”
Participant 3 maintains, “It is a group effort because everybody has a role to play and it takes
many voices to make a difference.” Finally, Participant 4 asserts, “Advocacy not only helps the
organization but the community at large. If I am successful advocating for something that
benefits my family, it helps the community too.”
When Board members were asked if they are motivated to participate in community
outreach to secure organizational resources, five of the seven participants interviewed found
value in this activity making this a need. Participants 1 and 7 both found value in the difference
community outreach makes in the lives of others. Participant 7 said, “I think it can be very
motivating to see how other community members participate. When you hear other people's
stories and see their enthusiasm, it helps motivate you to do more.” Likewise, Participant 1
added, “It motivates me because what you're doing is making a 100% difference in people’s
lives. Because it makes a difference, you're motivated to do more and more, and it keeps making
a difference.” Participants 2, 3, 4, and 5 all report the greatest value in community outreach
comes from the benefit to the community. Participant 2 notes, “I am more motivated to
participate in outreach knowing the resources directly benefit the community both nationally and
locally.” Finally, Participants 3, and 4 add motivation for community outreach increased
throughout their tenure due to the connection with other like-minded individuals so that people in
the community do not feel alone.

128

Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. For this influence, Board members were asked to place a personal
value on their external responsibilities. Therefore, document analysis was not conducted for this
influence.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to organize five
sentences based on what is valued most as it pertains to fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach, Board members valued community outreach and advocacy but placed little value on
fundraising making this a need. When interview participants were asked if they are motivated to
participate in their external responsibilities to secure organizational resources, some Board
members placed a high value on the respective activities whereas others did not make it a need.
Document analysis was not conducted for this influence. Overall, the results and findings for this
influence showed mixed value placement by Board members which leads to further ambiguity.
Therefore, this influence is considered a need.
Intrinsic Value
Influence 1. Board Members Need to Feel Engaged and Enjoy the Process of Participating in
External Responsibilities to Provide Organizational Resources
Survey Results. Board members were asked to complete the sentence based on personal
enjoyment from a list of eight activities as it pertains to their external responsibilities. Board
members were told to select as many responses as desired. As seen in Table 16, based on what is
enjoyed most to least, Board members ranked responses in the following order: #2, #5, #7, #3,
#6, #4, and tied for last place #1 and #8. Like utility value, Board members most enjoyed
community outreach endeavors such as telling others about the organization as well as meeting
with like-minded people. Tied at the bottom of the list are the two least enjoyed fundraising

129

endeavors of finding potential donors to ask for money as well as asking for money during the
fundraising process. To be considered an asset, Board members must enjoy fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach equally among the top three activities. Based on the results,
Board members find little enjoyment in fundraising and relegate it to the bottom of the list.
Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is determined to be a need. See table
16.
Table 16
Survey Results for Intrinsic Value of External Responsibilities
# Intrinsic Value Motivation Item Percentage Count
Complete the following sentence. I enjoy... n = 182
1 Finding potential donors to ask for money. 4.40% 8
2 Telling others about the organization. 23.08% 42
3 Thanking donors for their gift to the organization. 15.38% 28
4 Matching the desires of the donor with the needs of the
organization.
6.04% 11
5 Meeting like-minded people to engage with the
organization.
19.78% 36
6 Ensuring the organization has enough resources. 10.44% 19
7 Meeting with legislators to advocate for the cause. 16.48% 30
8 Asking for money during the fundraising process. 4.40% 8

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked what they find enjoyable or
engaging when participating in fundraising, all participants interviewed found enjoyment in it
activity making this an asset. Participants 1 and 5 found fundraising enjoyable when they
achieved success by reaching goals. Participant 1 stated, “When I set a goal for myself and then
hit that goal, it feels really, really good. Similarly, Participant 5 stated, “It’s enjoyable when you

130

get that yes and you know they're going to support you, that's where the joy comes.”
Additionally, Participants 4 and 7 enjoy talking about the organization because it feels more
comfortable during fundraising. Participant 4 said, “The only thing that I like about the
fundraising process is talking about the organization, talking about the programs, and the
services we are able to provide to the community. I like getting someone else enthusiastic and
involved at the organizational level.” Moreover, Participants 1 and 3 found the connection to
other people during fundraising highly enjoyable. Participant 1 points out, “I enjoy that
camaraderie and getting to know people through fundraising that you normally wouldn't.” Also,
Participant 3 states, “I'd say as far as fundraising, getting the chance to meet with people,
connecting, and the conversational aspect of it is what I really enjoy.” Finally, Participants 2 and
6 found enjoyment in understanding how fundraising feels good for the giver. Participant 2
maintains, “Everybody is different, but most people really enjoy giving because it makes them
feel good when they do it from a good place.”
When Board members were asked what they find enjoyable or engaging when
participating in advocacy, all participants interviewed found enjoyment in this activity making
this an asset. Participants 1, 4, and 6 all found enjoyment in advocacy when they felt heard by
the people who make decisions. Participant 1 stated, “When I feel like I'm being heard by the
people who make decisions, I really enjoy that because I'm representing other people in the
community who can't be there.” Similarly, Participant 4 added, “I enjoy interacting with
legislators, explaining what we do, filling in knowledge gaps, correcting errors they might have,
or misconceptions about our community.” Likewise, Participant 6 said, “I find advocacy
enjoyable when I see the results literally changing the legislative landscape, so people have more
access to care.” Furthermore, Participants 2 and 3 enjoyed advocacy by sharing their personal

131

challenges or triumphs through storytelling. Participant 2 conveyed, “The aspect I enjoy most
about advocacy is sharing my story. It brings awareness to the overall community, it’s very easy,
and often therapeutic.” Also, Participant 3 stated, “What I find enjoyable about advocacy is
sharing my story and knowing there's a direct impact. Knowing what I'm saying to legislators
could make a difference in how they vote or how they push something forward is pretty
impactful.” Finally, Participants 5 and 7 found advocacy enjoyable and successful when they
helped other people. For example, Participant 5 shared, “Empowering other people to be
advocates for themselves in their personal life is where true enjoyment comes from.”
When Board members were asked what they find enjoyable or engaging when
participating in community outreach, all participants interviewed found enjoyment in this activity
making this an asset. Enjoyment in this area focused on two aspects: connecting people in the
community and helping others. Participants 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 all found connecting people in the
community enjoyable. For instance, Participant 1 shared, “The best feeling is knowing you
connected a family who was alone to the larger community. Those are the times you go to bed at
night and know you made a difference.” Participant 3 added, “Helping people feel welcome and
not alone is truly enjoyable. To see the look in their eyes when they realize things might be okay,
that's something I've really enjoyed with community outreach.” Participants 4 and 6 echoed the
sentiments of not feeling alone as well as the enjoyment and importance of creating a network
and shared history. Participant 7 said, “Connecting with families to see how they have changed
over the years makes me feel good when I hear that people are flourishing and developing in
spite of having restrictions.” Participant 2 summed up the overall sentiment for community
outreach by saying, “The people we are helping are real people. They have real needs. They
have families to take care of, college debt, and a career, but they also have other challenges and

132

we really need to look out for these individuals and help them. It makes me feel good to be able
to do that and I take pride in the organizational culture.” Finally, Participant 5 found the most
enjoyable part of community outreach is empowering the people who really need it and
conveyed, “We serve a purpose, meet a need, teach people to soar, bring about awareness, and
that's a great thing because we believe in our organization and who it serves.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. Due to this influence exploring what Board members personally
enjoy about their external responsibilities, document analysis was not conducted.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to select as
many responses as desired based on personal enjoyment from a list of eight activities as it
pertains to their external responsibilities, Board members found enjoyment in community
outreach and advocacy but found little enjoyment in fundraising making this a need. When
interview participants were asked what they find enjoyable or engaging when participating in
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach, all Board members interviewed found
enjoyment in their external responsibilities making this an asset. Document analysis was not
conducted for this influence. Overall, the results and findings for this influence showed mixed
enjoyment by Board members which leads to further ambiguity. Therefore, this influence is
considered a need.

133

Attribution
Influence 1. Attribution: Board Members Attribute Success or Failure in External
Responsibilities to Their Own Efforts
This influence was assessed in three parts: fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. Three separate survey questions are discussed below as well as the corresponding
interviews.
Survey Results: Fundraising. Board members were asked to rate their level of
agreement or disagreement with attributing their success or failure in fundraising to their own
efforts. As seen in Table 17, the scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Based on
the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved a combined result of
78.57% in attributing their success or failure in fundraising to their own efforts. To be considered
an asset, responses for agree and strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% and Board
members did meet the threshold for fundraising. Therefore, based on the results of the survey,
this influence is determined to be an asset. Of interest, strongly disagree did not receive any
responses from Board members surveyed. See Table 17.
Table 17
Survey Results for Attribution of Fundraising
# Attribution Fundraising Motivation Item Percentage Count
I attribute my success or failure in fundraising to my own
efforts.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 7.14% 3
3 Neither agree nor disagree 14.29% 6
4 Agree 59.52% 25

134

5 Strongly agree 19.05% 8

Interview Findings: Fundraising. When Board members were asked to what or whom
they attribute their success or failures in fundraising, all participants believed their own efforts
attributed to this external responsibility making this an asset. Participants 1 and 7 felt they are
neither a failure nor a success at fundraising, but their own efforts impacted the result. For
example, Participant 7 stated, “I don't think I'm a failure or successful at fundraising. I might be
somewhere in the middle. If it's a failure, I feel like I didn't give them enough information, or I
read them wrong.” Participants 5 and 6 claim their level of success in fundraising is dependent
upon their fundraising technique. Participant 6 said, “I attribute my success to technique. I have
a well-crafted letter, phone call, and then I follow up with the donor which spells success.”
Similarly, Participant 5 conveyed, “I have all the tools I need and years of experience. I have all
the information I need to answer questions, or I have the resources to get answers if I need
them.” Additionally, Participants 2, 3, and 4 felt personally responsible for their efforts as well as
any failures in fundraising. Participant 4 contends, “I know the responsibility is mine. Whether I
succeed in doing it or not is totally a product of my ability to engage with the individual or
connect with them on an emotional level, so they feel the need or desire to support the
organization.” Participant 2 commented, “If we're talking failures, I would say the failure would
be not asking as many people or businesses as I should and that's not of anyone's fault but my
own.” Finally, Participant 3 said, “I would say any failure would be my own personal insecurities
of making the ask.”
Observation: Fundraising. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Fundraising. Due to this influence examining personal
attributions, document analysis was not conducted for this influence.

135

Summary: Fundraising. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked
to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with attributing their success or failure in
fundraising to their own efforts, Board members directly attributed their efforts making this an
asset. When interview participants were asked to what or whom they attribute their success or
failures in fundraising, all Board members believed their own efforts attributed to this external
responsibility making this an asset. Document analysis was not conducted due to this influence
examining personal attributions. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this influence is
considered an asset.
Survey Results: Advocacy. Board members were asked to rate their level of agreement
or disagreement with attributing their success or failure in advocacy to their own efforts. As seen
in Table 18, the scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Based on the responses for
agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved a combined result of 71.46% in attributing
their success or failure in advocacy to their own efforts. To be considered an asset, responses for
agree and strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% and Board members did meet the
threshold for advocacy. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is
determined to be an asset. Of interest, strongly disagree did not receive any responses from
Board members surveyed. See Table 18.
Table 18
Survey Results for Attribution of Advocacy

# Attribution Advocacy Motivation Item Percentage Count
I attribute my success or failure in advocacy to my own
efforts.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 0.00% 0
2 Disagree 4.76% 2

136

3 Neither agree nor disagree 23.81% 10
4 Agree 57.17% 24
5 Strongly agree 14.29% 6

Interview Findings: Advocacy. When Board members were asked to what or whom
they attribute their success or failures in advocacy, all participants believed their own efforts
attributed to this external responsibility making this an asset. Participants 1 and 2 believe there
are no failures when it comes to advocacy. As Participant 1 states, “I think there aren't really any
failures in advocacy. Any conversation you have or anything you say or do is not a failure as
long as you're not giving incorrect information.” Likewise, Participant 2 conveyed, “I don't see
any failures as long as you're able to communicate your story, your message, and the importance
of why you are there.” However, Participants 3, 4 and 6 took full responsibility for their failed
efforts in advocacy. For example, Participant 6 said, “I take full responsibility for my failures. I
honed my own capabilities through trial and error, and I made so many mistakes along the way.”
Conversely, Participants 5 and 6 also took full responsibility for their successes in advocacy.
Participant 5 commented, “My success has been through sharing my personal experiences and
advocating for myself and my family.” Similarly, Participant 6 added, “My success is attributed
to my ability to reach across the aisle, build that bridge, find out what matters to other people,
show them why it matters, and connect it to advocacy.” Finally, Participant 7 shared, “I'm not a
failure but I’m probably not a huge success either. I think the experience of participating in
advocacy is valuable. Once you do it, you realize that you don't have to know everything about
advocacy, but you need to know your story.”

137

Observation: Advocacy. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis: Advocacy. Due to this influence examining personal attributions,
document analysis was not conducted for this influence.
Summary: Advocacy. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to
rate their level of agreement or disagreement with attributing their success or failure in advocacy
to their own efforts, Board members directly attributed their efforts making this an asset. When
interview participants were asked to what or whom they attribute their success or failures in
advocacy, all Board members believed their own efforts attributed to this external responsibility
making this an asset. Document analysis was not conducted due to this influence examining
personal attributions. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this influence is considered an
asset.
Survey Results: Community Outreach. Board members were asked to rate their level
of agreement or disagreement with attributing their success or failure in community outreach to
their own efforts. As seen in Table 19, the scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Based on the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved a combined result
of 85.39% in attributing their success or failure in community outreach to their own efforts. To
be considered an asset, responses for agree and strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% and
Board members did meet the threshold for community outreach. Therefore, based on the results
of the survey, this influence is determined to be an asset. See Table 19.
Table 19
Survey Results for Attribution of Community Outreach

# Attribution Community Outreach Motivation Item Percentage Count
I attribute my success or failure in community outreach to
my own efforts.
n = 41

138

1 Strongly disagree 2.44% 1
2 Disagree 2.44% 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 9.76% 4
4 Agree 68.29% 28
5 Strongly agree 17.07% 7

Interview Findings: Community Outreach. When Board members were asked to what
or whom they attribute their success or failures in community outreach, six of the seven
participants believed their own efforts attributed to this external responsibility making this an
asset. Participant 1 felt the only failures in community outreach are not reaching the people who
need to be reached or not reaching them in time. Additionally, Participant 3 and 5 highlighted the
disparity in community resources can affect the level of effort by Board members. For example,
Participant 5 asserts, “Knowing some pockets in the community have a wealth of resources and
others do not require extra effort because we may have to go back many times to help some of
those families.” Furthermore, Participant 4 shared, “Community members who are not connected
are dependent on my ability to seize the opportunity and make that connection. If I succeed, it's
totally because I was successful engaging the individual. If I fail, then it's because I couldn't
reach them, or I couldn't connect with them on an emotional level.” Finally, Participants 2 and 7
recommend Board members should share personal stories with others in the rare community to
successfully engage in community outreach.
Observation: Community Outreach. Observations were not conducted for this
influence.
Document Analysis: Community Outreach. Due to this influence examining personal
attributions, document analysis was not conducted for this influence.

