Dr. Monica Georgette Williams, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

8/14/2019 Dr. Monica Georgette Williams, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dr-monica-georgette-williams-phd-dissertation-defense-dissertation-chair 1/36

1

Engagement Levels of Historically Black College and University Leaders in

Entrepreneurialism through Fundraising ______________________________________

A Doctoral Dissertation Defense by

Monica Georgette Williams

July 10, 2009William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.

Dissertation Chair



2

DISSERTATION COMMITTEE

MEMBERSWilliam Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair

David E. Herrington, Ph.D., Committee Member

Lisa D. Hobson Horton, Ph.D., Committee Member

Ronald Howard, III, Ph.D., Committee Member

Michael L. McFrazier, Ed.D., Committee Member



3

Dissertation Defense Format

I. Statement of the ProblemII. Purpose of the StudyIII. Research QuestionsIV. Theoretical FrameworkV. MethodVI. Major FindingsVII. Conclusions

VIII.ImplicationsIX. Recommendations for Further StudyX. References



4

Statement of the Problem

• Tindall (2007) asserts that fundraising efforts of both privateand public HBCUs linger significantly behind the establishedfundraising programs at PWIs.

• There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few of these

institution’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 that hashistorically relied almost wholly on public funding.



5

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was todetermine the entrepreneurial orientationof public HBCU leaders and to determine if

those orientations were related to therevenue-generating activities of theirinstitutions and the institutions’ financialstability.



6

Research Questions

1. What connection exists between the HistoricallyBlack College and University leaders’entrepreneurial orientation and the financialstability of their institution?

2. To what extent do Historically Black College andUniversity leaders value and carry outentrepreneurial activities?

3. What factors are associated with best practices infundraising at Historically Black Colleges andUniversities?



7

Research Questions

4. How do the institutions’ developmentpractices influence entrepreneurialactivities for the purpose of advancing

the institution?

5. What is the perception of the

entrepreneurial orientation of theadministrator’s role by the administrator?



8

Theoretical Framework

According 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 development activitiesand innovative retail sales operations;

– activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams suchas endowment and tuition; and

– activities that involve both traditional and nontraditional aspects,such as distance learning, which uses nontraditional methods of teaching to gain tuition, a traditional source of income (which wasnot considered in this study).



9

Method

• 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



10

Method continued

• Data was collected through on-linequestionnaire developed by the researcher

• Questions were developed based on Clark’s

(1998) discussion of entrepreneurialinvolvement by colleges and universities

• Open-ended questions were used to captureresponses of individuals in their natural

settings



11

Method continued

• Data collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding.

• Researcher carefully read through each response and identifieda list of main themes in the data.

• After each response was coded and verified, a frequencyanalysis of the 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 computingthe average of responses to items regarding individual

entrepreneurial traits.



12

Method continued

• Inquiry was directed to 30 of the 47 ThurgoodMarshall College Fund (TMCF) member schools.

• TMCF law schools and 17 member schools werenot included in this study.

• Acting administrators or those who had not beenin their positions more than 12 months were notincluded in this study they were serving on atemporary basis and/or that they had not served inthe current leadership capacity that would allow

them to objectively complete the questionnaire.



13

Method continued

• Institutional Review Board approved studyfor a minimum of five schools within the

TMCF member schools

• Representatives from 17 schools (56.6%)agreed to participate in the study

• Administrators from 14 schools (46.6%)actually completed the questionnarie



14

Method continued

Interview Questions

Background Questions

1. 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 youhave in this position?

5. What is your highest level of education?6. What additional training have you had to

prepare you for this position? (RQ 3)



15

Method continued

Interview Questions

7. How long have you been employed at thisinstitution?

8. Please select the following words you feel best

describe you: (RQ 1)innovative risk taker proactive creativechange agent persuasive

team builder competitive

opportunist visionary



16

Method continued

Interview Questions

Philanthropic Cultivation9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development

and university advancement? (RQ 4)10. What is your philosophy of fund development? (RQ 5)11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe

responsible for fund development? (Please specify titles and excludeindividual names) (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 private

philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of control (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)



17

Method continued

Interview Questions

Giving

16. In the last three years, how muchmoney has been raised from private

philanthropic sources? (RQ1)17. When was the last time your institution

engaged in a capital campaign? (RQ1)



18

The Fundraising Cycle © by

Seiler (2009 )



19

Major Findings Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research

Question OneWhat connection exists between theHistorically Black College and Universityleaders’ entrepreneurial orientation and

the financial stability of their institution?



20

Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics – Research

Question OneEntrepreneurial Characteristics

92.9

57.1

100

85.792.9 92.9

100

71.4

35.7

85.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

I n n o

v a t i v

e

R i s k

T a k e

r

P r o a

c t i v e

C r e a t i v

e

C h a n

g e A g e

n t

P e r s u a s i v

e

T e a m

B u i l d

e r

C o m p e t i t v

e

O p p

o r t u n i

s t

V i s i o

n a r y

P e r c e n t a

g



21


Question One• Building teams and being proactive were mostpopular entrepreneurial characteristics

• Common entrepreneurial characteristics among thetop three 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 categoryreported being a risk taker



22


Question OneRespondent 15 Respondent 13 Respondents

9 & 11

Amount Raised $30,000,000+ $25,000,000 $15,000,000

innovative

creative

team builder

opportunist

risk taker

change agent

competitive

visionary

proactive

persuasive



23


Question One• Highest level of education could beinterrelated to the HBCU leader’sentrepreneurial orientation (Riggs, 2005)

– Two of three presidents have doctoraldegrees and one has a law degree• President with the law degree (Respondent

13) reported that his institution raised $25

million in the last three years compared toRespondent 11 who raised $15 million andRespondent 8 who did not report the amountof money raised



24


Question One• There appeared to be no connectionbetween development executives’ level of education and the amount of money

raised (Smith-Hunter, 2003).– A development director (Respondent 9)

with an undergraduate degree raisedthe largest amount of money among his

participating peers.



25


Question One• 30.7% of respondents reported that theyhad not participated in a strategicfundraising effort or that they had not

launched a capital campaign in ten ormore years.

• Michael Lomax, the “fundraising machinefor private HBCUs” believes that HBCUs

should fundraise regardless of theirapprehensions (Stuart, 2009, p.6).



26

Major Findings Entrepreneurial Activities – Research

Question Two To 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 stringent

performance 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



27


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 Endowment and The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, TMCF providestraining to development professionals from the 47 TMCF memberschools.



28


Question FourHow do the institutions’ development practices influenceentrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancingthe institution?

• There was an interrelationship between the factors

associated with best practices in fundraising and howthe institutions’ development practices influenceentrepreneurial activities.

– Development professionals tended to have likeresponses when reporting additional training they

had to prepare them for their positions and theirprofessional experience within the fields of funddevelopment and university advancement



29


Question FiveWhat is the perception of the entrepreneurialorientation of the administrator’s role by theadministrator?

• Surveyed HBCU administrators do recognize

themselves as being entrepreneurially oriented.• The reported perceptions of entrepreneurial

orientation among participants suggests that thereis an attitude among these leaders that embraces

a business-minded spirit.• Every surveyed participant shared a philosophy of

fund development that could be attributed toentrepreneurial orientation.



30

Major FindingsSupporting Literature

• Entrepreneurs have orientations that influence growth andindependence (Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1988)

• The decline in public support for colleges and universitiesmandates that these institutions seek private funds as amatter of survival (Johnsen, 2005).

• HBCUs need to engage in appropriate planning to achievefundraising results Barrett (2006).

• Due to the decline in state resources, public institutions areplacing stronger emphasis on fundraising (Riggs, 2005).

• “A business-like orientation focused on efficiency,

accountability, and productivity is reshaping themanagement of higher education” (Dingfelder, 2007, p. 2).

• Other researchers have described entrepreneurs asindividuals who recognize and seize opportunities whenthey occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).



31

Conclusions

• Given the shortfall in government support to public highereducation, it is nearly impossible to meet institutional demandswithout private philanthropic 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 raise

money”, 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

on fundraising are important professional development vehicles.



32

Implications

Fund development is quite possibly themost important activity that an HBCUadministrator will undertake. Without

private dollars to support theseinstitutions, HBCUs will not be able tosurvive at a time when our country isfacing economic depression and consistentdeclines in public funding.



33

Recommendations for Further

Study 1. A study could be conducted to include the publicHBCU presidents and chief development officerswho were not included in this study.

2. A study could be conducted to compare the

entrepreneurial engagement levels between publicand private HBCU leaders.3. A study could be conducted to compare

fundraising at Tier One and Tier Two institutions.4. A study could be conducted to identify the best

fundraising practices among all HBCUs.



34

Recommendations for Further Study continued

5. 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.



35

Barrett, 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 inthe college presidency . 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.Retrieved May 9, 2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Companyhttp://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search

Dunkelberg, W., Cooper, A. et.al. (1987). New firm growth and performance. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 307-321.

Johnsen, L. L. (2005). Understanding deliberative conflicts that confront academic fundraisers: A grounded theory study . Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and LearningCompany http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search

References

http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search








36

Masterson, K. (2008). Howard U. assembles fund-raising juggernaut. TheChronicle of Higher Education, p. 54.

Riggs, D. G. (2005). Entrepreneurial activities in independent college and university presidents: A view from the top. Retrieved May 5, 2006, fromProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search

Sieler, T. L. (2009). Roadmap to fundraising success. Retrieved February 1,2009, from The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana Universityhttp://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool/PrecourseReadings/roadmap_to_fundraising_success.aspx

Smith-Hunter, A. (2003, April). A psychological model of entrepreneurialbehavior. Journal of Business and Economics, 1-11.

Stuart, R. (2009) UNCF wrestles with new economy, old issues. Diverse Issuesin Higher Education, 23, 6.

Tindall, N. T. J. (2007). Fund-raising models at public historically Black collegesand universities. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 201-5.

References






Dr. Monica Georgette Williams, PhD Dissertation Defense, Dissertation Chair, Dr. William Allan Kritsonis

Documents