Development Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Athletics

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Maura A. Murphy

Graduate Program in Kinesiology

The Ohio State University

2018

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Brian A. Turner, Advisor

Dr. Jackie M. Blount

Dr. Donna L. Pastore

Copyrighted by

Maura Alexandra Murphy

2018

iii

Abstract

The ability of intercollegiate athletics departments to generate private sources of revenue is essential to meeting short-term needs while simultaneously planning for the future (Hall & Mahoney, 1997). Athletics development staffs under the direction of the athletics director, and in concert with institutional development efforts, are charged with the task of securing charitable contributions guided by an overall team fundraising goal as well as individual goals on an annual basis. While the athletics fundraising field has seen significant growth in recent years, the need for private support has been present since the first intercollegiate athletics contest in 1852 (Flowers, 2009; Smith, 1988).

Since that time the approaches to fundraising have evolved into a formal process with development becoming more professionalized, yet the priorities of intercollegiate athletics departments have not changed significantly. A focus on competitive success, recruiting the best student-athletes and encouraging their academic pursuits, and providing facilities and resources that fully support their individual and team efforts have consistently remained at the forefront.

Literature specific to athletics development has focused on areas that fundraising professionals have little to no influence over such as donor motivations and sports team performance. The purpose of this study was to shift the examination internally to explore how leadership impacts development work and identify characteristics of an effective

ii athletics development operation. This study utilized Duronio and Loessin’s (1991) definition of effectiveness, which is when “actual results exceed predicted results” (p. 8).

The study focused on Division I athletics departments in the Power Five, which includes

65 colleges and universities. The proposed stay and thrive model for athletics development served as the conceptual framework. The model includes five factors, and contends that the presence of these factors, cultivated by transformational leadership, results in an effective development operation. The framework outlines that transformational leadership generates pride or hope for internal and external constituents, provides fundraisers with a purpose and priorities guided by the leader’s vision, and nurtures or celebrates individual goals and accomplishments while also focusing on team goals overall.

Qualitative research methods were utilized to conduct the study which involved semi-structured interviews with athletics directors, chief development officers, and development officers across five institutions. The participant interviews revealed five themes, with leadership influence varying across the themes. These findings included one theme driven by tenured department leaders (Foundation), three themes driven by the athletics director (Vision, Family Environment, and Personal Development), and one theme driven by athletics development leadership (Everyone is a Fundraiser). The five themes are discussed in relation to the study’s two research questions as well as the conceptual framework. Finally, implications for current and aspiring leaders in intercollegiate athletics are provided and recommendations for future research are presented.

iii

Dedication

For my parents – your support and sacrifices have helped to make so much possible.

Vita

2004...... B.A. Education, Saint Mary’s College

2008...... M.S.A. Sport Management, Ohio University

2004 – 2005...... Events Assistant, 2005 FedEx Orange Bowl

National Championship

2005 – 2006 ...... Events Coordinator, 2006 FedEx Orange

Bowl

2006 – 2008...... Director of Development, Ohio University

Department of Intercollegiate Athletics

2008 – 2009...... Assistant Athletics Director, Ohio

University Department of Intercollegiate

Athletics

2009 – 2010...... Assistant Athletics Director, University of

Central Florida Athletics Association, Inc.

2010 – 2013...... Director of Development, The Ohio State

University Department of Athletics

2013 – 2017...... Assistant Athletics Director, The Ohio State

University Department of Athletics

2017 – present ...... Associate Athletics Director, The Ohio State

University Department of Athletics

Fields of Study

Major Field: Kinesiology

Specialization: Sport Management

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Dedication ...... iv

Vita ...... v

Fields of Study ...... vi

Table of Contents ...... vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 9

Purpose of the Study ...... 10

Conceptual Framework ...... 11

Research Questions ...... 21

Definition of Terms ...... 21

Overview of Chapters...... 23

Chapter 2: Review of Literature ...... 25

Fundraising and Leadership in Higher Education ...... 25

Fundraising Effectiveness in Higher Education ...... 28

vii

Intercollegiate Athletics Fundraising ...... 33

Fundraising Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Athletics ...... 33

Athletics Donor Motivations ...... 34

Competitive Outcomes and Fundraising Results ...... 39

The Athletics and Academic Fundraising Relationship ...... 41

Summary ...... 43

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 44

Researcher Role...... 45

Research Design ...... 47

Case Study Research ...... 47

Participant Selection ...... 48

Data Collection ...... 50

Interviews ...... 51

Data Analysis ...... 54

Trustworthiness ...... 56

Ethical Considerations ...... 58

Chapter 4: Findings ...... 59

Driven by Tenured Department Leaders ...... 62

Foundation ...... 62

viii

Driven by the Athletics Director ...... 65

Vision...... 66

Family Environment ...... 74

Personal Development ...... 79

Driven by Athletics Development Leadership ...... 82

Everyone is a Fundraiser ...... 83

Summary of Findings ...... 87

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ...... 89

Discussion and Conclusions ...... 90

Research Question #1 ...... 90

Research Question #2 ...... 93

Implications ...... 96

Study Limitations ...... 98

Future Research ...... 99

References ...... 103

Appendix A: The Stay and Thrive Model for Athletics Development ...... 115

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form for Participants ...... 117

Appendix C: Interview Guide ...... 120

Chapter 1: Introduction

Fundraising and higher education in America have been intimately linked since the first institution, Harvard College, was founded as a result of a philanthropic gift through the estate of John Harvard in 1638 (Kimball, 2010). While the landscape of

American higher education has changed dramatically since the seventeenth century, the importance of, and need for, philanthropic support remains. According to Thelin and

Trollinger (2014), “one of the truisms of American higher education is that the most successful colleges and universities are those that are the most accomplished in fundraising” (p. 147). This is particularly true for the area of intercollegiate athletics within the higher education enterprise.

Intercollegiate athletics today is a sophisticated business that has cemented itself as a fixture within the college experience. In recent years there has been great debate and scrutiny surrounding the true definition of the word student-athlete, the financial model for these programs, escalating costs of salaries (particularly for head football coaches), the arms race related to the building of facilities, and ultimately how the presence of intercollegiate athletics influences decisions and impacts colleges and universities overall. The focus on these topics has not been without controversy, and is not a new trend, as these debates existed during the earliest days of sport at institutions of higher education in the United States. To understand the emergence of college sports as a 1 business, and specifically the significance of philanthropy in intercollegiate athletics, it is first necessary to examine the origins of sport in higher education.

Evolution of Sport in Higher Education

In the mid-1600s, colleges were established in Colonial America for the purpose of educating young men of privilege in an environment that embraced a strong academic focus and religious foundation (Thelin, 2004). As these colleges evolved, so too did the experience for students outside of the classroom. These environments ultimately fostered both community and competition among students, particularly between classes. Students were segmented into classes based on when they entered the institution and these groups followed the same curriculum (Flowers, 2009). Identified as inter-class competitions, students participated in foot-ball which was a mix between rugby and soccer, a type of field hockey called bandy, and baseball. These were student driven and organized efforts with little input from individuals in leadership or faculty positions. This lack of input did not represent approval however, as these activities were “tolerated affairs” with a few disciplinary actions documented at both Princeton and Yale restricting students from participating in the activities on campus grounds (Flowers, 2009, p. 345; Lucas & Smith,

1978; Richardson, 1932; Smith, 1988). A shift in support of competition by institutional leaders began to occur as the overall structure and curriculum of colleges evolved concurrently with advances in transportation.

The Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century played a significant role in the shift from intra-collegiate to inter-collegiate competition as the railroad provided access and connection between institutions that previously were not available (Flowers, 2009).

The first documented intercollegiate athletics competition was in the sport of crew, or rowing, between Yale and Harvard in 1852. This event was witnessed by 1,000 spectators, and just 7 years later, close to 20,000 people attended a similar intercollegiate competition for the sport. The introduction of other sports followed with the first college baseball game between Amherst and Williams in 1859 and the first college football game between Rutgers and Princeton in 1869. Even in its infancy, these contests showcased the importance of rivalries, the impact of winning, and the publicity that college sports afforded institutions (Flowers, 2009; Lewis, 1967; Smith, 1988).

The focus on exposure via athletic competition and ultimately winning drove many decisions on college campuses during this time period. As the number of colleges grew across the country due in part to the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which provided participating states with 30,000 acres of federal land for the purpose of creating an endowment to support a college, institutions were finding ways to increase enrollments and gain financial solvency (Geiger, 2015). This focus on finances happened at the same time that intercollegiate athletics was emerging as a vehicle to gain income and publicity for the institution overall. “The visibility of athletic competitions and the ability to influence the support of the general public and prospective students was not lost on the leadership of higher education,” particularly at a time when enrollments were down and consistent revenue streams were scarce (Flowers, 2009, p. 348). Institutions identified “athletics as a source of enhanced name recognition to increase enrollment, philanthropy, and legislative support” (Flowers, 2009, p. 352).

By the end of the nineteenth century, demand for intercollegiate athletics was high, colleges were charging spectators to attend games, and football coaches were being paid handsomely. Most notably the salary for Bill Reid, Harvard’s football coach in

1905, was $7,000. This was double the salary of a typical professor and comparable to the salary of then Harvard President Charles Eliot (Flowers, 2009; Smith, 1988). The operation of intercollegiate athletics departments began to shift to a business approach which occurred under the direction of boards comprised of businessmen and alumni that were responsible for oversight and ultimate decision making (Flowers, 2009; Sack &

Staurowsky, 1998; Smith, 1988). The focus under their guidance was that a successful athletics program, particularly in the sport of football, presented a positive public image and a means to relate to the institution that no other area could universally provide.

Athletics provided a way to generate support not just from alumni but also from the general public. Individuals who did not attend an institution could become “vicarious alumni” and support a team that resided in their hometown or their home state (Flowers,

2009, p. 352).

National Collegiate Athletic Association and the Power Five

As sports evolved from club activities to a more formal game with spectators, consistent rules and policies across all institutions were needed. This led to the formation of the Intercollegiate Athletic Association of the United States in 1906, which later became the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in 1910 (Flowers, 2009).

The NCAA governance structure has experienced numerous changes since its inception, most notably in 1973 with the creation of three divisions: Division I, Division II, and

Division III. As described on the NCAA website, the divisions were created “to align like-minded campuses in the areas of philosophy, competition, and opportunity” (NCAA,

2015a). Today the NCAA is made up of over 1,100 colleges and universities across the three divisions of which 347 are identified as Division I (NCAA, 2015a). This study placed particular emphasis on Division I, specifically the 65 institutions that make up the

Power Five. Athletics programs in the Power Five represent the “richest football conferences” at the Division I level and include schools from the Atlantic Coast

Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, Southeastern

Conference, as well as the University of Notre Dame (Marot, 2014). It is necessary to analyze these 65 schools independently as their budgets and revenues far exceed those of the other institutions across Division I. This disparity was legitimized in 2014 when the

NCAA voted and approved autonomy for the Power Five. Autonomy enables these institutions to enact their own legislation apart from the other Division I programs. Non-

Power Five programs then have the ability to also adopt the legislation but it is not mandated by the NCAA (Bennett, 2014).

Power Five Revenue Sources

While Power Five autonomy and the finances of intercollegiate athletics receive significant attention today, the issues surrounding the role of sport in higher education and the resources needed to support it were present from the very beginning as Flowers

(2009) described:

From the first contest, intercollegiate sport was a commercial enterprise. The

process of rationalizing athletics to create efficiency and victories in order to

serve as a marketing tool was well established by the turn of the century. College

sports had evolved into a separate business unrelated to the core educational

mission of higher education. This frenzy fed upon itself, with the need for highly

visible and successful athletic programs producing ever increasing demands for

resources, which it believed could only be produced by more successful and

visible athletic programs. (p. 352)

These resources are secured through a variety of channels for athletics programs in the

Power Five with one notable source being private contributions. The three primary sources of revenue for institutions in the Power Five are ticket sales, contributions, and

NCAA/conference distributions. In 2014 this accounted for $1.14 billion, $1.24 billion, and $1.09 billion respectively, according to data obtained from 48 public schools in the

Power Five. Data was not available for the remaining 17 schools as a result of either their private institutional status or state laws not requiring responses to public records requests. These figures are noteworthy particularly when comparing them to a decade earlier in 2004 when the totals reflected $0.87 billion, $0.65 billion, and $0.55 billion for the same categories. The wealth and growth of revenues associated with the Power Five are directly tied to football, specifically television rights, dedicated conference television networks, the post-season model, and stadiums that seat over 100,000 paying customers

(Hobson & Rich, 2015).

In 2016 the Big Ten Conference signed a new media rights contract that is set to generate $440 million in revenue annually over a 6 year period beginning in 2017. With

14 schools in the conference, each institution will receive approximately $31.4 million

6 annually regardless of the size of the athletics program or their competitive records. The total deal, which includes partnerships with Fox Sports, ESPN, and CBS Sports, is estimated at $2.64 billion (Axelrod, 2016). In addition to this, each Big Ten Conference institution began receiving annual revenue from the Big Ten Network in 2014-2015 in the amount of $1 million (Carmin, 2015). At the time of its inception in 2007, the Big

Ten Network was questioned by many in the industry and not considered a viable product. Now, a decade later, the network is a significant player, providing considerable benefits to each member institution in terms of exposure and now revenue, and ultimately setting the standard for other conferences to follow (Benner, 2009). While the Big Ten

Conference provides one example, all conferences across the Power Five are positioning themselves for significant financial gains as a result of media rights and conference networks (Chi, 2014).

The current post-season models for college football and men’s basketball provide another significant source of revenue across all of Division I, but specifically for the

Power Five. In 2014 the College Football Playoff (CFP) was introduced providing a new format to crown a Division I college football champion. The new format consists of two semifinal games with the winners playing for the national championship. A selection committee is responsible for ranking the top 25 teams and ultimately assigning the top four teams to semifinal sites as well as other bowl game matchups (College Football

Playoff, 2016). In 2016-2017 the College Football Playoff revenue distribution ranged from $61.1 million to $71.7 million for the Power Five conferences. This is distributed

7 evenly among conference members, thus providing each school approximately $5 million

(NCAA, 2015b).

From the men’s basketball perspective, $160.5 million of over $1 billion in revenue that is generated annually from the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball

Championship was designated to the Division I Men’s Basketball Fund in 2017. This money is distributed by the NCAA to the conferences with institutions participating in the tournament (Gaines & Yukari, 2017; NCAA, 2017). The distribution is determined based on team performance and is distributed to each conference in rolling payments over a six year period. Each game represents a unit and each unit is equivalent to a certain amount of money. For the 2017 tournament, the unit amount was approximately

$265,000 which netted each of the Power Five conferences between $19 million and $38 million to be distributed among their member institutions. The NCAA does not stipulate how the funds should be distributed, although it recommends for even distribution among institutions (NCAA, 2017; Smith, 2017).

Despite the fact that all Power Five schools are beneficiaries of these distributions, the majority of athletics departments are not self-supporting. Self-sufficient athletics departments, as recognized by the NCAA, have revenues that are at least equal to total operating expenses. These revenues do not include student fees, funding from the university, or government support (Brady, Berkowitz, & Schnaars, 2015). As a result, the balance of Power Five institutions must enlist other strategies to generate revenue which has ultimately led to a rise in philanthropic efforts.

Athletics development, also referred to as athletics fundraising, is the specific area within an athletics department that is responsible for philanthropic gifts. These contributions, secured at both the one-time annual and six-figure and higher major gift levels, are utilized to fund scholarships, build and maintain facilities, and provide student-athletes with the resources that they need to be successful in the classroom and in competition. Athletics fundraisers meet these needs through the cultivation of relationships with individuals and corporations who have both the capacity and inclination to support the athletics program financially (Stinson & Howard, 2010).

As the demands for philanthropic support continue to increase, colleges and universities have expanded their athletics development staffs to help achieve their rapidly growing fundraising goals. The growth in the field is evident when reviewing the membership data of the National Association of Athletic Development Directors

(NAADD) over the past 15 years. In 1965 the National Association of Collegiate

Directors of Athletics (NACDA) was founded and today is the largest association of collegiate athletics administrators with a total membership of over 17,000. In association with NACDA, NAADD was formed in 1993. There were 479 members of NAADD in

2003, and by 2016 the association’s membership more than tripled, reaching 1,548 (J.

Galaska, personal communication, May 16, 2017).

Statement of the Problem

Research specific to athletics fundraising has focused on assessments of athletics donor motivation (Billing, Holt, & Smith, 1985; Gladden, Mahoney, & Apostolopoulou,

2005; Mahoney, Gladden, & Funk, 2003; Staurowsky, Parkhouse, & Sachs, 1996;

Stinson & Howard, 2004, 2010; Verner, Hecht, & Fansler, 1998), the impact of competitive outcomes on fundraising results (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Brooker &

Klastorin, 1981; Cohen, Whisenant, & Walsh, 2011; Grimes & Cressanthis, 1994;

Humphreys & Mondello, 2007; Rhoads & Gerking, 2000; Sigelman & Bookheimer,

1983; Sigelman & Carter, 1979; Tucker, 2004), and the athletics and academic fundraising relationship (Martinez, Stinson, Kang, & Jubenville, 2010; Stinson &

Howard, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2010).

Although contributions to the field have been made as a result of this research, information is lacking about how leadership influences fundraiser experiences and fundraising effectiveness specifically in intercollegiate athletics. The critical nature of philanthropy for intercollegiate athletics departments, coupled with the disruption associated with fundraiser turnover make this topic worthy of exploration. Therefore, this study will look internally, as opposed to externally, to examine the influence of leadership on athletics development effectiveness and to discover the aspects of an environment where athletics fundraising staff members not only stay, but thrive.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the attributes of an effective development office at Division I intercollegiate athletics departments through semi- structured interviews with athletics directors, chief development officers, and athletics development officers from five institutions in the Power Five. As a fundraising professional for more than a decade, the opportunity to explore a topic specific to athletics development, that has received little attention in the literature, was extremely

10 attractive to me.