139

Summary: Community Outreach. Survey results showed that when Board members
were asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with attributing their success or
failure in community outreach to their own efforts, Board members directly attributed their
efforts making this an asset. When interview participants were asked to what or whom they
attribute their success or failures in community outreach, all Board members believed their own
efforts attributed to this external responsibility making this an asset. Document analysis was not
conducted due to this influence examining personal attributions. Therefore, based on the results
and findings, this influence is considered an asset.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Board member organizational causes were assessed below through surveys, interviews,
and document analysis. Additionally, the results and findings were discussed for the assumed
organization influences of cultural models and cultural settings. Finally, each assumed
organization influence was determined to be an asset, or a need based on the results and findings.
Cultural Models
Influence 1. There is a Culture of Meeting Expectations for External Responsibilities Among
Board Members
Survey Results. Board members were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement with the organization has a culture of meeting expectations for external
responsibilities among Board members. As seen in Table 20, the scale ranged from strongly
disagree to strongly agree. Based on the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members
achieved a combined result of 50.00% in having a culture of meeting expectations for external
responsibilities. To be considered an asset, responses for agree and strongly agree must reach a

140

threshold of 70% but Board members did not meet the threshold. Therefore, based on the results
of the survey, this influence is determined to be a need. See Table 20.
Table 20
Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Model of Expectations

# Expectations Cultural Model Organization Item Percentage Count
The organization has a culture of meeting expectations for
external responsibilities among Board members.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 2.38 1
2 Disagree 16.67% 7
3 Neither agree nor disagree 30.95% 13
4 Agree 40.48% 17
5 Strongly agree 9.52% 4

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked to describe the expectations for
fundraising for the Board, only three of the seven participants believed an expectation exists
making this a need. Participants 2, 3, and 4 all believed an expectation for fundraising exists, but
historically it may not have always been that way. Participant 2 commented, “As a new Board
member, I feel like the expectations for fundraising were communicated pretty clearly even
though that might not be the case previously. However, if you’ve been around for a while and
you haven't really been giving, it's probably hard to transition to a culture of giving if you're not
really used to it.” Similarly, Participant 3 remarked, “I would say there's probably a lot who
would say that's not their responsibility, but the expectation is we are there to help the staff by
cultivating and creating those relationships.” Likewise, Participant 4 added, “The expectation is
to contribute financially when you can, participate in as many functions as you can, think outside
the box to come up with new opportunities, and seize opportunities as they arise.” Conversely,

141

Participants 1, 5, 6, and 7 all believed an expectation for fundraising does not exist. Participants
1 and 6 plainly stated, “I don't know if Board members in general know there is an expectation
for fundraising. If we do, it is very unclear.” Finally, Participants 5 and 7 conveyed, “I don't
think I don't think there's any concrete expectation. It's not really pushed or made a priority.”
When Board members were asked to describe the expectations for advocacy for the
Board, only three of the seven participants believed an expectation existed making this a need.
Participants 2, 3, and 4 all believed an expectation for advocacy exists. Participant 2 believes the
expectation for advocacy is strong and states, “I would say there's probably a greater sense of
involvement in advocacy because we're all community members in some way, shape, or form.
We, as a board, do this very, very well for our community.” Likewise, Participant 3 shared, “I
would say there's probably more involvement on our Board with advocacy because everybody
has a reason for being there.” Participant 4 contends, “There's a lot of advocacy work to be done
and I advocate whenever I can and if the opportunity arises to make an impact.” Conversely,
Participants 1, 5, 6, and 7 all believed an expectation for advocacy does not exist. Participants 1
and 5 stated, “I think if the opportunity presents itself, they'll do it, but I don’t know if it’s
expected.” Participant 1 also questioned if an expectation for advocacy is in the Board manual.
Participant 5 added, “On a more personal level, we are all advocates and we should push the
advocacy efforts of the organization.” Participant 6 maintains, “I personally feel very responsible
for the fact that I serve on the Board and other people would have liked this position. Therefore, I
need to remain vigilant with advocacy and make sure important things are being known and
disseminated to the right people. I have to be a part of the pulse of what's going on.” Finally,
Participant 7 points out, “I don't know that there are any concrete expectations, but I think when

142

people are presented with advocacy opportunities and they're encouraged to participate, they
become united whatever the case may be.”
When Board members were asked to describe the expectations for community outreach
for the Board, only four of the seven participants believed an expectation existed making this a
need. Participants 1, 3, 6, and 7 all believed an expectation for community outreach exists.
Participant 1 stresses, “The expectation is I know I need to be doing community outreach, that's
my role. I know I need to talk to people about organization. I think that out of three, community
outreach is the one that Board members probably feel the greater expectation.” Similarly,
Participant 3 said, “I would say the expectations among Board members for community outreach
would be we are ambassadors of the organization and we want our Board members to make
people feel welcome as a part of the organization.” Likewise, Participant 7 asserts, “I think we
are expected to do it because that's part of our role as a good Board member, but I think it’s hard
to measure unless you have specific tasks you are asking them to perform.” Conversely,
Participants 2, 4, and 5 all believed an expectation for community outreach does not exist.
Participant 2 shared, “The expectation for advocacy is number one, fundraising is number two,
and community outreach as third if any.” Participants 2 and 4 also believed community outreach
is being done at the local level but not the national level. Participant 2 said, “I simply feel like we
operate within our own bubble within our local community. And to be totally transparent, I think
it's a cultural shift.” Finally, Participant 5 shared, “I don’t think it is expected for community
outreach. We need to let people know we're here, what we do, and find out what the community
needs are. I try to do that at the local level, which helps with the national level as well.”

143

Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. According to the onboarding manual, key responsibilities for Board
members are fundraising and awareness. The manual states, “Board members must ensure
funding is sufficient to carry out strategic plans of the organization and continually facilitate the
flow of communication and collaboration within the local and national communities.” The
onboarding manual and the Board member annual agreement also list activities related to Board
member external responsibilities. The self-check in the onboarding manual and areas in the
annual agreement require Board members to mark items as completed. However, neither are
tracked at the organization and an expectation to participate beyond the initial agreement is not
found in the Board documents. Therefore, the documents are considered a need because they do
not encourage greater expectations. The organization would benefit from clearly outlining
expectations in the Board documents and tracking process beyond the initial agreement.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to rate their
level of agreement or disagreement with the organization has a culture of meeting expectations
for external responsibilities, Board members did not agree with this statement making this a
need. When interview participants were asked to describe the expectations for their external
responsibilities, the responses were mixed which creates further ambiguity making this a need.
The review of the findings from document analysis showed an initial agreement to participate in
external responsibilities but failed to show concrete evidence of ongoing expectations among
Board members, thus making the documents a need. Therefore, based on the results and findings,
this influence is considered a need.

144

Influence 2. There is a Culture of Accountability for External Responsibilities Among Board
Members
Survey Results. Board members were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement with Board members at the organization hold each other accountable for external
responsibilities. As seen in Table 21, the scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Based on the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved a combined result
of 16.67% in holding each other accountable for external responsibilities. To be considered an
asset, responses for agree and strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% but Board members
did not meet the threshold. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is
determined to be a need. Of interest is the high number of neither agree nor disagree selected as a
response which is likely since Board members are spread across the U.S. and probably do not
interact with each other often enough to hold each other accountable. See Table 21.
Table 21
Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Model of Accountability

# Accountability Cultural Model Organization Item Percentage Count
Board members at the organization hold each other
accountable for external responsibilities.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 4.76% 2
2 Disagree 30.95 13
3 Neither agree nor disagree 47.62% 20
4 Agree 14.29% 6
5 Strongly agree 2.38% 1

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked to describe how the Board is held
accountable for fundraising, none of the participants believed or could describe how Board

145

members were held accountable for fundraising making this a need. Moreover, Participants 2, 3,
and 7 all struggled to conceptualize how people would be held accountable for fundraising.
Participant 2 stated, “I think it’s a challenge because I can't really think how it could be done. I
think if we were able to hold each other accountable it should come from the board rather than
the fundraising staff. It would be good for the Board to have fundraising goals and discuss our
progress.” Similarly, Participant 3 said, “It would be nice if we could lean on each other to hold
each other accountable but I don't know a great way to track fundraising progress or effort.”
Likewise, Participant 7 pointed out, “I don't think we do because I don't think anybody knows
what other people are doing. I don't really know how we are supposed to hold each other
accountable when we don’t know what other people are doing.” Furthermore, Participants 1, 5,
4, and 6 all stated Board members are simply not held accountable for fundraising. Participant 1
expressed, “It's not really talked about much, there are no expectations, and there's no holding
each other accountable.” Finally, Participant 5 added, “There is a self-check toolkit that has
fundraising activities listed but there isn’t another document that tracks Board member
participation or accountability. It just gets lost.”
When Board members were asked to describe how the Board is held accountable for
advocacy, none of the participants believed or could describe how Board members were held
accountable for advocacy making this a need. Participant 2 stated, “Board members do not hold
each other accountable but many of us do advocate for our respective communities. I think
maybe each individual holds themselves accountable, but this is an area where we can improve.”
Participant 3 added, “I feel like the Board participates far more in advocacy because we reach
out to people and tell them our story, but I am not sure if that is full accountability.” Participant 1
maintains the bulk of advocacy efforts gets pushed onto staff and the executive committee

146

instead of regular Board members. Finally, Participant 7 remarked, “I am not trying to sound
negative, but I don't think the Board holds each other accountable for anything. Because
truthfully, I don't think I hold myself accountable for anything. I know that sounds awful.”
When Board members were asked to describe how the Board is held accountable for
community outreach, only two of the seven participants believed or could describe how Board
members were held accountable for community outreach making this a need. Participants 1 and 3
believe Board members are held accountable for community outreach. Participant 1 shared, “I
think that is where Board members are held more accountable. I think especially at events or
when they see other people in the community.” Likewise, Participant 3 stated, “Community
outreach is easy because you can go up to someone and tell them about the organization, what it
has meant to you, or how it can benefit others. So, I feel like we hold each other a little bit more
accountable in that area. Especially at our national meeting, I see a lot of the Board members
volunteering so I feel like that's one area where we've maybe held people a little bit more
accountable because it is so visible.” Conversely, Participants 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 did not believe the
organization holds Board members accountable for advocacy. However, Participant 2 suggests,
“I think the problem lies with the fact that Board members have little interaction throughout the
year so there's not really a lot of opportunities to hold each other accountable. I don’t think they
are deliberately doing it but a lot of them are strangers. I definitely think it is an improvement
area for our Board.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. Upon review of the documents available for Board members and
organizational databases, no evidence exists to suggest Board members are held accountable for
their external responsibilities. Therefore, the documents are a need. The organization would

147

benefit from clearly articulating accountability measures in the Board documents as well as
tracking ongoing participation in the organizational databases.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to rate their
level of agreement or disagreement with Board members at the organization hold each other
accountable for external responsibilities, Board members did not agree with this statement
making this a need. When interview participants were asked to describe how the Board holds
members accountable for their external responsibilities, the responses were mixed which creates
further ambiguity making this a need. The review of the findings from document analysis failed
to show any concrete evidence of accountability for external responsibilities among Board
members thus making the documents a need. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this
influence is considered a need.
Cultural Settings
Influence 1. The Organization Educates Board Members on the Importance of External
Responsibilities
Survey Results. Board members were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement with the organization educates Board members on the importance of external
responsibilities. As seen in Table 22, the scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Based on the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved a combined result
of 54.76% in educating Board members on the importance of external responsibilities. To be
considered an asset, responses for agree and strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% but
Board members did not meet the threshold. Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this
influence is determined to be a need. See Table 22.

