Factors influencing fundraising success at church-related college (1).pdf

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Introduction

Fundraising has become a critical success factor for leaders of most institutions of

higher education. Since the 1980s, operational costs for colleges and universities have

increased at nearly twice the rate of inflation (The College Board, 2009). In addition,

state and federal appropriations for higher education institutions have fallen dramatically

during this time period. These two factors have led to heightened pressures on executives

in both public and private higher education institutions to find alternative sources of

revenue to contain escalating tuition prices. As a result of these economic trends,

developing fundraising capacity has become more important than ever to the strategic

vitality of higher education institutions.

Nowhere is the importance of a strong fundraising capacity more evident than in

private, church-related colleges and universities, which currently represent the fastest

growing segment of higher education (Trowbridge, 2008). Expanding enrollments, low

endowment levels, and rising operational costs for facility as well as technology

infrastructures have all placed significant financial strains on many church-related

institutions (Thompson, 1995). Due to the fiscal challenges facing the church-related

segment, developing a strong and efficient fundraising capacity has become the major

strategic priority for most educational leaders in this segment of higher education. The

need to identify “best practices” in development and fundraising and, thereby, develop a

more comprehensive body of knowledge specific to this sector of higher education has,

most definitely, become imperative. Smith (1993) summarized the pressing need for a

new emphasis on developing fundraising capacity in church-related colleges in the

following statement:

The unique missions, styles of teaching and educational philosophies of today’s

church-related institutions commend them as valuable resources to American

society. In the 1990’s, however, church-related colleges are in danger of closing

or losing their historically unique missions. Financial insolvency plagues

denominational schools in the late twentieth century. Fund-raising among

voluntary benefactors contributes an important variable toward solving this

problem. (p. 19)

The contemporary problems facing church-related colleges and university leaders

are substantial. According to Smith (1993), “[W]ith such a creditable role to play, these

institutions should enjoy a secure and prosperous place in the future of the American

collegiate enterprise. Many, if not most, church colleges today, however, exist

dangerously near financial insolvency” (p. 3). Many other researchers have concurred

that most church-related colleges are struggling financially and must develop a strong

fundraising capacity to survive (Dean, 1985; Gustvasson, 2000; Lawrence, 1991;

Thompson, 1995; Vander Schee, 2009). The economic downturn of recent years has

added substantial fiscal pressure to an already strained situation as many church-related

colleges have experienced declines in endowment investments while simultaneously

having their bond ratings downgraded, which has had the effect of driving up the

institutional cost of capital (Van Der Werf, 2007, 2003).

Numerous reasons exist for the struggles of church-related colleges and

universities. Church-related institutions “are in a unique position because of their

financial stress, denominational commitments, lack of endowments, small numbers in

enrollment, and the absence of substantial studies regarding fund-raising processes that

addresses these particular concerns” (Lawrence, 1991, p. 6). Smith (1993) identified the

primary causes of fiscal distress for church-related institutions as being fivefold: reduced

state and federal funding for education, more competition for private funds from public

institutions, discrepancies between public and private tuition prices, demography of

traditional college-age students, and problems with the institutions’ relationships with

sponsoring churches. Other authors have certainly agreed with this assessment

(Gustavsson, 2000; Lawrence, 1991; Shea, 2011). Unfortunately, even institutions that

are fiscally sound at the operational budget level still lack endowment funds, a fact that

leaves the possibility of future fiscal stress looming as a potential danger (Thompson,

1995). All of these factors illustrate the importance of strengthening institutional

fundraising capacity.

Despite the numerous “doom-and-gloom” predictions, currently many positive

signs have emerged for church-related institutions. Enrollment levels are increasing

dramatically for many church-related colleges and universities, and enrollment growth is

especially strong among “intentionally” Christian colleges (Shea, 2011; Trowbridge,

2008; Vander Schee, 2009). In addition, when compared with national averages, retention

rates and alumni satisfaction measures are much higher among church-related colleges,

thus increasing the continued marketability of church-related colleges (Trowbridge, 2008;

Vander Schee, 2009).

Many issues are driving the current enrollment growth in the church-related

segment of higher education. Many individuals believe that changing student

demographics, including the rising emphasis of K-12 Christian education and

homeschooling, are a key force behind the increase (R. C. Adringa, personal

communication, May 15, 2002). Another issue believed to be fueling this enrollment

increase is growing public dissatisfaction with secular institutions, including problems

with binge drinking, drug abuse, and sexual promiscuity. From a proactive perspective,

the improved academic reputation of Christian liberal arts colleges, stronger institutional

emphasis on teaching as well as “whole” person education, and better marketing of

church-related institutions have all influenced the enrollment increases for religiously

affiliated colleges. As a result of these driving factors, all church-related colleges grew

2.5 times faster than public institutions from 1990-2005, and “intentionally” Christian

colleges affiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) grew

at 6.3 times the rate of public institutions (Trowbridge, 2008). This high growth rate has

placed capital expansion needs and searches for new resources at a “whirlwind pace” for

many institutions. Ironically, success in enrollment growth often brings many new fiscal

challenges, despite the associated increase in tuition revenue.

Considering the current challenges and opportunities facing leaders of church-

related colleges, the focus of much recent research and literature has revolved around the

discussion of how personnel in church-related institutions should strategically respond.

Smith (1993) contended that many church-related institutions have reacted

inappropriately to the financial pressures of the current higher education marketplace:

Unfortunately, many church-related college administrators respond to difficult

financial conditions by merely packaging the schools better, or by allowing the

institutions to drift toward whatever the most immediately profitable scenario

suggests . . . . Attempting to attract new students or new sources of revenue by

changing an institution’s mission, or by altering it in such a way as to dilute the

college’s original purpose, merits extreme caution . . . . Symptoms of institutional

drift and over-packaging point to a particular type of malady, unrelated to

finances or circumstances: lack of vision. This issue mandates the intense

attention of leaders. (pp. 5-6)

Smith (1993) added that fundraising effectiveness is often damaged by

“institutional drift,” his term for a lack of vision that results in church-related colleges

trying to look mimic secular institutions. Instead, leaders in church-related colleges and

universities should use their resources to market the unique mission and heritage of

Christian higher education. Many other leading voices in Christian higher education

have echoed the need to keep Christian higher education distinctively Christian (Adrian,

1997; Dockery, 1999; Holmes, 2001; Wagoner, 2000; Van Wylen, 1988).

Of course, the very real threat of possible extinction can lead educational leaders

in Christian institutions to consider all extant strategic options that could produce new

sources of revenue support. Unfortunately, new sources of revenue can potentially lead

to secularization patterns within the institution, or at least bring heightened criticism from

members of the supporting denominational heritage. Many institutions founded by

religious denominations have, over time, consciously or unconsciously, become

secularized through what has become a recognizable and highly researched process

(Burtchaell, 1991a, 1991b; Mardsen, 1994). Discerning whether new patterns of support

are driving the secularization processes or whether new patterns of support are required

as a result of secularization is difficult, although both scenarios have been suggested by

secularization theorists (Burtchaell, 1998; Cuninggim, 1994).

Several scholars contended that personnel at church-related institutions must

carefully examine their patterns of support, including funding and student denominational

affiliation, in order to avoid secularization (Beene, 2001; Burtchaell, 1998; Liechty,

2000). Cuninggim (1994) agreed that colleges must have financial support from their

denominations to remain connected to them. Certainly, the broadening strategy also has

a potential risk of backfiring:

Many formerly denominationally affiliated colleges are belatedly discovering that

the relationship they abandoned in favor of greater market appeal provided the

kind of support which is difficult to find elsewhere. In particular, this appears to

be the case for the many rural, regional colleges that have little to offer those from

outside their immediate surroundings. (Liechty, 2000, p. 61)

Benne (2001) similarly concluded that for a church-related college or university to keep

its Christian heritage relevant, everyone affiliated with the institution must publicly

manage “its vision, its ethos and have Christian persons who bear out their vision and

ethos” (p. 6). This challenge can become a real balancing act in the marketplace of

modern higher education.

Denominational ties are both a source of advantage and disadvantage to many

church-related institutions. Smith (1993) described this situation in the following

manner:

Specific religious organizations sponsor most church-related colleges. Either

owned, governed, or financially supported by a particular Christian denomination,

these schools gain identity, students, funds, and purpose from their parent church.

Their very relationship with one religious body alienates such institutions from

many other potential supporters. (p. 25)

According to Hubbard (1985), however, for church-related colleges, a denominational

affiliation is frequently the institution’s “best asset”; but for this same reason leaders at

these institutions must often overcome “a history of isolationism” in promoting

themselves in the local community (p. 14). Denominational support to church-related

colleges is in serious decline, and many colleges apparently remain affiliated with their

denominations for reasons other than finances (Cuninggim, 1994; Smith, 1993).

However, other authors have concluded that denominationally supported Christian

colleges fare better than their non-denominational counterparts in attracting resources

(Dean, 1985; Thompson, 1995). In terms of denominational ties, one fact has been

proven over time. Existing internal political conflicts within a host denominational

structure usually spill over to the church-related college and can produce high visibility

conflicts that can have a volatile impact on the stability of the institution (McMutrie,

2003). Certainly, the issue of denominational relationship is a complex variable in the

dynamics of fundraising for church-related institutions.

Statement of the Problem

Considering all of the contextual issues surrounding this subject, the

contemporary leadership challenge for most church-related institutions is to find a way to

increase successfully the institutional fundraising capacity without compromising the

Christian mission, governance, and denominational ties. This challenge has become a

“tightrope” walk for many leaders in church-related institutions. On the one side, the

prospect exists for struggling along year after year with limited resources, diminished

success, and minimal influence in the academic community, accompanied by the very

real possibility of extinction. On the other side, the potential remains for secularization

of the Christian mission, governance, and denominational heritage in an effort to attract

new sources of revenue.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of how educational

leaders in church-related colleges and universities successfully navigate through the

contemporary challenges of building fundraising capacity without compromising the

Christian mission, governance, and denominational ties of the institution. For this reason,

this study will focus on the fundraising strategies used by “leading” church-related

institutions that have not “secularized” or severed their denominational affiliations.

Research Questions

A good research study should begin with central questions. Therefore, based on

the research topic and the purpose of the study, the following two central questions

emerged.

1. What specific strategies do educational leaders in leading church-related

institutions use to create and sustain an environment of successful development

and fundraising while protecting the Christian mission, governance, and

denominational ties of the institutions?

2. What specific leadership behaviors within these leading church-related

institutions contribute to the creation and continuation of an environment of

successful development and fundraising, while protecting the Christian mission,

governance, and denominational ties of the institutions?

Significance of the Study

Ideally, this study will increase the understanding of the specific leadership

factors and institutional strategies that lead to success within fundraising in church-

related colleges and universities. Overall, the results of this study should increase

understanding of the complex contextual environment in which educational leaders in the

church-related segment of higher education must work. By generating a theory of the

relationships among conditions, dynamics, strategies, and leadership factors attributed to

successful fundraising, this researcher hopes to provide a useful tool to educational

leaders in the church-related segment of higher education that will enhance their ability to

generate needed resources for institutional support and mission fulfillment. Needless to

say, the strategic importance of this topic is too great to be left to chance, and the

contemporary vitality of many institutions is at stake. Ideally, with sound new research,

leaders of many church-related colleges and universities can chart a course that will

ensure the attraction of critical resources to support the continuance of the role and

mission of Christian higher education.

Limitations of the Study

Any research study has inherent limitations, and this investigation was no

exception. The first major limitation of this study was the complexity of determining

successful or effective fundraising. Institutional success in development and fundraising

can be influenced by many factors from both internal and external sources. Internally,

many key institutional characteristics influence fundraising success, including such

factors as the age and size of the institution, prestige, geography, historical development,

denominational affiliation, demographics of alumni, degree programs, presidential

leadership, development department leadership, size of endowment, and history of formal

development as well as fundraising efforts. Externally, conditions such as the general

economy and societal trends can greatly influence success in development and

fundraising. These internal and external factors made distinguishing between the

“effective” and “fortunate” institutions a very difficult process (Dean, 1985).

Additionally, the selected leadership behaviors, strategies, and fundraising practices

currently utilized by institutional personnel influenced the success of the fundraising

efforts. For these reasons, any approach used to define successful or effective

fundraising in quantitative terms is likely to be overly simplistic. The multiple measures

used in this study to define “leading institutions” represented the best attempt of the

researcher to address this complex challenge.

A second limitation of this study was that fundraising data provided by the

Council for Aid to Education (2001) were self-reported by the institutions and most likely

contained some inconsistencies in reporting. Furthermore, the number of institutions

providing information to the Counsel for Aid to Education (CAE) in 2000 was less than

25% of all higher education institutions in the United States and was certainly skewed to

the more elite fundraising colleges and universities. Reliance on data from the CAE

survey could have also excluded some successful fundraising institutions from the sample

because of their non-participation.

Access to and forthrightness of participants were also limitations of this study.

Gustavsson (2000) said that his study was limited to “the willingness of the various

college administrators to openly express their feelings and opinions in the interview

sessions, and thus to obtain less than a complete understanding of the real situation” (p.

25). The topic being explored is likely to be viewed as an area of competitive advantage

for these sample institutions. The institutions are classified as private colleges; therefore,

their leaders are not as accustomed to public disclosure and critique as are those who lead

the public segment of higher education. Finally, some of the topics being studied are

sensitive areas, such as major donor relations, donor research processes, and budget

allocations. Although the research methodology was designed to offset this access

challenge by assuring individual and institutional confidentiality, complete forthrightness

remained a potential limitation.

Several other limitations had an impact on this study. The researcher’s

background and experiences as an advocate for Christian higher education was a possible

source of bias. Also, the complex nature and differences between church-related

institutions limited the scope of this study to Protestant institutions and only those

“intentionally” Christian institutions, rather than all members of the church-related

segment of higher education. In addition, the study was limited to investigating those

strategies and leadership behaviors focused on developing a strong fundraising capacity

while maintaining denominational support and affiliation.

Definition of Terms

This study involves many words that need to be defined to increase the reader’s

understanding of the topic. The following section includes an overview of key terms and

phrases used.

1. Advancement/Development/Fundraising: Terms defined in numerous ways

within educational literature but unfortunately often used in research studies, thus,

creating confusion (Worth, 1993). Dillon (1990) provided a distinct definition and model

of the relationship between these three terms (See Appendix A). His model served as a

good basis for defining the scope of these three terms and was consistent with other

recent definitions (Worth, 1993). The differences in definitions among these terms were

defined as follows:

a.) Advancement: The broadest term encompassing fundraising, alumni relations,

public relations, communications, and admissions. Later definitions have

broadened admissions to include all enrollment management functions (Worth,

1993).

b.) Development: Activities composed of fundraising, alumni, and public relations

that are focused on the nurturing of external relations.

c.) Fundraising: All activities involved in seeking gifts directly from private

sources that are a component of both advancement and development (Dillon,

1990).

2.) Board of Trustees: “A group of individuals who may or may not be self-

perpetuating, but who are legally responsible for the institution as enforced by its By-

Laws. The Board of Trustees outlines general policies, vision, finances as well as other

decisions” (Thompson, 1995, p. 6).

3.) Chief Development Officer: The most senior administrator who is directly

responsible for development and fundraising in a college or university setting and who

usually reports directly to the president.

4.) Church-Related and Church-Affiliated Colleges and Universities: “A college

supported either financially or politically by a religious group (denomination)” (Dean,

1985, p. 5). For purposes of this study, the church-related institutions investigated will

fall under Benne’s (2001) classification system as either “orthodox” or “critical-mass.”

5.) College or University President: “The individual selected by the Board of

Trustees whose primary responsibility is to manage the institution on a day-to-day basis”

(Thompson, 1995, p. 8). The president is ultimately responsible for providing leadership

in all areas of institutional activity.

6.) Denominational Affiliation: A formal association, usually initiated at

founding, between a college or university and a supporting religious denomination (e.g.,

Southern Baptist, United Methodist, etc.). Denominational affiliation can involve direct

control by the religious group or informal association and influence.

7.) “Intentionally” Christian Colleges and Universities: Institutions that fall under

Benne’s (2001) classification as either “orthodox” or “critical-mass” as a result of being

organized around a “Christian Vision.”

8.) Leading Church-Related Institutions: Institutions that meet the minimum

criteria for effective fundraising established for this study in consultation with the panel

of experts.

9.) Panel of Experts: A group of selected professionals who are knowledgeable in

fundraising and development in higher education.

10.) Secularization/Movement Away from Denominational Affiliation: Two

different concepts that are often grouped together in the literature. These two topics can

be related and often have similar results in terms of mission, governance, and

fundraising; however, they are distinctly different and will be treated separately in this

study. The distinct differences in definition of the two concepts are described below:

a.) Secularization: Elimination of religious life or faith from the core culture and

practices of a college or university. Examples of secularization include, but are

not limited to, such things as removal of Biblical teachings from the curriculum,

elimination of campus religious services, or any other change that reduces the

integration of faith and intellect within the academic community.

b.) Movement Away from the Denominational Affiliation: A separate but equally

interesting topic that is often confused with secularization. An example of a

movement away from denominational affiliation is when a college breaks or

severs formal ties with a denominational governing body, or when an institutional

policy change encourages participation or representation from members of

denominations other than the affiliated heritage. A movement away from

denominational affiliation does not necessarily signal a reduction in the Christian

influence of an institution although this action may be a component stage of

secularization.

Organization of the Dissertation

This research study is organized into eight chapters. In Chapter One the writer has

presented the research problem, the purpose, and significance of the study, as well as its

limitations, definitions, and the organization of the dissertation. In Chapter Two the

author provides a literature review of the historical development and contemporary

context of Christian higher education in America, while Chapter Three contains a

literature review of philanthropy and fundraising. The methodology is described in

Chapter Four, including information about design, sampling, data collection, and

analysis. The fifth chapter addresses the emergent themes from the institutional context,

including some cross-case analysis presented with “thick” description, data analysis,

coding, and organization. The emergent themes related to institutional strategy are

included in Chapter Six, while Chapter Seven focuses on leadership factors. Finally, in

Chapter Eight the researcher summarizes the findings of the study in graphical form and

presents conclusions as well as recommendations for further study and action.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW OF CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Introduction

A comprehensive understanding of fundraising in church-related colleges and

universities is only possible within the context of the unique historical and contemporary

framework of Christian higher education. Because the author anchored this research

study within this context, this chapter includes a narrative overview of the historical

development of Christian higher education in America from the colonial period to the

twenty-first century that is both uniquely American and Protestant. This chapter also

contains a review of literature related to secularization processes that often occur within

church-related colleges and universities, as well as a description of the resulting

institutional types found within this segment of higher education. Finally, the chapter

concludes with a review of contemporary issues and challenges facing church-related

colleges and universities.

Historical Development of American Church-Related Colleges and Universities

Higher education in America was founded and nurtured in a Christian

environment for many years. The creation of institutions of higher learning was viewed

by the settlers of the early American colonies as a driving priority and obligation, as

witnessed by the following passage from Lucas’ (1994) book titled American Higher

Education: A History.

Preaching to future leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony aboard the ship

Arbella in the late spring of 1630, John Winthrop prophesied, “men shall say of

succeeding plantations; the Lord make it like that of New England; for we must

consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill, (and) the eyes of all people are

upon us.” Bolstered by absolute faith in a divine blessing upon their venture, the

intrepid Puritans thus set out to create in the forbidding and oftentimes hostile

wilderness of the New World a new order of things, a “city upon a hill.” As

Francis Higginson was to explain in New-Englands Plantation, “That which is our

greatest comfort and means of defense above all others, is that we have here the

true religion and holy ordinances of Almighty God taught among us . . . .” He

asked rhetorically, “Thus, we doubt not but God will be with us, and if God be

with us, who can be against us?”

Early on it was apparent that a desire to found an institution of higher learning

ran strong among the first settlers of English America. “After God had carried us

safe to New England,” reported New England’s First Fruits, a pamphlet first

printed in 1643, “and we had builded [sic] our houses, provided necessaries for

our livelihood, reared convenient places for God’s worship, and settled the civil

government: one of the next things we longed for, and looked after, was to

advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity.” (pp. 103-104)

In this context, Harvard College was founded in 1636 (Rudolph, 1990). The

institution was named for the Reverend John Harvard, a well-respected man who suffered

an untimely death shortly after arriving in New England (Lucas, 1994). The founding

mission of Harvard was “to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3),

and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the foundation of all sound knowledge and

learning” (Ringenberg, 1984, p. 38,), a sentiment that for many years continued to serve

as the model for higher education in America.

Although Harvard was founded to fulfill religious purposes, the institution also

embraced with it a dual mission of secular responsibility reflecting an enlightenment

sense of social perfectibility. Rudolph (1990) described the unique dynamics of this dual

purpose as follows:

Their purposes were complex, but among other things, they intended to re-create a

little bit of old England in America. They did what people a long way from home

often do, and certainly what Englishmen have often done. If it was the most

natural thing in the world for an officer of the colonial service in the nineteenth

century to dress for dinner in the jungle as if he were dining at his club in London,

it was no less natural for the Englishmen of early Massachusetts to found

themselves a college, an English college such as those they had known at Oxford

but particularly Cambridge where Puritan aspiration had been specially nurtured .

. . . Unable to set the world straight as Englishmen in England, the Puritan settlers

of Massachusetts intended to set it straight as Englishmen in the New World . . . .

Puritans charged themselves with a mission which they recognized as requiring a

full effort. Intending to lead lives no less than the purest, aspiring to serve God

and their fellow men in the fullest, they acknowledged a responsibility to the

future. They could not afford to leave its shaping to whim, fate, accident,

indecision, incompetence, or carelessness. In the future, the state would need

competent rulers, the church would require a learned clergy, and society itself

would need the adornment of cultured men. (pp. 4-6)

In the years that followed the founding of Harvard, eight other colonial colleges

were formed with the same dual mission of preparing clergy and civic leaders (Lucas,

1994). The eight colleges that were founded after Harvard during the colonial period

were primarily created through denominational support from early settlers as noted below

(Lucas, 1994; Randolph, 1990; Rigenberg, 1984):

1. William and Mary, 1693, Anglican

2. Collegiate School at New Haven (Yale College), 1701, Puritan

3. College of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania), 1740, Religious, but

Nondenominational

4. College of New Jersey (Princeton College), 1746, Presbyterian

5. King’s College (Columbia University), 1754, Episcopalian

6. College of Rhode Island (Brown University), 1764, Baptist

7. Queen’s College (Rutgers College), 1766, Dutch Reformed

8. Dartmouth College, 1769, Congregationalist

These early ventures into higher learning did not occur without challenges or

conflict. Conflicts over Christian mission, denominational governance, and resources

arose on several occasions. Lucas (1994) illustrated the tension between religious and

secular mission by describing a scene involving the charter and the appropriations

approval process for William and Mary College: “When the king acceded to renewed

pleas for a college charter, the royal attorney general, unimpressed by the argument that a

college would be helpful for the saving of souls, reportedly exploded, ‘Souls, Damn your

souls! Raise tobacco!’” (p. 105) As the young colonies continued to grow and develop,

demand for new skill sets such as navigation, surveying, and expertise for other secular

occupations continued to challenge the dual missions of these early Christian institutions

(Lucas, 1994; Randolph, 1990). However, despite these growing tensions, the

fundamental Christian mission of these institutions remained unchanged during the

colonial period (Ringenberg, 1984).

Governance issues between denominational factions were also a source of tension

during this period. Yale was founded when many Puritans believed Harvard had become

too liberal in its religious affairs (Ringenberg, 1984; Rudolph, 1990). Princeton’s charter

occurred as a result of doctrinal tensions among Presbyterians (Lucas, 1994; Ringenberg,

1984). Later, Dartmouth was created when New England Congregationalists became

disillusioned with religious complacency at both Harvard and Yale (Burtchaell; 1998,

Ringenberg, 1984).

Despite the tensions over mission and denominational governance issues, the

broad Christian and secular purposes of these institutions changed very little during the

colonial period. The small colonial population and the founding principles of religious

freedom made denominational toleration part of the character of the early Christian

colleges in America. Lucas (1994) described how tensions over mission and

denominational influence ultimately did little to change the dual purpose of these

Christian institutions during this time period.

Yet even as a rising tide of denominationalism engulfed America’s colonial

colleges in the eighteen century and traditional patterns of shared collegiate

governance between established church and secular state were being challenged,

agencies of higher education lost little of their broad sense of purpose and

function . . . . At a very early date, it was apparent that the Reformation principle

of cuius regio, eius religio, by which a ruler’s religious allegiance determined that

of a sovereign’s subjects as well, was poorly adapted for application to colonial

America. In the same way religious diversity throughout the colonies precluded

the possibilities that any one sect or denomination could long exercise exclusive

control over whatever college it might establish. Hence, toleration was essential.

(pp. 106-107)

While conflicts over mission and denominational governance issues ebbed and

flowed in the early Christian institutions of higher learning, one constant factor was a

need for financial support and resources. From the founding of Harvard to the

Revolutionary War, one of the major concerns for these colonial Christian colleges was

funding (Cutlip, 1965). Funding sources had much to do with the naming of the early

colleges. The Reverend John Harvard, namesake of Harvard College, was not only a

good man but also a benefactor (Lucas, 1994). Yale College was named after Elihu Yale,

who despite his considerable personal wealth gave the college a fairly meager donation of

dry goods that yielded only 550 British pounds (Rudolph, 1990). Dartmouth College was

named for the Earl of Dartmouth, who managed the collection of missionary funds

designated to educate the Indians (Burtchaell, 1998; Ringenberg, 1984).

According to Cutlip (1965), the first systematic fund-raising effort occurred in

1641 when Harvard sent three clergymen back to England to raise funds for the college

and for educating Indians. Ringenberg (1984) credited colonial Harvard with creating

many of the fundraising methods still used by college personnel today such as

promotional case literature, targeting of wealthy benefactors, and the use of naming rights

for buildings as well as endowed chairs. In addition, the early colonial Christian colleges

often used lotteries and subscriptions to raise funds from the general public (Cutlip, 1965;

Ringenberg, 1984; Rudolph, 1990).

Besides the initial fundraising efforts, the earliest of these institutions received

significant state support in the form of appropriations and related taxes from both the

colonies and England (Ringenberg, 1984; Rudolph, 1990). However, as the colleges

became more sectarian, finding direct state support became increasingly difficult (Lucas,

1994). As a result, neither Princeton nor Rutgers ever received any direct state support

(Rudolph, 1990). Despite these early efforts to create financial resource stability, most of

these early Christian colleges were experiencing operating deficits at the time of the

Revolutionary War (Cutlip, 1965).

Following the Revolutionary War, many small church-related colleges were

founded as a result of the growth of Protestant denominationalism (Lucas, 1994;

Rudolph, 1990). Rudolph (1990) described this era of rapid denominational expansion

into higher education in the following way.

Of course, the busiest agents of all this college founding were the religious

denominations - some more so than others, but few were not involved. They

worked in an environment of national ambition, democratic aspiration, geographic

isolation and romantic imagination, and state by state they turned their own

rivalries into sets of competing colleges. As the population moved westward, so

did the denominations. Every state became a battlefield. (p. 54)

Unfortunately, this new era of strategic “battlefield” expansion also generated an

increased spirit of sectarianism and denominational conflict. Unlike the colonial period

when religious diversity and denominational toleration allowed the early Christian

colleges to endorse a broad but purposeful Christian mission encompassed in a classical

liberal arts curriculum, this new era brought petty dogmatic conflict among various

denominational groups. Lucas (1994) presented the following example of the typical

denominational mindset of this period that helped fuel this era of rapid expansion.

The founder of Oberlin College, the Reverend John H. Shepard, was

forthright in announcing that he had come out to the Western Reserve to

save people from “rum, brandy, gin and whiskey” and to rescue the church

from “Romanists, atheists, Deists, universalists, and all classes of God’s

enemies.” Naturally, those so branded disagreed vociferously - all the

while redoubling their own efforts in founding colleges where the “true”

gospel might be preserved. (p. 120)

Overall, this era was the numerical high point of Christian college formation. According

to Tewksbury (1969), “Practically all colleges founded between the Revolutionary and

the Civil War were organized, supported and in most cases also controlled by religious

interests” (p. 55). Ringenberg (1984) stated that “to be a college in America before the

Civil War was to be a Christian college” (p. 77).

Despite the rapid expansion of Christian higher education during this era, funding

remained a critical problem that ultimately caused the failure of many of these

institutions. Tewksbury (1969) estimated that 81%, or 732 of the pre-Civil War colleges,

were defunct by 1928. While enough denominational support was provided to create

these institutions, enough funding was rarely available to sustain these colleges, and the

ones that survived did so by means other than denominational support (Ringenberg,

1984). Lucas (1994) said, “It seemed to matter little that many sectarian colleges and

academies were begun without sufficient resources to ensure their long-term survival . . .

. ” (p. 119). During this time of such fevered expansion, long-term financial feasibility

seemed to be an unaddressed issue.

Three other major events influenced the higher education landscape during the

period between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. First, the Dartmouth case in

1819 established a clear distinction between public and private institutions. While this

event was good for Christian colleges in the sense of protecting their autonomy, the result

was also damaging because eventually direct public funding ended (Lucas, 1994). A

second major event was Thomas Jefferson’s founding of the University of Virginia,

which presented the first truly secular public alternative to Christian higher education

(Dabney, 1981). Finally, the Jacksonian era ushered in a sense of egalitarianism, which

placed public pressure on colleges to become less culturally elite (Rudolph, 1990).

Incidentally, many of the newer denominational institutions responded positively to this

social trend, as noted by Lucas (1994):

In fairness to denominational schools, it should be noted that many of the so-

called “booster” or “hilltop” colleges of the period, such as Williams and

Amherst, did in fact offer educational opportunities for poor but pious young men

(often inspired by a local parson) who sought to prepare themselves for the

ministry in locales far distant from the environs of New Haven or Cambridge and

other mainstream colleges. (p. 121)

Unfortunately, the contrast between the egalitarian trends pursued by the “upstart”

denominational schools and the more “elitist” admissions standards of the older, more

established, “secularizing” institutions may have contributed to the planting of an anti-

intellectualism climate in some segments of Christian higher education during this time

period (Ringenberg, 1984). As a result of each of these trends, the period between the

Revolutionary War and the Civil War was a turbulent time for Christian colleges and

their denominational supporters as many institutions started and many failed as a result of

overexpansion and limited resources (Lucas, 1994).

The period following the Civil War was not particularly kind to Christian higher

education either. In fact, the defining events in American higher education during this

timeframe were all detrimental to Christian higher education. First was the expansion of

state institutions established through the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, which created a

new model of higher education (Lucas, 1994). In addition, a shift was made away from

the classic curriculum that had traditionally encouraged the relationship between faith

and intellect (Noll, 1994). This shift occurred gradually but was most notably observed

in the ongoing public debate between Noah Porter, President of Yale, and Charles Eliot,

President of Harvard (Marsden, 1994). Eliot ultimately won public support, and what

emerged was the modern American notion of a university (Noll, 1994). The creation of

the modern American university concept proved most devastating to Christian higher

education as it had the effect of creating tension between a college’s religious identity

and academic credibility (Snell, 1997). Many authors have asserted that this tension

continues to exist today (Noll, 1994; Snell, 1997).

In the years between the Civil War and World War II, many private, church-

related colleges evolved into elitist, secular institutions while the remaining institutions

emerged into what Astin and Lee (1972) labeled as “invisible colleges,” institutions that

have minimal recognition, power, and influence in the higher education market (p. 10).

Snell (1997) contended that during this period many church-related institutions turned

openly anti-intellectual.

In the face of this criticism, conservative Protestant church-related colleges grew

entrenched in their earlier, more rigid, evangelical philosophical-theological

synthesis as means of coping with a changing society. They sought to retain their

religious identity and chose to forgo academic advances, such as attaining

university status. As Noll concludes, many inhabited an intellectual backwater,

remaining relatively out of touch with the mainstream of early-to-mid-twentieth

century academic life. (p. 18)

For many Christian scholars, this period has been described as a time of secularization

and marginalization of the Christian worldview in American higher education (Benne,

2001; Burtchaell, 1998; Marsden, 1994). Most scholars have agreed that the

secularization process resulted from the influences of a new curriculum based on the

Germanic ideal of a modern university driven by science and a pietist as well as

evangelical spirit among religious denominations. Marsden (1994) described this latter

social phenomenon in the following manner.

The pietist view eventually shared by those various denominations and churches

was that religious endeavors on campus should be focused upon the individual life

of faith, as distinct from a shared labor of learning. Religion’s move to the

academic periphery was not so much the work of godless intellectuals as of pious

educators who, since the onset of pietism, had seen religion as embodied so

uniquely in the personal profession of faith that it could not be seen to have a

stake in social learning. The radical disjunction between divine knowledge and

human knowledge had been central to Reformation thinking, and its unintended

outcome was to sequester religious piety from secular learning. (p. 842)

Several forces came into play that helped lead to the secularization of American

higher education during this time period. One of these forces was the rise of immigration,

particularly of Catholic and Jewish immigrants in the second half of the nineteenth

century, which led to an increasingly pluralistic society that was much less accepting of

Protestant traditions (Ringenberg, 1984). Another force was the exposure of American

academic scholars, while training in Germany, to such new philosophies as higher

criticism, logical positivism, and relativism, philosophies that led many scholars to

disavow Christian faith and classical thinking as “unscientific” and, therefore,

unverifiable (Ringenberg, 1984). Many leading Christian scholars reacted to these new

academic theories by embracing a new theology known as Protestant liberalism.

Protestant liberalism “allowed its adherents to continue to embrace the moral and ethical

teachings of the Judeo-Christian tradition while rejecting the supernatural elements of

that faith, including the divinity of Jesus” (Ringenberg, 1984. P. 117). The long-term

result of these theological debates was to split Protestant Christians into the two modern

camps of liberal Protestants and fundamentalist-evangelical Protestants (Snell, 1997).

Despite these external forces, Marsden’s (1994) view that religious pietism

among fundamentalist Christians, the trademark of the American revivalism movement

of this period, was the driving factor in the secularization of American higher education

has been accepted by many scholars (Benne, 2001; Burtchaell, 1998; Noll, 1994). Benne

(2001) described this sentiment in the following passage:

Pietism emphasizes above all the interior life of faith, the religion of the warm

heart, which can be sustained by worship and private devotion and renewed by

revivals. It also emphasizes pure living according to the simple commandments of

God . . . . This interiorizing of faith was and continues to be a fatal flaw. In this

approach Christianity is not given intellectual content. Public life in the world is

not beholden to Christian claims. It is unchecked by Christian critique because

Christianity is not accorded an intellectual dimension. Christianity is only an

affair of the heart, not the mind. (p. 36)

Others, however, have contended that disillusionment with the results of modern

science and the rise of Darwinism led evangelicals to reject the modern university

concept of higher education and ultimately to create and encourage the secularization

process (Ringenberg, 1984; Snell, 1997). The rise of Protestant liberalism caused the

fundamentalist and evangelical communities to question the character, faithfulness, and

compatibility of higher education with a Christian worldview. Many evangelical leaders

of the early twentieth century made no effort to hide their hostility toward the intellectual

and academic life. The Reverend Billy Sunday is often best remembered by both his

evangelical supporters and his critics alike for his famous quote that “When the word of

God says one thing and scholarship says another, then scholarship can go to hell” (Wolfe,

2000, p. 60). This type of reaction, along with the previously described social changes,

helped to bring about the complete removal of the Christian mission as the foundation of

higher education and sent fundamentalist Christians into a reactive as well as

intellectually unengaged mode (Noll, 1994). Snell (1997) described this phenomenon in

the following way:

Contrary to Protestant evangelicalism’s prevailing vision of individual and

social perfectibility, the Civil War began in 1861 and shattered expectations.

Eagerly awaited scientific discoveries and technological advancements to be used

for social reform were instead implemented on the battlefield. In the face of this

disappointment, much of Protestantism was effectively stripped of its forward-

looking, socially-engaging worldview.

Darwinism filled this void with its comprehensive social implications.

Rejected by conservative evangelicals who adhered to, among other things, a

literal creation account, this new belief system was accepted by a large number of

“liberal-minded” Protestants. Carefully elaborated distinctions between the

science of theology and the art of religion emerged: theology would be corrected,

enlarged, and liberated by evolution, but religion would remain a “spiritual

fixture” in the character of humanity. (pp. 15-16)

The process of secularization of American higher education was more gradual

than revolutionary. Marsden (1994) argued that this slow drift of secularization

continued for many decades before finally coming to a head in 1951 when William F.

Buckley, Jr., wrote his controversial book titled God and Man at Yale. The book alleged

that Yale was a hotbed of atheism and openly hostile towards religion. Marsden (1994)

concluded that the shock of these allegations illustrates the subtleness of the

secularization process:

In retrospect, however, the religious dimensions of the controversy are the most

remarkable, since they are the least remembered. A generation later it seems

inconceivable that there could have been a national controversy involving the

question of whether a major university was sufficiently Christian. Yet not only the

responses of Yale, but also those of the reviewers, make it clear that it would have

been news to admit that Yale had drifted loose of its Christian moorings. (p. 10-

11)

Buckley’s arguments were vehemently denied and his logic discredited on the

irrational grounds that he was a Catholic (Marsden, 1994). However, the long-term effect

of this debate and the process of secularization in higher education heightened the tension

between the academic and religious communities. Despite this period of secularization

and marginalization, many church-related colleges continued to survive and flourish

although resources remained tight (Cuninggim, 1994).

One additional reaction of the Christian community to the secularization of

American higher education and the growth of liberal Protestantism was the Bible college

movement. Beginning at the start of the twentieth century and led by revivalist types such

as Billy Sunday and Dwight Moody, Bible colleges began emerging throughout the

country, creating a new category of higher education (Ringenberg, 1984). The purpose of

these institutions was to provide quick, as well as practical, basic Biblical and vocational

training for people entering the ministry. These colleges had limited curricula and

certainly did not resemble the liberal arts model of the early American Christian college

higher education system. However, over time many of these institutions have evolved

into contemporary fundamentalist liberal arts colleges and have diversified as well as

complicated the landscape of modern church-related colleges in America.

In the years following World War II, private church-related colleges experienced

much of the same growth and prosperity as all of higher education during the baby-boom

expansion (Dean, 1985). Many church-related colleges continued to secularize during

this time period, while other institutions, typically with strong denominational ties to

conservative, fundamentalist groups, remained distinctively Christian in mission.

Unfortunately, many of these institutions were not fiscally prepared for the lean years that

followed in the 1980s and 1990s and today find themselves cash-strapped (Gustavsson,

2000).

Throughout the history of Christian higher education in America, many church-

related institutions have survived and many are thriving today. Meadows (1999) cited

Sandlin as estimating that more than 700 church-related colleges and universities operate

in the United States, a number that does not reflect the more than 600 Bible colleges.

Overall, church-affiliated colleges and universities currently represent the fastest-growing

segment of higher education, presenting their educational leaders with many new and

different challenges in the coming years (Trowbridge, 2008).

The Secularization Process and Patterns of Support

The historical development pattern of church-related colleges and universities in

America has given rise to a new area of study focusing on secularization patterns among

Christian colleges. Given the wide variety of denominational influences, historical

development, and ages of church-related institutions, secularists often contend that

institutions can be found at different stages of secularization processes (Benne, 2001).

However, most believe that the secularization process has certain common features across

all denominational lines. Liechty (2000) said, “The process of secularization does,

however, take on identifiable historic patterns that can inform church-related colleges and

universities today about their own potential to secularize” (p. 62). In addition, the

secularization process has significant implications for institutional patterns of support. It

is difficult to discern whether new patterns of support are driving the secularization

process or if new patterns are required as a result of secularization, although both

scenarios have been suggested by secularization theorists (Burtchaell, 1998; Cuninggim,

1994).

Several writers have proposed models for understanding the process of

secularization in Christian higher education. Liechty (2000) describes Carlin’s (1996)

model of secularization in the following passage.

Carlin (1996) offers an interesting approach for looking at the process of

secularization of Catholic higher education using the Hegelian triadic model of

thesis - antithesis - synthesis. This model can be relevant for all church-related

colleges. Carlin’s “Thesis Stage” is characterized by the initial formation of

church-related colleges by supporting denominations to meet the scholarly needs

of the faith community. The “Antithesis Stage” is represented by the trend at an

institution toward secularization that places its strongest emphasis on scholarly

achievement and pluralism. Carlin argues that the remaining church-related

schools, if they are to maintain their church-relatedness, must attempt to achieve

“a synthesis that combines the best features of the thesis with the best of the

antithesis while leaving aside the shortcomings of both”(p. 17). He believes that

this synthesis has yet to be achieved. (p. 62)

Burtchaell (1991a; 1991b) produced the following nine-stage model of

secularization that church-related colleges and universities tend to follow in their

historical development.

Stage One: Intellectual Stagnation

During this first stage the institution experiences some level of intellectual stagnation

which is often blamed on the oppressive nature of the sponsoring denomination causing a

conflict between the institution and the church.

Stage Two: Raising Academic Standards

As a reaction to the intellectual stagnation of stage one, the institution makes a

determined effort to raise academic standards to offset a perception of academic

inferiority. The steps taken are often implemented to appease internal institutional

constituents who feel the denominational influences may limit institutional academic

freedom.

Stage Three: Estrangement

This stage is usually characterized by a period when the denomination can no

longer meet the resource needs, financial and otherwise, of the institution’s accelerated

academic goals. During this time a shift occurs from reliance on funding from the

supporting denomination to new funding sources.

Stage Four: Shifting Loyalties

During the fourth stage the faculty at secularizing institutions shift their loyalties

from the supporting denominations to their academic disciplines and associations.

Stage Five: Disenfranchisement

The fifth stage of secularization involves the removal of active participation in

denominational activities as a requisite for faculty, administrators, and board members.

Stage Six: Shifting Identifiers

In this stage of the secularization process, an institution moves away from using

denominational identifiers, to the use of “Christian” followed by general religious

identifiers, and eventually to secular identifiers.

Stage Seven: “Softening” of Christianity

This stage is characterized by a conscious effort of the institution’s personnel to

make the religious heritage of the college more palatable to an increasingly secular set of

stakeholders.

Stage Eight: Marginalizing of Religious Studies

The eighth stage involves the minimizing of religious studies from a place of

integrated significance in the academic life of the institution to a minor component and

eventual removal from the curriculum.

Stage Nine: Acquiescing to Secularization

The final stage in the secularization process occurs when the institution finally gives

up the pretence of fighting the previous trends away from its religious heritage and

convictions.

Burtchaell (1998) summarized his view of this process in the following passage

from his book The Dying of the Light: The Disengagement of Colleges and Universities

from their Christian Churches.

The elements of the slow but apparently irrevocable cleavage of colleges from

churches were many. The church was replaced as a financial patron by alumni,

foundations, philanthropists, and the government. The regional accrediting

association, the alumni, and the government replaced the church as the primary

authorities to whom the college would give an accounting of its stewardship. The

study of their faith became academically marginalized and the understanding of

religion was degraded by translation into reductive banalities for promotional use.

Presidential hubris found fulfillment in cultivating the colleges to follow the

academic pacesetters, which were selective state and independent universities.

The faculty transferred their primary loyalties from their college to their

disciplines and their guild, and were thereby antagonistic to any competing norms

of professional excellence related to the church. (p. 837)

Other secularists have reinforced many of the concepts of these two models in

their writings (Benne, 2001; Marsden, 1994). Benne (2001) pointed to the following four

factors as causes of historical patterns of secularization in church-related institutions of

higher education.

