Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Monica G. Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.
1Engagement Levels ofHistorically Black College and University Leaders inEntrepreneurialism through Fundraising______________________________________A Doctoral Dissertation Defense byMonica Georgette WilliamsJuly 10, 2009William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.Dissertation Chair
2DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERSWilliam Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation ChairDavid E. Herrington, Ph.D., Committee MemberLisa D. Hobson Horton, Ph.D., Committee MemberRonald Howard, III, Ph.D., Committee MemberMichael L. McFrazier, Ed.D., Committee Member
3Dissertation Defense FormatI. Statement of the ProblemII. Purpose of the StudyIII. Research QuestionsIV. Theoretical FrameworkV. MethodVI. Major FindingsVII. ConclusionsVIII. ImplicationsIX. Recommendations for Further StudyX. References
4Statement of the Problem• Tindall (2007) asserts that fundraising efforts of bothprivate and public HBCUs linger significantly behind theestablished fundraising programs at PWIs.• There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few of theseinstitution’s leaders have devoted time and effort tounderstanding the complexities and challenges associatedwith fundraising at these institutions.• Public HBCU institutional leaders face a growing dilemma– how to strengthen university resources in a climate thathas historically relied almost wholly on public funding.
5Purpose of the StudyThe purpose of the study was to determine theentrepreneurial orientation of public HBCU leaders and todetermine if those orientations were related to the revenue-generating activities of their institutions and the institutions’financial stability.
6Research Questions1. What connection exists between the Historically BlackCollege and University leaders’ entrepreneurialorientation and the financial stability of their institution?2. To what extent do Historically Black College andUniversity leaders value and carry out entrepreneurialactivities?3. What factors are associated with best practices infundraising at Historically Black Colleges and Universities?
7Research Questions4. How do the institutions’ development practices influenceentrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing theinstitution?5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientationof the administrator’s role by the administrator?
8Theoretical FrameworkAccording to Clark (1998), entrepreneurial activities comprise third-stream income sources that include:– innovative and profit-based, self-supporting operations that gobeyond traditional sources, such as business developmentactivities and innovative retail sales operations;– activities that develop and enhance traditional income streamssuch as endowment and tuition; and– activities that involve both traditional and nontraditional aspects,such as distance learning, which uses nontraditional methods ofteaching to gain tuition, a traditional source of income (whichwas not considered in this study).
9Method• Qualitative Study Design using the following variables:– the amount of employment training and preparation– length of employment at the institution– innovative approaches used on the job– creativity in fundraising strategies– team building exercises implemented– opportunistic tactics used to get the job done– risk-taking approach to realize fundraising goals– competitive nature– vision-driven initiatives– ability to be proactive– persuasiveness– professional experience– philosophy of fund development– the impact of private philanthropy on the institution
10Method continued• Data was collected through on-line questionnaire developedby the researcher• Questions were developed based on Clark’s (1998)discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges anduniversities• Open-ended questions were used to capture responses ofindividuals in their natural settings
11Method continued• Data collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding.• Researcher carefully read through each response and identified a listof main themes in the data.• After each response was coded and verified, a frequency analysis ofthe numeric codings was conducted.• Findings were documented using percentages, the nature of thethemes, relationships and differences between the data, andinterrelationships within the themes.• Summary measures of respondents’ perceptions of their ownentrepreneurial characteristics were produced by computing theaverage of responses to items regarding individual entrepreneurialtraits.
12Method continued• Inquiry was directed to 30 of the 47 Thurgood MarshallCollege Fund (TMCF) member schools.• TMCF law schools and 17 member schools were notincluded in this study.• Acting administrators or those who had not been in theirpositions more than 12 months were not included in thisstudy they were serving on a temporary basis and/or thatthey had not served in the current leadership capacity thatwould allow them to objectively complete thequestionnaire.