148

Table 22
Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Setting of Education

# Education Cultural Setting Organization Item Percentage Count
The organization educates Board members on the
importance of external responsibilities.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 2.38% 1
2 Disagree 11.90% 5
3 Neither agree nor disagree 30.95% 13
4 Agree 45.24% 19
5 Strongly agree 9.52% 4

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked to describe how the organization
educates the Board on the importance of fundraising, three of the seven participants could
describe how the organization educates on fundraising making this a need. Participants 1, 3, and
7 all believe Board member education on the importance of fundraising exists, but the
organization could do more. For example, Participant 7 points out, “I actually think that we do a
very good job of that. I really enjoy the presentations at our meetings, and I think that is probably
the best way to educate people. We could do more things throughout the year though to help
educate Board members.” Likewise, Participant 3 added, “I would say on fundraising, we've
done a pretty good job. I feel like even more so in the last three years or so when we’ve had more
board training and opportunities for people to get involved in leadership giving.” Conversely,
Participants 2, 4, 5, and 6 all believe education on the importance of fundraising does not exist or
it is vague. Participant 2 said, “I think we could do more as an organization because I think
maybe it's a little subtle to be honest.” Similarly, Participant 4 stated, “As a new person, I have
had no training or any conversations with anyone about fundraising since I joined.” Participant 5

149

maintains, “I don't know if there is any education on fundraising. I know we talked about it, but
as far as follow up or follow through I don't know if there has been any.” Finally, Participant 6
suggests, “I would like tear sheets or information on how much money is needed. I might also
like some leads to follow up on. I think it would be helpful to just be in the room watching
someone who's really successful at getting money and just learning from them.”
When Board members were asked to describe how the organization educates the Board
on the importance of advocacy, five of the seven participants could describe how the
organization educates on advocacy making this a need. Participants 1 and 3 believe education
from organizational policy and advocacy newsletters helps to educate Board members.
Participant 1 said, “When anything happens that we need to be aware of or legislation is
threatening our community, the organization does a good job educating the community and
Board members.” Likewise, Participant 3 contends, “I think we do a great job making everyone
aware of advocacy issues with social media and even with Board meetings. That's one area we
actively highlight throughout various meetings and conversations.” Participant 2 maintains, “On
educating board members, I would say we educate more on advocacy first, then fundraising, and
then community outreach.” Participants 6 and 7 emphasize there are many tools available to
Board members so they can educate themselves if necessary. For instance, Participant 6 claims,
“I feel there are tools available at our disposal. Utilizing those elevated me to a different level
because I never participated in anything like that before. I felt a lot better trained and confident
going through that program.”
When Board members were asked to describe how the organization educates the Board
on the importance of community outreach, three of the seven participants could describe how the
organization educates on community outreach making this a need. Participants 1, 3 and 4 believe

150

the organization educates on the importance of community outreach. Participants 1 and 4 stated,
“We talk about community outreach at every meeting but there are many other resources
available.” However, Participant 2 thought the organization could be doing a better job educating
Board members on community outreach. Participant 2 suggested, “We need to do a much better
job of educating people on the importance of community outreach because I see it at the local
level and it's a little bit easier, but you can also do community outreach at the national level. We
need to constantly provide education.” Conversely, Participant 7 said, “I don't know that we
educate specifically on community outreach, but I think in underlying ways we do. We
encourage people to talk about the organization and that’s community outreach, but we're not
telling people to do specific things. I think we are kind of educating people without any
specifics.”
Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. Document analysis for this influence revealed a greater breadth of
education on Board responsibilities in onboarding manuals, videos, online learning, training, and
ongoing education. However, similar to Participant 7’s comment about educating without
specifics, a review of the findings showed a plethora of conceptual resources available on roles
and responsibilities but it does not discuss roles in terms of internal or external responsibilities
nor does it discuss any specific expectations or directives based on those roles. Therefore, due to
the ambiguous nature of the documents found, this is a need.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to rate their
level of agreement or disagreement with the organization educates Board members on the
importance of external responsibilities, Board members did not agree with this statement making
this a need. When interview participants were asked to describe how the organization educates

151

on external responsibilities, the responses showed a dearth of information from the organization
thereby making this a need. The review of the findings from document analysis showed many
educational resources were available but it did not provide specifics therefore making this a
need. Therefore, based on the results and findings, this influence is determined to be a need.
Influence 2. The Organization has a Statement of Expectations Outlining External
Responsibilities for Board Members
Survey Results. Board members were asked to rate their level of agreement or
disagreement with the organization has a Statement of Expectations outlining external
responsibilities for Board members. As seen in Table 23, the scale ranged from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. Based on the responses for agree and strongly agree, Board members achieved
a combined result of 73.81% in the organization has a Statement of Expectations outlining
external responsibilities for Board members. To be considered an asset, responses for agree and
strongly agree must reach a threshold of 70% and Board members did meet the threshold.
Therefore, based on the results of the survey, this influence is determined to be an asset. See
Table 23.
Table 23
Survey Results for Organizational Cultural Setting of Statement of Expectations

# Statement Cultural Setting Organization Item Percentage Count
The organization has a Statement of Expectations
outlining external responsibilities for Board members.
n = 42
1 Strongly disagree 2.38% 1
2 Disagree 2.38% 1
3 Neither agree nor disagree 21.43% 9
4 Agree 52.38% 22

152

5 Strongly agree 21.43% 9

Interview Findings. When Board members were asked to design a statement or policy
listing the most important expectations for Board service and what they would be, all participants
listed key expectations making this an asset. Participants 1 and 2 believed commitment is key to
Board service. Participant 1 said, “The expectation is that you give 100% commitment to the
organization no matter what you do. When you're on a committee, reviewing documents, or
making decisions for the organization, you give 100%. I want to make a change, help people,
help the organization grow because that is what is in my heart. To do that, you've got to give
100% and then fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach will come because you're
invested.” Likewise, Participant 2 added, “You have to be 100% engaged to fulfill all your
responsibilities and uphold the moral integrity of the organization. If you're not, then you're
going to have to try harder.” Participant 7 asserts, “I think first and foremost is to be a champion
of the organization. I think if you can do that and do it well, all the other things will probably fall
into place organically.” Participant 3 suggests, “I think the first thing is giving guidance and
direction as well as being present and actively engaged. When I think of a Board, we help guide
the organization and help set direction, but we are also the fingertips of the organization.”
Moreover, Participants 4, 5, and 6 liken those expectations to service. For example, Participant 4
said, “You're joining a Board to be of service to the organization, not because it's a position of
power, prominence, or some type of title that you want to have. It is about service. It's because
you want to provide service to the organization and to the community.” Finally, Participant 5
contends, “The most important service for Board members is to promote fundraising, advocacy,
and outreach in the community. Some Board members are more active than others and more
engaged than others, but it is ultimately our responsibility.”

153

Observation. Observations were not conducted for this influence.
Document Analysis. Document analysis revealed there is no single item designated as a
Statement of Expectations, but a self-check, a thorough annual agreement, and information on
the Board portal all list Board member expectations making this an asset. However, the
organization would benefit from creating a single Statement of Expectations easily found on a
portal.
Summary. Survey results showed that when Board members were asked to rate their
level of agreement or disagreement with the organization has a Statement of Expectations
outlining external responsibilities, Board members agreed with this statement making this an
asset. When interview participants were asked to design a statement or policy listing the most
important expectations for Board service and what they would be, all participants listed key
expectations making this an asset. The review of the findings from document analysis also
revealed documents listing expectations were available making this an asset. Therefore, based on
the results and findings, this influence is determined to be an asset.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 6 through 23 show the knowledge, motivation and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need. Tables 24 through 26 below show a summary
of those validated influences.
Knowledge
Table 24
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Assumed Knowledge Influence Asset or Need
Factual

154

Board members need a baseline knowledge of external
responsibilities in orientation.
Asset
Conceptual
Board members need to understand the relationship between
their participation in external responsibilities and its effect
on organizational performance.
Need
Procedural
Board members need to know how to identify, cultivate, and
solicit donors as a part of their external responsibilities.

Identify Need
Cultivate Need
Solicit Need
Metacognitive
Board members need to reflect on their strategies to meet
external responsibilities.
Need

Motivation
Table 25
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Assumed Motivation Influence Asset or Need
Self-Efficacy
Board members must be confident they can take steps to
identify, cultivate, and solicit donations from potential
donors as a part of their external responsibilities.

Identify Need
Cultivate Need
Solicit Need
Utility Value

155

Board members must find external responsibilities to be
useful to secure needed resources for the organization.
Need
Intrinsic Value
Board members need to feel engaged and enjoy the process
of participating in external responsibilities to provide
organizational resources.
Need
Attribution
Board members need to attribute success or failure in
external responsibilities to their own efforts.

Fundraising Asset
Advocacy Asset
Community Outreach Asset

Organization
Table 26
Organizational Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Assumed Organization Influence Asset or Need
Cultural Models
There is a culture of meeting expectations for external
responsibilities among Board members.
Need
There is a culture of accountability for external
responsibilities among Board members.
Need
Cultural Settings
The organization educates Board members on the
importance of external responsibilities.
Need
The organization has a Statement of Expectations outlining
external responsibilities for Board members.
Asset

This chapter presented the results of the quantitative survey and findings from the
qualitative interviews and document analysis as they relate to the research questions and the

156

knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Chapter Five makes recommendations for
solutions pertaining to these influences based on evidence.

157

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND EVALUATION
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis based on Clark and Estes
(2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences, and to assess its impact on RRF
Board members meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. As such, the questions guiding this study are:
1. What is the RRF Board’s knowledge and motivation related to meeting their performance
metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020?
2. What is the interaction between the RRF’s culture and context and the Board’s
knowledge and motivation to meet their performance metrics set by Chief Executives for
their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy and community outreach by
December 2020?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
solutions to meet external responsibilities?
This chapter addresses the third question.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
The assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences are listed in the
following tables. Based on data analysis, certain validated influences were classified as a gap and
given a priority based on the organizational goal. Additionally, an evidence-based principle was
identified as well as context-specific recommendations for improving performance. Following
the tables, influences identified as a gap were discussed including evidence-based solutions.

158

Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction
According to Clark and Estes (2008), knowledge is based on what is known, unknown,
and yet to be learned from each. As shown in Table 27, three out of four assumed knowledge
influences were determined to be a gap or need during data analysis. Specifically, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive were all identified as knowledge gaps. Conversely, factual
knowledge was determined to be an asset in which no improvement was needed. All knowledge
influences identified as gaps were given a high priority due to its impact on RRF Board members
meeting organizational and stakeholder goals. The knowledge framework used to guide the
discussion is Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda’s (2011) knowledge categories of declarative factual,
declarative conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Finally, context-based recommendations
based on theoretical principles were identified to help close gaps and improve performance for
knowledge influences classified as needs.
Table 27
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence

Validated
as Asset
(A) or
Need (N)
Priority
Yes (Y)
or No
(N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members need
an understanding of
external
responsibilities in
orientation. (F)
A N How
individuals
organize
knowledge,
influences how
they learn and
apply what
they know
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
There were no
deficiencies found in this
area of influence.

159

Board members need
to understand the
relationship between
their participation in
external
responsibilities and its
effect on
organizational
performance. (C)
N Y How
individuals
organize
knowledge,
influences how
they learn and
apply what
they know
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).
Provide Board members
with ongoing
information to organize
and differentiate
fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach
and connect it to
organizational
performance.
Board members need
to know how to
identify, cultivate, and
solicit donors as a part
of their external
responsibilities. (P)
N Y Modeling to-
be-learned
strategies or
behaviors
improve self-
efficacy,
learning,
and
performance
(Denler et al.,
2009).

To develop
mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component
skills, practice
integrating
them, and
know when to
apply what
they have
learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden,
2006).

Feedback that
is private,
specific, and
timely
enhances
performance
(Shute, 2008).
Provide training
modeling, practice,
feedback or job aids on
identifying donors.

Provide training or job
aids so that Board
members can apply the
skills to properly
cultivate potential
donors.

Provide Board members
the steps to recognize
donor preparedness and
the willingness to give.

160

Board members need
to reflect on their
strategies to meet
external
responsibilities. (M)
N Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced when
learners set
goals, monitor
their
performance
and evaluate
their progress
towards
achieving their
goals.
(Ambrose et
al., & Norman,
2010; Mayer,
2011).
Provide opportunities for
Board members to
engage in self-reflection
on their strategies via
thinking-aloud, peer
collaboration,
observations, and
strategy discussions with
professional staff.

Note. The Knowledge types listed in the table are Declarative (D), Procedural (P), and

Metacognitive (M).

Factual Knowledge Solutions
Board members need an understanding of external responsibilities in orientation. This
knowledge influence was determined to be an asset in which improvement was not needed.
However, even though it is not a knowledge gap, there is a continuous need to provide education
and learning on external responsibilities during orientation as new Board members begin their
tenure.
Conceptual Knowledge Solutions
Board members need to understand the relationship between their participation in
external responsibilities and its effect on organizational performance. Results and findings for
declarative conceptual knowledge indicated that Board members failed to understand the
relationship between their participation in external responsibilities and its effect on
organizational performance creating a knowledge gap and further role ambiguity. The approach

161

used to recommend a solution to close the declarative knowledge gap for this influence is drawn
from information processing systems theory. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) contend that the
way individuals organize knowledge impacts how they learn and apply information. This would
suggest that providing Board members with information to differentiate the nuances between
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach as well as ongoing information to connect new
and previous knowledge would support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide
Board members with ongoing information to organize and differentiate fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach, and connect it to organizational performance. Organizing information
on external responsibilities would alleviate role ambiguity and allow Board members to fully
meet their external responsibilities.
To help close the motivation gap for conceptual knowledge, providing ongoing
information to organize and differentiate fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach is
needed so Board members can connect it to organizational performance. In a study reviewing
BoardSource survey data from 1,341 nonprofit CEOs and Board Chairs, Bernstein et al., (2015)
examined which Board efforts improve individual performance. The researchers found that when
Board members engage in ongoing efforts to develop their skills, they organically improve
performance (Bernstein et al., 2015). Additionally, Herman and Renz (2000) used a mixed
methods approach to assess whether a nonprofit’s organizational effectiveness is related to the
effectiveness of their Board. The researchers uncovered that role-related learning in orientation
and throughout tenure is a valuable endeavor to increase Board performance and competence
(Herman & Renz, 2000). Indeed, creating a supportive environment that conveys the value of
ongoing learning is the preferred delivery method to increase role clarity (Ebrahim, 2010). Thus,
this research supports the recommendation to provide Board members with ongoing information

162

to organize and differentiate fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and connect it to
organizational performance.
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
Board members need to know how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors as a part of
their external responsibilities. Results and findings for procedural knowledge indicated that while
some Board members understood how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors, role ambiguity
still exists creating a knowledge gap. The approach used to recommend a solution to close the
procedural knowledge gap for this influence is drawn from social cognitive theory. Denler et al.,
(2009) assert modeling strategies or behaviors improve learning, and ultimately performance.
This would suggest, for example, that providing training or instruction to Board members on
how to identify donors by connection, belief, and ability as well as recognizing when the donor is
ready to give would support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide training or
job aids to help Board members identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors. Providing
additional training though job aids would alleviate role ambiguity and allow Board members to
fully meet their external responsibilities.
To help close the motivation gap for procedural knowledge, Board members need to
know how to identify, cultivate, solicit donors as a part of the fundraising process. In a study
surveying 112 nonprofits, Hodge and Piccolo (2011) examined Board effectiveness and
nonprofit health. The researchers found nonprofit organizations that achieve long-term financial
success have Board members who actively participate in strategy and resource development such
as fundraising (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). Rosso (2003) contends fundraising does not happen in a
vacuum; it takes planning and rigorous execution of identifying, cultivating, and soliciting
donors. Indeed, Duca (1996) recommends that Board members must use their influence to help