1. Education market: This factor was defined to include the competitive external market

demands made on church-related colleges to attract students, faculty members, and

administrators to the institution and to gain regulatory approval as well as financial

support from outside accrediting agencies and potential funding sources.

2. Enlightenment paradigm: The pervasive Scottish and English worldview of the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which was transplanted into American Protestant

culture, held that truth can continually be refined as well as rediscovered and

ultimately used to reach social perfectibility. Unfortunately, the outcome of

enlightenment thinking was to question and distance the relationship between the

church-related college and its host denomination.

3. Incapacity for adequate theological articulation of identity and mission: This internal

factor was presented by Benne (2001) as an inability of church-related college leaders

to find a voice that was distinct among the competing voices of modern non-Christian

worldviews as well as Christian liberalizing theologies and anti-intellectual

reactionary forces.

4. Weak mutual accountability and support: The idea behind this factor is that both the

church-related colleges and their host denominations experienced a loss of trust and

sense of partnership with each other. The resulting impact was a gradual loosening of

the interdependence between the two groups, resulting in a loss of interest and

involvement as well as financial support.

Benne (2001) asserted that the first two causes are external and the second two are

internal. All of these items are recurring themes found in the secularist literature

(Burtchaell, 1998; Marsden, 1994).

Not everyone, however, has agreed with these harsh views regarding the

secularization of church-related colleges and universities. Cuninggim (1994) argued that

secularists have overblown the process of change between church-related colleges and

their supporting denominations.

These unfortunate knee-jerk reactions toward church-related colleges can be

found not merely in the untutored public but also among church leaders and

academics who ought to know better. But in spite of this, the colleges themselves

may currently be as sturdy in their own right as they have ever been. That is, they

may be as academically sound and as fully possessed of their own autonomy as

they need to be. Not incidentally, they may be as healthy in their relationship

with the church as anyone without a particular ax to grind could expect. (p. 23)

Cuninggim (1994) suggested that the twentieth century was not as much a period

of secularization as a mere shifting of balance between the institutions and their

supporting denominations.

Partnership (if that is the right word) is not always dead-equal; it may be weighted

on one side or the other, and weighting may change from time to time. In roughly

the last hundred years, at least three different balancings can be identified.

The first is the status that we just noted, at which colleges and churches had

arrived by the end of the nineteenth century: the church as the senior partner, the

college the junior . . . . The second form of the relationship is roughly even-

steven: neither has the upper hand over the other in normal associations. The third

is the period of the colleges being in the primary position, with the churches

having to play the unaccustomed junior role . . . . One must be careful to state the

central proposition with enough room to allow for the imprecise situations that

frequently arise, and the unpredictable effect of short-term charisma in one place

and episodic bullheadedness in another. But when all is added up, the spread of a

century shows a steadily growing maturity on the part of the church-related

colleges in the often crucial matter of their relationship with their parent churches.

(p. 33)

One theme that seems to be recurring in the “secularizing” or “maturing” process

of the relationship between church-related institutions and their affiliated denominations

is the role of resource dependency. As noted earlier, the post-Civil War era brought an

end to public funding for Christian colleges (Rudolph, 1990). Fortunately, by this time

many institutions had begun to develop patterns of support from their alumni (Rudolph,

1990). Yale began its formal alumni association in 1890, and many other institutions

soon started to view alumni as a critical new source of funds (Gustavsson, 2000;

Rudolph, 1990). In addition, major benefactors came into play as saviors of many

church-related institutions. Most large benefactors initially contributed from an earnest

sense of Christian stewardship, as Rudolph (1990) described in the following passage.

The early patrons were the sort who established a model for Elaim E. Barney, a

post Civil War benefactor at Denison who enforced upon himself and his family

“the strictest kind of personal economy” in order to multiply his good works.

A model ante bellum benefactor was Amos Lawrence, a Boston merchant, who

carried around in this wallet a piece of paper on which he had scribbled, “What

shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Into his

account book, Lawrence wrote in January 1828: “My property imposes on me

duties, which can only be known to my Maker. May a sense of these duties be

constantly impressed upon my mind.” A sense of these duties made Amos

Lawrence the leading individual benefactor of Williams College before 1875 . . . .

(p. 179)

Unfortunately, not all benefactors were motivated by Christian charity or

stewardship, as many college leaders began to recognize and at times exploit. Rudolph

(1990) said, “The colleges that did receive benefactions could rely on the knowledge that

stewardship might be combined with a yearning for self-monumentation. Certainly, on

more than one occasion the image of Christian charity was blurred by flattery and

conceit” (p. 180).

Over time, patterns of funding begin to influence the relationship between church-

related colleges and their affiliated denominations. Burtchaell (1998) asserted that

colleges often used funding to free themselves from their dependency on the church:

Access to independent funding often provided the first inspiration to the colleges

that they might stand on their own. The patronage of the churches was often

stingy, and their chosen trustees were sometimes there more to be humored than

to help. As the colleges gained in sophistication and financial stability, they

naturally suffered church fools less gladly. These mutual disservices tended to

loosen their liaisons of convenience. For some colleges effective emancipation

came in the form of a sudden, large benefaction. Major Milsaps emancipated his

namesake from the start, D.K. Pearsons did it for Beloit, Ario Pardee for

LaFayette, Maxwell Chambers and then the Dukes for Davidson, The Reynolds

family for Wake Forest and Carnegie for several of them. Once the annual

scrambling for students and solvency could be relieved, and patient growth begun,

the colleges naturally began to think of themselves as less answerable to the

churches. (p. 823)

Criticizing church-related colleges for seeking new funding sources would seem

justified until the alternative is considered. Cuninggim (1994) described the financial and

resource base of the average church-related college in the early twentieth century as

follows:

Paralleling the one-room school house, still in wide use, was the one-building

college. Most church-relateds were housed pretty much in Old Main; and when

Old Main burned down, as they had a habit of doing, a considerable number of

colleges never recovered. A high proportion of them all, burned out or not, were

impoverished and kept alive only by generous and sacrificing church folk,

neighbors and faculty, Protestant and Catholic alike. (p. 28)

Cuninggim (1994) later suggested that during difficult economic times, including the

Depression, the denominations were often unable to provide much help to their

institutions.

In addition to the resource dependency on gift income, the need to attract students

became a critical secularizing force for most church-related institutions. Liechty (2000),

speaking of the church-related institution he studied, said, “If the marketing plan that they

are currently following does not draw the college closer to the church, then they will be

forced to look even more proactively outside it for students” (p. 204). He also suggested

that church-related institutions are facing a dilemma concerning how to define the terms

“ecumenically hospitable” (p. 205).

Benne (2001) contended that most secularizing schools make a conscious, and

possibly incorrect, move to expand their reach to obtain more students from outside their

religious traditions. He clarified his position in the following way:

Whether the judgment they needed to open up was truly accurate is a provocative

question. Perhaps there were more potential students and faculty interested in a

more sharply defined religious identity, but institutional leaders thought not. At

any rate, the movement toward inclusion and away from specificity of

denominational identity was pronounced. It then became a self-fulfilling

prophecy. The flight from specificity didn’t leave enough definite appeal to those

who had specific tastes, and they went elsewhere. (p. 21)

Benne (2001) added that another function of this process is the development of a

consumer-market mentality in regard to religious mission. He said:

An even more pervasive market reality is the adaptation of the notion of

“consumer sovereignty” to education. In such a schema the prospective student is

viewed as a customer and, as goes the conventional wisdom, the customer is

always right. So the whole offering of the school is aimed at responding to what

students might want in their prospective school. (p. 23)

The idea that secularization is a function of the pressure of consumerism in the

education marketplace is a reoccurring view in secularist literature. Burtchaell (1998)

supported the arguments that most church-related institutions both “opened up” and

“caved in” to consumer demands during the process of secularization.

Some Protestant colleges drew the line at Catholics, Jews, and Unitarians, and

encoded this unwillingness in their positive welcome to “all evangelical

Christians.” But that is because they did not expect to need Catholics or Jews or

Unitarians. When they did, they admitted them. When they needed them badly,

they welcomed them . . . .

Early Protestant colleges initiated their students into the piety and the

discipline of a parson’s household: the model for the Catholics was that of pupils

in conventual schools . . . . The students began to badger the administration to

alleviate their devotional duties and behavioral restrictions, item by item. The

long pressing and yielding, voiced by rhythmic argument and obnoxiousness, was

comparable, in its stubborn importunity-and-resistance, to the yielding of the

British monarchy to parliamentary rule. One of the social forces that came to

distinguish and divide administrators from faculty professionally was the way the

latter soon left responsibility for student piety and morality in the hands of the

former. It was later, when administrators in their turn created a class of religious

functionaries-- chaplains, Y secretaries, deans of students, et al.--to relieve them,

too, of those responsibilities, that ecclesial piety and discipline were shown to be

only loosely and incoherently bound to the central purposes of the colleges. (pp.

820-821)

Liechty (2000) contended that leaders of church-related institutions must carefully

consider their patterns of support, including funding and student denominational

affiliation, in order to avoid the path of secularization. Cuninggim (1994) agreed that

colleges must have financial support from their denominations to remain connected.

Liechty (2000) also warned that the broadening strategy can often backfire. Moreover,

Benne (2001) concluded that for a church-related college or university to keep its

Christian heritage relevant, leaders must publicly manage “its vision, its ethos and have

Christian persons who bear out their vision and ethos” (p. 6). This challenge can become

a balancing act in the marketplace of modern higher education. Ironically, in that sense,

modern church-related college executives face the same challenges as those in the earliest

colonial Christian colleges. They must constantly attempt to deal with struggles over

mission, denominational governance, and resources.

Types of Church-Related Colleges

Due to the historical development and secularization patterns in Christian higher

education, many different types of church-related colleges and universities exist in the

contemporary higher education landscape. Over the years, many writers have attempted

to create typologies to classify different types of church-related institutions (Guthrie &

Njoftzger, 1992). Recently, Benne (2001) created a comprehensive four-classification

typology based on 10 individual factors (See Appendix B). This typology features the

following classifications:

1. Orthodox - Institutions determined “to ensure that the Christian account of life

and reality is publicly and comprehensively relevant to the life of the school”

(p. 50).

2. Critical-Mass - Institutions that “do not insist that all members of the

community be believers in their tradition, or even believers in the Christian

tradition, though they do insist that a critical-mass of adherents from their

tradition inhabit all of the constituencies of the educational enterprise” (p. 50).

3. Intentionally Pluralist – An institution that maintains enough respect for its

religious heritage “that it intentionally places members of that heritage in

important positions” (p. 52).

4. Accidentally Pluralist - Institutions that lack “enough commitment to the

sponsoring tradition to push for its representation in key facets of the school”

(p. 52).

As Benne (2001) noted, “There is a major divide between the orthodox and

critical-mass schools and the intentionally pluralist and accidentally pluralist categories”

(p. 51). This divide is based on the presence in the first two classifications (i.e., orthodox

and critical-mass) of the “Christian vision and ethos as an organizing paradigm” (p. 51)

in all institutional activities. Given its depth of detail, Benne’s (2001) typology will be

used to guide the purposive sampling in this study.

Contemporary Leadership Issues in Christian Higher Education

The contemporary leadership issues in Christian higher education may have

increased in complexity and focus but they continue to revolve around mission,

denominational governance, and resources. Literature addressing the contemporary

status of Christian higher education tends to focus on predictions of gloom as well as

survival strategies emphasizing the promotion of mission and the development of

sustainable revenue sources (Adrian, 1997; Dean, 1985; Smith, 1993; Thompson, 1995).

While the debate over the proper response to the contemporary fiscal challenges

continues, considerable consensus has been reached that the solutions lie in the area of

developing a strong fundraising capacity through visionary leadership focused on

Christian mission and academic excellence. However, balancing the institutional mission

with the modern educational marketplace can be a difficult task.

Lawrence (1991) cited Witmer as suggesting that many church-related institutions

are experiencing financial stress at the same time they are trying to raise their academic

standards. Certainly, improvement in academic standards can be costly both in the

increased need for new academic resources and through a loss of potential student tuition

from less academically prepared prospective students from within their historic faith

tradition. Adrian (1997) described the fiscal realities of producing academic excellence

in church-related institutions of higher learning in the following passage:

The subtle influences in the drive for excellence may affect the institutions in

ways not fully comprehended, especially since academic recognition is more

closely related to public perceptions than to genuine academic quality.

Recognition is dependent upon resources . . . . These schools that struggled

financially in their early years simply to keep the doors open each fall now

struggle to compete against well-endowed leaders of American higher education.

(pp. 447-448)

Despite this inherent conflict, most institutional leaders feel that increased

academic credibility is important to institutional success in attracting resources.

Lawrence (1991) said, “The reputation of the institution as an educational entity which

produces educational quality needs to be encouraged and promoted” (p. 65). Therefore,

many institutional leaders are working diligently to offset a history of anti-intellectualism

by reshaping their contemporary academic image (Liechty, 2000; Snell, 1997;

Springsted, 1988).

Presidential leadership is usually a key factor in reshaping academic image and in

creating a successful fundraising capacity. Thompson (1995) suggested that church-

related college presidents need to take the lead role in fundraising, and several other

writers have supported this concept. According to Hamlin (1990), institutions that

survived serious financial problems had presidents who focused on fundraising.

Gustvasson (2000) cited Glennon’s study as finding a high correlation between “the time

a president spends on fundraising and the amount of revenue received” (p. 20). Jones’s

(1991) study found that the president should be actively involved in soliciting and

cultivating gifts as well as maintaining a high degree of visibility. Duronio and Loessin

(1990) also found that strong presidential leadership in fundraising activities is critical to

fundraising success. Lawrence (1991) concluded his study with the following statements

concerning the role of the president:

The president is the visible figure around whom effective fund-raising

revolves. He or she must be committed to the institution and its mission in order

for effectiveness to be achieved in fund-raising. The president needs to actively

articulate the mission and purpose of the institution to both the campus and to the

public in general.

The president’s fundamental tasks, in addition to declaring the institution’s

mission, should include providing direction for the entire development effort,

supporting the chief development officer and staff, educating trustees as to their

fund-raising responsibilities and potential, and soliciting funds. Commitment on

his or her part in these capacities must be present or the fund-raising effort of the

institution will not reach its potential. (p. 64)

Unfortunately, “presidents of private colleges are uncomfortable with the duties

of fundraising” (p. 43), despite acknowledging that raising money is the key presidential

function, according to a study by Thorp cited by Janney (1994). Panas (1988), who

studied successful fundraisers including several college presidents, determined that

fundraising is a transferable skill that could be used for selection purposes. Janney

(1994) added that fundraising ability is generally a key criterion for selection and

evaluation of presidents, especially in church-related institutions. Fisher and Tack (1990)

identified an open administrative style as a trait of effective presidential leadership, and

Janney (1994) found a strong correlation between a president’s open administrative style

and fundraising effectiveness in church-related colleges. Certainly, presidential

leadership seems to be critical to successful fundraising in church-related institutions.

The role of trustee leadership is also considered by many to be important for fund-

raising success in church-related colleges. Thompson (1995) suggested that trustees

should become consumed with fund-raising efforts on behalf of the institution.

Gustavsson (2000) cited a survey by Adringa as identifying fund-raising activity and

ability to give as key indicators of board effectiveness in Christian colleges. Ironically,

fund-raising activity was perceived as a more important criteria for board member

effectiveness than an individual’s ability to give. Willmer (1990) also emphasized the

importance of trustee involvement in successful fund-raising activities. Dean (1985)

concluded that the selection of governing board members may also be a way to solidify

denominational support in church-related institutions.

Colleges of this type may benefit from a re-evaluation of their relationship to their

governing board and to the denominational constituency in general. Although the

data does [sic] not prove the colleges receiving the greatest percentage of total

gifts from the sponsoring denomination are governed by Boards of Trustees

aligned with the denominations, it appears so. Likewise, if a denomination has

control of the governing board through powers of appointment or election, it may

provide the greatest financial support. (p. 82)

Wohbrecht (1990) performed an in-depth case study of a failed Christian college

and found that the governing boards of church-related colleges have a growing influence

on the direction of their institutions in the recent climate. Therefore, in addition to strong

presidential leadership, members of boards of trustees should be committed to

fundraising and mission development.

Mission and vision also appear to be critical to successful fund-raising in church-

related colleges and universities. Smith (1993) stated, “The importance of relationships

and an understanding of the mission of the church-related college will be the challenge of

the 1990’s and beyond” (p. 13). Dockery (1999) described the importance of externally

communicating vision in the following manner.

Not only must we develop a strategy for our times, but we also need to

communicate well our vision and our direction. Thus, beyond the importance of

establishing campus-specific strategies is the necessity of communicating those

strategies and inviting others to participate in carrying out our work. (p.3)

Smith (1993) declared that the mission is more than just propaganda or advancement

rhetoric: “In essence, the mission of a college expresses its rights to survive and prosper,

its place in American society, and its future” (p. 39). In addition, the mission must come

before fund-raising activity: “No development campaign reasonably approaches

benefactors until goals and mission attain a clear definition” (Smith, 1993, p. 36).

The importance of presenting a distinctly “Christian” mission is considered vital

to successful church-related institutions. Dockery (1999), commenting on a series of

essays regarding the future of Christian higher education, stated, “What is common

among all the addresses is the need to keep Christian higher education distinctively

Christian. That will involve remaining focused on our essential purpose” (p. 5). Smith

(1993) added a similar thought: “With the obvious importance of a clear mission and

donor/institutional match, well-managed church-related colleges expend considerable

effort in identifying and articulating their distinctiveness” (p. 38).

Christian higher education has numerous contemporary challenges; however, with

strong leaders focused on articulating a distinctive mission, development and fundraising

should flourish in the present day. The historical path of development has clearly created

some tension between secularizing forces, anti-intellectual forces, market pressures, and

denominational influences. However, to some degree these tensions have always existed.

The factor that seems most significant in the past as well as to the future of Christian

higher education is the leadership response to this tension and the resulting vision the

leadership presents. Dockery (1999) described the contemporary leadership challenges in

the following manner.

At this time we must take seriously the call to develop Christian minds. The

tensions often created between academic excellence and piety, between

scholarship and teaching, between academic pursuits and revealed truths, between

academy and the church, will always be with us. But we can only address these

challenges and bridge the tensions with both –and answers. Either-or dichotomies

will not advance the cause of Christian higher education at this karious moment.

The issues of truth, the call to teach and mentor, and the vision to think and live

Christianly are at this time our highest priorities. (p. 6)

When these leadership issues are effectively managed with a distinct vision, the

challenges of finding adequate resources through development and fundraising activities

should, with the implementation of sound practices and strategies, take care of

themselves. However, if the response to the contemporary challenges and opportunities

in Christian higher education is anything other than proactive and comprehensive, then

the future of many church-related colleges will be in jeopardy.

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW ON FUNDRAISING

Fundraising isn’t about raising money. It is a seamless fusion of magic and

principles, benefits and details, art and science . . . . Fundraising is about

building relationships and helping those with resources know where to

invest their funds. Fundraising has to do with helping potential investors

know everything there is to know about your institution. Having them

know how you provide a service that is uniquely your own—and how their

gift alone, will make a difference. (Panas, 1999, pp. 14-15)

In the preceding passage Jerold Panas (1999) described the unique realities and

complexities of the modern fundraising world in which nonprofit organizations exist. On

one hand, fundraising is not just about raising money; but rather the process is about

building relationships with like-minded donors who can facilitate, as well as fuel, the

mission of an organization. On the other hand, if enough money is not raised to provide

the services and to attain the financial viability needed to fulfill an institution’s mission,

then the final result is institutional failure. The troubling paradox of fundraising is that

developing relationships takes time and is critical for long-term success, while at the

same time most fundraisers labor under intense pressure to produce current bottom-line

results. Nearly every nonprofit organization operates with an awareness of this complex

challenge.

As a result of these challenges, fundraising has become, as Panas (1999) and

Rosso (1996) have each described, a unique blend of both art and science. Fundraising is

a science based on the fact that increased planning emphasis accompanied by new tools

and techniques have continued to raise the sophistication of fundraising practices. At the

same time fundraising is still an art in the sense that to be a successful fundraiser requires

an ability to connect to human emotions and motivations in a highly personal way based

on “trust, faith and rapport” (Panas, 1999, p. 9). In the highly competitive world of

fundraising, both sides of this “science-and-art” equation must be fully developed to

maximize results.

This chapter includes the relevant literature related to fundraising and begins with

a description of the philanthropic and marketing roots of fundraising as well as an

overview of the charitable marketplace in the United States. The overall fundraising cycle

and broad strategic fundraising options are described next, followed by a more detailed

review of literature related to identification, cultivation, and solicitation of donors.

Literature on religious charitable giving is also discussed before the presentation of a

review of the research on donor motivations, both in general and specifically in higher

education. Next is a discussion of both the traditional higher education approach to

fundraising and emerging trends in fundraising within the academy. Finally, the chapter

concludes with a review of literature on successful fundraising in higher education,

including the church-related segment.

Philanthropy to Fundraising - A Marketing Approach

The field of fundraising has emerged out of the philanthropic tradition. Cutlip

(1965) contended that America has a strong, unique history and tradition of philanthropy

that has shaped American culture. Drew (1983) concurred, saying, “The trait . . . . is

amply verified by Americans answering the needs of the YMCA, community, church,

hospital, and institutions of higher education” (p. 8).

Philanthropy is an important concept in terms of development and fundraising.

Payton (1988) defined philanthropy as “voluntary action for the public good” (p. 61).

Historically, philanthropy was based on humanitarian actions initiated by a donor’s

generosity while the organizations receiving charitable gifts were generally passive

beneficiaries in the transaction. Eventually, organizational leaders began actively to seek

more funding; but some of these early efforts were less philanthropic and more a process

of “begging” for resources. In contrast, Grace’s (1997) model was based on the fact that

philanthropy is values-based and should serve as the context for all development and

fundraising activities (See Appendix C). In Grace’s (1997) view, development and

fundraising became the facilitators of philanthropic action by matching individuals with

opportunities to act on their values.

Over the years, the fundraising profession has also adopted a marketing approach

to philanthropy. The Fund Raising School at the Indiana University Center for

Philanthropy (2000) illustrated the marketing approach in a model the authors called

“exchange of values” (See Appendix D). Under the marketing concept model, the

fundraiser does not just ask for money but rather enters into a transaction. Grace (1997)

described this process as “putting away the tin cup” and “moving beyond fund-raising”

(p. 20). Using this philosophy, the goal of fundraising is to create “donor-investors”

whose role with the organization is “dynamic” and not “passive” (Grace, 1997, p. 28).

Williams (1999b) described this move towards a philanthropic culture in the following

way:

A philanthropic culture is one that promotes philanthropy, and has no need to

apologize for fund raising. Values and beliefs are authentic, not artificially

contrived. A philanthropic culture says to the world, “We exist to fulfill a gap

that is significant or to advance a cause that is critical—will you join us?” (p. 16)

In her popular book titled Beyond Fund Raising: New Strategies for Nonprofit

Innovation and Investment, Grace (1997) proposed that to be successful in the new world

of philanthropy, all development and fundraising activities must be based on an

understanding of the following eight key principles.

1. Donors do not give to organizations because organizations have needs; they

give because organizations meet needs.

2. Fund-raising is less about money than it is about relationships: in the words of

a Stanford Centennial Campaign volunteer, “Fund-raising is a contact sport.”

3. Philanthropy is defined by Robert L. Payton (1988) as a participatory and

democratic process which involves giving, asking, joining, and serving. It is

not “multiple choice.” In a vigorous society, people must engage in each

aspect of the process.

4. There are three levels of involvement and practice for staff and volunteers:

philosophical, strategic, and tactical. Successful organizations operate at all

three levels.

5. There is no such thing as a “quick fix” in the philanthropic sector.

Organizations that experience immediate or unexpected success still must

create the systems and structures that will endure over time. Otherwise, they

will find they have built a roof without creating a foundation or walls.

6. Based on values, philanthropy is the context for values-driven development

and fund-raising.

7. Stewardship is a neglected and misunderstood function. It must be practiced

as diligently for the donor as it is for the donor’s gift.

8. The process of asking for contributions to a non-profit organization should be

one in which the asker feels the pride of inviting investment and in which the

donor feels not pressure, but release. (pp. 1-3)

Certainly, the most successful fundraising organizations have grown beyond the

roots of philanthropic actions initiated by individuals and unsophisticated “begging” on

the part of an organization’s leaders, to a more complex series of activities and

relationships based on an exchange of values. As noted earlier, the management of this

process is a complicated mix of science and art.

Demographics of Giving Patterns in the United States

The United States has a unique history of charitable giving that has produced a

large philanthropic marketplace. According to the AAFRC Trust of Philanthropy (2004),

charitable giving grew by 2.8% in 2003 to an estimated total of $241 billion (See

Appendix E). This number continues a 30-year upward trend that peaked at 2.1% of the

gross domestic product in 1999, and experienced a large spike in 2001 related to the

September 11th terrorist attacks. Individual giving represented 74.5% of all contributions

in 2003, while giving from foundations, corporations, and bequests represented 10.9 %,

5.6%, and 9.0% respectively. Giving by corporations experienced the largest growth rate

of 10.5% in 2003.

Appendix F illustrates the allocation of charitable funds by type of recipient

organization. Unfortunately, giving to education, which composed 13.1% of the total

contributions in 2003, also experienced the lowest reported growth rate and represented a

continued trend of slower-than-average growth rate for this sector. On a positive note,

according to the Council for Aid to Education (2005), charitable giving to higher

education totaled $24.4 billion in 2004, an increase of 3.4% over 2003 and 2002, but still

below, both in real and absolute dollars, the 2001 level of $24.5 billion which was the

peak of a 14-year growth pattern. Clearly, contributions to higher education are not

keeping pace with overall philanthropic growth as competition from other charitable

market segments continues to grow more intense. Overall, the United States continues its

long history of generous philanthropic activities, demographic patterns that serve as good

planning tools for fundraising professionals.

The Fundraising Cycle and Broad Strategy Selection

Henry Rosso (1999, 1991), the late founder of The Fund Raising School at

Indiana University, described fundraising as a continual, cyclical process of activities that

should be managed by the fundraising professional. As Rosso (1999) said:

There is a discipline to gift development that progresses in logical order

from preparation to planning to program execution to control. The

sequence of orderliness can be depicted in a continuum that can be

referred to as the cycle of fundraising. (p.32)

Rosso’s (1999, 1991) model consisted of the following 14 steps and is displayed

in graphical form in Appendix G.

1. Prepare the case statement.—The first step in the fundraising cycle is the

preparation of the case statement. Sometimes referred to as the case for

support, the case statement should define the central need that the organization

serves, as well as the rationale for contributing to the cause in addition to the

organization’s readiness for action.

2. Define objectives.—The fundraising objectives of an organization should be

directly linked to the case statement and should describe in specific,

quantifiable terms how the goals of the organization will be accomplished.

3. Prepare a needs’ statement.—The needs’ statement “provides testimony to the

organization’s right to exist” (Rosso, 1991, p. 11). The needs’ statement

translates the case statement and objectives into specific program needs that

support budgeting and provide specific support for fundraising requests.

4. Analyze market requirements.—In this step the philanthropic market needs

are evaluated to ensure that the service areas of the organization are viable.

5. Involve volunteers.—Recruiting volunteers to assist in the fundraising process

is an important component of a successful fundraising cycle. Volunteers

provide outside credibility to the process and can exert more leverage on their

peers than a professional fundraiser can.

6. Validate the needs.—After establishing the case, setting objectives, and

recruiting volunteers, all constituencies, particularly the volunteers, need to

validate needs. This step serves as both a planning checkpoint to ensure that

the organization is on the right course and as a precursor to the preparation of

future communication literature. Needs are best validated by identifying

specific examples of how personnel in the organization are addressing the

problem identified in the case statement.

7. Evaluate gift markets.—Appropriate personnel in every organization should

evaluate the various gift markets to determine what potential exists for

fundraising within each segment. Examples of gift-market segmentation

could be the broad sources of gifts such as individuals, corporations, and

foundations or demographic categories such as women, middle-income

families, alumni, past-program participants, and so on.

8. Select the fundraising vehicle.—The fundraising tools the organization’s

personnel will utilize, like direct mail, personal solicitation, special events,

etc., should be chosen at this step in the fundraising cycle.

9. Identify potential giving sources.—Building on the previous gift market

analysis, the organization’s leaders must now identify the specific potential

giving sources within each gift market. This step includes building databases

of prior donors, developing prospect lists, completing prospect research, etc.

10. Prepare the fundraising plan.—The specific fundraising plan actually comes

together when the market segments and potential giving sources are matched

with the selected vehicles into a comprehensive strategy for execution. The

overall plan should be congruent with the institutional mission and case

statement.

11. Prepare the communications plan.—In direct support of the overall

fundraising plan, a communications plan should be developed. The

communications plan should determine how to transform the case statement

into a “compelling and inviting form” (Rosso, 1999, p. 13). As with any type

of formal communication, choosing the best medium for communication is

important to ensure clear transmission of the central message. In addition, the

choice of communication tools should be consistent with, and tailored to, the

particular gift market being addressed, as well as to the fundraising vehicle

being utilized.

12. Expand the volunteers' corps.—Fundraisers in organizations should constantly

be in the process of expanding the volunteer base as new individuals with

commitment to the cause are identified through ongoing assessment and

relationship-building activities.

13. Solicit the gift.—Finally, as the execution of the plan comes to a close,

selected individuals in the organization must, in fundraiser’s terms, “make the

ask.” This critical moment ultimately determines the results of the entire

cycle of efforts. If the previous steps of the cycle were well managed, then this

action should produce results; however, considerable potential for error exists

at this climactic moment.

14. Renew the gift.—The last step in the fundraising cycle is to renew the gift on

an annual or periodic basis. The ultimate goal at this level is to develop both a

giving habit and specific organizational commitment within the donor’s mind.

Rosso (1999, 1991) contended that understanding and managing this cycle or

process is the key to successful fundraising. Of course, under this model, before the

cycle can begin, an understanding of the “exchange of values” marketing concept

(described earlier) must be inherent in the minds of everyone involved in the fundraising

process. Also, when implementing this model, all participants must understand that the

process of fundraising never ends: some aspect of the process always needs to be

executed. Successful management of the fundraising cycle results in “the right person

asking the right prospect for the right gift for the right program at the right time in the

right way” (The Fund Raising School, 2000, p. 37).

Many writers have emphasized the need to formulate or select a broad fundraising

strategy to anchor the fundraising cycle of an institution (Grace, 1997; Rosso, 1996;

Warwick, 2000). In his book titled The five strategies for fundraising success: A mission-

based guide to achieving your goals, Warrick (2000) presented several options for broad

strategy selection. The first option was to choose a growth strategy, defined as pursuing a

meaningful increase in the number of donors. This growth strategy is typically best suited

for use by young organizations with a broad mission likely to achieve wide support;

however, this strategy often involves a large investment in fundraising that is low in

efficiency.

Involvement, the second broad strategy option, focused on building stronger

relationships (Warrick, 2000). The goal of this strategy is to reduce the distance between

the cause and the donor. The core attributes of the involvement strategy are its foci on

producing a rewarding environment for the donor and its emphasis on grass-roots

participation as well as volunteerism. Ultimately, use of this strategy produces donors

who think of themselves as part of the organization, not merely donors.

The third strategy, visibility, placed the emphasis on gaining name recognition or

“brand” identification (Warrick, 2000). The major attribute of this strategy is familiarity

through broad public interest and awareness. The critical tools associated with this

strategy include special events, promotional materials, and television as well as radio

publicity. Typically, a visibility strategy does not lead to immediate increases in net

revenue; therefore, fundraising practitioners must resist the temptation to capitalize too

soon on successful publicity.

A fourth broad strategy option is to focus on efficiency, defined as raising money

at the lowest cost per dollar raised (Warrick, 2000). The efficiency strategy is usually

best pursued by mature organizations with a strong fundraising base where performance

can be significantly improved through fine-tuning efforts by cost-conscious managers.

Efficiency-driven organizations avoid controversy and focus instead on presenting to the

public an image of trustworthiness. Efficiency is often a good strategy to adopt after

successfully utilizing other strategies such as visibility or growth to get the organization

established (Warrick, 2000).

Warrick’s (2000) final strategic option, stability, focused on diversification of

funding sources and planning for sustainability. Fundraisers in organizations that pursue

a stability strategy usually strive to present an image of “enduring legacy, unending needs

and unchanging values” (Warrick, 2000, p. 45). The tools most often associated with a

stability strategy include a focus on endowment building, planned giving, and diversified

fundraising.

Although each of these five strategies would seem desirable, Warrick (2000)

contended that no organization can pursue them all simultaneously because each strategy

contains inherent contradictions. He acknowledged that many organizations pursue one

of the broad strategies as a primary focus while using elements of one of the other four as

a secondary support strategy. Strategy selection should reflect organizational

circumstances and aspirations; once selected, they should rarely be altered. Warrick

(2000) conceded that strategies should change over time but only after careful evaluation

and usually in reaction to changing environmental circumstances.

The formulation and selection of a broad strategy for fundraising activities is

essential to successful fundraising, but numerous pitfalls in fundraising strategy abound

including the following: conflicting demands, leadership indecisiveness, emphasis of

tactics over strategy, inconsistency, and unwillingness to stay the course (Grace, 1997;

Panas, 2002; Warrick, 2000). Ultimately, the chosen strategy must align internally with

the organization’s mission and vision as well as externally with the given environmental

realities in order to maximize the organization’s potential. The development of a sound

strategic framework is critical to organizing the fundraising cycle of any non-profit

organization.

Strategies for Identifying, Cultivating, and Soliciting Donors

Central to any fundraising effort is the process of building relationships with

potential donors through identification, cultivation, and eventually solicitation. Since

successful fundraising is a process of matching an organization and a donor into a

relationship of shared values, developing an understanding of how fundraisers can

facilitate such a process is essential.

The cultivation process begins with identifying potential donors based on

common interests and escalating them through a development process aimed at building

relationships based on shared values and mutual interests (The Fund Raising School,

2000). In Appendix H this process is graphically illustrated. The result of an escalation of

commitment through the cultivation process results in the formation of an organization’s

donor pyramid as depicted in Appendix I (The Fund Raising School, 2000). This donor

pyramid allows the organization’s fundraising to use market-segmentation techniques and

to match the appropriate fundraising vehicle to the different segments. Appropriate

vehicle (i.e., tool) selection is often described as a critical strategic decision in

fundraising management because the vehicle chosen drives both communication efforts

and fundraising costs (Drew, 1983; Holliman & Holliman, 1997; Rosso, 1999, 1996).

The pyramid concept also serves as a basis for planning and for estimating

fundraising results as demonstrated by the inverse relationship between the pyramid and

the funds raised, as illustrated in Appendix J (The Fund Raising School, 2000).

According to this model, the top 10% of donors represent 60% of dollars raised. Others

have asserted that the top 10% of donors represent an even higher percentage, perhaps as

high as 90% (Rosso, 1999; Sturtevant, 1997). Based on these assumptions and the use of

the development process model (Appendix H) described earlier, organizational

fundraisers can focus their efforts on cultivating and moving selected donors up this

pyramid.

The process of identification and segmentation should occur by starting with a

concentric constituency model (See Appendix K), and working from the center of the

organization by identifying groups with linkage, interest, and ability (LIA) (The Fund

Raising School, 2000). Using this approach, people most closely linked to the values and

mission of the organization will be the starting point of any fundraising efforts.

Consequently, board members, managers, and employees should be considered the most

likely donors because they should have the highest level of involvement, interest, and

shared values with the organization and its development process. Unfortunately, these

groups will not necessarily have the highest giving ability, which is also a key factor in

fundraising. However, they are a key starting point because they have linkage, which

means that their participation may influence others who possess more ability to give. Of

course, in addition to linkage and interest, the cultivation process should identify, through

donor research, individuals with a significant capacity to give. If the organization does a

good job with the identification phase, then the remaining cultivation process should be

an efficient one.

After the processes of identifying and segmenting potential donors have been

completed, donor cultivation and relationship building must occur. Typically, cultivation

is a fundraising practice reserved for potential major donors because of its labor-intensive

nature. Major donors are generally defined by the size and scope of the organization. For

instance, at a small homeless shelter, a $1000 donation may be considered a major gift,

while at a major university a million dollars might be the threshold to be considered a

major gift. Organizational fundraisers classify major gifts differently based on the

organization’s size, needs, and experience.

Sturtevant (1997) presented a different, donor-focused perspective for

understanding major gifts in his book titled The artful journey: Cultivating and soliciting

the major gift. He stated that a major gift is a request that pushes donors into the “stop-

and-think” level regardless of their capacity to give. Panas (2002) added that, to the

donor, a major gift is one where the decision involves a spouse or other family members.

Based on the donor’s perspective, Sturtevant (1997) presented the following four key

factors (revealed through research) that are likely at work during the cultivation and

solicitation process for major gifts:

1. It will take longer for the prospect’s needs and motives to develop.

2. As the level of solicitation increases, the number of inputs influencing the

outcome increases.

3. As the size of the gift decision grows, the discussion becomes increasingly

rational, but the decision becomes increasingly emotional.

4. As the magnitude of the gift decision grows, the consequences of a poor

decision increase. (pp. 25-27)

Other important considerations or indicators of cultivatable potential are prior

gifts to the organization, prior giving to other organizations, increased service or

involvement with the organization, and a close relationship with a staff member or

volunteer (Panas, 1999; Sturtevant, 1997). Panas (1999) described the cultivation process

as a six “I” model composed of identifying the issues about which the prospects are

concerned, capturing their interest, involving them in the organization, intervening in

their lives, asking them to invest, and using them to influence others (p. 5). According to

most fundraising experts, if members of the organization do not fully develop the

prospect’s interest and create an emotional commitment through some type of

involvement, then the cultivation process has not really occurred; therefore, any attempt

to “make the ask” will likely fail or result in a less than optimal gift (Burnett, 2002;

Panas, 2002, 1999, 1988, 1984; Prince & File, 1994; Sturtevant, 1997; Warrick, 2000).

Eventually, cultivation efforts lead to solicitation opportunities or, as fundraisers

call it, “the ask.” Several conventional theories concerning solicitation techniques have

been developed. Sturtevant (1997) and Panas (2002) both emphasized listening over

talking during the solicitation process. According to Sturtevant (1997), good fundraisers

listen for emotional needs, potential problems, and motivational triggers. Another key

issue in fundraising is determining the appropriate person to lead the solicitation call.

Generally, the person with the best natural relationship with the donor should be involved

in “the ask” (Panas, 2002; Sturtevant, 1997). Many fundraisers use relationship charts for

managing prospective donors in an effort to track as well as utilize the individual’s social

network during cultivation and solicitation efforts (Burnett, 2002). Many volunteers are

uncomfortable making “the ask” and need training as well as rehearsal; therefore, they

may be best utilized as contacts rather than the solicitors. Finally, the timing of “the ask”

must be determined carefully; and high pressure tactics have to be avoided. As Panas

(2002) said, “Donors give when they are ready to, not a moment sooner . . . . By pushing

too hard, the fundraiser can actually slow the process” (p. 14). Certainly, solicitation is a

complicated event; and if not handled well, the entire cultivation process can be lost.

Religious Charitable Giving

According to many authors, successful fundraising in Christian faith-based

institutions has a unique dynamic and character that is rooted in underlying Christian

concepts, values, and teachings of the church about the money management and

responsibilities (Barna, 1997; Burkinshaw, 2000; Grimm, 1992; Jeavons & Basinger,

2000). Demographically, George Barna (1997) identified several significant trends

related to religious giving patterns in America. For example, on the positive side, six out

10 adults donate monthly, and three-fourths annually, to some type of charity, with two-

thirds of all donors contributing to a church or faith-based institution. On the negative

side, giving to religious causes, church and per capita religious contributions are all in

decline. Barna (1997) concluded that giving patterns of the younger boomer-and-buster

generations are very different from previous generations in the sense that they are less

habitual and more evaluative in their donation patterns. He added that few Christian

institutions have adapted well to this changing demographic trend, which is a significant

threat in an increasingly competitive philanthropy marketplace. In addition, Hoge and

Noll (2000) found that U.S. evangelical Christians gave 7.2% of income to religious

causes, which is significantly higher than any other religious group including mainline

Protestants who came in second at 5.4% of income. These demographic realities

concerning U.S. religious charitable giving can serve as important external strategic

framing tools.

Evangelical Christian institutions may seem to be doing a better job of fundraising

because their leaders emphasize traditional Christian faith teachings about giving and

money management. Unsurprisingly, the faith-based institutions, especially the

evangelical colleges, that are producing successful results in fundraising, rely on

traditional Christian teachings and doctrines including these: stewardship of God’s

resources, giving as an act of worship, giving in proportion to blessings, sacrificial

giving, God’s abundance mentality as well as promises, and giving that is both planned

and purposed, which all serve as points of emphasis in their communications strategies

(Barna, 1997; Grimm, 1992; Hoge, Zech, McNamara, & Donahue, 1996; Jeavons &

Basinger, 2000).

In their book titled Growing Givers’ Hearts: Treating Fundraising as Ministry,

Jeavons and Basinger (2000) offered an alternative model of fundraising for Christian

organizations which differs from conventional fundraising in many ways. For instance,

under their model of “fundraising as ministry,” they focused on bringing people to a

closer relationship with God rather than closer to a relationship with the organization, as

well as using the gift as an occasion for faith growth rather than an expression of existing

faith. Under this model the philosophical root is stewardship rather than philanthropy, or,

in other words, an emphasis on honoring God’s ownership of all things as opposed to a

commitment to the common good. Jeavons and Basinger (2000) asserted that using their

distinctively Christian model of fundraising avoids treating donors as a means to an end

or engaging in any manipulative or deceptive practices to advance otherwise honorable

causes. Certainly, fundraising in Christian organizations will be heavily influenced by

faith teachings, language, and religious culture.

Research on Donor Motivations

Understanding donor motivations for giving is a complex process that has

received significant attention in fundraising literature. Panas (1984), who studied several

major donors, concluded that these individuals often do not fully understand their own

motivations for making large gifts. Other scholars have identified several key concepts

related to donor motivations (Odendahl, 1990; Prince & File, 1994; Schervish, 1997;

Smith, 1994; Wolpert, 1994). Frank (1996) contended that most charitable giving occurs

as a combination of both altruistic and self-interest motives, a phenomenon he described

in the following way:

In sum, it appears that ecological forces will give rise to a human population in

which most people pursue a mix of selfish and altruistic motives, and a population

of charitable organizations in which most groups attempt to appeal simultaneously

to both types of motives. The characterization of charitable organizations and

their donors has numerous specific implications for how these organizations

might appeal most effectively for support. (p. 143)

In addition to this general concept of combined altruism and self-interest,

Schervish (1997) summarized eight specific variables repeatedly identified through

research on donor motivations that serve as determinants of charitable giving. These

variables include the following:

1. Communities of participation –This variable refers to formal and informal

networks of relationships that provide the basis for an individual being

“connected” to other people and for raising awareness of needs.

2. Frameworks of consciousness—This variable refers to an individual’s deeply

rooted values, beliefs, ideology, or social concerns that produce a commitment

to respond to a situation. These frameworks of consciousness typically contain

both a cognitive and an emotional component.

3. Direct requests—A key motivating aspect of charitable giving is often the

simple factor of being asked to participate.