The study utilized the proposed stay and thrive model for athletics development to explore the impact of leadership on fundraising outcomes and development staff experiences in the organization. The model is included in Appendix A and is described in more detail in the subsequent section regarding the study’s conceptual framework.

Conceptual Framework

As Miles and Huberman (1984) described, “a conceptual framework explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main dimensions to be studied–the key factors, or variables–and the presumed relationship among them” (p. 28). While a conceptual framework can be guided by formal schemes that have been studied and documented at length, it can also be based off of the researcher’s ideas. As described by Gay, Mills, and

Airasian (2012), “these theoretical frameworks are derived from our disciplinary orientations, which in turn inform what we are studying and how we are studying it” (p.

447). This study ultimately utilized both approaches in framework development.

Transformational leadership literature and my industry experience were considered when developing the stay and thrive model. The model contends that transformational leadership from the athletics director creates an environment that supports five factors in athletics development. The presence of these factors, and their collective interaction, produces an effective development operation.

To create the stay and thrive model I enlisted an approach similar to Miles and

Huberman’s (1984) description of bins when developing a framework. This starts with the assignment of labels to bins “containing a lot of discrete events and behaviors”:

When we assign a label to a bin, we may or may not know how all the contents of

the bin fit together, or how this bin relates to the other one. But any researcher,

no matter how inductive in approach, knows which bins to start with and what

their general contents are likely to be. Bins come from theory and experience,

and (often) from general objectives of the study envisioned. Laying out those

bins, giving each a descriptive or inferential name, and getting some clarity about

their interrelationships is what a conceptual framework is all about. (p. 28)

The five factors of the stay and thrive model are the “bins” that Miles and

Huberman (1984) detailed. The factors include pride in the athletics department, a clear vision or purpose including the identification and communication of specific fundraising priorities from leadership, opportunities for personal development both inside and outside of the organization, and an environment that celebrates personal achievements in addition to team success. It is asserted that these factors emerge as a result of transformational leadership from the athletics director.

Leadership has been studied in a variety of contexts, including intercollegiate athletics (Burton & Welty Peachey, 2009; Doherty, 1997; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996;

Kent & Chelladurai, 2001; Schroeder, 2010; Scott, 1997, 1999; Welty Peachey, Burton,

& Wells, 2014). Transactional leadership has been characterized by an exchange relationship between leaders and followers predicated on the idea that “there is a price on everything” (Bass & Avolio, 1994, p. 547), a lack of vision or greater purpose, rewards given only based on performance, and an environment where creativity and teamwork are not celebrated (Bass, 1985; Burns, 1978). Conversely, transformational leadership,

12 originally presented by Burns (1978), promotes a feeling of family, shared goals based on a defined vision, and a supportive environment where individual development is valued as much as team development (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978). This occurs as a result of the four I’s of transformational leadership: charisma or idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These components are defined by vision and pride, teamwork and high expectations, creativity and problem-solving, and personal attention and mentorship respectively (Avolio, Waldman, & Yammarino, 1991; Bass, 1985, 1990).

The Stay and Thrive Model

In many ways, intercollegiate athletics is a transactional business. Teams are measured based on wins and losses, donors secure football tickets only by giving, and individuals do not maintain long tenures in positions. Athletics administrators often move quickly between institutions, sometimes laterally, as they view new opportunities as “stepping-stones” (Pack & Won, 2017, p.117). The transactional nature of intercollegiate athletics from an internal standpoint is a complete contrast to the long- term commitment exhibited by the external constituents that an athletics department serves. While administrators and coaches move from institution to institution, alumni, donors, and season ticket holders remain; their connections to an institution are deeply rooted having been developed over years if not decades (Schroeder, 2010). Creating an effective development operation requires a shift from transactional to transformational action – in leadership, in the environment, and ultimately in outcomes. As a result of transformational leadership, it is asserted that five factors exist in the context of

13 intercollegiate athletics fundraising that produce a stay and thrive environment where fundraising is effective. The factors are interconnected and of equal importance. They are Pride, Purpose, Prioritization, Personal Development, and People.

Pride. Success in intercollegiate athletics is clearly defined by wins and losses.

From the fundraising perspective, pride in a successful athletics program is especially important to current and prospective donors as it has been described as a primary motivation to contribute (Gladden et al., 2005). Pride is easily generated during winning seasons, yet hard to come by when negative events occur. The individuals that are affiliated with a college or university as alumni or donors, as well as those that purchase tickets, often feel that their investments should be met with successful competitive results. Conversations with these constituents are much more pleasant and productive when teams have winning seasons, student-athletes are reflected positively in the media, and coaches are seen as being committed to the institution for a significant period of time.

While this describes the best case scenario, the reality for most athletics departments across the country is that negative events are quick to jump to the forefront and consistently achieving winning seasons is a challenge due to the public and highly competitive nature of college athletics today (Schroeder, 2010).

While fundraisers are not able to control the outcomes of games, transformational leaders have the ability to create a prideful, and when needed hopeful, environment for fundraisers and external constituents regardless of competitive results. An athletics director that is a transformational leader generates an environment where a sense of pride

14 or hope exists (Bass, 1990). Pride is also critical for fundraiser retention as described by

Looney and Looney (2005):

Pride in your organization and pride in the quality of the fundraising for your

institution will make it more difficult for a fundraiser to say yes when a phone call

eventually comes from an executive recruiter. If the fundraiser feels respected,

has been given ownership of his or her work, and is supported with the resources

to do the job, then that person’s pride will become apparent. (pp. 103-104)

In the world of intercollegiate athletics, fundraisers are charged with selling either pride and success or hope. Investments guided by pride and success focus on a donor’s desire to maintain the current level of achievement being experienced, while investments based on hope are driven by an intent to help enhance a program that may have fallen behind other schools at both the conference and national levels. By focusing on maintaining success or helping to fix a problem, a common narrative is generated. It is the responsibility of the athletics director to create this narrative depending on the current state of the program. This narrative is a resource needed by all fundraisers to do their job effectively, and it is directly related to the second factor – Purpose.

Purpose. The primary responsibility of a fundraiser is to meet with an individual or corporation, evaluate their financial capacity and inclination to make a contribution, and ultimately align their philanthropic interests with the needs of the organization

(Duronio & Loessin, 1991; Worth & Asp, 1994). To achieve this, fundraisers must have an understanding of the vision and how their work contributes to its actualization – this can only be communicated from leadership. As detailed by Looney and Looney (2005),

“leadership and management must not only set the tone for the organization, but must enthusiastically share the vision.” Additionally, “creating strategies for involving staff early in the planning phase of a project and empowering them with ownership for implementation is energizing and encourages attachment to the organization” (p. 105).

The importance of vision in the fundraising context was further supported by Thomas

(2010):

It is not enough to simply announce the vision at a staff meeting. Part of the

process should also be aligning program and gift officer metrics to the vision

statement, showing the importance of the vision in each person’s day-to-day

work. This message should be highlighted in different meetings throughout the

year and be seen as a guiding statement for the work of the group. (pp. 102-103)

Transformational leaders share and build this vision with staff. Through the characteristics of charisma, inspiration, and intellectual stimulation presented by Bass

(1985, 1990) a transformational leader provides a vision that is inspirational and motivates employees to produce their best work. In the case of athletics fundraising, the athletics director provides this overarching narrative, or case for support, while also establishing priorities that serve as boundaries for the athletics development staff.

Prioritization. On an annual basis, athletics fundraisers have individual fundraising goals that they must meet; these results ultimately contribute to their team’s overall fundraising goal for the year. In the simplest sense, fundraisers are able to achieve these goals by actively meeting with donors and soliciting them for support. This process requires an assertive approach in the short-term while also recognizing that they

16 are developing a long-term relationship between the donor and the institution (Worth &

Asp, 1994). The challenge for athletics fundraisers is that their fundraising goals do not always align with the goals and needs of coaches and other fundraisers across campus.

They cannot manage these internal pressures alone, and thus the next factor of the stay and thrive model is Prioritization – the act of the athletics director outlining fundraising priorities for the athletics development staff and placing these priorities above all other needs that emerge.

Prioritization is an extension of Purpose as it also relates to the establishment of a clear vision and goals. A transformational leader communicates this vision across all levels of the organization on a consistent basis (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Prioritization by an athletics director is rooted in transformational leadership, specifically the characteristics of inspiration and intellectual stimulation described by Bass (1985, 1990).

By defining expectations and encouraging staff to embrace priorities impacting the organization as a whole, an athletics director exhibits support of the athletics development staff as they work to meet their fundraising goals.

Personal Development. This factor has been named personal instead of professional development because it encapsulates all aspects of an individual’s goals.

While some may be linked to their roles and responsibilities in the workplace, they must also extend outside of that realm to capture their personal goals as well.

Transformational leaders take these goals into consideration through the attribute that

Bass (1985, 1990) identified as individualized consideration. Individualized consideration is characterized by mentorship and approaching each employee as an

17 individual through personal attention. This concept is central to the idea that an employee who is supported based on their own skill set and career aspirations will have a greater intent to remain with the organization and will be more committed overall.

Individualized consideration and personal development are both in need of attention within the fundraising field. The primary role of a fundraiser is to connect donor interests to an organization’s needs, which is accomplished by developing a personal relationship over a period of time. This relationship has been described as a critical component of a successful fundraising operation (Chung-Hoon, Hite, & Hite,

2005; Cook & Lasher, 1996; Pribbenow, 1994). The challenge in the field is that although it takes two to three years for these relationships to translate to financial commitments, the average tenure of a fundraiser is under four years, with turnover being described as an “epidemic” in the profession (Iarrobino, 2006, p. 141; Reed, 2013;

Thomas, 2010). Therefore, athletics departments that are able to retain fundraising staff are in an enviable position with the potential to experience fundraising growth in the long-term.

As Croteau and Wolk (2010) outlined, “there needs to be a paradigm shift in the profession. Advancement leaders need to think strategically about developing talented people and building a pipeline of future leaders from within their organizations instead of letting talented staff simply walk out the door” (p. 60). Their recommendations for achieving this included a focus on developing career paths and strategic succession planning. Career paths were defined by Croteau and Wolk (2010) as “clearly defined changes to one’s responsibilities within the organization” that “could be simply

18 expanding a staff member’s job responsibilities to include a different discipline, or carving out more opportunity for one to grow within his or her current position” (p. 61).

A key to successful career pathing is for staff members to understand that opportunities exist for growth that may not be apparent by simply looking at an organizational chart.

While an individual’s goals may not align with what the organization needs in the short term, the creation of a career path “establishes a long-term road map for the staff member to see into their professional future. It is not a yearly promotion plan” (Croteau & Wolk,

2010, p. 63).

Understanding an individual’s goals is critical to retention as is creating an environment that rewards both individual contributors and managers. The challenge in many organizations, including athletics departments, is that individuals often only equate upward mobility with management responsibilities and promotions. This is further complicated by the fact that a common occurrence in fundraising environments is the promotion of individuals based on successful fundraising outcomes to management positions. The problem is that they have no management experience and in some cases do not adapt well to a management role. The most successful organizations recognize that a balance is needed between individual contributors who are not suited for managerial roles and individuals that can serve in leadership positions. While management experience can play a role in career progression, this is not the only option for providing employees with development opportunities (Croteau & Wolk, 2010).

Overall, communication, flexibility, and creativity are critical for this factor of the stay and thrive model to be present. As Looney and Looney (2005) outlined, “creating

19 opportunities to learn and grow on the job encourage retention. Providing opportunities for increasing a fundraiser’s knowledge base, networking with colleagues, and attending conferences and seminars demonstrates commitment to professional growth and allows learning and career development” (p. 204). It is incumbent upon leadership to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of the individual members of their team, provide them with experiences to enhance their skill set, and foster an environment where they can pursue their individual goals.

People. Through charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration a transformational leader creates an environment where people are motivated, creativity and new ideas are encouraged, and individual goals are not sacrificed in place of team goals (Nicholson, 2007). As a result, this final factor is ultimately an extension of Personal Development. Employees feel individually supported and thus embrace a mentality that focuses on work and outcomes that will benefit their team as well as the organization overall (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transformational leaders create an environment characterized by a feeling of family, a team mindset, mutual interests, and a shared fate among employees (Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Thomas, 2010). It is important to note that maintaining this type of environment where employees want to work must be consistently cultivated in both formal and informal ways. Leaders must identify ways to bring their teams together outside of the normal office setting with a focus on strengthening the links inside and outside of the organization (Holtom, Mitchell, & Lee, 2006; Looney & Looney, 2005;

Thomas, 2010).

Overall, this conceptual framework dictated that I approach the study both inductively and deductively. Qualitative research, however, has been defined as an inductive process focused on discovery as opposed to beginning the study with preconceived ideas (Gay et al., 2012; Merriam, 1998). Yet, as Merriam (1998) outlined:

The argument could be made, however, that most qualitative research inherently

shapes or modifies existing theory in that (1) data are analyzed and interpreted in

light of the concepts of a particular theoretical orientation, and (2) a study’s

findings are almost always discussed in relation to existing knowledge (some of

which is theory) with an eye to demonstrating how the present study has

contributed to expanding the knowledge base. (p. 49)

As a result, I engaged in this qualitative research through an inductive lens, while also allowing the conceptual framework to inform the findings.

Research Questions

The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. How does leadership influence athletics development effectiveness?

2. How is an environment created to produce an effective athletics development

operation?

Definition of Terms

Athletics Director: This individual serves as the primary leader of the athletics department and typically reports to the president of the institution. The athletics director determines their level of involvement in the development process as well as fundraising

21 priorities. Some athletics directors actively participate in all stages of the development process, while others prefer to leave that responsibility to the athletics development staff.

Chief Development Officer: This position is the lead athletics development staff member who oversees the entire development operation and typically reports to the athletics director. This individual may also have a reporting line to the foundation of the college or university. The chief development officer has both fundraising and management responsibilities.

Development: As described by Dove (2001), “the term development is often considered a synonym, or even a euphemism, for fundraising” (p. 5). The term first emerged at

Northwestern University in 1920 and today speaks to a greater plan and process required to achieve positive fundraising outcomes (Worth & Asp, 1994).

Development Officer: There is generally more than one development officer position in an athletics development staff. This position is responsible for major gift fundraising.

Major gift amounts are defined differently by institutions but are typically six- or seven- figure gifts that can be paid over a period of years. A development officer may or may not have responsibilities outside of fundraising.

Fundraising: As noted previously, development was first introduced in 1920 at

Northwestern University and today refers to the process of securing philanthropic commitments. This process involves the identification and qualification of potential donors, the cultivation of that relationship through engagement with the institution, the solicitation for support, and finally the on-going stewardship of the relationship following

22 investment. Fundraising is synonymous with the solicitation step in the development process which is the act of actually asking for support (Worth & Asp, 1994).

Fundraising effectiveness: This study utilized the definition presented by Duronio and

Loessin (1991) which was that “an effective fund-raising program is one in which actual results exceed predicted results” (p. 8).

Philanthropy: Thelin and Trollinger (2014) presented several interpretations and definitions of philanthropy and ultimately described it as “voluntary action for the public good” (p. 41). This voluntary action can be in the form of time, talent, or treasure benefitting a specific cause or organization.

Power Five: Athletics programs in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference,

Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, Southeastern Conference, as well as the

University of Notre Dame are recognized as the Power Five. In total, the Power Five includes 65 colleges and universities and represents the “richest football conferences” at the NCAA Division I level (Marot, 2014).

Tenured Department Leader: A tenured department leader has worked in the same athletics department for a significant number of years. It is not a permanent position as recognized from an academic perspective.

Overview of Chapters

The first chapter of this study provided an overview of athletics in higher education and the significance of philanthropy in the overall enterprise, as well as the research problem, purpose of the study, conceptual framework, research questions, and definition of terms.

Chapter Two highlights the relevant literature specific to leadership and philanthropy in

23 higher education, fundraising effectiveness in higher education, and athletics development.

The third chapter outlines the research methodology utilized for the study. Chapter Four presents the study findings. The fifth and final chapter includes discussion, a summarization of the study, and recommendations for future research.

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

This chapter provides an overview of relevant literature with an initial focus on the research associated with leadership and higher education fundraising efforts. The second section details fundraising effectiveness literature in university settings. The third and final section includes an examination of the research specific to athletics development including effectiveness, the unique motivations of this specific donor segment, the impact of competitive outcomes on fundraising results, and the interaction with non-athletics fundraising units on campus.

Fundraising and Leadership in Higher Education

Despite the importance of philanthropy to athletics directors and the departments that they oversee, there is limited research specific to leadership and fundraising efforts in this context as studies have primarily examined the influence of leadership on constructs such as organizational culture and commitment in intercollegiate athletics (Burton &

Welty Peachey, 2009; Doherty, 1997; Doherty & Danylchuk, 1996; Kent & Chelladurai,

2001; Schroeder, 2010; Scott, 1997, 1999; Welty Peachey et al., 2014). By expanding this review it was discovered that the impact of leadership on fundraising has received scholarly attention across higher education. This research emerged in the late-1980s with a focus on the role of college and university presidents in fundraising outcomes (Fisher &

Quehl, 1989; Hurtubise, 1988). The literature to date has revealed the significant role of 25 presidential leadership in this area of the higher education enterprise, ultimately providing insights for other campus leaders about their influence on fundraising efforts.

A model for presidential fundraising was presented by Cook and Lasher (1996) in their qualitative study that focused on colleges and universities engaged in comprehensive campaigns of $100 million or more. The model included four forces identified as personal, institutional, role, and environmental. Personal forces included individual characteristics established before assuming the leadership role, institutional forces encompassed the history and culture specific to the institution as well as internal dynamics, role forces accounted for the expectations of the position held by internal and external constituents, and environmental forces involved external factors such as the philanthropic mindset of the donor base and federal tax policy. The authors suggested that these forces interacted and influenced not only a president’s level of involvement in fundraising but also their effectiveness over time. While their research identified the president as a “central player” in fundraising, it was noted that the model and four forces also impacted other fundraising staff such as the chief development officer (Cook &

Lasher, 1996, p. 33).