163

open doors to potential donors to provide ongoing organizational resources. Thus, this study
supports the recommendation to provide training or job aids to help Board members identify,
cultivate, and solicit potential donors as a part of their external responsibilities.
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
Board members need to reflect on their strategies to meet external responsibilities.
Results and findings for metacognitive knowledge indicated that Board members do not reflect
on their strategies to meet external responsibilities thereby creating further role ambiguity and a
knowledge gap. The approach used to recommend a solution to close the metacognitive
knowledge gap for this influence is drawn from metacognition theory. Ambrose et al., (2010)
and Mayer (2011) contend learning is enhanced when learners set goals and monitor progress
toward achieving goals to increase performance. This would suggest, for example, that
providing Board members with the strategies to reach goals as well as providing opportunities to
self-reflect on performance would support their learning. The recommendation then is to provide
opportunities for Board members to engage in self-reflection on their strategies via thinking-
aloud, peer collaboration, observations, and strategy discussions with professional staff. Setting
goals and self-reflecting on the strategies to achieve those goals would alleviate role ambiguity
and allow Board members to fully meet their external responsibilities.
Learning depends on relevant knowledge, memory, and reflective strategies to achieve
goals (Baker, 2009). BoardSource (2017) uncovered in their annual survey that Board members
who regularly reflect on their roles and responsibilities perform at higher levels and see greater
organizational performance, emphasizing its importance. Nicholson et al. (2012), after
examining leadership and organizational effectiveness, established self-evaluation and reflection
is a vitally important tool to meet organizational objectives. Self-reflection shows a direct

164

correlation between increased role clarity and engagement as well as the ability to respond to the
changing dynamics of organizational performance and environmental pressures (Brown, 2007).
Furthermore, Aulgur (2016), claims that examining the disparity between Board performance
and Board member’s self-perception, found that Board role development must be a long-term
endeavor, and the Board must willingly assess its progress to goal achievement through feedback
and reflection. Indeed, self-reflection shows a direct correlation between increased role clarity
and engagement, as well as the ability to respond to the changing dynamics of organizational
performance and environmental pressures (Brown, 2007). Thus, this study supports the
recommendation to provide opportunities for Board members to engage in self-reflection on their
strategies via thinking-aloud, peer collaboration, observations, and strategy discussions with
professional staff to augment goal setting and performance.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction
According to Rueda (2011), motivation is defined as the impetus to achieve goals. As
shown in Table 28, three out of four assumed motivational influences were determined to be a
gap or need during data analysis. Specifically, self-efficacy, utility value, and intrinsic value
were all identified as motivational gaps. Conversely, attribution was determined to be an asset in
which no improvement was needed. All motivational influences identified as gaps were given a
high priority due to its impact on RRF Board members meeting organizational and stakeholder
goals. The motivational framework used to guide the discussion is Clark and Estes (2008) three
common motivation causes: active choice, persistence, and mental effort. The authors define
active choice as the fortitude to start an activity, persistence as the ability to work toward a goal
despite challenges, and mental effort as the willingness to generate new learning which combines

165

with knowledge to increase performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Finally, context-based
recommendations based on theoretical principles were identified to help close gaps and improve
performance for motivational influences classified as needs.
Table 28
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as Asset
(A) or
Need (N)
Priority
Yes (Y)
or No
(N)
Principle
and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members must be
confident they can take
the steps to identify,
cultivate, and solicit
donations from potential
donors as a part of their
external responsibilities.
(SE)
N Y High self-
efficacy can
positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares,
2009).

Feedback
and
modeling
increase
self-efficacy
(Pajares,
2009).

Learning
and
motivation
are enhanced
when
learners
have
positive
expectancies
for success
(Pajares,
2009).
Provide Board members
opportunities for
modeling, guided
practice, and immediate
feedback on identifying
potential donors.

Provide Board Members
opportunities for
modeling and immediate
feedback on cultivating
donors.

Provide Board Members
opportunities for
modeling and immediate
feedback on soliciting
potential donors.
Board members must
find external
responsibilities to be
useful to secure needed
N Y Rationales
that include
a discussion
of the
importance
Provide Board Members
rationales about the
utility value of external
responsibilities and its
effect on performance.

166

resources for the
organization. (UV)
and utility
value of the
work or
learning can
help
learners
develop
positive
values
(Eccles,
2006;
Pintrich,
2003).
Board members need to
feel engaged and enjoy
the process of
participating in external
responsibilities to
provide organizational
resources. (IV)
N Y Activating
and building
upon
personal
interest can
increase
learning and
motivation
(Schraw &
Lehman,
2009).
Provide Board Members
opportunities to integrate
their personal interests
and model their
enthusiasm with
fundraising, advocacy
and community outreach
equally.
Board members need to
attribute success or
failure in external
responsibilities to their
own efforts. (A)
A N There were no
deficiencies found in this
area of influence.
Note. The motivation type for each influence listed in the table is self-efficacy (SE), Utility

Value (UV), Intrinsic Value (IV), and Attribution (A).

Self-Efficacy Solution
Board members must be confident they can take the steps to identify, cultivate, and solicit
donations from potential donors as a part of their external responsibilities. Results and findings
for self-efficacy motivation indicated that Board members lacked confidence as they took steps
to identify, cultivate, and solicit donations from potential donors as a part of their external
responsibilities creating a knowledge gap and further role ambiguity. The approach used to
recommend a solution to close the motivation gap for this influence is drawn from self-efficacy

167

theory. Pajares (2009) contends feedback and modeling increases self-efficacy as well as
motivation. This would suggest, for example, that providing Board members with opportunities
or experiences to be successful when soliciting donors, such as a group solicitation with a
professional fundraiser, and feedback on performance would support their learning and
motivation. The recommendation then is to provide modeling opportunities and immediate
feedback on identifying, cultivating, and soliciting potential donors to increase Board member
motivation. Providing training and feedback to increase Board member self-efficacy would
alleviate role ambiguity and motivate Board members to fully meet their external
responsibilities.
To help close the motivation gap for self-efficacy, additional Board member training or
feedback is needed to identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors. According to Brown
(2007), purposeful training promotes self-efficacy with roles and responsibilities and positively
influences Board and organizational performance. Additionally, feedback increases confidence
in Board members’ ability to perform and master their role as well as confidence to carry out
their work (Saksida et al., 2017). Responsibilities such as fundraising can seem daunting and can
cause internal doubt but knowing how to meet external responsibilities is critical to performance
(Cumberland et al., 2015). Nicholson et al, (2012) found high self-efficacy for Board member
roles and skills are positively correlated with individual or organizational performance. In a
study of nonprofit organizations in the United Kingdom, Saksida et al., (2017) sought to
determine if human resource management practices, such as feedback, can influence Board
behavior. After analyzing 647 survey responses, the researchers found timely feedback increases
Board member confidence as well as the ability to perform and master a role (Saksida et al.,
2017). Moreover, Board members must also be evaluated regularly to uncover areas of

168

ambiguity and subsequently receive feedback to identify areas of growth and clarity (Saksida et
al., 2017). Therefore, this study supports the recommendation to provide modeling opportunities
and immediate feedback on identifying, cultivating, and soliciting potential donors to increase
Board member motivation.
Utility Value Solution
Board members must find external responsibilities to be useful to secure needed
resources for the organization. Results and findings for utility value in motivation indicated that
Board members did not find equal value in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach
thereby creating a knowledge gap and further role ambiguity. The approach used to recommend
a solution to close the motivation gap for this influence is drawn from expectancy value theory.
Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003) contend providing rationales that include the importance and
positive value of the endeavor can increase motivation. This would suggest, for example, that
providing Board members with organizational performance measures and how they are directly
related to Board member external activities would support their learning and motivation. The
recommendation then is to provide Board Members rationales about the
utility value of external responsibilities and its effect on performance. Providing rationales to
increase Board member utility value of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach would
alleviate role ambiguity and motivate Board members to fully meet their external
responsibilities.
To help close the motivation gap for utility value, rationalizations or connection to values
is needed so Board members find external responsibilities useful to secure resources for the
organization. In a study of North Carolina residents aged 50 and over, Walton et al. (2016)
sought to understand what drives individuals to serve on a nonprofit Board, After analyzing 470

169

individual survey responses, the researchers found when Board members' beliefs are aligned with
organizational goals, they are more connected and likely to serve (Walton et al., 2016).
Specifically, belief systems and values often determine associations with a organization and the
roles performed (Walton et al., 2016). Therefore, this study supports the recommendation to
provide Board Members rationales about the utility value of external responsibilities and its
effect on performance.
Intrinsic Value Solution
Board members need to feel engaged and enjoy the process of participating in external
responsibilities to provide organizational resources. Results and findings for intrinsic value in
motivation indicated that Board members did not enjoy or feel engaged in fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach equally thereby creating a knowledge gap and further role ambiguity.
The approach used to recommend a solution to close the motivation gap for this influence is
drawn from interest theory. Schraw and Lehman (2009) contend motivation and learning
increase when activating and building on personal interests. This would suggest, for example,
that providing Board members with opportunities to connect personal interests with certain
aspects of the fundraising process would support their learning and motivation. The
recommendation, then, is to provide Board Members opportunities to integrate their personal
interests and model their enthusiasm with fundraising, advocacy and community outreach
equally. Connecting and capitalizing on personal interests would increase learning and thereby
alleviate role ambiguity as well as motivate Board members to fully meet their external
responsibilities.
To help close the motivation gap for intrinsic value, integrating personal interests and
modeling enthusiasm is needed so that Board members meet external responsibilities to secure

170

needed resources for the organization. In a qualitative study held in conjunction with the Georgia
Center for Nonprofits, Miller-Stevens et al., (2014) asked Board members from various
organizations about their motivation to serve on a Board. During roundtable conversations with
ten individuals from prominent nonprofits, the researchers found Board members were likely to
continue Board service if they are enjoying it and getting something out of the experience
(Miller-Stevens et al., 2014). Moreover, creating a positive and enjoyable climate for Board
members to carry out their roles naturally increased intrinsic value as long as Board members
gained satisfaction from the process (Miller-Stevens et al., 2014). Therefore, this study supports
the recommendation to provide Board Members opportunities to integrate their personal interests
and model their enthusiasm with fundraising, advocacy and community outreach equally.
Attribution Solution
Board members need to attribute success or failure in external responsibilities to their
own efforts. This motivational influence was determined to be an asset in which improvement
was not needed.
Organization Recommendations

Introduction
Schein (2004) defines culture as a constantly evolving shared history or characteristics of
a group that shapes organizational thinking. As shown in Table 29, three of the four assumed
organizational influences were determined to be a gap or need during data analysis. Specifically,
expectations, accountability, and education were all identified as organizational gaps.
Conversely, a Statement of Expectations was determined to be an asset in which no improvement
was needed. All organizational influences identified as gaps were given a high priority due to its
impact on RRF Board members meeting organizational and stakeholder goals. The

171

organizational framework used to guide the discussion is Gallimore and Goldenberg (2010)
organizational types of cultural models and cultural settings. The authors define cultural models
as social learning via culture and context through a shared mental schema, and cultural settings
as the manifestation of behavior when individuals or groups come together to accomplish an
organizational task (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2010). Finally, context-based recommendations
based on theoretical principles were identified to help close gaps and improve performance for
organizational influences classified as needs.
Table 29
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed
Organization
Influence

Validated
as Asset
(A) or
Need (N)
Priority
Yes (Y)
or No (N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
There is a culture of
meeting expectations
for external
responsibilities
among Board
members. (CM1)
N Y Effective
change efforts
are
communicated
regularly and
frequently to
all key
stakeholders
(Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Provide Board members
with clearly outlined
expectations in existing
Board documents as well as
new communication
channels to discuss ongoing
expectations.
There is a culture of
accountability for
external
responsibilities
among Board
members. (CM2)
N Y Effective
change efforts
utilize
feedback to
determine
when/if
improvement
is happening
(Clark &
Estes, 2008.
Provide Board Members a
monitoring process with
tasks, evaluations, and
feedback to capture
ongoing participation and
mid-course corrections.
Cultural Setting
The organization
educates Board
members on the
N Y Effective
organizations
insure that
Provide Board members with
messages and rewards and
implement policies and

172

importance of external
responsibilities. (CS1)
organizational
messages,
rewards,
policies
and procedures
that govern the
work of the
organization are
aligned with or
are supportive
of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
procedures that align to their
fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach
responsibilities.

The organization has a
Statement of
Expectations outlining
external
responsibilities for
Board members. (CS2)
A N Effective
organizations
insure that
organizational
messages,
rewards,
policies
and procedures
that govern the
work of the
organization are
aligned with or
are supportive
of
organizational
goals and values
(Clark & Estes,
2008).
To maintain this asset, provide
messages and information
drawing their attention to the
Statement of Expectations.
Note. The organizational types listed in the table are Cultural Model 1 (CM1), Cultural Model

2 (CM2), Cultural Setting 1 (CS1) and Cultural Setting 2 (CS2).

Cultural Model: Expectations Solution
There is a culture of meeting expectations for external responsibilities among Board
members. Results and findings for organizational expectations indicated a culture of meeting
expectations for external responsibilities among Board members does not exist thereby creating
an organizational gap and further role ambiguity. The approach used to recommend a solution to
close the organizational gap for this influence is drawn from Clark and Estes (2008)

173

organizational theory. The researchers contend effective change efforts are communicated
regularly and frequently to key stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest, for
example with advocacy, that Board members would know through existing documents and
ongoing dialogue what is expected when contacting or approaching legislators on behalf of the
organization. The recommendation then is to provide Board members with clearly outlined
expectations in existing Board documents as well as new communication channels to discuss
ongoing expectations. Focusing on managing expectations among Board members would
increase learning and thereby alleviate role ambiguity as well as motivate Board members to
fully meet their external responsibilities.
To help close the organizational gap for meeting expectations, providing clearly outlined
expectations in organizational documents as well as Board communication is needed so Board
members know what is expected for external responsibilities. Too often, conflicting Board roles
and responsibilities are a by-product of vague organizational goals exacerbated by conflicting
expectations (Doherty & Hoye, 2011). In a study of Board best practices, BoardSource (2017)
sought to understand the expectations placed on Board members. After analyzing survey
responses from Board chairs and Chief Executives from more than 1,300 nonprofits, BoardSouce
found aligning and managing external expectations fosters a culture of harmony, builds
organizational trust, and provides clarity of purpose for the Board (BoardSource, 2017).
Moreover, BoardSource recommends setting expectations during recruiting efforts, in
orientation, in Board materials, and throughout tenure to achieve higher performing Boards
(BoardSource, 2017). Therefore, this study supports the recommendation to provide Board
members with clearly outlined expectations in existing Board documents as well as new
communication channels to discuss ongoing expectations.