4. Discretionary resources—The amount of discretionary resources, such as

time, income, and accumulated wealth, is a key motivational factor. This

variable contains both an objective and subjective component in the mind of

the donor.

5. Models and experiences from one’s youth—This variable typically refers to

role models encountered and activities participated in as children that serve to

influence and mobilize participation as adults.

6. Urgency and effectiveness—A need that appears to be urgent and also has a

high probability to be corrected by a specific course of action is usually a key

factor in determining mobilization of charitable giving.

7. Demographic characteristics—These factors are often controlled in research

studies; however, many demographic factors, such as age, gender, race,

education, etc., are also the basis for casual relationships.

8. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards—Factors related to formal and informal

gratitude by the recipient, and more importantly personal satisfaction on the

part of the donor, often determine the level of intensity of participation in

philanthropic activity (pp. 117-118).

These foundational principles of donor motivations should always be considered

during the donor cultivation and fundraising process. As Pezzullo and Brittingham

(1993) said, “knowledge of donor behavior and motivation is crucial to the practicing

fund raiser. This knowledge helps determine the timing of solicitations, the types of

appeals, and the sizes of requests, among many other things” (p. 31). Clearly, donor

motivations are a major factor to consider in the design of development and fundraising

programs.

Major donor motivations are a complicated area of great interest to fundraising

professionals. As Panas (1984) studied the motivations for giving by major donors, he

found that major donors are not moved to give by “needs,” but rather by mission and

value congruence. He also reported that major donors are people who have developed a

habit of giving and who receive satisfaction as well as joy from giving. However, Panas

(1984) also concluded that the many variables related to major donors’ mobilization still

remain largely unknown.

Prince and File (1994) developed a powerful research-based tool for analyzing

and segmenting major donors in their groundbreaking book titled The Seven Faces of

Philanthropy: A New Approach to Cultivating Major Donors. In this book the

researchers segmented major donors into seven unique profiles including the

communitarian, the devout, the investor, the socialite, the altruist, the repayer, and the

dynast. These profiles can be used to understand major donor needs as well as

motivations and to tailor a unique strategy for cultivation based on the prospective

donor’s profile.

The communitarian segment is the largest one representing 26.3% of the major

donor market (Prince & File, 1994). Not surprisingly, communitarians give because

sharing their resources makes sense. They are often male local business owners who

believe that helping their local communities is the pragmatic course to take.

Communitarians look for effectiveness in nonprofits, and they want to influence how

donations are used. They also enjoy, receiving individualized attention and public

recognition.

The next largest segment is the group that Prince and File (1994) referred to as the

devout donors who represent 20.9% of the major donor market. Devout donors are

motivated to give for religious reasons (i.e., because they believe God’s will is involved),

and they support religious institutions almost exclusively. The devout segment

contributes on a trust basis and does not want to influence the use of the donation;

however, they do want the nonprofit organization’s mission to reflect their personal

values.

Fifteen percent of the major donor market is composed of investors (Prince &

File, 1994). The investor group members give because they believe doing good is good

business. Investors like to donate to umbrella groups and are always very concerned

about personal tax and estate issues. Investors plan donations methodically and expect

nonprofits to understand their business concerns. They also like to receive both public

and private attention.

Socialites, a unique segment representing 10.8% of the major donor market,

donate because giving is fun (Prince & File, 1994). Socialites only contribute to

organizations approved by members of their social network. This group expects to

receive public recognition and personal attention from the nonprofit. Additionally,

socialites give because they believe generosity is part of their personalities and intrinsic

natures.

The altruists, 9% of the major donor segment, generally focus their charitable

giving on social causes (Prince & File, 1994). Altruists give because generosity feels

right and because helps them to grow personally. This group is usually not interested in

having an active role in the charity they support and prefers to remain anonymous;

however, altruists do expect attention, respect, and caring from the nonprofit.

Repayers represent 10.2% of the major donor market and are motivated to give

out of a sense of obligation or gratitude to an organization from which they have

personally benefited. This predominately male group tends to concentrate its

contributions on educational institutions and medical charities. Repayers want their

charities to focus on their constituents, not their donors; interestingly, they actually resent

special attention and public recognition from the organization.

The final profile group in Prince and File’s (1994) study is the dynast segment

which represents 8.3% of the major donor market. Dynasts give because they have been

trained to share their wealth from an early age and because giving is a family tradition.

This group expects nonprofits to stay true to their mission, and they are very sensitive

about tradition; however, they typically do not want to be involved in the charity.

The seven donor profiles developed by Prince and File (1994) provide a useful

tool for understanding donor motivations and segmenting potential prospects. Based on

this model, donors can be analyzed and contacted during cultivation using their own

social networks as well as motives. Organizations can generate and emphasize the

positive images to which the different segments respond and shape individual cultivation

strategies around this model. Overall, this model is a very important tool for managing

and cultivating major donors.

Research studies of donor giving patterns specific to higher education have often

produced mixed messages. However, several general giving patterns have been

identified. Pezzullo and Brittingham (1993) summarized some of these patterns in the

following text:

Further analysis of demographic data suggested that women are more generous

than men and that Protestants may give more than Catholics. More important to

higher education, estimates indicated that an extra year’s schooling adds 5 percent

to one’s charitable giving, and people who give $500 or more per year make

larger average gifts to higher education than to any other type of organization.

Wealthy respondents tend to give higher proportions of their total charitable gifts

to colleges and universities than do less wealthy respondents, whose giving tends

to favor religion . . . . Donors to private institutions also devote a higher

proportion to higher education. In addition, private institutions receive higher

proportions of large gifts; more than three-quarters of their gift income comes

from gifts of more than $5,000, compared to about two-thirds of gift income at

public institutions . . . . (p. 32)

While many donor groups must be considered in higher education, colleges and

universities are often most concerned about the donor motivations and participation

habits of the institution’s alumni. Pezzullo and Brittingham (1993) identified several

other findings specifically related to alumni giving.

Those who earned a bachelor’s degree give larger amounts than those who did

not. Alumni of religious colleges are most likely to give, followed by those of

independent colleges and public institutions. Loyalty to one’s alma mater is an

important factor, especially among those who attended independent colleges. (p.

32)

Pezzullo and Brittingham (1993) concluded that research based on alumni behavior as

students or simple demographic variables are both poor indicators of future giving.

However, emotional attachment to the institution and participation in alumni events are

very good predictors of alumni giving. Unfortunately, these variables are hard to

measure and are usually not available in alumni databases.

Donor Groups and Their Member’s Motivations in Higher Education

Identifying members of the key donor groups and their motivations are critical

tasks in fundraising for any charitable organization. For colleges and universities, the

key groups usually include: alumni, trustees, faculty and staff members, parents,

corporations, foundations, major donors, and others (Louden, 1993). Members of many

of these groups significantly overlap. For instance, an alumnus may also be a major

donor and represent a corporation or foundation as well. Certainly, each of these groups

has its own interests and motivations for giving; and predicting key motivation factors for

each group is critical to successful fundraising in higher education (Pezzullo &

Brittingham, 1993).

In higher-education fundraising, the most significant donor group is typically

alumni (Webb, 1993). Historically, alumni have been the key focus of much of the

fundraising efforts pursued by college and university personnel (Cutlip, 1965). In 2003,

alumni giving represented 28% of all contributions to higher education, and 45.6% of all

contributions to private liberal arts colleges (Council for Aid to Education, 2005).

Considering the previous discussion of motivations, these statistics make sense for many

reasons. First, alumni already have a strong connection to the institution: they are part of

a community of participation and hold a framework of consciousness that is consistent

with the institution. Alumni are also a known prospect base; direct requests are,

therefore, easier to make. In addition, alumni should have an altruistic interest as well as

personal self-interest in the continued success of the institution. Frank (1996)

acknowledged the importance of marketing “status” as a motivator; and alumni are often

very status-driven, particularly with their peers. All of these factors make alumni groups

a very important constituency for fundraising.

Trustees are also a critical donor group in higher education (Patton, 1993),

especially in private colleges. According to the Council for Aid to Education (2005),

trustee giving at private liberal arts colleges constituted 21% of all individual giving in

2000 and reflected an average gift size of $36,022. Trustees are the stewards of the

institution and, therefore, should be the group with the highest altruistic motives. They

are also the group that should have the highest commitment to the general values and

core mission of the institution, and they generally have a high status motivation among

their peer group. Typically, some consideration of discretionary resources and ability to

give are part of the selection criteria for membership on a board of trustees. The

constituency model (See Appendix K) described earlier illustrated the importance of the

board as a central group within the concentric framework (The Fund Raising School,

2000). Contributions by trustees set the example and tone for fundraising from other

donor groups; the existence of a low percentage of non-giving trustees usually indicates

major internal institutional difficulty well beyond the fundraising process (Patton, 1993;

Thompson, 1995). Undoubtedly, the trustees are critical to the overall fundraising

process in higher education.

Faculty and staff members can be a significant donor group at most institutions of

higher education. Similar to trustees, faculty and staff members usually have “bought in”

to the general direction and core mission of the college or university. Although their

resources may be small, high levels of participation by faculty and staff can send a

critical symbolic message to external donors. For this reason, many institutions focus on

faculty and staff campaigns to illustrate the significance of their cause (Cramer, 2002;

The Fund Raising School, 2000; McCown, 2000). Obviously, this strategy can backfire

if political conflicts affect faculty and staff contributions and involvement. However, in

general, no group is more committed to the mission of an institution of higher learning

than the faculty and staff members.

Parents are also becoming a critical group in higher education fundraising

(Kavanagh, 1993). Schaefer (1991) contended that parents of current and past students

are a steady and continually expanding source of potential donors. Lindemuth (1991)

stated that parents should be placed in leading roles for all advancement and fundraising

activities. Parents obviously have a high level of interest in the continued success of the

institution, and they also are not bound by history, as alumni often are, so they may have

a stronger interest in the current campus environment. In addition, parents are often at a

point in life where they have more discretionary income than younger alumni. For these

reasons, parents are a very significant donor group.

Corporations are rapidly becoming a major donor source for higher education

(Carberry, 2002; Withers, 1993). Unlike the previous groups, corporations have very

different motivations for giving. First, corporations are motivated primarily by self-

interest when they contribute. This self-interest may be in the form of public relations,

employee relations, or support for specific business interests. Generally, charitable

contributions by corporations are good public relations (Withers, 1993). However, they

can also be controversial, particularly when a corporation chooses to support one

institution over another. For this reason, many corporations have adopted a matching

fund approach for charitable contributions (McNay, 1992; Withers, 1993). Under this

approach, the corporation matches any qualified charitable contribution by an employee.

This practice is obviously very good from an employee-relations perspective. In many

other instances, corporations are motivated to support specific programs, research, or

projects related to their business interests and have increasingly become “venture

philanthropists,” requiring increased cultivation and measurement of results (Carberry,

2002). Finally, corporations are highly sensitive to changes in discretionary income. For

this reason, economic conditions of the business are critical to the acquisition of

corporate gifts.

Foundations are organizations formed specifically to advance particular causes,

mostly through charitable gifts (M. Smith, 1993). Foundations are certainly motivated by

altruistic goals; however, they also have their own altruistic missions and purposes to

fulfill. For this reason, the key motivational factor with foundations is finding a

congruent match between the foundation’s purpose and the institution’s mission.

Foundations are bombarded with requests every day and must, therefore, make critical

decisions about where best to invest their resources. Consequently, development officers

must perform sound research on available foundations, be very adept at proposal-writing,

thoroughly understand the request process of each foundation and have a well-defined

case statement. Foundations will continue to be a critical source of funds for higher

education institutions.

As noted before, major donors are a critical source of fundraising for higher

education institutions (Dunlap, 1993). From 1996 to 2004, private liberal arts colleges

reported that on average their three largest individual gifts represented 25% of all

individual gifts (Council for Aid to Education, 2005). Similar percentages were reported

in other segments of higher education as well. Naturally, major donors come from many

constituencies, including alumni and friends of the institutions. Often, major donors

contribute through planned-giving vehicles. The key issues with major donors are

cultivation and relationship building with the institution. Many times the cultivation

process for a major donor takes years before the institution receives a major gift. In

addition, recognition and control are issues that must be monitoring when managing

major donors, who often come with strings attached; consequently, balancing donor

desires with institutional needs becomes a challenge. The key motivation for major

donors is usually a connection to the cause (Panas, 1984). Discretionary resources, as

well as receiving a direct request, are also key factors (Dunlap, 1993). Timing of a direct

request should be well orchestrated and researched to increase success. In general,

managing major donors is a very complicated process requiring extreme care.

Finally, many others contribute to colleges and universities as friends of an

institution; and most organizations work to attract donors from the local community and

other communities of interest (Leslie & Ramey, 1988). Often, exposure to the college

and university and its activities creates a connection for many donors who do not have

any direct ties to the institution. Specific programs or services may begin the connection,

and with time friends of an institution evolve into donors. Institutionally, the key factors

for developing friends from outside the campus community are effective public relations

and good management of potential new donors by maintaining awareness of individuals

exposed to the institution through various activities. Personnel at every institution should

work to grow the number of institutional friends from within the general public.

Traditional Higher Education Approach to Fundraising

Traditionally, fundraising in higher education has focused on these four distinct

areas: The annual fund, capital and endowment campaigns, proposal writing, and planned

giving (Worth, 1993). In larger institutions, these four areas of focus are often structured

as separate departments; but in smaller institutions they may all be housed in the same

office. In either case, however, most college and university leaders see the fundraising

function as consisting of these four distinct areas, each with its own unique strategies and

activities.

The annual fund is the most fundamental area of fundraising for the majority of

colleges and universities (Louden, 1993). Annual-fund contributions support the

operational budget of a college or university and, therefore, are generally viewed as

consumable revenues in the annual budgeting process. Annual funds have always been

critical for private colleges because of the absence of state support (Cutlip, 1965).

However, in recent years, public institutions have also faced increasing pressures to

improve their annual-fund efforts as a means of offsetting declining government

appropriations (Drew, 1983).

The primary focus of annual-fund campaigns is on the alumni, trustees, faculty

and staff managers, friends, and citizens from the local community. Because of the

recurring nature of an annual drive, the critical success factors for the annual-fund

campaign appear to be broad participation, retention, and escalation of donors’

commitments (Louden, 1993). Certainly, the fact that operating budgets in higher

education are rapidly expanding has placed increased pressure on annual fund growth

(Thompson, 1995). Finally, one unique challenge of annual-fund fundraising is that the

case for giving is sometimes more difficult because the money is consumed by operations

and not placed in perpetuity as are many other contributed funds, such as endowments

(Rosso, 1999). Overall, for most colleges and universities, the annual fund is the most

critical area of the fundraising effort.

Capital and endowment campaigns are also an integral part of fundraising in

higher education (McGoldrick, 1993; J. Smith, 1993). According to the Council for Aid

to Education (2005), nearly $11 billion, or slightly over 44% of all funds raised for higher

education in 2004 were for capital campaigns. Capital and endowment campaigns occur

to support capital expenditures or to build a perpetual fund asset account that will earn

revenue to support ongoing activities. Some common examples are a capital campaign to

build a new library or an endowment campaign to establish a scholarship fund that will

exist in perpetuity. An advantage of a capital campaign is that donors are able to see the

ongoing results of their investment (Grace, 1997, Holliman & Holliman, 1997; J. Smith,

1993). Similarly, defining the case for capital and endowment campaigns is easier

because use of the funds is more tangible. In addition, larger donors have the potential to

leave a legacy for their commitment through naming rights or other types of recognition.

One difficulty with capital campaigns, however, is that they can dilute

contributions to the annual fund, which, in turn, can cause budgetary problems (Grace,

1997; J. Smith, 1993). The critical success factors for capital and endowment campaigns

appear to be managing the timing and communication issues, as well as identifying and

balancing the interests and demands of major donors. Although capital and endowment

campaigns do not occur all the time, they still manage to be a very significant part of the

overall fundraising process in higher education.

Proposal writing has also become a major area of fundraising in higher education

(Godfrey, 1993). Proposal writing is very different from the previously discussed types

of fundraising efforts because the process involves writing proposals for unique projects

that may be of special interest to a corporation, foundation, or government agency.

Proposal writing is certainly more technical than the previous areas and often requires

significant coordination across institutional departments. In many institutions, proposal

writing is still very much an individual effort from people who are champions of a

particular project. However, in recent years, many organizations have recognized the

need to coordinate proposal writing within the fundraising function to increase success

and to prevent duplication of requests (M. Smith, 1993). In addition, proposal-writing

has become a very specialized field in its own right, regardless of the technical content of

the request itself (Godfrey, 1993). Because of this technical factor, many institutions

have recognized the need to employ professional staff proposal writers. Clearly, proposal

writing is rapidly emerging as a major component of the overall fundraising efforts in

most institutions of higher education.

Planned giving is the last major area of fundraising in higher education to be

highlighted in this literature review (Sapp, 1993). Planned giving is a highly specialized

field of fundraising that essentially focuses on estate planning for individual donors.

Planned giving usually involves the use of trusts, wills, and gift annuities in the process

of estate planning (Jordan & Quynn, 2000). Obviously, this area requires highly

specialized knowledge of federal and state tax laws, a factor that has deterred many

institutions from increasing their involvement in this particular area of fundraising

(Blackmore & Foster, 1995). Given its highly personal and sensitive nature, planned

giving often involves dealing with a person’s complete financial picture, personal family

issues, and ultimately the donor’s death; and all of these issues are quite complex as well

as confidential (Blackmore & Foster, 1995; Sapp, 1993). In addition, planned giving is

an area with significant legal and ethical liabilities, which is the reason that competence

and professionalism are extremely critical (Jordan & Quynn, 2000). The advantage of

planned giving is that often the institution can provide valuable service to a donor and

assist him or her in implementing specific desires. In addition, wealthy donors have

become very sophisticated in their financial management practices, leaving institutions

which lack the professional expertise to accommodate these donors at a competitive

disadvantage (Roha, 2000). Certainly, for many individuals who have a high personal

commitment to an institution and its mission but do not have large amounts of

discretionary funds, planned giving may be their one opportunity to make a major

financial contribution to the institution. For this reason planned giving has significant

potential to assist many institutions in preparing for future resource needs. Although

technical in nature, planned giving is rapidly becoming a major focus of fundraising in

higher education.

Emerging Trends in Higher Education Fundraising

Many trends and theories about fundraising in higher education are emerging in

literature. While the following description is not intended to be comprehensive, the

narrative include numerous recommended practices and new trends discussed in literature

during the last few years.

The first and most fundamental change is a shift to a more comprehensive

approach to fundraising (Worth, 1993). Historically, most of the fundraising as well as

development planning and activities were accomplished outside of the day-to-day

institutional operations. Today, at many leading institutions, fundraising is an integral

part of every strategic plan and every activity in which an institution is engaged

(McCown, 2000). This strategy usually involves implementing a team approach to

fundraising. Williams (1996b) said, “When development directors promote fund raising

as a team effort in which everyone shares the struggles and triumphs, philanthropic

responses will exceed expectations” (p. 8). According to Willmer (1993), building a

comprehensive program of institutional advancement that involves the entire academic

community is one of the critical success factors for fundraising in higher education. In

recent years, most institutional leaders have come to view advancement activities as an

integral part of the overall operation of the college or university.

A very similar change has occurred in the role of the typical college president

(Patton, 1993). In the past, many college presidents came to office on the strength of

their academic accomplishments and credentials. However, in recent years, the job of

college president has become predominately a fundraising role (Hamlin, 1990).

McMillen (1991) stated that fundraising experience and talent are now the number one

criteria for selection of a college president; furthermore, she also contended that the

development track has become the fastest and most successful path to the presidency,

which is a dramatic shift from the historical roots of higher education.

Along with the changes in the direction of comprehensive planning and the

president as chief fundraiser has come a trend toward decentralization of fundraising

activities (Grunig, 1995; Worth, 1993). Many college officials have seen the

development office shift from a primary function of doing most of the fundraising work

to the role of facilitating and supporting divisional fundraising activities. In fact, most

universities now have development offices dispersed throughout the various academic

and extracurricular divisions. Some institutions have also moved to geographic

decentralization, utilizing development officers in various parts of the country as well as

abroad to market the institution in different regions of the world. Although

decentralization can lead to undesirable competition between divisions of an institution,

each division is ultimately allowed to serve its own constituency base more effectively.

While no current evidence exists that decentralization has allowed the production of more

gift income, this new organizational structure and strategy seem to be an emerging trend

within many higher education institutions.

Another emerging trend in higher education fundraising is an increased emphasis

on planned giving. Since 1980, bequests to higher education have increased by 583%;

and deferred gifts have increased by a factor of nearly 14 times; and many institutions are

now receiving a large percentage of their funds through planned giving (Council for Aid

to Education, 2005). Monaghan (1999) argued that most colleges and universities should

spend more effort on planned giving and less effort on the annual-funds campaigns.

Institutions that have engaged in marketing a planned-giving program for many years

now have a distinct competitive advantage over colleges and universities that are just

starting or that have a minimal involvement in planned giving (Sapp, 1993). As a large

amount of wealth prepares to change hands over the next 20 years, planned giving will

definitely increase in strategic importance in higher education fundraising (Roha, 2000).

Consortial fundraising has also become an emerging trend in higher education

fundraising. According to the Council for Aid to Education (2005), consortial

fundraising efforts raised $98.8 million, or 0.5%, of all higher education contributions in

2004. Peterson (1999) argued that, despite the initial difficulties of getting institutions to

cooperate, consortial fundraising is still an extremely effective and cost-efficient way to

approach certain markets, including foundations and corporations. Obviously, some

dangers still exist concerning competition issues among member institutions. However,

the recent success of many of these cooperative efforts has fueled an increase in the use

of consortial fundraising approaches.

The use of leveraged gifts is also an emerging trend in higher-education

fundraising. Executives at Emory University used leveraged gifts to increase unrestricted

individual giving by 49% (McNay, 1992). McNay (1992) argued that challenge or

leverage gifts add interest, incentive, involvement, and urgency to any development

program. Challenge gifts often come from foundations or corporations; however, even

individual major donors can be encouraged to increase the leveraging power of their gifts

by utilizing this approach. Undoubtedly, challenge or leverage gifts appear to be an

emerging trend in higher education fundraising.

Expert information systems that support donor and alumni research have

increasingly become useful tools in many successful higher education institutions (Dunn

& Mayer, 1993). Expert management information systems are used in fundraising for

tracking progress, statistical analysis, prospect research, decision support, and multi-year

projections. These types of systems are extremely valuable when managing multiple

campaigns and multiple databases. In addition, many of the more sophisticated systems

can now integrate Internet research into the process (Gressel, 2000; Siegal, 1993). Dunn

and Mayer (1993) contended that planning and managing fundraising with the aid of an

executive management information system provides a critical competitive advantage.

Melchoiori (1988) also believed that using statistical methods in alumni research to

project alumni growth, segment alumni markets, rank prospects, and profile donors as

well as non-donors, is important to the long-term success of fundraising activities.

Making the effective use of executive information systems and alumni research as critical

tools in higher education fundraising will clearly enhance opportunities for success.

Another new trend in higher-education fundraising is the development of parent

programs (Lindemuth, 1991). College and university personnel have always tried to raise

funds from parents; but in recent years many institutional leaders have greatly expanded

their commitment to this important group. Schaefer (1991) said that many institutions are

using parent programs to increase their annual-fund contributions, thereby, requiring the

compilation of an active database of current and past parents as well as involving them in

ongoing communication with the institution. Lindemuth (1991) contended that parents

can also be a potential source of volunteers as well as donations and suggested that

parents be placed in leading roles as ambassadors for the institution. As parent programs

continue to produce new financial resources, more institutions will likely expand

development efforts in this area.

Increased faculty involvement is also a rising trend in higher-education

fundraising. At Wheaton College in Massachusetts, faculty contracts were actually tied

to changes in financial resources; and faculty members were asked to take leading roles

in fundraising (Merck, 1998). While this approach may be a little extreme, many

institutional officials are proactively using faculty members in their fundraising efforts.

Faculty often represent the closest connection that many alumni have to an institution and

can be a very useful tool for fundraising; moreover, as fundraising efforts become more

comprehensive and decentralized, this trend will likely continue (Cramer, 2002; Evans,

1993).

Another promising practice in higher-education fundraising is an increased

emphasis on environmental scanning, particularly in the area of corporate restructuring

and market activity. Lawson (1999) said that market activities such as mergers, IPO’s,

and restructuring often provide windows of opportunity for donors to make tax-

forwarded major gifts. Being sensitive to market conditions can be an important part of a

proactive development program. In addition, corporate mergers, acquisitions, and profit

levels can have a dramatic effect positively or negatively on institutions closely linked to

specific corporations. Unfortunately, such a case existed between Chrysler and the

University of Michigan at Dearborn at the time of the Daimler-Benz and Chrysler

merger, leading to the loss of significant funding to the university (Pollack & Toward,

1999). Gibbs (1996) said that formal environmental scanning processes have become an

integral part of most development programs at leading higher-education institutions.

Obviously, an awareness of the environment in which an institution must exist is an

important success factor in higher-education fundraising.

Finally, Internet fundraising has become an up-and-coming trend for donor

research, mass communication, alumni tracking and communication, direct solicitation,

and secured collections (Gressel, 2000; Hunter, 2002; Lejoie, 2002; Mayer, 1999;

Sheridan, 2004; Vander Schee, 2009). Today, most colleges and university websites

include dedicated sections of their websites to fundraising activities including taking

donations and informing institutional supporters of planned-giving vehicles, as well as

options. While the use of the Internet in fundraising is still relatively new, the potential

benefits are unlimited; increases in online donations are creating a heightened emphasis

and interest in this emerging tool (Sheridan, 2004). Ultimately, only the passage of time

will reveal the extent to which the use of the Internet will change fundraising dynamics.

Research on Successful Fundraising in Higher Education

A review of the literature related to successful fundraising practices in higher

education revealed that very little comprehensive research has been conducted, and that

when literature does exist, the information is primarily anecdotal in nature. However, a

few exceptions to this rule do exist. Duronio and Loessin (1990) performed a broad

institutional research study, both quantitative and qualitative, to analyze the relationship

between institutional characteristics and fundraising success. In this study, which

involved over 500 colleges and universities and represented 10 different types of

institutions, the researchers found no correlational patterns between institutional

characteristics and fundraising results, a finding that held true within and across

institutional types.

The quantitative portion of the Duronio and Loessin (1990) study produced

voluminous descriptive data and some general findings. Prominent among the general

findings were the facts that wealth and prestige were related to fundraising success, with

the size of the institution being more of a factor for public institutions, and wealth more

important to private. Overall, neither the correlational nor the multiple regression

analysis produced any explanation for differences in fundraising success.

The follow-up qualitative study did produce a list of characteristics commonly

associated with effective fundraising, as displayed in Appendix L. Key findings in the

qualitative portion of the study focused on institutional commitment to fundraising, as

well as strong leadership and high participation levels from the president and from the

trustees. These findings are consistent with the results of other smaller studies (Janney,

1994; Jones, 1991; Lawrence, 1991; Thompson, 1995; Willmer, 1980; Wohbrecht, 1990).

Pickett (1977) conducted a research study of fundraising effectiveness based on

institutional potential. In this study, he looked at 184 institutions and attempted to

identify key variables that could be used to predict institutional fundraising potential.

Using a multiple-regression equation based on the following eight institutional

characteristics, a predictive formula was developed.

1. In-state enrollment

2. Cost of attendance

3. Graduate school attendance of alumni

4. Age of college

5. Value of endowment

6. Federal research and development support

7. Tenure of president

8. Headcount enrollment. (Pickett, 1977, p. 15)

This formula has also been used, both directly and with modification, in later fundraising

studies of church-related institutions (Dean, 1985; Grohar, 1989).

Overall, the research on successful fundraising and development programs in

higher education is very underdeveloped, and most of the literature continues to be based

on conventional wisdom from experienced practitioners in the field (Duronio & Loessin,

1990). However, the existing research has tended to support much of the conventional

wisdom, as evidenced in following comments by Loessin and Duronio (1993).

We do not mean to oversimplify fund-raising success, but it seems apparent that

leadership, sustained effort, and a genuine institutional commitment--all of which

are anything but simple--are the basics upon which successful fund-raising

programs are built . . . . Overall, the research has provided neither recipe-type

instructions nor distinctive, clearly defined models for fund-raising success. The

research does indicate that individual institutions vary tremendously in their

potential for fund-raising success and that individual institutional strength can be

used to good advantage in fund-raising. (pp. 48-49)

Many other writers and researchers agree that leadership which is both mission-

based and integrity driven is the key component of successful fundraising (Jones, 1991;

McCown, 2000; Rhodes, 1997; Thompson, 1995). Rhodes (1997) concurred with the

concept that successful fundraising in higher education is a function of institutional

leadership and mission when he said;

No fund-raising will succeed without the development of public trust in the

institution and public confidence in the integrity of the leaders and programs. The

cultivation of that trust and confidence takes time and effort and presumes the

value and coherence of the programs and the integrity of the people involved with

them. Fund-raising is not a quick fix; it demands careful and systematic

preparation and the development of a realistic program . . . . No campaign or

fund-raising appeal can rise higher than the level of activity it supports. The

importance of the mission involved, the quality and effectiveness of the activities

represented, the integrity and commitment of the individuals engaged and the

efficiency with which resources are employed will determine the extent to which

potential donors are willing to be partners in the enterprise. (pp. xviii-xix)

The shortage of comprehensive research in higher education fundraising is even

more apparent in the segment of church-related higher education. Most of the research

related to fundraising in church-related higher education is only descriptive in nature and

specifically lacks any anchoring in the context. In addition, most of the studies also seem

to lack a comprehensive scope. The one major exception to this trend is the pioneering

work of Wesley K. Willmer.

Willmer developed a theoretical model for institutional advancement in small

colleges by studying many church-related institutions during the early 1980’s: he

continued to conduct research in this area for many years (Willmer, 1996, 1993, 1990,

1987, 1985, 1981, 1980). Willmer’s (1980) original theoretical model consisted of the

following five elements: Institutional commitment, authority and institutional structure,

personnel resources, advancement activities and functions, and evaluation practices.

These five elements were also supported by 23 subcategories. (See Appendix M)

Willmer’s (1980) study was performed by surveying 141 of 197 member

institutions of an organization known as the Council for the Advancement of Small

Colleges (CASC). All of these colleges were small (fewer than 2,000 FTE students),

independent institutions; most were church-related. Willmer used survey data to

determine “what is,” turned to the literature to produce “what should be,” and then

proposed a grounded theory from the results of this comparison. The grounded theory he

produced resulted in the model described above.

Willmer’s work is by far the most comprehensive and has served as the basis for

most other research on fundraising and advancement in church-related colleges and

universities. The strengths of Willmer’s model include collection of data from many

institutions, the testing of his theory in subsequent studies, and a conceptual framework

that is practical but not rigid (Dean, 1985). The major weakness of Willmer’s study is

that his grounded theory basically comes from a review of the existing literature at the

time, which Willmer himself described as being “written by practitioners in the field, not

researchers” (p. 13). Furthermore, Willmer’s work is now dated; and he basically

ignored the denominational influences on the church-related institutions he studied

(Meadows, 1999). Despite these weaknesses, future researchers on fundraising in

private, church-related colleges and universities should consider the findings and context

of Willmer’s research.

McCown (2000) recently produced a comparative case study of six CCCU

institutions that provided some interesting findings. In the study he contrasted three high-

performing institutions with three low-performing colleges and classified the findings

into five categories. The first category was presidential leadership where he determined

that in high-performing institutions the president, along with his or her spouse, was

visible and active in the community, had an autocratic leadership style, and set

advancement as a priority. Under the category of governing board, advancement was also

identified as a priority and that trustee selection was heavily influenced by philanthropic

proclivity. In the third category, McCown (2000) determined that the chief development

officers at the high-performing institutions held high institutional status, exerted high

effort, and were focused more on donor relations than management activities. The

primary finding in the fourth category was that the high performing institutions placed

major importance on vision and strategic planning. In addition, the advancement

program itself was people-focused, used the capital campaign as the key strategy, and

utilized high involvement of donors as well as community members. Overall, McCown’s

(2000) study was similar in methodology to this study with the exception of his use of the

comparison of high to low-performing institutions, as well as a basic lack of investigation

of the institutional context, which is a central framework of this research.

In recent years, several other individuals have conducted research on fundraising

and advancement in private, church-related colleges. Many of these studies built on

Willmer’s work; however, most were too vague in scope. Some studies focused on

specific areas such as alumni giving or development officers’ roles (Drew, 1983; Wetta,

1990; Willard, 1984). Other studies emphasized fundraising in institutions affiliated with

particular denominations (Bartlett, 1989; Gustavsson, 2000; Myers, 1989; Thompson,

1983). Finally, in several studies researchers attempted to produce new or enhanced

theoretical models for fundraising in church-related institutions (Dean, 1985; Grohar,

1989; Jones 1991). Overall, with a few exceptions, these studies were judged inadequate

for further consideration in this study, given the vagueness in scope and the specificity of

the area being researched.

In summary, the research on development and fundraising in church-related

higher education is “sketchy” at best. Willmer’s (1980) study is considered to be the

best, but even this research seems dated and contextually incomplete. McCown (2000)

offered some interesting conclusions but also lacks any contextual anchoring. Some

researchers have documented important findings in narrowly focused areas, and others

have developed techniques or tools that could be of further use in future studies (Dean,

1985; Drew, 1983; Smith, 1993). Overall, few of the researchers explained or even

addressed the church-related context; in fact, most of the studies are church-related in

sample only (Bartlett, 1989; Meadows, 1999; Myers, 1989; Thompson, 1983). Issues of

conflict over secularization or denominational and religious culture seem to be ignored or

mentioned in passing. Basically, most of the studies lacked a comprehensiveness of topic

or an explanation of the unique context. Most of the research indicated the need for more

investigation in this segment of higher education and acknowledged that the topic was

largely uncharted (Dean, 1985; Jones, 1991; Lawrence, 1991; Meadows, 1999). Despite

obvious weaknesses, some of the prior research in this area could be helpful in the

development of future studies and can be used to assist in interpreting and framing

conceptual models or explanations in this study (Jones, 1991; Smith, 1993; Willmer,

1980).

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

In this chapter, the author will outline the research methodology used in this

study. The following topics will be addressed: Research design, measuring fundraising

success, sampling procedures, data-collection methods, analysis and interpretation,

thematic narrative, role of the researcher, human subjects review board, provisions for the

protection of anonymity and informed consent, and the participant institutions and

individuals.

Research Design

In this study the researcher used qualitative methods that blended grounded theory

with a comparative case-study approach. The investigative approach was inductive in

nature, enabling general conceptual themes to be drawn from specific examples revealed

by the study participants. The qualitative design was chosen because the nature of this

topic met Glesne’s (1999) description of “variables [that] are complex, interwoven, and

difficult to measure” (p. 6). The primary purpose of this research was ultimately a search

for understanding, which required interpretation within a specific context. This study

was larger than a component analysis and focused on finding patterns as well as pluralist

complexities. Finally, the researcher’s role was been one of personal involvement in

order to gain a better understanding of such a complex topic.

Measuring Fundraising Success

Although actual empirical research on fundraising in higher education is not very

comprehensive, successful fundraising programs in postsecondary education have been

examined by a few scholars (Duronio & Loessin, 1990). Brittingham and Pezzullo

(1990) classified previous studies of successful fundraising into the following three

categories:

1. Studies of perceived effectiveness

2. Studies of effectiveness in relationship to potential

3. Studies of effectiveness based on objective criteria

The literature and research in recent years has continued to reflect these three approaches

(Loessin & Duronio, 1993). Unfortunately, much of the problem with existing research

stems from the difficulty of measuring fundraising success. Loessin and Duronio (1993)

described this problem in the following manner.

We began our research on higher education in 1986 with the intention of creating

practical training materials and evaluation guidelines for fund-raising

practitioners. We intended to base this work on the example of institutions

successful at fund-raising, but like many of our fellow practitioners, we were

somewhat naïve about the complexities involved in measuring fund-raising

performance. We knew that good fortune, a successful tradition of fund-raising,

and institutional wealth and prestige all played a role in fund-raising success, but

we also knew that skill and hard work influenced fundraising results. (p. 39)

Most previous fundraising studies have used some measure of effectiveness or

efficiency to evaluate or identify fundraising success (Grunig, 1995). Effectiveness is

generally defined as how well one accomplishes his or her goals (e.g., total dollars

raised); while efficiency relates to the ratio of outputs to inputs (Loessin & Duronio,

1993). The following list is illustrative of some measures used in previous studies to

identify fundraising success in higher education research:

• Actual gift-income/Predicted gift income (Dean, 1985; Grohar, 1989;

Pickett, 1977).

• Gift-income as a percentage of total operating budget (Jones, 1991).

• Gift-income raised/Full-time students over a 3-year period (Lawrence,

1991).

• Gift-income raised/Actual student headcount (Janney, 1994).

• Average percentage increase in gift income over a 3-year period

(Meadows, 1999; Willard, 1984).

• Total dollars raised/Total development expenditures (Myers, 1989).

Due to the complexity of measuring success in fundraising, this researcher used a

set of multiple performance measures as a minimum threshold of success. No single

individual measure from this group of standards necessarily qualified an institution as

“outstanding in fundraising;” but, as a whole, the set of measures provided a broad base

of minimum criteria expected of a well-rounded, strong fundraising capacity. As

expected, these standards were greatly exceeded in certain areas at the sample

institutions. However, taken as a whole, success in meeting the minimum requirements

in all seven of these standards created a highly selective category of institutions. Data

used to compute these minimum standards was taken from the report titled 2000

Voluntary Support of Education published by the Council for Aid to Education (2001),

the standard for fundraising reporting in higher education. For this study, the seven

required minimum standards used in defining a successful fundraising institution were

the following.

• Minimum Total Support/Student Headcount--$3000: This measure

was selected to demonstrate the institutional fundraising capacity

relative to institutional size.

• Minimum Alumni Participation Rate –20%: This measure was chosen

to demonstrate the institutional ability to manage alumni relations.

• Minimum Total Support as a Percentage of Operating Budget--20%:

This measure was used to establish a minimum level of fundraising

capacity as a percentage of institutional fiscal commitments.

• Minimum Planned Giving as a Percentage of Total Support –10%:

This measure was selected to establish the institution’s minimal

competence and participation level in planned-giving efforts.

• Minimum Combined Corporate and Foundation Support as a

Percentage of Total Support--10%: This measure was chosen to

demonstrate a minimal base competence and participation in corporate

and foundation fundraising.

• Minimum of 12 Largest Gifts as a Percentage of Total Support--25%:

This measure was chosen to demonstrate the institutional ability to

cultivate and secure major donors.

• Minimum 3-Year Growth Rate in Total Support (1998-2000)-10%:

This measure was chosen to exhibit that the institution is continuing to

grow its resource base and fundraising capacity.

To establish this set of benchmarks, a panel of five experts was identified and

polled to determine what criteria would serve as a good minimum threshold for

identifying effective fundraising in church-related colleges and universities.

Determination of the measures of success and numerical standards for the base set of

benchmarks was made based on the recommendations and collaboration by the researcher

with this panel of experts. The panel consisted of professional individuals knowledgeable

in the field of fundraising for church-related colleges and universities (e.g., two

consultants, two professional practitioners, and one researcher from an education-related

institute). Input gathered from this panel, during a process facilitated by the researcher,

was used to create a set of minimum standards used in the definition of successful

fundraising in church-related colleges and universities. After the researcher drafted this

minimum set of standards, the panelists were each asked to review the appropriateness of

these measures. As a result of the review, the panelists unanimously agreed that the

standards developed represented a strong set of benchmarks to identify fundraising

success for any private, church-related college or university.

Sampling Procedures

The researcher utilized a purposeful-sampling strategy focused on the selection of

leading church-related institutions, a strategy consistent with a traditional comparative

case-study approach (Stake, 1995; Tellis, 1997). The sampling process employed a two-

step approach which began by first identifying leading institutions in the church-related

segment of higher education for in-depth study and then later selecting key people

associated with these leading institutions to serve as informants. The purposeful

sampling of leading institutions started by identifying institutions that fall under Benne’s

(2001) typology of church-related colleges and universities as either “orthodox” or

“critical-mass” institutions. These types of institutions were chosen because the focus of

the study is on institutions that have successfully developed a strong fundraising capacity

but have not secularized. The second step was to determine which institutions are

successful leading institutions in fundraising as previously defined by the minimum

benchmarks. After a pool of 17 institutions that met the first two requirements was

generated, a purposeful sampling of five leading institutions was then based on these

three additional criteria: Diversity of denominational affiliation, geographical diversity,

and accessibility.

After the purposeful sampling of the leading institutions was completed, the

following key people associated with each institution were then identified for

interviewing: Presidents, chief development officers, trustees, and other important

development officers. As planned, six to eight individuals were interviewed at each

institution. At this point, snowball sampling was also employed to identify other

knowledgeable individuals referred by the initial participants in the study. The snowball-

sampling process primarily included individuals still associated with the participant

institutions and others who had played key roles in fundraising leadership efforts in the

past but had since retired or moved to other institutions. In addition, the snowball-

sampling process produced four professional consultants and three other individuals

recommended as successful fundraisers in church-related institutions.

Data-Collection Methods

Overall, the data-collection process in this study was principally based on

interview data in the form of in-depth, semi-structured to unstructured interviews.

Document analysis and observations were also utilized to a limited degree as time and

access allowed.

Interviewing was the central strategy used to collect data during this study. In

general, interviews can occur in several different forms, such as face-to-face structured or

unstructured, telephone, focus groups, and others (Creswell, 1998; Glesne, 1999). The

form of interviews used in this study was mostly face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured

to unstructured, with follow-up telephone interviews for clarification occurring during the

analysis stage. Occasionally, due to scheduling difficulties, some participants were

interviewed by telephone. All initial interviews were conducted during the summer of

2002 with most follow-up interviews occurring during the 2002-2003 academic year. A

list of sample interview questions is displayed in Appendix N.

Document analysis is also a useful form of data collection in qualitative research.

In this study, many external communication documents were analyzed, including

promotional materials, institutional catalogs, web pages, vision statements, presidential

addresses, and other public communication sources. However, as expected, internal

document analysis proved to be a difficult task. Internal documents such as strategic

plans, donor records, memoranda, and correspondence about other sensitive topical areas

were, with a few exceptions, “off limits” to access. Regardless of these access

limitations, document analysis was used to support the interview data in this study and to

gain a greater understanding of the individual institutional history as well as context.

Finally, observation is another strategy for collecting qualitative data. Glesne

(1999) described observation in the following way.

In everyday life, you observe people, interactions, and events. Participant

observation in a research setting, however, differs in that the researcher carefully

observes, systematically experiences, and consciously records in detail the many

aspects of a situation. Moreover, a participant observer must carefully analyze his

or her observation for meaning . . . . Finally, a participant observer does all this

because it is instrumental to the research goals, which is to say that the observer is

present somewhere for particular reasons. (p. 46)

During the on-site interviewing process, the researcher conducted low-level

participant observations. Creswell (1998) added that participant observation ranges from

the researcher being a complete outsider to a complete insider. In this study, the

observation that occurred was clearly on the outsider end of this continuum. Events and

acts that would be the most beneficial to observe, such as internal strategy meetings and

donor solicitation opportunities, were not accessible to the researcher. Despite this

limitation, the on-site interviews provided a valuable opportunity to observe the setting

and context and were considered to be important data for this study.

Accessibility Issues

Access was a critical issue during the data-collection stage of this study. Glesne

(1999) described access in the following manner.