13Method continued• Institutional Review Board approved study for a minimumof five schools within the TMCF member schools• Representatives from 17 schools (56.6%) agreed toparticipate in the study• Administrators from 14 schools (46.6%) actually completedthe questionnarie
14Method continuedInterview QuestionsBackground Questions1. In which state is your institution located?2. What is your institutional enrollment?3. What is your title?4. How many years of experience do you have in thisposition?5. What is your highest level of education?6. What additional training have you had to prepare you forthis position? (RQ 3)
15Method continuedInterview Questions7. How long have you been employed at this institution?8. Please select the following words you feel best describeyou: (RQ 1)innovative risk takerproactive creativechange agent persuasiveteam builder competitiveopportunist visionary
16Method continuedInterview QuestionsPhilanthropic Cultivation9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development anduniversity advancement? (RQ 4)10. What is your philosophy of fund development? (RQ 5)11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believeresponsible for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individualnames) (RQ5)12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? (RQ4)13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?(RQ4)14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from privatephilanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus ofcontrol (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)? (RQ3)15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a universityleader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? (RQ2)
17Method continuedInterview QuestionsGiving16. In the last three years, how much money has been raisedfrom private philanthropic sources? (RQ1)17. When was the last time your institution engaged in acapital campaign? (RQ1)
19Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question OneWhat connection exists between the Historically BlackCollege and University leaders’ entrepreneurialorientation and the financial stability of their institution?
20Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question OneEntrepreneurial Characteristics92.957.110085.792.9 92.910071.435.785.7020406080100120InnovativeRiskTakerProactiveCreativeChangeAgentPersuasiveTeamBuilderCompetitveOpportunistVisionaryPercentage
21Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One• Building teams and being proactive were most popularentrepreneurial characteristics• Common entrepreneurial characteristics among the topthree surveyed fundraising institutions were innovative(75%), creative (75%), team builder (100%), change agent(100%), competitive (75%), visionary (75%), proactive(100%), and persuasive (100%)• Only one of the four respondents in this category reportedbeing a risk taker
23Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One• Highest level of education could be interrelated to theHBCU leader’s entrepreneurial orientation (Riggs, 2005)– Two of three presidents have doctoral degrees and onehas a law degree• President with the law degree (Respondent 13) reported thathis institution raised $25 million in the last three yearscompared to Respondent 11 who raised $15 million andRespondent 8 who did not report the amount of money raised
24Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One• There appeared to be no connection between developmentexecutives’ level of education and the amount of moneyraised (Smith-Hunter, 2003).– A development director (Respondent 9) with anundergraduate degree raised the largest amount ofmoney among his participating peers.
25Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One• 30.7% of respondents reported that they had notparticipated in a strategic fundraising effort or that they hadnot launched a capital campaign in ten or more years.• Michael Lomax, the “fundraising machine for privateHBCUs” believes that HBCUs should fundraise regardless oftheir apprehensions (Stuart, 2009, p.6).
26Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Activities – Research Question TwoTo what extent do Historically Black College and Universityleaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?• Emerging themes among HBCU leaders– it was more difficult to get support at universities thanbusinesses because businesses have more stringentperformance expectations (Dingfelder, 2007)– that more flexibility is required of university leaders(Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1988)– there was minimal or no difference between universityleaders and business executives
27Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Activities – Research Question ThreeWhat factors are associated with best practices in fundraising atHistorically Black Colleges and Universities?• Only four respondents (Respondents 3, 8, 10 and 16) tookadvantage of the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy’straining provided by the TMCF (Barrett, 2006)– Indiana University offers the most comprehensive philanthropicacademic program to professionalize fundraising as anoccupation. Through a partnership with the Lilly Endowmentand The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, TMCFprovides training to development professionals from the 47TMCF member schools.
28Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Activities – Research Question FourHow do the institutions’ development practices influenceentrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing theinstitution?• There was an interrelationship between the factors associated withbest practices in fundraising and how the institutions’ developmentpractices influence entrepreneurial activities.– Development professionals tended to have like responses whenreporting additional training they had to prepare them for theirpositions and their professional experience within the fields offund development and university advancement
29Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Activities – Research Question FiveWhat is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of theadministrator’s role by the administrator?• Surveyed HBCU administrators do recognize themselves as beingentrepreneurially oriented.• The reported perceptions of entrepreneurial orientation amongparticipants suggests that there is an attitude among these leadersthat embraces a business-minded spirit.• Every surveyed participant shared a philosophy of funddevelopment that could be attributed to entrepreneurialorientation.