174

Cultural Model: Accountability Solution
There is a culture of accountability for external responsibilities among Board members.
Results and findings for organizational accountability indicated a culture of accountability for
external responsibilities among Board members does not exist thereby creating an organizational
gap and further role ambiguity. The approach used to recommend a solution to close the
organizational gap for this influence is drawn from Clark and Estes (2008) organizational theory.
The authors contend effective change efforts utilize feedback to improve performance (Clark &
Estes, 2008). This would suggest, for example, feedback and guidance by Chief Executives
would help Board members hone their skills in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.
The recommendation then is to provide Board Members a monitoring process with tasks,
evaluations, and feedback to capture ongoing participation and mid-course corrections. Focusing
on accountability among Board members would increase learning and thereby alleviate role
ambiguity as well as motivate Board members to fully meet their external responsibilities.
To help close the organizational gap for Board member accountability, monitoring
methods such as tasks completed, evaluations, or feedback are needed so Board members are
held accountable for their activities. In a study of Board members from 122 nonprofits, Harrison
and Murray (2015) sought to understand the links between Board effectiveness and specific
activities. After analyzing 1,446 self-reported responses, the researchers found one of the few
practices linked to improved organizational effectiveness is regular evaluations to identify Board
member weaknesses and strengths early in tenure. (Harrison & Murray, 2015). Similarly,
Olinske and Hellman (2017) surveyed 140 nonprofit Chief Executives in the U.S. to understand
the dynamics between Chief Executives and Board members. The researchers observed effective
feedback by Chief Executives was a determining factor in accountability as well as role clarity

175

and engagement among Board members. Therefore, this study supports the recommendation to
provide Board Members a monitoring process with tasks, evaluations, and feedback to capture
ongoing participation and mid-course corrections.
Cultural Setting: Education Solution
Results and findings for organizational education on the importance of external
responsibilities does not exist thereby creating an organizational gap and further role ambiguity.
The approach used to recommend a solution to close the organizational gap for this influence is
drawn from Clark and Estes (2008) organizational theory. The authors contend effective work
processes such as messaging, rewards, and policies align with organizational goals and values
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest, for example, that helping Board members understand
the importance of fundraising would occur in orientation and throughout tenure since those
efforts directly impact organizational goals. The recommendation then is to provide Board
members with messages and rewards and implement policies and procedures that align to their
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach responsibilities. Focusing on the importance of
external responsibilities in orientation and throughout tenure would increase learning and thereby
alleviate role ambiguity as well as motivate Board members to fully meet their external
responsibilities.
To help close the organizational gap for Board member education, conveying the
importance of participation in external responsibilities and how it is linked to organizational
goals during orientation and throughout tenure is needed so Board members can secure needed
resources. In a study of Chief Executives and Board chairs representing 713 nonprofits, Brown
(2007) sought to understand the Board development practices that resulted in highly competent
Board members. After analyzing 1,051 surveys, the researcher found Board members need

176

clearly defined roles and responsibilities starting at orientation to provide clarity of purpose and
alleviate role ambiguity (Brown, 2007). Additionally, Brown (2007), observed ongoing learning
throughout tenure is the preferred delivery method to convey importance and provide role clarity.
Therefore, this study supports the recommendation to provide Board members with messages
and rewards and implement policies and procedures that align to their fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach responsibilities.
Cultural Setting: Statement of Expectations Solution
The organization has a Statement of Expectations outlining external responsibilities for
Board members. This organizational influence was determined to be an asset in which
improvement was not needed. The approach used to recommend a solution to close the
organization gap for this influence is drawn from organizational theory.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Any improvement effort, despite being well-designed or well-received, will be of little
value unless it is applied and implemented organizationally (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The goal, then, is to take what was learned from this study and provide a simple but effective
implementation and evaluation framework to improve Board member performance in meeting
external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Therefore, this study
utilized the New World Kirkpatrick Model as the training framework for implementation and
evaluation. The New World Kirkpatrick Model below encompasses all four levels of training
planned in reverse order. See Figure 8 for all levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Four focuses on results and begins with the end goal in
mind by examining leading indicators or targeted outcomes from the training (Kirkpatrick &

177

Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Three focuses on the critical behaviors and required drivers to
reinforce performance so that participants can immediately apply what they learned during
training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level Two focuses on learning that occurred in the
areas of knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from the training (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, Level One focuses on the reactions from participants and the
degree they found the training relevant and engaging (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Overall,
effective training and education helps to alleviate Board role ambiguity and increases
organizational performance (Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2007; Wright & Millesen, 2008).
Figure 8
The New World Kirkpatrick Model

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of the RRF is to advocate for people living with a rare disorder. During a
strategic planning session when revenue hovered around $3.5 million, the Board of Directors,
Board Chair, and CEO of the organization set a goal to increase revenue to $10 million to
support organizational initiatives. Achieving the goal will be a stretch since current revenue is
roughly $6 million. Therefore, all stakeholders must be involved with this endeavor, including
the Board, to meet organizational objectives.

178

The organizational goal for the RRF is to secure $10 million in revenue to support
organizational initiatives by December 2020. In support of the organizational goal, the RRF
Board will meet 100% of their performance metrics set by Chief Executives for their external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020. The
reasoning behind the goal is Board members often perform their internal responsibilities with
ease but struggle with their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach. The need to meet external responsibilities relates directly to organizational
performance and achievement of organizational goals to support initiatives. The desired outcome
is Board members will achieve role clarity with external responsibilities to become an equal
partner in the organizational goal as well as increase organizational resources and performance.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
According to the Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators within the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, leading indicators are measurable targets that suggest critical behaviors are
leading to desired organizational results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). As the RRF Board
moves toward meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach, it is important to monitor progress toward goals. As shown in Table 30, external and
internal leading indicators are listed as well as the metrics and methods for how they will be
measured. The leading indicators will help RRF Chief Executives determine if Board members
are successfully progressing toward the goal of securing $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives.
Table 30
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcomes Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes

179

Increased organizational
revenue reported to the
public
Dollar amount reported in the
yearly organizational audit.
Reporting on the IRS Form 990
made available to the public.
Increased number of
donors to achieve $10M
goal
Number of donors to the
organization.
Donor list on organizational
website and annual report.
Increase programs and
services available due to
the rare community
Number of programs and
services provided to the rare
community.
Organizational database and
calendar of programs and
services provided.
Increase rare community
participation in programs
and services
Number of people served and
participation in programs in the
rare community.
Organizational database of
individuals participating in
programs and services.
Increase organizational
profile and brand
awareness on a national
basis
Number of media mentions and
analytics from social media.
Data collected by the
communications department.
Internal Outcomes
Increase revenue to
achieve $10M goal
Dollar amount collected at the
organization.
Accounting records to include a
statement of financial position
and profit and loss statement.
Increase solicitations and
campaigns to increase
number of donors
Number of donors to the
organization.
Organizational donor database
capturing donor information.
Increase staffing to
accommodate increase in
programs and services
Number of employees at the
organization.
Human resource records listing
staff members and
organizational hierarchy.
Increase organizational
efficiency to host
increased programs and
provide services
Time spent on hosting programs
and providing services.
Use of organizational databases,
file sharing, meetings, planning
and calendar time.
Increase in
communication efforts to
increase profile and brand
awareness
Number of press releases, news,
publications, social media, or
media promotion
Marketing and communications
department collecting media
mentions, analytics, and media
requests

Level 3: Behavior
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 3: Behavior is the most
important level because training alone does not provide enough organizational results to be
successful. Behavior is defined as the level participants apply what they learned

180

during training when they are back on the job or engaging in an activity (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). For RRF Board members, learning about external responsibilities and then
applying what they learned is pivotal to meeting organizational goals.
Critical Behaviors
Individuals exhibit numerous behaviors, but critical behaviors are defined as actions that
participants must consistently demonstrate to have the biggest impact on targeted outcomes
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Critical behaviors are limited to a few behaviors that are
specific, observable, and measurable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Therefore, a closer look
at the critical behaviors of participants is needed to determine if they are applying what they
learned during training. The participants or stakeholders, in this study, are the RRF Board of
Directors. As seen in Table 31, five critical behaviors were identified that Board members must
be able to demonstrate in order to achieve the stakeholder goal of meeting their external
responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. First, Board members must
be able to identify potential donors as a part of the fundraising process. Second, Board members
must be able to cultivate potential donors as a part of the fundraising process. Third, Board
members must be able to solicit potential donors for money as a part of the fundraising process.
Fourth, Board members must willingly meet with legislators to advocate on behalf of the
organization and the rare community. Fifth and finally, Board members must willingly connect
and engage in community outreach to increase awareness and outreach.
Table 31
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation

Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Board members
maintain a
running list of
Number of potential
donors identified.
Development staff
collects a list of
potential donors from
Monthly

181

new potential
donors and
share with staff
monthly
Board members on the
1
st
of the month and
enters into the
database.
2. Board members
work with staff
to set up
cultivation
meetings with
potential donors
monthly.
Number of potential
donors cultivated.
Development staff
collects a list of
cultivation meetings to
be scheduled from
Board members on the
1
st
of the month and
enters into the
database.
Monthly
3. Board members
work with staff
to set up
solicitation
meetings with
potential donors
monthly.
Number of potential
donors solicited.
Development staff
collects a list of
solicitation meetings to
be scheduled from
Board members on the
1
st
of the month and
enters into the
database.
Monthly
4. Board members
participate in
advocacy efforts
quarterly by
meeting with
legislators,
targeted
messaging, or
through social
media.
Number of
meetings with
legislators.

Number of letters or
emails written to
legislators.

Number of social
media posts about
advocacy.
Advocacy staff collects
a list of meetings to be
scheduled with
legislators quarterly
from Board members.

Advocacy staff
tabulates social media
posts and campaign
communication
quarterly with
legislators.
Quarterly
5. Board members
engage in social
media, meeting
attendance, or
presentations
Number of social
media posts about
community
outreach.

Number of
community
meetings attended.

Education staff
tabulates social media
posts.
Education staff collects
the number of
meetings,
presentations, and
awareness efforts
completed by Board
members on the 1
st
of
the month.
Monthly

182

Number of
presentations to the
community.

Required Drivers
The next step, after identifying critical behaviors, in the Level 3: Behavior of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model it to ensure training is on track by engaging required drivers.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), required drivers are actions that already exist
but must be aligned to reinforce, encourage, reward and monitor the performance of critical
behaviors. Reinforcing drivers emphasize the transfer of new skills into daily activities and
includes knowledge-related recommendations earlier in the chapter such as job aids, modeling,
and additional learning or training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Encouraging drivers
emphasize a formal plan to inspire or support behaviors and includes motivation-related
recommendations earlier in the chapter such as coaching, mentoring, and rationales (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016). Rewarding drivers emphasize the recognition of appropriate behaviors and
includes motivation-related recommendations such as recognition or pay for performance
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Finally, monitoring drivers emphasize following or
measuring behaviors and includes organization-related recommendations such as self-
monitoring, dashboards, and surveys (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 32 below shows
the reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring drivers needed for Board members to
successfully progress toward the goal of securing $10 million in revenue in support of
organizational initiatives.
Table 32
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors

Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported

183

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Reinforcing
Provide reminders on the 1
st
of the month to
submit lists of potential donors as well as
cultivation, and solicitation meetings to be
scheduled.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Provide job aids outlining fundraising concepts
and activities.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Create checklists for fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach so Board members can track
their progress and participation.
Annually 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Establish a fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach committee respectively to meet, network
and model behaviors.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Encouraging
Coach Board members individually on
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach
key concepts.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Organize Board discussions on connecting
personal values with organizational values based
on fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Host peer-to-peer mentoring opportunities for
identifying, cultivating, and soliciting donors.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Offer timely feedback to Board members by
professional staff on fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach skills.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Rewarding
Provide public recognition in Board meetings, on
the portal, and in Board communication on
successful fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach efforts.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Identify top fundraiser, advocate, and community
connector from the Board and recognize at annual
meeting
Yearly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Monitoring
Monitor action plans to track progress with
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach
activities.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

184

Create a dashboard on the portal so that Board
members can see peer participation in fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach.
Monthly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Conduct observations of Board members
participating in cultivation and solicitations.
Ongoing 2, 3
Encourage self-monitoring of strategies to achieve
success in fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Organizational Support
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), if no system of accountability exists
after training takes place, participants will invariably revert to an old way of doing things. RRF
Chief Executives and staff will play a pivotal role in supporting Board members and holding
them accountable for critical behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend one or
more methods for accountability. Therefore, to ensure that RRF Board members meet their
external responsibilities for fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach, the organization
will need to implement the required drivers to support behavior noted above in Table 32.
Additionally, this study recommends that all new Board members are trained to meet
performance expectations in orientation. Finally, a monitoring process that includes dashboards,
tasks, evaluations, and feedback to make course corrections will augment Board member
accountability. Ultimately, meeting targeted outcomes is often a result of support and
accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define Level 2: Learning as the degree to which
participants acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitude based on their participating in learning
activities. Additionally, the New World Kirkpatrick Model factors in confidence and
commitment to close the gap between learning and behavior (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

185

In Table 33 below, the components of learning in the program were evaluated separately with
knowledge characterized by the phrase, “I can do it,” skills characterized by the phrase, “I can do
it right now,” attitude characterized by the phrase “I believe it will be worthwhile,” confidence
characterized by the phrase, “I think I can do it on the job,” and commitment characterized by
the phrase, “I will do it on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For RRF Board members,
acquiring the knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment with external
responsibilities is pivotal to meeting organizational goals and reducing role ambiguity.
Learning Goals
The learning objectives below are the recommended solutions based on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs summarized at the end of Chapter Four. Upon completion
of the recommended solutions, RRF Board members will:
1. Explain the difference between fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and its
relationship to organizational performance. (Conceptual).
2. Demonstrate how to identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors as a part of the
fundraising process (Procedural).
3. Prioritize time to reflect on their strategies with fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach and how to improve performance (Metacognition).
4. Confidently identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors as a part of the fundraising
process to provide revenue for organizational initiatives (Self-Efficacy)
5. Value their participation with fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and its
beneficial impact on performance. (Utility Value)
6. Integrate personal interests and enthusiasm into the fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach process to increase enjoyment (Intrinsic Value).