Access is a process. It refers to your acquisition of consent to go where you want,

observe what you want, talk to whomever you want, obtain and read whatever

documents you require, and do all of these for whatever period of time you need

to satisfy your research purposes. (p. 39)

The researcher assumed that some levels of institutional access would be limited

in confidential areas such as specific donor information and ongoing cultivation

processes. However, the researcher believed, that the design of this study, including the

use of many interview participants and assurances of both institutional and participant

anonymity lowered the access barriers to a workable level. Access was initially obtained

by approaching the college or university presidents of the potential sample institutions to

request both personal and institutional participation in the study. Every institution and

individual asked to participate in the study agreed to do so. Only two individuals

requested to view their interview transcript and all data went forth without any limitations

or revisions to the collected responses.

Achieving Rapport

Achieving rapport was essential to the gathering of information necessary to

understand this topic and produce a successful study (Fontana & Frey, 1998). The

researcher attempted to establish rapport with the participants by emphasizing a common

background and commitment to Christian higher education as well as a sincere desire to

understand this multifaceted issue. The respondents all seemed very open throughout the

interviewing process, and the researcher believes that a high level of rapport was

achieved with most respondents. In addition, many of the participants expressed a deep

interest in the topic of the study and seemed to use the process as a learning experience

for themselves as well as their institutions.

Analysis and Interpretation

Data analysis and interpretation are critical stages in any qualitative study.

Glesne (1999) described their significance in the following way:

Data analysis involves organizing what you have seen, heard, and read so that you

can make sense of what you have learned. Working with the data, you describe,

create explanations, pose hypotheses, develop theories, and link your story to

other stories. To do so, you must categorize, synthesize, search for patterns, and

interpret the data you have collected. (p. 130)

Because data collected in this study were primarily from interviews and supported

by observations as well as document analysis, a large quantity of information was

gathered for analysis in multiple forms. The general process incorporated the following

four steps that occur between data collection and the production of an account or

narrative.

1. Data Managing

2. Reading and Memorizing

3. Describing, Classifying, and Interpreting

4. Representing and Visualizing (Creswell, 1998, p. 143)

This researcher followed the general four-step pattern for analysis and

interpretation and also used a systematic grounded-theory approach. Under the

grounded-theory approach, data were analyzed by a series of procedures known as open,

axial, and selective coding (Creswell, 1998). Strauss and Corbin (1990) described this

process as follows:

Grounded theory provides a procedure for developing categories of information

(open coding), interconnectedness of the categories (axial coding), building a

story that connects the categories (selective coding), and ending with a discursive

set of theoretical propositions. Collection of additional data and analysis often

overlap in the open coding stages, until saturation of the categories has occurred.

(p. 150)

During the analysis stage, follow-up interviewing and coding continued until the

categories became “saturated.” Categories were deemed saturated when no new

information or understanding seemed to emerge from the coding process (Strauss &

Corbin, 1990). Pandit (1996) said that the coding process reaches closure when the

“marginal improvement becomes small” (p. 3). For instance, when the interviewing

process continued to produce a theme asserting that active participation by the president

during the cultivation process was important and further follow-up interviewing did not

reveal any new variations on that theme, then the category was considered “saturated.”

In addition, during the coding and analysis stage, the researcher reflected on differences

between expected and unexpected findings (Cole, 1994). As this process occurred, data

had to be grounded in existing literature. The final product or proposition can be

presented in differing ways, including a visual model or a set of hypotheses, which

appears in Chapter 8 of this study (Creswell, 1998).

Thematic Narrative

Overall, the thematic narrative is very analytic but also features some thick

description of institutional contexts. The thematic narrative of this study was written to

reflect all new understanding or meaning discovered through the coding process. The

narrative initially describes the interconnectivity of the different categories while also

establishing the relationship of this meaning to the existing literature (Strauss & Corbin,

1998, 1990). Creswell (1998) also contended that the rhetorical structure of the grounded

theory should contain both a description of the extent of the analysis process and the

resulting propositions, which is what the researcher attempted to do in this study. Finally,

the narrative has resulted in a visual model of the proposed theory, to illustrate

graphically the relationship between the complex variables (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

The resulting narrative that accompanies the visual theory is “conceptually dense” with

heavy emphasis on explaining the relationships between the categories (Strauss &

Corbin, 1998).

Since this study is also a comparative case study, additional emphasis was placed

on describing and comparing the different institutional contexts through the use of thick

description (Stake, 1995). Thick description focuses on establishing in-depth specific

cultural knowledge, as opposed to broad cultural knowledge, and is rooted in the

anthropological discipline (Geertz, 1973). The thick description used in this study has

focused on presenting the context of church-related colleges in a manner that

complements the structured-theory development through the coding processes.

Role of the Researcher

According to Creswell (1998), one rationale for a researcher to choose a

qualitative methodology is the desire “to be in an active learner role” (p. 18). For this

study, the role of the researcher was one of an interested, participative learner, referred to

by Reason (1998) as one of “action inquiry” or “action science” (p. 273). The researcher

attempted to gain an understanding of the practices, experiences, perceptions, and thought

processes of educational leaders in church-related institutions that create a successful

fundraising climate without compromising the core mission of the institution. The

researcher played a key role in the study both in the data-collection and data-analysis

stages. Ultimately, through the narrative-analysis process, the researcher takes the reader

through a journey of self-reflection concerning what was discovered in a theoretical form

about the phenomenon being studied. In this sense, the researcher has become an

instrument in the study through personal involvement in the process of inquiry (Glesne,

1999).

Human Subjects Review

During the early stages of the research design and prior to collecting any data, the

proposal for this study was reviewed and approved by the Human Subjects Review

Committee at Eastern Michigan University. The review process included an approval of

consent forms, sample interview questions, and data collection methods. Included in the

data collection procedures approved by the human subjects review committee was the

audio recording of interviews (with the participant’s consent) and verbatim transcription

of these audiotapes. Additional procedures required that all data, including audiotapes,

be kept in the researcher’s office under lock and key. All procedures included in the

human subjects review process were adhered to strictly throughout this study.

Provision for the Protection of Anonymity and Informed Consent

The sample institutions in this study will remain anonymous although the general

characteristics of each institution are discussed as part of the contextual analysis. The

presidents of the selected institutions were contacted and asked to participate in the study;

when they agreed to do so, each president received a letter to confirm institutional

participation in the study. In addition, each person interviewed during the study was

asked to sign a consent form. The consent form for both the institution and the individual

participants emphasized the voluntary nature of participation and noted that either the

institution or an individual could withdraw from the study at any time (Glesne, 1999).

Finally, the consent forms also provided assurance of anonymity for both the institutions

and the individual participants. A copy of both consent forms is displayed in Appendices

O and P.

The Participants

The five sample institutions have many characteristics in common. They are each

successful in fundraising as defined by the benchmarks in this study. National

reputations for academic excellence and strong commitments to a liberal arts curriculum

are also common features of the institutions in this sample. Each of the five schools

continue to have strong relationships with their founding denominations, and all clearly

meet the definition of “intentionally Christian” as used in this study. Finally, all five

institutions have long histories of existence, ranging in age from approximately 90 to 140

100

years old. The common characteristics possessed by the institutions in this study are a

source of strength for this purposeful sample.

The sample institutions in this study also feature many differences. They reflect

diversity in denominational affiliation, as each school represents a different Protestant

heritage. In addition, the sample also incorporates geographic diversity with individual

institutions coming from the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, and Midwest,

respectively. Finally, the selected colleges vary in enrollment size from approximately

1,500 to 4,000 students. The diversity found in this purposeful sample also adds power to

the study.

The individual participants in the study bring many years of experience in

fundraising in church-related colleges and universities. From the sample institutions in

this study, 36 individual interview participants were selected. In addition, “snowball”

sampling techniques also added another 12 individual interview participants not directly

affiliated with the five sample institutions, but all experts in fundraising in church-related

colleges and universities. The following is a numerical breakdown of the professional

roles of the individual participants in this study:

• College Presidents (8)

• Chief Development Officers/ Foundation Presidents (8)

• Other Development Officers (21)

• Trustees/Advancement Board Members (7)

• Professional Fundraising Consultants (4)

The individual participants provided a combined 117 hours of interview data and

brought a variety of perspectives to the study. In addition, several of the individual

101

participants were used for follow-up and interpretation questioning during the coding and

analysis process.

In summary, in this qualitative study, the researcher explored significant

leadership and strategic management themes related to fundraising practices among

successful church-related colleges and universities. A purposeful-sampling strategy was

used to select the participating institutions, and the primary data-collection method was

interviews supported by document analysis and observation. The sample participants

were a homogenous group in general, with significant diversity within the existing subset

of church-related higher education. The findings of this study were reported in a narrative

format that captured data within a context of understanding necessary for interpretation.

This research design was selected to produce a broad understanding of this topic, which

should be helpful to educational leaders within this under-researched segment of higher

education.

102

CHAPTER FIVE: CONTEXT DESCRIPTION AND GENERAL FINDINGS

It is the context that provides interpretive meaning. Good sociological

accounts point out the multiplicity of meanings and perspectives, and the

rationality of these perspectives, by setting forth the context(s) . . . .

Meaning is put together and packaged as it were, through nonverbal,

usually nonlinear, and invisible features of context, often

commonsensically referred to as tone, emotion, history, or experience.

Understanding context is important for intelligibility and comprehension.

The significance of context for interpretation and understanding, and the

inevitability of reflexivity for all sense making, offers . . . . an additional

resource for its authority (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998a, p. 307).

The institutions and individual participants in this study exist and operate within a

unique context. The context itself tells a story and frames the research findings. Gladwell

(2000) said that a subtle distinction in context can often be the factor that makes a

dramatic impact on environmental results. The context in this study is strikingly similar

across the sample institutions and contributes to the success of these colleges and

universities. In order to explain and describe the context, in this chapter the author will

first present a short individual description of each sample institution and paint a

composite view of the contextual as well as environmental factors, that define the sample

institutions. Then, some general findings related to the fundraising context will be

discussed. Finally, the author will discuss anticipated factors that were not found to be

true in this study.

Individual Institutional Context Description

The five sample institutions in this study each have a unique individual context

that contributes to the formation of the composite contextual framework. In order to

better understand the similarities and differences within the individual institutional

contexts, the following section includes a thumbnail sketch of the context of each of each

sample institution represented in this study.

103

College A

College A is a small Christian college with approximately 1,500 students located

in a very remote and rural region in the northeastern United States. The campus is a

beautiful one, sitting high on a hill overlooking the small village that hosts this

impressive college. The small town below the college is barely a dot on the map as its

“business district” contains only a post office, combination hardware and feed store, a

large church affiliated with the college’s supporting denomination, and a Subway

franchise located in a remodeled historic building. The population of this town without

the college is less than 1,000 residents; in fact, the college is much larger than the town

itself, both in population and in land mass. The nearest city is well over an hour’s drive

on small winding state highways. The surrounding countryside is remarkably attractive

but clearly “off the beaten path.” To find this college, a person would definitely have to

be looking for it.

Founded in the late 1800s by its host denomination, College A has a strong

spiritual emphasis both in mission and practice. In campus literature the institution is

described as “a college community of evangelical believers.” Ironically, the small size of

the supporting denomination means that only about 10% of the current students come

from the college’s denominational tradition, leaving several other denominational groups

to possess larger representation within the student body. However, a majority of the

faculty and administrators do represent the college’s supporting denominational heritage;

and this factor helps to maintain a fairly stable, yet ecumenically balanced, spiritual

environment. Chapel services are presented every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; and

104

students are expected to attend two-thirds of the programs per semester. The college

provides numerous opportunities for Christian worship as well as service project

involvement in which both students and faculty participate during the course of the

academic year, over the summer, and during other school breaks. As a College A

development officer said, “We have a very high percentage of students and faculty

involved in Christian service activities both during the academic year and also over the

summer in foreign-mission opportunities.” The Christian Life Office is a prominent

fixture and an important part of the college with responsibility for managing chapel

services as well as outreach opportunities, voluntary worship and devotional times, and

the general spiritual climate of the campus. College A is a member of the Council for

Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU).

College A is also nationally recognized for excellence is academics. U.S. News

and World Reports ranks College A as a tier 2 institution in the highly competitive

national liberal arts category. Moreover, College A has been repeatedly recognized by

the Templeton Foundation as a prestigious “College of Character” for its role in character

development through academics. A pre-med program with national name recognition is

just one of several academic programs that highlight the excellence of this college. The

student-to-faculty ratio of 14 to 1 and a faculty with strong academic credentials are

hallmarks of this college. In addition to the outstanding academic climate on campus,

College A is also known for its emphasis on study abroad programs with permanent

campuses in London, England, and Tanzania, East Africa, as well as ongoing travel-study

programs in China, Russia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

105

The students at College A are an impressive group with average ACT (American

College Test) and SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores of 26 and 1250, respectively; in

addition, approximately 30% of the student body comes from the top 10% of their high

school graduating classes. While the students represent over 40 different denominational

groups, most of them have come to College A from Protestant, evangelical backgrounds,

thus creating a fairly cohesive religious culture. The economic background of the student

body is fairly diverse for a college of its academic prestige level, as indicated by

financial-aid records. A large percentage of the student body participates in the college’s

intercollegiate athletic programs which compete in the National Association of

Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA). Over 50% of the student body is enrolled in the liberal

arts program, and nearly 40% of College A graduates go directly to graduate or

professional school following graduation. Tuition, room, and board at College A cost

approximately $25,000 per year.

The fundraising and development function at College A has a fairly simple

organizational structure reflective of the institutional size. The Chief Advancement

Officer oversees all fundraising activities and these personnel: five major gift

advancement officers, two annual fund coordinators, and a support staff that includes a

researcher, grant-writer, and two clerical staff members. All alumni relations, events

planning, marketing literature, and corporate fundraising activities are coordinated by the

advancement office. The regional advancement officers are responsible for major donor

relationship management and cultivation as well as directing alumni and donor events

within their geographic areas. The long-serving president of College A, who is known

for his strong academic background, is also an active and talented player in the

106

fundraising process; and his role in the cultivation and solicitation process is closely

managed by personnel in the advancement office.

University B

University B is located in the southeastern United States and was founded by a

large Protestant denomination in the years prior to the Civil War. The university is

located in a town of nearly 100,000 people that serves as the center of economic activity

for an otherwise rural region of the country. The campus features a remarkable blend of

classic architecture that has become the defining physical trait of the campus. Despite

being located in the middle of town near a commercial district, the university, with its

large open land space and impressive buildings, has truly a beautiful campus with a

distinctly coherent plan for future expansion. Undoubtedly, the campus reflects its

southern roots, both in appearance and culture.

The undergraduate student enrollment at University B is slightly over 2,500

students: and estimated tuition, room, and board costs are approximately $18,000 per

academic year. Most students live on-campus, and both the student body and the faculty

are predominately composed of individuals from the university’s denominational

heritage. The university has a very strong and homogenous religious culture. Students

have many opportunities to participate in religious activities, including chapel services,

student-led devotional groups, global outreach and local service opportunities. A large

number of the male faculty members and administrators also serve in part-time ministry

roles outside of the campus within their supporting denomination. Participation in

voluntary religious activities is very high and reflects the denominational heritage of the

university, in both form and style. University B is also a member of the CCCU.

107

The student body at University B has an average ACT score of 24 and includes 10

to 20 national merit scholars in any given year. The student-to-faculty ratio is 12 to 1 at

University B, and the faculty members are known for their research expertise as well as

for their involvement in teaching and service. University B is continually rated as one of

the tier 1 masters-comprehensive universities in the South by U.S. News and World

Reports. In addition to the traditional undergraduate curriculum which emphasizes the

liberal arts, the university’s faculty members have also developed strong professional

programs in business administration and engineering, as well as graduate programs in

business and education. The university is vitally attached to its regional community

although its growing national reputation has begun to draw students from all over the

country. However, the typical student at University B continues to come from a middle

class, southern family, with roots in the school’s denominational tradition.

The development and fundraising function at University B reflects an emphasis

on church relations which is undoubtedly the result of significant, continued, direct

financial support from the governing body of the supporting denomination. The chief

advancement officer is responsible for the separate departments of church relations,

alumni relations, annual fund, capital campaign and major donor relations, and the

marketing-public relations. The president, a nationally recognized scholar in his field, is

also intimately involved in all aspects of fundraising and advancement at University B.

In total, the advancement group includes the chief advancement officer, seven executive

officers, and six support staff personnel.

108

University C

University C is the largest sample institution in the study with slightly over 4,500

students. Located in the southwestern region of the United States, University C sits on

the edge of a town of approximately 50,000 residents that is well over two hour’s drive

from any large city. The university’s host community can be defined by both the

southwestern culture and the hot, dry climate. The campus scenery and landscape is

mostly flat with a remarkable green appearance that stands out like an oasis against the

dry, brown background terrain of the region. The physical facilities are outstanding with

an effective blend of well-kept older buildings from previous generations, and many new

state-of-the-art facilities. The campus of University C seems larger and more

comprehensive than the other sample institutions, reflecting both the larger student body

and a significantly larger endowment. Overall, the quality of the campus facilities at

University C serves to offset the more attractive geographic environments of the other

sample institutions.

Approximately 100 years old, University C was founded by a mid-sized

Protestant denomination with which the institution remains closely affiliated. Most of the

student body and all of the full-time faculty members represent the institution’s

denominational heritage, which creates, like University B, a very homogeneous religious

and spiritual culture. Mandatory chapel services are offered three times per week, and all

students must take some religion courses to complete their general education

requirements. In terms of housing, all full-time freshman and sophomore students are

required to live on-campus; and most upperclassmen continue to live in university

housing. Many opportunities exist to participate in student-led religious activities,

109

including devotional services and outreach opportunities in both local and global settings;

and student involvement in these activities is very high. University C is a member of the

CCCU.

Continually ranked in the tier 1 master’s-comprehensive category in the West by

U.S. News and World Reports, University C is quite an impressive academic institution

offering baccalaureate degrees in over 100 fields of study as well as 27 master’s degree

programs. The mission of University C is to “prepare students for Christian service and

leadership”; with over 70% of the student body involved in community-service activities

and with law and medical school acceptance rates twice the national average, this

institution is effectively achieving its mission. University C is also a perennial choice of

the Templeton Foundation for the “College of Character” designation. The student-to-

faculty ratio is 17 to 1, and the full-time faculty members are highly credentialed with

impressive records in both research and teaching.

Students at University C have an average ACT score of 24, and well over 20%

come from the top 10% of their high school graduating classes. Many University C

students participate in study-abroad programs in China, England, Mexico, or Uruguay.

Approximately 30% of University C students continue their education in graduate or

professional school following graduation. The average annual cost for tuition, room, and

board at University C is approximately $24,000.

University C has the largest and most sophisticated development and fundraising

function of all the sample institutions. In addition, University C has a substantially larger

endowment than any of the other sample institutions. The institution not only has a large

advancement office, but the university also has a private foundation, which operates

110

separately but in conjunction with the advancement office at University C. The

advancement office at University C is responsible for all fundraising activities, including

the annual fund, capital campaigns, alumni relations, marketing and public relations,

church relations, and corporate and foundation relations. The University C foundation is

responsible for providing a professional support structure to inform and advise donors

about charitable planned-giving options and to manage investment assets of both

individual donors and the university endowment. Although the development office and

the University C foundation operate independently, considerable overlap of donor

relationship management exists between the two offices, with the foundation offering

technical financial and legal expertise while the development office focuses on the actual

fundraising process. In addition to the chief development officer who manages the

fundraising function, the University C foundation is led by a president who is in charge of

that operation. These two leaders have a strong working relationship and clear

distinction of responsibilities. The president of University C is another strong and active

fundraiser who came up through the academic side of the institution. Between the

development office and the University C foundation, 14 professional executives and a

support staff of well over 20 employees are involved in fundraising activities.

College D

Located in a Midwestern tourist spot, College D is a very impressive institution

with approximately 3,000 students. The campus, founded in the Civil War era, is a

pleasing blend of beautiful older buildings and new state-of-the-art facilities. The

campus itself has a traditional “ivy-covered” feel that reflects its long history and is set in

the middle of a historic downtown area known for tourism. While all of the sample

111

institutions are closely connected to their host communities, College D is even more

connected to the small tourist community that serves as its home because they share a

mutually intertwined history and founding by the same group of immigrant settlers. This

long historical connection continues to exist today. As one respondent said, “It is

impossible to separate this college from this community.”

Founded by a small and declining denominational group with which the

institution continues to be affiliated, College D maintains a strong spiritual culture. The

spiritual environment at College D is somewhat different from the other sample

institutions in the fact that it is the least compulsory of any of the institutions in the study.

Chapel services are offered three days per week, but participation is voluntary. A

campus-wide Sunday evening service is also voluntary. Yet, despite the absence of

compulsory attendance requirements, participation in both the weekday chapel and

Sunday evening service is very high, drawing an average attendance of 80-90% of the

student body. The campus ministry office, large and highly visible with a professional

staff of eight, serves to manage the spiritual culture of the campus. Over 20 teams of

students are involved in service projects during the summer and spring breaks, and

weekly devotional groups are a popular student activity. The relatively small size of the

host denomination creates a very ecumenical religious environment that seems to work

well at College D.

A Phi Beta Kappa institution, College D is probably the most academically

prestigious educational institution in the study. Rated by U.S. News and World Reports

as a tier 2 national liberal arts institution, College D is best known for its nationally

acclaimed programs in science; honors received in this area include being chosen by the

112

National Science Foundation (NSF) as 1 of 10 colleges with exceptional programs in

natural and biological sciences, selection by Project Kaleidoscope as a model institution

in science and mathematics, and inclusion in Peterson’s Guide to top colleges in science.

In addition to the prestige of the science and mathematics programs, the college is also

known for excellence in other areas, including the fine arts and humanities. College D is

ranked among the top 5% of colleges in the nation for producing Ph.D. holders; and over

30% of the graduates go on to graduate or professional school immediately after

graduation (Franklin & Marshall College, 1998). Lauren Pope (2000) in his book titled

Colleges That Change Lives selected College D as one of 40 exceptional higher

education institutions in the country that “will raise trajectories, strengthen skills, double

talents, develop value systems, and impart confidence because they do a better job than

the Ivies or the universities” (p. 1). The student-to-faculty ratio is 13 to 1 at College D,

and many of the students as well as faculty members are involved in study-abroad

programs in 29 different countries.

The advancement office of College D is geographically structured with six

regional advancement officers reporting to the chief advancement officer. The regional

advancement officers are responsible for all fundraising activities within their geographic

areas of responsibilities, including major donor management, special events, and planned

giving. In addition to the regional advancement officers, four officials are responsible for

the following functional areas: the annual fund, corporate and foundation relations,

alumni relations, and a parent program. The advancement office also includes several

support staff members in the areas of donor research, clerical support and operations.

The president of College D is a dynamic fundraiser with significant experience in both

113

advancement and academics prior to assuming his current leadership role. College D has

won numerous awards from fundraising professional groups for successful advancement

operations.

College E

College E is a small institution with approximately 1,300 undergraduate and 300

graduate students located in the northwestern section of the United States. The campus is

positioned within a large metropolitan area in a mountainous region. The natural beauty

of the regional location is a major influence on the campus. As a development officer at

College E said, “When you look out your office window or dorm room and see the

mountains, you know that God is here and [that] you have been placed in a very special

environment by His hand.” He later added, “The natural beauty of the physical

surroundings is a real selling point for the college.” The campus facilities are in excellent

condition, and the grounds are immaculately kept. The campus environment provides an

unusual combination of metropolitan life and outdoor recreational opportunities.

Founded in the early 20th century by a large Protestant denomination, College E

has a strong commitment to its Christian mission and a strong spiritual culture. While

nearly 60% of the students come to College E from the supporting denomination, the

remaining members of the student body come from the regional area and from other

Protestant denominations. As one trustee from College E said, “We don’t think that we

get many students coming here who are not wanting the spiritual environment whether

they are (denominational name withheld) or not.” Mandatory chapel services occur three

days per week, and all students are required to take Christian faith courses as part of the

114

general education requirement. Most students are involved in community-service

activities, and many students participate in international summer-mission trips.

Academics are also a source of strength at College E, as the U.S. News and World

Reports continually places the institution in tier 1 of the master’s-comprehensive

category in the West. The tuition, room, and board cost at College E is $20,000 per

academic year; and most students are required to live in on-campus residence halls.

College E has a medical-school acceptance rate of 97%, and approximately 30% of

undergraduates go on to graduate or professional school following completion of the

baccalaureate degree. Study-abroad programs include options in Europe, Asia, Mexico,

Africa, and the Middle East; and participation in these programs is high. The college

offers 40 different bachelors’ degree with chemistry, biological sciences, religious

studies, business and education being the most prominent programs on campus. The

institution also offers graduate programs in business, education, and ministry.

The fundraising function at College E is fairly simple in structure. The chief

development officer is also the executive director of the college foundation. Similar in

purpose to the foundation at University C, the foundation consists of a large board of

outside professionals commissioned with the responsibility to advance planned giving, to

foster foundation relations, and to manage the investment of the college’s endowment.

Unlike University C, the foundation at College E focuses more on leveraging and

coordinating outside volunteer professional and technical assistance rather than on

providing those talents on an in-house basis. The actual management of fundraising

activities such as the annual fund, alumni relations, capital campaign, and public relations

all occur through the development office which, in addition to the chief development

115

officer, consists of two major gifts officers and three administrative support specialists.

The president of College E is an experienced fundraiser and is utilized significantly in the

cultivation as well as solicitation process.

Composite Context Description

The sample institutions in this study share many similarities in context. Although

the institutions exist in very diverse geographic settings and each represents distinctively

different denominational heritages, a very strong sense of commonality exists across the

sample. In the following section the author will provide a composite contextual

description of the sample institutions in this study.

Pervasively Christian Environment

“I think the first thing you have to understand about College D is that we are a

Christ-centered institution . . . that has always been the hallmark of this institution across

the generations,” one respondent said. Another participant said,

This is a place where everyone from the president to the groundskeepers

and the new freshmen in the dorms understand that we are Christian in

everything we do . . . . Not everyone will agree with everything we do or

the degree to which we do it . . . but everyone knows who we are and why

we are . . . and that is to be a distinctively Christian University.

The most obvious, yet critical, defining trait of the sample institutions in this

study is that they are pervasively Christian. This statement is not institutional

propaganda or marketing but a fact. A random stroll across any of these campuses

produces illustrations of students praying, meditating, or reading their Bibles under oak

trees. A quick glance into a student’s book bag will find a Bible and/or devotional

reading book mixed in with a chemistry or finance textbook. Student conversations are

laced with discussions of summer mission trips and “finding God’s will” for their lives.

116

Notably, profanity is largely absent. While profanity could probably be detected on these

campuses, its use would stand out in sharp contrast to the surrounding environment. At

these are colleges and universities, students regularly attend chapel services (sometimes

daily, but in most cases less frequently) and are required to take some Bible courses as

part of their general-education curriculum. However, despite the minimal levels of

compulsory religious participation, most members of these communities are compelled

only by their devotion to God.

The administrators, faculty, and staff of these educational institutions also reflect

the pervasiveness of the Christian culture on these campuses. Staff meetings typically

begin with prayers, and expressions of faith are found everywhere. Most individual

faculty members’ web pages not only describe research interests, but also communicate

testimonies of faith and Divine callings to teach. When describing key institutional

players (administrators, faculty or staff), the respondents in this study usually referred to

an individual’s Christian character traits long before they discussed professional skill or

accomplishment; and the participants’ vocabulary was loaded with terms and phrases that

have special meanings within a Christian context. Undoubtedly, the leaders at all levels

of these institutions are devoutly Christian.

The pervasively Christian nature of these institutions is not only reflected in the

people but also through other visible symbols. Many buildings have Biblical scriptures

engraved in the stone or marble, while office plaques and signs often convey devotional

thoughts or scriptures as well. The cross, the most recognizable symbol of Christianity,

can be found on signs as well as buildings and even carved into trees. Institutional

literature, web sites, and all other sources of formal communication clearly convey that

117

these institutions are Christian both in composition and in practice. The pervasively

Christian nature of these institutions cannot be missed by even a casual observer, but for

an in-depth researcher the inherently Christian focus is the most obvious defining

characteristic of this institutional group.

Sense of History

Another defining characteristic of these institutions is that they possess a strong

sense of history. The five sample institutions have a combined 483 years of operational

experience. On many of these campuses, numerous well-kept old buildings and large

magnificent trees exist that serve as visible reminders of the institutional history and also

convey a sense of permanence. The campuses also display monuments honoring alumni

from previous generations who have embodied the historical mission of each institution.

Missionaries killed serving in China, an army chaplain who drowned while helping the

wounded on D-Day, and numerous doctors as well as businessmen who gave back to

their communities through lives of service are just a few examples of the types of people

acknowledged in the historical legacies of these institutions.

The participants in this study deeply understand this legacy and sense of history.

As one college president said, “We know that we drink from wells we didn’t dig.” He

added, “There is a sense everyday that we have been entrusted with the temporary

stewardship of an institution that is bigger than any individual and will exist long after

any individual . . . . and that keeps you both motivated and humble.” Another respondent

said, “You know that regardless of whether you have been here a year or forty years, as

some here have, that you represent a small slice of College A . . . that you are only

passing through.”

118

This sense of history is not lost on the students either. Many of these institutional

leaders boast of high levels of multi-generational alumni, and the current students are

reminded of, and attracted to, the institutional legacy through the campus symbols as well

as literature and through previous generations of alumni. According to one trustee, “Our

internal surveys tell us that many students choose University A because their uncle went

here in 1960-something, or Pastor so-an-so went here and they want to follow in their

footsteps . . . to emulate their legacy.” Another respondent replied, “We have 6th and 7th

graders that are waiting to come here because they want to be part of the tradition of this

place . . . and they know that they will be a part of the experience of College A.” The

collective histories of these institutions are strong defining characteristics of this study

sample.

Seriousness about Academics and the Life of the Mind

“Can Christian faith sustain the life of the mind?” To many academics,

this question would seem absurd. In their judgment religion is

fundamentally dogmatic while the life of the mind requires openness,

creativity, and imagination. This stereotypical assumption regarding the

nature of religion in general and Christianity in particular has contributed

significantly to the divorce between faith and learning on countless

campuses across the United States. (Hughes, 2001, p. 1)

Certainly, all institutions of higher education claim to be serious about academics,

and most church-related colleges claim to be serious about Christian faith. However,

some have suggested that it is difficult to accomplish both objectives simultaneously

(Snell, 1997). The institutions in this study are not only pervasively Christian, but they

are extremely serious about academics as well as the life of the mind. Each of these

institutions continues to receive prominent recognition from U.S. News and World

Reports, Time, and many other outside sources. This recognition does not surprise the

119

participants because they know their institutions are very strong academically. As one

president stated,

We work very hard at it . . . . I think people appreciate and expect to see a

high quality of teaching and scholarship . . . . We like being able to show

that we are engaged in serious work. Our faculty are rigorous scholars and

exceptional teachers. We are not a Bible college. We are not a fly-by-

night school. We don’t call ourselves a university when what we are

really doing is church canvassing. I think it is very important that people

understand we are serious about education but within a Christian

worldview.

The chosen tool used by leaders at these institutions to make an

environment of academic excellence is a commitment to liberal arts and “whole-

person” education. One respondent described the role of liberal arts in Christian

education in the following way:

We believe that the study of the liberal arts moves students toward

intellectual maturity, moral integrity, and physical vitality while anchoring

an appreciation of truth as expressed in culture, art, the natural and

physical universe, and the human spirit . . . . An understanding of these

truths as revealed by God in everyday life produces a better citizen,

prepared and informed to be a life-long learner and contributor to this

world . . . . if we educate someone with specialized knowledge in one field

but miss this component, we have not only failed them academically but

spiritually also, because the liberal arts are essential to understanding the

created world.

Several other participants added that “whole-person” education was also

part of the liberal arts model of integrating faith and learning as well as the

ultimate responsibility of Christian education. One respondent expressed this

concept in the following manner.

We view each student as a person, not a component part. Whether it is in

the classroom, on campus, on in an extra-curricular activity, we know we

are contributing to the complete development of that person.

120

A pervasive belief exists among the educators at these institutions that Christian

education through the use of liberal arts curriculum assists in “whole person”

development. As one person said,

We want to educate the whole person, intellectually, physically,

spiritually, and emotionally in such a way as it is obvious that we have

prepared them to critically think and be leaders in a complex and

continually changing world . . . . We feel this is best accomplished through

a liberal arts approach that asks and re-asks the timeless questions of

humanity.

Despite their relatively small size, these colleges and universities have

strong academic programs, and their graduates receive national attention. This

type of recognition is very important to these institutions. As one respondent

said,

We like to hear that Harvard Medical School reserves so many spots for

College A grads . . . . That reaffirms our commitment to quality and

impresses people that we are not just a Christian school with Christian

values, but we’re always striving to be first-class in what we do. We will

send our graduates out prepared for whatever vocation they are involved

in.

Personnel at the sample institutions are very careful to ensure that their

strong Christian missions do not undermine their academic quality. As one

president said, “We should never substitute piety for competence.” Another

respondent said,

Being distinctively Christian is no excuse for academic inferiority . . . . In

fact, being truly Christian demands that we be nothing less than the best

scholars and teachers that we can be.

Academic excellence is a defining trademark of all of the institutions in this study,

and institutional leaders as well as faculty and staff members are quite aware of

the importance of maintaining this distinctive advantage.

121

Residential and Community Feeling

The colleges and universities in this study all have a strong residential

environment. In other words, people physically live in a state of community.

These institutions are not commuter schools; instead, these are institutions where

most students live on-campus in residence halls, and most faculty members as

well as administration live very close to campus. As one walks through these

campuses, a sense of isolation from the outside world exists along with an almost

overwhelming sense of inclusion within an internal community, almost a feeling

of sanctuary. Students and faculty passing each other on the sidewalks know each

other by name and often respond in genuine conversation. The cafeterias and

student centers are not just places to eat and relax, but rather they are also places

to exchange information, bond, and build community. Outsiders quickly realize

that they have entered into a community when they visit these campuses.

Although they are not closed communities, neither are they completely

open. This type of community is extremely friendly to visitors, yet initially

guarded. “We like to get to know people. Who they are and what they stand for

is as important to us as what they can do for us,” one respondent said. Another

participant said, “We have a set of shared community values . . . . and we are

very open to constructive criticism or advice, but not from people who don’t share

our community values.”

An understanding has been developed among its members that this

community exists for a purpose and within a set of norms or parameters. One

result of this fact is that existing anonymously in this community would be very

122

difficult. As one respondent said, “We know our students. We watch them grow

up and develop while they live here.” One college president described the

situation it in these terms: “Our students and faculty live and exist here in a

community with a full understanding of our mission . . . . That doesn’t mean that

we are sectarian, parochial or separatist . . . . In fact, we exist to be engaged in our

culture from a Christian worldview.” The sense of residential community is a key

factor in defining the experience of attending these institutions.

General Themes

As a result of this study, several general background themes or findings

were identified regarding the conditions and challenges facing church-related

colleges and universities at the beginning of the 21st century. In this section the

author will discuss three of the major backdrop themes which serve as contextual

frames for the following chapters on strategy and leadership behaviors.

The Low Endowment-High Tuition Trap

As previously described, the institutions in this study were selected

because they are successful in fundraising and have avoided secularization

processes that have plagued other similar organizations. However, despite the

success achieved by these colleges and universities, the leaders of these

institutions feel major fiscal pressure due to a lack of endowment resources and

the rising operational costs being experienced across all forms of higher

education. The lack of a strong base of endowment resources traditionally found

at elite private colleges is a major source of concern for these college presidents

as one summarized in the following comment:

123

We are an old institution, but we are very young in terms of raising

endowment. I think we have 20 years now working towards an

endowment and have grown that from $21 million to $47 million over the

past seven years . . . . If we have a little bit of success we should reach

$100 million by 2010, and I think at our size if you are not at $100 million

by that time you won’t make it. The schools that aren’t there by 2010

won’t be able to sustain [themselves] because the rising costs will price

them out of the market.

Another college president described the endowment challenge in these terms:

Endowment is everything in this business; and like most Christian schools

we are behind the curve. We have been working so hard just to grow the

annual fund and to make the capital expansions we need for facilities and

program growth that we have neglected to focus on endowment . . .

Actually we haven’t neglected it; we just had to prioritize differently . . . .

But I see the same process going on everywhere within the CCCU schools

and other Christian schools--There is a push to get it done for operating

funds and capital campaigns but little being done to address endowment;

and I don’t think many of these schools, especially the ones that have been

living off enrollment headcount growth and adult education markets, have

much of a chance of surviving the next 20 years living hand-to-mouth.

A third president added these comments concerning the need for endowment:

Yes, in the Christian higher education world most institutions are tuition-

driven. Our desire to grow endowment is to minimize that as much as

possible by building other sources of revenue to take the pressure off the

tuition. In fact, I have a sign in my office that says, “In the future there

will be two types of institutions; former and endowed.” I think that is

largely true. On the other hand, I don’t like to say that for sure, but I just

don’t know whether the smaller institutions that don’t have sufficient

endowments can survive.

As operational costs rise, pressure increases to meet the operating budget

in the only two revenue markets in which these institutions work: Private

donations and student tuition. Because the institutions in this study are

academically elite, they could alleviate some of their fiscal pressure by increasing

tuition costs through a differentiation strategy focused on academic prestige.

However, this strategy also has the potential to alienate the traditional core

124

constituents of the host denomination and undermine the institutional Christian

mission, both of which are believed by the study’s participants to be slippery

slopes toward secularization. In short, the low endowment levels at these

institutions have created a potential trap between choosing endowment growth to

maintain accessibility for students attracted to the traditional mission, or tuition

price growth focused on gaining entrance into a new academic prestige market

that is based on academic quality. One of the presidents described the complexity

of this dilemma:

We have to have a stronger endowment to hold tuition prices down. We

have to. But that’s a real hard thing and we have talked about it a lot.

What happens if we move our tuition up? I think, given where we are

academically now, we can attract those kinds of students; but they are not

our primary constituency. If we don’t raise tuition, if we stay here, we are

just perpetuating the fact that we are going to have kids from low-to-

middle income families who can get their kids through school but long-

term can’t help us with our development funds . . . . But if you continue to

raise academic standards and tuition prices, then you have kids from

wealthier families which can help you financially to move up another level

which perhaps makes you more elitist and farther away from your core

constituency . . . . It’s a really tough call. Right now we are not ready to

make it. Right now we going to stay on the trajectory that who we are,

who we have been, is our role in higher education . . . but it means we will

never have the guaranteed wealthier constituency that would help us

financially succeed, and we will always be tuition dependent which limits

our ability to pursue all of our goals.

Another president described the difficulty in making a tuition jump and

maintaining a denominational connection:

When you look at those distinctively Christian schools that have made the

elite private school tuition jump, you will note that none of them are

denominational. Wheaton, Taylor, etc., they are all independent . . . . We

want to push our academic success as far as we can without pricing our

denominational kids out of the market. I go out and preach in our

churches about 40 Sundays a year. I can’t go out there and preach and

have the opportunity to meet with parents and prospective students and tell

them what a great school this is, thank them for the fact that the

125

(denominational name withheld) sends us $2 million dollars a year, and

then say “sorry you can’t come here because it costs too much for your

child to come.”

A third president explained how endowment levels dictate the choice of

tuition strategies and perceptions of quality at these church-related institutions:

Endowment affects your strategy of tuition pricing because there are

different philosophies of tuition. One is that you charge low or virtually

give it away compared to the higher cost institutions. The problem with

that model is that you are communicating to the consumer that it’s not

worth the money. So the philosophy of most selective private schools is to

price on the high end and then turn around and discount it back to the

students in the form of big scholarships. We do that too; we just don’t do it

as much or as blatantly as other institutions do because we don’t have

enough endowment to totally pursue that strategy.

Thompson (1995) found that even among the successful Christian

institutions participating in his study low endowment was a continued threat to

sustained success. The institutions in this study confirm the endowment threat,

but less in terms of survival and more in terms of protecting the mission and

identity. This general theme serves as an underlying contextual challenge for

leaders at these institutions as they continue to work on strengthening fundraising

capacity. As one development officer described, “When you have a low

endowment, the pressure is always on to raise money now. It is like you are

working without a net.” Unfortunately, despite the success of these institutions in

fundraising, these educational leaders all understand that fiscal security could fall

apart suddenly without a stronger endowment.

Threat of Secularization

The educational leaders of the institutions in this study are also well aware

of the potential dangers of secularization. Secularization theorists have often

126

suggested that most Christian colleges and universities are unaware of the process

and usually fail to see the threat (Benne, 2001; Burtchaell, 1998; Marsden, 1994).

For the institutions in this study that is not the case. In fact, the fear of

secularization is a conscious concern that the affects leadership behavior and

fundraising strategy for each of the sample institutions. As one president

described,

Of course, historically, the secularization process at most schools was

financial. It was based on resource dependency and that is a slippery slope

that we don’t want to tread . . . . I would like to think that we are not

susceptible to those types of temptations, but I realize that as a gradual

process every institution is susceptible to the secularization trap, especially

when you pursue academic excellence.

One trustee added similar thoughts about secularization and funding sources:

We are aggressive about raising money for our mission, but we also

understand that we must avoid the historical trap that so many Christian

schools have fallen into . . . . We don’t want to look back 30 or 40 years

and say, “What happened back then? How did we get off track?” I think

history has left a pretty clear warning that where your funding comes from

can lead you into a path of secularization and that all decisions must be

considered in light of that danger; but certainly fundraising efforts must

be carefully scrutinized.

Clearly, the leaders of these institutions are aware and extremely concerned about

decisions regarding sources of funds that could facilitate any secularization

processes at their institutions. This heightened consciousness serves as a

collective mindset and institutional value system parameter that shapes the

fundraising processes at these colleges and universities.

Tensions between Campus Spiritual Culture and Denominational Heritage

The spiritual culture at each of these institutions is strong and, as

previously described, pervasively Christian. However, the campus spiritual

127

culture is not always in line with the culture desired by denominational leaders

outside of these institutions. In fact, at each of these institutions there is often

considerable tension between the denominational heritage and the campus

spiritual culture, another important factor in raising financial support. As one

college president described, the tension over spiritual issues is prevalent in these

institutions.

Every denomination is in flux today. We are living in a post-

denominational era, and that theme is most reflected on our Christian

college campuses. Not just us, but every denomination is experiencing

this phenomenon in the youth culture. These kids, even kids from our

own denomination, are interested in being Christian, in being genuinely

spiritual; but they are not terribly concerned with denominational

affiliation or status as previous generations were. Traditions of the

denomination are not a priority for our kids; and, unfortunately many of

our pastors don’t get that even though it is happening in their own local

churches. They somehow think we can control it or stop it on our

campuses when they can’t control it in their own local situations. So then

when they look for someone to blame for this issue, we become an easy

target; and that can affect our donations. We have to monitor those

situations closely.

The effect of denominational tensions is felt on day-to-day fundraising activities

as described by a development officer:

We have had to answer some tough questions for our donors, I think,

because in recent years, in the last 10 years, we have had a movement in

our chapel program that was so moving that a couple of thousand students

or more would attend and participate and support and rally behind a rather

more contemporary evangelistic kind of service and pastor. For all the

good that was doing for College D and all of those students, it also caused

some alumni to say, “Wait, wait. Is that my way of exercising my faith? Is

that the kind of Christian I am? That’s not the kind of Christian or at least

the expression of Christianity that was in place at College D when I was

student, so what is going on?”. . . . That has been an interesting dynamic

for fundraising at College D because we have had to hire spokespeople for

the college who are capable of explaining the changing Christian

dimension of the school.