The research topic for Satterwhite and Cedja (2005) was similar to Cook and

Lasher (1996) but included institutions focused on smaller fundraising campaigns. The authors interviewed university presidents and chief development officers at three institutions engaged in capital campaigns of less than $100 million. Through their research the authors discovered six themes related to the influence of leadership on fundraising, identifying three as primary and three as secondary. The primary themes

26 focused on vision, relationships with external constituents, and team building, and the secondary themes accounted for interaction with internal constituents, resource allocation, and direction and guidance for staff. Overall this work was consistent with other research specific to university leadership and fundraising, with the determination that a university president “plays a multifaceted role in their operational and academic capacities as well as within their role in the fund-raising process” (Satterwhite & Cedja,

2005, p. 341).

A focus on transactional and transformational leadership related to university presidents and fundraising characterized the work of Nicholson (2007). The mixed methods study included the use of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) as well as interviews with presidents, vice presidents, and major donors from four institutions. The results indicated that presidents enlisted transactional and transformational behaviors as these “leadership approaches work hand in hand to help the leader and donor accomplish higher-order change in fundraising” (Nicholson, 2007, p.

261). To reflect these behaviors a universal model was presented termed the

Transformative Leadership Fundraising Model. The model included the four I’s of transformational leadership, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, each with associated presidential leadership behaviors identified in the findings.

Inspirational motivation and individualized consideration were determined to be the strongest categories that contributed to successful fundraising outcomes. The responsibility of the president to develop and communicate a vision that was meaningful

27 to donors was linked to inspirational motivation. Individualized consideration reflected the importance of listening as a leadership trait which involved the ability of the leader to demonstrate a genuine interest in donor needs. It is also important to note that the findings revealed that leadership approaches were modified to account for the unique characteristics of the institution as well as individual donor interests (Nicholson, 2007).

The subsequent section presents literature that also highlighted the specificity of fundraising to both the institution and the donor (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Duronio &

Loessin, 1990, 1991).

Fundraising Effectiveness in Higher Education

One of the first studies specific to fundraising in higher education was published by John Leslie in 1969. In this work Leslie (1969) defined fundraising effectiveness as

“a measurement of the degree to which objectives are successfully achieved” (pp. 26-28).

The quantitative study included data received from 105 institutions of varying size and scope with the purpose of assessing their advancement operations. To analyze the fundraising effectiveness of the participating institutions Leslie (1969) utilized

“yardsticks capable of determining performance” (p. 19). These included factors such as the total amount of gifts, staff sizes, and staff salaries. Other factors such as institution type and enrollment were evaluated but deemed not relevant. It was determined that due to a lack of research the identified yardsticks should be assessed over time. Leslie (1969) suggested that this examination, coupled with consistent methods of data collection, would provide insights for improvements to management and performance in fundraising.

A quantitative approach was also enlisted by Pickett (1977) to assess fundraising effectiveness at private liberal arts colleges. Utilizing institutional data as well as information gathered through a questionnaire, the focus of his work was the examination of fundraising potential in addition to effectiveness. Rather than using gift totals alone to deem an institution effective in fundraising, he proposed that effectiveness should be determined by comparing an institution’s fundraising potential to the total amount of money that was actually raised. Pickett (1977) contended that excluding potential in the analysis “could lead a researcher to confuse a ‘fortunate’ college with an ‘effective’ one”

(p. 115).

Potential was identified through the use of four variables related to available resources based on a college’s environment as well as eight variables specific to the accessibility of these resources. The study ultimately found that an institution’s access to resources had a greater impact on fundraising potential than the available resources themselves. The wealth of a college as associated with its endowment, the “socio- economic level of clientele” which accounted for students, parents, and alumni, a large institutional enrollment leading to a large number of alumni, and the “perceived quality” of the institution by donors were all identified as factors that influenced resource access, and therefore fundraising potential, for institutions (Pickett, 1977, pp. 126-127).

As a result of his work Pickett (1977) made numerous recommendations for college and university leadership, fundraisers, and future researchers. A focus on endowment and enrollment growth, tuition increases, engagement of trustees in fundraising, development of a long range fundraising plan, and investments in the area of

29 institutional advancement distinguished the recommendations for leadership. The suggestions for fundraisers included attention to capital giving, prospect research, deferred giving, solicitation activity, trustee engagement, and professional development.

In terms of future research Pickett (1977) encouraged replication of his method to verify validity as well as the study of specific aspects of fundraising work that could also impact outcomes such as solicitations and case statements.

The aforementioned study by Cook and Lasher (1996) also focused on fundraising effectiveness and included 12 “key prerequisites for sustained fund raising in institutions of higher education” (p. 39). The list of 12 included: leadership of the president, trustees, deans, volunteers, staff, and other friends; wealth of the donor base; clarity and strength of institutional mission; personal relationship between donors and a representative of the institution; involvement of donors in the life of the institution; prestige/reputation/image; history/age/maturity/consistency/tradition of both the institution and the advancement program; informed and committed constituency; donor predisposition to give; continued public confidence in higher education; state of the economy/nation; and tax policy that impacts philanthropy (Cook & Lasher, 1996, p. 39).

The authors indicated that the prerequisites are generally not all present at the same time, but fundraising effectiveness, made up of capability, potential, and dollar totals, increases with more factors present. Additionally, some of the prerequisites, like the state of the economy, cannot be controlled by institutions but do impact fundraising (Cook & Lasher,

1996). While the next two studies outlined were conducted prior to 1996, Leslie and

Ramey (1988) and Grunig (1995) focused on fundraising effectiveness related to specific prerequisites that Cook and Lasher (1996) later presented.

An emphasis on the relationship between donors and institutions characterized the work of Leslie and Ramey (1988) and their study of fundraising effectiveness. Using data from 1977 and 1980 the authors assessed contributions made by specific donor groups to large research universities noting that the varied motivations and characteristics of each group must be accounted for when evaluating fundraising strategies and outcomes. The groups of donors were identified as alumni, non-alumni, and corporations, as well as a fourth category for supporters that did not match the descriptions of the first three groups. The results of their quantitative study supported the notion that institutional characteristics influence the philanthropic behavior of donors.

Furthermore, when highlighted strategically, these attributes have the ability to boost donor support. It was determined that the impact of these factors, such as “the long- standing traditions of the institution” and “its prestige”, varied across the groups studied

(Leslie & Ramey, 1988, p. 130). These differences between donor groups were most significant when comparing corporations and individual donors. Corporate giving was driven by economic factors while individual contributors were motivated by a personal connection requiring a more humanistic approach (Leslie & Ramey, 1988).

Grunig (1995) sought to explore how development office structure impacts fundraising effectiveness by surveying both public and private universities. Specifically the author utilized data about development activities from one fiscal year to determine if decentralized development offices were more efficient in raising money than centralized

31 development offices. Decentralized operations have fundraising personnel dedicated to a specific college or unit while staff in a centralized office focus on fundraising for the institution overall. Through this study it was determined that a decentralized development office was more common for schools with larger staffs, greater enrollments, and larger gift incomes but that this did not mean that they were necessarily more effective. Despite a lack of impact on efficiency, the study did find that decentralization enabled greater staff growth which can lead to increased fundraising results (Grunig, 1995).

While various quantitative approaches have directed the study of effectiveness in higher education fundraising, Duronio and Loessin (1991) noted that “it is not possible to fully understand fund-raising effectiveness by studying quantitative factors alone” (p. 7).

As a result they expanded their quantitative analyses to include a qualitative approach that involved 10 institutions and an assessment of qualitative attributes linked to success in fundraising. Through their research it was determined that two of the primary characteristics of effective fundraising were leadership and an institution’s commitment to fundraising. As the authors suggested, conclusions could not be drawn about fundraising outcomes based solely on data due to differences across institutions (Duronio

& Loessin, 1990, 1991). Thus, I also enlisted a qualitative approach for my study to analyze leadership and fundraising effectiveness in the context of intercollegiate athletics.

One qualitative study that did provide insights on factors that influence giving at Division

I intercollegiate athletics departments was the work of Hall and Mahoney (1997). The following section details their study and illustrates that leadership and effectiveness have not been a primary focus of the literature specific to athletics development.

Intercollegiate Athletics Fundraising

Fundraising Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Athletics

Hall and Mahoney (1997) conducted a qualitative study of athletics annual fund directors from 10 Division I institutions. Through their research the authors focused on annual giving strategies enlisted by the participating institutions, environmental factors that impact annual giving, and how these strategies and factors interact. Strategies included direct mail campaigns, telemarketing campaigns, one-on-one solicitations, special projects, the team concept, and priority seating (p. 23). These six strategies were not “mutually exclusive” as successful annual giving programs utilized them all as a part of a greater strategy (Hall & Mahoney, 1997, p. 26).

The authors defined environmental factors “as any existing condition that may impact the effectiveness of an annual giving program within the department of intercollegiate athletics” (p. 26). Through their study 11 environmental factors were identified as impacting athletics annual giving programs: type of school in terms of location and size, private or public institution, support of top administration, level of competition (referring to schools and professional sports teams in the area as well as fundraisers across campus), winning percentage of revenue producing sports, student- athlete graduation rate, community support, tradition, apprehension or resistance to change, state of the local economy, and relationship with the alumni office and the university foundation (Hall & Mahoney, 1997, p. 26). Although Hall and Mahoney

(1997) identified the top three environmental factors that impacted each strategy the

33 most, it was noted that all factors should be considered when developing a fundraising plan.

The environmental factors presented by Hall and Mahoney (1997) were somewhat similar to the “key prerequisites for sustained fund raising in institutions of higher education” detailed by Cook and Lasher (1996, p. 39). Since the considerations identified were mostly institutional characteristics, other research was produced that illustrated the need to study additional influential factors that speak to the donors themselves – namely their motivations for giving. As Vesterlund (2006) posed, “if we do not understand why people give, then how can we encourage them to become donors or to increase their contributions?” (p. 568). This question is universal in the world of philanthropy as organizations and fundraisers seek to identify strategic approaches for the engagement and solicitation of potential donors. As a result, research has focused on identifying and defining the motivations of donors for the purpose of establishing frameworks that can guide the fundraising process.

Athletics Donor Motivations

Prince, File, and Gillespie (1993) presented the construct of philanthropic style to describe the primary motivation of donors. Their research identified seven philanthropic styles: Communitarians, the Devout, Investors, Socialites, Repayers, Altruists, and

Dynasts. While these styles have been present in research focusing specifically on the motivations of athletics donors, they have not been the most often cited motives by this donor segment. “This result would seem to support the notion that fundraising in athletics is somewhat different than fundraising in other areas” (Gladden et al., 2005, p.

26). Consequently, researchers have focused their attention on athletics donor motivation resulting in a significant amount of literature on the topic.

Initial research focused specifically on athletics donor motivation dates back to the mid-1980s. Since that time three studies have served as guides for all future work on the subject. Billing et al. (1985) developed the Athletic Contributions Questionnaire

(ACQUIRE) which was one of the first instruments to measure donor motivation. They identified four motives as the foundation of their research: philanthropic (supporting students through athletics scholarships), social (game attendance), success (institution distinction), and benefits (tickets and tax deductions).

This was followed by Staurowsky et al. (1996) who expanded the work of Billing et al. (1985) to develop the Athletic Contributions Questionnaire Revised Edition II

(ACQUIRE-II). Staurowsky et al. (1996) added two new motives to their instrument, curiosity (insider information) and power (influence), and also amended the success motive by creating two sub-categories, loyalty and image. Using the revised instrument

Staurowsky et al. (1996) sent questionnaires to athletics donors at one Division I institution and one Division III institution. The responses indicated that 6 factors explain over 70% of donor motivations: benefits, philanthropic, power, social, success 1, and success 2 (p. 262).

The third notable instrument is the Motivation of Athletics Donors (MAD-1) developed by Verner et al. in 1998. This research proposed and tested 12 dimensions of donor motivation. As a result of the study, 11 scales were validated: participating in secondary events, public recognition, giving of time and energy, inside information,

35 priority treatment, philanthropy, collaboration, create, change, curiosity, and power.

Loyalty was the only factor requiring future research (p. 136).

While the work of Verner et al. (1998) provided the most comprehensive list of motivating factors at that time, it was also noteworthy in that the authors incorporated social cognitive theory in their research. The theory outlines that people “are shaped by a model of triadic reciprocality in which behavior, cognition and other personal factors, and the environment interact-each being a determinant of the other” (Verner et al., 1998, pp. 124-125). Donor motivations are personal and environmental factors influence the resulting donor behavior.

Mahoney et al. (2003) utilized the foundational elements of the instrument developed by Billing et al. (1985) to develop a new scale to assess the motivations of athletics donors. The foundational elements that they utilized included philanthropy, success, social, and benefits. Their modification included adding sub-factors to the scale for the factors of success, social, and benefits. The success sub-factors included tradition, current success, future success, and community pride. The social sub-factors included the specific notion of socialization with friends and escaping daily life via sporting events. The sub-factors for benefits included priority seating for football, priority seating for basketball, and business enhancement. These sub-factors were selected as not all institutions identify football and basketball as primary sports and limited focus had been given to the impact of business related factors at the time of the study. The authors also added two new factors: nostalgia, related to an individual’s ties to the institution and psychological commitment to the primary sport at the university. Ultimately, the

36 following 12 factors were used for their research: philanthropic, social, escape, priority seating for football, priority seating for basketball, business enhancement, success I– tradition, success II–current, success III–future, success IV–community pride, nostalgia, and psychological commitment (p. 11).

After surveying athletics donors at 3 institutions, the results produced a 33-item

Donor Motivation Scale that can be utilized to create motivational profiles and develop appropriate strategies for fundraising campaigns. Priority seating for both football and men’s basketball was identified as the most important motivational factor at two of the schools and the second most important at the third institution (Mahoney et al., 2003).

This finding, as supported by other research as well (Gladden et. al, 2005; Stinson &

Howard, 2004, 2010), is noteworthy in that it “highlights a key difference between athletic fundraising groups and most other non-profit organizations-people are giving money in order to receive seats, good seats, or better seats” (Mahoney et al., 2003, p. 20).

An additional finding from the research of Mahoney et al. (2003) indicated that donors rated improving the quality of the athletics program as very important with significant importance being given to the quality of revenue sports (defined as football and men’s basketball).

The work of Gladden et al. (2005) also assessed athletics donor motives and reinforced the finding that motives vary not only by donor, but by institution as well.

Athletics donors were surveyed across 3 universities utilizing an open-ended questionnaire with intent to build off of the 2003 study by Mahoney et al. yielding just over 1,500 responses. The top three motivational factors identified were to support and

37 improve the athletics program (61.8% of respondents), receive ticket benefits (49.8% of respondents), and help student-athletes (29.7% of respondents). The desire to support and improve the athletics program included assistance in the areas of coaching, facilities, recruiting, conference membership, and competitive success. Ticket benefits included both access to purchase as well as the ability to improve locations. Student-athlete support referred to educational opportunities via scholarship support. Similar to prior research, the findings from this study speak to the unique motivations of athletics donors particularly tied to tangible benefits and competitive success. These findings are of critical importance for consideration as “a downturn in fortunes could lead to decreased demand for season tickets that would also result in decreased donations” (Gladden et al.,

2005, p. 27).

Hixson (2012) enlisted a qualitative approach to study the motivations of donors to Division I athletics departments making contributions of $1 million or more. Through interviews with seven donors associated with different institutions at this level of giving, seven themes emerged regarding their motivations. These included a history of philanthropy in their family that they sought to maintain, thankfulness and appreciation of their position to make an impact through their personal wealth, gratitude towards the institution and their ability to make a long-term impact through investments, access to leadership which in turn provides an opportunity to receive insider information about program needs, and finally the competitiveness of the athletics program as well as institutional prestige. While several of the aforementioned studies noted benefits as a motivating factor, such as tickets to athletics events, Hixson (2012) found that this was

38 not of primary concern for donors at seven-figure gift levels. Rather, they identified relationships with leadership at the institution and in athletics as a more significant benefit of their giving. Overall the segmentation of this donor segment presented some new motivations while also supporting findings from previous research (Billing et al.,

1985; Gladden et al., 2005; Mahoney et al., 2003; Staurowsky et al., 1996; Stinson &

Howard, 2004, 2010; Verner et al., 1998).

Competitive Outcomes and Fundraising Results

While the aforementioned donor motivation studies and instruments do not address gift amount, they do present common ideas related to giving and intercollegiate athletics. The primary theme that emerged from the donor motivation literature focused on the importance of tangible benefits associated with giving. The linkage between competitive success, ticket demand, and giving necessitates a review of the findings related to the impact of sport team performance on fundraising results for athletics specifically as well as institutions overall. To date the literature reflects mixed reviews on this topic.

Humphreys and Mondello (2007) utilized 20 years of college and university financial data from the Integrated Postsecondary Educational Database (IPEDS) to assess the impact of success on institutional fundraising overall. Their findings were consistent with previous studies indicating a positive relationship between athletics success and fundraising outcomes (Baade & Sundberg, 1996; Brooker & Klastorin, 1981; Grimes &

Cressanthis, 1994; Rhoads & Gerking, 2000; Tucker, 2004) specifically in restricted donations (contributions designated to a particular unit or project). At public institutions

39 football and basketball success had an impact while only basketball had an impact at private universities.