186

Program
The following program is recommended to support the achievement of the six
stakeholder learning goals listed above based on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs. The learning program is a comprehensive plan to ensure Board members fully engage
with their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. The
learning program centers on three main aspects, a formalized and upgraded orientation to include
external responsibilities, focused training on fundraising, and ongoing learning about external
responsibilities throughout tenure.
The first aspect of the program is to provide a formalized, comprehensive, upgraded
orientation to include external responsibilities quarterly throughout the year at the RRF.
Currently, the organization holds individual ad hoc orientations and does not address external
responsibilities. Studies show nonprofit Boards need clearly defined board roles and
responsibilities starting at orientation to provide clarity of purpose and alleviate role ambiguity
(Bernstein et al., 2015; Brown, 2007, Wright & Millesen, 2008). Therefore, a formalized
orientation including external responsibilities for all new or existing Board members who did not
receive training should be held every quarter so that information is consistent and timely. In the
upgraded quarterly orientation, Board members will receive information on how to organize and
differentiate fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and connect it to organizational
performance. Board members will engage in focused learning activities, discussions, and group
activities to increase learning. Finally, through surveys, coaching, mentorship and monitoring,
Board member role ambiguity will decrease and engagement with external responsibilities will
increase.

187

The second aspect of the program is to provide a workshop on the fundraising process for
Board members twice a year. Knowing how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors as a part of
their external responsibilities is an important aspect of Board service and a significant area of
struggle. In the workshop, Board members will be provided with job aids on how to identify
donors by connection, belief, and ability, how to use networks to find potential donors, how to
properly cultivate potential donors, and how to recognize when the donor is ready to be asked,
making the ask, and gaining comfort with the overall fundraising process. Additionally, the
workshop will provide models, feedback, scaffolding, and practice to enhance Board member
self-efficacy to identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors.
The third and final aspect of the training program is to provide focused ongoing learning
throughout tenure. Ongoing education in the form of Board materials, webinars, training
sessions, peer learning, professional instruction, and peer-led communication will help Board
members to organize and differentiate fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and
connect it to organizational performance. Ongoing learning will also help Board members reflect
on their strategies to meet external responsibilities through thinking-aloud, peer collaboration,
observations, and strategy discussions with professional staff. Additionally, ongoing learning
will help Board members feel engaged, value, and enjoy the process of participating in external
responsibilities as their knowledge increases. Finally, ongoing learning throughout tenure will
help Board members manage expectations as roles become clear and create a culture of
accountability with tasks, evaluations, and feedback to monitor activities based on acquired
learning. Providing focused ongoing learning throughout tenure throughout tenure on the
importance of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach to support organizational values
and goals.

188

Evaluation of the Components of Learning
As Board members endeavor to meet their external responsibilities, they need to feel they
have the requisite knowledge to perform the task and incorporate it into their daily lives.
Therefore, it is important to evaluate the level of declarative and procedural knowledge Board
members possess. Declarative knowledge refers to the facts, or the interrelated theories to solve
a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural refers to knowledge of the
algorithms, techniques, or steps needed to solve a performance problem (Krathwohl, 2002;
Rueda, 2011). It is also important that Board members value learning and assess their attitudes,
confidence, and commitment to their newly acquired knowledge and skills on the job. Table 33
below outlines the methods or activities the organization will use to evaluate the learning goals.
Table 33
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge test/checks During, ongoing
Group activity explaining and demonstrating key concepts During
Survey questions addressing understanding After
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Role play real-life scenarios with peers During
Demonstrate use of the job aids via presentations During
Survey questions addressing skills After
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor observation of learner engagement During
Discussion about value and rationales of investing time and resources During
Survey questions addressing attitudes and value After
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussion about application concerns and/or barriers During
Practice of key concepts with feedback from group During
Mentorship and coaching with individuals and groups After, ongoing
Survey questions addressing confidence After
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Creation of action plans with timeline to implementation During

189

Monitor commitment in small groups and individually After, ongoing
Survey questions addressing commitment After

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1: Reaction is the degree
participants find the training favorable, engaging and relevant. The authors posit there are three
reactions to training: engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The key with Level 1 is to quickly and efficiently glean enough information
to assess the quality of the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 34 below examines
the components of engagement, relevance, and customer service to measure reactions to the
training program. For RRF Board members, positive reactions to training can set the tone to
ultimately meeting organizational goals.
Table 34
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance During each session
Instructor observation of learner interaction during group
activities
During each session
Course evaluation After each session and one
month.
Relevance
Pulse-check with participants via group discussion During each session
Course evaluation After each session and one
month.
Customer Satisfaction
Pulse-check via group discussion During each session
Course evaluation After each session and one
month.

Evaluation Tools
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend using a blended evaluation approach to
gather data from multiple levels and perspectives to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of

190

training using all four levels. The blended approach uses immediate and delayed evaluation tools
to assess program effectiveness (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For immediate evaluation,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest including items related to reactions from Level 1 and
learning from Level 2 as well as their anticipated application outcomes. For delayed evaluation,
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest focusing on how participants applied what they
learned in Level 3 and the results from training in Level 4. Therefore, the following sections
summarize the evaluation tools used immediately following program implementation and
delayed for a period after program implementation.
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
During orientation, the fundraising workshop, and ongoing training, the instructor will
conduct observations, meaningful questioning, and pulse-checks by asking the participants about
the relevance of the content to their Board work, the organization, and the learning environment.
Immediately following all training, Board members will be provided an evaluation tool that
assesses Level 1 (engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction) and Level 2 (declarative
knowledge, procedural skills, attitude, confidence, commitment) utilizing Likert-scale survey
questions (see Appendix E).
Delayed for a Period After the Program Implementation
Approximately one month after the training, the organization will send out a survey
containing Likert-scale and open-ended questions using a delayed evaluation tool (see Appendix
F). The purpose of the delayed evaluation tool is to measure the degree to which Board members
found the training favorable, engaging, and relevant (Level 1), the degree to which Board
members acquired the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and commitment from

191

training (Level 2), the degree to which Board members applied what they learned from training
(Level 3), and the degree to which targeted outcomes occurred as a result of training (Level 4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal for the organization is the RRF will secure $10 million in revenue to
support organizational initiatives by December 2020. The corresponding stakeholder goal is the
RRF Board will meet 100% of their performance metrics set by Chief Executives for their
external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020.
The performance metric set by Chief Executives is simply individual Board member
participation in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. However, if all 50 Board
members identified, cultivated, and solicited one potential donor, the organization would
significantly increase revenue and the overall number of donors. Additionally, if all 50 Board
members met with a legislator and connected with individuals from the rare community,
participation in programs and services would increase as well as the organizational profile on
Capitol Hill and in state legislatures across the U.S. In summary, if all 50 Board members simply
participated in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach, the internal and external leading
indicators would be achieved, and the resulting goal realized.
To achieve the greatest impact, it is important to make progress toward the goal as visible
as possible (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Prior to and after the training program, the
organization should provide descriptive statistics via a dashboard based on Board participation in
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach and house it on the Board portal. Figure 9 below
demonstrates an example monthly dashboard with fictitious data based on the stakeholder goal of
full participation in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.

192

Figure 9
Sample Monthly Dashboard for Board Engagement

Summary
The implementation and evaluation training plan in this study was designed using the
New World Kirkpatrick Model. The reverse design of the model begins with the organizational
goal or result, and then identifies the descending four levels as behaviors, learning, and reactions
respectively as a framework to achieve the goal. However, the outcome of learning still resides
with the learner or the RRF Board members in this study. Fortunately, the New World
Kirkpatrick Model has data points at each of the four-levels to determine if the learner is
progressing successfully toward the result. With this model, the RRF can assess the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences validated in this study and the conditions to achieve
active, informed, and engaged Board members. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service (2008)
posits an active, informed, and engaged Board is necessary for the successful oversight of a

193

nonprofit. Ultimately, effective Board members positively impact the organization to serve the
community to its fullest potential. Serving those in need in the rare community is the core
mission of the organization and the Board of Directors, and its greatest reward.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model along with the New World Kirkpatrick
Model provide an effective and comprehensive framework for identifying, organizing and
validating influence gaps as well as implementing and evaluating recommendations for
improvement. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework does not appear to have any
major weaknesses but certainly has many strengths. The model adapts well to most performance
improvement projects including the one in this study. According to Clark and Estes (2008),
performance improvement measures need to be targeted at the root cause. Additionally, the
framework closely examines the root causes of performance problems so a gap analysis can
occur organically. Finally, the biggest strength is data collected using the gap analysis
framework is logical and organized making analysis manageable.
Limitations and Delimitations
This improvement study was limited in several ways. To begin, this study was focused
solely on the Board members when there were three stakeholders identified as being pivotal to
achieving the RRF’s global goal of securing $10 million in revenue to support organizational
initiatives by December 2020. It did not look at the affect Development staff have on the
fundraising process, nor did it look at the influence of Chief Executives on the Board and the
organization. A thorough study of all three stakeholders would have provided better results.
Additionally, the Board, as a body, is dynamic and changes yearly due to new Board members
coming on and others rolling off. Therefore, the knowledge, experience, and tone of the Board is

194

constantly in flux and difficult to capture other than at a fixed point in time when data was
collected. Moreover, Board members enter their tenure in stages, so some are seasoned, and
some are new and Board experiences differ greatly during tenure. Experience was especially
evident during the interview portion of the study since only seven interviews were conducted due
to a challenging Board environment at the time of collection as well as the limited window of the
study. Ideally, if more interviews were conducted, the disparity in experience would have been
minimized. Furthermore, Board materials examined during document analysis change over time
so not all Board members were privy to the most recent materials and older materials were long
since destroyed. Finally, and most importantly, the study was dependent upon the respondent’s
truthfulness. Board members want to be a team player and appear knowledgeable but may be
reticent to confess their lack of knowledge or true feelings to the researcher which could skew
the data. For example, the researcher is a professional fundraiser and Board members confessed
to being extremely nervous when discussing the fundraising process since they did not want to
reveal their own fears or personal limitations to a professional. In this case, the study could have
been improved if the researcher did not have experience in fundraising and was not the direct
report of the Board.
Undoubtedly, the sheer size of the Board as the stakeholder group was a limitation, but
the experience and role of the Board were delimitations in this study. The Board, as a stakeholder
group, are the RRF’s overarching decision-makers and their influence over day-to-day operations
at the RRF is evident. Moreover, the study was delimited by focusing solely on the Board
members opinions and beliefs relative to the research questions which were narrowed down to
external responsibilities. Since BoardSource (2017) found most Boards are doing well with their
internal responsibilities but struggle with their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy,

195

and community outreach, the findings from the research are applicable to all nonprofits with a
governing Board. Finally, this study may also add value to the body of literature focusing on
nonprofit Boards and their role and responsibilities.
Future Research
In this study, the window of opportunity to do research was limited to two years leaving
many areas of future research to explore. A recommendation for future research is to examine the
impact of internal responsibilities on external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach. While internal responsibilities were explored in the literature review, its
impact on external responsibilities was not researched. Moreover, this study only collected data
from Board members as the stakeholder of focus and future research could include other
stakeholders such as Chief Executives or staff members who work with Boards. Additionally,
this study exclusively used the New World Kirkpatrick Model to implement and evaluate a
training program. Future research could further evaluate the implementation of the solutions
using another framework. Future research could also build on any of the findings in the research
such as Board members enjoy the nuances of fundraising but do not correlate those to the
fundraising process. Future research could also examine Board members who are new, mid-
tenure, or seasoned as individual groups to assess performance with external responsibilities.
Additionally, future research with other Boards would glean a wealth of new information.
Finally, the future research could use different frameworks, models, or analysis methods to
determine if Board participation in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach offer new
and exciting results.

196

Conclusion
Nonprofit Boards are charged with the public’s trust in guiding nonprofit organizations in
the effective and efficient administration of its purpose, and research shows role clarity is
positively associated with organizational commitment (Saksida et al., 2017). The lack of Board
role clarity is likely to have a direct influence on the organization’s overall performance fiscally
and organizationally (Hodge & Piccolo, 2011). As such, in 2015 during a strategic planning
session, the RRF set a goal to secure $10 million in revenue to support organizational initiatives
by December 2020. While many stakeholders were involved in the goal, Board members were
selected to be the stakeholder of focus in this study due to their limited participation in meeting
the organizational goal and their lack of clarity with their roles and responsibilities. Therefore,
the corresponding stakeholder goal for the study was 100% of RRF Board will meet their
performance metrics set by Chief Executives for their external responsibilities of fundraising,
advocacy, and community outreach by December 2020. While the organizational goal is
ambitious, according to Wheelan (2010), when the complexity of the situation is peeled away,
logic and rigor help to solve pressing problems.
The purpose of this improvement study was to understand how role ambiguity impacts
the RRF Board members from meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy,
and community outreach. Using the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences were studied and evaluated through a review of
literature, document analysis surveys, and interviews with Board members. Based on the
findings identified through data collection and analysis, recommendations were proposed to
close knowledge, motivation, and organization gaps affecting Board members from meeting their
external responsibilities. Finally, the New World Kirkpatrick Model was used as a framework to

197

construct an implementation and evaluation plan to incorporate the proposed recommendations
into a comprehensive training program.
The study revealed role ambiguity is prevalent for RRF Board members since they
struggle to understand the relationship between Board member participation in external
responsibilities and its effect on organizational performance. Additionally, Board members need
additional training on how to identify, cultivate, and solicit donors as a part of their external
responsibilities as well as time to reflect on their strategies. The study also revealed Board
members lack confidence in their ability to engage in the fundraising process. Moreover, Board
members need to value their external responsibilities and feel engaged in the process of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Finally, Board members need clearly outlined
expectations as well as accountability measures to ensure all Board members participate in their
external responsibilities. All these areas of ambiguity will continue to cause performance gaps
without training to help Board members successfully meet their external responsibilities.
The implementation and evaluation training plan in this study was designed using the
New World Kirkpatrick Model to help Board members close performance gaps. The learning
program was designed to ensure Board members have ample opportunities to clarify roles and
responsibilities as it pertains to their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach. The first aspect of the program to close performance gaps is to provide a
formalized, comprehensive, upgraded orientation to include external responsibilities quarterly
throughout the year at the RRF. The second aspect of the program to close performance gaps is
to provide a specialized workshop on the fundraising process for Board members twice a year.
The third and final aspect of the training program to close performance gaps is to provide
focused ongoing learning throughout tenure. After the training sessions are complete, a thorough

198

immediate and delayed evaluation to ensure the training was engaging and relevant, if
knowledge was acquired, if learning was applied, and if results were achieved will be sent to
Board members.
In the end, nonprofit boards are responsible for building social capital and community,
solving socio-economic problems, and providing for the public good (Harrison & Murray, 2015).
Wright and Millesen (2008) posit Board role ambiguity adversely affects engagement with the
organization on multiple levels. In the end, to mitigate ambiguity, the aim of this improvement
study was to help RRF Board members gain a clear understanding of their roles and
responsibilities to fully engage with the organization and to serve the rare community by
providing for the public good.