128

Even with some tensions existing between the host denominations and the

campus communities, a sincere appreciation still abounds for the host

denominations by the institutional leadership. In fact, one prevailing theme in this

study is that these educational leaders would like to have a stronger relationship

and even more involvement with members of their host denominations.

I would say that College D is more desirous of maintaining a vibrant

connection than the church is. That is a confession that I don’t like to

make. I think that there is more at stake for the church than there is for the

college in maintaining it. I think College D can survive without

(denominational name withheld), but I don’t think the church can survive

without College D playing a central role in its future. I only wish the

denomination would be more engaged with the college.

Another respondent described this desired relationship in these terms:

We want their involvement. We want them to say “This is our college”.

We value that relationship, and we are sensitive to it. If we don’t produce

the next generation of leaders for (denominational name withheld), then

who will? I don’t think the church fully appreciates what we do although

we have tried and will continue to carry our side of the relationship. But

we need some reciprocation on their part, and over the last 10 to 20 years

that just hasn’t been the case.

In summary, personnel at the institutions in this study take seriously their

responsibilities to their host denominations and desire a stronger relationship than

they currently have with them. Although the spiritual culture does not always

fully mesh with the traditions of their supporting denominations, institutional

leaders are sensitive to the tension that often arises and realize that dealing with

these pressures is a major factor in the fundraising process in terms of donor

relations.

129

“Dogs that Did Not Bark”

In his popular best-selling book titled Good to Great: Why Some Companies

Make the Leap . . . and Others Don’t, Jim Collins (2001a) referenced a classic Sherlock

Holmes story to describe what he called “dogs that did not bark.” These “dogs” were

phenomena and factors that his research team had expected or at least potentially

expected to find in their study but did not, and therefore, by their absence, serve as

general findings. In this section, several anticipated factors identified in the fundraising

literature as being of potential importance that were not found in this study will be

outlined and briefly discussed.

Organizational Structure Issues

Considerable discussion has occurred in the literature about the need for an

effective, efficient organizational structure for the fundraising and advancement function

in a higher education institution; and several potential models have been recommended

(Evans, 1993). The researcher in this study closely analyzed the organizational structures

of the various advancement offices in the sample institutions with the expectation that

organizational structure themes might emerge.

In fact, the organizational structures for fundraising in the sample institutions, as

described earlier in the individual institutional profiles, were quite diverse, and really did

not demonstrate any consistent pattern or emergent theme. Some institutions utilized

simple structures, and some were complex. Some institutions organized geographically

and some organized around functional expertise or market segmentation. Decentralization

was present at some institutions while others operated on a more centralized model.

Modern organizational structure theorists have suggested that organizations should

130

choose a structure that is most appropriate to their external environment, strategy,

personnel, and the nature of the task (Daft, 2008; Robbins, 2005); and this appears to be

what the sample institutions have done.

Trustee Involvement

As discussed in earlier chapters, trustee leadership and involvement are believed

to be a critical success factors for positive fundraising performance in higher education

(McCown, 2000; Patton, 1993; Thompson, 1995). While the trustees in this study are

involved in fundraising both as donors and as participants in the cultivation process, their

involvement, with a few exceptions, was limited, contrary to the researcher’s

expectations. Institutional leaders are working hard to increase the level of trustee

involvement. While each institution has a few stellar trustee performers in this area,

institutional personnel realize that they have not yet fully utilized this critical resource

and are often working against a historical precedent that does not favor active board

involvement. As one president commented,

We have to work at educating our board about those expectations. About

twenty percent of our board is made up of pastors which helps in church

relations but is sometimes a detriment to fundraising . . . . I think you put

together a board like you would put together a football team. You don’t

want 11 left guards. You need all the different positions. We need people

who can help with academics, and governance and administration issues;

but we also need people who can help with the development process…not

necessarily by giving us money, although that is important, but more

through the networking process . . . . We are starting to ask of potential

board candidates, “Are you willing to give of your wealth, give of your

wisdom, give of your time, and share your network with us?” Those are

four important things, and we have never really asked that before.

Another respondent added the following comment:

Trustees have the potential to be critically important and should be; ours

are not there yet in terms of fundraising participation. With our trustees I

think they personally participate as much as one could expect, some

131

sacrificially. But we still don’t have them engaged in the process; and

although we are starting to emphasize that more, I think it will take a lot of

education and a cultural change on the board over time.

The leaders interviewed in this study, including several trustees, all agreed

that trustee leadership is important. However, although established as a

significant and ongoing goal at each of the sample institutions, none of the

institutional leaders felt they had reached a broad level of participation in the

fundraising process with members of their individual boards. Therefore, despite

an institutional desire to leverage a strong trustee network and to utilize trustee

leadership in the cultivation process, based on the information obtained in this

study, the researcher cannot conclude that trustee involvement is a source of

competitive advantage for these church-related colleges and universities.

Donor Research

Modern fundraising practices often involve elaborate donor research techniques

utilizing intrusive background searches provided through sophisticated information

systems and Internet tools (Dunn & Meyer, 1993; Gressel, 2000; Siegel, 1993). In fact,

the literature has suggested that the use of modern donor research methods and tools is

both an ethical concern and also a potential source of competitive advantage (Anderson,

1996; Fischer, 2000). The institutions in this study used some basic donor research

methods, but in general they relied on traditional methods of interpersonal-networking

and relationship-building to assess a donor’s interest and capacity. The researcher is not

completely clear whether the absence of intrusive donor research methods among the

sample institutions is a function of resource limitations or of ethical concerns of

institutional leaders, although both reasons were suggested by the participants. However,

132

clearly, the institutions in this study have achieved considerable success without the

heavy investment and utilization of “cutting-edge” donor research tools and methods,

despite the contrary expectations of the researcher.

Summary

Each of the institutions selected for this study has its own unique history,

organizational culture, geographic culture, and denominational heritage. Yet, despite the

uniqueness of the individual institutions, a common set of characteristics made this

sample group very homogenous. An understanding of the general context of these

institutions is important to make sense of the strategic management factors and leadership

behaviors discussed in the following two chapters.

133

CHAPTER SIX: STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FACTORS

Despite voluminous research on higher education, very little research

attention has been paid to the strategies pursued by institutions in this

industry. Institutions of higher education are normally viewed as a “black

box” into which resources flow and out of which various products such as

degrees or research are generated. Like most large organizations,

institutions of higher education have strategies. As a basic definition, a

strategy means to set goals, make plans for achieving them, and set

indicators or benchmarks to assess achievement of these goals. Such a

strategy is instrumental in allowing an institution to meet its underlying

objective of profit or revenue maximization. Identifying institutional

strategies helps us to understand the ways the sector as a whole operates

and responds to changes in its operating environment . . . . Institutions

make myriad decisions on which markets to serve and what services to

offer in each market. (Brewer, Gates and Goldman, 2002, p. 25)

Strategic management, as the preceding quote indicates, is an integral part of any

higher education institution and its success or failure in achieving its mission. The

institutions in this study have very distinct strategies which are illustrated by many

common themes related to the way in which they have defined their mission and goals,

made distinctive choices of implementation practices, and determined ways of

monitoring operational performance; all of which eventually leads to the attraction of

additional resources through successful fundraising results. For this reason strategic

management is one of the lenses through which the sample institutions will be analyzed.

This chapter focuses on the strategic management themes that emerged during this study

and the relationship to fundraising success.

Before describing the specific themes from this study, a brief discussion of some

strategic management concepts is needed. Since the early 1960s, strategic management

has evolved into a vast field of study with ten distinct schools of thought that belong in

three separate categories (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998). The first three schools

of strategic management include the design, planning, and positioning schools which

134

focus respectively on the conception, the formal process, and the analytical process in

which strategy formulation occurs. All three schools are considered “prescriptive in

nature” because they describe the way strategies should ideally be formulated (p. 5,

Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998). There are also six distinct conceptual schools

which are “descriptive in nature” as they focus on how strategies are actually formulated.

These six schools of thought include the following: entrepreneurial, cognitive, learning,

power, cultural, and environmental, which focus respectively on the vision, mental

process, emergent process, negotiations, collective process, and reactive process (p. 5,

Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998). The final theoretical school in the strategic

management field is the configuration school which focuses on organizational

transformation through strategy formation which is integrative in nature (p. 5, Mintzberg,

Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998).

Several other scholars (Lauriol, 1996; Martinet, 1996; Bowman, 1995) have

created slightly different typologies to sort these ten conceptual schools and to categorize

the growing body of strategic management literature. However, these ten fundamental

schools of thought remain intact regardless of categorization, and in reality there is

significant overlap between all of these conceptual schools. Of course, not all of the ten

schools receive equal support in either the academic or practitioner worlds. For instance,

Porter’s (1980) watershed work Competitive Strategy, and Senge’s classic book (1990)

The Fifth Discipline have led to the increased prominence of the positioning and learning

schools respectively in the field of strategic management. Although minor elements of

many of these ten conceptual schools are present in the strategic management process at

these sample institutions, these two classic works on strategic management will be

135

heavily emphasized to explain much of the strategic process formulation and

implementation as it exists within the institutions in this study.

As a result of this growing body of literature and the many distinct schools of

strategic management thinking, trying to discuss the strategic management process within

organizations is, at times, complicated. Often this complexity results from an overlap in

terminology, including the fact that most practical discussions of strategic management

typically combine both strategy formulation and implementation. Mintzberg, Ahlstrand

and Lampel (1998) suggest that strategy is often discussed in terms of five different “P’s”

(p. 9). These five “P’s” include strategy as: a plan of action, a pattern of behavior, a

position, a perspective, and a ploy. The discussion of findings from this study often cross

each of these five “P’s” as these participants describe the strategic processes in which

they are engaged at their institutions and includes both strategy formation and

implementation.

Another critical set of definitions in strategic management are the concepts of

intended, realized and emergent strategies (Morrison & Salipante, 2007; Andersen, 2005;

Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel, 1998). The formulation of a strategy is referred to as the

intended strategy, but the realized strategy is what actually occurs based on the actions

and reactions that are taken during implementation. Realized strategies that were intended

are referred to as deliberate strategies, while intended strategies that are not reached are

referred to as unrealized strategy. Finally, there is a third category of strategy known as

emergent strategy, which occurs when an unintended strategy is realized. The degree to

which successful strategy implementation is intended versus emergent is an important

136

issue in the analysis of the strategic management process of any organization and will be

considered in the context of this study as well.

The ultimate purpose of strategic management is to create and sustain competitive

advantage. Competitive advantage is defined as “anything a firm does especially well

compared to rival firms” (p. 8, David, 2005). In practical terms competitive advantage

implies that an organization can provide superior value which is difficult to imitate and

yet increases the long-term flexibility of the organization. These three traits; superior

value, inimitability, and enhanced flexibility are the key components of competitive

advantage (Clawson, 2006; Day, 1994). The institutions in this study obviously possess a

competitive advantage in fundraising since it was a criteria for selection in this study;

however, their competitive advantage in that area is actually the end result or one

component area of a broader strategy which has separated these institutions from their

competition.

This chapter will address thematic findings related to many strategic management

issues that help these institutions achieve and sustain competitive advantage and

subsequently lead to successful fundraising results. The chapter will begin by explaining

through the use of Porter’s (1980) five forces model how the leaders of these institutions

perform and view the external industry analysis of the environment in which their

organizations compete. Then a discussion of the internal analysis of the sample

institutions using the resource-based view (RBV) of competitive advantage will describe

how these institutions leverage their existing resources in their strategic processes.

Following the external and internal analysis, there will be a description of the broad

strategy selection and a section explaining the supporting market segmentation process.

137

Next, operational strategy choices centered upon a theme of core competency will be

discussed, as well as a section describing the communication strategies used by these

sample institutions. Finally, this chapter will conclude with specific themes from the

fundraising strategies used by these institutions with an emphasis on the use of learning

organization concepts to execute emergent strategy.

External Industry Analysis: Porter’s Five Factor Model

A key activity in the strategic management process is the step known as external

analysis or sometimes referred to as industry analysis or environmental scanning. The

purpose of external analysis is to analyze the variables and conditions that define the

environment in which an organization operates in order to later develop a proactive set of

potential actions which could be taken to exploit market opportunities and defend against

emerging threats. There are many categories of external variables which define the nature

of any organization’s external environment such as: economic, sociological,

demographic, cultural, technological, political and competitive forces (David, 2005;

Aaker, 2001). One of the most widely used frameworks for understanding the market

conditions of an industry is Porter’s (1980) five forces model which is based on an

industrial organizational (I/O) view of environmental conditions, which asserts that

external forces are more important than internal forces in determining an organization’s

competitive advantage. Porter’s (1980) five forces model consists of the following

variables: threat of new entrants, availability of substitutes, bargaining power of

suppliers, bargaining power of consumers, and intensity of rivalry among competitors.

Although Porter’s (1980) model is widely used in strategic planning for all types

of organizations, some have questioned its applicability to non-profit organizations

138

(Stone, Bigelow & Crittenden, 1999; Goold, 1997). Others have argued that although

non-profit organizations, particularly religious non-profits, are usually more mission-

dominate and less environment-dominate than “for-profit” organizations, these

institutions still exist within an industry structure which contributes to the strategic

management process and the creation of competitive advantage (Miller, 2002; Allen &

Shen, 1997; Gould, 1997; Chafee, 1984: Benson & Dorsett, 1971). Certainly, the

respondents in this study continually confirmed the mission dominance theme but also

supported the idea they must strategically react to compete within a complicated industry

structure which blends both the higher education industry with what Finke and Stark

(1988) describe as the “religious economy” (p. 42). For example one respondent

described this phenomenon in this manner:

A Christian College has the unique challenge of having to exist and

perform within two dynamic environments; the world of higher education

and the world of religion. Both of these environments are complicated to

navigate strategically in and of themselves, and most of the people you

have to deal with in this job come from one world or the other and have

little understanding of the requirements and expectations of the other side.

You go out and talk to some pastor somewhere, and they couldn’t care less

about program offerings and accreditation issues or funding sources; they

are only concerned about the spiritual component of what you are doing

on campus…religious practices and such, or what is being taught by some

professor on your Bible faculty…But although they are not concerned

about these other issues they can still turn some small issue into a PR

crisis that will affect funding and donors…On the other side when you

deal with state agencies or accrediting bodies they don’t realize the

competitive and strategic nature of the religious culture. They are so

secularized that they have no concept that we have other challenges that

are unique to our institutions.

Because the participants in this study frequently used industry terminology and

analogies to describe the markets in which they compete, the Porter (1980) five forces

model will be used to describe and explain how the leaders in these institutions view their

139

external environment and how those assumptions subsequently frame their strategic

planning process.

The availability of substitutes and the threat of new entrants are two of the

categories of variables which define an industry (Porter, 1980). While it could be argued

that higher education is insulated from the threat of substitute products and new entrants

by high entry barriers, the respondents in this study recognize that the higher education

industry is experiencing dramatic change due to the influx of alternative educational

providers often using non-traditional delivery systems, including for-profit institutions

such as the University of Phoenix. One president described this phenomenon in these

terms.

We certainly don’t feel like we are in the same business or have a similar

mission to the University of Phoenix, but we do feel the ripple effects of

these alternative institutions as they move higher education systems

towards something different than they have historically been…soon our

regional state schools start emulating many of these practices and so we

have to decide how to respond competitively.

Several other respondents described the evolving higher education market as

becoming excessively market driven and focused on credentialization rather than

education. One college president described the new entrants into the higher education

market as producing a commodity effect throughout the industry.

In my lifetime, our college has withstood the emergence of community

colleges which were initially designed in the 60s to fill a technical training

gap in the workforce, often for academically under-prepared students, and

now have become widely accepted, low-cost, general education providers.

And we have also watched high schools become AP course generators.

Now we must face pseudo virtual institutions which are increasingly

gaining legitimacy, and are influencing the state schools to become less

traditional . . . . The research institutions abandoned undergraduate

education years ago and now the regional state schools are running scared

trying to become like the University of Phoenix . . . and all of these trends

140

have produced a net effect of turning a college education into a cheap

commodity.

Many of the institutions in this study also face the threat of substitution or “new”

entrants at the micro level from mission expansion of Bible colleges within their own

denomination. While this threat is small in industry terms, it hits these institutions hard at

the core constituent base by threatening a loss of students and donors.

We have been pinched over the years by some of our (denominational

name withheld) preaching schools and Bible colleges deciding to expand

their mission into more general education and professional or vocational

training. Most of the time they are far from being a true liberal arts college

but that is hard to explain to the (denominational name withheld) rank and

file who often remember when our institution more closely resembled a

Bible college and often view our academic success as a sign of

secularization . . . . If you try to point out the distinct qualitative

differences such as admissions standards, academic programs or faculty

credentials and such, you can come across as being haughty or ungracious

to your denominational brothers at some fledgling institution.

Several others added similar comments about the threat of mission expansion from

denominational sources not historically in mainstream higher education. While the

participants emphasized that these new players are not major threats to their institutions,

there is genuine concern because these schools can erode the core constituent base. As

one respondent said, “You can say ‘don’t worry about it,’ but if you lose even 5 students

per year and a few donations, it starts to chip away at the margins, but it is chipping from

the middle not the fringe.”

The bargaining power of suppliers and buyers are the next two categories of

factors which define an industry. One of the difficulties in applying Porter’s (1980)

model to the higher education industry is in defining the buyers and sellers. Many higher

education scholars refer to students as consumers or buyers and donors as suppliers,

while others reverse these definitions (Russo & Coomes, 2000; Kotler & Fox, 1995;

141

Resiman, 1981). The participants in the study consider the students and donors to be both

suppliers and buyers in relationship to their organizations. They are suppliers in the sense

that they provide the vital inputs required for success (i.e. students and money), but they

are also buyers because they must choose to consume or invest in the services and

mission of the institutions. Regardless of how they are defined, the respondents in this

study were clear that both students and donors have increased their bargaining power in

recent years.

In developing an advancement strategy for a small Christian college today

you must be very aware that you are dealing with a strong consumer

mentality among both prospective students and prospective donors.

Students, and more significantly their parents, come in with considerable

demands for financial aid, transfer credit, program and curriculum

interests, and extracurricular activities . . . . Many donors today have more

of a “what’s in it for me?” attitude, or just a general legitimate demand for

transparency . . . . Both groups do more “shopping” around than they did

in the past.

Industry rivalry is the last variable in Porter’s (1980) model for analyzing an

organization’s external environment and refers to the intensity in which players within an

industry compete. The participants in this study believe that the higher education industry

has developed a more intense rivalry than in the past, including within their own

denominational niche. As one trustee responded, “We fully understand that we are in

competition with our sister institutions for students, faculty and donors. It is friendly

competition, but it is competition.” Others emphasized an increase in the rivalry between

state schools and their institutions has arisen as state schools are getting more directly

involved in fundraising. As one chief development officer said:

The competition for donors, particularly regional donors, has increased

significantly since the state schools have started pursuing fundraising

more aggressively outside of their alumni base in recent years. I can’t even

say how many times in the last five years that I have been out to visit a

142

major donor and they say, “(State university name withheld) was just here

discussing a project.” That was extremely rare 15 to 20 years ago.

Others added that the increased use of donor research and the subsequent increase

in the amount of information about donors has raised the profile of major donors,

including alumni, and has intensified the competitive environment for fundraising from

other charitable organizations outside of higher education. One development officer

noted, “You have a lot more nonprofit organizations out soliciting for funds today than

we had in the past, and that increases the speed of the game.”

The use of Porter’s (1980) five forces model helps to explain the strategic

management process within the sample institutions. Overall, there was a strong consensus

among participants in this study of several external analysis themes related to the external

industry analysis, including an increased threat of substitution for the traditional product

and new entrants into the market. There is also a clear agreement that the bargaining

power of both students and donors is increasing rapidly and that industry rivalry is also

becoming more intense. All of these external factors influence the strategic planning

process and fundraising efforts of the sample institutions.

Internal Analysis: Resource-Based View

While external analysis is one way to explain an organization’s strategic process

and position, the resource-based view (RBV) of organizations, which contends that

internal resources are more important than external environmental factors in creating and

sustaining competitive advantage, is an alternative theory. The general concept behind

the resource-based view is that it is by managing and leveraging the unique set of internal

assets or strengths of an organization which ultimately produces competitive advantage.

143

The respondents in this study provided much support for the resource-based view as

being a factor in their fundraising success.

In effect, the participants in this study asserted that the mission-dominance of

these institutions and the historical development and relationship with the host

denominations are all key internal resources for attracting funds. In addition, the

personalities of the leaders of these institutions, including long standing faculty members,

and the successful alumni leaders are also important resources to leverage. Strong

academics, well maintained physical campuses and good geographical location were also

listed as important internal resources. Yet, all of these factors are present at many other

institutions which are not having the same level of success in fundraising and resource

development. As the respondents described the unique internal leverage strengths of these

institutions it always came back to the unique culture and a brand image which all of

these other variables support. One respondent described leveraging the brand image of

his institution it in these terms:

There is an image of a (College C) student, faculty or alumni that is

consistent among all constituent groups including our donors. There is an

image of the culture of (College C) which is emblazoned in the minds of

our stakeholders. It is an image of an institution where leadership, truth

and God all come together not to indoctrinate but to explore and not with

the idea that we hold the truth in a bucket but that we are searching for it

from one generation to the next and with the understanding that any truth

we find is God’s truth or we haven’t found it . . . . There is a further

understanding that the truth we find must always be tested and questioned

and most importantly applied to the world we live in through leadership . .

. . Because we understand that if we discover any truth in this world and

do nothing with it in terms of service then we would be better off to be

ignorant. And that is the brand image of (College C) from one generation

to another and it is consistently conveyed in every activity we pursue at

this institution whether it is the Chemistry department, the baseball team,

the president or a group of students spending their summers serving AIDS

victims in Africa. This is what we leverage in our fundraising efforts. This

is our case for support.

144

The idea of branding will be discussed further in the communications strategy

section later in this chapter, but clearly these institutions do leverage the internal assets of

their schools in their fundraising strategy but in a holistic manner that reflects an image

of the total package of related resources presented as a brand concept that is consistent

and is mission-dominate. Again, this does not mean that these institutions do not analyze

and react to the external conditions of the market in which they compete, but it does

mean they have a clear sense of purpose and understand how to leverage existing

historical strengths to frame a strategic model that builds on existing internal assets.

Broad Strategy Choice: Focused Differentiation

In his classic book Competitive Strategy, Porter (1980) outlines three broad

generic strategies that organizations must pursue to create and sustain competitive

advantage. These three broad strategies are: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus.

Cost leadership involves being a low cost leader and achieving competitive advantage in

market pricing through spreading overhead costs usually by creating economic

efficiencies and economies of scale. Differentiation involves competing on unique

product features which allow the organization to charge a higher price and create value-

added demand and brand loyalty among the consumers. A focus strategy is based on

defining a narrow market segment, preferably of sufficient size with growth potential,

which is under-serviced or insignificant to the major players in the market. Within the

focus strategy category an organization can either operate on a focused differentiation

strategy whereby the product is uniquely designed and offered at a premium price for the

focal market, or focused cost leadership where the product is offered at a lower overall

cost specifically to the focal market.

145

The colleges in this study all pursue focused differentiation as the broad generic

strategy choice for their organizations. Based on the industry or market conditions and

the internal analysis previously discussed, the leaders at these institutions understand

clearly that they cannot be all things to all people and that they must avoid what Porter

(1980) calls being “stuck in the middle” (p. 41). Porter (1980) suggests that organizations

which are strategically “stuck in the middle” are doomed to fail because they face

competitive pressure from both ends of the industry market and also have a tendency to

try to “flip back and forth over time among the generic strategies” producing

organizational incongruence (p.42). Although none of the respondents specifically

referenced Porter’s (1980) widely used model, the concept of focused differentiation and

niche development was a prevalent theme at all five institutions. One development officer

described it in these terms.

We must be careful to stay within our niche. Our students and donors and

alumni and other interested friends want us to be a certain way . . . and the

temptation in this business is to try to be like everyone else. Well, that

doesn’t work for us. If we get away from the expectations of our core

supporters we would fail quickly. We have seen many of our sister schools

within (denominational name withheld) do just that and later regret it. It is

not just on spiritual matters that we need to stay on our traditional course,

it is within the academic side that probably is most critical. We are

expected to be a place that emphasizes academic quality, mentoring and

student development and teaching. Donors tell us they like the fact that we

know our students personally, not just a name on a class roster. Parents

want to call and ask us—FERPA or not—how their child is doing

academically, socially, and most importantly spiritually. The fact that we

can answer them with genuine sincerity is our greatest asset. Donors want

to know that we stand behind the quality of our graduates both

academically and in terms of personal character, and they don’t accept that

as an “either-or” proposition . . . . To be able to do these things makes all

the difference in advancing our college.

The preceding quote from a college president illustrates the focused

differentiation model. The emphasis is on expectations of core constituencies such as

146

students, friends, parents and ultimately donors within a defined focus group. The

expectations of this narrow focal market include: being distinctly Christian both in

practice and philosophical worldview, academically excellent, anchored in liberal arts

and traditional residential, hands-on educational processes. By choosing to focus on these

institutional characteristics these colleges are able to differentiate their organizations

from the low-priced, high volume institutions such as community colleges and regional

state colleges, and high-priced private secular colleges and major research institutions.

By choosing this position they have separated themselves from their larger competitors in

higher education by emphasizing academic quality, whole-person education and the

“personal touch” educational experience achieved at smaller institutions. The

differentiating factor which separates these institutions from elite, private, secular liberal

arts institutions is the Christian focus, while academic rigor distinguishes these

institutions from many other small Christian schools that lack the same quality of

academics. If any one of these three factors is not delivered to this focal market, these

schools would not succeed as noted by one respondent.

We must distinguish ourselves from the larger state schools by

emphasizing our small “hands-on” approach to education. Many students

pick us over our state school competition because of the small residential

approach and because they believe they will be known on our campus by

their name and not some student ID number. On the other side, if we can’t

provide academic excellence then our cost of attendance would not justify

picking us over a larger state school . . . .We also have to maintain our

Christian focus in addition to academic excellence, or then we become just

another expensive private school and our pool of competition gets

significantly larger . . . . But Christian focus without academic excellence

will also land us into a pool with Bible colleges and other lower quality

Christian colleges who generally are cheaper to attend. So it is a case of

triangulation in the higher ed market, and we really have make sure we

don’t slip in any of these areas or we will fall out of a defendable position.

147

Of course the economic pressures in the market place in all segments of higher

education are great, forcing many institutions to experiment and try new models of higher

education, but leaders at these sample institutions believe that is a trap that will lead to an

identity crisis, which could threaten long-term survival. The respondents in this study

strongly believe that to survive they must look and operate much differently than the

higher education market as a whole. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified the concept

of mimetic isomorphism as occurring when organizations within the same industry

become more homogenous through imitative structures and practices usually pursued

under conditions of strategic uncertainty. The higher education industry has long been

considered an industry with a high degree of isomorphism (Davies & Quirke, 2007;

Frumpkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004). One president described the pressures to follow the

trends of isomorphism in higher education and the need to avoid that trap in this way.

At a time when everyone in higher education is saying you have to change

to survive, we realize that we have to stay the same to survive. We aren’t

blind. We know what is happening in higher education with alternative

delivery systems and market driven practices, but the more everyone else

goes that direction the more distinctive our traditional method of education

becomes, and at the end of the day there are still more people out there,

particularly wealthy donors, who remember when college education

looked more like what we do as opposed to the current models . . . . We

often have donors and visitors on our campus who are surprised to see that

we still have dorms and that our professors actually teach, and they are

impressed by that . . . and of course we are unapologetic about that fact . . .

. I believe, in a modern higher education world that is highly competitive,

this is what allows us to separate ourselves from the masses and to price as

we do and raise money successfully . . . . We can’t be a “Walmart” in this

industry, and we aren’t Harvard either. So we have to be distinctively

Christian, academically challenging, values-driven, hands-on educators

creating a unique educational experience that can’t be duplicated and

probably isn’t for everyone, but is uniquely tailored to the needs of our

constituencies.

148

Having a clearly defined focused strategy that differentiates based on a Christian

worldview, academic excellence, and a small residential liberal arts delivery system is the

basis of the broad strategy of these successful institutions. It was also clear to the

researcher that while the basic foundations for the focused differentiation strategy may

have been in place for a long time historically and most likely was initially an emergent

strategy, that the preservation and development of this broad strategy selection over the

past several years have been very deliberate.

Market Segmentation

In order to pursue focused differentiation as a generic strategy choice it is

important to understand how an organization decides to segment the market. An

organization must make a determination of how best to dissect their particular market

into meaningful segments, which can then be expressly targeted through to the unique

characteristics of that segment (Aaker, 2001). The defining of a focal market segment and

the concerns of that segment are the basis for a focused differentiation strategy (David,

2005). Specifically, for fundraising activities the market segmentation process helps to

determine the appropriate fundraising vehicle to use within a particular segment.

At the micro level the institutions in this study segment their markets in the

traditional higher education model of constituency and stakeholder groups such as

alumni, parents, foundations, and other categories as described in chapter three. In

addition, these institutions also follow the donor pyramid model, also described in

chapter three, that focuses mostly on ability, supported by linkage and involvement, to

identify the individuals who have the potential, through cultivation, to become major

donors. Finally, fundraising professionals at these institutions also incorporate individual-

149

donor motivation knowledge, such as Prince and File’s (1994) “7-faces” model to allow

further individual-market segmentation. All 3 of these approaches to donor-market

segmentation are presented in the literature as conventional wisdom and sound

fundraising practice for implementation at any type of college or university. The fact that

fundraisers at these successful institutions are well versed on donor-segmentation

processes and theories is really not a surprise. However, uniquely, at each of these

institutions donor markets were first segmented at the macro-level based on a 3-fold

concentric model involving denominational affiliation, religious orientation, and values

(See Appendix Q).

This 3-fold model is initiated when those constituents are linked to the institution

first by the denominational affiliation (i.e., the core constituency within the concentric

model). The next level of segmentation for these schools is the larger Christian

constituency, which in the case of these institutions is primarily the members of the

Protestant evangelical as well as fundamentalist Christian communities who hold broad

theological and moral views similar to the host denomination. The third and most distant

group within the concentric constituency model is a population of donor prospects

sharing or appreciating the basic core values of the institutions while not necessarily

accepting the full Christian or religious components of these colleges and universities.

This 3-fold model, although applied at the macro-level, takes precedence over all of the

other segmentation strategies and processes previously described, and also helps to

explain how those institutional leaders view their relationships with members of their

supporting denomination. This model was best described by a chief development officer

at one of the sample institutions using the following words.

150

Our development strategy begins first with our denominational affiliation.

That is our core base constituency. I can’t tell you in exact percentages

because it would be hard to quantify exactly how much of our funding

comes from our denominational base, but it would be a majority. And they

are always our top priority regardless of resources. However, like most

denominational colleges, we have to reach out to a broader audience than

our denominational ties can produce. For us, that secondary market is the

larger evangelical community supplemented by some players from the

mainline Protestant and Catholic population. This group shares a common

Christian worldview and is interested in the same general educational

purposes to which we aspire, and we need their support to achieve our

goals. At the outer level, we also attempt to reach an even broader group,

which typically includes some major donors, local citizens, corporations

and foundations who are interested in character-based or values-based

education or are impressed with the academic quality of the school overall

or of a particular program and are generally accepting but less interested in

the religious aspects of the college.

This 3-level model of market segmentation was remarkably consistent

across the sample institutions regardless of the resource strength of the supporting

denomination. The participants were clear that this model is how they view their

base of support and how they work their fundraising strategy. One respondent

described the situations as occurring “from the inside out.” As noted earlier this

model takes precedence over traditional micro-level segmentation processes

which are common at any higher education institution and are still the focus of

most individual-donor analyses. For instance, an alumni donor might be

categorized as a non-denominational source first and as an alumni donor second.

This segmentation practice is not intended to devalue or lower the significance of

the donor to the institution but rather to understand better the perception of the

donor in terms of motivation and interest. Additionally, using this segmentation

approach allows the development team to tailor a communication strategy that

best meets the particular donor’s interest.

151

The identification of this model raised some other interesting strategic

questions. For example, when asked if these institutions’ leaders had considered

reversing the order of this 3-part model to target first a larger Christian or

evangelical market, many of the respondents acknowledged that the temptation to

do so was significant because the overall evangelical market is considerably

larger than the denominational base. However, they also recognized that to

expand the central target market was a potential step toward secularization and

loss of identity. One of the presidents commented “that ‘you have to dance with

the one who brought you;’ or you will lose all credibility, and you will lose your

base.” But he also added, “it doesn’t hurt to have other friends with money.”

Another development officer described this issue in these terms:

We are often asked by donors, “Are you still a [denominational name

withheld] school?” and we tell them we are, and even those non-

[denominational name withheld] donors seem pleased that we haven’t

ditched our roots. I think it becomes a character issue even for people

outside our denomination heritage that we have stayed true all these years.

One of the presidents commented, “You can’t go out with a broad evangelical

push and expect that your denominational base will stay in the center.” He later

added, “You must connect to the broader evangelical base by reaching out from

the base. It doesn’t work the other way around.” The theme of remaining

denominationally anchored was repeatedly emphasized by the research

participants regardless of whether the denomination’s membership was in decline

or had low representation within the current student body.

Another strategic question related to this segmentation practice dealt with

the issue of mission communication. As noted earlier this 3-fold model serves as

152

the basis for understanding and developing a communication strategy and

choosing the appropriate fundraising vehicle. The respondents in this study

acknowledged that the Christian mission of the college may not be the lead

emphasis in communication with members of groups from organizations such as

corporations and foundations, in the third layer or outer edge of this model.

However, they also emphasized that they would never alter the communication

strategy enough to “water-down” the mission of the college; they were acutely

aware of this tension within themselves and the potential for this lack of focus on

core principles to “turn off” members of their core constituency if they perceived

that the Christian mission were being compromised. One respondent explained

this tension as follows:

It is tempting to go out and talk to the corporate set or the National

Science Foundation or other institutional donors and tell them all about

your programmatic success and then skip over your Christian mission and

values. But then you have to ask yourself, ‘What are we doing this for in

the first place?’ Is it just to raise money? No, we raise money because of

our Christian mission. And it is important to remember that. I think if you

start to alter your communication about who you are to try to influence a

particular group, then pretty soon you come across as insincere or like

some sleazy politician who panders to different interest groups. And

insincerity will kill you in fundraising. You can’t be phony and be

successful . . . . But this doesn’t mean you don’t tailor your talking points

to non-Christian institutional donors and their specific interests.

In support of the broad strategy of focused differentiation, institutional leaders

have developed a unique way of segmenting their market niche based on denominational

and religious connections to their colleges. This finding was consistent among each of the

participants and helped to explain how leaders at these institutions viewed their market

segment. Some of the leaders at the institutions even used this 3-level market segment to

code donors specifically within the donor database as well as information systems. This

153

finding is important in understanding some of the motivation for maintaining the

denominational affiliation because this segmentation practice is viewed as both a core

identity issue and a secularization defense.

Operations Strategy: Focus and Investment in Core Technology

A concept frequently discussed in strategic management literature is the idea of

sticking to a core competency and focusing on core technology (David, 2005; Aaker,

2001). A central theme of this research study was that these institutions focused

operationally on their core competencies, which they determined to be teaching,

mentoring, and developing undergraduate students through use of a traditional residential

liberal arts model. Additionally, a major finding of this study is that a well-defined

operations strategy is viewed by the respondents to be a key factor in fundraising success.

To pursue this strategy effectively, an organization’s leadership team members must have

a clear understanding and definition of their product as well as their customer market. An

institution of higher education has many different potential products and customers. The

educational leaders in this study were clear that the finished product or output of their

organization was their graduates; and, in turn, they used this principle to frame the overall

strategic management process as well as subsequent fundraising strategy for each of their

institutions. A consistent emergent theme in this research study was the idea that the

success of these institutions at developing their graduates was the central factor in raising

money because the success of graduates ultimately became the case for support. As one

trustee described the situation:

I think fundraising is like selling. You’ve got to have a good product. You

can have the best salesman in the world and give him [her] a piece of junk

and he’s [she’s] not going to do very well. You may sell two or three but

eventually it is going to catch up with you. The real key that makes

154

fundraising easier, and it's never easy, is if you have a great product and

the product of a place like [University B] is the mission and the students.

We have some of our sister schools come in and talk to our board and

question us like you are now about how we raise funds so well, and they

all seem to be looking for some marketing scheme or quick strategy, and

that is just not going to work. We give them some basic advice, but what

we can’t give them is our high quality product; and without that,

fundraising is going to be difficult.

To support the institutional commitment of developing students, institutional

officials invest their resources primarily in their faculty as the critical tool of the core

technology. In fact, the method by which operational resources are internally allocated

and the values as well as priorities conveyed to, and by, the faculty were considered to be

major factors in fundraising success at these schools. As one president said:

Everything we do here all revolves around the quality and commitment of

our faculty, and we make our expectations clear about faculty job

performance. Every dollar we spend at this place has to pass my student

development test, “Does this support the development of our students?” I

don’t want a lot of payroll dollars tied up in people who don’t interact with

and develop students. We cannot afford to have many dollars tied up in

non-instructional or non-student activities. When you look through that

lens, a lot of what is done in higher education is not for the students . . . .

Faculty especially can often begin to think the school exists for them to

pursue their personal interests in research or otherwise. We are very

careful how we recruit faculty. We want scholars who love students and

love to teach and mentor young people first. Of course, we want

academically high qualified people, but we recruit faculty whose top

priority is teaching and that is getting increasingly harder to do . . . . It is

not that we don’t do research because we do; but that is not who we are,

and it is not our priority. I’ve watched many schools similar to ours get

caught up in the prestige chasing game, and I don’t think they realize how

poor an investment that is and how much it undermines mission and

eventually fundraising efforts. Frankly, in our niche the payback on that

type of activity is poor. I don’t want a bunch of faculty prima donnas who

are more interested in impressing their peer group at some obscure

academic conference or the peer review board of an academic journal that

nobody ever reads, while their students get a small commitment . . . . We

are a teaching college first, and that is why fundraising is easy for us

because everybody knows and understands that, and our donors expect

that. Our donors know that we are about shaping and changing young lives

through teaching and mentoring in a Christian environment because we

155

make that our fundraising case, and it is obvious looking at us

operationally that this is what we do.

As the preceding quote revealed, faculty members are viewed by the

administrators and trustees in these sample institutions as the conveyors of organizational

mission, history, culture, and values. A very strong belief exists among the participants in

this study that the relationships and experiences students have as they interact with

faculty members during their time in college are integrally linked to future fundraising

success. This belief is so well engrained in the thinking of the presidents and

development officers that they actually have identified key faculty whom they believe are

critical to their ability to raise funds and often leverage these professors in campaign

communication, particularly with alumni. As one development officer said, "We leverage

the life of service and student relationships of our talented faculty into fundraising

dollars. If we didn't have that we couldn't raise money." Another president reinforced the

idea of sticking to the core competency and having the right faculty personnel as being

essential to successful fundraising.

We focus on providing a nurturing environment for our students that

forces them to understand that they are part of a Christian academic

community which affords them both opportunities and responsibilities for

growth. Our faculty and student support staff must model that in their lives

of service to our students . . . . I tell our faculty all the time we can achieve

all kinds of honors in the academic community; but if we don’t win over

our students and help them march toward becoming productive alumni,

then we will be out of business because donors aren’t interested in

accreditation, or faculty publishing records, or rankings in US News and

World Reports. We talk about that stuff, because we can; but it is not the

driver in raising funds. The real closer in the deal is your alumni. How do

they look to the outside world and how do they feel about their experience

at [College D]. Was it life changing or did they just do their time? That is

what makes or breaks the fundraising cycle at an institution like ours, and

you must constantly remember that as you interact with sometimes

immature 18, 19, and 20 year-olds . . . . But when you have the right

people on your faculty, your coaching staffs and the other support staffs,

156

then it is not a problem keeping your focus. The development of students,

that is the real personal reward anyway; it just happens to also be the

critical factor for fundraising, and that responsibility falls on the faculty.

In support of the theme of focusing on the core technology and competencies, two other

recurring operational management themes exist that are not typically discussed in

fundraising literature but are considered to be vitally important to the leaders at these

institutions. These two themes are the importance of student retention and placement of

graduates. The following comments from a development officer placed the issues in

perfect perspective.

I would say one of the biggest things a school should do to improve

fundraising is to improve student retention. Retention problems translate

into fundraising problems. You go visit a donor who may also be an

alumnus and he or she says, “You know my daughter went to college there

last year and she didn’t like it or had a bad experience, etc.; and I am very

disappointed in you guys . . . .” Retention problems smack of failure

whether it is the failure on the student side, which is usually the majority

of it; or if it is a failure on the part of the school, which is usually a

component also. And failure is bad for fundraising . . . . Retention

problems often have the potential to be blown out of proportion. Of

course, from the other side, a preventive fix for a retention issue may

produce a lifelong donor either through the students themselves or from a

parent or another concerned party, etc. I think this is true for any school,

public or private; but I think it is especially critical for a Christian school

because the expectation is that a Christian school has a sacred duty to the

students, and I think often our people fail to realize that expectation from

our constituency. This also means that you have to be careful about who

you admit in terms of their potential to succeed . . . . It is funny that our

president often tells the other departments, including academics, that the

advancement office is more concerned about retention than they are

because we have to live with the long-term consequences of retention

problems. We often end up with the bent ear of stories about retention

problems.

Retention rates at all of the sample institutions are well above the national

averages of similar colleges and universities; the leaders participating in this research

study at these institutions viewed this topic as a critical success factor for fundraising.

157

(i.e., a sign of organizational success which can be leveraged into a strong case for

financial support). The retention-to-fundraising link was mentioned by nearly every

respondent in this study and was clearly viewed by these institutional stakeholders as a

critical success factor. One president added this comment about the issue:

I think a really interesting study would be to estimate how many

fundraising dollars are lost as a result of poor retention . . . . I don’t know

how you would calculate or quantify it; but I know in my 30 years in this

business, it has cost us a lot of money. Of course, on the positive side, I

believe our strong retention record has provided us with millions in raised

funds.

On a similar note, the placement of graduates is also considered to be important to

institutional fundraising efforts. Since the primary product of these colleges and

universities is their alumni, it is important to these institutional leaders that their alumni

are successful in their post-undergraduate pursuits. One respondent described the

relationship between placement and fundraising in these terms:

I think studies of alumni giving have shown that alumni form their

perceptions about their college experience during their first couple of

years out of school. Well, what happens during those first couple of years?

Well, you get thrown out in the “real world” and that means you either get

a job, or you go to graduate or professional school, or whatever. If that is

not a positive experience for you, regardless of the reason, then the blame

often falls back on the college . . . . Either we didn’t prepare you, or we

didn’t help you find a job or whatever; but the blame clearly comes back

on the school, and that affects alumni and parent giving . . . . The whole

thing can also work for the positive, or in reverse as well. You got a good

job or into a good medical school and were successful; then there is a

sense of obligation to give back. It is very important in the minds of

alumni donors, and alumni giving rates are really important to non-alumni

donors, which later helps to complete the circle.

Sticking to core competencies also means that institutional leaders have had to

make different strategic choices in the past in terms of investing in popular new programs

and adaptive initiatives. Two particularly attractive adaptive initiatives which the leaders

158

of these participating institutions have avoided were online degrees and adult-degree

completion programs. One president described these strategic decisions in the following

quote.

We looked at adult education several years ago when it was really

booming, and we decided to take a pass on that option because we did not

like what it would do to our mission and how it would change the

demographics of our alumni. I think a lot of schools have gone down that

road to find a short-run cash cow, but I don’t believe they have considered

the long-term consequences of those choices. They are two very different

markets serving two very different constituencies. Traditional college

students have very little in common with adult students in those

operations. Most of the adult students are looking for a convenient

delivery system and quick credentialization and are willing to accept the

Christian atmosphere and worldview to access the delivery system. It has

the potential to distort the mission, image, and culture of your college; and

that is why we have avoided it. We do not want to become an academic

meat market . . . . If you think about what this strategy does to your

alumni, it basically has the potential to change your entire constituency

base through changing the profile of your graduates to a group that has

less commitment to your mission and less personal linkage to your school.

Adult students may get a good education in one of these programs,

although I am not completely convinced of that. But even if they get a

quality education, it is not the same experience as a traditional residential

student would get if for no other reason than the age and maturity

difference . . . . And online education is just so counter to what we do

here; once you go down the road a ways, you have made a counterintuitive

statement about the value of your traditional core approach to education. A

statement that this is equivalent in turn waters down your traditional

model; so in an effort to make a few extra bucks, you have damaged your

core educational philosophy and business.

In general, the leaders at these institutions understood that, for them, successful

fundraising is as much a function of good operational management and focus on the core

competencies as on any particular fundraising practice. The heavy emphasis on this

finding was not anticipated by the researcher. In addition to the coupling of strong

operations management and strong fundraising, clearly fundraising was viewed as an

integral component of the overall strategic planning process. Moreover, all budget and

159

resource decisions, including both faculty and staff personnel decisions, were considered

and evaluated in terms of their effect on future resource growth. As one president stated,

“The biggest key to successful fundraising is to first run a good college.”

Communication Strategies

Communicating with core constituencies is a key part of strategic management

and is an important component of fundraising. The leaders of the participating institutions

have a very intentional communication strategy that reinforces their broad strategy of

focused differentiation and works off of the 3-fold market segmentation (Appendix Q)

previously described. The communication strategy is broader than a mere marketing or

public relations strategy but certainly relies upon and is rooted within these common

disciplines. Several distinct communication themes emerged from the interviews with

participants at sample institutions to form the idea of a branding communication strategy.

Before discussing the specific components of a branding strategy, one other

communication theme that is significant to the delivery of the brand image to target

markets must be addressed (i.e., the institutional focus on utilizing an integrated

marketing approach). Integrated marketing refers to a holistic planning approach to

branding which ensures that all brand contacts received by customers or prospective

customers are consistent across all groups and over time (Percy, 2008). An important

finding in this study was that these institutions are highly committed to the concept and

practice of integrated marketing. One president emphasized the importance of integrated

marketing in this way.

We must communicate effectively to multiple constituencies in a

consistent way. I think one of the advantages we have that makes our

fundraising so strong is that although we have several target markets to

reach, we only have one integrated marketing strategy. I know that when I

160

am out on the road cultivating donors that I also have to be recruiting the

next generation of students; and I do. So that 15-year-old kid that I meet at

a church function or at an alumni function is just as vital to our success as

the major donor, and I give them both the same message. We want to

make sure that our message is intentionally refined and honed in such a

way that it travels well geographically and demographically . . . . We

make sure that our development officers are looking for opportunities

beyond just fundraising. We want them to look for opportunities to recruit

prospective students and to place graduates in employment opportunities .

. . . We expect that from them in their duties, and we have mechanisms

intentionally in place to recognize and ensure that these integrated

marketing practices are in place among our development staff . . . . I

recently went out with one of our young development officers, and we

didn't get the results we wanted on a donor call. It just wasn't the right

time and circumstance. But while we were visiting with this potential

donor, we provided him with program information about our nursing

school and women's soccer team for his tenth grade daughter, and we got

connected for some internships at his company for some of our business

students, and to me that was almost as good as what we went there for in

the first place because it gives us more opportunities to fulfill our mission

and more ways to build a stronger relationship with this man and his wife.

[Young development officer's name withheld] was disappointed with the

trip, but I told him that God may have a better development plan with this

donor than we do . . . . We want everything we communicate to advance

the mission of the college.

As noted earlier in this chapter, the sample institutions in this study actively

develop and leverage a unique brand image to support their case for fundraising, and this

brand image cannot exist or be sustained without significant management of a

communication strategy. This brand image is based on the idea of being distinctively

Christian, denominationally anchored but religiously open, and academically excellent.

To create a brand image, an institution’s constituents must first define a frame of

reference (Tybout & Sternthal, 2005). The frame of reference is often referred to in

branding terms as the "points of parity" which include features of the product or

organization which are shared by other members of the category. For the sample

institutions in this study, the point of parity is that they leverage their academic quality to

161

communicate that they are as academically credible as any state university or their

secular private university competition. As one respondent said,

We make the argument that we are just as strong or stronger academically

as [major state research institution name withheld] and that if you go to

school here or give us money, it is a better investment. I love telling

donors that our medical school acceptance rate is the highest in the state

and one of the highest in the country . . . . The US News and World

Reports and other academic listings help us make our claim that we hold

our own with any top-level institution. We have to be able to back that up

with educational outcomes such as excellent medical school and law

school admission rates and career placement.

Clearly, these institutions have no problem leveraging their academic status as a

point of parity with other colleges and universities that charge higher tuition prices; but a

strong branding strategy must also produce "points of difference" which are used to

separate the product or service organization from its frame of reference competitors

(Tybout & Sternthal, 2005). These institutions, as noted earlier, differentiate against other

high quality academic institutions by leveraging the denominational heritage and the

religious climate of the organization against the secular nature of their competition.

Again, this framing would be impossible without the high quality academic experience

and outcomes which keep them in the same frame with the other high quality academic

institutions. Of course, the religious culture and student experience are the differentiators

that sell prospective students and donors on the uniqueness of their educational

experience. In addition, as previously discussed, the high academic quality serves as a

differentiator from the lower quality academic Christian colleges within their

denominational niche or within their geographic region. It is not a coincidence that the

schools in this study are generally considered to be the strongest academically within

their denominational niche but are also still very anchored religiously within that

162

denominational heritage. One president said, "We love and respect our sister schools, but

we have a major academic quality advantage over all of them; and we plan to keep it that

way." Another respondent added, "Our unique brand position is created by the

combination of our denominational niche, our campus spiritual culture, and our academic

excellence." She later added, "We have to carefully manage all three of these variables to

preserve our brand position."

Values, involvement, and ownership are part of the unique selling proposition of

this branding strategy. "I sell values system investment," one development officer stated.

Clearly, that part of the branding process is the selling of values which these leaders

believe encourages donors to invest in their institutions. "We state our values and

encourage people to take ownership in these values through our school," another

respondent added. "People are looking for ways to put their values into action, and we

make the case that our institution and mission are active in that process," added another

major gift officer. One president noted, "We emphasize involvement and ownership in

this institution in our communication with donors. We want their involvement in the

cause, and then we will get their money." Participants emphasized that conveying a firm

sense of values-driven brand image is vital to the image of their institutions.

The value systems "sold" to donors follow the 3-tiered market segmentation

process described earlier. At the core level of this values model is a set of beliefs which

Burtchaell (1991a; 1991b) called "denominational identifiers." These values are very

important selling points to core denominational constituency because they are both the

espoused values of the host denomination and also serve as evidence of “orthodoxy

preventing secularization.” At the broader evangelical level the values presented are

163

based on widely held Christian worldview beliefs which transcend denominational lines.

These values are important because they give the institution a broader base from which to

build relationships without undermining the Christian mission. This strategy, which

Benne (2001) referred to as "anchored but open," allows denominational heritage to be

preserved while reaching out to the broader evangelical community. As one president

said, "You have to be able to reach out from your denominational base without going out.

It is not easy." Finally, leaders at these schools sell a set of broader values to the outer

level of their market which could best be described as "integrity-based education." As

one development officer said, "After Enron, the idea of a school that teaches integrity and

moral law is very popular among a broad audience." These schools understand that a big

part of the fundraising and branding communication strategy is inviting people to invest

in their own personal values whether that is denominationally specific, broad Christian

worldview, or basic integrity-based education. As one president added, "We don't change

who we are for anyone; but we will tell people how we intersect their values, if possible."

Another major communication and branding issue is managing denominational

relations and positioning. The leaders of institutions in this study have strategically

chosen to be denominationally anchored within their religious heritage while also

remaining spiritually open, with some degree of what Liechty (2000) called "ecumenical

hospitality;" they attempt to communicate that theme both internally and externally.

Being denominationally anchored while spiritually open does present many

communication challenges. Often denominational groups experience internal political

conflict, and denominationally-affiliated colleges are sometimes caught in the middle of

these contentious issues. One of the communication themes of the branding strategy is

164

that institutional leaders attempt to position away from denominational controversy by

staking out a middle-ground position or just trying to stay out of the conflict altogether.

They pursue this strategy not because they do not have opinions on issues but because

they understand these types of issues are divisive and distract from their core mission,

which can cause fundraising fallout. One chief development officer put it this way:

We want to represent all of the [denominational name withheld] and not

be seen as being over here and over there on every little issue. We know

who we are and what we stand for, and we don't apologize for that . . . .

but for whoever is out on the extremes individually, corporately,

collectively, we are probably not going to try to press ourselves upon the

representatives of these groupings of folks on either far side. And, again,

from my naive perspective, I guess I see most of the hot-button divisive

issues within our denominational structure as being vested in or resting in

or on the extreme sides. So, again, I don't see us as weak voiced or

indecisive about who we are; but I don't see us going over to a far position

on either side of a controversial issue or trying to influence or win over the

thinking of people on the far side of any issue through the use of this

school. It doesn't make sense to do this, and all it can do is to distract you

from your primary mission.

Of course, avoiding controversy is never an easy task for effective leaders, and all

of the participating study institutions have sister colleges and universities within their

own denominational heritage that form a continuum along the ideological spectrum of the

rank-and-file within their specific denominations. Strategically, the mission and values of

many institutions are to the left or to the right of the denominational center as a means of

differentiating the institution from the competition within their particular denominational

niche. The institutional executives in this study have all staked out a middle position

within this spectrum; they know they have sister colleges and universities on their left

and on the right, and they are satisfied with their location on the continuum as one

president described below:

165

We do understand that there is a perceived or maybe a real continuum of

schools within our denomination, and I understand that some of our sister

schools are trying to position themselves as more orthodox or more

progressive within the denomination. I just don't want to get caught up in

trying to out [denominational name withheld] the competition. We will

compete on academics and culture and facilities but not on who is the

most [denominational name withheld] as that is defined at the moment.

That would be counterproductive for our school in the long run. However,

as you framed this question, we understand that part of this business is

positioning; and we realize those perceptions do have to be watched and

managed. I guess if there is going to be a continuum, we would prefer to

be in the middle.

Maintaining a neutral stance on denominational conflict is often hard to

accomplish and does not mean that academic freedom is trampled at these institutions. In

fact, the opposite is true. These institutional leaders avoid staking out controversial

positions because they feel that by doing so they would damage academic culture directly

and fundraising indirectly. One president described this issue in the following way:

A high quality academic institution cannot go around telling people how

to think on every issue, or it is not a high quality academic institution. Of

course, I have opinions, and you have opinions, that is part of what it

means to be educated. Educational institutions, including Christian

educational institutions, have to preserve room for dialog on all topics; or

they stop becoming educational institutions. All I ask of our people is that

they not attempt to speak for the school. We have only had a couple of

problems with that in all my years as president. We have values that aren't

compromised; and we are relatively homogenous on those core values.

But one of the core values of a Christian is supposed to be mutual respect.

I don't have to agree with but I do have to respect you, and it is amazing

how when we act on mutual respect we can discuss things we disagree

about and learn a lot about the other perspective . . . . We invited [Name

withheld] from [Ivy League School name withheld] to a 3 day academic

symposium a couple of years ago where everything from economics,

politics, poverty, social justice, and race relations, were discussed. When it

was over, he pulled me aside and said “I owe you an apology;” and I had

no idea what he was talking about. He said, "In 40-plus years in

academics, I have never had a more free-flowing or intellectually

stimulating experience in my life; and that is not what I expected. I

expected to be ambushed and to experience closed minds; and I found that

my mind may have been the most closed mind in the room. He went on to

say, “What we did in the last three days could not occur at any Ivy League

166

or big state school in the country because real academic freedom is

destroyed by internal politics, deans, and department chairs; and the spirit

of genuine dialog and listening doesn't exist in academics any more.” Of

course, if we were an institution that focused on indoctrination, he would

not have gotten the same response. And the truth be told, we had a lot of

people who thought we should have controlled the discussions and the

speakers at this conference better . . . ; but I think we struck the balance

we wanted for our academic community, not just for a conference but

every day in our classrooms.

While the academic cultures of these institutions are very open in terms of

academic freedom, some parameters are clearly communicated and firmly in place. Such

issues include a commitment to a Christian lifestyle and core belief systems such as the

sovereignty of God, the deity of Christ, etc. However, the religious litmus tests are very

broad at these institutions which actually makes them slightly less denominationally

orthodox by Benne's (2001) model. As one respondent put it, "we have very broad

parameters on doctrinal issues compared to some of our sister schools; but where we do

have lines, they are hard and fast and well communicated to produce a consistency to all

of our outside constituents." She later commented that those lines at College A are

typically centered more on acting "Christ-like" than they are about any particular

religious doctrinal interpretation. She added, "I worked at [sister institution’s name

withheld] where particular doctrinal views were strictly enforced; but in your personal

behavior you could act like the devil, and nobody questioned it. I like this model much

better." As another respondent said, "We want to communicate to outside constituents

that we are Christ-like in service and behavioral lifestyle and not just denominationally

orthodox."

Neutrality as a strategic position applies to national and global politics at these

institutions as well. A general perception exists that evangelical and fundamentalist

167

Christians are politically conservative across-the-board and linked to Republican-party

politics and that, therefore, these colleges and universities should cater to the same

revenue streams. Again, the leaders of these institutions view political ideology as being

unrelated to their institutional mission and as a dangerous landscape through which they

would prefer not to navigate. One president illustrated the difficulties of avoiding

political ideology at a Christian college in the following quote.

I have to be honest: we try to steer clear of politics as much as possible.

That will never be a big factor while I am president. It just causes too

much trouble and divisiveness, and I can't see it as a positive for

fundraising . . . . I know there are many Christian schools that play in that

world, but I just don't think it is worth it. There is not much of anything

that happens in our two-party political system that looks very Christian to

me, and getting involved in that world makes you look bad also. Many

Christians consider the Democratic party to be morally degenerative on

social issues while many other Christians consider the Republican party to

be warmongers and unconcerned with poverty or social justice. Of course,

being relevant does mean that you need to be able to discuss major issues

from a Christian worldview and within an academic framework; and we

do that vigorously.

I think you have to be careful of bringing political figures on campus. We

were expecting Al Gore to come to our campus for an event honoring a

family member; and we got a lot of negative attention to the point where

his people suggested he not attend to distract from the event. I was

appreciative of that gesture, and I wish he hadn't needed to do that; but I

do believe his presence would have caused me some problems. A couple

of years later we had scheduled Rudi Guilliani to speak. We had booked

him several months before 9-11; and so at the time he was scheduled to

come he was the hottest ticket in the country. But I was watching him in

an interview on television about his martial relations, affairs and so on,

and I knew he would not be a good speaker for us. The development staff

tried to talk me out of it because he was such a hot speaker; but I cancelled

him the next day. And before we even got the announcement out about the

cancellation, we were getting mobbed with complaints about his moral

behavior and how it reflected on our institutional values. Since that time I

have tried to keep politicians away from this campus.

Finally, the branding strategy involves communications about academic

excellence. In the field of higher education much has been written about the strategic

168

importance of reputation and prestige in creating competitive advantage (Brewer, Gates

& Goldman, 2002; Hopkins, 1990; Kerr, 1997; Zemsky, Shaman, Iannizzi, 1997).

Utilizing principles of industry analysis originating in the positioning school, Brewer,

Gates, and Goldman (2002) described the contextual nature of strategic management

within higher education leading to an emphasis on investment in reputation and prestige

in their book titled In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher

education.

Higher education is an industry in which consumers are often

underinformed in the sense that they cannot objectively evaluate the

quality of service before they actually purchase it. Consumers’ inability to

evaluate quality before making a purchase is a common feature of service

industries. However, the problem is particularly severe in higher education

because many of the relevant outcomes are not observed until years later

(p. 19).

Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2002) stated that institutional officials must choose

to invest discretionary resources in either prestige, reputation or both. Reputation is

typically defined by the ability of an institution to respond to the customer demands in

tangible results-oriented ways and can be either positive or negative in the minds of

potential stakeholders (Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002) Prestige is usually

demonstrated by outcomes such as student quality, faculty research success, and even

athletics or the physical appearance of the campus and other trappings of prestige images

(Brewer, Gates, & Goldman, 2002). The institutions represented in this study focused on

building reputation with the belief that prestige does follow over time. One president

described his feeling in the following words:

Certainly, our emphasis on producing extraordinary academic results is the

basis for our growing reputation in the higher education world . . . .

eventually that produces a prestige factor that becomes part of the brand

image of [College A]. We do expect that there will be a residual effect of

169

building on a strong academic reputation which we can leverage to raise

all of our necessary resources from fundraising to student and faculty

recruitment . . . . There is a danger, however, at a school like ours to get

caught up in a prestige chasing game to look like Duke or Vanderbilt and

forget what got us here in the first place. I think continually focusing on

our academic reputation and student outcomes is where we separate

ourselves in brand image.

Brewer, Gates, and Goldman (2002) suggested that institutions usually must

choose between investing in reputation or in prestige. While reputation is easier to

evaluate and achieve, prestige has a longer "shelf-life" in the modern world of higher

education. One president described the tension between investing in reputation and

investing in prestige in the following manner.

The historical roots of our institution are that we have always emphasized

student performance and spiritual development and that we have rarely

had excess funds to do anything frivolous. As a result we have always

been very frugal in our spending patterns, and anything that looks like

flash or prestige-type spending was frowned upon as bad stewardship and

somewhat un-Christian. Unfortunately, in higher education some prestige

spending may be a necessary investment to grow the visibility of the

institution; and as we have become more affluent, we have had to begin to

address that issue. This is a tension I have to confront constantly between

some stakeholders who want no prestige investment and others who want

a significant investment in image spending.

The integrated marketing of a brand image is a central focus of the

communications strategy at these institutions. It is something they discuss and upon

which they reflect continually during the strategic planning and managerial decision-

making processes. Core to the brand image is the maintenance of academic quality,

spiritual culture, and denominational orthodoxy while remaining open, hospitable, and

supportive to non-denominational stakeholders. Any steps taken intentionally or

accidently to erode these features of the brand image are immediately addressed by all

members of these institutional communities. The brand image is viewed as the strategic

170

basis for fundraising success and is closely monitored. Ultimately, however, all

constituents at these institutions understand that their brand image is best displayed

through their graduates. As one president said, "Our brand image is conveyed through the

lives of service and Christian leadership of our alumni." He added, "If our alumni don't

carry and represent our mission, then the greatest fundraising strategy in the world will

not help us. Our graduates have to look like the brand image of a [College A] graduate."

For these sample institutions, brand image is a constant pursuit and the foundation of the

fundraising case for support.

Fundraising Strategy: A Learning Organization

The specific fundraising themes in this study were a surprise to the researcher in

the sense that no unique, specific fundraising practices could account for the success of

the sample institutions. As noted earlier, all of the institutions were aware of and utilizing

many of the best practices for fundraising found in the literature described in Chapter 3

including but not limited to these: planned giving, proposal writing for external funding,

consortia fundraising, leveraged gifts, parent programs, environmental scanning, and

donor research programs. Yet, none of these practices seemed to account for the ongoing

success of the fundraising process. However, an identifiable unique theme at these

sample institutions was that the fundraising and development departments as well as

related functions and players displayed many strong characteristics of the learning

organization model in executing the fundraising strategy.

Learning organization concepts have formed an important framework in strategic

management thinking for many years, although the concept of a learning organization is

still viewed as something of a theoretical model not actually achieved but rather to be

171

strived for continually in daily practice. Peter Senge (1990) described learning

organizations as:

Organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the

results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are

nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are

continually learning to see the whole together. (p. 3)

Whether these institutions as a whole can be considered as examples of learning

organizations is unclear. However, it is very apparent that the fundraising and

development teams at these sample institutions practice learning organization principles

at a very high level. Although only a few of the participants were familiar with actual

learning organization concepts and terminology, the study participants believed that these

learning organization practices were success differentiators in the day-to-day work of the

fundraising and development process.

One of the characteristics of a learning organization is a focus on personal

mastery, and the advancement officers of the sample institutions practiced this discipline

continuously. Personal mastery is often defined as a process of continuous personal

growth both at the individual and the group level (Kezar, 2005; Loermans, 2002). The

participants frequently mentioned this phenomenon in describing their work

environments. One development officer said:

I have worked in this role for 10 years now and had a 20-year career in

business prior to this . . . . but nothing in my past professional experiences

compares to the emphasis here on professional and personal growth.

[Advancement VP Name withheld] really emphasizes continuous

professional growth among everyone in the advancement department, and

I enjoy that all of my colleagues are also part of that growth . . . . over the

years I have become a leading expert in gift recording which I know you

understand very well, but most fundraisers are ignorant of the new

standards, and I take pride in knowing that I am the person people all over

the country call for advice and clarifications. That has only occurred

because of our emphasis on personal and professional growth.

172

The participants emphasized the need to be highly motivated and growth oriented

to succeed in the fundraising world. "[Chief development officer name withheld] is the

best and most experienced fundraiser I have ever seen," one respondent said. "But he will

share with all of us every year his personal growth goals and that motivates me

tremendously" she added. According to another respondent, "there is a sense in our group

that we are all on a spiritual journey of growth and that fundraising just happens to be our

calling." At all of these institutions personal mastery continually pursued by highly

motivated and committed people is necessary to perform effectively in the fundraising

function. As one respondent put it:

I can't imagine doing this job if you aren't 110% committed to this role . . .

. and that includes the president. In fact, he tells us that every week. He

tells us that if we aren't mentally up for the task that he can find us

something else in the college to do . . . . I think you can have an off

semester or year as a professor or an administrator in some areas and still

be considered a high performer; but in this job you really can't have an off

week or the consequences are immediate. We have to be committed to

personal excellence and growth in this role or we will fail to adequately

represent the school, and none of us wants to do that . . . . We don't always

agree about how to do things in a fundraising and development situation,

but we always know that everyone we are working with in this group is

fully committed to being the best fundraiser in the school. I like that

feeling. It does sometimes create competitive situations and some

occasional conflict, but that it is better than wondering if your co-workers

care about what they are doing. That is never a question in our department.

Another distinct characteristic of a learning organization is the concept of

managing mental models. Senge (1990) described mental models as "deeply ingrained

assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that influence how we

understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). The fundraising personnel at these

sample institutions are very reflective people by nature which assists in understanding

mental models. One president commented, "My development staff are the most reflective

173

group of people I ever work with." As one respondent said, "we are in a job where we

have to think a lot about what we are doing while we are doing it." Another development

staff member added, "we spend a lot of time thinking out loud and asking the questions

that may not get asked in any other place on this campus." She added, "we ask, because

we have to." Apparently, in the minds of the research study respondents, fundraising is a

very reflective job.

Understanding mental models also implies that the members of the organization

practice what Senge (1990) referred to as "fostering openness" and transcending internal

game playing and politics (p. 286). "The development staff doesn't have time to play

internal politics like the rest of the college often does." commented one president. "We

are very open in our communications--because if we aren't, we screw up," added a

development officer. Senge (1990) argued that learning organizations use mental models

to distribute organizational responsibility while increasing coordination and control (p.

290). The fundraising departments illustrated this concept very well at these sample

colleges and universities.

Shared vision is another learning organization characteristic of the advancement

offices at the sample institutions. Shared vision usually means that a group holds a

collective picture of the future in an uplifting and creative way that encourages

organizational commitment (Senge, 1990). As already noted these institutions have a

very high level of mission dominance. A sub-component of that the mission dominance is

the idea of shared vision. The respondents emphasized the need to own a shared vision as

being essential to executing the job of an effective fundraiser. As one major gift officer

said:

174

Being able to share the university's mission and vision is absolutely

paramount in being able to go to someone and ask for money. Selling the

mission and vision to them, being enthusiastic about it ourselves, and

being able to document and share authoritatively that not only I as an

individual, but our administration, our faculty and staff, are supportive of

the mission and vision. This is essential. This is what we do better than

anything else at College E.

Senge (1990) asserted that shared vision produces increased clarity, enthusiasm,

and commitment. "Every year I do this job my vision of what we are about grows clearer,

and my job gets easier," said one respondent. She added, "This job requires complete

commitment to the vision; donors can see through you without that commitment." Shared

vision by definition implies consistency among organizational stakeholders. One chief

development officer emphasized the need for shared vision instead of just a dominant

mission.

I think most Christian colleges have fairly consistent missions in the sense

that they know why they exist or their purpose if you will . . . . at least

historically. What I believe separates us from our sister schools is that we

also know where we are going; and we have all bought into that vision,

and it is consistent with our mission both currently and historically . . . .

We don't just have a strong mission; we actually have a well

communicated vision for how we will continue to achieve it . . . . and that

is different from many other Christian schools.

The sample institutions in this study also practice a high level of team learning in

their fundraising process. Senge (1990) asserted that team learning builds on the concepts

of personal mastery and shared vision as people begin to realize that they need to act

together. The development staff members at these institutions understand that success in

their work environment is completely dependent on maintaining open lines of dialogue;

therefore, they have structured their team processes to facilitate this priority. As one

development officer said,

175

This is the ultimate information-gathering business. I don't know any other

job where your success and failure are determined by staying up-to-date

on personal information. To know what donors are thinking, you have to

stay in constant contact with the donors, their spouses, children, friends,

employees, fellow church members. This is a business where you are

constantly gathering pieces of information about donors, and you must get

that information from multiple sources; and you have to be able to

covertly cross-validate those sources, and to do that best you need a team

approach . . . . It is like everyone here is helping everyone else put

together a puzzle. It is a very collaborative process. If you tried to do it

alone, you would never be as successful because you wouldn't be as

informed.

Many development officers confirmed that the continual dialogue experienced in

a team-learning system is critical to executing the "ask" and may prevent making some

serious mistakes. According to one respondent, "I don't know how many times I have told

the group that I am going to see so-in-so. And somebody says, 'No, this isn't the right

time for this reason.’” Other respondents echoed similar examples including this

comment from a major donor officer.

I was on the road in [state name withheld] and I was preparing to ask a

potential major donor for a significant request to support one of our

athletic programs; and someone on the staff emailed and said, “wait, I just

heard that his company was sued this week.” So when I saw him at our

donor function, I told him I was sorry to hear about his situation; and I

recommended one of our alumni who was a successful corporate attorney

in that area whom he did not know. They met and he hired [name

withheld], and the situation turned out well for him and eight months later

he gave us a big check. Today they both serve on one of our development

boards and do a lot of fundraising work for the school. It just shows that

timing and relationships are everything in this business.

Members of the development departments at the institutions participating in the research

effort are very team learning oriented. One officer said, "[Development VP name

withheld] always emphasizes debriefs to the entire staff, and people are always

encouraged to speak up." Another respondent added that although development

professionals are generally competitive people, she also had found that most of them need

176

the support of the team to stay encouraged. "This is a tough job and it helps to feel like

you are not in it all by yourself." She also added, "I wasn't as much of people person

before I came into this job, but after a few years you are all team all the time." When

asked if that attitude was good thing, she just smiled and said, "I can't imagine my life

without these people." Team learning is certainly a defining characteristic of these

fundraising departments.

Finally, the development officers at the institutions studied engage in a high

degree of systems thinking as they execute fundraising strategy. Systems thinking is

defined as the characteristic of understanding and seeing the integrated whole as well as

the interrelationships between variables within a situation. In fact, systems thinking is

generally considered to be the conceptual cornerstone on which the other learning

organization practices are built (Kontoghiorghes et al., 2005; Loermans, 2002). The

previous discussion of the important role of sound operational strategy and integrated

marketing strategy are both good examples of how successful fundraising is viewed as an

integrated outcome of leading an effective organization. The fundraisers at these

institutions understand the complex whole of the academic, administrative, and

operational functions of their organizations. They are knowledgeable about institutional

policy and its impact on fundraising success. Seeing the whole in a dynamic process is an

important aspect of systems thinking, and the leaders of these institutions do this very

well. One development officer said this:

I worked in fundraising at another college and two non-profits before I

came to [College A]. I never really understood the big picture in those

previous roles . . . . Here the big picture is constantly the focus, and there

is a continuous emphasis on making sure we understand the big picture

before we start to execute our fundraising objectives . . . . I have seen and

worked in other environments where fundraising was close to selling used

177

cars or being a professional beggar. At [College A] we let the school itself

do the fundraising’, and we understand everything that we have to do from

a systemic level which makes the execution of fundraising much easier

and more enjoyable.

While seeing the integrated whole is one aspect of systems thinking, another

element is learning to think on a long-term basis. Having as well as maintaining a healthy

long-term perspective is very difficult in any job; but in fundraising where results are

measured and reported in both internal university publications and external sources such

as publications of the Council for Aid to Education, the emphasis on the “here-and-now”

can be quite intense. One Development VP described the counterintuitive pressures of

maintaining a long-term perspective in fundraising in the following manner:

It is difficult to do this job right. But I think the thing that you must

understand institutionally is that if you don't put the long-term objectives

first you will ultimately limit your future. The simple truth of this business

is that the best fundraisers will raise far more money after they are retired

or dead than they ever will while they are on the payroll. But you must

have a leadership team that understands that perspective or you will fail in

this job . . . . Twenty-five years ago [name withheld] was in my job, and

he spent over $200,000 a year for several years on investing in planned

giving programs with little or no immediate return on that investment at a

time when our total development budget was less than 20% of what it is

today. I was a young development officer here back then, and I thought he

would lose his job over it. And believe me he and [college president's

name withheld] took a lot of heat over it.

Today, over 40% of our gifts this year will come from planned giving

work that was done in that time period. Should I take credit for that result?

No! I need to make sure that what I am doing today is paying off in 20

years or I am not doing my job well. That makes performance evaluation

difficult but that has to be the measure in this job if the school is going to

succeed. Anybody, can pick off the low-hanging fruit. But to be great at

this job, you have plow fields you will never harvest yourself. It is very

much like the Biblical parable of planting, watering, and so forth . . . . But

that is a difficult tension in this job.

I have to be willing spend $30 a year on communicating with thousands of

young alumni who will pay me back with an average return of $6.80 . . . . I

178

believe that is a good investment, but it takes a lot of faith in God, my

judgment, our people, and good systems.

In addition to holding a long-term perspective, Senge (1990) also emphasized the

importance of developing systems maps and reinforcing feedback to appreciate systems

thinking. As noted earlier the integrated marketing strategy and brand development of

these institutions is the systems map for producing fundraising success. The long-term

perspective at these institutions is emphasized in an overall philosophy of developing

relationships and doing things "right" over just finding resources. The respondents

continually emphasized that fundraising is about relationships more than money and that

relationships take time to build. Using terminology discussed in chapter three, these

development teams use a broad fundraising approach would be best described as an

involvement strategy with some supporting elements of viability and stability strategies

(Warrick, 2000). One respondent said, "Everything we do institutionally is ultimately a

measure of fundraising capacity." She added, "If we have trouble recruiting students or

new faculty or winning basketball games, all of those things indirectly determine our

ability to succeed in raising money." Systems thinking is deeply rooted in the minds of

the leaders and members of the development staff at these sample institutions and

literally drives the way in which they view the fundraising process. Fundraising is one

aspect of a complex integrated system that influences every activity that occurs in these

institutions.

Summary

The institutions in this study have a strong strategic framework and

implementation process which are focused on many critical success factors and a

comprehensive awareness of the industry niche in which they compete. Academic quality

179

and operational effectiveness expressed by doing a few things extremely well in order to

focus on the core technology of the institution, and the management of a distinctive brand

image are among two of those defining strategic factors. These colleges and universities

utilize a unique 3-tiered model of their supporting constituencies that is rooted first on

denominational affiliation followed by subsequent degrees of value congruency which

serve to frame the manner in which they understand, segment, and communicate in their

market niche. Finally, a fundraising and development environment that draws heavily on

the concepts of a learning organization model helps to explain the strategic success of

these institutions. All of these strategic themes are clearly evident from the hours of

interviews and observation of institutional priorities as well as activities that represent

data collected in this study.

A second, more complicated, strategic question exists in this study. Are these

identified strategic themes and practices the result of intended or emergent strategy?

Unfortunately, this question cannot be clearly answered by this researcher because

substantial evidence exists to support both sides of the question. At times the respondents

seemed to imply that these strategies were the obvious reactionary function of the

historical development pattern of the institutions and that the leaders have basically, as

one president said, "played with the cards they have been dealt." At other times,

seemingly a strong sense of strategic vision has allowed leaders to put these colleges and

universities in position proactively to create their own success. Clearly, some intended

strategy and emergent strategy have produced the strategic outcomes of successful

fundraising and resource development. When emergent strategy has been accomplished

out of strategic necessity, the results have been carefully contained within the boundaries

180

of the institutional mission. During the times when intended strategy has been

successfully realized, the processes have occurred as a function of a desire to advance

that same mission. In either case, strong leadership was behind the strategic choices made

at every step.

The high mission dominance and congruence of these institutions included an

unwavering commitment to avoid secularization patterns and the loss of denominational

identity; such a stance cannot be established or maintained without the existence of

strong effective executive leadership. In other words, the successful strategy of the

sample institutions, whether intended or emergent, is a function of strong mission-

oriented leadership. The leadership behaviors and attributes necessary to support the

successful strategies of these institutions will be the focus of Chapter Seven.

181

CHAPTER SEVEN: LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORS

People say “leadership” but describe “management,” talk only of a

commanding style, serve up speeches about how more than one leader

creates chaos, or talk in mystical terms. I have witnessed this cluttered

thinking endless times in intelligent people. When capable individuals

make such remarks, we have a clear indication of the need for a better

understanding of what leaders really do. (Kotter, 1999, p. 4)

The preceding quote from leadership expert John Kotter (1999) described the

difficulty in defining leadership and the impact of leadership on organizational success.

According to Hogan and Kaiser (2005), social theorists have historically held two distinct

views of human social existence; one set of theorists maintain that forces larger than

individual leaders are driving people’s destiny and the other theorists contend that

individual leaders are responsible for much of what occurs in the world. In this second

view individuals influence, to some extent, the course of events within social systems,

including organizations, which implies that leadership is important as well as relevant to

the outcomes of human efforts. If this latter view is accepted then leadership should be

considered as a factor in assessing an organization’s success in achieving its objectives.

However, as many organizational theorists have argued, attributing organizational

success to leadership is often a vague and indefensible default position assumed by

researchers when success cannot be explained in other terms (Collins, 2007; Hogan &

Kaiser, 2005; Peterson et al., 2003).

The second problem in discussing leadership is that it is a difficult domain to

define because leadership is often discussed in many different ways such as behaviors,

traits, processes, relationships and outcomes. Hogan and Kaiser (2005) said that

leadership literature has always fallen into two categories they called the "troubadour and

182

academic traditions" (p. 171). The troubadour tradition is composed of popular anecdotal,

biographical, entertaining but unreliable opinion pieces, lacking any supporting evidence

or conceptual framework. The academic tradition is a composite of decontextualized

empirical findings that failed to provide a strong basis for understanding the leadership

construct comprehensively. Several other researchers (Judge et al, 2002; Lord et al, 1984)

have come to similar conclusions concerning the gaps in leadership research. This

struggle of theoretical ambiguity has often led researchers to define leadership

inadequately as "occupying a position or standing out in a crowd" (Hogan & Kaiser,

2005, p. 171).

Much of the academic research on leadership focuses on identifying and

illustrating key leadership competencies. Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) developed a

comprehensive 4-domain model based on leadership competency research and found

those domains to consist of intrapersonal, interpersonal, business and leadership skills.

The intrapersonal and interpersonal domains encompassed all areas of self-management

and relationship skills respectively, while the business skills domain represented

technical competencies. The leadership skills domain included common behaviors

associated with influence, motivation, and team-building skills. This 4-domain model

condensed information from volumes of research on leadership competencies and the

developmental progressions required to become a successful leader.

Academic scholars also have identified reputational elements of leadership.

Reputational elements are those characteristics that followers seek and expect in their

leaders. Some of the common reputational leadership themes include these: competence,

vision, integrity, decisiveness, credibility, and many others (Dubrin, 2010; Kouzes &

183

Posner, 2002). The perceptions of followers about their leaders have always been

considered important to leadership effectiveness and have been found to have a great

impact on follower trust, attitudes and motivation (Peterson et al., 2003). Because

followers often evaluate organizational objectives by the credibility of the leader,

reputational elements of leadership also have been found to create self-fulfilling

prophesies and strengthen organizational culture as well as values (Schein, 1985). For

these reasons much of the research on leadership has historically focused on reputational

elements.

The relationship between leadership and personality traits has also been heavily

studied and has produced volumes of research and numerous taxonomies. Wiggins (1996)

developed a 5-factor model of leadership personality traits which included the following:

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to

experience. Other researchers have identified sub-personality traits that are identified

with successful leadership such as: self-confidence, assertiveness, humility, sense of

humor, and emotional intelligence (Dubrin, 2010). Many other researchers have found

strong links between these effective leadership and personality traits (Hogan & Hogan,

2002; Judge et al, 2002; Lord et al. 1986; Mann, 1959). Most studies of leadership end

up with some accounting for personality traits either empirically measured or observed

(Hogan & Hogan, 2002).

Leadership processes have also been studied in terms of organizational

transformations, relationships, and fit. Fiedler (1967) was a pioneer in the situational

leadership school and argued that successful leadership is the product of the right fit

between the leader and follower relationships, position power, structure, and task. Other

184

theorists have also contended that a combination of many factors, including relational

variables, make up the fit between the leader and the situation and heavily influence

leadership effectiveness (Hershey & Blanchard, 1977; House, 1976; Kerr & Jermier,

1978; Yukl, 1971). For this reason, many recent leadership theorists have focused on

organizational transformational processes and related leadership behaviors (Bass, 1985;

Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1999; Kotter, 1995; Schein, 1985; Tichy & Devanna,

1986). The emphasis in organizational transformation literature focuses on the processes

leaders engage in to produce successful organizational outcomes and the relational

behaviors used by leaders to influence the implementation of these processes. The role of

contingent situational variables, such as relationship and fit, as well as ongoing

organizational transformational processes are often difficult to separate from the study of

the leaders in these contexts (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). This study is no exception to that

rule.

Despite the difficulties of defining leadership in research, in this chapter the

sample institutions will be analyzed through the "lens" of leadership behaviors, styles and

actions that have created the successful fundraising environment. Leadership factors are

analyzed at various functional levels of the institutions including the trustees, presidents,

and development officers, and also in terms of behavioral practices and leadership

theories which cross different functional levels within the institutions. The leadership

themes and findings which emerged in this study and are presented in this chapter will

often cross lines of competencies, reputational elements, personality traits, and

organizational transformations, relationships, and fit. In addition, because these sample

higher education institutions have strong leaders at every level, the findings in this

185

chapter should not be viewed as a comprehensive discussion of the leaders at these

institutions but rather as the identification of unique leadership themes that seem to

produce fundraising success. In essence, in this chapter the author will present a picture

of what the leadership at these institutions looks like in term of themes believed

positively to drive fundraising success. Finally the author will conclude this chapter with

a summary of the role of leadership in the strategy formation and implementation process

discussed in Chapter six.

The Guardians: Trustee Level Leadership

Trustee leadership is an important factor in the fundraising success of these

sample institutions, although not in the manner expected by the researcher. As noted

earlier, trustee leadership and involvement are often anecdotally referenced as being

important to fundraising success in higher education (McCown, 2000; Thompson, 1995;

Patton, 1993). However, analysis of the information gathered during this study did not

produce evidence that the members of governing boards were heavily involved in the

actual fundraising process except for a few isolated individuals. The trustees at these

colleges and universities do personally contribute at a significant and often sacrificial

level in their own personal giving to their institutions, and these board members also

discuss fundraising goals as well as campaigns; they also serve as critical information

sources and networking facilitators for the development teams at their respective

institutions. However, when the situation involves actual participation in the cultivation

and solicitation processes, these trustees generally leave this work to the development

professionals. As one president summarized, “I never wanted to be a fundraiser, and

neither does our board.” He added, “We all realize fundraising is important; but if you

186

don’t have to do it every day. You don’t get comfortable enough to jump in the water.” A

chief development officer at another institution added, “We try to ease our board into the

cultivation process; but the closer you get to solicitation, the quicker the barriers come

up. They generally say something like ‘that is what we pay you for’ and balk.” He added,

“most of our trustees don’t even like being present at the ‘ask.’”

While the trustees may not be comfortable in the fundraising process, they are

peripherally involved, particularly in providing donor research intelligence and

networking opportunities. These trustees also have a good understanding of the

challenges and nature of the fundraising function. One development officer said, “I can

call any of our trustees at any time and ask them about potential donors, business

colleagues, or old classmates; and they will tell me everything they know because they

understand the challenge of my job.” Another respondent said, “All of our board will give

you complete access to their professional networks as long as you don’t ask them to make

the ‘ask’ or do anything beyond their comfort level.” She added, “They know what I need

to do for us to be successful; and they are very supportive, even nervous, about my job

results. . . but they don’t want to do my job.”

Despite the limitations on trustee involvement in the fundraising process, these

boards do play a critical role in the success of the sample institutions. The trustees at

these institutions act as guardians of the institutional mission, creating a backdrop of

stability for the presidents and the development officers. One president said, “I am

successful at fundraising because my board allows me to be.” Another president added,

“Stability in the leadership of College A begins with the stability of our board.” He later

187

added, “Our board is the ultimate steward of our institutional history, mission, and

denominational relationship; and that makes my job workable.”

While all governing boards are supposed to fulfill their fiduciary duties, the

boards at these colleges and universities go above and beyond in their commitment level.

In fact, they act as the “owners” of these sample institutions. “I have never seen any

school where the board is more engaged than at College E,” one respondent said. “Our

trustees take full ownership of our college,” added another respondent. One president

described the trustee commitment difference at his school as compared to other

institutions.

Our board is completely invested in this school and its future. After their

families and their jobs I would say we are their top priorities. . .complete

personal commitment. . .they bleed College D. . . .I know this is not the

case at some other Christian schools. I know that our board thinks

strategically about this school every day. It is so much a part of their

personal identity. . .even when we have disagreements I always know that

everyone on our board wants the best for the school and would do

anything in his or her power to see it succeed. This level of board

commitment makes it much easier to do my job.

This “guardianship” or “ownership” mentality among the trustees stands out in

this study as a unique characteristic. The concept of “ownership” came up several times

among people attempting to define the uniqueness of the boards in this study. One

president said,

Our board is not a detached governing board. They are not just an advisory

or figurehead board nor do they micromanage me or the executive team.

Our board serves as partners and resources and are literally part of the

school the same way the College of Cardinals is part of the Roman

Catholic Church. This is not just a role in their life that helps to define

who they are. It is who they are. They are University C. They live, eat and

breathe this institution every day. They own the school and the school

owns them. . . .We have some strong personalities on our board, but you

would never know it in this role because any individualism among our

board would not fit the culture or be accepted by the group. The school is

188

always bigger than any individual. That is the culture of University C, and

it starts with our board.

The trustee ownership theme in this study could best be described as an

irrevocable commitment to the institution and a sense of responsibility as opposed to a

“controlling” ownership concept. This distinction is best described by another president

who added the following perspective on his board,

I talk to college presidents in all areas of higher education, and I know that

I have a unique situation here at College D. Obviously, the board is my

boss but if I tried to act like they were my superiors that is probably the

one thing that would threaten my job. And if I tried to run this place like I

was unilaterally in charge that would probably get me in trouble. I know

many presidents who are on a short leash, spending all their time trying to

guess how to satisfy their board to keep their job. And I know several

other presidents who have no leash and are wondering if their boards have

any interest in what is going on in the school. . . .Our board wants to be

my partner and serve me and the school to the best of their ability. . . . I

think of our board as the “owners” in Jesus’ parable where he described

the difference between the hired hands and the owner of the sheep. The

“owner” was willing to die for the sheep. Our board would die for this

college.

When asked if the board should be described as “owners,” another president commented,

“I think they are owners in the since that they are permanent in their role. . .owners who

will never sell the company.” He added, “They are not owners in the sense of bossing

people around or taking privileges.”

The difference in the boards’ influence in these institutions when compared to a

typical governing board at other higher education institutions is difficult to describe.

However, the distinctiveness of these sample boards stood out in so many signal ways.

Participants at all 5 of the sample institutions emphasized the selective nature of the

board member’s role. “We don’t let just anybody sit on our board,” said one trustee. She

added, “A new trustee would have to be on a short list for a long time, and his or her

189

commitment level unquestioned to be selected.” Selectiveness, longevity, peer pressure

accountability, and commitment were frequently mentioned by respondents as keys to

producing outstanding boards. One trustee said, “I have been on the board for 28 years,

and I have only known one board member to ever miss a meeting; and he was seriously

injured in an accident days before the meeting.” Another trustee added, “If you aren’t

fully committed to this board, the group would call you out publically.” One chief

development officer used this example to emphasize the level of trustee engagement:

We had consultants in from Panas & Company to do a strategic review of

our board engagement levels based on CASE standards and benchmarks.

They couldn’t believe our results. They said “we don’t even have a

comparison group to measure against”. . . .They were looking at years of

service, giving records, meeting attendance, involvement in other campus

activities. . .they actually thought we misunderstood the survey because

our numbers seemed unbelievable.

The distinctive brand image of these sample institutions and the long-term

fundraising focus described in Chapter six is directly and intentionally influenced by the

leadership of the trustees. One president commented, “The best protection we have

against losing our mission or secularization is our board. They are on watch for that.”

Another president added “Our board is committed to making sure we do fundraising

right. . .no shortcuts.” He added, “I don’t have to worry about rushing the cultivation

process as some of my peers at other institutions do. I get to focus on long-term

relationship building and success.” Another respondent agreed, “Our ability to focus on

long-term relationships, consistent with our mission and identity is because our board

insists on that focus.” This idea was conveyed over and over by respondents in this study.

While respondents acknowledge that fundraising always includes a tension between

raising money now and building relationships that will yield more money in the future,

190

these institutions have boards who provide the support to do the latter, while also

protecting the long-term mission and brand.

In conclusion, the role of the trustees at these institutions is critical in defining the

mission-based strategy and creating an environment conducive to long-term fundraising

success. While they are not heavily involved in the fundraising process, they are involved

in framing the emergent strategy as well as brand image used to make the case for

support. Summing up the trustee influence, one development officer said, “I never worry

about the big direction of this school because our board serves as the guardian of our

mission.”

Superman Presidents: The Catalyst for Success

One of the unanimous themes at all 5 sample institutions is that the presidents are

the most valuable players in these organizations and the catalyst for fundraising success.

Over and over respondents identified presidential leadership as the most important

variable to the fundraising success at these institutions. One respondent said, “We are

more successful than other schools because Superman is our president.” While Superman

is a fictional character, these presidents are very real. The importance of the president to

fundraising success is also real. But, how do these presidents provide leadership that

fosters successful fundraising? This investigator found that these presidents exhibit high

levels of both “Level 5” leadership and mission-focused leadership, while also being very

adept at boundary spanning, cooption, and organizational storytelling. All of these

presidential leadership variables serve as the catalyst for success in raising money at

these sample institutions.

191

One of the interesting leadership findings in this study is that the presidents of the

sample institutions all displayed a high degree of what Collins (2001a, 2001b, 2005,

2007) defined as “Level 5” leadership. “Level 5” leadership is a counterintuitive style of

leadership based on a combination of extreme humility and professional will (Collins,

2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2007). The presidents of these sample institutions possessed both of

these trait variables in large quantities. When asked repeatedly about the importance of

their role in the fundraising process, all of the presidents repeatedly dismissed and

minimized the impact of their individual contributions to the fundraising process with

comments such as, “Well, I just do my small part” or “Oh, I really think my role is very

basic.” But when questioning all of the other key development personnel in these

institutions, the importance of the leadership style and personal characteristics of the

presidents kept coming up as a critical factor for fundraising success.

Level 5 leaders possess a compelling modesty which builds trust among their

followers because their ambition is all channeled into the organization and not

themselves. This theme came up many times throughout the interviews with statements

such as the following by a development officer at College A.

Dr. (name withheld) is the humblest man I have ever known. He always

puts College A above his himself and his own needs. . . . If he thinks he

will get in the way on an “ask” he will step back. . . . Even when people

don't agree with him, no one ever questions that his priorities are with the

school and not himself. I worked at another college where the president

was all about the president and the school took second position or even

lower. Dr. (name withheld) has no ego to get in the way despite how

immensely talented he is. That is a breath of fresh air in this business, and

it helps to raise money.

Several other comments were made about the all of presidents' humility; clearly,

these leaders focus their ambition on their institutions and not themselves. Repeatedly the

192

overwhelming description of these presidents by their colleagues was about their personal

humility and lack of ego. Comments such as, "Dr. (name withheld) always puts

University C above himself" or "Dr. (name withheld) is very down to earth and

approachable which makes him very attractive to donors" were continually offered by

their coworkers. However, when you ask any of these men about the importance of their

personal contribution to fundraising success, they will give the credit to God, or their

staff members, and always downplay themselves. One respondent commenting about the

personal humility of her own president who is a major scholar in his field added this

comment,

President (name withheld) is so humble that he focuses all of his personal

pride into the students and faculty of University B and their achievements.

If you ask him about something he has done professionally he just blows it

off as inconsequential. Most people who have written 50 or more books

and hundreds of articles like to talk about themselves. . . maybe brag a

little bit. . . but not Dr. ( name withheld). If he brags about anything it will

be the women's softball team or the chorus or the students in the regional

chemistry competition. That is as close as you will ever come to hearing

this man brag about anything.

The same president met at 7 a.m. to provide 4 hours of interview material for this study,

then followed that interview session with an executive meeting at 11 a.m. and was later

seen at 1:30 p.m. carrying fast food back to his office for his clerical staff and himself

who had all missed lunch. His secretary said that act was very common for him. But the

humility of the presidents in this study is anything but common.

Although Level 5 leaders are extremely humble, categorizing them as passive or

laid-back would be a serious mistake. The presidents in this study are all driven to

achieve success for their institutions. These men are what Collins (2007) called "plow

193

horses, not show horses" (Collins, 2007, p. 42). This attitude was also reflected in their

comments about their own work style and approach to fundraising as one president said,

On the outside fundraising looks exciting and dramatic; but in reality, it is

a slow grind. You have to understand that fundraising is not about big

events it is about daily consistency. And that means something close to

365 days a year. . . You get up every single day and say that we need to

raise $35,000 today, and tomorrow, and the next day. There are no days

off in this part of the business. You have to be doing the little things

everyday and hope and pray that this leads to big results.

Another president added the following description of the "plow horse" or in his words

"dairy-farmer" role of a successful fundraising president:

When I was in the academic side of higher education I had this perception

that fundraising was dynamic and flashy because you always see other

presidents, dressed up, sometimes doing black-tie events, accepting some

large check from a major donor. Because, as you know, from the outside it

looks really high profile. So when I started, I was concerned about my

ability to fill that high profile, charismatic role. . . . But then I talked to a

long-time president whom I really looked up to; and he explained to me

that my mental picture was all wrong. He explained to me that fundraising

is more like being a dairy farmer than a movie star. You have to go out

every day and feed and milk the cows, rain or shine. He said that behind

every photo op with a major donor are years of phone calls, personal

cards, and hours of discussions over coffee. . . . I have found the dairy-

farmer job description to be much more accurate to what it takes to be

successful in fundraising.

The high professional will and "plow horse" style as well as mentality of these

presidents is not lost on the people around them. "I don't know anyone with Dr. (name

withheld)'s work ethic," said one respondent. A development officer at another sample

institution added, "It is hard to complain about your workload when our 68-year-old

president is working circles around you." Repeatedly, the theme of the high professional

will of the presidents kept coming up as a fundraising strength. When one chief

development officer was asked about what he saw as a potential threat to their

institution's fundraising viability, he said the following:

194

The biggest challenge we will ever face is not the external factors you are

discussing. Economics and constituency changes are real challenges, but

for us the biggest question will be “can we replace Dr. (name withheld)

with someone equally capable and committed?” And when I say capable, I

mean more than just his talent but primarily his work ethic and drive. . . .

Fundraising is really hard work, and the president has to commit

wholeheartedly to that work, or you have performance problems. I know

many fundraising professionals who are much better at this job than I am

but are less successful because they have a weak president. Our president

is a workaholic who still finds time to be personable and completely

committed to God . . . he is driven to see this college succeed and raise the

resources we need.

Another element of "Level 5" leadership is the window and the mirror

phenomenon which refers to the tendency of these leaders to accept blame for

organizational failure and to distribute credit to others for organizational success.

(Collins, 2001a, 2001b, 2005, 2007). The presidents in this study are known for

practicing the window and the mirror. "Dr. (name withheld) always praises the

development group for good fundraising results," one respondent said. She also added, "I

think that is highly motivational to our department." A respondent from another sample

institution said, "Our president doesn't just write personal thank-you notes to donors, he

writes them to us also." A development officer from a third institution in the study said,

"President (name withheld) never takes credit for anything good that happens at this

school." He added, "The credit always goes to God first, the students second, and the

faculty and staff third."

These presidents also handle the mirror side of this leadership practice as well.

"With Dr. (name withheld) you know that the buck stops with him. No question," one

respondent quipped. A trustee from another institution said, "Our president takes full

responsibility for everything that goes wrong. No excuses. No blame game." He added

"Dr. (name withheld) is a very strong leader in that respect." That president commenting

195

on his own role verified this statement when he said, "Everything that happens at College

E is my responsibility. In academics people like to blame others but this job won't allow

that." Another president in the study commented, "If fundraising isn't happening

successfully at University C there is no one to blame but me. That is my number one

responsibility."

Having a president who assumes the responsibility for failures is very motivating

to the development staff at the sample institutions. One development officer added, "Dr.

(name withheld) makes me want to jump through walls for him and College A." He

added, "I don't want to let either one of them down." Another respondent at one of the

other institutions said, "Trust is big component of this job." He added, "Things sometimes

go wrong, particularly at the ‘ask’ stage, and it helps to know that your president won't

blame it on you if that happens." One chief development officer explained the importance

of the mirror concept in these terms:

In this business you really need to trust the people you are working with

because it is so personal, and you have to go with your instinct often and

throw out the script. . . . Dr. (name withheld) can be unintentionally

intimidating to our young staff because of his expertise, experience, status

in the church and the school, and so on. But he lowers that so much by his

humility and taking the leadership responsibility in this process. If

something goes wrong, he always takes the blame. . . . If someone messes

up, bad timing, bad judgment, bad information, he will just gently teach

them what went wrong without beating them up. This is so important in

building the type of relationships among our team that is necessary for us

to be successful.

Finally, “Level 5” leadership is also demonstrated by the presidents’ focus on

building the organizational capacity for the future. These presidents are building the

organizational and fundraising capacity for the long-term performance. One president

said, “I want to raise money this year that we won’t collect until after I am dead.”

196

Another president added, “I want to leave this organization so strong that people will not

even know that I am gone.” He added, “I hope donors and others look at the school after I

retire and say ‘what did he do here anyway?’” Another respondent said, “Dr. (name

withheld) always focuses on the long-term success and continuous growth of the school.”

She added, “He wants everyone around him to be continually growing.” A chief

development officer said, “It is easier to do fundraising right when your president is

focused on a 20-year horizon and not a 20-month horizon.” He later added, “Our focus

then becomes on building relationships, matching needs with donor interests, and

building capacity instead of just shaking down donors.”

In addition to “Level 5” leadership, these presidents also continually displayed

mission-focused leadership. As previously described, mission-focused leadership is the

domain of the trustees, but the presidents at these institutions constantly demonstrated

and modeled this leadership variable, both to internal and external constituencies. This

researcher found that the presidents of these institutions displayed a high degree of

mission focus in their day-to-day leadership activities. In fact, they visibly embodied the

mission of their institutions.

I think for many people Dr. (Name Withheld) is (College A). He is the

visible representation of this institution to everyone who knows us. He

would be very uncomfortable with my saying that, but I think he would

also understand that it is true. . . . He realizes that everything he does has a

symbolic aspect. But he is not a "spinner" or someone who merely plays

the role. He is who he is, and that just happens to be what we say our

mission is about in the form of servant leadership. That is who he is; and if

he wasn't who he is, then we might have a credibility gap that would make

it harder to appeal to donors. I think that is a problem for some of our

sister schools. But we don't have to worry about that with Dr. (Name

Withheld) because who he appears to be on the surface is who he is at his

basic core. He is totally genuine at the core, and everyone knows that. . .

even if they disagree with him, they still know who he is. . . and there is

no doubt that we leverage him in our fundraising efforts.

197

Mission-focused leadership is often discussed in literature but difficult to find in

real life (Brinkerhoff, 2009). However, at these sample institutions, mission-focused

leadership is the norm, particularly at the presidential level. This situation leads to a high

degree of goal congruence and creates as well as reinforces the brand image discussed in

Chapter six. “Credibility is the key to our president,” one respondent said. He later added,

“You might find a more talented president, but you can’t find anyone who better

embodies the mission and values of our school.”

The ability and commitment of these presidents to demonstrate mission focus

continually is critical to these institutions’ success by helping them stay the course on the

chosen strategy of niche differentiation and the operational strategy of sticking to the core

competencies. Respondents often emphasized that the mission focus of the presidents

prevents resources and energy from being diverted to non-mission driven activities. One

respondent said, “There are all kinds of ideas killed on this campus because nobody

believes it will pass Dr. (name withheld)’s mission test.” She added, “In the end that

saves us time, energy, and distractions.” Another respondent added, “We don’t jump on

‘flavor of the month’ projects around here if they don’t look consistent with our mission.

Our president assures that.”

While getting caught up in the chase for funds and segregating fundraising goals

from operations would be easy tasks to complete, the presidents at these institutions focus

on operations as a path to fundraising success. One president said, “We raise money

because of our mission; we don’t have a mission because we raise money.” Another

president added, “We have to stay mission-focused to raise money, and my job is to make

sure that our mission is happening everyday on this campus.” He added, “That is my

198

primary contribution to the development and fundraising model. Keep the case valid.

That raises money.”

In an era of higher education defined by new revenue-enhancing pursuits and

initiatives, these presidents hold the counterintuitive belief that staying focused on the

mission-at-hand makes the fundraising case easier. One president said, “Every conference

I go to the topic seems to be finding new revenue streams to survive.” He added, “I don’t

think most schools can handle that many activities and sub-missions successfully.”

Another president said, “Mission creep is the enemy of fundraising. I don’t want to chase

every revenue stream in the market at the expense of our core mission.” A third president

in the sample said, “Mission management is the best fundraising strategy you can pursue.

That is your case for support.”

Avoiding mission creep is not the only rationale for the presidents’ reluctance to

pursue new revenue and adaptive initiatives; a concern also exists that too much

innovative risk taking might damage the existing product as well as brand image and

subsequently weaken fundraising capacity. One president put it this way:

Fundraising works best when it is based on organizational success and

stability. If you start pursuing too much change in your product offering

that is the same in donor’s eyes as a change in mission . . . . So then the

question becomes “Why the change?” and often the answer donors come

to is that there is something wrong with the existing mission or the

stability of the school. . . . So later on donors start questioning why they

are supporting a mission that needs so much change and new initiatives. I

don’t want donors questioning our success or stability.

This sentiment was held by all presidents in this study. A strong belief existed that many

new initiatives, viewed as potential “cash cows,” frequently carried a risk premium that

could not only distort the mission but also damage the existing brand. One president said,

“The problem with being entrepreneurial in higher education is that the failure rate is

199

often high. And failure hurts fundraising” Another president echoed the same sentiment,

“Trying a lot of new revenue sources means inviting some level of failure and

instability.” He added, “Tiffany’s might make some additional money selling Coney dogs

and nachos. But it doesn’t seem beneficial to their core mission or brand image.”

Protecting and advancing the mission of the sample institutions is the primary

focus of the presidents in this study. Mission is important and managing the mission

requires leadership. The presidents of these institutions, acting consistently with the

support of their boards, have made a leadership decision that focusing on mission is not

only the right thing to do but is also good for fundraising. The broad strategy choice of

focused differentiation and the operational-strategy choice of sticking to core

competencies, both discussed in Chapter six, each require a champion to implement

them. In this study, that champion is the president. These presidents provide a mission-

focused approach to leadership which translates clearly to all stakeholders in the

organization and also inspires donors with a strong sense of integrity, success, and

stability. The mission-focused leadership of these presidents is an extremely critical

variable to the fundraising success of these institutions.

While “Level 5” and mission-focused leadership describe the broad presidential

leadership styles found at these sample institutions, some interesting presidential

leadership behaviors seemed to magnify the fundraising success. For example, the

presidents in this study are all very adept at engaging in boundary-spanning and cooption

behaviors vital to accelerating the fundraising process.

Pfeffer and Salancik (2003) have defined organizations as coalitions of interests

as well as markets in which influence and control are exchanged (p. 259). Non-profit

200

organizations, therefore, often exchange control and influence through the fundraising

process. The presidents in these sample institutions understand that the boundaries

between the institution and other stakeholder organizations as well as interest groups,

particularly the host denomination, are both significantly porous and overlapped. As one

president said,

I think to successfully lead a denominationally affiliated school you must

have the ability to maneuver fluidly across many different constituencies,

understand their needs, and address their concerns . . . . Being able to

connect people and interests is critical both to operational success and

fundraising. I try to be very aware of our constituents, particularly across

the denominational and geographic spectrum . . . . Different groups have

competing interests . . . you must see those potential conflicts coming and

reframe them to avoid fundraising damage.

Another president described the role of president as a connector of various interest groups

and a defender of the organizational role. “I have to continually survey our environment

and make sure that well-meaning, but often incorrect, aspirations of our school don’t get

us hijacked,” he said.

This role of boundary spanning by the president was continually mentioned as a

critical success factor by many respondents. “I think our president has the ability to link

various people together in a way that increases collaboration and decreases conflict,” one

development officer mentioned. She added, “In the world of denominational politics that

is harder than it sounds.” Another respondent added, “In this business you have forces in

the church wanting to control the school and forces in the school wanting to control the

church.” He added, “Our president can carefully walk those two lines and make them

both feel appreciated and both feel like he is in their camp.”

When asked about the tensions of control between the church and the university,

the presidents of these institutions often conveyed a sense of joint responsibility. “I do

201

represent (denominational name withheld) everywhere I go,” one president said. Another

president said, “Separating the (denominational name withheld) from (University C)

would be like separating the hydrogen and oxygen in this water.” He added, “There

would be nothing recognizable left of either one if you could separate them.” A third

president commented, “The church and the school overlap a lot but both are transactional

in their relationship. We provide them with legitimacy, and they provide us with power

and resources.” He later added “I hope we both remember that we are mutually

dependent. I have to make that case every day to raise money.”

Boundary-spanning behaviors are not limited to the relationship with the host

denomination but extend to corporate and community relations as well. One respondent

put it this way, “There hasn’t been a mayor in this town for 30 years who hasn’t closely

networked with Dr. (name withheld) and vice versa.” One president added, “I must

constantly work to keep us connected to the community and different institutions that are

critical to our work.” He later clarified those groups as being “Corporations, hospitals,

government agencies, and people who provide us [with] resources and who employ our

graduates.”

To be good at boundary spanning a leader must have strong networking ability

and a sense of where power lies within an interest group. Respondents in this study

suggested that their presidents are experts in this area. “I think Dr. (name withheld) is the

best leader I have ever known for understanding who the power players are in any

situation,” one respondent claimed. He added, “Whether it is a donor or a person

potentially causing trouble in the church. He always knows the source.” Other

respondents mentioned similar statements. “Our president is good at knowing who the

202

decision-makers are and where their influence lies,” commented one respondent. A

trustee at another sample institution said, “The president at a school like this has to be

able to reconcile a lot of different interest groups, understand their priorities, and balance

the school’s response to those interests.” He added, “Our president is very skilled at that

process.”

The boundary-spanning skill of the president produces many positive outcomes

for fundraising. First, and probably most obviously significant, the presidents continually

expand the institution’s sphere of influence and base of potential donors through their

networking activities. One development officer said this, “In terms of major donors, our

president is our most direct source of new contacts.” Another donor said, “We send out

Dr. (name withheld), and he comes back with a list of potential new contacts and usually

a strategy to make a second step in cultivation.” He added, “We leverage Dr. (name

withheld)’s growing rolodex to expand our potential donor base.” Another development

officer added, “Our president is our scout and bait. We send him out into the community,

and we see what he attracts.” He added, “After he makes the connection, we figure out a

strategy to cultivate the new contact. But we couldn’t do that without Dr. (name

withheld) first bringing the prospect into our network.”

Another use of the boundary-spanning skills of the presidents is the acquisition of

donor information. “Our primary donor research method is to ask our president for

information,” one respondent claimed. She added, “He taps his network and tells us what

we usually need to know. And often that information can only be retrieved through his

network.” This dynamic is not lost on the presidents themselves as they commented on

their own role in the fundraising process. “I think my primary job is to gather information

203

for our development staff. I get access to circles they can’t reach,” one president

commented. Another president added, “I think to be a successful fundraising president

you have to do more than network. You have to network with the intent to gather relevant

information.” He later added, “You have to have your antennae up and be prepared to

continually debrief your development staff.” A third president in the study added,

“People will tell the president things they will not tell other development people. So you

have to play close attention to what is said in your presence.”

The boundary-spanning skill of the president also helps in conflict resolution. As

mentioned previously, the presidents have to be able to move successfully between many

different interest groups. Often, as these presidents engage in their continual networking

activities, they can see signs of coming conflicts. Conflict management literature often

refers to an initial process stage known as potential opposition or incompatibility which

precedes a second stage of cognition and personalization (Dubrin, 2010). Leaders who

can identify this early pre-cognition state of conflict can often intervene successfully and

unobtrusively (Robbins & Judge, 2011). These presidents seem to intervene frequently to

prevent conflict between interest groups in a way that only a strong boundary spanner

could do successfully. “Unfortunately, churches and denominations are ripe with conflict

and conflict kills fundraising,” one development officer commented. He added, “Our

president nips a lot of conflict before it materializes.” Another respondent commented,

“Dr. (name withheld) should be a diplomat in the Middle East because he understands

conflict and knows how to manage it before it produces fundraising damage.” A third

respondent commented, “Our president prevents conflict so we don’t have to resolve it.

He is so plugged into our stakeholders that he knows when conflict is about to happen,

204

and he intervenes preventively.” She added, “That helps us function without the stress

conflict puts on fundraising.”

The presidents themselves echoed this theme. “Church conflict affects fundraising

significantly. I try to anticipate conflict and prevent it before it contaminates our school,”

one president noted. Another president added, “You can see and anticipate conflicts that

can impact your donor base if you are observant.” He added, “If you aren’t observant you

will get blind-sided and have no ability to react until it is too late.” A third president in

the study added, “I think managing conflict is a critical presidential role, and it is best

done on the preventive side if you want to avoid fundraising damage.” He also noted, “I

think you have to be able to assess which conflicts are going to stick and become

damaging and which will blow away or not directly affect the school.”

One of the skills closely related to boundary spanning that these president do well

is cooption. Cooption usually involves bringing within the boundaries of the organization

people who may then choose to view themselves more as insiders than outsiders and

subsequently become more supportive of the organization (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003).

The presidents at these colleges engage in cooption frequently. The primary purpose of

this leadership practice is to increase linkage and connectivity of potential donors which

expands the donor base and brings in “new friends” to the institution. One president put it

this way:

Colleges are in constant need of outside expertise that is often both

expensive and specialized. I try to expand our network to find as many

people as I can who share our interests and values and also can help us . . .

. Over time as they work with us either in a paid or advisory role their

connection to the school grows; and we have a critical supporter who can

help us in many ways . . . and that includes with donations and word-of-

mouth . . . . I think the use of volunteer advisory boards is one of the best

ways to create a win-win situation for the school. You get fresh, creative

205

ideas and you can build a relationship from the inside where the

individuals can see your mission first hand . . . . If I can get influential

people exposed to what we do here, then that is half of the battle in

fundraising. Seeing is believing in this business, and you can only truly

see from the inside . . . . To raise money you must convert outsiders into

insiders. Then the money will come after the commitment.

Other presidents made similar comments. “My job is to reach outside of our college, find

compatible people, and link them and their networks to our cause” one president

commented. Another president said, “I am not so much about fundraising. Our staff does

that. I link outside networks to the college, so we have a place to fundraise.” He added, “I

am basically a connector in this role.”

Connector is a word that frequently arose when others were describing the work

of these presidents. Malcom Gladwell (2000), author of the popular book, The Tipping

Point, would probably agree that these presidents are what he called “connectors.”

Connectors are people with a special skill for bringing the world together and making

many acquaintances (Gladwell, 2000, p. 38). According to Gladwell (2000), the social

power of these connectors is “their ability to span many different worlds” which is “a

function of something intrinsic to their personality, some combination of curiosity, self-

confidence, sociability, and energy” (p. 49). These presidents obviously do boundary

spanning well, but they complete the cycle when they eventually coopt key individuals

from their outer circles of influence and bring them into their institutional mission. One

respondent made this point, “This president continually brings new people into our cause.

And usually their money soon follows.” Another respondent added, “The president is a

donor recruiter. He connects our prospects to the school and his judgment on how to best

do that is usually ‘spot’ on.” One chief development officer described his president’s

focus in this way. “I spend most of my time thinking about managing our existing donors,

206

especially major donors. He spends most of his time thinking about prospects he thinks

should be major donors.” He added, “In his mind it is only a matter of finding the right

way to connect these prospects to the mission.” These presidents are definitely

connectors.

Of course, cooption also serves another purpose for these presidents. In addition

to building a network to grow the donor base and increase the linkage of interested

parties, these presidents engage in cooption to control difficult people who may be

potentially damaging to the institutions. “There are many stakeholders who may have an

agenda if left to their own devices. Dr. (name withheld) often finds something for them to

do to keep them busy,” one development officer said. According to another respondent,

“One of the ways our president controls conflict is by putting troublemakers to work in

some capacity that makes it hard to cause trouble.” She added, “I know we have a least a

dozen advisory board members who were chosen to convert from outside critics to inside

workers. Dr. (name withheld) is very shrewd in that way.” Another respondent added,

“We have a very crude, unchristian saying that it is better to have someone in the tent

peeing out than outside peeing in.” He added, “Our president is a master at bringing

critics into the tent.”

The presidents themselves acknowledge that cooption is a form of controlling

potentially damaging individuals, and they are unapologetic about the leadership practice.

One president described his philosophy of cooption as a proactive approach to dealing

with potentially difficult stakeholders.

A Christian college has to maintain a certain brand image and there are

always a few outside critics, parents or alumni, who often on religious

issues want to rebrand you or cause a problem. You can either ignore

them, engage them in a mudslinging contest, or you can put them to work

207

inside your organization which takes the rock out of their hands and gives

them a hammer . . . . I want to try to turn them into builders as opposed to

destroyers. I feel our culture of accountability is stronger from the inside

than the outside. It is risky. And it doesn’t always work. But the

alternatives of ignoring or fighting rarely work.

Other presidents held the same philosophy and also acknowledged their use of cooption

as a defensive leadership tool. “I learned a long time ago as a department chair that the

best way to deal with critics is to put them in charge of something” one president said. He

added, “It is hard to be so critical when you are responsible for something. It is very

disarming.” Another president added, “Most troublesome or critical people want to have

more influence over things. So I say, ‘here you go,’ ‘have at it,’ and generally that shuts

them up.” He added, “It is even possible to turn critics into champions if you pick the

right individuals.” Clearly, these presidents know how to successfully advance their

organizations through effective boundary spanning and opportune cooption.

Finally, a critical presidential leadership behavior leading to fundraising success

that emerged in this study is the use of organizational storytelling as a tool for advancing

the institution. The presidents at these sample institutions are masterful communicators

who use organizational storytelling as a primary tool to shape the brand image and to

motivate donors to action. Author and organizational theorist Stephen Denning (2001,

2004, 2005, 2007) described organizational storytelling as a powerful tool for energizing

and empowering complex organizations to push past existing performance levels and

continually expand their potential. The theme of storytelling was certainly not anticipated

by the researcher in this study, but again and again respondents described their presidents

as master storytellers who energize their organizations and donors through narrative.

These stories take many forms that Denning (2001, 2004, 2005, 2007) and others

208

(Fulford, 1999; Polkinghorne, 1998; Weick, 1995) would identify as catalysts for action,

which is particularly important in motivating donors and calling all organizational

constituencies to higher levels of commitment. The storytelling tool, accompanied by the

credibility of “Level 5” and mission-focused leadership style, may be the most important

behavioral leadership finding regarding the success of these presidents in creating a

growing fundraising capacity at these sample institutions.

The theme of the president as chief organizational story-teller kept surfacing

when participants were asked how these presidents are so good at connecting with people

and raising money. “Dr. (name withheld) has a story for every situation. He often speaks

in parables, but everyone gets his point,” one respondent said. A trustee at one of the

sample institutions said, “Our president is a gifted communicator, but not in the way you

might suspect. He tells little stories, and they are powerful stories.” He added, “His

stories always have a purpose.” Another respondent commented, “Our president leads by

example and by storytelling. That is true whether you are a college freshman or a major

donor.”

That these presidents are good storytellers is not hard to believe as many of them

come from academic and religious backgrounds that emphasize narrative expression; but

the skill and discretion with which they carry out this practice clearly have an impact on

their organizations. One development officer said, “Many people in this business tell

“preacher” stories. You know stories that make little sense or seem overly contrived.” He

said, “That is not the case with Dr. (name withheld). He knows exactly when a story is

appropriate and when it is isn’t.” Many respondents emphasized the skill and timing of

the use of stories by the presidents. “Our president tells stories in a very effective and

209

genuine way. He isn’t some blowhard who thinks he has a captive audience. He has great

timing.”

The stories these presidents tell always have a purpose and accomplish many

leadership objectives. One of those objectives is to translate organizational values to

donors and members of other constituencies. One of the respondents described his

president’s storytelling ability in these terms.

If you are donor who really wants to understand what College A is all

about, what we do, and what we value and why we need your investment,

then Dr. (name withheld) will convey that to you in stories . . . . Many of

the development staff sometimes know how to deliver our case in talking

points, but Dr. (name withheld) always chooses to use a story approach . .

. . Not everyone could do what he does with his stories . . . . I can’t for

sure. But that is how he conveys our values and connects our values with

the donors’ values.

Other respondents at all of the sample institutions echoed this same sentiment. “Our

president uses stories to explain who we are and what we value,” one respondent

commented. She added, “He always tells us that a picture is worth a 1,000 words but that

he has to use words to paint his picture.” Another development officer said, “We would

have a hard time closing the deal with some of our donors if President (name withheld)

didn’t throw in a few timely value-added stories.” He concluded, “The value added is the

values of our school and mission. And nobody can convey that better than our president

in one of his stories.”

The development teams certainly understand the significance of the presidents’

storytelling ability and know they need to leverage and emulate it. But they also realize

storytelling is an art and not as simple as it sounds. “Our president can be gregarious for

sure, but his strength is the integrity of his storytelling and not the flash” one respondent

commented. Another development officer said, “The greatness of our president’s

210

storytelling is in the integrity of the messenger. You never doubt the validity of the

message.” He added, “I know a lot of people who tell very entertaining stories and can

hold people’s attention, but that is not the same thing as translating a mission through

story.” Another respondent commenting about his president’s stories revealed, “Dr.

(name withheld) doesn’t tell ‘preacher’s stories.’ His stories have validity not like some

urban legend.” He added, “We have all discussed how we would like to learn to do what

he does, but it is not that easy to pull off if you are not him.”

Another purpose of the president’s stories is to motivate and empower people to

action, particularly donors. “Our president uses storytelling to light a fire under people

who are questioning what to do. That includes students, faculty, staff, and most of all

waffling donors,” said one development officer. Another development officer made this

comment.

I think there have been many times during my 15 years with Dr. (name

withheld) where he closed the deal with an indecisive donor by telling a

motivating story . . . . He doesn’t manipulate people, at least not

aggressively, but he does know how to move a conversation from the

analytical to the emotional--from a business decision to a values decision

and that is critical to fundraising . . . . He also has excellent timing.

Nothing about his stories seemed contrived. They come across as a natural

expression and motivating . . . and that is really important in the “ask”

environment.

Another respondent added this comment, “I think a lot of donors need reassurance that

they are doing the right thing. Dr. (name withheld) reassures them with his gentle

storytelling style.”

The storytelling value of the presidents is not just utilized to close the deal on an

“ask,” these presidents also use stories to cultivate relationships and to maintain

relationships with major donors. Denning (2005) said that strong leaders use stories about

211

themselves to reveal their personal character strengths and vulnerabilities which serves to

build trust among people they are attempting to lead. “I have watched Dr. (name

withheld) relate little stories about himself to donors over the years,” one respondent

commented. He added, “It helps in building relationships with donors if they know who

you are and where you come from. Another respondent commented, “Our president often

uses stories to convey his life experience and to relate to the donors at a personal level.”

One chief development officer put it this way.

Fundraising is about leadership, not about asking for money. You are

leading donors to take personal action. To do that, you must have a

president who can lead at an interpersonal level. That requires

transparency in all aspects of your life. Our president understands this, and

he can do it . . . that is the purpose of his stories. To build relationships

and trust, and to say to donors this is what I have been called to do with

your help. Those stories are convincing.

The storytelling theme is something the presidents are admittedly aware of,

although they try to downplay the impact and describe the practice as a function of the

job. “Yes, I tell a lot of stories to make my point; but that is only important because of the

symbolic nature of this job,” replied one president. He added, “As president you often

have a short window of interaction with people where stories best convey your point.”

Another president described his storytelling as an obvious tool for someone in his role.

In fundraising as a president you often deal with major donors at a non-

technical level. They understand that you don’t understand all the tax

implications of their gift, especially in planned gifts . . . . You have not

been laying the groundwork of the logistics and detailed specifics of their

gift. That work falls on the development team, and donors understand that.

Donors expect that you are running the college, not just raising money.

Actually, I think most donors would be concerned if they knew how much

time I spend fundraising . . . . Smaller donors usually only get

communicated to by the president in mass at alumni gatherings,

homecoming and other events and they expect that the president is running

the college not just fundraising . . . . So in this role the most obvious way

to communicate is through stories that reassure people that you are

212

running the college successfully and that the college is having a positive

impact on people’s lives . . . your role as president dictates the storytelling

method.

Another president said, “I tell stories because that is what our donors need to hear to

reassure them that they are making the right decision about partnering with us in our

work.” He added, “I am not particularly good at storytelling, but it is the most appropriate

way to convey what we do to our donors.” His staff members strongly disagrees that he

“is not particularly good at storytelling.” They consider him a master storyteller who

makes the fundraising cycle complete. One respondent concluded, “We wouldn’t be as

successful raising money if he wasn’t so good at telling stories.”

According to Denning (2001, 2004, 2005, 2007), for organizational storytelling to

be effective and powerful, some key elements must be included in the stories. First,

effective organizational stories must get people’s attention while offering a solution to the

attention-getting problem (Denning, 2007). This element is usually provided through the

use of a negative story followed by a positive story presenting a different outcome. The

presidents in this sample use stories to draw donors’ attention to problems in the world

around them while offering the experience of their own institutions as an alternative to

those problems. One respondent said, “One version of Dr. (name withheld)’s story is the

world is falling apart, but at College D we are producing leaders who can save the

world.” He added, “Many of our donors are already convinced that the world is falling

apart, but Dr. (name withheld) gives them an alternative vision.”

Another important element to successful organizational storytelling is that the

stories need to be true and delivered in the leader’s own style (Denning, 2007). The

integrity of these presidents is unquestioned, partially because they only tell true stories.

213

“All of Dr. (name withheld)’s stories are completely true. He may not reveal names if it is

not appropriate. But he doesn’t fabricate, and I think that is important to his effect,” one

respondent added. Another respondent said, “I think the president’s stories are effective

because they are all personal and true, and everyone knows that.” The credibility of the

presidents is an important factor in the success of the storytelling discipline.

Great organizational storytellers must know their audience, and these presidents

as skilled boundary spanners know where their stories work and where they will not

work. Denning (2007) suggested that leaders must become audience monitors if they are

to be successful in using narrative leadership storytelling. “Our president alters his stories

to reflect the crowd he is engaging,” one development officer commented. Another

respondent said,

We were having an out-of-state alumni event for a capital campaign and

the president had been framing his comments around a particular story at

the previous events; but he changed it at this event. So I asked him why?

And he said, “It won’t work here.” The group was mostly elderly alumni,

and he said they wouldn’t understand the context of the story . . . He

frequently modifies his communications to fit the audience. He just knows

what to say and when—what the audience values—and how they best

relate to the mission of College A.

Effective organizational story telling must have a defined purpose. Denning,

(2007) suggested that many leadership story types exist including sharing knowledge,

transmitting values, and revealing who a leader is personally. As noted earlier, these

presidents always have a purpose behind their stories including these common narrative

types and objectives. Denning (2007) also described a narrative type that focuses on

communicating the organizational brand, and this model usually focuses on the promise

of the product, good, or service. The presidents seem to focus most of their stories in this

category. One president described his focus on the brand in the following comments.

214

I talk in my stories about what we do at University B. I don’t have any

profound stories other than that. When you run a Christian college in the

(denomination name withheld) world, you are making certain assertions . .

. . I tell stories to reinforce to potential students, parents, and donors that

we do what we say we do--that if you give us your money, or your son or

daughter, that we will teach and mentor students in a life changing way

that is quality academically, spiritually, and holistically. That is our

institutional promise, and we have to live that first and continually tell it to

our potential stakeholders . . . . I use stories to remind those of us who

work here about that promise as well.

In Chapter Six, the importance of the brand strategy was discussed. But

maintaining a successful brand requires communication and the presidents often use

stories to achieve that objective. One president said this, “Our donors have expectations

of who we are. I have often used stories to remind them of their own expectations.”

Another respondent speaking of the same president added, “He always tells stories about

student outcomes and transformations that remind our donors of what we do.” He added,

“That is very important to continually reinforce in the donor’s mind our brand.”

Of course, for a brand image to remind strong, the brand promise must be

consistently delivered to the customer (Denning, 2005). One of the purposes of the

presidents’ brand narratives is to sell the faculty and staff members about the promise of

the brand. “Our president tells stories that make it clear to the faculty and staff what the

expectations of our donors are.” She added, “He usually wraps those stories up in a theme

of Christian service, but he makes it clear that our fundraising success is only possible if

we deliver on our mission.” The presidents themselves acknowledge this point. One said,

“I need our campus community to understand that our donors have expectations of what

we do in terms of service and commitment to (denominational name withheld).” He

added, “I tell stories to remind everyone of that perspective.” Another president

commented, “Our brand is that we are a (denominational name withheld) school and that

215

we change student’s lives so they can change others’ lives.” He added, “That is what I tell

stories about. How we do that and how we will continue to do that.”

To communicate a brand image successfully, leadership stories must be capable

of replication by the “customers” themselves to reinforce that brand. The presidents

understand this concept well. “My stories are University C stories because that is what I

want people talking about when they mention us,” one president commented. He added,

“I want to frame the narrative of what we are doing here before someone else does.”

Apparently that tactic is working. One development officer said, “I often hear donors tell

stories to other donors about College E that they heard from the president. His stories

have legs.” Another respondent commented, “I still remember stories that our president

told when I was a student here in the 1980s. So I know his stories reinforce a brand image

especially among alumni.” The enduring impression of the presidents’ organizational

storytelling reinforces the brand images of these colleges and universities.

Finally, for a brand story to be effective, consistency must exist between the

internal narrative and the external narrative (Denning, 2007). The storytelling of these

presidents helps to reconcile those two narratives. Internal brand narratives often are used

to form organizational culture (Denning, 2005). External brand narratives are designed to

invite prospective stakeholders into the organizational brand story (Denning, 2005). The

ability of these presidents to boundary span so effectively is enhanced by their

proficiency in storytelling. One development officer commented, “Dr. (name withheld)

tells stories to the students about donors and other outsiders and the value they see in our

campus.” She added, “He also tells our donors about what we are doing in our campus

culture which helps reinforce our image to both sides.” Another respondent said, “Our

216

president uses stories to create expectations and self-fulfilling prophesies among all

interested parties at College D.” This type of consistency in communication serves to

strengthen and validate the brand image.

In summary, the presidents at these sample institutions are the sparks that light the

fundraising fire. They are the catalysts in growing the fundraising capacity and moving

donors to action. Their job is highly symbolic; yet, they are in the trenches daily

executing the demanding requirements of their job. These men are not figureheads or

detached executives. They are very “hands on” while at the same time empowering to

those around them. The personal leadership styles of these presidents are critical to the

successes of the fundraising function as well as the overall leadership of the institutions.

These presidents all come from very different academic and life backgrounds but they all

displayed “Level 5” and mission-focused leadership to the maximum level which helped

to create a high degree of trust and commitment among all institutional constituencies,

including donors. They are highly skilled at boundary spanning, cooption and

organizational storytelling which seemed to be their behavioral leadership tools of choice

for successfully navigating through a very complex maze of interdependent relationships

that make up the donor base and ultimately keeps the necessary funds flowing into these

sample colleges and universities. Even as an outside observer, it seems difficult to

imagine these institutions functioning without their presidents. In fact, when someone

thinks of these institutions, the first mental image is of the president. Yet, these presidents

are completely focused on the institutional mission and not on themselves; this theme is

not lost on anyone. These presidents are the symbolic embodiment of the colleges and

217

universities they represent, and that fact clearly enhances fundraising credibility and

success.

The Implementers: Development Team Leadership

Focusing only on the leadership of the presidents and trustees in this study would

certainly be problematic. Clearly, a great deal of the leadership success at these sample

institutions resides within the talented group of development professionals who are

charged with implementing fundraising strategy. These professional fundraisers are both

talented and highly committed to their institutions. Many of them are alumni of their

institutions, and many have long tenures or service. While most of them did not begin

their careers intending to become professional fundraisers, they appear to enjoy their job

and have developed substantial expertise in fundraising. One respondent described her

experience in fundraising in the following terms.