Sigelman and Bookheimer (1983) also concluded that a strong connection existed between football success and contributions, but these contributions were specifically designated to athletics. Their work included a noteworthy statement that speaks to the cycle that this perpetuates in intercollegiate athletics: “Success brings in money, money makes it easier to succeed, and success brings in more money still; as the process feeds upon itself, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” (p. 358). This was in contrast to the earlier work of Sigelman and Carter (1979) who determined that no relationship, positive or negative, existed between alumni giving outcomes and football and basketball competitive results.

Similar to Sigelman and Carter (1979), Cohen et al. (2011) analyzed data from 1 athletics department over an 11 year period and determined that no direct relationship existed between successful football team performance and athletics fundraising results.

Most notable from this study was that the two years with the highest winning percentages for football also had the lowest average gift amounts. Additionally, in a year when the team’s winning percentage decreased the total amount raised increased. This was namely due to the fact that football moved to a new home stadium requiring individuals to donate in order to secure season tickets.

Despite inconsistent findings related to the impact of athletics success on fundraising, one area that has produced conclusive results is how intercollegiate athletics influences academic fundraising initiatives. This topic has been studied at length by

Stinson and Howard, and the results of their research conducted between 2004 and 2010 are included in the subsequent section.

The Athletics and Academic Fundraising Relationship

As previously mentioned the sometimes contentious relationship between athletics and academia dates back to the nineteenth century when intercollegiate athletics was just emerging in higher education. To better understand this relationship, and how it impacts fundraising efforts, Stinson and Howard (2010) conducted interviews with donors from two Division I institutions that supported both athletics and academic programs. The results produced four themes related to the impact of intercollegiate athletics on institutional fundraising efforts: “Theme 1: intercollegiate athletics acts as a socialization agent and ‘window’ to the institution for both alumni and non-alumni;

Theme 2: initial support of athletics programs (and institutions) is often commercially motivated, resulting in ceiling effects on gift amounts; Theme 3: successful cultivation can transition donors from commercial to philanthropic giving, reducing or removing ceiling effects; Theme 4: academic units may benefit from leveraging the emotional connection generated by athletic programs to cultivate gifts” (p. 319).

This ultimately means that although individuals may become donors initially based on their desire to secure season tickets, there is an opportunity through athletics engagement to generate greater support long-term for other areas of the institution. For this to occur successfully, Stinson and Howard (2010) presented the importance of the institution having a fundraising structure in place to promote collaboration between athletics and academic fundraisers:

An integrated fundraising structure in which athletics and academic fundraisers

are partners, share information, and cross-cultivate donors might offer a

potentially strong platform for maximizing the value of the institution’s donor

base. Without such a system, donors may continue to support athletics with

commercial gifts while searching elsewhere for philanthropic opportunities,

resulting in potential crowding-out effects for the institution. (p. 329)

This recommendation for the cross-cultivation of donors to generate support for multiple areas of the institution was also presented by Martinez et al. (2010) as well as in previous works by Stinson and Howard (2004, 2007, 2008).

Martinez et al. (2010) conducted a meta-analysis with studies spanning 30 years and found that intercollegiate athletics does have a “small, but significant, impact on institutional fundraising” with football identified as a primary influencer. Overall the results supported the notion that academic fundraising units should determine strategies to leverage intercollegiate athletics to support their outcomes (p. 45). Additionally, although some research indicated that donors may contribute to athletics at the expense of gifts to academics, athletics is successful at recruiting new donors to institutions (Stinson,

2004). While tensions may always exist, it is clear that athletics and academic fundraising units have a shared goal of securing philanthropic support and that an environment that celebrates collaboration may yield the best results for the institution overall (King, Sexton, & Rhatigan, 2010).

Summary

Despite the significant body of literature related to intercollegiate athletics fundraising, additional research is needed to examine the characteristics of an effective athletics development operation and how leadership impacts this work. The majority of prior research highlighted influential factors that either cannot be changed, such as the type of institution and its history, or are beyond the control of the athletics development staff such as donor motivations and team performance outcomes. Thus an internal focus was deemed important for new research which ultimately drove the conceptual framework for this study.

Elements of the proposed stay and thrive model were reflected in prior research regarding leadership and fundraising effectiveness in higher education, making it necessary to expand this examination to the intercollegiate athletics environment. The stay and thrive model asserts that transformational leadership supports five factors in athletics development and that their collective presence leads to an effective development operation. This was evaluated through semi-structured interviews with athletics directors, chief development officers, and development officers in this qualitative study as detailed in the next chapter.

Chapter 3: Methodology

As outlined in the introduction, this qualitative study looked internally, as opposed to externally, to discover factors that contribute to fundraising effectiveness in intercollegiate athletics. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the impact of leadership, specifically in the area of athletics development, and identify attributes of an effective athletics development operation. As an athletics fundraising professional for more than a decade, my role as the researcher, including my positionality, is highlighted in this chapter. Information specific to athletics fundraising at The Ohio State University is detailed, as my work at the institution for the past eight years served as the inspiration for the proposed stay and thrive model. This chapter describes the research design, participant information, and data collection and analysis procedures. The trustworthiness of the study and ethical considerations are also discussed.

While flexibility and absence of structure are not embraced from a quantitative perspective, they are key attributes of qualitative research. Qualitative research is characterized by a small sample that generates thorough, descriptive results through interviews, observations, and documents (Merriam, 1998). Additionally, qualitative research seeks to describe the topic in-depth while a quantitative approach intends to produce findings that are generalizable, meaning that they apply to other samples in the same population. Generalizability is less of a factor in qualitative research as the primary 44 focus of this approach “is to understand what is happening and why” (Gay et al., 2012, p.

395). Ultimately qualitative researchers seek to identify what is relevant, which may or may not be generalizable (Gay et al., 2012).

This approach was attractive for this study as qualitative research “allows the researcher to adapt to unforeseen events and change direction in pursuit of meaning”

(Merriam, 1998, p. 21). This flexibility was valuable as interview data was processed from individuals at three levels in the athletics department hierarchy and across five campus settings. Additionally, two necessary skills in the fundraising field, being both a good communicator and a good listener, are identified by Merriam (1998) as attributes needed by qualitative researchers. My abilities in these areas, developed as a result of fundraising work, were an asset throughout the research process.

Researcher Role

As an Associate Athletics Director for Development at The Ohio State University

I am responsible for major gifts fundraising, as well as oversight of events and special programs for the athletics development office. My professional career includes 18 years of experience in higher education and collegiate athletics, 13 of which have been in athletics fundraising. The proposed stay and thrive model was inspired by these experiences, specifically the past eight years in athletics development at The Ohio State

University. As a result, a brief overview of the Ohio State athletics development operation from 2010 to 2018 is included.

In 2010 the athletics development office at Ohio State was responsible for raising

$46 million in philanthropic support, which was the highest total in the history of the

45 athletics department. In the 7 years that followed, this total continued to grow annually, with another record breaking year of $78 million raised in 2017. Of the nine staff members with fundraising responsibilities during that time period, seven were with the department since 2010 or earlier and two were with the department since 2012. This lack of turnover is noteworthy as it goes against the trends in the industry overall that were mentioned previously in the description of the conceptual framework (Iarrobino, 2006;

Reed, 2013; Thomas, 2010). It is asserted that the fundraising growth at Ohio State occurred as a result of providing the development staff with the resources needed to succeed both professionally and personally. Additionally, these resources were present as a result of transformational leadership and are reflected in the five factors of the stay and thrive model for athletics development. While my experiences at Ohio State helped to shape this framework, I ultimately created the stay and thrive model based on the literature surrounding leadership, philanthropy, and the fundraising profession. As a result, the model strikes a balance between sound research and practical application.

Throughout this process I have embraced the opportunity to engage with administrators across the country with a goal to make a positive contribution to the athletics development field. As the primary researcher for this study, I recognize my positionality as a result of my background and professional experiences. This is addressed later in this chapter when trustworthiness is discussed. Ultimately my personal and professional interests in this topic outweighed potential bias as the primary goal was to make a contribution to the field through an unbiased study.

Research Design

Case Study Research

Case study research, as described by Gay et al. (2012), is “a qualitative approach to studying a phenomenon; focused on a unit of study, or a bounded system; not a methodological choice, but a choice of what to study; and an all-encompassing research method” (p. 444). This definition was enhanced by Thomas and Myers (2015) who explained that “case study is about viewing and studying something in its completeness, looking at it from many angles and attempting to understand the interconnectedness of the elements comprising it” (p. 15). Case study research can be both the process of collecting and analyzing data, as well as the actual results (Patton, 2002). It is also important to note that “insights gleaned from case studies can directly influence policy, practice, and future research” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). This potential for influence was of particular importance to me due to my strong, personal interest in the fundraising field and hopes that this work will benefit my colleagues and peers in the industry.

An interpretive single case study research methodology was utilized for this study with the participants representing NCAA Division I athletics departments in Power Five conferences. Interpretive describes the overall intent of the study which was to gain a rich and thick description “to develop conceptual categories or to illustrate, support or challenge theoretical assumptions held prior to the data gathering” (Merriam, 1998, p.

38). The assumptions referenced by Merriam (1998) are reflected in the proposed stay and thrive model as a result of my professional experiences in the industry.

Participant Selection

This study focused on Division I athletics departments in Power Five conferences.

As discussed in the first chapter, there are nearly 350 colleges and universities in

Division I of which 65 are in the Power Five (NCAA, 2015a). Colleges and universities in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12

Conference, Southeastern Conference, as well as the University of Notre Dame, make up the Power Five and are identified as the “richest football conferences” at the Division I level (Marot, 2014). These 65 institutions are distinct from other Division I programs as a result of their budgets, revenues, and autonomy. Autonomy was granted by the NCAA in 2014, meaning that the Power Five can approve legislation that is not mandated for the other programs across Division I (Bennett, 2014).

Purposive sampling was utilized based on the type of research, as well as my industry knowledge. Merriam (1998) identified this sampling method as the “most appropriate” in qualitative research (p. 67). It “is the process of selecting a sample that is believed to be representative of a given population. In other words, the researcher selects the sample using his experience and knowledge of the group to be sampled” (Gay et al.,

2012, p. 141). Purposive sampling requires the researcher to determine criteria that will be used to identify potential participants. A potential drawback of this sampling technique is the fact that the criteria for selection are determined by the researcher; however, this did not pose a concern due to my unique understanding of the environment under study (Gay et al., 2012).

Using information retrieved from public sources, such as athletics department websites, as well as my industry network and knowledge, the following institutional and athletics department criteria were considered to ensure that a range of experiences and settings were reflected in the sample:

 Public or private institution (at least one private institution was included).

 Gender of the athletics director (at least one department with a female

athletics director was included).

 Tenure of athletics director at the institution (this included a range of under

two years to over eight years).

 Diversity of athletics development staff (at least one minority was included).

 Tenure of athletics development staff (first preference was given to

development officers who have been in their role a minimum of four years).

 Current fundraising priorities (at least one department engaged in a capital

campaign for facilities was included).

A seventh criterion, identified as current public controversies, was not able to be met.

This was defined as an athletics department currently enduring a public controversy such as a coaching change, NCAA infractions case, etc.

Following institutional review board approval, five athletics departments were identified based on the aforementioned criteria and subsequently contacted to participate in this study. The request for participation was extended to three staff members in specific positions: athletics director, chief development officer, and development officer.

Only one of the five athletics departments declined to participate which resulted in my

49 inability to include an athletics department currently experiencing a public controversy.

As a result of this declined request, a sixth athletics department was contacted and agreed to participate. The six criteria for purposive sampling were met; however, this information, along with conference affiliation, is not included to maintain anonymity for the participants, athletics departments, and institutions.

The participants are distinguished using letters assigned to their associated titles.

The letters A-E were used for the five athletics directors, the letters F-J were used for the five chief development officers, and the letters K-O were used for the five development officers. Participants from the same institution were not assigned letters in the same order within their group. As a result of the need for anonymity, the following descriptive information is outlined in ranges. The total institutional enrollments of the participating athletics departments range from 20,000 to just under 60,000 students. The number of full-time development staff range from 11 to 21. The number of sports range from 15 to

23, and the total number of student-athletes range from approximately 450 to 650.

Data Collection

Each year, fundraisers are required to conduct meetings with current or prospective donors which generally occur in a one-on-one setting. These interactions are initially introductory in nature where the fundraiser intends to learn about the individual and assess his or her philanthropic potential. As the relationship develops the dialogue becomes more focused on fundraising priorities and ultimately the solicitation for a contribution (Hall & Mahoney, 1997; Weinstein, 2002).

As a result of my experiences in the field, I chose to utilize the skill set that I have developed and refined throughout my professional career to conduct one-on-one interviews for data collection. This skill set includes the ability to pick-up on verbal and non-verbal cues, listen more and talk less, and also to tolerate silence by the interviewee as they may need time to process the question presented (Gay et al., 2012; Merriam,

1998). Furthermore, interviews require the interviewer to decipher between important and unimportant information and to listen carefully so as to follow-up, or probe, when needed based on participant answers. Much like meetings with donors, the interviewer is ultimately responsible for the quality and relevance of the information gathered during the interviews (Patton, 2002).

Interviews

The primary source of data was semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with three current intercollegiate athletics administrators from the five selected athletics departments, specifically the athletics director, chief development officer, and a development officer. Through interviews with individuals in these positions, my intent was to gain information that was comprehensive in nature, as well as varied in perspective, based on their current positions and industry experience.

In-person interviews were given first preference, although I was prepared to conduct interviews over the phone if necessary. Throughout the fall of 2017, the interviews took place in-person at the five respective campuses. As a result of my professional network, I personally knew 6 of the 15 participants. Although I had not previously met the other nine participants, it became clear throughout each interview that

51 we knew people in common throughout the industry. This aided in the interview process as it is the responsibility of the interviewer to quickly develop rapport with participants to elicit the most candid responses (Patton, 2002).

Interviews occurred at each athletics department over the course of one day. In some instances the three interviews were scheduled back-to-back and in other cases they were spread throughout the day due to the participants’ schedules. One participant had a change in schedule the day prior to our meeting; therefore that interview took place over the phone during our originally scheduled time. All other interviews took place in- person.

Upon meeting each participant, I shared the consent form included in Appendix B for their review and signature. At that time I also asked each participant if they would be comfortable with me recording the interview. Ultimately 13 of the 15 interviews were recorded. One interview was not recorded as a result of recorder error and one interview was not recorded at the request of the participant. Each interview was scheduled for one hour in length with no interviews exceeding this designated time frame.

Consideration was given to the appropriate approach for the interviews based on my knowledge of the topic. As Leech (2002) described, “the interviewer should seem professional and generally knowledgeable, but less knowledgeable than the respondent on the particular topic of the interview” (p. 665). I remained mindful of this when developing the interview guide (included in Appendix C). These proposed questions served as a guide for the semi-structured interviews, while also allowing me to keep the research questions in mind throughout the conversation and adapt when needed. The

52 questions were prepared to assist with the interview process to avoid leading questions and were open-ended in nature to allow for follow-up questions (Merriam, 1998).

Although interviews cannot be standardized, the questions ensured that I remained consistent.

Two sets of interview questions were prepared as the focus for the athletics directors was different than that of the chief development officers and development officers. I anticipated that the participants in chief development officer or development officer positions would be able to answer questions related to experiences in the field, as well as the impact of leadership on their work, while the participants in athletics director positions would be able to answer questions regarding their philosophical approach to fundraising and their involvement with this specific area of the athletics department.

The recorded interviews were augmented with my notes. As described by Patton

(2002), “notes will consist primarily of key phrases, lists of major points made by the respondent, and key terms or words shown in quotation marks that capture the interviewee’s own language” (p. 383). Overall I was judicial with note-taking so as to not disrupt the flow of the interview, but to also ensure that important information was captured accurately. Due to the nature of how the interviews were scheduled, I was not able to journal or listen to the audio recording immediately following each interview.

However, I was able to listen back to the recordings later that same day. This was of particular importance for the two non-recorded interviews mentioned previously. The significance of this post-interview work of reviewing and note-taking was identified by

Patton (2002) as “critical to the rigor and validity of qualitative inquiry” and a “time of

53 quality control” (pp. 383-384). While I would have preferred to engage in a second interview with each participant to strengthen the rigor of my study, I recognized that this would have been too great of a request for the specific participants that I selected due to the demands of their positions.

Data Analysis

Data collection and data analysis are not mutually exclusive in qualitative research. On the contrary, it is recommended that researchers approach these activities at the same time. Merriam (1998) described the entire qualitative study as “interactive” rather than “linear” as the researcher uses each interview to inform the process and make adjustments to interview questions if necessary (p. 151). By embracing analysis as an on- going process while interviews are still taking place, the researcher is better positioned to create the final analysis once data collection is complete. Additionally, several authors indicated that the researcher should become immersed in the information by reading and listening over and over again to the material that has been gathered (Gay et al., 2012;

Patton, 2002).

As previously mentioned, I had the opportunity to listen back to the audio recording of each interview on the same day that the interview occurred. The recorded interviews were then transcribed immediately once I returned to Columbus following the campus visits through the use of a transcription service. This enabled me to analyze the information throughout the data collection process. I also organized all of my notes in a timely manner following the interviews as another opportunity to gain a full understanding of the data.

While inductive analysis has been described as the primary approach for qualitative research, deductive approaches have been described as acceptable as well.

The use of the stay and thrive model required a “quasi-deductive” analysis first, followed by inductive analysis (Patton, 2002, p. 454). This means that I considered the stay and thrive model, specifically the five factors of Pride, Purpose, Prioritization, Personal

Development, and People when reviewing the data, but also enlisted an inductive approach to identify new concepts presented by the participants.

For each interview transcript, I applied a process that included reading and memoing, describing, and finally classifying (Gay et al., 2012). Once an interview was transcribed, I began the organization process by keeping notes and highlighting key statements while reading the document for the first time. While this represented the very start of the analysis process, it was also another opportunity to consider the research questions and begin to identify any emerging themes. I maintained a list of the themes and patterns that were identified during the first reading of the transcribed interviews

(Gay et al., 2012).