30Major FindingsSupporting Literature• Entrepreneurs have orientations that influence growth and independence(Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1988)• The decline in public support for colleges and universities mandates that theseinstitutions seek private funds as a matter of survival (Johnsen, 2005).• HBCUs need to engage in appropriate planning to achieve fundraising resultsBarrett (2006).• Due to the decline in state resources, public institutions are placing strongeremphasis on fundraising (Riggs, 2005).• “A business-like orientation focused on efficiency, accountability, and productivityis reshaping the management of higher education” (Dingfelder, 2007, p. 2).• Other researchers have described entrepreneurs as individuals who recognize andseize opportunities when they occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).
31Conclusions• Given the shortfall in government support to public higher education,it is nearly impossible to meet institutional demands without privatephilanthropic support .• Administrators who completed the questionnaire shared insightfulinformation that will assist fellow HBCU leaders in their quests tosecure private gifts to supplement their public funding.• There was a shortage in staff in advancement offices.– One respondent put it best saying “it takes money to raisemoney”, and raising money requires a reasonable number of staff.• Strategic planning emerged as a priority among respondents.• Best fundraising practices recognized by organizations who focus onfundraising are important professional development vehicles.
32ImplicationsFund development is quite possibly the most importantactivity that an HBCU administrator will undertake.Without private dollars to support these institutions,HBCUs will not be able to survive at a time when ourcountry is facing economic depression and consistentdeclines in public funding.
33Recommendations for Further Study1. A study could be conducted to include the public HBCUpresidents and chief development officers who were notincluded in this study.2. A study could be conducted to compare theentrepreneurial engagement levels between public andprivate HBCU leaders.3. A study could be conducted to compare fundraising at TierOne and Tier Two institutions.4. A study could be conducted to identify the best fundraisingpractices among all HBCUs.
34Recommendations for Further Study continued5. A study could be conducted to determine the engagementlevels of other HBCU leaders not including the presidentsand chief development officers.6. A study could be conducted to identify methods forinvolving students in fundraising at HBCUs.7. A study could be conducted to identify methods forinvolving alumni in fundraising at HBCUs.8. A study could be conducted to compare fundraisingbetween the Thurgood Marshall College Fund schools andthe United Negro College Fund Schools.
35Barrett, T. G. (2006). How strategic presidential leadership and institutional culture influencedfundraising effectiveness at Spelman College. Planning for Higher Education, 35(1), 5-18.Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the collegepresidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation.Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Dingfelder, D. C. (2007). Exploring the dimensions of entrepreneurial community colleges. RetrievedMay 9, 2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Companyhttp://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchDunkelberg, W., Cooper, A. et.al. (1987). New firm growth and performance. Frontiers ofEntrepreneurship Research, 307-321.Johnsen, L. L. (2005). Understanding deliberative conflicts that confront academic fundraisers: A groundedtheory study. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and Learning Companyhttp://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchReferences
36Masterson, K. (2008). Howard U. assembles fund-raising juggernaut. The Chronicle of HigherEducation, p. 54.Riggs, D. G. (2005). Entrepreneurial activities in independent college and university presidents: Aview from the top. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and LearningCompany http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/searchSieler, T. L. (2009). Roadmap to fundraising success. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from TheCenter on Philanthropy at Indiana Universityhttp://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool/PrecourseReadings/roadmap_to_fundraising_success.aspxSmith-Hunter, A. (2003, April). A psychological model of entrepreneurial behavior. Journalof Business and Economics, 1-11.Stuart, R. (2009) UNCF wrestles with new economy, old issues. Diverse Issues in HigherEducation, 23, 6.Tindall, N. T. J. (2007). Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges anduniversities. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 201-5.References