I can’t imagine doing anything else. I love my job. I am so blessed to work

with the people I work with and I love this college . . . . I think you have to

be a unique person to do this type of work. You have to be very committed

to the mission to be successful. If you aren’t committed, this job would be

hard . . . when you are committed it is sometimes hard but you understand

the importance. I think it is knowing that what you do makes such a

difference in so many people’s lives . . . . I am sure this is God’s work, and

I am just blessed to be a small part of it.

This sentiment of extreme job satisfaction continually exuded out of the development

professionals and the sincerity of these claims was undeniable. Ironically, almost every

development officer commented on how unlikely their ultimate career path into

fundraising seemed. One development officer commented, “I don’t think anyone in 2nd

grade ever says ‘when I grow up I want to be a fundraiser.’” He added, “I think you really

have to be called into this profession.”

218

Despite the diverse and seemingly unlikely paths that brought these professionals

into the fundraising life, clearly, they have invested themselves into developing expertise

on-the-job and the sample institutions have made their professional development a

priority. “I think the one thing I appreciate is that we all have had the opportunity to

receive significant professional development opportunities,” one respondent said.

Another respondent added to that theme.

I think one of the things that I appreciate most is that the school has

invested in our professional development. I started in fundraising over 35

years ago at a sister school, and in those days there were few opportunities

for training. You had to learn everything by trial and error . . . . In my time

here we have all had opportunities to go to CASE conferences and take

classes at The Fundraising School . . . . I remember one of my first

training opportunities, sitting there thinking I wish I had learned this stuff

20 years ago . . . . Professional training makes a huge difference.

During the interviewing sessions the researcher noted that the development staff

members were well versed in the latest trends and philosophies of fundraising. One chief

development officer conceded that the level of training was a source of competitive

advantage. “I think fundraising has reached a level of sophistication where training is

critical to success. You can’t afford not to invest there,” he commented. He later added,

“I am sure professional development is one of the areas where we have a major

advantage against other Christian schools.” As a result of this institutional commitment,

these development teams are well trained fundraising experts who all possess a high level

of both organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

Another leadership finding in this study is that the chief development officers in

this study all could be characterized as presenting strong traits of a strategic leader.

Strategic leadership is usually defined by systems thinking, high-level cognitive activity,

219

and gathering of multiple inputs for analysis (Dubrin, 2010). One president described his

chief development officer in these terms.

I have the best VP of Development in the business. He sees the big

picture. He knows how to develop our staff. He is always thinking about

fundraising as a process in a systematic way . . . . I have known other

development professionals who are one man shows. They know how to

wine and dine donors but they don’t know how to plan and organize and

conceptualize. (Name withheld) is not a salesman . . . . He is a strategic

leader, and that is what we need most. He sets others, including me, up for

success.

Other respondents described each of the other chief development officers in similar

terms. One development officer said, “My boss is very systems oriented, and I think that

is why we are successful.” Another respondent described the top development officer at

College E in this manner.

He orchestrates all of our activities. We sometimes call him the puppet

master. He pulls all the strings . . . . His focus is always on the fundraising

system not on today’s ‘ask.’ I think before he came, we were good at

fundraising; but he and (president’s name withheld) have changed the

focus from just fundraising to fundraising infrastructure and capacity. He

is very comprehensive in how he approaches our work. He is very big on

coordination, communication, and documentation. And he does this in a

very participative manner . . . . As a result of his focus, I think all of us

think much more long-term than we used to.

The systems approach or systems-thinking approach is often counterintuitive with

the pressure to raise money right now and with traditional role expectations, but these

chief development officers recognize that success in this business is more a product of a

comprehensive system than just indiscriminately chasing donations. One chief

development officer said, “My job is to put the system in place that covers all our donor

markets with minimal redundancy and as much channel appropriateness as possible.” He

added, “That requires a person who monitors the big picture. It is like running a war room

if you do it right. That is what I try to do.” Another chief development officer made

220

similar comparisons when he said, “I think the biggest trap to avoid in this job is to not be

a fundraiser. This job requires a coordinator.” He added, “You have the gift officers and

the president to do fundraising. In this job you need to tee the ball up for them to hit and

be prepared to monitor where the ball goes.”

The chief development officers are also heavily responsible for creating the

culture of a learning organization. One respondent commented, “We communicate

heavily in this department and that is definitely driven by (name withheld)’s emphasis on

learning and capturing all relevant information.” He added, “It seems like a lot of work

but it has increased our effectiveness and efficiency.” One chief development officer

described his approach as being a safeguard against failure. “It is too easy in this business

to get too busy and forget something important like follow-up calls”. He added, “You

need systems to ensure donors don’t fall through the cracks.”

Team learning among the development team was a key strategic finding discussed

in Chapter six. The development teams at these institutions are very team-oriented in

their approach to fundraising. One development officer described the unique nature of the

team approach to fundraising.

We all have different roles here; but we do work as a team, and that is one

of the reasons we are so effective. I talk to other fundraisers who find it

hard to believe that we are all so close here because they take a more

competitive approach to fundraising. We are not here to compete with

each other. We are here to help this school succeed . . . . We are very

collaborative, and I think that works well for us . . . . I have worked in

fundraising in another setting where we all worked as individuals. This

model is much better.

Other respondents also reinforced the value of the team environment. “We are very

collaborative in our approach to fundraising, and that is a strength of our fundraising

approach,” one respondent commented. Another development officer added, “I always

221

appreciate that I am not in this alone. We are a team.” The team approach to fundraising

is obvious when observing the interaction among these professionals. They exhibit all the

characteristics of closely knit work teams. When asked how the team model emerged the

responses often implied that it was just the result of commitment to a common mission

and a common shared faith connection. However, others admitted that it also was part of

using a more systemic approach to fundraising. “I think as we have become more

strategic over the past 10 to 15 years the value of a team approach has become obvious to

everyone,” one respondent commented. She added, “This job is challenging, and it helps

to know you have a lot of support among your colleagues.”

One of the practices to which these development teams seem highly committed is

defining donor motivation. They begin by identifying the donor location on their 3-tiered

market segmentation model discussed in Chapter six, and then they look for

psychographic and demographic type markers which they hope will help them understand

the donor’s motivations. One major gifts officer described the process in this manner.

We all try to listen first for clues regarding the donors thought processes

and motivations . . . . What year did they graduate if they are alumni?

Where do they go to church? Who are their closest friends? What are their

primary interests now? . . . . I think what we do better in our fundraising

process at College A than other schools is that we profile donor

motivations more accurately. This leads to a better match between gift

opportunities and the donor’s interests which makes giving a much more

rewarding experience for the donor and reinforces the character and

mission of our school . . . . I think a lot of schools ask for money first and

then try to understand donors later if the request didn’t work the first time.

That immediately creates a tension among donors who often feel that they

have communicated their interests to you, and you didn’t hear them.

Other development officers indicated the same theme of identifying donor motivations.

“The skill that has helped me the most is learning to listen and understand what donors

are motivated by,” one respondent commented. Another development officer added, “We

222

have been taught to listen and profile—not just ask people for money.” She added, “That

has made me more comfortable asking for money because I feel like I know the outcome

already because I know the donor’s motivations.” Another respondent added, “If you

listen carefully to what the donors tell you about their relationship with the college you

will discover what their specific interests are. That is how you match needs to donors.”

These development officers keep notes on donor conversations and

communications to search for motivational links to potential projects that need funding.

“I think what we do differently here is when we have a project that needs funding we

already have a list of people profiled who will find that project attractive,” said one

respondent. He added, “That is very different than going out to search for interest from

scratch.” The development teams also use their team approach to validate their

assessment of donor profiles. One respondent described this process in the following

comments.

I have always profiled donors even before I came to College D. But here I

get to test my perceptions of the donor against others on the team which

will either validate my beliefs or cause me to do more analysis . . . . In this

business you are often making quick judgments about individuals based on

very short interactions, and you can often be wrong. Here we test our

donor profiles against others’ perceptions, including the president; and that

makes our donor profiles much more accurate.

The skill of assessing donor motivations is a particularly relevant tool in fundraising as

described in Chapter three, and these development teams are both committed to

understanding their donors and prospective donors in way that is both professionally

responsible and personally uplifting. As one chief development officer said, “Yes, we

profile our donors because we want to be effective. But we also want to convey that we

value the individual. Not just his or her money.”

223

Another defining practice of these development teams is a commitment to “after

the “gift” service. One major donor said, “I spent all day yesterday talking to donors who

have already given us financially all they ever can and will through planned giving

tools.” He added, “Some people would say that is a waste of time. But we think making

sure that donors are satisfied with their gifts is vitally important.” This theme was

unanticipated and very strong among these sample institutions. One chief development

officer commented, “One thing we strongly believe in is making sure our donors are

satisfied after they make the gift.” He added, “If they are not. You will damage your

ability to raise money in the future.” Another chief development officer said, “What I

have learned in almost 40 years as a fundraiser is that what you do after you receive a gift

is often more important that the ‘ask.’”

The theme of the importance of maintaining donor satisfaction was a major point

reinforced by the respondents in this study. “In business if I sell you a bad car, that is a

business problem. But many fundraisers think once I get your check I don’t need to worry

about you anymore,” one respondent commented. Another respondent said, “Existing

donor satisfaction is more important to fundraising success than attracting new donors.”

He added, “If your current and past donors aren’t happy, you can forget about attracting

new donors.” One chief development officer said, “Donor retention is directly related to

how satisfied they were with the last donation. And donor retention is the most important

thing in fundraising.” These development teams are highly committed to ensuring that

their existing donors have positive experiences; such upbeat practices are vital to the

success of their fundraising efforts and communicate the values of their institutions as

one development officer concluded in the following comment.

224

Even if it wasn’t important to stay involved with donors after they made

their gifts—it is still the Christian response. We don’t ever want to say

give us your money and then we will forget you. That is morally

reprehensible and not what we stand for. These donors are our family and

our partners in our mission. If we don’t stand by them we don’t deserve

their money or their respect. Too many fundraisers view donors as a

means to an end. A Christian institution can never do that. You build your

reputation on the character of how you treat donors and that is especially

true after the gift has been made. That is when donors make conclusions

about your character both as a fundraiser and as an institution at the time

when you don’t have to stand by them. We always stand by our donors.

In conclusion, the fundraising success these institutions have achieved could not

have occurred without the leadership extant on these development teams. The complex

network of relationships and continual communication in which they must engage on a

daily basis is mindboggling. They are highly trained professionals who understand how

fundraising works. Their in-depth understanding of the relationship of their institution’s

mission, denominational heritage, and academic as well as religious culture help them to

attract the resources necessary to sustain the organization. They are consumed with a

deep sense of purpose that is both convincing and motivating to outsiders. They

understand donor motivation and are very skilled at gathering psychographic donor

information and reinforcing the importance of the donor’s contribution. The teamwork

these development officers demonstrate is exceptional because they understand that

execution of the fundraising process requires all parties to represent the institution

seamlessly. Overall, these development staff members do an excellent job of

implementing the fundraising strategy.

Summary

The leadership styles and behaviors displayed by the key players at these sample

institutions are a major part of the success of these institutions overall, and specifically in

225

the fundraising area. Successful strategy does not occur without strong leadership, and

these sample institutions have strong leadership at all levels. The trustees serve as

guardians of the institutional mission and denominational heritage by providing a

backdrop of stability for employees, students, and alumni; they also serve as a check-and-

balance against any movement toward secularization. The presidents serve the

institutions as the visible catalysts for all activities and are committed to growing the

fundraising capacity in a mission-focused manner. Finally, the development teams

implement and execute the fundraising strategy with remarkable precision as well as

collaboration in a highly complex environment. The three levels of leadership analyzed in

this Chapter are all exceptional and all critical to the fundraising success of the

institution. The leaders of these institutions fully understand the environmental context

described in Chapter Five and are also involved in both the formulation and

implementation of the strategy found in Chapter Six. This relationship between strategy

and leadership is mostly intentional but also at times emergent based on the context under

which these schools operate. The result of this symbiotic relationship between the

leadership and strategy has been to reinforce a distinct brand image that has proven

successful in creating competencies and attracting resources, including donations.

226

CHAPTER EIGHT: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The art of simplicity is a puzzle of complexity. --Douglas Horton, (cited in St. Peter,

2010, p. 568)

Introduction

The results of this study have illustrated that fundraising success is both a simple

and a complex process. A review of the literature led the researcher to the conclusion that

colleges and universities at all levels are struggling to find needed financial resources and

to build their fundraising capacity. Church-affiliated colleges and universities are among

the most vulnerable in attracting financial resources because these institutions do not

receive direct state support and often are constrained in market reach by their small size

and denominational affiliation. In addition, as illustrated by the institutions in this study,

church-affiliated colleges and universities often lack in sufficient endowment resources,

making the margin for error on tuition revenue a treacherous one. The reality of this fiscal

fragility makes building fundraising capacity critical to the success of the mission of

institutions in this segment of higher education.

This research began with an overview of the background, purpose, and

significance of this study in Chapter One. In Chapters Two and Three an overview of the

historical context of Christian higher education and a review of the literature on

fundraising were discussed. The research methodology of qualitative grounded theory

used in this study was described in Chapter Four. The findings of the study were

presented beginning with the contextual themes in Chapter Five, followed by a discussion

of the strategic and leadership findings in Chapters Six and Seven, respectively. In this

final chapter, Chapter Eight, a summary of the dissertation will be presented as will a

227

review of the thematic findings of the study conceptually linked by a graphical model. In

addition, this chapter will also contain the pivotal conclusions developed from the

information collected throughout the study as well as recommendations for future

research and recommendations for action; the chapter will end with some personal

reflections about the study.

Summary

Fundraising is a difficult and comprehensive organizational challenge for all

higher education institutions, but it is particularly challenging for church-related colleges

and universities. Most church related institutions have denominational affiliations which

can serve as both conduits and barriers to fundraising markets. In addition, the history of

Christian higher education in America is primarily a history of gradual secularization of

the organizational mission, governance and church affiliation, as these institutions grow

and mature and often leave their denominational roots behind in the pursuit of financial

stability and academic prestige. In addition, the field of fundraising has evolved and

developed from modest philanthropic beginnings to a sophisticated professional

discipline. The problem of simultaneously attracting resources, while protecting the

Christian mission, governance, and denominational affiliation is a major challenge

educational leaders in the church-related higher education segment must confront in

every generation.

The purpose of this study was to examine how successful church-related colleges

and universities managed to build fundraising capacity and achieve fundraising results. In

order to investigate this serious contemporary challenge in the church-related segment of

higher education the research questions which have guided this study were developed.

228

Those research questions were previously presented in Chapter One, and are restated

here:

1. What specific strategies do educational leaders in leading church-related

institutions use to create and sustain an environment of successful development

and fundraising while protecting the Christian mission, governance, and

denominational ties of the institutions?

2. What specific leadership behaviors within these leading church-related

institutions contribute to the creation and continuation of an environment of

successful development and fundraising, while protecting the Christian mission,

governance, and denominational ties of the institutions?

The methodology used in this study was a qualitative, grounded theory approach

blended with some elements of a comparative case study approach. There were five

sample institutions selected based on a purposeful sampling strategy utilizing the criteria

of fundraising success, avoidance of secularization, denominational affiliation,

geographical diversity, and accessibility. The primary data collection method was in-

depth, semi-structured interviews of key leaders affiliated with the sample institutions,

supported by observation and document analysis. All of the participant institutions and

individuals were provided anonymity and provided with informed consent to participate

in the study. The data were analyzed and interpreted utilizing principles of grounded

theory to identify thick descriptions of the context and coding of emergent themes which

were saturated in the data.

229

Conclusions

This study has produced several major conclusions about the organizational

context, strategy actions, and leadership behaviors found at the successful church-related

colleges and universities in this study. Those conclusions are presented below.

1. The primary prerequisite for successful fundraising programs at a church-related

colleges and universities is organizational mission fulfillment and the subsequent

creation of a brand image based on that achievement.

2. Fundraising success at a church-related colleges and universities is best achieved

by pursuing a focused differentiation strategy utilizing high academic quality,

strong Christian culture, and denominational affiliation as points of

differentiation.

3. Successful church-related colleges and universities segment their donor markets

in a 3-tiered, concentric model based on denominational affiliation first, the larger

Christian community second, and a values-based segment last.

4. Successful church-related colleges and universities succeed in fundraising by

supporting their focused differentiation strategy with an operational strategy of

sticking to the core competencies of teaching, mentoring and developing

undergraduate students.

5. The communications strategy of these successful institutions are focused on

branding principles and integrated marketing concepts delivering a consistent

image of the organization to all constituents, including donors.

6. Successful fundraising at church-related colleges and universities requires a

highly committed, engaged, mission-focused governing board.

230

7. Fundraising success for church-related colleges and universities requires highly

effective presidential leadership capable of visibly embodying the mission, values

and brand image of the institution. The president should possess a leadership style

which inspires high levels of institutional commitment and be skilled in other

leadership behaviors such as; boundary-spanning, cooption, and organizational

storytelling.

8. Fundraising success at a church-related college or university requires a highly

engaged and professionally trained development staff that functions with a team-

oriented approach, utilizing learning organization principles, guided by a strong

strategic leader as chief development officer.

9. A general institutional context that includes a pervasively Christian culture,

residential community atmosphere, strong academic culture, and sense of

institutional history accelerates fundraising success and should be leveraged

strategically by institutions in the church-related higher education market

segment.

10. Leaders at successful church-related colleges and universities consistently defend

through leadership behaviors and strategic actions against a threat of

secularization as they develop strong fundraising capacity.

The conclusions developed by this researcher are best represented by the

theoretical model displayed in the Appendix R entitled “Conceptual Model of Successful

Fundraising at Sample Christian Colleges and Universities.” In this graphic

representation, the interaction between the leadership findings (identified in Chapter

231

Seven) and the organizational strategy findings (discussed in Chapter Six) are displayed

in association with the general contextual findings (acknowledged in Chapter Five) from

the sample institutions. As the graph illustrates, these institutions and their leaders

understand that the context in which they operate is both unique and complex; they react

strategically both responsively and proactively in a manner that reinforces many of the

variables within the context. Fundraising at these institutions is successful because

college and university leaders understand the context of their external environment as

well as their own internal capabilities. Then they react to, and leverage, those variables

into a defendable strategy and market position. Their effective strategy is both formulated

and implemented by a strong team of leaders at multiple levels of the institution and,

subsequently, leads to a strong brand image to which all of the necessary constituent

groups, including donors, positively respond. Put in simpler terms, these institutions

operate successful fundraising programs because they are have strong leaders and

effective strategy, which strengthens their the ability to fulfill their brand promise on a

continuous and consistent basis. Fundraising success comes easier for these institutional

leaders because their first priority is to be effective at operating their college or university

and fulfilling its mission.

Appendix R illustrates a conceptual model of the process that leads to successful

fundraising at the sample institutions. This process begins when the leaders of these

institutions analyze the external and internal environments of their organizational context.

This analysis provides the strategic inputs the leaders need to use in formulating their

strategy. The leaders in this study recognize that the contextual tensions of low

endowments, potential secularization, and conflicts over the campus spiritual culture,

232

which were each discussed in Chapter Five, are all significant threats that must be

addressed strategically. In addition, the leaders at these colleges and universities also

understand that the general contextual findings of the strong Christian culture, residential

community, academic culture, and institutional history which characterize these

establishments are intangible resources that must be strategically leveraged and sustained.

Therefore, as illustrated in the conceptual model, the contextual findings from Chapter

Five are continually being analyzed and used as strategic inputs by the leaders to inform

as well as guide the strategic-formation process.

The result of the continual interaction between the context, leaders, and

organizational strategy is to produce a realized strategy that supports a unique brand

image leading to successful fundraising. This strategy begins with a comprehensive

understanding of the higher education market and a commitment to a broad strategy of

focused differentiation based on the Christian commitment, academic quality, and

denominational affiliation. The strategy also is framed by segmenting constituencies into

a 3-tiered, concentric, market-segment model based on the denominational affiliation, the

larger Christian community, and a values-based segment. Such segmentation helps

institutional leaders understand better how to communicate their brand message to

multiple market segments. In addition to brand communication, leaders of these

institutions have made a clear strategic commitment to an operations strategy of sticking

to their core competencies which, in turn, strengthens the authenticity of the brand image.

Finally, the fundraising strategy is focused on using learning-organization practices to

create an environment where day-to-day tactical adjustments are continually used to grow

the fundraising capacity.

233

The successful strategy at these institutions has been built by years of strategic

analysis and careful formulation by the leaders at these schools. The trustees, in

particular, have made mission commitment a high priority and set the tone with their high

levels of involvement. Consequently, many areas such as sticking to core competencies

and maintaining a high Christian commitment become non-negotiable aspects of the

strategy and provide a backdrop of clarity for the presidents and other key leaders.

For any strategy to be successful, competitive advantage must be achieved.

Competitive advantage typically comes from a unique bundling of several resources

(Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson, 2010). In this study, the presidents, in particular, have

focused on developing a unique set of resources that support the historical mission of

their institutions while also creating contemporary value in the modern higher education

market. The presidents at these schools must monitor all variables to continually ensure

that their institutions are creating value through the specific combinations of unique

factors that the educational experience at their campus produces. Often, the strongest

resources for creating competitive advantage are intangible and invisible; therefore, such

assets are usually more valuable and quite difficult to imitate (Hitt, Ireland, & Hoskisson,

2010). This study is a clear example of that principle. The strategies the leaders at these

colleges and universities have formulated and successfully realized are nearly impossible

to copy or substitute in other settings because they are primarily cultural, intangible, and

leveraged against the unique histories of the institutions in this study. The result is that

these organizations have produced a strong differentiated brand image and a clearly

distinct market position.

234

Strategy formulation is important but cannot produce results without the strong

leadership necessary to ensure successful implementation. As the conceptual model

illustrates, strategy implementation is the result of leadership actions which are constantly

being influenced by the ongoing strategy formation process. To implement the strategy at

these institutions, the leaders continually engage in actions and behaviors that reinforce

the intended strategy. Such reinforcement includes the highly committed board members

acting as guardians of the institutional history, mission, and denominational affiliation.

The presidents have a major role in implementing the strategy through the credibility of

their “Level 5” (Collins, 2007) and mission-focused leadership style and behaviors as

well as the continual connecting and reinforcing of the brand image through their

boundary spanning, cooption, and storytelling behaviors. Finally, the fundraising staff

members are highly committed professionals who work hard in a team-oriented model to

cultivate relationships, understand donor motivations, and reinforce donor satisfaction

after the gift. Their continuous efforts in managing donor relations are the final step in

successfully implementing the institutional strategy linking the brand image to the donors

in an effort to raise support.

Finally, the resulting brand image and successful fundraising results at these

colleges and universities complete a feedback loop which allows for reinforcement of the

strengths found in the general context. The additional resources accumulated through the

strong fundraising capacity allow for additional investment in the strong Christian

culture, residential atmosphere, and academic culture which also continues to build on the

greatness of the institutional history. The continued success of building on these general

contextual strengths also helps to defend these schools against the threats which the

235

tensions in the context present. Therefore, the better these institutions become at creating

and presenting their successful brand image the less those threat areas endanger their

immediate future, completing a cycle of success in every aspect of the institutional

mission. The continued success produced by this strategic reinforcement loop allows the

fundraising capacity to continue to expand, creating an ever more unique and defendable

strategic position. As the conceptual model illustrates, fundraising success is the result of

strong leadership and well-defined as well as implemented institutional strategy which is

not an end unto itself. Ultimately, the macro conclusion of this study is that fundraising

success is the result of institutional success.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study has opened the door to the vast needs for further research on the topic

of fundraising within the Christian-college market segment of higher education. While

church-affiliated colleges share many common characteristics with the broader higher

education market, this segment has far too many unique features to rely on the broad

category of educational fundraising research which is, by many scholars’ estimations,

also seriously underdeveloped. As I progressed through this research I found myself

reflecting on many questions that were left unanswered. Therefore, the following is a

brief list of recommendations for future research in this market segment.

This study focused on the practices of successful Christian colleges, but not all

Christian colleges are successful. In fact, many intuitions are currently struggling to

survive, which typically makes fundraising efforts more focused on survival and less

concerned about mission fulfillment. A study of failing church-related schools would

probably provide equally as much insight into what is not working as this study sheds on

236

successful practices. Specifically, autopsy case studies of recently discontinued colleges

could be used to compare and contrast with the findings of this study. Quantitative

studies of the financial progressions of discontinued and struggling colleges could shed

light on critical turning points in the process of failure leading to new benchmarks and

other tools which could be used to take corrective action.

Only a few studies have been conducted and minimal models of donor

motivations in fundraising have been developed in the non-profit sector as a whole, and

even fewer on fundraising in the church and higher-education segments specifically. No

studies have been completed on the motivations of the unique group of donors who

contribute to church-related colleges and universities. Respondents in this study seemed

to believe that these donors possess some motivational characteristics of traditional-

church donors and some characteristics of higher-education donors and therefore assume

both lines of motivation in the cultivation process. But it would be valuable to all leaders

in the church-related segment of higher education to know more about the unique donor

motivations in this sector which could be acquired through a variety of research methods

to produce at least exploratory findings. Understanding donors’ motivations is important

in all fundraising settings; but this segment, with its unique blend of institutions and

denominational affiliations, could use specific research as well as subsequent

development of donor motivation models.

Patterns of giving related to denominational affiliation have been studied for a

long time in philanthropy research. However, no one has ever studied the relationship

between denominational giving patterns and denominationally-affiliated institutions.

Different Christian traditions have different views of the role of higher education, and

237

these views most likely influence giving patterns to their institutions. In addition,

different denominations also place different levels of emphasis on giving as a spiritual

discipline. These varying religious teachings likely influence support for church-related

colleges and universities, depending on their denominational heritage. A study linking

denominational giving patterns and institutional support would be challenging to

construct but very useful to leaders in church-related colleges and universities.

A consistent theme among all of the presidents and development professionals

throughout this study was that none of these individuals ever desired or intended to

become fundraisers. Yet, now they are very established and successful in this profession.

While this study was structured to examine fundraising success at the institutional level,

another area of potential study would be to research successful individual fundraisers,

particularly in this church-related segment of higher education. Despite the seemingly

random paths that brought each of these individuals to this occupation, collectively they

seemed to possess some common personality traits that could be measured using a variety

of instruments as well as more qualitative interviewing techniques exploring the

development process of successful fundraisers. Presidents could also be studied as a

separate cohort group to determine if certain patterns emerge that might help in both the

selection and development of individuals interested in this key leadership position.

Finally, the broad institutional strategy of focused differentiation emerged from

this study as a driver of the fundraising success. I believe a study examining institutions

both with strong fundraising results and those with poor results, identified in relation to

broad strategy selection could be very insightful. In addition, a related research approach

could be to look at the strength of any recognizable broad strategy and the related

238

fundraising results to understand better the linkage between broad organizational strategy

and fundraising results. Institutions lacking a clear strategy would be unlikely to produce

high levels of fundraising, but a quantitative study could examine this issue on a more in

depth basis. More research on the linkage between the broad institutional strategy and

fundraising result is needed in all segments of higher education but is particularly

necessary for church-related colleges and universities.

Recommendations for Action

The findings of this study support many prescriptive actions which should be

taken by college leaders in this unique market segment. The themes which emerged

within this study provide some valuable templates for developing a strong and successful

church-affiliated college or university. The following is a brief summary of some of these

prescriptive actions which institutional leaders in this segment should pursue.

Careful selection, stability, and development of the trustees are defining factors of

the successful institutions in this study. The trustees are highly engaged in the life of

these institutions. This high level of engagement has not occurred by accident. The

selection process for these self-perpetuating boards is extremely rigorous and something

that is not taken lightly by the institutional officials or the people who are chosen to serve

on their boards. Many institutions choose trustees in an attempt to broaden their influence

in particular areas or to attract a particular resource. Undoubtedly, the trustees at the

institutions in this study are selected with much consideration given to their circles of

influence, expertise, and access to resources; but the primary criterion for selection at

these sample institutions is an unwavering commitment to the success of the institution

and its students. Fewer than 10% percent of the trustees at these colleges and universities

239

are non-alumni, and those who are in the non-alumni category typically have other long-

term relationships with the institutions. The expectation of new trustees is that they make

an irrevocable and selfless commitment to the collective board which is usually validated

by years of prior volunteer service in smaller roles at the institutions. At many other

church-related colleges and universities, trustee selection is often a difficult process; but

at these institutions, a short list is always available of potential candidates being groomed

in the pipeline who are fully aware of the required commitment should they be selected.

This is a critical factor for success for all of these institutions. Developing a culture of

commitment and stability through board selection and development should be an

important area of emphasis for leaders at any institution interested in building their

fundraising capacity.

In addition to developing strong and stable boards, the selection and stability of

the presidents in this study were clearly critical to institutional viability as well as long-

term fundraising success. In addition, the president must consistently visibly embody and

articulate the institutional mission. Selecting a president with the leadership qualities

discussed in Chapter Seven is extremely important; but, it is equally important that the

president must remain committed to the institution as well as the job, maintain the

steadfast, overt, support of board members and other important college stakeholders in

order to remain in the role for many years. Short-term presidents will not have the time,

no matter how individually talented, to engage in the relationship building necessary to

grow the fundraising capacity; and presidential instability is disruptive to the fundraising

process, leaving a cloud of failure in the donor’s perceptions. Stability and longevity of

presidential tenure is decreasing at a time when they are needed most for institutional

240

success, particularly in the fundraising role. I recommend that institutional leaders

consider more carefully the long-term potential of their presidential candidates than the

immediate payback of prior outside experience, because success in fundraising is more

about the experience with particular donors in the current institutional context than about

previous work in some other setting. This is also a strong argument for internal

presidential candidates who have substantial histories within the institution. Finally, the

presidential selection process should focus on identifying individuals who understand that

fundraising is the primary role of the presidency. My personal experience, particularly in

this segment of higher education, has led me to believe that committing to being a

fundraiser is not something all presidents are willing to do. The president has to be the

leader in this area to be successful, and anything less than a full commitment to the role

will lead to failure.

The institutions in this study have heavily invested in the professional

development of fundraising staff, and I strongly recommend that leaders at other

institutions follow this model. While most of the fundraising professionals interviewed

were “home-grown” development officers, they have been significantly trained to fulfill

their responsibilities. Many other institutions, particularly in the church-related market

segment, also typically choose “home-grown,” outgoing, personable alumni to serve in

the development function but usually provide little or no training. Obviously, training

increases job proficiency; however, training also requires an upfront investment to which

many cash-strapped institutional leaders are unwilling to commit. In addition, many long-

time successful development officers “grew-up” during an era in which they themselves

never received any training and often fail to see the return-on-investment. Fundraising is

241

more than merely sales and marketing. Fundraising is a very sophisticated discipline in its

own right, and having professionals with training on the staff will produce better results.

The turnover within the fundraising staffs of these institutions is extremely low, and that

is most likely a product of the investment in the staff members and the resulting

professionalism as well as self-efficacy. Institutional leaders most definitely need to

invest heavily in training and development of their fundraising staff if the institution is to

become effective in the process of raising funds as well as friends.

Leaders at church-related institutions must understand and define their broad-

strategic position in the marketplace of higher education. Leaders at these successful

colleges and universities understand that they are focused differentiators using academic

quality, Christian commitment, and denominational affiliation as their strategic points of

differentiation. These differentiators allow for the creation of a unique brand image

which is non-substitutable. This “big-picture” strategic position provides clarity for these

institutional leaders. The institutional priorities are academic quality, Christian

commitment, and denominational affiliation. None of these variables is enough

individually to create a unique brand position; but bundled together they create a unique

brand and also define where resources should be allocated. The goal of any strategy is to

create a unique, defendable market position and provide internal focus on strategic

priorities. Leaders at church-related institutions must develop durable strategic positions

to survive.

In addition to defining the broad organizational strategy, institutional leaders also

must focus on mission congruence in operations. I think the one point that has resonated

with me personally in this study is the need to be who you say you are. Leaders at these

242

institutions live out their mission daily which produces significant credibility for their

brand image and their case for support. The focus on sticking to core competencies not

only produces efficiency of resource utilization but also reinforces the congruence of the

mission. The focus of these colleges and universities is on undergraduate, residential,

whole-person, liberal-arts education. While at many other institutions, leaders would say

that they are doing these things as well, a quick survey of their budget priorities would

suggest that they are not. These institutional leaders understand their mission and that

congruence of mission resonates back to the fundraising process. I personally did not

anticipate that operational priorities would be so closely linked to fundraising success,

but the small size of these intuitions makes such a linkage an imperative. Consequently, I

recommend that colleges and universities in this market segment get their mission

priorities set in operational focus.

One of those specific operational priorities for attaining mission success at these

institutions is academic quality. I recommend that colleges in this segment work hard to

focus on academic quality as a means of increasing fundraising success. Donors in this

market segment want to know that these Christian schools are not just faith incubators but

are also strong, quality academic institutions. This focus is best pursued by providing

high quality instruction and committing to the back-end student outcomes of job

placement and graduate school admission. In public relations materials, every college

proclaims to support as well as provide academic quality, but members of the general

public do not believe such claims. Large state universities have mostly abandoned

undergraduate education, and many church-related colleges have underdeveloped

academic programs. The linkage between student outcomes and fundraising success

discussed in Chapter Six is vital. Institutions in this market segment charge higher tuition

and must provide a higher quality outcome to complete the value equation for their

constituencies, including donors. I was particularly amazed at how much time the

development staff members at these institutions spent on building relationships leading to

employment pipelines for their graduates rather than on just monetary donations, an

example of the comprehensive approach to development that is necessary to build

fundraising capacity as well as the importance of the link between student outcomes and

fundraising. The success of their graduates is the case used by these institutional officials

to raise money and this goal can only be reached if the academic quality of the institution

is high.

243

Finally, these colleges and universities are Christian institutions; and their leaders

have spent a great deal of time defining and managing the religious culture as well as the

identity of their schools. Therefore, all institutions in this segment should make a clear

commitment to their religious identity and culture. Ambiguity in religious identity is a

disaster to fundraising for church-affiliated schools; this issue cannot be avoided.

Denominational parties will push for clarity and be suspicious of any perceived change in

commitment or practices. The larger Christian market, including both prospective

students and donors, will want to know and understand the Christian culture of the

campus before committing their resources. This situation provides many strategic

difficulties in an era often described as post-denominational. The five schools in this

study represent denominational affiliations that range from very large and powerful to

dying and almost extinct. Yet, all five institutions have made the difficult and at times

criticized commitment to be distinctively Christian and ecumenically hospitable in

campus culture, while also remaining irrevocably tied to their host denomination. To use

Benne’s (2000) terminology, these institutions have chosen to be “anchored and open.”

While this position receives some criticism from denominational insiders who desire a

more “anchored” orthodoxy and from some outsiders who desire more institutional

“openness,” the position is firm and resolute. I will not attempt to judge the motives of

the leaders who have defined this position, but I will suggest that strategically it is a

highly effective position for attracting resources from multiple constituencies while also

serving as a strong defense against secularization. While many church-related institutions

are continually struggling with their religious identity, this matter is mostly resolved at

these sample institutions, which provides clarity and reduces friction in the fundraising

244

process. Defining the religious culture is critical to building a brand image and having a

case to raise money, so church-related colleges and universities must reach clarity on this

issue.

Research Postscript: Personal Reflections

The planning, literature review, field research, analysis, and writing of this study

have spanned many years and many unique experiences for me personally. In the fall of

1999, I left the corporate world and began my work as a faculty member in a small,

fiscally challenged, church-affiliated college. With high aspirations for fulfilling both my

own personal mission and the mission of my institution, I was immediately confronted by

the harsh realities of limited organizational resources as well as unlimited needs and

aspirations. I began to look at other church-related institutions and realized the dramatic

differences in resource levels that varied from extremely successful, thriving institutions

to many that were struggling to survive. In the context of this recognition of the vast

distinctions between institutions in this segment of higher education, I began to wonder

about the role of fundraising in creating these differences.

Following some brief analysis of the financial statements of various colleges, I

began to realize that most of the resource differences came from the fundraising capacity;

from this conclusion my fascination with how successful organizations raise money

began to grow. Throughout my life I had been involved as a volunteer leader in many

non-profit organizations; and I believed I already knew quite a bit about fundraising, but I

was incorrect. Like many people, particularly people of faith, I still believed successful

fundraising was a function of just explaining as well as demonstrating a need; and the

funds would ultimately follow. On this assumption, I could not have been more incorrect.

245

Because I held this common belief that charitable giving is about responding to

needs, especially desperate needs, I fell into many common patterns of thought that often

exist among people at struggling intuitions. For instance, I believed that most wealthy

donors would chose to give more money to a struggling institution because they needed

the money more than organizations with more ample resources. If you believe this line of

thinking, the obvious point of emphasis in your fundraising approach would be to explain

the dire level of need extant in your organization and expect to receive more funds. This

pattern of thinking also often leads people at struggling organizations to become jealous

of staff members at those organizations that are more successful at raising money and to

develop something of a victim mentality. Unfortunately, when you start to see your

fundraising failure from a victim’s perspective, you start to lose perspective about donors

and their motivations. You may even lose respect for the philanthropic investment

decisions which they have made. Because after all, if these donors really understood how

desperate your institutional needs were, they would surely reallocate their donations to

your struggling institution away from the more prosperous colleges and universities. This

pattern of thinking leads to poor strategic decisions and overestimating your own

fundraising capacity.

The successes of the high performing organizations in this study have stood in

stark contrast to my own institutional experience in this sector of higher education. As I

have wrestled with the implications of data I collected, I have worked against a backdrop

of struggles at my own institution. While the institutions in this study were leery of

pursuing adaptive initiatives, my institution continued to chase the “cash cow” of adult

education while failing to address core deficiencies in the traditional, residential,

246

undergraduate educational environment. As the institutions in this study all made serious

commitments to define clearly the campus religious identity, including the relationship

with their host denomination, my institution choose to try to “straddle the fence” and

avoid taking any definitive stances, leaving all constituencies confused and disillusioned.

During my interviews, I listened to the presidents and other leaders at these sample

institutions discuss the importance of sticking to the core competencies of teaching and

developing undergraduate students as well as focusing on doing a few things very well.

Meanwhile, I watched my own institution desperately try numerous gimmicks,

dramatically growing administrative overhead in non-instructional areas, and ultimately

digging deeper fiscal deficits while diminishing the academic quality along with the core

mission of the organization. While the colleges and universities in this study managed

successfully to navigate through the extremely difficult economic conditions of the past

decade, my institution and more than 100 others, mostly small church-affiliated colleges,

found themselves on the U.S. Department of Education’s failing college watch list. Some

of these of these institutions have recently discontinued operations, and many others will

do so in the near future.

The preceding descriptions of the two extremes I presented are not intended to

bash failing schools and make heroes of the institutions which are succeeding. The

amazing point is that a very fine line exists between the most successful and failing

institutions in this segment of higher education. Both sets of colleges and universities

have very talented, dedicated, self-sacrificing, educators who work in these organizations

as an act of personal faith. Both sets of institutions have alumni who care deeply about

their alma maters, and have hard-working, well-intentioned leaders who are pouring their

247

hearts as well as souls into helping their organizations succeed. The primary difference

between these two sets of institutions is choice of leadership actions and strategy. The

schools in this study, and others like them, that are succeeding are doing so because they

have committed to being distinctively Christian schools with strong academics; and their

institutional leaders have remained focused on that mission exclusively as a defendable

position in the complex marketplace of higher education. The colleges and universities

that are failing are focused on doing anything they can to remain fiscally viable and often

unintentionally choose to pursue un-defendable market positions. In the end, the

defendable strategic choice also leads to the ability of achieving fundraising success

because ultimately only mission success can raise money.

This conclusion has, in many ways, been a very difficult finding for me to accept

as I have conducted this study. I had hoped to identify some secret formula to raising

money, but this study did not produce such a finding. In addition, this study was not

conducted by a dispassionate researcher because I really wanted to know what it took to

do what these successful schools have accomplished. I wanted to know how to find the

resources necessary to give my long-suffering colleagues who have gone many years

without pay raises and continually declining working conditions new hope. I wanted to

say that I had found the answer to how so many of these great institutions that have

educated generations of students and are now struggling for survival could raise more

money to fulfill their institutional missions better. As a graduate of an excellent Christian

college, which fortunately falls on the successful side of this equation, I wanted to give

back something to the professors, coaches, and administrators who had invested so much

of their lives into my academic, spiritual, and personal development as a young adult. I

248

wanted to ensure that future generations of students had the same opportunity to receive

the same quality of Christian education that I had received. I desperately wanted to know

the answers to the research questions in this study.

Ironically, I think my desire to know these answers and my personal experiences

at a failing institution added an extra degree of validity to this study. As I found answers

in the research of these successful institutions which I did not want to find, I also had the

added reality of comparison with my own institution which reaffirmed for me that what

these leaders were telling me was true. And so, despite producing a very different set of

findings than I had anticipated, I do believe that the findings of this study are extremely

valuable. I hope that leaders who are questioning their strategic path, as those of us in

struggling institutions often do, can reflect on the results of this study and hopefully find

the courage to follow their missions more closely. I hope this study will encourage others

in this segment of higher education to have the strength of character to say that success

may be found in doing fewer things better in order to achieve more results and ultimately

attract more resources.

Finally, I want to conclude by suggesting that many church-affiliated colleges and

universities have done a great deal to serve the educational needs of many students

throughout the history of this country often with very limited resources. I strongly

believe that this segment of higher education needs to be preserved. I also believe that

churches of all denominations need to reevaluate and reinvest in their own higher-

education institutions before it is too late. As the world in which we live becomes

increasingly complex through globalization and other factors the need for an educational

worldview big enough to encompass all disciplines and create a truly educated person

249

seems to be growing while the offerings seem to be diminishing. I believe Christian

higher education can fill this need, and I only hope in some small way the results of this

this study can help to strengthen these church-related colleges and universities.

285

Appendix Q: 3-Tiered Market Segmentation Model

3-Tiered Market Segmentation Model

286

Appendix R: Conceptual Model of Successful Fundraising at Sample Christian Colleges & Universities

Contextual Findings of Sample

Group

General Context

Pervasively Christian Culture

Residential Community

Atmosphere

Serious Academic Culture

Sense of Institutional History

Specific Tensions

Low Endowment-High Tuition

Trap

Threat of Secularization

Campus Spiritual Culture vs.

Denominational Heritage

Leadership Findings

The Guardians: Trustee Leadership

Mission-focused Leadership

Superman Presidents: The Catalysts for Success

Level “5” Leadership

Strategic Leadership

Boundary Spanning/Cooption

Storytelling

The Implementers: The Development Staff

Highly Engaged & Professionally

Developed Staff

Strategic Chief Development Officer

Team Oriented Approach

Fundraising

Success &

Effectiveness

Successful

Mission

Fulfillment

& Brand

Image

Strategic Findings

External Analysis

Internal Analysis

Broad Strategy Selection: Focused

Differentiation

3 Tiered Market Segmentation



Operations Strategy: Core Competency

Communications Strategy: Branding

Principles

Fundraising Strategy: Learning

Organization

Strategy Implementation

Realized Strategy

Strategic Analysis

Strategic Inputs

Strategy Formation

Leadership Actions

Reinforce Contextual Strengths &

Defend Against Tension Threats

Students also viewed