199

References
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works. Jossey-Bass.
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2009). Attributions. http://www.education.com/reference
/article/ attribution-theory/.
Aulgur, J. J. (2016). Governance and board member identity in an emerging nonprofit
organization. Administrative Issues Journal: Connecting Education, Practice and
Research, 6(1), 6-21.
Baker, L. (2009). Metacognition. http://www.education.com/reference/article/ metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9, 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bernstein, R., Buse, K., & Slatten, L. (2015). Nonprofit board performance: Board members’
understanding their roles and responsibilities. American Journal of Management, 15(1),
24–35. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1726791608/
BoardSource. (2010a). Board members and personal contributions. https://boardsource.org/
resources/personal-contributions/
BoardSource. (2010b). The handbook of nonprofit governance. Jossey-Bass.
BoardSource. (2016). What does board service entail? https://boardsource.org/wp-content
/uploads/2017/01/Board-Service-Graphic.pdf?hsCtaTracking=2d07beb4-062-426a-95ce-
f01b4347510a%7C23890670-f8a8-43ea-b96b-8c911503821e
BoardSource. (2017). 2017 national index of nonprofit board practices. https://leadingwithintent
.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LWI-2017.pdf

200

BoardSource. (n.d.) Board member agreements. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search
?q=cache:irhTSOqALa4J:https://boardsource.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/04/M4H11-
Policy-Sampler_Board-Member-Agreements.doc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2012). Determinants of the range of ethnocultural diversity on
Nonprofit boards: A study of large Canadian nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(6), 1111–1133.
Brown, W. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications
for performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(3), 301–317.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.151
Brown, W., & Guo, C. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(3), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009334588
Bruni-Bossio, V., Story, D., & Garcea, J. (2016). Board governance in the nonprofit sector:
Role-performance relationships of directors. The Innovation Journal, 21(1), 1–22.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1799184350/
Buse, K., Bernstein, R., & Bilimoria, D. (2016). The influence of board diversity, board
diversity policies and practices, and board inclusion behaviors on nonprofit governance
practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(1), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
014-2352-z
Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml..
12303.

201

Cave, A. (2017). Culture eats strategy for breakfast. So, what's for lunch? Forbes. https://www.
forbes.com /sites/andrewcave/2017/11/09/culture-eats-strategy-for-breakfast-so-whats-
for-lunch/#6bd1e88a7e0f
CFRE. (n.d.). Accountability standards. http://www.cfre.org/ accountability-standards/
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and
suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6),
1116–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764011427959.
Coule, T. (2015). Nonprofit governance and accountability: Broadening the theoretical
perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 75-97. https://doi:10.1177
/0899764013503906
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cumberland, D., Kerrick, S., D’ Mello, J., & Petrosko, J. (2015). Nonprofit board balance and
perceived performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(4), 449–462. https://
doi.org/10.1002/nml.21135
Daley, J., & Marsiglia, F. (2001). Social diversity within nonprofit boards: Members’ views on
status and issues. Community Development Society Journal, 32(2), 290–309. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15575330109489683
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. http://www. education
.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.

202

DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for White people to talk about racism.
Beacon Press.
Doherty, A., & Hoye, R. (2011). Role ambiguity and volunteer board member performance in
nonprofit sport organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(1), 107-128.
https://doi:10.1002/nml.20043462. https://doi:10.1002/nml.21135
Duca, D. (1996). Nonprofit boards: Roles, responsibilities, and performance. Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ebrahim, A. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability (Working Paper No. 10-069).
https://www. hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-069.pdf
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.education.com/reference
/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Epstein, M., & McFarlan, F. (2011). Nonprofit vs. for-profit boards: Critical differences.
Strategic Finance, 92(9), 28, 30-35.
Erez, M., & Gati, E. (2004). A dynamic, multi-level model of culture: From the micro level of
the individual to the macro level of global culture. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 53(4), 583-598.
Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2015). Board strategic balance: An emerging sport
governance theory. Sport Management Review, 18, 489-500.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Frailey, K. (2017, January 6). What does the nonprofit sector really look like? [Blog post].
https://trust.guidestar.org/what-does-the-nonprofit-sector-really-look-like
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2010). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 31(1), 45-56.

203

Gazley, B., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2018). What drives good governance? A structural equation
model of nonprofit board performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2),
262–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764017746019.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Hafsi, T., & Turgut, G. (2013). Boardroom diversity and its effect on social performance:
conceptualization and empirical evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 463-479.
Harris, E. (2014). The impact of board diversity and expertise on nonprofit
performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(2), 113-130.
Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2015). The effect of an online self-assessment tool on nonprofit
board performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1129-1151.
https://doi:10.1177/0899764014557361
Herman, R., & Renz, D. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local
nonprofit organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740022064605
Hodge, M., & Piccolo, F. (2011). Nonprofit board effectiveness, private philanthropy, and
financial vulnerability. Public Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 520-550.
Internal Revenue Service. (2008). Good governance practices. https://www.irs.gov /pub/irs-
tege/governance_practices.pdf
Jaskyte, K. (2017). Board effectiveness and innovation in nonprofit organizations. Human
Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(5), 453-463,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2017.1309331
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE.

204

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016) Evaluation blunders and missteps to avoid. Training
and Development, November, 36-40.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Krieger, N. (2012). Methods for the scientific study of discrimination and health: An eco-
social approach. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 936-944.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lakey, B. M. (2002). Nonprofit governance. BoardSource. https://www.bridgespan.org/bridge
Span/Images/articles/why-do-you-need-Board/WhyDoYouNeedBoard.pdf?ext=.pdf
Landsdowne, D. (2000). Fundraising realities every board member must face. Emerson and
Church.
Lapin, A. (2018). Skin in the game: The importance of board giving. Giving USA. https://
givingusa.org/skin-in-the-game-the-importance-of-board-giving/
Lee, C., & Nowell, B. (2015). A framework for assessing the performance of nonprofit
organizations. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1098214014545828
Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming
business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1),
64–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764014561796
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications.

205

Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McDonald, R. (2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of
organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–281.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006295996
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Sage Publications.
McKeever, B. S. (2015). The nonprofit sector in brief 2015: Public charities, giving,
and volunteering. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/ publication/nonprofit-
sector-brief-2015-public-charities-giving-and-volunteering
McLaughlin, T. (2002). About face: How to change organizational culture. The Non-Profit
Times, 16(1), 14-16.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Miller-Millesen, J. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A
theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521–547.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003257463
Miller-Stevens, K., Ward, K., & Neill, K. (2014). Public service motivation theory in a
nonprofit context: An explanatory study of nonprofit board member motivations. Journal
of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 4(2), 162–178.
Nicholson, G., Newton, C., McGregor‐Lowndes, M., & Renz, D. (2012). The nonprofit board as
a team: Pilot results and initial insights. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(4),
461-481. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21040

206

Nonprofit Research Collaborative. (2015). Board Giving and Engagement. https://static1.
squarespace .com/static/5baac8ebe666691ace309ac7/t/5c16bda48a922db9dfbdd664
/1544994216162/Board+Giving+and+Engagement.pdf
Ohio Association of Nonprofit Organizations. (n.d.). Board orientation. https://c.ymcdn.com
/sites/www.naswoh.org/resource/resmgr/imported/Board%20Orientation.pdf
Olinske, J., & Hellman, C. (2017). Leadership in the human service nonprofit organization: The
influence of the board of directors on executive director well-being and burnout. Human
Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 41(2), 95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2016.1222976
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. http://www.education.com/reference/ article/self-
efficacy-theory/.
Panas, J. (2010). The fundraising habits of supremely successful boards: A 59-minute guide to
assuring your organization’s future. Emerson and Church.
Panas, J. (2012). Mega gifts: Who gives them, who gets them. Emerson and Church.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). SAGE Publications.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New Perspectives on Affect and Learning Technologies (pp. 23-
39). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation
in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667

207

Provan, K. G. (1980). Board power and organizational effectiveness among human service
agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 221-236. https://doi.org/10.2307
/255428
Rhode, D., & Packel, A. (2014). Diversity on corporate boards: How much difference does
difference make? Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 39(2), 377-425.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617
Rosso, H. (2003). Achieving excellence in fundraising. Jossey-Bass.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Saksida, T., Alfes, K., & Shantz, A. (2017). Volunteer role mastery and commitment: Can HRM
make a difference? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(14),
2062-2084. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1126335
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who think they hate statistics. (5th ed.). SAGE.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein, (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3
rd
ed.). Jossey Bass.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. http://www.education
.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.

208

Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. http://www.education. com/reference
/article/sociocultural theory/.
Sessler-Bernstein, R., & Bilimoria, D. (2013). Diversity perspectives and minority nonprofit
board member inclusion. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal,
32(7), 636-653.
Shankie, E. (2015). Women in power—or, not so much: Gender in the nonprofit sector.
Nonprofit Quarterly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2015/01/21/ women-in-power-or-not-
so-much-gender-in-the-nonprofit-sector/
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Spicer, V. (2018). Nonprofit boards strive to include a greater range of people. Rochester
Business Journal,12-17.
Stone, M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on
nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764006296049
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using Mentoring and Storytelling
to Transfer Knowledge in the Workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems,
18, 95-114.
Walker, J. (2012). A fundraising guide for nonprofit board members. Wiley & Sons.
Walton, M.A., Clerkin, R.M., Christensen, R.K., Paarlberg, L.E., Nesbit, R., & Tschirhart, M.
(2016). Means, motive and opportunity: Exploring board volunteering. Personnel
Review, 46(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2015-0012

209

Weiner, B. (2007). Examining emotional diversity in the classroom: An attribution theorist
Considers the moral emotions. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education.
Academic Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. The Free Press.
Wheelan, C. (2010). Naked economics: Undressing the dismal science. W.W. Norton &
Company.
Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit
performance and effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and
Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9446-1
Wright, B., & Millesen, J. (2008). Nonprofit board role ambiguity: Investigating its
prevalence, antecedents, and consequences. The American Review of Public
Administration, 38(3), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074007309151
Zhu, H., Wang, P., & Bart, C. (2016). Board processes, board strategic involvement,
and organizational performance in for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 136(2), 311-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2512-1

210

Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to be a part of this study. The survey
should take 15 minutes at the most to complete. The survey will begin by capturing
demographic information and will segue into survey questions pertaining to the study.

Demographic Information

1. Gender: a) Male
b) Female
c) Prefer not to disclose
2. Years as a Board member at the
organization:
a) 1 b) 2
c) 3 d) 4
e) 5 f) 6
3. Terms as a Board member at the
organization:
a) 1
b) 2
c) 3
4. Community member: a) Yes
b) No
5. Education level: a) High School
b) Technical degree
c) Some college
d) Undergraduate degree
e) Graduate degree

Survey Questions

6. Of the following, which are external
responsibilities of a Board member?
(Check all that apply)
a) Fundraising
b) Monitoring and managing financial
resources
c) Advocacy
d) Providing oversight
e) Approving minutes
f) Community outreach
7. Match the external responsibilities in
Column A with the respective roles in
Column B.
Column A (may be used more than once):
1. Fundraising
2. Advocacy

211

3. Community Outreach
Column B:
___ Speaking to legislators
___ Recommending potential donors
___ Connecting people with the organization
___ Cultivating donors
___ Speaking in front of community groups
___ Finding diverse Board members
___ Asking for financial support
___ Educating others about the disorder
8. Multiple choice. Choose the best answer
to complete the sentence. The CEO has
asked you to identify potential donors for
the organization. Your first step to
identify a potential donor is to…
a) Identify people or companies who have the
ability to give.
b) Identify people you know in your network.
c) Take the person out to lunch
d) Identify people or organizations by
connection, belief, and ability.
e) Identify others who believe in the cause.
9. Multiple choice. Choose the best answer
to complete the sentence. After you
identified a potential donor, your next
step to cultivate the donor is to……
a) Understand what the donor finds important
or values.
b) Ask the donor for a donation.
c) Get the donor involved in the organization.
d) Be the organization’s biggest cheerleader.
10. Multiple choice. Choose the best answer
to complete the sentence. After you have
identified and cultivated a potential
donor, your final step to solicit the donor
is to….
a) Make the ask face-to-face.
b) Strategize on who is the best person to
make the ask.
c) Ask when the donor is ready.
d) See if they know someone else who would
like to give.
e) Not wait too long to make the ask.
11. Multiple choice. Choose the best answer
to complete the sentence. I self-reflect on
my external responsibilities by….
a) Thinking about the effectiveness of my
own fundraising strategies to raise money for
the organization.
b) Deciding what needs to be changed in my
approach to legislators when I advocate for
the rare community and the organization.
c) Deciding how to appropriately engage in
community outreach efforts on behalf of the
organization.
d) All of the above
e) None of the above

212

12. As of right now, please rate your
confidence level in being able to:
(5-point scale: 1-Not confident; 2-Rarely
confident; 3-Neutral; 4-Somewhat confident;
5-Very confident)

a) Identify potential donors.
b) Cultivate potential donors.
c) Solicit potential donors.
13. Organize the sentences in order of what
you value most. (1-most important and 5-
least important):
___ Participating in fundraising to secure
organizational resources.
___ Community outreach to build a stronger
network of like-minded people.
___ Advocating on behalf of the organization
to stay relevant.
___ Working my networks to build future
donors.
___ Talking to legislators about policies
important to the community.
14. Complete the following sentence. I enjoy:
(check all that apply):
a) Finding potential donors to ask for money
b) Telling others about the organization.
c) Thanking donors for their gift to the
organization.
d) Matching the desires of the donor with the
needs of the organization.
e) Meeting like-minded people to engage
with the organization.
f) Ensuring the organization has enough
resources.
g) Meeting with legislators to advocate for
the cause.
h) Asking for money during the fundraising
process.
15. With regard to your external
responsibilities, please rate your level of
agreement or disagreement with the
following statements.
(5-point scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree), Agree,
Strongly Agree)

a) I attribute my success or failure in
fundraising to my own efforts.
b) I attribute my success or failure in
advocacy to my own efforts.
c) I attribute my success or failure in
community outreach to my own efforts.

