dr. william allan kritsonis, dissertation chair for monica g. williams, dissertation defense ppt
Post on 25-Jun-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONDr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Monica G. Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.
- 1. 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
2. 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 3. 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 4. 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 theseinstitutions 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. 5. 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 institutionsfinancial stability. 6. 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? 7. 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 administrators role by the administrator? 8. 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). 9. 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 10. 10Method continued Data was collected through on-line questionnaire developedby the researcher Questions were developed based on Clarks (1998)discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges anduniversities Open-ended questions were used to capture responses ofindividuals in their natural settings 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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 14. 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) 15. 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 16. 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) 17. 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) 18. 18The Fundraising Cycle by Seiler (2009 ) 19. 19Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics Research Question OneWhat connection exists between the Historically BlackCollege and University leaders entrepreneurialorientation and the financial stability of their institution? 20. 20Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics Research Question OneEntrepreneurial Characteristics92.957.110085.792.9 92.910071.435.785.7020406080100120InnovativeRiskTakerProactiveCreativeChangeAgentPersuasiveTeamBuilderCompetitveOpportunistVisionaryPercentage 21. 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 22. 22Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics Research Question OneRespondent 15 Respondent 13 Respondents9 & 11Amount Raised $30,000,000+ $25,000,000 $15,000,000innovative creative team builder opportunist risk takerchange agent competitive visionary proactive persuasive 23. 23Major FindingsEntrepreneurial Characteristics Research Question One Highest level of education could be interrelated to theHBCU leaders 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 24. 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. 25. 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). 26. 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(Dunkelbe