Following the description, I began to classify the data and utilized open coding to manage this aspect of analysis. As described by Coffey and Atkinson (1996), “coding usually is a mixture of data reduction and data complication. Coding generally is used to break up and segment the data into simpler, general categories and is used to expand and tease out the data, in order to formulate new questions and levels of interpretation” (p.

30). As important data was identified, it was captured on index cards. The use of index cards enabled me to extract quotes and ideas and then sort the information based on

55 category or theme. I placed emphasis on volume, meaning specific ideas or themes mentioned by a majority of the participants, as well as distinct or unique concepts that surfaced (Guba & Lincoln as cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 185).

Ultimately five themes were identified in this study: Foundation, Vision, Family

Environment, Personal Development, and Everyone is a Fundraiser. These themes, placed within one of three categories, were determined with the assistance of my peer debriefer throughout the data analysis process. The three categories are Driven by

Tenured Department Leaders (Foundation), Driven by the Athletics Director (Vision,

Family Environment, and Personal Development), and Driven by Athletics Development

Leadership (Everyone is a Fundraiser). Only the theme of Vision has subthemes which include Unwavering Commitment to Student-Athletes, Comprehensive Approach, and

Boldness. These categories, themes, and subthemes are compared to the stay and thrive model for athletics development for the study’s discussion section highlighted in Chapter

Five.

Trustworthiness

In both quantitative and qualitative research, validity and reliability must be addressed during all phases of the study including design, data collection and analysis, and the presentation of results. Internal validity, recognized as credibility from a qualitative perspective, refers to how the study findings align with reality (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985). It is considered to be a strength of qualitative research since data is secured by a human instrument through direct interaction with participants. A threat to this study’s credibility was my positionality as a result of my industry knowledge and

56 experience. Bias was also possible with the sampling technique enlisted, as well as with the primary method of data collection which included interview procedures and questions

(Merriam, 1998). To enhance the credibility of my study and mitigate any potential bias,

I enlisted a peer debriefer to review and discuss my findings. As Lincoln and Guba

(1985) described, “debriefing is a useful–if sobering–experience to which to subject oneself; its utility, when properly engaged, is unquestionable” (p. 309).

External validity focuses on the generalizability of the results. As noted previously this is a greater factor in quantitative research; nonetheless, consideration must be given to this from a qualitative perspective as well, referred to as transferability.

Diversity in sample selection through the purposive technique was a strategy that strengthened transferability in this study. Additionally, a rich, thick description that included direct quotes from participants was given particular attention when preparing the findings outlined in Chapter Four. This will enable readers to consider their personal experience or situation and determine what does and does not apply from the research presented (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002).

Similar to generalizability, reliability receives greater emphasis in quantitative research specific to the instruments that are utilized to conduct the study. Reliability focuses on the results of a study and considers if these results would be the same if the study were repeated. From a qualitative perspective, Merriam (1998) claimed that consistent and dependable data is more important than repeatable results. To ensure that the results of this study were dependable I maintained meticulous notes of all procedures and approaches, what is referred to as an audit trail (Gay et al., 2012; Merriam 1998).

The audit trail also establishes confirmability in qualitative research, which is identified as objectivity from a quantitative perspective (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Triangulation and member checking, two strategies that are utilized to enhance credibility, were not enlisted for this study. Triangulation includes the use of different sources of data, such as second interviews or participant journals, while member checking involves the process of reviewing findings with participants to confirm their accuracy (Creswell, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As noted previously, I was sensitive to my requests of participants due to the demands of their positions. Therefore, although triangulation and member checking would have enhanced the rigor of my study, I did not pose this request to participants. The impact of this decision is discussed when the study’s limitations are addressed in Chapter Five.

Ethical Considerations

The topic of the study and associated interview questions were not sensitive; however, I was consistently mindful of participant privacy. All information that could potentially lead to the identification of individuals was removed (or masked with pseudonyms) from transcripts and notes to ensure de-identification. Interviews took place in private settings identified by each participant based on their convenience and comfort. Overall intercollegiate athletics is a field where information is shared freely between peers at different institutions. As a result, I did not encounter significant issues based on the audience that was asked to participate in the research.

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of leadership on fundraising and identify the characteristics of an effective development operation in Division I intercollegiate athletics departments. This was accomplished through semi-structured interviews with athletics directors, chief development officers, and development officers across five Division I athletics departments in the Power Five. Descriptions of the participants are not included in this chapter to maintain anonymity for them as well as their athletics departments. Additionally, male pronouns were used when describing all participants throughout this chapter in an effort to maintain anonymity.

As noted in Chapter Three, each participant was assigned a letter with their associated position. The five athletics directors were assigned letters A-E, the five chief development officers were assigned letters F-J, and the five development officers were assigned letters K-O. The letters were randomly assigned within these groups so that the participants from the same school were not assigned in the same order. For example, the athletics director assigned to the first letter in that group’s sequence (letter A) is not from the same institution as the chief development officer assigned to the first letter in that group’s sequence (letter F).

The analysis of the interviews highlights the significance of fundraising in intercollegiate athletics which further substantiates the need for research in this area. 59

While this study did not seek to define athletics development, the interviews resulted in several descriptions worth mentioning prior to outlining the study findings. Development was described as “the x-factor of athletics department resource acquisition” by Athletics

Director E, while Development Officer M provided this depiction:

Our athletics director early on told us, and I’ll never forget this, he said,

“Fundraising and private dollars is the engine that makes the athletic department

run, but I don’t wake-up,” this is his quote, “I don’t wake-up every morning

thinking about it. So I need you,” and he meant us as the development

organization, “I need you to tell me how I need to help you.”

This view was universally supported as the athletics directors acknowledged their impact on this specific unit in the greater organization, yet, at the same time, noted that they rely heavily on their development staffs to guide them in the process due to the significant demands of their positions. As Athletics Director C indicated, “the athletics director has to raise money, but you’re not a full-time fundraiser because you actually have other work you have to do. There’s a balance there, but I ask them [the development staff] to use me as much as possible.” Athletics Director B spoke to this, while also providing a noteworthy description of development work:

This is the one thing about development that I think goes unnoticed so much,

because so many people are about bravado and personality in development. To

me, fundraising is all about the detail and the nuance. It’s not about having a

great personality. It’s not about being charismatic and engaging. It’s about the

detail and the nuance, the follow-up, the picking-up on the little things about each

person’s personality, knowing that nuance and being able to anticipate when

something’s going to work or not work for somebody. It’s all about managing

those egos, and those passions, and expectations. So that is not about being

bravado, and cool, and awesome, and fun, and all of that. I think people really

think that about fundraising and it’s like, no. It’s about having this huge

emotional IQ and really listening, and really paying attention, and really being

good at details, follow through, just the little things matter so much. That’s been

really hard for me in this job, because I think I’ve missed a hundred times on

doing the little things right still for a donor and we’ve had a lot of conversations

about the staff. They need to manage up more.

While fundraising has been studied and defined as “institution specific, and, more importantly, context or situation specific,” (Cook & Lasher, 1996, p. 33) the focus for these findings was to identify overarching themes that are true of an effective operation and leadership influence regardless of these specific characteristics. Overall, five themes emerged through the interviews related to effectiveness in athletics development and the impact that the leader, the athletics director, has on this work. Each identified theme contributes to effectiveness, but leadership impact varies across the themes. Therefore, the themes are broken into three categories based on leadership influence. The first category includes a theme that may or may not involve the athletics director, the second category includes themes that are directly influenced by the athletics director, and the third category includes a theme that is not driven by the athletics director. The theme in the first category is 1) Foundation, the themes in the second category are 2) Vision, 3)

Family Environment, and 4) Personal Development, and the theme in the third category is 5) Everyone is a Fundraiser. These themes are discussed in this chapter with the findings ultimately providing answers to the research questions outlined in Chapter One.

Driven by Tenured Department Leaders

The findings revealed a consistent sentiment that effectiveness in fundraising does not occur overnight. Instead, positive outcomes occur as a result of years of work preparing a solid foundation both internally and externally as Athletics Director C described: “There’s so many analogies you can make to agriculture. How you have to plow the land, and plant the seeds, and cultivate it, and then you can reap the crop.” This first theme highlights not only the role of the athletics director in creating a strong foundation, but the part that development staff members have in this as well.

Foundation

The participants shared varied perspectives of how a strong foundation has influenced development work at their respective institutions. While some participants did attribute it to athletics director leadership, others noted the importance of established donor relationships that development staff members were responsible for managing over a significant period of time. For the purpose of this study, these individuals are described as tenured department leaders. Tenured refers to number of years with the athletics department as opposed to a permanent position that is generally associated with academic tenure. In either case it was an intentional focus on planning, communicating, and relationship building that participants cited as a contributing factor to closing gifts and meeting goals.

The remarks by Development Officer L and Chief Development Officer H provide two examples of how an athletics director’s leadership is critical to foundation building and ultimately preparing an environment that will internally and externally support the work of athletics fundraisers:

Chief Development Officer H: Some of the work that the athletics director had

done over his early tenure and then the way he’s just provided such continuity in

messaging and has educated our people in general on campus, off campus,

alumni, big donors, annual donors, of the importance of athletics and how it can

add value, and they’re seeing that, and they have over the last, really over the last

decade, seen that value and understand that value and so we haven’t had to bust

open any doors of “Well, what do you mean? Why is athletics important at

[institution name]?” People have really understood that, and the support base, and

the alumni base, and the donor base has fully bought into it and embraced it and

so that’s provided a ton of opportunities.

Development Officer L: When we came in, the athletics director had just spent

five years building allies on campus, building allies in the fan base and the donor

base. I think part of it was his [the athletics director] just talking about the

future. He is big on better destination ahead. So it got people involved in

athletics, kind of starting to care about athletics, but fell short of funding athletics.

Then [a few years ago] actually marked the first time in the [institution’s] history

that athletics is part of the university’s campaign...to have a seat at the table,

finally, was a big thing.

While these comments support the notion that the athletics director is responsible for building a strong foundation for the development staff, the response from

Development Officer M illustrates that this work can also be done by development staff members themselves. As outlined by Development Officer M, a solid foundation, created as a result of years of work, enabled him and his colleagues to triple the major gifts total they were raising on an annual basis once defined priorities were presented by their leadership:

All of our constituents, they were looking for something in return. I give you X, I

get Y. I give you an annual fund gift, I get tickets and parking. It took us having

to put a facilities project out there and rolling our sleeves up, and going out and

educating our donors about why a major gift and “I’m going to give you a gift

over and above my annual fund gift, and I don’t get anything in return? Why do I

want to do that?” We dealt with that for about the first four or five years. Then,

once we got a core group, we had three or four that stepped-up and made seven-

figure gifts, once we got that going and we started to hire a professional staff that

got out over a three or four year period of time, and began to build our pipeline

ahead of this program that we now have, and we’ve seen the growth. It was really

all that precursor stuff that we did that really set the tone for the success that

we’ve seen over the last four or five years. We really had to shift the mindset of

our constituents. We had to build a professional organization. We had to create

an infrastructure and build a true professional major gifts program. By doing that

over the last five or ten years that preceded these next four or five, I really feel

like that’s what set the tone to get us where we are today.

Acknowledgement of the role that staff members have in building a foundation was referenced by Athletics Director B. Although his comments were from a department-wide perspective, they highlight the importance of a leader recognizing the foundation that exists and was established before he or she assumed their position of leadership:

I think that one of the mistakes a lot of people make in leadership positions is they

come in right away and they get caught up about themselves. It becomes about,

“I’m going to make my mark.” You know, the ego is a funny thing. We all have

it. We have to have it or we wouldn’t be motivated. We wouldn’t be able to

perform, but when you start to lose sight of the purpose and the mission and so I

think that culturally, for us, it was a big advantage because I brought in a lot of

new people, but had some people that I promoted and moved around. It’s a whole

new leadership team, but there was enough institutional knowledge combined

with enough new and creative thought that it was like, okay, we knew what this

place was all about. We knew what the heart and soul of this place was, what the

real values of this place were. So, we didn’t come in and say, “Oh, we’re going to

change all that.” That’s where the mistakes I think happen.

Driven by the Athletics Director

Throughout the course of the interviews, it became evident that certain aspects of development and intercollegiate athletics administration are present solely as a result of

65 leadership influence. The three themes outlined in this section illustrate how the athletics director specifically contributes to fundraising work and impacts the experiences of fundraisers in his or her organization. These contributions noted by participants included a comprehensive vision that provides direction to the development staff and prospective donors, a supportive environment that promotes teamwork and collaboration, and an emphasis on individual staff member development through experiences, opportunities, and access.

Vision

The majority of participants stressed the importance of having a vision that is understood and supported by internal development staff members and current and prospective donors alike. This vision and direction is communicated by the athletics director. Participants shared that developing an impactful vision requires a bold mindset and an acute awareness of institutional culture, while remaining focused on the student- athlete. Additionally, it was asserted that a vision that is comprehensive in nature serves to benefit fundraisers and donors by enabling them to discuss philanthropy in a long-term and strategic manner.

When considering their role in athletics development, the athletics directors universally agreed that their first responsibility as the leader of the program is to communicate a vision for the development staff and the department’s constituents. As important as this aspect is, the athletics directors were also quick to point out that while they do set the stage, their development staff is ultimately charged with securing

66 philanthropic investments. Athletics Director D described his responsibilities in this area while also acknowledging the role of others in his department:

It’s important for me to set the direction and set the vision, but I also, I think,

understand that I’m only going to be as successful as those that are around us, and

those that are thinking about the campaign each and every day, and those that are

building those relationships each and every day. One is we’ve got a great

development team, and they’re highly skilled professionals. They understand the

importance of providing a positive experience and selling that vision for our

athletics department. I want to set the direction and the outline of what’s next,

what do we need to continue to move this program forward, and then in

consultation with our head coaches, our executive leadership team, and our

fundraising team be able to sell our story.

Athletics Director A held a similar view, yet also explained why the athletics director’s involvement in significant gift conversations is important from a donor’s perspective:

I don’t take credit for individually asking for these dollars, but what we did do,

and what I think a lot of what an athletic director’s place is, is to establish the

process and make sure that everybody buys-in and knows how this is all going to

work and then assist wherever necessary, because there are some people I had

relationships with. So I might have been a first conversation, but then had the

guys who do this for a living come in and finish up, and get everything pulled

together. But if people are going to give that much money, they want to be able

to know that the person who is at the leadership position in the organization can

describe what’s going to happen to the money and how is it going to impact the

entire organization. Is it narrow that it’s only going to impact one particular

program? And there are some programs that do that. Or is it going to be wide-

ranging and impact a number of different areas?

While the specific fundraising priorities shared during the interviews varied across athletics departments, the participants’ responses about their department visions revealed common characteristics of a vision that best supports development work. These commonalities resulted in the following three subthemes under the overarching theme of

Vision: Unwavering Commitment to Student-Athletes, Comprehensive Approach, and

Boldness.

Unwavering Commitment to Student-Athletes. As participants shared both their individual purpose as athletics administrators as well as the department visions that guide their work, one consistent message was the unwavering commitment that they and their leader have to the student-athletes that they serve. The conviction with which participants talked about this subtheme made it apparent that a vision does not exist without an emphasis on student-athletes. Athletics Director B captured this best:

I talk all the time about why we exist. Well, we exist to develop students. So

then our students can go on and do great things in the world. That’s it. It’s not

anything else than that. It’s not, “Oh, but then we also exist to win a few games

and then, we also exist…” We exist for students, period. That is our sole purpose.

Student-athletes, and the experiences that they are provided, were cited as the primary driving force behind all decisions in the organization. This purpose was

68 recognized by Development Officer K, specifically related to how his athletics director incorporates student-athletes into the department’s vision:

Our athletics director does a good job of communicating our vision to the entire

department. He’s very focused on the student-athlete. They’re always first in his

mind. They are why we do our job. He communicates the importance of what a

scholarship does for a student-athlete.

Participants also shared examples of how this focus is reinforced throughout the year. When explaining how this takes place in their respective athletics departments,

Development Officer L and Athletics Director D provided the following examples:

Development Officer L: The culture that he [the athletics director] sets has laid the

foundation for everything that we’ve been able to do. The focus on the student-

athlete, so we have a meeting for instance, once a month. All athletics

employees are expected to be there unless you’re competing or on a recruiting

trip, and you’re expected to be in that meeting, hour long. Every single meeting is

started off with hearing from two student-athletes about their experience and how

they got here, and what they’ve loved, and maybe not loved about the experience.

So it keeps us always locked in on why we’re here and who we’re working for.

Athletics Director D: We have monthly department-wide staff meetings where we

try to talk about the student-athlete experience, and we’ll have a different unit

present each and every time. We’ll interview our student-athletes, so we show the

entire athletics department, these are the caliber of young people that we’re

coming to serve each and every day and we all have a role in their experience.

Comprehensive Approach. Throughout the course of the interviews participants described the vision that dictates their approach to fundraising as either financial or project-based. A financially-based vision involves a set dollar amount as an overarching goal, while those that are project-based focus on a finite number of facility projects. As

Athletics Director D shared, he and his Chief Development Officer decided on a project- based approach “because once you say a figure, people are going to gravitate to that.” In either case, participants described the importance of having a comprehensive vision that illustrates where the athletics department is going not only in the short-term, but long- term as well. While the majority of participants noted that the emphasis is placed on support for athletics facilities, scholarship and programmatic needs are also addressed in some of the visions and fundraising priorities. Overall, development staff members expressed that a defined vision from the athletics director positively impacts their work as was the case with Development Officer M:

It’s been wonderful. The other thing that he’s [the athletics director] done that

has been just a real blessing for us is, and he doesn’t like to use the term “master

plan,” he’s corrected us a few times early on in the process, but he really has laid

out a vision, if you will, for where we’ve needed to go from a facilities standpoint.

Now, the next step we’re taking is really growing our endowment, and really

growing the student-athlete wellness side, the holistic approach to leadership

development, those types of things. As a fundraiser, that's what you need. Over

the years, I had a difficult time in certain institutions, getting that vision, if you

will, whether it be from a provost, or a dean, or a director, or whatever the case

may be. But our athletics director has really been very focused and solid when it

comes to, “This is what we need to do to help our student-athletes.” He’s been

very clear. That clear vision really helps. It’s really helped me when I developed

the case for support from the campaign standpoint.

Development Officer N shared similar feelings, describing his team’s shift to a comprehensive approach and the opportunities that he envisions a long-term plan will afford him and his colleagues when working with prospective donors:

A lot of times we wouldn’t find out that we needed to raise a certain amount of

money for a project until it was go time. Like shovels going in the ground next

week, and here’s the timeline, here’s the renderings, and put a plan together and

go. So it almost felt like we were doing these individual fire drills, which there

was a lot of that. And it worked. We were successful with it. There were times

for us it may have felt a little hectic, not as strategic. From our standpoint, it was

like, “Oh man, I wish we had known about that because we just closed a gift with

this guy last year and I think he would have really enjoyed this one over here if

we had known about it.” That kind of thing. I think we’re involved a little bit

more in the long-term vision of things when it comes to facility projects, and

we’re given the ability to include some of our top prospects, who are also some of

our top donors, in that as well. A lot of that still has to be confidential because

you still do have to navigate the political landscape of it. So you’re really careful

about who you tell what to because some things may or may not happen. And

you know this, but we’re now able to engage our donors, our prospects, at a level

that I don’t think we’ve been able to do since I’ve been here at least. So it’s still

very new to us. We’re just now really getting into the deep end on it, but we feel

good about it. I think our donors are looking at us like, “Wow, I’ve never been

asked that before.” Usually it’s us coming to them for a project. I think we’re

also trying to think of, we know over the next…gosh, it could be 15 years some of

these projects just because of the scope of them. If we can do a good job, and

when I’m saying we, I’m talking about our development staff, our athletic

director, if we can all have that same message, it’ll really show these people the

long-range plan of this. They’re so used to us coming to them every couple of

years with a different project that they might see that instead of being project

driven, if I can just support this vision, they might be able to stretch themselves

instead of talking to someone about a million dollar gift right now, and another

million or two in a couple years, maybe we’re talking about five to seven right

now. And they feel like we’re gonna leave them alone for a little while. They

can actually be a little strategic on their side philanthropically.

Boldness. When considering vision development as well as fundraising outcomes, participants cited boldness as a critical factor in goal achievement. While difficult conversations and skepticism characterize this subtheme, boldness enabled participants and their staffs to exceed expectations. The remarks by Chief Development

Officer I highlight the nature of these conversations and suggest a pathway to overcome internal skepticism:

I mean, winning is huge, relationships were huge, but we had to be a little bold.

So we talk all the time about changing the conversation with donors, and with our

internal staff, having uncomfortable conversations with donors like, “You know,

we’ve been treating you like you’re a big fish, but you know what? We’re just

gonna redefine what big is.”

He went on to share his staff’s reaction to a transformational gift commitment to athletics:

You talk about a shot in the arm to the [development team name] team. It was

live validation. We’d had a couple of seven-figure gifts but even internally our

people, I saw this, I think they began to say, “We actually can do this. I thought

we were nuts.” But then they said, “Well, I can go get one of those.” And so I

think it gave everybody a belief factor that this isn’t quite so far-fetched. I mean,

we’re not gonna get eight-figure gifts every week. But it can be done.

Development Officer L provided an example of external skepticism while also describing how he and his team have approached their work boldly:

We’re aggressive, but really strategically aggressive in everything that we did.

We went out and asked people to support. I know of a handful, four, five, six

folks that came up to us face-to-face and said, “There’s no way you guys are

going to hit the goal. This isn’t, name a school.” Ohio State might have been one

of those in that conversation. “This is not Ohio State. This is a different place.

This isn’t Texas. You’re not just going to come in here and raise $XXX million.

You guys are doing it the wrong way. We’re fans, but there’s other things that’s

more important than that.” So, we said, “Okay.” I believe either four out of five,

or five out of six of those folks, are donors. And two of them have face-to-face

said, “I was wrong. You guys did it, and you did it in the right way.”

Family Environment

The participants in chief development officer and development officer positions provided descriptions of their work environments specifically noting how their athletics directors create atmospheres of trust and support. From the perspective of Development

Officer O, this includes overarching principles, or values, that his athletics director ensures are present in all aspects of their business model:

I think to have a values-based organization, to be able to call it out, it’s one thing

to talk about it, but to be able to define it and then trying to integrate it into our

day-to-day, how we think about things, how we make decisions, how we hire,

how we treat one another, I think is really important and it’s where I came from.

So I think it was here all along, but I think now we’re just bringing it to the

forefront. I think that it’s been very smart and I think that’s who our athletics

director is, he’s a values-based person, that’s how he operates. That’s how we

hire coaches, that’s how we treat our student-athletes.

Overall, the participant comments illuminate how the athletics director creates an environment where people want to be and want to work; an environment where “you’re all in.” Chief Development Officer H described his department as “a really good family environment” and explained that being “empowered and trusted” by his athletics director

“is really key” due to the demands of his position. This feeling of family was a consistent

74 theme throughout the interviews as participants expressed their appreciation for that type of work setting, shared examples of how their athletics director promotes this, and in some instances, as was the case with Chief Development Officer H, attributed it to staff retention:

The way our athletics director really demonstrates that, reminds us that families

are a part of this thing and his [family] being around it, and me being able to feel

like my family’s welcome in this environment at any point, I think, has been

definitely a key part.

Athletics Director E noted that a leader must be “outwardly intentional” to foster an environment that is a “fun, friendly, warm, and kind place to be.” Several examples of personal outreach and staff recognitions highlight how athletics directors demonstrate genuine care for employees. Athletics Director B remarked:

As far as keeping people happy, I think there is so much more than compensation

and getting to go on trips. I think it’s the little things. I always ask our staff,

“Tell me who’s doing good work and just make sure you always tell me,” and it

can be a little note that I write or an email. Sometimes, I call people in my office

and they’re all freaked out. They think something bad’s going to happen and I’m

like, “Hey, I just wanted to say thank you. You’re kicking ass.”

As Development Officer K noted, “I think our athletics director does a good job having personal touches with our staff and making sure that we are aware of what his vision is and why we do our jobs.” When asked for an example of these “personal

75 touches” Development Officer K shared this personal experience while he was a student at the institution where he now works:

The first time I met him, I think I was a freshman, I said, “[Mr. athletics director

last name], good to meet you.” And he said, “Call me [athletics director first

name].” That’s what he said. It just was different. You didn’t expect the guy

who was the head of the whole operation to tell you to call him by his first name.

I had a brother who played at [institution name], he was just a year younger than

me. I told him that, and, I believe it was [athletics director name deleted] at the

time, and he was like, “I’ve never even seen the guy, I don’t even know if he

exists” and I’m over here calling our AD by his first name.

Chief Development Officer J provided a similar description of how a humanistic approach by his athletics director sets him apart from others in the same leadership role:

I have a lot of appreciation for his leadership style, his culture, what he sets up.

He’s definitely a relationship builder and you see it here with donors, you see it

with staff. We’re approaching [number deleted] staff members and he knows

them all by name, and knows something about them, and can engage all of them

in conversation and does. That’s pretty special. Not a lot of athletic directors are

that way, but he does. He cares about people and that becomes apparent. It’s not

superficial for him, it’s not a transaction for him, he truly does care about people.

You can joke around with him, he’s a real person, where not all athletic directors

are that way.

An example of staff recognition that his athletics director instituted from a department-wide perspective was also shared by Development Officer K, noting how impactful this was to him, particularly as a relatively new staff member in the department:

At our monthly department-wide staff meetings, we do [name of award] awards,

so those are nominated by any department staff member. I think it’s a gift

certificate to go eat at [local restaurant] or something, but [athletics director first

name] acknowledges those, someone comes up, everyone claps for them, and then

we just started last year, well, this past spring, we started this big department-wide

banquet. We have awards and they did a big, cool [department] award. It’s

awesome. I don’t know if you’ve seen what [mascot name] looks like, but he’s

our mascot. We did some awards like that. We had five awards and they were

nominated by anybody in the department and then voted on by the senior staff I

believe. That’s a unique way. A lot of what we do, it’s a thankless job. You

know, you’ve worked in athletics, you’re not doing it for the money per se, you

really enjoy it. You like seeing student-athletes succeed and then going on to do

great things and represent the university. I liken it to when I first started. I was so

used to having a coach tell me, “This is great, you did good or you did bad.”

Either way you were getting told something. Once I got into the office, I was here

all day, it’s kind of business as usual. You do what you’re supposed to do and

then you move on. There’s not a “good job,” or “you didn’t do this great,” so that

was something that was different when I first started, but I think [athletics director

first name] has really tried to get us to celebrate success, put the onus on the

department heads to celebrate success with their employees in their own way.

Participants also described how leadership promotes a family environment by establishing that the overall organization, or team, comes first. Athletics Director B shared this from a department-wide perspective while Development Officer M referenced a similar approach specific to athletics development:

Athletics Director B: I felt culturally here, from a unit perspective and a team

perspective, we had some weak spots, but overall, we were functioning pretty

well that way, but what was missing was the overarching purpose. What unites

all of us? What brings us all together? And it’s this whole thing about the team

should come first. So team here is the whole athletics department. Then your

unit. That’s either your team, or that’s your business unit, or your support unit,

and then you. It’s flipping the pyramid. If you talk to people, a lot of times, you

can always tell. They start with themselves, then they start with their area. Most

of the time they don’t even get to the department, but if they do, they try to sell

you on what’s best for them and best for their unit is somehow best for the

department. While what you want to do is be able to always talk about, “This is

what the department is. This is what’s best for the department.” Okay, how does

your unit fit into that? Then, how do you get to play a role in that?

Development Officer M: We take great pride as an organization of hitting the

$XXX million annual goal for the university, but also celebrating raising $XX

million annually for [development team name]. Then our major gifts team

celebrates hitting $XX million for major gifts, and $X million for planned giving.

Whereas before, the focus was on me raising $X million towards a $XX million

major gifts goal, toward a $XX million overall [development team name] goal,

toward $XXX million university goal. We turned it upside down where we

celebrate the team’s success, and then we quietly celebrate our individual success.

Personal Development

“Focus on what you need to be focusing on, look for opportunities for us to get better, be a great teammate and those things, and you’re going to have the opportunities, they’re going to find you.” While noted as a “simplistic approach,” this was a key suggestion by Athletics Director C related to personal development with other participants sharing similar advice. At the same time, these views did not mean that athletics departments and those in leadership positions aren’t identifying ways to develop staff and provide them with opportunities for growth. Participants shared a number of examples of what they have instituted, or experienced, from a professional development standpoint in their athletics department. Mentor programs most notably were referenced in regards to staff development as Chief Development Officer F and Athletics Director D described:

Chief Development Officer F: We have a rising star group that we identified that’s

not at the associate AD or higher level. So, it’s who are those people that are

really standing out? Our executive team is assigned to those people to visit with

them, to talk about what their goals are. The first step was really trying to

understand them and their goals and how we could have sort of a mentor at the

executive level. So I think that was the first step. Now we’re asking them, really

what are their goals and what do they want? So is that us assigning a project to

them? Is that us assigning a way for them to do something that they feel more

fulfilled with? So I think that’s a work in progress.

Athletics Director D: We have a mentorship program in which all of the executive

leadership team serves as mentors. It’s an application process where if you want

to participate in this mentorship program, you apply every year. [One of our

senior administrators] oversees it, so he’ll select the 10 usually mid-level

employees and then build those relationships. From monthly one-on-one

meetings, to bi-monthly group meetings, to monthly luncheons for the mentor

group that then they go visit a different athletic facility or a different facility on

campus that typically you would not go to and learn about. That’s been very

positive. Last week I didn’t get to attend, but we had our first lunch and learn for

graduate students and first-time employees into athletics, a chance for them to

network and get together. We do all kinds of things. All of those things build

that culture, and I think that culture lends itself to retention. It can be as small as,

we’re providing I think it’s six opportunities each semester that employees can go

to the training table with our athletes and eat. Every Friday we invite employees

to go to the training table to eat.

Although these types of programs provide growth opportunities, participants were also transparent in acknowledging that most staff members are looking for development in the areas of salary, title, and job responsibilities. Development Officer L described the

80 structure of his team and shared how his athletics director has both rewarded their efforts and provided opportunities for growth:

We’ve all gotten to lead key areas within our group. We’ve all gotten great

responsibility, obviously in the development piece, but in sport admin, in playing

a bigger role within [institution name] Athletics, and for different reasons I

think…It’s just a different place here and I think the opportunities that we get

keep us here, and the opportunity to really do significant work…There’s still so

much, I think, room for us to grow…I think it’s also a testament to our athletics

director saying, “All right. We can have [more than one executive team member]

in one unit. They’re [number deleted] of the better performing people in the staff,

they just happen to be from the same unit.” Not like, “Well, we need one over

here, one over here, one over here, one over here.” Now he makes you earn it.

But if you earn it then you’ve earned it, and I won’t say there’s no ceiling, but the

ceiling isn’t as hard and tough to crack. It’s based on your production and the

impact you’re having within your area, but across athletics, across the university

in some cases. There’s been enough opportunity to keep us happy and engaged.

From a monetary standpoint, Athletics Director A explained how he and his Chief

Development Officer created a performance plan to incentivize development staff members at all levels while also noting how this contributed to their fundraising efforts:

Well, speaking just narrowly in the fundraising role, salespeople in general are

always folks that work off commission. And while we can’t get into a pure

commission based model here because too many fingers have to touch the pie

before something happens, setting goals and hitting bonus potentials were really

the best answer for [institution name]. While coaches have long had bonus

opportunities for success, we didn’t have that in fundraising, which was

something that was really critical to our overall success. So as we put this plan

together, from the facility plan to the fundraising plan, not long afterwards, our

Chief Development Officer and I had a conversation about how to deal with some

type of performance plan. Where I came into just a little bit of help there was

selling it to other executive leadership team of campus folks, the HR Director, the

Vice President for Finance and Administration, and the President saying, “This is

something that we need to be able to do. These aren’t enormous amounts, but

these are thank yous based on good work done that will allow our organization to

move ahead.” And we got it approved.

Driven by Athletics Development Leadership

The final theme that emerged was not present in development as a result of athletics director involvement or influence; rather, it was attributed to the leadership of the chief development officer and development officers with management responsibilities. This theme is an important management tactic to consider in athletics development as it impacts the experiences of both internal development staff members and external constituents, while also providing a supporting layer to the personal development theme championed by the athletics director. This leadership approach in athletics development was described by Chief Development Officer G as an environment where “everyone is a fundraiser.”

Everyone is a Fundraiser

While participants noted that staff roles and responsibilities are varied within an athletics development office, they referenced the annual team fundraising goal as a unifying aspect of development work. Chief Development Officer G explained that he wants every member of his staff to know their importance and how their daily work contributes to this overall team goal. The development office where Development

Officer M is employed demonstrated how each individual impacts the team goal by adjusting their approach to evaluations as he described:

We had to change how we incentivize, how we recognize, how we measured

success, because if you don’t, then the behavior is going to reflect how you

measure success. So if we simply just said “How much money did you raise this

year?”, then people are just going to keep their head down and be focused on their

prospects, and raising their money, and checking that box. At the end of the year

it’s “look at me.” You see the goal, but really getting people to buy into a one

[development team name] goal that’s say $XX million dollars and how can we all

contribute to that goal.

Participants credited an atmosphere where “everyone is a fundraiser” to staff members becoming more focused on meeting or exceeding the team goal and having an understanding of how their individual actions contributed to this. When considering how each area of their development operation interacts, several of the chief development officers and development officers described environments where all staff members, regardless of title or responsibilities, interact with donors and secure gifts. By

83 approaching the work in this way, it also encourages staff growth and development as

Chief Development Officer H shared:

What I love is that if you polled 10 of our donors who maybe aren’t around all the

time and don’t know us incredibly well, but who are around, and who are really

active, and we see them a number of times over the year, you might get four

different answers on who runs athletics development or who would I call?

Because they may say well, Sarah because Sarah’s so visible and such a great

relationship person; or Ben, because he’s been out to see me three times in this

part of the country; or Jordan, because he’s the go to when it comes to tickets or

priority seating or anything else, and I could go on and on with the staff. We’ve

embraced that, because there’s just really good talent on the team and I’ve never

wanted anybody to feel like they’re in a particular box, or that they can’t grow, or

that they can’t evolve, or they can’t take on the lead of staffing our athletics

director on a five million dollar ask, and each of those three that I’ve referenced

have done that with him and if that’s the pathway, go get it. We’re never going to

sort of intercept that and steer it elsewhere. So I think that has been a healthy

thing and there’s natural alignment in most cases so it’s not so informal that

people are stepping on each other necessarily. We’ve got pretty good clarity but

we’re really open minded to what the best pathway is to getting the outcome,

which is the gift. So I think that’s worked well. I think it’s had something to say

about being able to retain some really talented people here.

Chief Development Officer I supported this notion that staff members should not be restricted to solely the roles and responsibilities in their job description:

Why can’t a second year development officer, why can’t they close a two million

dollar gift if they’ve got a relationship? Why do they have to come back to the

major gift staff and say, “I got my five thousand dollar annual gift but why don’t

you take it from here?” Experience is a great thing, but everybody is gonna get

educated on everything so anybody can go sell a suite, anybody can get a major

gift, and major gift officers, your first responsibility ought to be to get the annual

gift.

Participants explained that not only does an environment where “everyone is a fundraiser” help the bottom line and promote staff development, but it also makes the organization more donor-centric. Development Officer M recounted how his team has become more donor-centric as a result of educating each staff member about all aspects of their athletics development operation:

When they get to a point of expressing an interest in a major gift the old model

was we’ll reach out to a major gift officer and hand that relationship off.

Basically, the thought was the engagement people could only speak the

engagement game, the annual fund people could just talk membership and tickets

and parking, and then our major gifts team really didn’t want to talk a lot about

tickets and parking. We just wanted to talk about that gift over and above. Then

when we added the planned giving piece the idea was that donor journey, that

ultimate legacy gift, and we started that conversation then it was like, that’s a hard

85 language. I can’t really speak that, so I’m going to hand that off to our planned giving folks. What we realized is that we were really not being very donor- centric and we also weren’t recognizing the professional skill set of our staff in that, although you may have a fundraiser that may have say three years of experience, that doesn’t mean that they can’t speak to the major gift fundraising.

We started doing a lot of cross training. We started to do a lot of professional development, both internally, and sending folks to conferences, and things like that. And then we started to evolve our model where we were all able to speak about everything from you know, if you’re talking to a former athlete asking them in a transactional manner to be part of [letterwinners program name], to be able to have that conversation about the annual fund organization, to be a part of the annual fund, and then if they started to ask about supporting one of our capital projects or endowments, to be able to have that conversation, but also not to be afraid to ask someone who’s focused on major gifts to go on a call with them. So if we have an annual fund person to ask someone interested in making a major gift, let’s go on the call together. What better for the donor than to have a relationship not just with one development officer, but with several development officers? By taking that approach, we feel like all of us can be involved with the donor journey from the beginning until the end. There may be times where I may be more engaged with this donor than say, my annual fund colleague, but if I’m not available immediately to answer say a question about a ticket or parking question, then that donor feels comfortable and feels free to

call [Mackenzie] who can help.

Summary of Findings

The perspectives and experiences shared by participants in this study provided insights about the internal workings of athletics development offices in the Power Five.

Participants described staff structures, strategies for goal achievement, and ultimately how those in positions of leadership, most notably the athletics director, impact their work. As the findings in this chapter revealed, characteristics of an effective development organization were not always attributed to the athletics director. The overarching themes were Foundation, Vision, Family Environment, Personal

Development, and Everyone is a Fundraiser. The first theme, Foundation, was attributed to not only the work of the athletics director but that of others in the development office as well. The next three themes were directly tied to the athletics director’s leadership in

Vision, Family Environment, and Personal Development. The final theme, Everyone is a

Fundraiser, did not involve the athletics director; instead, participants credited leadership specifically in the athletics development office.

Participants indicated that positive fundraising results often occur after years of relationship-building with internal staff and external constituents. While the athletics director may be responsible for this work, it became evident that tenured development staff members also contribute to establishing a foundation for future success. In terms of athletics director leadership specifically, participants described several ways in which their athletics director directly impacts fundraising work and their experiences in the organization. These included communication of a defined plan, or vision, for

87 fundraising, promotion of a family environment, and creation of an atmosphere that supports their individual aspirations. Overall these themes were identified as contributing factors to staff member experiences and their focus on continuing good work, remaining committed to the athletics department, and achieving their goals. The participants attributed the final finding, an environment where everyone is a fundraiser, to athletics development leadership as opposed to that of the athletics director. Those in leadership roles within the development office ensure that each staff member is educated about all aspects of the operation regardless of their defined job description and assigned responsibilities. This education allows them to understand how their daily work contributes to the greater team goal while also creating an atmosphere where the donor experience is central to all decisions and actions.

As referenced in the third chapter, one of the reasons that a case study approach was selected for this qualitative study was the potential impact the findings could have on

“policy, practice, and future research” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). With the ever-increasing need for philanthropic investments in intercollegiate athletics, a goal of this study was to enhance the discussion about fundraising specific to athletics development. The next chapter highlights this in detail, while also providing implications for current athletics administrators and suggestions for future research.

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

With the majority of prior research in athletics development focusing on items outside of the control of athletics development professionals, this study sought to focus internally on aspects that staff members and department leaders can influence. This study enlisted participants from athletics departments in the Power Five to gain an understanding of leadership and effectiveness in development offices at this level of collegiate sport. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 athletics administrators, including athletics directors, chief development officers, and development officers, the findings in Chapter Four highlighted a variance in leadership influence across five themes: 1) Foundation, 2) Vision, 3) Family Environment, 4) Personal Development, and

5) Everyone is a Fundraiser. This chapter considers those findings in relation to the study’s conceptual framework that was outlined in Chapter One, while also addressing the following research questions:

1) How does leadership influence athletics development effectiveness?

2) How is an environment created to produce an effective athletics development

operation?

This study’s research questions were developed by considering the five factors of the stay and thrive model: Pride, Purpose, Prioritization, Personal Development, and People, with the intent to gain an understanding of development staff member experiences and how 89 these experiences are shaped by the primary leader of the organization – the athletics director.

As noted in Chapter Three, I selected my approach to this study with a desire to impact “policy, practice, or future research” within athletics fundraising (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). Having been in the field for over a decade, my objective for this work was to provide insights for professionals like myself that would be universal in nature, and therefore applicable regardless of specific institution or athletics department characteristics. Thus, conclusions and implications are discussed in this chapter with an emphasis on theory as well as practical application. Finally, the study’s limitations and recommendations for future research are detailed.

Discussion and Conclusions

Research Question #1

The conceptual framework for this study, termed the stay and thrive model for athletics development, focused specifically on the impact of transformational leadership characteristics within intercollegiate athletics development. As the framework details, transformational leadership on the part of the athletics director through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration produces five factors that support effectiveness in athletics development.

As was revealed in the participant interviews, leadership influences athletics development effectiveness in several ways; however, this influence is not always directly tied to the athletics director. Therefore, the study findings reflected three categories of leadership

90 influence: driven by tenured department leaders, driven by the athletics director, and driven by athletics development leadership.

The athletics directors, chief development officers, and development officers shared examples that illustrated how individuals who have been with the athletics department for a number of years, as well as those in leadership positions specifically in athletics development, exhibited transformational leadership characteristics and directly impacted the development operation. This is consistent with the findings of Cook and

Lasher (1996) that identified the primary leader in higher education, a college or university president, as essential to fundraising, while also noting the pivotal role of other fundraising staff members. Additionally, the recognition of the role of other leaders in the fundraising process aligns with the work of Nicholson (2007) that identified the significance of vice presidents in fundraising success and recommended individuals in these types of leadership roles for the focus of future research.

Recognition of the role of other leaders in fundraising emerged from this study’s findings and was reflected in the driven by tenured department leaders and driven by athletics development leadership categories. The interviews revealed that tenured department leaders made contributions as a result of their institutional knowledge and relationships that they had built with internal and external constituents over years, if not decades. While some participants described their athletics director as a tenured leader, others identified themselves or their colleagues across the department as tenured leaders.

The importance of leadership specifically in the athletics development office was also shared throughout the interviews. While participants often identified the individual in the

91 top position within the development office as the primary leader in this category, staff members with management responsibilities were also referenced. Driven by tenured department leaders and driven by athletics development leadership captured two of the five overall themes presented in the study findings, Foundation and Everyone is a

Fundraiser, respectively. The remaining three themes were directly tied to the leadership of the athletics director which ultimately aligned with the study’s conceptual framework.

Vision, Family Environment, and Personal Development were linked to the driven by the athletics director category. As the works of Nicholson (2007) and Satterwhite and

Cedja (2005) outlined, certain aspects of institutional fundraising efforts, such as a vision, can only be presented by the primary leader. This individual in their research was the university president. From an intercollegiate athletics perspective, this individual is the athletics director. Leadership by the athletics director influences effectiveness in athletics development through the three aforementioned themes that emerged from the study findings. Participant responses indicated that these would not be present without the leadership approach asserted by their respective athletics director.

In all three categories, it is evident that leadership influence is a critical component to staff experiences and ultimate fundraising outcomes. Development leaders support fundraising effectiveness by strategically growing relationships over a period of time and encouraging input from all team members, while the athletics director does so by providing a vision, family environment, and attention to staff member personal development. The answer to this research question sheds light on the fact that although individuals may not identify themselves as a leader based on their specific title or role,

92 they do have the ability to lead and make an impact beyond the responsibilities associated with their individual position.

Research Question #2

As discussed in Chapter Four, the study findings revealed five themes specific to effectiveness in athletics development. Participants disclosed that an effective fundraising work environment is created by leadership establishing a foundation for future success, providing a comprehensive and bold vision in support of student-athletes, creating a family environment where staff members feel that their individual goals both inside and outside of the organization are supported, and demonstrating how each staff member contributes to the greater team goal. The four I’s of transformational leadership

(idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) are captured within these themes, and the themes ultimately reflect similarities and differences to the five factors presented in the stay and thrive model for athletics development: Pride, Purpose, Prioritization, Personal Development, and People.

These factors and the study themes are analyzed in this section in relation to the study’s second research question.

Two of the five factors in the conceptual framework, Pride and Purpose, were reflected under the finding of Vision and its associated subthemes of Unwavering

Commitment to Student-Athletes, Comprehensive Approach, and Boldness. The factor of Purpose and the theme of Vision are virtually interchangeable as they both describe the role that the leader has in establishing a clear direction for his or her staff members. This is accomplished as a result of charisma, inspirational motivation, and intellectual

93 stimulation (Bass 1985, 1990). This purpose, or vision, is utilized by athletics development staff members to communicate a direction and corresponding needs to prospective donors. This vision can be approached in one of two ways based on the state of the athletics department at any given time. As Athletics Director A noted, “You’re either selling staying out in front,” meaning a focus on pride during winning seasons, “or you’re selling hope.” While the factor of Prioritization was not explicitly referenced by participants during the interviews, it could be argued that the findings associated with

Vision encompass this factor as well.

Personal Development was a factor included in the framework that also emerged as a compelling theme in the findings. This factor and theme is most closely associated with the transformational leadership attribute of individualized consideration. Personal attention and mentorship characterize individualized consideration (Bass, 1985, 1990), and this is precisely what was described during the participant interviews. Participants at all levels referenced the commitment that is necessary in this area and provided examples of established mentor programs, opportunities for top performers to take on responsibilities outside of their primary area, and creative ways to compensate staff most notably tied to title and salary. It became clear throughout the course of the interviews that athletics directors recognized the critical role that they play in staff member development, while chief development officers and development officers attributed their own productivity and commitment to a feeling from leadership that they are valued and important to the organization overall.

The conceptual framework included another factor identified as People, which speaks to an environment where employees recognize their shared fate and mutual interests, and a feeling of family is promoted (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Thomas, 2010).

This atmosphere, present as a result of transformational leadership through charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, must be cultivated over time as opposed to being treated as a routine, one-time occurrence (Holtom et al.,

2006; Looney & Looney, 2005; Thomas, 2010). This factor is supported in the findings and is now recognized as the theme of Family Environment. Throughout the interviews, participants described how their leaders create an “all in” type of environment through examples that included personal outreach and recognitions by their athletics director to acknowledge good work and performances. Athletics Director B referenced a question that he has pondered, “what unites all of us?”, when thinking about his department overall and the critical nature of a team mindset. A consistent answer to this question that includes a focus on the team, yet also reflects the instrumental role of the leader, is the essence of the Family Environment theme.

The themes of Foundation and Everyone is a Fundraiser were not captured in the original framework, possibly because the model only considered leadership on the part of the athletics director as opposed to other staff members who serve in leadership roles.

Despite their exclusion originally, they are linked to transformational leadership theory as supported by the study findings. As participants shared, the athletics director or other department leaders are responsible for establishing a foundation that puts their development staff members in the best position possible to succeed. This included the

95 establishment of relationships with internal and external constituents that have the ability to impact fundraising efforts, as well as the creation of an infrastructure and donor pipeline that supports development work. With this forward-thinking and proactive approach to planning and problem-solving, the theme of Foundation reflects the transformational leadership concept of intellectual stimulation (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass,

1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978).

The theme of Everyone is a Fundraiser focused on the leadership of chief development officers to create environments where staff members are recognized as individual contributors, while at the same time educated on how they play a part in overall team goal achievement. Participants shared examples of inclusive atmospheres where development staff members are informed about all aspects of the development organization and are encouraged to expand beyond their immediate roles and responsibilities. As a result, participants indicated that staff members recognized their place in the greater organization while also feeling empowered and supported to learn and grow. Overall, this theme is a precise example of individualized consideration at work (Avolio et al., 1991; Bass, 1985, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978).

Implications

The findings that surfaced as a result of the semi-structured interviews provide several considerations for current or aspiring athletics directors, as well as individuals in leadership positions within athletics development. Leadership influence on fundraising from both the athletics director chair, as well as those in the development office, highlights the need for hiring managers to strongly assess leadership attributes and

96 personality characteristics when evaluating new hires and promotions for current staff members. At the same time, leaders must have the ability to self-assess as a part of their own growth and professional advancement plan. Self-awareness and an acute understanding of personal strengths and weaknesses are traits that should be considered by leaders. Furthermore, athletics departments should consider ways to support staff members in their professional leadership evolution.

While a team approach and staff recognition of a shared fate are important findings related to effectiveness, the encouragement of healthy competition amongst fundraisers should not be underestimated as the participants indicated that this can have a positive impact on effectiveness too. Chief Development Officer I described this noting,

“Our [staff member title] helps close a two and a half million dollar gift from somebody and so now around the table in staff meetings it’s like, well they’ve done it, and they’ve done it…I’d better be thinking about it.” The theme of Everyone is a Fundraiser reflects this competitive spirit, but the positive results associated with that type of atmosphere make it a worthwhile consideration for development leaders.

Finally, although beyond the control of development staff members, the impact of sports team performance outcomes cannot be excluded when discussing effectiveness in development. While the literature on this topic provided mixed conclusions, participants did not ignore this in the effectiveness equation. While Development Officer M was detailing how his staff established a foundation for fundraising success, he explained that winning, particularly in football, only added to positive results and termed it “the rising

97 tide lifts all boats concept.” This topic is discussed in more detail when future research is presented.

Study Limitations

While a focus on universal recommendations was considered as mentioned previously, not every aspect of these findings may be deemed generalizable as the unique characteristics of individual institutions and donors must be taken into account when developing fundraising strategies (Cook & Lasher, 1996; Duronio & Loessin, 1991).

This lack of generalizability is noted as a limitation of qualitative research (Merriam,

1998). Although I believe that my experiences as a fundraising professional in the field under study are a benefit to this research overall, I must also note that my positionality as a result of this work may also be considered a limitation.

The participants that I selected resulted in limitations to this study due to their high-profile positions and the public nature of the industry. To maintain privacy for the participants, as well as their athletics departments, I provided limited information regarding specific fundraising results and other data points of interest related to the study topic. While the inclusion of this information would have strengthened the final product,

I did not want to compromise the anonymity of my participants.

Additionally, as noted in Chapter Three when trustworthiness was discussed, two strategies employed by qualitative researchers to enhance credibility were not utilized in this study due to the demands that would have been placed on participants – triangulation and member checking. Triangulation includes the use of multiple data points, which in this study could have been second interviews, a request for participant journals, and

98 observation of participants with their staff members and donors. Instead, the findings were produced solely from the one-time interviews with each participant. Member checking would have involved me sending the interview transcripts to each participant for their review and feedback (Creswell, 2003; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Finally, 2 of the 15 interviews were not recorded: 1 at the request of a participant and 1 due to recorder error. While notes were taken during each of these interviews, including direct quotes from the participants, this is recognized as another limitation of the study. Despite these limitations, the study participants had a diverse range of industry experiences gained over decades of professional work, which provided meaningful insights as a result of their significant expertise.

Future Research

As indicated at different points throughout this work, the research specific to athletics development has primarily focused on the motivations of athletics donors, the influence of competitive outcomes on fundraising, and the relationships between athletics development and other fundraising units within a college or university. This study provides a starting point for future exploration of the athletics development field with internally as opposed to externally focused research. An initial consideration is the replication of this study at different levels or divisions of intercollegiate sport. As previously noted, only 65 of the 347 schools at the Division I level are included in the

Power Five; thus, this provides an opportunity to examine leadership and fundraising effectiveness on a different scale than was afforded with this study’s design (NCAA,

2015a).

This study’s conceptual framework touched on the importance of retention in the fundraising field. A question that has been studied related to employee retention is “why do people stay?” as opposed to “why do people leave?” (Lee, Burch, & Mitchell, 2014, p.

200). The developed theory that is linked to the question of why people stay is job embeddedness, which is comprised of three dimensions from the perspectives of both the organization where the employee works and the community where the employee resides: links, fit, and sacrifice. These factors are the degree to which an individual has links to co-workers and activities in the work environment, how an employee’s position aligns with their goals and how they fit into the local community, and what would be sacrificed by an employee if they were to leave the organization (Holtom et al., 2006). Job embeddedness has ultimately been described as “a net or web in which an individual can become stuck” (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001, p. 1104). As Welty

Peachey et al. (2014) discovered in their study of senior athletics administrators, the higher the level of embeddedness the more difficult it is for an individual to leave an organization.

The framework of job embeddedness described by Holtom et al. (2006) can be utilized to create a plan for retention based on the aspects that make an organization and an employee unique:

Most modern lives are complicated. When employees feel that their organization

values the complexity of their entire lives and tries to do something about making

it a little easier for them to balance all the conflicting demands, the employees

tend to be more productive and stay with those organizations longer. Job

100

embeddedness captures some of this complexity by measuring both the on-the-job

and off-the-job components that most contribute to a person’s staying. (p. 329)

As described by Lee et al. (2014) regarding job embeddedness, “contexts exist in which employees are more likely to stay” (p. 211). Future research utilizing job embeddedness theory would be beneficial to identify these contexts in the athletics fundraising field and determine how they impact fundraising effectiveness and outcomes. Several of the participants in this study commented on characteristics of their athletics department that they attribute to their own tenures, but this was not explored in more detail as it was beyond the scope of this study.

Several of the participants in this study also noted that an athletics director’s background informs their approach to development work and their interactions with fundraising staff. Athletics directors who were once in development positions shared examples of how they remain highly engaged with donors without doing all of the work, while staff members working for these athletics directors described it as “the gift and the curse.” As Development Officer L explained, “You’re a point guard and your coach was a former point guard. Yeah, you’re going to learn a ton, you’re going to be put in great positions, but he’s also going to be tougher maybe on you because that was his spot.”

Since all athletics directors can identify with a particular area of the business, an examination of how an athletics director’s professional background affects their approach to development work and leadership of this area should be considered.

Finally, future research consideration should be given to a quantitative approach and inclusion of prior research topics specific to athletics development. A mixed-

101 methods research design, similar to the work of Duronio and Loessin (1991), would be beneficial since development work is a data driven field guided by annual metrics that define individual and team goals. Attention should be given to external forces such as donor motivations, competitive outcomes, and collaborative solicitations during a designated period of time. Assessing these external forces while simultaneously gathering internal staff member insights would provide a broader evaluation of athletics development effectiveness.

102

References

Avolio, B. J., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Leading in the 1990s: The

four i′s of transformational leadership. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 15(4), 9-16.

Axelrod, B. (2016, June 22). Blockbuster TV rights deal shows Big Ten prominence is

here to stay. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2647611-

blockbuster-tv-rights- deal-shows-big-ten-prominence-is-here-to-stay.

Baade, R., & Sundberg, J. (1996). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link

between athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77(4), 789-803.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share

the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational

culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17, 541-554.

Benner, B. (2009, March 30). Big Ten Network trades controversy for success.

Indianapolis Business Journal. Retrieved from https://www.ibj.com/articles/2244-

big-ten-network-trades-controversy-for-success.

103

Bennett, B. (2014, August 8). NCAA board votes to allow autonomy. Retrieved from

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/11321551/ncaa-board-votes-allow-

autonomy-five-power-conferences.

Billing, J. E., Holt, D., & Smith, J. (1985). Athletic fund-raising: Exploring the motives

behind private donations. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Brady, E., Berkowitz, S., & Schnaars, C. (2015, May 26). College athletics finance

report: Non-power 5 schools face huge money pressure. Retrieved from

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2015/05/26/ncaa-athletic-

finances-revenue-expense-division-i/27971457.

Brooker, G., & Klastorin, T. D. (1981). To the victors go the spoils? College athletics and

alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 744-750.

Burns, J. M. G. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Burton, L. J., & Welty Peachey, J. (2009). Transactional or transformational? Leadership

preferences of Division III athletic administrators. Journal of Intercollegiate

Sport, 2(2), 245-259.

Carmin, M. (2015, July 16). BTN profits increase Big Ten revenue. Retrieved from

http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2015/07/16/btn-profits-increase-big-

ten-revenue/30226149.

Chi, S. (2014, March 13). Analyzing the current state of college football conference TV

networks. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1990173-analyzing-

the-current-state-of-college-football-conference-tv-networks.

104

Chung-Hoon, T. L., Hite, J. M., & Hite, S. J. (2005). Searching for enduring donor

relationships: Evidence for factors and strategies in a donor/organization

integration model for fund raising. International Journal of Educational

Advancement, 6(1), 34-53.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary

research strategies. United States: SAGE.

Cohen, C., Whisenant, W., & Walsh, P. (2011). The relationship between sustained

success and donations for an athletic department with a premier football

program. Public Organization Review, 11(3), 255-263.

College Football Playoff. (2016). Overview. Retrieved from

http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com/overview.

Cook, W. B., & Lasher, W. F. (1996). Toward a theory of fund raising in higher

education. Review of Higher Education, 20(1), 33-51.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Croteau, J. D., & Wolk, H. G. (2010). Defining advancement career paths and succession

plans: Critical human capital retention strategies for high-performing

advancement divisions. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(2),

59-70.

Doherty, A. J. (1997). The effect of leader characteristics on the perceived

transformational/ transactional leadership and impact of interuniversity athletic

administrators. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 275-285.

105

Doherty, A. J., & Danylchuk, K. E. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership

in interuniversity athletic management. Journal of Sport Management, 10, 292-

310.

Dove, K. E. (2001). Conducting a successful fundraising program: A comprehensive

guide and resource. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1990). Fund-raising outcomes and institutional

characteristics in ten types of higher education institutions. The Review of Higher

Education, 13(4), 539-556.

Duronio, M. A., & Loessin, B. A. (1991). Effective fund raising in higher education: Ten

success stories. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fisher, J. L., & Quehl, G. H. (1989). The President and fund raising. New York, NY:

American Council on Education.

Flowers, R. D. (2009). Institutionalized hypocrisy: The myth of intercollegiate

athletics. American Educational History Journal, 36(2), 343-360.

Gaines, C., & Yukari, D. (2017, March 17). The NCAA Tournament is an enormous cash

cow as revenue keeps skyrocketing. Retrieved from

http://www.businessinsider.com/ncaa-tournament-makes-a-lot-of-money-2017-3.

Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Educational research: Competencies

for analysis and applications. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Geiger, R. (2015). The history of American higher education: Learning and culture from

the founding to World War II. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

106

Gladden, J. M., Mahoney, D. F., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2005). Toward a better

understanding of college athletic donors: What are the primary motives? Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30.

Grimes, P. W., & Chressanthis, G. A. (1994). Alumni contributions to academics: The

role of intercollegiate sports and NCAA sanctions. American Journal of

Economics and Sociology, 53(1), 27-40.

Grunig, S. D. (1995). The impact of development office structure on fund-raising

efficiency for research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher

Education, 66(6), 686-699.

Hall, S. J., & Mahoney, D. F. (1997). Factors affecting methods used by annual giving

programs: A qualitative study of NCAA Division I athletic departments. Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 21-30.

Hixson, N. C. (2012). Million dollar plus donors within intercollegiate athletics: A

qualitative analysis of donor motivations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest LLC. (3588291)

Hobson, W., & Rich, S. (2015, November 23). Playing in the red. The Washington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/

running-up-the-bills/?utm_term=.3bab8356844f.

Holtom, B. C., Mitchell, T. R., & Lee, T. W. (2006). Increasing human and social capital

by applying job embeddedness theory. Organizational Dynamics, 35(4), 316-331.

Humphreys, B. R., & Mondello, M. (2007). Intercollegiate athletic success and donations

at NCAA Division I institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2), 265-280.

107

Hurtubise, M. (1988). An analysis of presidential attitudes toward and participation in

fund raising at select, small, independent, liberal arts colleges and universities

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of San Francisco, San

Francisco, California.

Iarrobino, J. D. (2006). Turnover in the advancement profession. International Journal of

Educational Advancement, 6(2), 141-169.

Kent, A., & Chelladurai, P. (2001). Perceived transformational leadership, organizational

commitment, and citizenship behavior: A case study in intercollegiate

athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 135-159.

Kimball, B. A. (2010). The liberal arts tradition: A documentary history. Lanham, MD:

University Press of America.

King, E., Sexton, E., & Rhatigan, J. (2010). Balancing fundraising in academic programs

and intercollegiate athletics. New Directions for Higher Education, 2010(149),

65-71.

Lee, T. W., Burch, T. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (2014). The story of why we stay: A review

of job embeddedness. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 199-216.

Leech, B. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS:

Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 665-668.

Leslie, J. W. (1969). Focus on understanding and support: A study in college

management. Washington, D.C.: American College Public Relations Association.

108

Leslie, L. L., & Ramey, G. (1988). Donor behavior and voluntary support for higher

education institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(2), 115-132.

Lewis, G. M. (1967). America's first intercollegiate sport: The regattas from 1852-

1875. Research Quarterly, 38(4), 637-648.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications.

Looney, C. A., & Looney, J. K. (2005). Attracting top talent and retaining stars. New

Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005, 49, 99-107.

Lucas, J. A., & Smith, R. A. (1978). Saga of American sport. Philadelphia, PA: Lea &

Febiger.

Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003). Examining athletic donors at

NCAA Division I institutions. International Sports Journal, 7(1), 9-27.

Marot, M. (2014, August 7). NCAA board hands 5 biggest conferences more power.

Retrieved from http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-board-hands-5-biggest-

171531415--spt.html.

Martinez, J. M., Stinson, J. L., Kang, M., & Jubenville, C. B. (2010). Intercollegiate

athletics and institutional fundraising: A meta-analysis. Sport Marketing

Quarterly, 19, 36-47.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of

new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

109

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why

people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy

of Management Journal, 44(6), 1102-1121.

NCAA. (2015a). Our three divisions. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/

about/resources/media-center/ncaa-101/our-three-divisions.

NCAA. (2015b). Postseason bowl administration, CFP summary of revenue distribution

by conference. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/championships/postseason-

bowl-administration.

NCAA. (2017). 2017 Division I revenue distribution plan. Retrieved from

https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017NCAA_DivisionI_RevenueDistributi

onPlan_20170426.pdf.

Nicholson, W. D., II. (2007). Leading where it counts: An investigation of the leadership

styles and behaviors that define college and university presidents as successful

fundraisers. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(4), 256-270.

Pack, S. M., & Won, D. (2017). From push to full: Factors influencing turnover decisions

of middle-level athletic administrators. Journal of Physical Education and

Sport, 17, 117-121.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Pickett, W. L. (1977). An assessment of the effectiveness of fund raising policies of

private undergraduate colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

Denver, Denver, Colorado.

110

Pribbenow, P. (1994). Fundraising as public service: Renewing the moral meaning of the

profession. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 6, 27-48.

Prince, R. A., File, K. M., & Gillespie, J. E. (1993). Philanthropic styles. Nonprofit

Management and Leadership, 3(3), 255-268.

Reed, A. (2013). The tenure problem: How can we make major gifts productive if gift

officers keep leaving? Retrieved from http://www.eduventures.com/2013/06/the-

tenure-problem-how-can-we-make-major-gifts-productive-if-gift-officers-keep-

leaving.

Rhoads, T. A., & Gerking, S. (2000). Educational contributions, academic quality, and

athletic success. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18, 248-258.

Richardson, L. B. (1932). History of Dartmouth College. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth

College Publications.

Sack, A. L., & Staurowsky, E. J. (1998). College athletes for hire: The evolution and

legacy of the NCAA's amateur myth. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Satterwhite, C. R., & Cedja, B. (2005). Higher education fund raising: What is the

president to do?. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 333-

342.

Schroeder, P. J. (2010). A model for assessing organizational culture in intercollegiate

athletic departments. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 3, 98-118.

Scott, D. K. (1997). Managing organizational culture in intercollegiate athletic

organizations. Quest, 49(4), 403-415.

111

Scott, D. K. (1999). A multiframe perspective of leadership and organizational climate in

intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 13(4), 298-316.

Sigelman, L., & Bookheimer, S. (1983). Is it whether you win or lose? Monetary

contributions to big-time college athletic programs. Social Science

Quarterly, 64(2), 347.

Sigelman, L. & Carter, R. (1979). Win one for the giver? Alumni giving and big-time

college sports. Social Science Quarterly, 60(2), 284-294.

Smith, C. (2017, March 16). How the ACC can make $38 million from the NCAA

Tournament. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2017/03/16/

how-the-acc-can-make-38-million-from-the-ncaa-tournament/#2635176a331e.

Smith, R. A. (1988). Sports and freedom: The rise of big-time college athletics. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Staurowsky, E. J., Parkhouse, B., & Sachs, M. (1996). Developing an instrument to

measure athletic donor behavior and motivation. Journal of Sport Management,

10, 262-277.

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2004). Scoreboards vs. mortarboards: Major donor

behavior and intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 129-140.

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2007). Athletic success and private giving to athletic and

academic programs at NCAA institutions. Journal of Sport Management, 21(2),

235-264.

112

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2008). Winning does matter: Patterns in private giving

to athletic and academic programs at NCAA Division I-AA and I-AAA

institutions. Sport Management Review, 11(1), 1-20.

Stinson, J. L., & Howard, D. R. (2010). Intercollegiate athletics as an institutional

fundraising tool: An exploratory donor-based view. Journal of Nonprofit &

Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 312-335.

Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Thelin, J. R., & Trollinger, R. W. (2014). Philanthropy and American higher education.

New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomas, C. (2010). Retaining educational fundraisers: Reducing turnover by investing in

human capital management. International Journal of Educational Advancement,

10(2), 99-107.

Thomas, G., & Myers, K. (2015). The anatomy of the case study. London: SAGE.

Tucker, I. (2004). A reexamination of the effect of big-time football and basketball

success on graduation rates and alumni giving rates. Economics of Education

Review, 23, 655-661.

Verner, M. E., Hecht, J. B., & Fansler, A. G. (1998). Validating an instrument to assess

the motivation of athletic donors. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 123-137.

Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? In W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg (Eds.),

The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 568–87). New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

113

Weinstein, S. (2002). The complete guide to fundraising management. New York, NY: J.

Wiley.

Welty Peachey, J., Burton, L. J., & Wells, J. E. (2014). Examining the influence of

transformational leadership, organizational commitment, job embeddedness, and

job search behaviors on turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics. Leadership

& Organization Development Journal, 35(8), 740-755.

Worth, M. J., & Asp, J. W., II. (1994). The development officer in higher education:

Toward an understanding of the role. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.

4. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of

Education and Human Development.

114

Appendix A: The Stay and Thrive Model for Athletics Development

115

Transformational Leadership

Pride

Purpose

Prioritization

Personal Development

People

Athletics Development Effectiveness

116

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form for Participants

117

The Ohio State University Consent to Participate in Research

Study Title: Development Effectiveness in Intercollegiate Athletics

Researcher: Maura Murphy

Sponsor: N/A

This is a consent form for research participation. It contains important information about this study and what to expect if you decide to participate.

Your participation is voluntary.

Please consider the information carefully. Feel free to ask questions before making your decision whether or not to participate. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will receive a copy of the form.

Purpose: As an athletic administrator with development responsibilities you are being asked to participate in this research study to share details about your experience in athletic development, the team that you work with, the overall development operation, the work environment in athletic development and the department overall, and fundraising outcomes.

Procedures/Tasks: You will be asked to participate in an audiotaped interview, either via phone or in person.

Duration: The interview will be no more than one hour in length.

Risks and Benefits: Information gathered from the study will be made available to all athletic administrators who participate and agree to have information shared with peers at other institutions.

Confidentiality: Audiotaped interviews will be transcribed using a professional transcription service. Participant names will not be recorded and all information that could potentially lead to the identification of individuals will be removed (or masked with pseudonyms). Efforts will be made to keep your study-related information confidential. However, there may be circumstances where this information must be released. For example, personal information regarding your participation in this study may be disclosed if required by state law. Also, your records may be reviewed by the following groups (as applicable to the research):  Office for Human Research Protections or other federal, state, or international regulatory agencies;  The Ohio State University Institutional Review Board or Office of Responsible Research Practices; 118

Incentives: You will not be paid to participate in this study.

Participant Rights: You may refuse to participate in this study without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are a student or employee at Ohio State, your decision will not affect your grades or employment status.

If you choose to participate in the study, you may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. You may also refuse to answer any questions posed during the interview. By signing this form, you do not give up any personal legal rights you may have as a participant in this study.

This study has been determined Exempt from IRB Review. Contacts and Questions: For questions, concerns, or complaints about the study, or you feel you have been harmed as a result of study participation, you may contact Maura Murphy at [email protected] or Brian Turner at [email protected].

For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study- related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at 1- 800-678-6251.

Signing the Consent Form I have read (or someone has read to me) this form and I am aware that I am being asked to participate in a research study. I have had the opportunity to ask questions and have had them answered to my satisfaction. I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.

I am not giving up any legal rights by signing this form. I will be given a copy of this form.

Printed name of subject Signature of subject

AM/PM Date and time

Investigator/Research Staff I have explained the research to the participant or his/her representative before requesting the signature(s) above. There are no blanks in this document. A copy of this form has been given to the participant or his/her representative.

Printed name of person obtaining consent Signature of person obtaining consent

AM/PM Date and time

119

Appendix C: Interview Guide

120

Tentative Examples of Question Topics for Interviews Questions in qualitative research should vary based on individual participants. As a result, two sets of open-ended questions were prepared to guide the interviews based on the participant’s position in the athletics department: 1. Questions for athletics director 2. Questions for athletics development staff member Position: Athletics Director  First, can you share the current fundraising priorities for you and your development team?  Can you describe your involvement with the development process?  How do you engage with fundraising staff?  How do you engage with donors and other external constituents?  How would you describe the culture of your department?  Can you tell me what you believe is needed to build an effective development operation?  How have you implemented these strategies within your own athletics department?  Can you give me any examples of strategies you enlist to retain staff, more so on the administrative side as opposed to coaches?  Can you describe how you support the personal and professional development of employees? Position: Athletics development staff member  Can you tell me about your role in the development office?  Can you describe the fundraising priorities for your team?  How did you learn about the priorities?  Can you describe what you need the most to do your job?  Can you describe a time when a new idea was suggested by a team member and implemented by leadership?  Can you describe your interaction with your direct supervisor and the access to the athletics director?  How is your job performance assessed on an annual basis?  Can you tell me about your interactions with any of the sports and how you handle sport specific fundraising?  How would you describe the relationship between the annual fund, major gifts, and stewardship staffs?  Can you share any external factors that have impacted your ability to raise money?  Can you describe your athletics director’s involvement in the development process?  Can you provide any examples of professional development opportunities that you have been afforded either internally or externally?  What factors cause you to enjoy your current job and work situation (including people, job, rewards, job content, coworkers, management, etc.)?  Can you describe any recognition or acknowledgement that you have received for your work?

121