Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, Dissertation Chair for Monica G. Williams, Dissertation Defense PPT.

1. 1
Engagement Levels of
Historically Black College and University Leaders in
Entrepreneurialism through Fundraising
______________________________________
A Doctoral Dissertation Defense by
Monica Georgette Williams
July 10, 2009
William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D.
Dissertation Chair

2. 2
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
William Allan Kritsonis, Ph.D., Dissertation Chair
David E. Herrington, Ph.D., Committee Member
Lisa D. Hobson Horton, Ph.D., Committee Member
Ronald Howard, III, Ph.D., Committee Member
Michael L. McFrazier, Ed.D., Committee Member

3. 3
Dissertation Defense Format
I. Statement of the Problem
II. Purpose of the Study
III. Research Questions
IV. Theoretical Framework
V. Method
VI. Major Findings
VII. Conclusions
VIII. Implications
IX. Recommendations for Further Study
X. References

4. 4
Statement of the Problem
• Tindall (2007) asserts that fundraising efforts of both
private and public HBCUs linger significantly behind the
established fundraising programs at PWIs.
• There are 105 HBCUs across the nation, yet few of these
institution’s leaders have devoted time and effort to
understanding the complexities and challenges associated
with fundraising at these institutions.
• Public HBCU institutional leaders face a growing dilemma
– how to strengthen university resources in a climate that
has historically relied almost wholly on public funding.

5. 5
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to determine the
entrepreneurial orientation of public HBCU leaders and to
determine if those orientations were related to the revenue-
generating activities of their institutions and the institutions’
financial stability.

6. 6
Research Questions
1. What connection exists between the Historically Black
College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their institution?
2. To what extent do Historically Black College and
University leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial
activities?
3. What factors are associated with best practices in
fundraising at Historically Black Colleges and Universities?

7. 7
Research Questions
4. How do the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution?
5. What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation
of the administrator’s role by the administrator?

8. 8
Theoretical Framework
According to Clark (1998), entrepreneurial activities comprise third-
stream income sources that include:
– innovative and profit-based, self-supporting operations that go
beyond traditional sources, such as business development
activities and innovative retail sales operations;
– activities that develop and enhance traditional income streams
such as endowment and tuition; and
– activities that involve both traditional and nontraditional aspects,
such as distance learning, which uses nontraditional methods of
teaching to gain tuition, a traditional source of income (which
was not considered in this study).

9. 9
Method
• Qualitative Study Design using the following variables:
– the amount of employment training and preparation
– length of employment at the institution
– innovative approaches used on the job
– creativity in fundraising strategies
– team building exercises implemented
– opportunistic tactics used to get the job done
– risk-taking approach to realize fundraising goals
– competitive nature
– vision-driven initiatives
– ability to be proactive
– persuasiveness
– professional experience
– philosophy of fund development
– the impact of private philanthropy on the institution

10. 10
Method continued
• Data was collected through on-line questionnaire developed
by the researcher
• Questions were developed based on Clark’s (1998)
discussion of entrepreneurial involvement by colleges and
universities
• Open-ended questions were used to capture responses of
individuals in their natural settings

11. 11
Method continued
• Data collected in Survey Monkey was analyzed through coding.
• Researcher carefully read through each response and identified a list
of main themes in the data.
• After each response was coded and verified, a frequency analysis of
the numeric codings was conducted.
• Findings were documented using percentages, the nature of the
themes, relationships and differences between the data, and
interrelationships within the themes.
• Summary measures of respondents’ perceptions of their own
entrepreneurial characteristics were produced by computing the
average of responses to items regarding individual entrepreneurial
traits.

12. 12
Method continued
• Inquiry was directed to 30 of the 47 Thurgood Marshall
College Fund (TMCF) member schools.
• TMCF law schools and 17 member schools were not
included in this study.
• Acting administrators or those who had not been in their
positions more than 12 months were not included in this
study they were serving on a temporary basis and/or that
they had not served in the current leadership capacity that
would allow them to objectively complete the
questionnaire.

13. 13
Method continued
• Institutional Review Board approved study for a minimum
of five schools within the TMCF member schools
• Representatives from 17 schools (56.6%) agreed to
participate in the study
• Administrators from 14 schools (46.6%) actually completed
the questionnarie

14. 14
Method continued
Interview Questions
Background Questions
1. In which state is your institution located?
2. What is your institutional enrollment?
3. What is your title?
4. How many years of experience do you have in this
position?
5. What is your highest level of education?
6. What additional training have you had to prepare you for
this position? (RQ 3)

15. 15
Method continued
Interview Questions
7. How long have you been employed at this institution?
8. Please select the following words you feel best describe
you: (RQ 1)
innovative risk taker
proactive creative
change agent persuasive
team builder competitive
opportunist visionary

16. 16
Method continued
Interview Questions
Philanthropic Cultivation
9. What is your professional experience within the fields of fund development and
university advancement? (RQ 4)
10. What is your philosophy of fund development? (RQ 5)
11. What members of your organization, including yourself, do you believe
responsible for fund development? (Please specify titles and exclude individual
names) (RQ5)
12. How does private philanthropy impact institutional initiatives? (RQ4)
13. What strategies do you employ to seek resources from private philanthropists?
(RQ4)
14. What strategies would you like to employ to seek resources from private
philanthropists but are unable to do so because of forces outside your locus of
control (i.e. financial constraints, policy restraints, etc.)? (RQ3)
15. What general differences do you perceive between your role as a university
leader/executive and the role of traditional business executives? (RQ2)

17. 17
Method continued
Interview Questions
Giving
16. In the last three years, how much money has been raised
from private philanthropic sources? (RQ1)
17. When was the last time your institution engaged in a
capital campaign? (RQ1)

18. 18
The Fundraising Cycle © by Seiler (2009 )

19. 19
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
What connection exists between the Historically Black
College and University leaders’ entrepreneurial
orientation and the financial stability of their institution?

20. 20
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
Entrepreneurial Characteristics
92.9
57.1
100
85.7
92.9 92.9
100
71.4
35.7
85.7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
InnovativeR
isk
TakerP
roactive
C
reative
C
hange
A
gentP
ersuasive
Team
B
uilderC
om
petitveO
pportunistV
isionary
Percentage

21. 21
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
• Building teams and being proactive were most popular
entrepreneurial characteristics
• Common entrepreneurial characteristics among the top
three surveyed fundraising institutions were innovative
(75%), creative (75%), team builder (100%), change agent
(100%), competitive (75%), visionary (75%), proactive
(100%), and persuasive (100%)
• Only one of the four respondents in this category reported
being a risk taker

22. 22
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question OneRespondent 15 Respondent 13 Respondents
9 & 11
Amount Raised $30,000,000+ $25,000,000 $15,000,000
innovative
  
creative
  
team builder
   
opportunist
 
risk taker

change agent
   
competitive
  
visionary
  
proactive
   
persuasive
   

23. 23
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
• Highest level of education could be interrelated to the
HBCU leader’s entrepreneurial orientation (Riggs, 2005)
– Two of three presidents have doctoral degrees and one
has a law degree
• President with the law degree (Respondent 13) reported that
his institution raised $25 million in the last three years
compared to Respondent 11 who raised $15 million and
Respondent 8 who did not report the amount of money raised

24. 24
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
• There appeared to be no connection between development
executives’ level of education and the amount of money
raised (Smith-Hunter, 2003).
– A development director (Respondent 9) with an
undergraduate degree raised the largest amount of
money among his participating peers.

25. 25
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Characteristics – Research Question One
• 30.7% of respondents reported that they had not
participated in a strategic fundraising effort or that they had
not launched a capital campaign in ten or more years.
• Michael Lomax, the “fundraising machine for private
HBCUs” believes that HBCUs should fundraise regardless of
their apprehensions (Stuart, 2009, p.6).

26. 26
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Activities – Research Question Two
To what extent do Historically Black College and University
leaders value and carry out entrepreneurial activities?
• Emerging themes among HBCU leaders
– it was more difficult to get support at universities than
businesses because businesses have more stringent
performance expectations (Dingfelder, 2007)
– that more flexibility is required of university leaders
(Dunkelberg & Cooper, 1988)
– there was minimal or no difference between university
leaders and business executives

27. 27
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Activities – Research Question Three
What factors are associated with best practices in fundraising at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities?
• Only four respondents (Respondents 3, 8, 10 and 16) took
advantage of the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy’s
training provided by the TMCF (Barrett, 2006)
– Indiana University offers the most comprehensive philanthropic
academic program to professionalize fundraising as an
occupation. Through a partnership with the Lilly Endowment
and The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, TMCF
provides training to development professionals from the 47
TMCF member schools.

28. 28
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Activities – Research Question Four
How do the institutions’ development practices influence
entrepreneurial activities for the purpose of advancing the
institution?
• There was an interrelationship between the factors associated with
best practices in fundraising and how the institutions’ development
practices influence entrepreneurial activities.
– Development professionals tended to have like responses when
reporting additional training they had to prepare them for their
positions and their professional experience within the fields of
fund development and university advancement

29. 29
Major Findings
Entrepreneurial Activities – Research Question Five
What is the perception of the entrepreneurial orientation of the
administrator’s role by the administrator?
• Surveyed HBCU administrators do recognize themselves as being
entrepreneurially oriented.
• The reported perceptions of entrepreneurial orientation among
participants suggests that there is an attitude among these leaders
that embraces a business-minded spirit.
• Every surveyed participant shared a philosophy of fund
development that could be attributed to entrepreneurial
orientation.

30. 30
Major Findings
Supporting Literature
• Entrepreneurs have orientations that influence growth and independence
(Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1988)
• The decline in public support for colleges and universities mandates that these
institutions seek private funds as a matter of survival (Johnsen, 2005).
• HBCUs need to engage in appropriate planning to achieve fundraising results
Barrett (2006).
• Due to the decline in state resources, public institutions are placing stronger
emphasis on fundraising (Riggs, 2005).
• “A business-like orientation focused on efficiency, accountability, and productivity
is reshaping the management of higher education” (Dingfelder, 2007, p. 2).
• Other researchers have described entrepreneurs as individuals who recognize and
seize opportunities when they occur (Smith-Hunter, 2003).

31. 31
Conclusions
• Given the shortfall in government support to public higher education,
it is nearly impossible to meet institutional demands without private
philanthropic support .
• Administrators who completed the questionnaire shared insightful
information that will assist fellow HBCU leaders in their quests to
secure private gifts to supplement their public funding.
• There was a shortage in staff in advancement offices.
– One respondent put it best saying “it takes money to raise
money”, and raising money requires a reasonable number of staff.
• Strategic planning emerged as a priority among respondents.
• Best fundraising practices recognized by organizations who focus on
fundraising are important professional development vehicles.

32. 32
Implications
Fund development is quite possibly the most important
activity that an HBCU administrator will undertake.
Without private dollars to support these institutions,
HBCUs will not be able to survive at a time when our
country is facing economic depression and consistent
declines in public funding.

33. 33
Recommendations for Further Study
1. A study could be conducted to include the public HBCU
presidents and chief development officers who were not
included in this study.
2. A study could be conducted to compare the
entrepreneurial engagement levels between public and
private HBCU leaders.
3. A study could be conducted to compare fundraising at Tier
One and Tier Two institutions.
4. A study could be conducted to identify the best fundraising
practices among all HBCUs.

34. 34
Recommendations for Further Study continued
5. A study could be conducted to determine the engagement
levels of other HBCU leaders not including the presidents
and chief development officers.
6. A study could be conducted to identify methods for
involving students in fundraising at HBCUs.
7. A study could be conducted to identify methods for
involving alumni in fundraising at HBCUs.
8. A study could be conducted to compare fundraising
between the Thurgood Marshall College Fund schools and
the United Negro College Fund Schools.

35. 35
Barrett, T. G. (2006). How strategic presidential leadership and institutional culture influenced
fundraising effectiveness at Spelman College. Planning for Higher Education, 35(1), 5-18.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college
presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
Dingfelder, D. C. (2007). Exploring the dimensions of entrepreneurial community colleges. Retrieved
May 9, 2008, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Dunkelberg, W., Cooper, A. et.al. (1987). New firm growth and performance. Frontiers of
Entrepreneurship Research, 307-321.
Johnsen, L. L. (2005). Understanding deliberative conflicts that confront academic fundraisers: A grounded
theory study. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and Learning Company
http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
References

36. 36
Masterson, K. (2008). Howard U. assembles fund-raising juggernaut. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. 54.
Riggs, D. G. (2005). Entrepreneurial activities in independent college and university presidents: A
view from the top. Retrieved May 5, 2006, from ProQuest Information and Learning
Company http://www.lib.umi.com/dissertations/search
Sieler, T. L. (2009). Roadmap to fundraising success. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from The
Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University
http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/TheFundRaisingSchool/PrecourseReadings/roadma
p_to_fundraising_success.aspx
Smith-Hunter, A. (2003, April). A psychological model of entrepreneurial behavior. Journal
of Business and Economics, 1-11.
Stuart, R. (2009) UNCF wrestles with new economy, old issues. Diverse Issues in Higher
Education, 23, 6.
Tindall, N. T. J. (2007). Fund-raising models at public historically Black colleges and
universities. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 201-5.
References