213

16. With regard to the organization, please
rate your level of agreement or
disagreement with the following
statement.
(5-point scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree), Agree,
Strongly Agree)

My organization has a culture of meeting
expectations for external responsibilities
among Board members.
17. With regard to the organization, please
rate your level of agreement or
disagreement with the following
statement.
(5-point scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree), Agree,
Strongly Agree)

Board members at my organization hold each
other accountable for external responsibilities.
18. With regard to the organization, please
rate your level of agreement or
disagreement with the following
statement.
(5-point scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree), Agree,
Strongly Agree)

My organization educates Board members on
the importance of external responsibilities.
19. With regard to the organization, please
rate your level of agreement or
disagreement with the following
statement.
(5-point scale: Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Neutral (Neither Agree nor Disagree), Agree,
Strongly Agree)

My organization has a Statement of
Expectations outlining external
responsibilities for Board members.

Thank you so much for being a part of this study on Board member external responsibilities of
fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.

Would you be willing to be interviewed as a part of this study?

o Yes
o No

214

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Welcome
Thank you [insert participant name] for taking time out of your busy schedule to meet with me
today. I also want to thank you for completing the survey and for volunteering to be
interviewed. Let me remind you that your participation in this interview is anonymous,
confidential, and you can withdraw at any time. Additionally, I would like to record this
interview on Zoom to ensure your responses are accurate on the transcription, which will also be
sent to you. Finally, it is important to note, the audio file and transcript of this interview will be
in my possession only in a password-protected file stored on my personal computer. May I
record this interview?

Study Overview
Before we get started with questions, I would like to provide you with an overview of
my study and answer any questions you might have about participating. To begin, I am a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California studying organizational change and
leadership. My dissertation focus is on nonprofit Boards and I am specifically looking at your
roles and responsibilities as a Board member. Your candid answers are vitally important to the
organization and will also provide additional insight to the fundraising industry. Do you have
any other questions before we begin? If not, I will click the record button and you will see the
red light at the top left-hand corner of your Zoom screen.

Interview Questions
There will be three sections in this interview. In the first section, we will explore your
knowledge influences as it relates to your external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and
community outreach.

1. To begin, please tell me your understanding of fundraising as a Board member with
regard to your external responsibilities.
o Probe: Can you give me an example of what you mean?
2. Next, what is your understanding of advocacy as a Board member.
3. Finally, what is your understanding of community outreach as a Board member?
4. Describe how your participation in fundraising affects organizational performance.
5. Describe how your participation in advocacy affects organizational performance.
6. Describe how your participation in community outreach affects organizational
performance.
o Probe: Knowing there is a relationship to organizational performance, how does it
make you feel?

The following questions look at identifying, cultivating, and soliciting donors as a part of the
fundraising process.

7. Explain your process to identify donors as a part of your external responsibilities.
o Probe: Can you give me a real-life example?
8. Explain your process to cultivate donors.
9. Explain your process to solicit or ask donors for money.

215

The following questions ask you to reflect on a specific scenario or experience when you
personally participated in fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.

10. Describe your thought processes or mental steps as you navigated through a fundraising
scenario or experience?
o Probe: Why did you make those choices? Were there outside influences?
11. Describe your thought processes to me as you navigated through an advocacy experience.
o Probe: Why did you follow that mental process versus another?
12. Describe your thought processes to me as you navigated through a community outreach
experience.
o Probe: When you reflect, what changes would you make to your thought
processes?

We have completed the first section. The second section will explore your motivational
influences as it relates to your external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community
outreach.

13. Tell me about a time when you felt confident identifying potential donors.
○ Probe: What impacts your confidence?
14. Next, discuss an experience where you confidently cultivated a potential donor.
○ Probe: What do you think increases your confidence?
15. Describe the last time you felt confident soliciting donors.
○ Probe: Are you more confident alone or in a group when you solicit people for
money?
16. How does your participation in fundraising impact organizational resources?
○ Probe: Can you give me an example?
17. How does your participation in advocacy impact organizational resources?
○ Do you set your goals to match organizational goals?
18. How does your participation in community outreach impact organizational resources?
19. Walk me through what you find enjoyable or engaging when participating in fundraising?
○ Probe: Why do you feel this way?
20. Walk me through what you find enjoyable or engaging when participating in advocacy?
21. Walk me through what you find enjoyable or engaging when participating in community
outreach?
22. To what or whom do you attribute your successes or failures in fundraising?
○ Probe: Can you tell me more about that?
23. To what or whom do you attribute your successes or failures in advocacy?
○ Probe: Can you give me an example?
24. To what or whom do you attribute your successes or failures in community outreach?

The third and final section will explore organizational cultural influences as it relates to your
external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.

25. Describe expectations among Board members for meeting your external responsibility of
fundraising.
○ Probe: Why do you think that occurs or does not occur?

216

26. Describe expectations among Board members for meeting your external responsibility of
advocacy.
27. Describe expectations among Board members for meeting your external responsibility of
community outreach.
28. Explain how Board members hold each other accountable for meeting the external
responsibility of fundraising.
○ Probe: Can you give me a concrete example of this?
29. Explain how Board members hold each other accountable for advocacy.
30. Explain how Board members hold each other accountable for advocacy.
31. How does the organization educate Board members on the importance of fundraising?
○ Probe: What else could the organization do or how could they do it better?
32. How does the organization educate Board members on the importance of advocacy?
33. How does the organization educate Board members on the importance of community
outreach?
34. If you could design a statement or policy listing the most important expectations for
Board service, what would they be?
○ Probe: Tell me why you chose those expectations over others?

Closing
Those are all of my questions for this interview, [insert interviewee name]. Before the interview
ends, I want to provide you an opportunity to discuss anything I did not cover or include.

What else should we discuss?

Again, thank you so much for meeting with me today. I appreciate your wisdom, insight, and
candor in this study. It has truly been a pleasure speaking with you today.

217

Appendix C: Document Analysis Protocol
Observation/Document Analysis Form
Observer: Sharon Meyers
Date: August 31, 2019 – September 30, 2019
Organization: Resilience Rare Foundation
Start Time: ___________ End Time: ___________
Type: Documents
Subject/Content: Resilience Rare Foundation Board Documents
Attendees (or) Document Authors: TBD based on document reviewed

Knowledge Influences and Method of Assessment

# Influence Observation/ Document Analysis
1 Board members need a baseline
knowledge of external
responsibilities in orientation.
Review orientation manual for Board members for
information on external responsibilities.
Review Board orientation syllabus and presentation
materials for information on external
responsibilities.
2 Board members need to
understand the relationship
between their participation in
external responsibilities and its
effect on organizational
performance.
Review Board member activity with gifts received
in Salesforce as a part of the organizational financial
goal.
3 Board members need to know
how to identify, cultivate, and
solicit donors as a part of their
external responsibilities.
Review Moves Management in Salesforce for the
Board members participation
Determine preassigned identification, cultivation,
and solicitation measurables for Board members.
Review documents outlining fundraising
responsibilities in orientation, online, or Board
portal.
4 Board members need to reflect
on their strategies to meet
external responsibilities.
Guides from the organization on what to do before,
during and after the meeting. How to get the donor
meeting? Who is a potential donor?

Organizational Influences and Method of Assessment

# Influence Observation/ Document Analysis

218

1 There is a culture of meeting
expectations for external
responsibilities among Board
members.
Obtain Board expectations in Board materials or in
database.
2 There is a culture of
accountability for external
responsibilities among Board
members.
Obtain measures of accountability for Board
members in Board materials or in database.
3 The organization educates
Board members on the
importance of external
responsibilities.
Obtain and review current orientation materials or
supplemental materials to educate Board members
on fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.
4 The organization has a
Statement of Expectations
outlining external
responsibilities for Board
members.
Obtain current Statement of Expectations for Board
members or similar document.

219

Appendix D: Information/Facts Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH

ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ITS IMPACT ON NONPROFIT BOARD MEMBER EXTERNAL
RESPONSIBILITIES: A GAP ANALYSIS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of the study is to examine the roles and responsibilities of nonprofit Board members.
The researcher in this study will be looking at how knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences impact Board members from meeting their external responsibilities.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

Your participation in this study is anonymous, confidential, voluntary, and may be withdrawn at
any time. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey
which will take approximately 15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t
want to; click “next” or “N/A” in the survey to move to the next question.

You may also be invited to participate in an interview as a concurrent phase of the study. If you
agree to take part in this phase of the study, you will be asked to participate in a 60-minute online
recorded interview. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t
want to be recorded, handwritten notes will be taken.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION

You will not be compensated for your participation.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. The data will be coded with a
false name or pseudonym; identifiable information will be kept separately from your responses.

220

When study information is published or discussed, no identifiable participant information will be
used.

Interview transcripts will be stored on the researcher’s personal computer in a password-
protected file, held for three years after the study has been completed, and then destroyed. Video
recordings will be destroyed immediately upon transcription.

Members of the study and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269
Phone: (323) 442-0114
Email: irb@usc.edu

221

Appendix E: Immediate Evaluation Tool

Thank you for your recent participation in Board training. Please help us to understand your
training experience better by completing the short survey. Please circle the number on the 5-
point scale that best describes your agreement with the statement.

1 = Strongly Disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly Agree

Level 1 Reactions

The training held my interest (Engagement) 1 2 3 4 5
The information provided was relevant to helping me acquire the
needed resources for the organization
(Relevance)
1 2 3 4 5
I am satisfied with the quality of the training (Customer Service) 1 2 3 4 5
The training was a good use of my time (Customer Service). 1 2 3 4 5

Level 2: Learning

The training improved my understanding of my external
responsibilities (Declarative Knowledge).
1 2 3 4 5
I know how to carry out my external responsibility efforts for the
benefit of the organization (Declarative Knowledge).
1 2 3 4 5
I was provided the tools I need to carry out the processes to
identify, cultivate, and solicit potential donors (Procedural
Knowledge).
1 2 3 4 5
What I learned will help me be a better Board member (Attitude). 1 2 3 4 5
I am confident I acquired the knowledge and skills I needed from
the training to perform my external responsibilities (Confidence).
1 2 3 4 5
I am committed to implementing what I learned from the training
(Commitment).
1 2 3 4 5

222

Appendix F: Delayed Evaluation Tool

Please help us to understand your training experience better by completing the short survey
based on the training you received one month ago. Please circle the number on the 5-point scale
that best describes your agreement with the statement.

Levels 1-4

The training improved my understanding of my external
responsibilities (L1).
1 2 3 4 5
The training was a valuable use of my time (L1) 1 2 3 4 5
I feel the information gained has been relevant to my
responsibilities as a Board member (L1)
1 2 3 4 5
The fundraising workshop increased my knowledge about how to
identify potential donors (L2)
1 2 3 4 5
The fundraising workshop increased my knowledge about
cultivating potential donors (L2)
1 2 3 4 5
The fundraising workshop increased my knowledge about
soliciting potential donors (L2)
1 2 3 4 5
I am still committed to implementing what I learned about my
external responsibilities (L2)
1 2 3 4 5
Since my training, I now find myself reflecting, I now find myself
reflecting on my strategies to meet my external responsibilities
(L2).
1 2 3 4 5
After my training, I now feel more confident about meeting my
external responsibilities (L2).
1 2 3 4 5
I have referred to the job aid to identify, cultivate or solicit
potential donors (L3).
1 2 3 4 5
I have used one or more of the strategies from the training to
fundraise, advocate or engage in community outreach (L3).
1 2 3 4 5
My participation in fundraising, advocacy, or community outreach
has increased due to attending the training (L3)
1 2 3 4 5
I have made progress toward my goals since attending the training
(L4).
1 2 3 4 5

223

As a result of the training I have increased participation in
fundraising (L4).
1 2 3 4 5
As a result of the training I have increased participation in
advocacy (L4).
1 2 3 4 5
As a result of the training I have increased participation in
community outreach (L4).
1 2 3 4 5

Open Ended Responses:
Explain how you have applied what you learned in the Board training (L3).
Please explain how your participation in training has positively impacted the organization (L4).

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study applies the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework as a systematic and analytic model to identify performance gaps between organizational and stakeholder goals, and desired outcomes. The purpose of this improvement study was to understand how role ambiguity impacts the Resilience Rare Foundation (a pseudonym) Board members from meeting their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 45 participants, interview data from seven participants, and 12 organizational Board documents to identify and validate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization root causes that may contribute to Board members failing to meet their external responsibilities. The validated assumed causes for declarative factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, self-efficacy, utility value, intrinsic value, attributions, cultural models, and cultural settings were identified, and validated causes were assessed and classified as either assets or needs. The results and findings showed that Board members struggle with their external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach creating greater role ambiguity in achieving organizational goals. Based on the findings, solutions drawn from the research literature are offered to address these challenges. The study demonstrates how various stakeholders can systematically apply the gap analysis framework to mitigate Board role ambiguity when performing the external responsibilities of fundraising, advocacy, and community outreach.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

The impact of high turnover and burnout among behavioral health's clinical workforce (clinicians)

PDF

Middle-management's influence on employee engagement in the ambulatory practices

PDF

Improving veterans employment outcomes through increasing enrollment in vocational rehabilitation and employment program

PDF

The successful implementation of diversity and inclusion efforts: a study of promising practice

PDF

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

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

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

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

One to one tablet integration in the mathematics classroom: an evaluation study of an international school in China

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

PDF

Nonprofit middle manager perceptions of organizational efficacy: a gap analysis

PDF

A nonprofit study evaluating board chair onboarding practices for effective governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Meyers, Sharon Leal (author)

Core Title Role ambiguity and its impact on nonprofit board member external responsibilities: a gap analysis

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/08/2020

Defense Date 04/02/2020

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

Tag advocacy,Board of Directors,community outreach,Fundraising,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Sparangis, Themistocles (committee member)

Creator Email sharon.meyers@yahoo.com,slmeyers@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-317729

Unique identifier UC11663533

Identifier etd-MeyersShar-8571.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-317729 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MeyersShar-8571.pdf

Dmrecord 317729

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Meyers, Sharon Leal

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA