Complete Manuscript

CTU Doctoral

SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING THROUGH IMPROVED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

 Matthew G Johnson

  Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Doctorate of Management Degree

Committee

Mentor: Kay Davis

Reader: Leland Horn

Reader: Daphne DePorres

June 4, 2014

Colorado Technical University Doctoral

Colorado Springs, CO

©

Matthew G Johnson, 2014

All rights reserved 

CTU Doctoral

2014

Dedication

To fundraising professionals

Table of Contents

Signature Page                                                                                                                        iii

Dedication                                                                                                                              iv

Table of Contents                                                                                                                   v

List of Figures                                                                                                                         vi

List of Tables                                                                                                                          vii

List of Charts                                                                                                                          viii

Vita                                                                                                                                         ix

Abstract                                                                                                                                  x

Chapter One – Introduction                                                                                                   1

Chapter Two – Literature Review                                                                                          8

Chapter Three – Research Methodology                                                                                19

Chapter Four – Results                                                                                                           28

Chapter Five – Conclusion                                                                                                     40

Appendix A                                                                                                                            46

References                                                                                                                              49

List of Figures

Figure 1 – Conceptual Model for Research                                                                            5

Figure 2 – Organizational Culture Pyramid                                                                            9

List of Tables

Table 1 – Social Constructionist Worldview                                                                          20

Table 2 – Sample Demographics                                                                                             29

Table 3 – Organizational Climate Items by Category                                                 30

Table 4 – Nonprofit Advancement Organizational Climate Items                                         32

Table 5 – Leadership Organizational Climate Items                                                               34

Table 6 – Non-fundraising Organizational Member Organizational Climate Items               35

Table 7 – Participants that answered the question with an example                                      39

List of Charts

Chart 1 - All respondents with total scores on agree and disagree                                         36

Vita

1983                            Bachelor of Arts, Communication

Tennessee Temple University, Chattanooga, TN

1991 – 2004                Area Representative (Fundraiser)

BBN International Radio,

Charlotte NC (Wichita, KS Facility)

2006                            Master of Science, Project Management

CTU Online,

Colorado Springs, CO

2006 – 2013                Director of Church Operations (Fundraiser)

United Methodist Youthville, Inc.

                                    Wichita, KS

2006                            Master of Science, Business Management

CTU Online,

Colorado Springs, CO

2010 – 2011                Adjunct Instructor

                                    Colorado Technical University Online

2012 – Present                        Adjunct Instructor

                                    University of Phoenix – Wichita Campus

2013 – 2014                Director of Development (Fundraiser)

EmberHope, Inc.

                                    Wichita, KS

2014                            Doctorate of Management

CTU Doctoral,

Colorado Springs, CO

2014 – Present             VP of Development & Communications (Fundraiser) 

Kansas Council on Economic Education

Wichita, KS

Abstract

SUCCESSFUL FUNDRAISING THROUGH IMPROVED ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE

by

Matthew G Johnson

Doctorate of Management

CTU Doctoral, Colorado Springs, CO 20124

Kay Davis – Mentor

Fundraising is about relationships.  A nonprofit organization builds and maintains relationships with its donor base to provide a stable and steady stream of income.  When a relationship is broken, funding is removed by that particular donor until the relationship can be mended.  Relationships bring a certain level of expectation.  The donors have expectations of the nonprofit organization and nonprofit advancement tries to meet these expectations as the relationship grows and the donors become more involved.  As the donors’ expectations are met by nonprofit advancement they extend these expectations to the rest of the nonprofit organization.  When the extended organizational members do not meet these expectations, the relationship becomes vulnerable.  The conceptual framework for this research project was based on a model of nonprofit organizational decision making units (DMUs) (Gelade, Ivery, 2003) and nonprofit funding decision making units and how this relationship creates success in securing funding.  Literature of two distinct areas was reviewed.  First, studies about organizational climate were summarized including definitions, tools used to measure the construct, and also important findings of other researchers.  The second area of review focuses on fundraising practices.  Studies are reported that describe how the practices of fundraising were characterized and studied in the past.  The primary goal of this research was to understand how the organizational climate of an organization can influence nonprofit advancement’s ability to secure funding for the nonprofit organization. The methodology was an exploratory study of the lived experiences of fundraisers and their perceptions regarding how the organization’s climate has impacted their ability to secure funding.  Survey items focused on their perceptions about the current organizational climate of their organizations.  The data led to three conclusions. First, nonprofit advancement climate is good; second, nonprofit organizational climate varies at the organizations represented and last, views regarding successful fundraising varied among the fundraisers participating. Since there is little in the literature about the actual experience of being a fundraiser, this research will contribute to the research on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. 

Chapter One: Introduction

Fundraising is about relationships.  A nonprofit organization builds and maintains relationships with its donor base to provide a stable and steady stream of income.  When a relationship is broken, funding is removed by that particular donor until the relationship can be mended.  Rebuilding a relationship is more difficult than maintaining a good one.  Maintaining a good relationship is hard work.  It requires insight, integrity, involvement and empathy.  According to National Philanthropic Trust (2010), 81% of total giving to charities came from individuals (including bequests).  Individual giving represents those who give small amounts on a consistent basis.  Many nonprofit organizations depend on these smaller, consistent (many monthly) gifts to help fund the fulfillment of services to clients.  There are the occasional larger gifts from corporations or grant making foundations, but combined these represent the other 19% of giving.  The key relationship is that of nonprofit advancement, responsible for securing funding for the organization, and a donor. 

Most nonprofit organizations have an advancement department.  This department is responsible for engaging the donors, corporations and grant making foundations mentioned earlier as funding sources for the nonprofit organization.  The advancement department may have several team members or exist as a one person department. 

The dynamics of the advancement department are important in building the necessary relationships to create funding for the organization.  There are many advancement teams that function quite well as a unit.  They are successful in creating funding for their organization.  They are creative in building relationships with long term donors and involving new donors in the mission of the nonprofit organization.  Many of these relationships have been developed over a long period of time.  Many of these relationships result in becoming personal friends.  An influence on this relationship is the other organizational members within the nonprofit organization.  During the early days of building the relationship, organizational members who are not a part of the advancement department have an impact on the quality of the relationship or even if the relationship can be developed at all.  However, long term relationships are also broken by the influence of the non-advancement organizational members.

Relationships bring a certain level of expectations.  The donors have expectations of the nonprofit organization.  Nonprofit advancement tries to meet these expectations as the relationship grows and the donors become more involved.  As the donors have their expectations met by nonprofit advancement, they extend these expectations to the rest of the nonprofit organization.  When the extended organizational members do not meet these expectations, the relationship becomes vulnerable. Consider these actual stories:

During an event featuring clients, staff and donors of a nonprofit organization, a non-fundraising organizational member used an expletive after being injured during a fall.  It was stated loud enough for many to hear including donors.   Being a faith-based nonprofit organization, the use of this type of language was not deemed appropriate.  The donor’s expectations were not met.  Nonprofit advancement spent several future encounters rebuilding this broken relationship to preserve the relationship as donor and/or as an advocate for the nonprofit organization.  It seemed like a simple slip of the tongue, but it became a difficult barrier to overcome.

As the year came to an end, several donors had committed to making a gift by yearend in response to a pledge they had made to the nonprofit organization.  As nonprofit advancement reviewed these pledges, they noticed one particular donor had not yet made his pledge payment.  The donor was contacted by nonprofit advancement to verify if a check had been mailed.  The actual donor was not in the office, but their finance staff stated that the check had already cleared.  The finance department of the nonprofit organization was contacted and there was no record of the check being received.  Additional phone calls were made.  The actual donor was contacted and made aware of what was going on to the best of nonprofit advancement’s ability.  A couple of days later the actual donor called the nonprofit organization and was transferred to the finance department.  During the conversation with the finance department the donor was not treated with respect and the problem was pushed back on the donor.  The donor felt this was inappropriate.  The donor did fulfill their pledge obligation.  However, the donor communicated with nonprofit advancement that there would be no future donations.  Nonprofit advancement immediately started to repair the relationship but to no avail at the current time.

It is my belief that these anecdotes are more the norm than not.  Non-fundraising organizational members make major impacts on the ability of nonprofit advancement to secure funds.  The climate of an organization influences every organizational member.  The success of nonprofit advancement is dependent upon the climate of the entire organization.

Statement of Research Purpose

My premise is that the climate of any nonprofit organization will enhance or deter the ability of nonprofit advancement to function most effectively. If nonprofit advancement resides in an environment with less than an ideal climate, the ability to create and maintain an effective relationship (secure funding) will be hindered.  Nonprofit advancement may in itself have a good organizational climate. However, the larger organizational climate creates the greater influence on the success of nonprofit advancement.

The primary goal of this research is to understand the influence of organizational climate on nonprofit advancement’s success in securing funding for the nonprofit organization.  The methodology will be an exploratory study of the lived experiences of advancement staff and their perceptions regarding how the organizational climate has impacted their ability to be successful.  Using an exploratory process, a survey measuring perceptions of the organizational climate and a request for two specific fund-raiser experiences are posed to advancement staff in multiple organizations. Specifically, the experiences requested were:

1.      An experience where an opportunity was lost considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

2.      An experience where you were successful in securing a donation considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

Conceptual foundation

The conceptual foundation for this research project is based on a model of nonprofit organizational decision making units (DMUs) (Gelade, Ivery, 2003) and nonprofit funding decision making units and how this relationship creates success in securing funding. 

Nonprofit organizational DMUs (NPO) will be defined as the separate DMUs that create the nonprofit organization.  Nonprofit funding DMU (NPF) is defined as private funding from decision making units such as individuals, foundations or grant making entities.  Nonprofit advancement DMU (NPA) will be defined as the decision making unit used to secure funding.  This would include, but is not limited to personal asks, grant writing, direct mail and events.  The nonprofit advancement DMU will not be considered a part of the nonprofit organization DMU for this study.

The specific area of interest for this study is how the organizational climate influences the DMUs. Figure 1 shows that there is a one-way relationship between the NPO and NPF while there is a two-way relationship between the NPF and NPA.  My position for this study is that this one-way relationship between the NPO and NPF is influenced by the overall organizational climate of the NPO.  The NPO provides little influence on the organizational climate of NPA.

I am seeking to understand nonprofit organizational climate’s impact on nonprofit funding acquisition through the described experiences of the Nonprofit Advancement Decision Making Unit (NPA).  The research design is based in phenomenological principles.  The methodology will be an exploratory study of the lived experiences of the NPA and their perceptions regarding how the NPO’s climate has impacted their ability to be successful with the potential donor. 

Significance of Research Purpose

Organizational Climate has been/is being discussed in many different settings (Communication: Guzley, 1992; Commitment: Noordin, Omar, Sehan, Idrus, 2010; Involvement: Shadur, Kienzle, Rodwell, 1999; Job Element Satisfaction: Thompson, n.d.; Organizational Variables: Zhang, Liu, 2010).  There are discussions about the difference between culture and climate, often times using the terms interchangeably (Denison, 1996; Fawcett, Brau, Rhoads, Whitlark, 2008; Jung, Scott, Davies, Bower, Whalley, McNally, Mannion, 2009).  Based on various research studies, I believe that climate is an outward expression of culture (Patterson, West, Shackelton, Dawson, Lawthom, Maitlis, Robinson, Wallace, 2005; Nazari, Herremans, Isaac, Manassian, Kline, 2011).  It is what outsiders see about the organization.  It is what organizational members see about the organization.  There are many studies about the impact of climate on organizational performance (Cahalane, Sites, 2008; Cooil, Aksoy, Keiningham, Maryott, 2009; Elankumaran, 2004; Glisson, Hemmelgarn, 1998; James, Choi, Ko, McNeil, Minton, Wright, Kim, 2008; Johannsen, Johnson, Stinson, 1976; Neal, West, Patterson, 2005; Patterson, Warr, West, 2004; Rogg, Schmidt, Shull, Schmitt, 2001; Glisson, 2007).  Many of these studies relate to service outcomes in nonprofit organizations.  Nonprofit organizations with a better climate provided better services to the end client.  The gap in the literature relates to nonprofit organizational climate and the funding acquisition of the nonprofit organization. 

If nonprofit organizational climate can create better service to its clients, would it not also create better funding acquisition?  The potential donors (NPF) perceive the organizational climate created in the organization (NPO).  They make funding decisions on these perceptions.  Some donors (NPFs) perceive the organization climate through their relationship with the member of nonprofit advancement (NPA).  The relationship between the NPF and the NPA is significant.  Many NPFs will fund based on this perception. If this was the only perception of the organization considered then there would not be many funding issues for nonprofits.  However, the relationship between the organization (NPO) and the donor (NPF) is a significant factor and is the main one that creates a break in the donor (NPF) and nonprofit advancement (NPA) relationship.  In the stories cited earlier, the NPO caused a break in the NPF relationship.  Nonprofit advancement (NPA) is the one that must rebuild the relationship with the potential donors and this includes mending any misconceptions about the nonprofit organization. 

I want to enlighten NPOs on the significance of organizational climate as it relates to funding acquisition.  I want nonprofits to benefit from this research and find ways to look at their organization as a whole and create a climate that lends itself to funding acquisition success.  Nonprofit organizations are looking for ways to increase their funding acquisition.  I believe that creating a better climate within the organization will not only lead to better services for the clients but better funding to provide those services.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Literature of two distinct areas was reviewed.  First, studies about organizational climate are summarized including definitions, tools used to measure the construct, and also important findings of other researchers.  The second area of review focuses on fundraising practices.  Studies are reported that describe how the practice has been characterized and studied in the past.

Organizational Climate - Definition

Organizational climate has many definitions that have evolved over time.  What truly makes up the climate within an organization?  Many of these definitions come from the worldview of the researcher. Depending on what definition we accept and what worldview we espouse, the direction (bias) a researcher brings to the research will be influenced (Puusa, 2006).  So what is organizational climate? “Organizational climate, defined as the way in which organizational members perceive and characterize their environment in an attitudinal and value-based manner (Denison, 1996; Moran and Volkwein, 1992; Verbeke, Volgering, and Hessels, 1998), has been asserted as an important and influential aspect of satisfaction and retention, as well as institutional effectiveness” (Thompson, nd).  Calahane and Sites (2008) paraphrasing James & James, 1989; James, James & Ashe, 1990; James & Jones 1974 and James & Sells, 1981 stated: “Organizational climate is a collective perception of the work environment by the individuals within a common system.” “Climate, as such, is a stable organizational characteristic that is maintained over time and which gains considerable inertia as generations of workers come and go (Wiener, 1988)” (Calahane, et al, 2008).  “Organizational climate is a relatively ending quality of the internal environment that is experienced by the members, influences their behavior and can be described in terms of values of a particular set of characteristics of the organization (Renato Tagiuri, 1968)” (Wordpress, 2008).  “Organizational climate is the set of characteristics that describe an organization and that (a) distinguish one organization from other organizations; (b) are relatively enduring over time and (c) influence the behavior of the people in the organization (Forehand & Gilmer, 1964)” (Wordpress, 2008).  Patterson, Warr & West (2004) quoting Denison 1996 described climate as “those aspects of the social environment that are consciously perceived by organizational members” (pg 193).

A very close cousin to organizational climate is organizational culture.  I believe that Deshpande and Webster (1989) provide a clear distinction between culture and climate in quoting Schnieder and Rentsch (1987)…

climate refers to the ways organizations operationalize the themes that pervade everyday behaviors that get rewarded, supported and expected by organizations (the ‘what happens around here’).  Culture refers to the history and norms and values that members believe underlie climate (the ‘why do things happen the way they do’) and the meanings organizational members share about the organization’s imperative (pg 5).

Another way to look at climate and culture is demonstrated in the following diagram.  The observable culture could also be the organizational climate.  This is what people (internal and external) see and thus perceive how the organization functions. 

Schneider & Snyder (1975) provide an excellent definition of organizational climate and one that aligns itself with the worldview of this researcher: 

Organizational climate is most adequately conceptualized as a summary perception which people have of (or about) an organization.  It is, then, a global impression of what the organization is. Many different classes of events or organizational practices and procedures may contribute to the global or summary perception people have of their organization (pp 318-319, italics mine).

Organizational Climate - Studies

There are many studies about the impact of organizational climate on organizations.  Of the studies reviewed for this research project, there are three types of organizations studied: manufacturing, retail sales and child welfare agencies.  These studies also featured topics such as productivity, effectiveness, customer perception, employee involvement and retention.  We will begin this section with a description of these studies

Manufacturing. Johannsen, Johnson & Stinson (1976) investigated relationships between organizational climate, productivity and satisfaction among coal miners.  Kangis, Gordon & Williams (2000) looked at the electronic manufacturing sector and the knitwear and hosiery manufacturing companies.  Companies performing above or below an average will also show different climate measurements.  Corporate effectiveness was observed when the perception of employees’ of involvement in decision making, information sharing and management support was greater. 

Elankumaran (2004) studied the relationship between personality, organizational climate and job involvement with 300 workers at the floor level in two identical textile mills in India that were a part of the National Textile Corporation owned by the Government.  90 respondents were selected to receive the Organizational Climate questionnaire as the final phase of the study.  The results of this study found no significant relationship between organizational climate and job involvement or organizational climate and personality.  To increase job involvement and enhance organizational effectiveness one must have a realistic view of personality and organizational climate.

Patterson, et al (2004) studied organizational climate and company productivity: the role of employee affect and employee level at 42 manufacturing companies in the UK with employees ranging from 70 – 1150.  Organizational climate was described with five aspects that were found to correlate significantly with productivity: “concern for employee welfare, skill development, reflexivity, innovation and flexibility and performance feedback” (pg 206).  Employees that perceived their organization placing more emphasis on these aspects were more productive than others. 

Neal, West, Patterson (2005) studied whether effective human resource management (HRM) practices are contingent on organizational climate and competitive strategy among 92 UK manufacturing firms ranging from 60 – 1769 employees.  Organizational climate was measured to assess the perceptions of employees and their work environment.  Their results revealed when there is a poor organizational climate there is more correlation between HRM and productivity.  This is because favorable organizational climates had less room to show improvement since they were already functioning in a productive manner.

These studies demonstrate the strong relationship between organizational climate and productivity and effectiveness.  They also demonstrate that organizational climate is a perceptional construct.  The results of Johannsen, et al, (1976) indicated that organizational climate is positively related to productivity (pg 68).  “Climate is much more in the foreground of organizational members’ perception” (Kangis, et al, 2000, pg 533).  Kangis, et al (2000) identified a significant relationship between organizational climate variables and performance variables.  Job involvement influenced by personality and organizational climate is an important construct maximizing organizational effectiveness (Elankumaran, 2004).  Employees who allocate discretionary effort to their work rate the organizational climate as positive (Neal, et al, 2005).  Employee perception of the organization meeting their expectations were more productive than others (Patterson, et al, 2004).

Retail Sales.  Rogg, Schmidt, Shull & Schmitt (2001) studied HR practices within organizations and relating those practices to measures of organizational effectiveness mediated by organizational climate.  Organizational climate then influences the attitudes and behaviors of employees and ultimately effectiveness.  This study featured 385 franchise automotive dealerships. 

Cooil, Aksoy, Keiningham & Maryott (2009) studied perceptions of organizational climate and business-unit outcomes.  They believed measuring organizational climate was critical because of the link to organizational success.  The study was with 107 superstores of a multinational retail grocer in continental Western Europe. 

In discussing organizational climate and organizational performance, “employee evaluations of organizational climate have been related to the perceptions of the customers who purchased the organization’s services or products” (Rogg, et al., 2001, pg 435).  The perception of organizational climate of the organizational member influences the perception of organizational climate of the customer.  Relationships between organizational climate and customer service are statistically significant.  Variables involving customer orientation and employee commitment dimensions were significant as well.  Organizational climate and customer satisfaction are correlated (Rogg, et al., 2001).  Cooil, et al. (2009) found that a positive organizational climate is necessary for financial success but not the cause of such success.

Child Welfare Agencies.  Glisson & Hemmelgarn (1998) conducted the first study stating organizational climate is a major predictor of the quality and outcomes of children’s services (pg 402).  “The research suggests that attitudes shared by employees about their work environment are important determinants of the organization’s effectiveness” (pg 404).  This study focused on the service quality received by children placed in state custody and have been in custody for at least one year.  “Organizational climate had a positive effect on both process and results” (pg 417).  Bednar (2003) found similar results.  “Apparently employee’s perceptions of the workplace and their roles in that workplace can have an influence on clients’ perceptions of services” (p 10).

Glisson (2007) cited a number of studies done by his organization that linked culture and climate to service quality, service outcomes, worker morale, staff turnover, the adoption of innovations and organizational effectiveness.  Data was collected from 97 child welfare agencies nationwide with 88 agencies meeting the study criteria.  The results of this study of child welfare systems found that those agencies with significantly better outcomes had significantly better climates.

Cahalane & Sites (2008) discussed the climate of child welfare employee retention.  Organizational factors are a major predictor of turnover.  Factors include quality of supervision, intrinsic worker fulfillment, job satisfaction from appropriate assignments, personnel policies and organizational climate.  This study was with graduates of a Title IV-E program that had received funding for their education with the stipulation that they maintain employment with a sponsoring child welfare organization.  Individuals selected for the study were those who had completed their obligation.  “Employees’ interaction and experience within the organization in which they work is replicated with those who receive their services” (pg 96).

Child Welfare agencies are a particular interest to this researcher.  Glisson, et al. (1998) found that service effectiveness had more relationship to organizational climate than to system configurations.  Previous studies seemed to fail because they focused on the system configuration rather than on the dimension of organizational climate and related attitudes of service providers. 

Organizational climate was again shown to be a perceptional construct.  Glisson (2007) states that climate is the property of the individual and captures the way people perceive their work environment.  “Organizational climate is created when the individuals in a work unit, team or organization share the same perceptions of how their environment affects them as individuals” (pg 739).  Organizational climate was also shown to impact turnover.  The results suggest that creating positive organizational climates lead to retention of highly skilled and educated employees.  Personnel issues are a significant factor in child welfare agencies (Cahalane, et al., 2008). 

Fundraising.  In reviewing literature about fundraising, one finds much about how to have a successful fundraising event, writing a winning direct mail piece, website enhancements, telephone scripting, etc.  Sargeant (2001) is a proponent of relationship fundraising as first recognized by Burnett (1992).  Relationship fundraising is about the donor (NPF) relationship with nonprofit advancement (NPA).  How does the NPA facilitate the NPF relationship after a donation is made?  This is a critical relationship but is not the focus of this research. 

“Donors exhibiting a high level of loyalty may develop favorable perceptions as a consequence of their relationship, or their favorable perceptions may predispose them to continuing their association for a long period” (Sargeant, 2001, pg 188).  Again, these donor perceptions are with nonprofit advancement (NPA) and not the organization (NPO) as a whole.  As in the model presented, there is a two-way relationship between the NPA and NPF.  This relationship does create successful fundraising.  The focus of this research is that the overall organization’s climate (NPO) impacts this two-way relationship in a negative manner. 

Shapiro (2010) asked the question, “does service matter?  The value of service quality and donor perceptions of service is apparent within the non-profit sector” (pg 154).  Shapiro continued to discuss the importance of service quality and fundraising success particularly in college athletics.  The service quality is referring to the nonprofit advancement’s (NPA) quality of service to the donor (NPF).  The quality of this service can influence donor satisfaction and behavior.  A donor’s (NPF) perception of service quality (NPA) tends to lead to staying active and becoming loyal contributors.  This perception is one reason that for this project. Nonprofit advancement (NPA) is not considered a part of the nonprofit organization (NPO).

Arthur Brooks (2004) wrote about the effectiveness of nonprofit fundraising.  Social welfare agencies receive 12% of all individual charitable giving (pg 363).  Most donations to social welfare agencies are of the smaller on average gift as compared to educational institutions.  Since social welfare agencies depend on these smaller gifts they need more of them.  Being effective in funding acquisition is important.  “Fundraising performance is an evaluation focus that governments and other funders will almost certainly increasingly adopt in their contracting and granting processes” (pg 364).  How is effectiveness measured?  At some point, when the last dollar spent to fundraise returns less than a dollar, is it effective?  Population, economics and demographics of the area where a nonprofit provides its service(s) also impacts what may be considered its effectiveness.  He discusses two ratios of fundraising: one that deals with what is left over after fundraising and the other in an organization’s ability to retain and target donors.  Brooks then prefers to use the Adjust Performance Measures (APM) because of its ability to account for environmental influences that may make the raw data comparisons unfair and unreliable.

Organizational Climate - Measured

In the studies cited in this research there were several different instruments used to measure organizational climate.  Some were created by the researchers.  Others used previous instruments that are proven.  Others used a mixture of these two approaches.  The instruments varied from nine items to more than 115 items.  There is no established instrument for measuring organizational climate.  Glisson (2007) cited a literature review performed by Verbeke, Volgering & Hessels (1998) where they identified more than 30 definitions for organizational climate (pg 739).  Patterson, et al. (2004) cited a 2000 study by Wilderon, Glunk & Maslowski where they identified organizational climate dimensions associated with organizational performance.  The issue was different organizational climate aspects emerged as important in each different study (p 194).  A brief description follows of the different approaches taken.

Johannsen, et al. (1976) used a nine item tool that included organization of work, supportiveness, job satisfaction (6) and productivity.  They computed correlations between the two climate dimensions and both satisfaction and productivity.  Glisson, et al. (1998) used the Psychological Climate Questionnaire assembled by James and Sells (1981) to develop their own Children’s Services Organizational Climate Survey.  This questionnaire included versions of 10 scales used by numerous researchers over the past three decades (pg 411).  Kangis, et al. (2000) used the Perceived Work Environment (PWE) developed by Newman (1977) using 31 items in six climate dimensions.  Rogg, et al. (2001) used a 22 item survey on four aspects of organizational climate: employee commitment, cooperation and coordination, customer orientation, management competence and consistency.  Elankumaran (2004) used a questionnaire based on Likert’s Profile of Organizational Characteristics.  This tool has 51 items that cover eight dimensions of organizational climate: leadership process used, character of motivational forces, character of the communication process, character of the interaction-influence process, character of the decision-making process, character of goal setting or ordering, character of control process and performance goals and training (pg 121). 

Patterson, et al. (2004) created their own inventory based on 17 dimensions determined to be important based on previous research and discussions with managers (pg 200).  Glisson (2007) used their Organizational Social Context (OSC) to measure organizational climate on three second-order factors: engagement, functionality and stress.  Cahalane, et al. (2008) used the Children’s Services Organizational Climate Survey developed by Glisson & Hemmelgarn (1998).  This instrument uses 115 items that measure 14 domains of the work environment.  Cahalane (2008) also added to the inventory to collect demographic and other data not covered in the instrument. Cooil, et al. (2009) created their own instrument based on interviews with the research organization and employee perception questions developed by a firm specializing in employee perceptions.

Literature Review Conclusion

Each of these studies successfully related organizational climate to the outcome they were looking for.  Manufacturing companies increased their productivity, retail sales organizations increased customer satisfaction and child welfare agencies better served their clients and impacted employee retention.  There is no argument that organizational climate impacts many aspects of an organization whether they are a for-profit or nonprofit organization. 

Organizational climate has a one way impact on particular aspects of an organization.  Can organizational climate cause a specific reaction in one aspect of an organization and cause another specific reaction in another aspect?  The goal of this research is to study the impact of organizational climate and a nonprofit’s ability to secure funding through nonprofit advancement.  The organizational climate of a nonprofit organization (NPO) creates a specific reaction with the nonprofit funders (NPF) that is different from the specific reaction between nonprofit advancement (NPA) and the nonprofit funder (NPF).

Organizational climate is about perception.  “Climate is often considered largely limited to those aspects of the social environment that are consciously perceived by the organizational members” (Denison, 1996).  “Climate is internal to the extent that it is affected by individual perceptions” (Woodman & King, 1978).  Successful fundraising is about perception.  Shapiro (2010) examined studies on the nature of service and the impact of perceived service quality on donor behavior (p. 154).  “Donors who scored high in perceptions of satisfaction were 1.8 times more likely to remain active contributors” (Shapiro, 2010, p. 157). 

Organizational climate perception is more than that of the organizational members; it also includes stakeholders and the community at large.  This perceived organizational climate of the stakeholders and community at large is the influence on successful fundraising.  If this organizational climate perception is facilitated by nonprofit advancement (NPA), then successful fundraising will be the outcome.  If this organizational climate perception is facilitated by other organizational members (NPO), then successful fundraising may not be the outcome.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The primary goal of this research was to understand how the organizational climate of a nonprofit organization can influence a fundraiser’s ability to secure funding for the nonprofit organization.  The methodology was an exploratory study of the lived experiences of fundraisers and their perceptions regarding how the organization’s climate has impacted their ability to secure funding.  Since there is little in the literature about the actual experience of being a fundraiser, this research will contribute to the research on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. 

A social constructionist worldview that seeks understanding, social and historical construction, multiple participants and theory generation may help to determine if the organizational climate of any nonprofit organization will enhance or deter the ability of nonprofit advancement to function most effectively.  If nonprofit advancement resides in an environment with less than an ideal climate, the ability to create and maintain an effective relationship (secure funding) will be hindered.  Social constructivists do hold some assumptions.  Individuals create meaning for their experiences.  Individuals seek to make sense of the world in which they live and work. 

Nonprofit Funders are individuals who create meaning based on their experience with the Nonprofit Organization and Nonprofit Advancement.  Nonprofit Advancement are individuals who create meaning based on their experiences with the Nonprofit Funders and the Nonprofit Organization.  The Nonprofit Funder and the Nonprofit Organization are the primary relationships for this study, in particular how this relationship impacts Nonprofit Advancement and Nonprofit Funder relationship.

Social constructionists rely on the participant’s perception of the situation.  The focus of this research was to understand nonprofit advancement’s perception of the organizational climate within the nonprofit organization.  Both survey data and open-ended items on the electronic survey contributed to having the participants create meaning from their experiences.  Meaning is negotiated from social and historical interactions of the participants.  It is not imprinted on them.  Meaning is interpreted through the interaction of people (social) and through the history the participant brings to the situation.  This history can be both personal (what they bring to the organization) and organizational (their time with the organization). 

Table 1 Social Constructivist Worldview

Understanding	Impact of Organizational Climate
Multiple Participant meanings	Fundraisers’ lived experiences
Social & Historical Contribution	Personal and Organizational
Theory generation	Finding the meaning

Social constructionists tend to bring themselves into the research.  Their social and historical experiences influence their interpretations.  They want to understand the meaning others share about the world.  Theory is developed as a result of the meaning. 

Qualitative Design Approach with Supporting Survey Data

The primary goal of this research was to understand any relationship that may exist between organizational climate and an organizational member’s role in funding acquisition.  An exploratory study has been chosen for this research.  This strategy of inquiry was chosen because the research will study the individual’s lived experience through documenting their stories in a survey format.  This qualitative approach would be considered intermediate by Edmondson and McManus (2007).  They define intermediate as (a) proposing new relationships between new and established constructs (organizational climate and nonprofit advancement success), (b) exploratory testing of new propositions (organizational climate and organizational funding), and (c) provisional theory – often one that integrates previously separate bodies of work (organizational climate, fundraising success and nonprofit funding) (p.1160). 

Survey data will be solicited from target subjects. The survey items focused on their perceptions about the current organizational climate of their organizations. Various demographic variables will also be measured and subjects invited to share their lived experiences as a fundraiser in their organization. 

Role of the Researcher

Some of the subjects are known, nonprofit advancement colleagues, through networking and conference attendance. The impact of researcher bias was considered and analyses processes were designed to minimize the effects of this bias. The researcher is a nonprofit fundraiser.  In chapter one some real life examples were given to demonstrate the importance of organizational climate and funding acquisition.  These are my stories.  The researcher believes this to be true more often than not in many nonprofit organizations.  It would be delightful to find otherwise.   

Target Participants and Sampling Plan

Nonprofit advancement were defined as individuals, described as full-time employees of a nonprofit organization, hired to do fundraising in support of programs and services provided by a nonprofit organization.  Size and type of nonprofit will not be considered.  For those nonprofits with several team members in nonprofit advancement, each member will be asked to participate. 

From my network, 255 individuals were known to participate in either the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Greater Wichita Chapter or the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) Mid-America Chapter.  “The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) is the professional association of individuals and organizations that generate philanthropic support for a wide variety of charitable institutions.  Founded in 1960, AFP advances philanthropy through its 30,000 members in 207 chapters throughout the world” (www.afpnet.org).

These groups consist of professional fundraising staff, faculty, consultants and other individuals interested in fundraising.  A diverse group of nonprofits were represented.  The plan invited the members of both of these groups to participate.  This study focused on those in these groups who are employed as full-time fundraisers by their respective organizations.  These groups represent less than 1% of the overall AFP membership. Approximately 21 of these individuals are personally known by the researcher.

Data Collection Strategy

Data collection involved a two-step process.  First, an electronic invitation was used to solicit their participation in a survey on fundraising. Individuals who are a part of the two selected AFP Chapters received an email communication inviting them to participate in an online survey.  This first email asked them to identify whether they are described as a full-time employee hired to fundraise for their organization and provide informed consent for the research process.  Once participant agreed, a second email was sent with a link to the online survey.  The online survey was created using Goggle® Drive (formerly Google Docs).  This survey tool allows for unlimited questions and responses.  This site also provides reports based on input from the participants.  The site is easy to navigate for participants.  The tracking process was accomplished anonymously for the participants.  The original list contains the participants’ contact information.  Once the survey link was sent, the participants were tracked as anonymous.  The researcher was not informed whether the participants completed the survey or not.  Following the second email, providing the link, a third email was sent later to remind the participants to complete the survey.  This third email reminder was sent to all known participants that had agreed to take the survey requesting them to complete the survey.    

Questionnaire Description

The questionnaire consists of three sections.  Section One asks some demographic information about length of time with their current organization, gender, education, etc.  Section Two asks questions about perception of Organizational Climate using a Likert scale.  Section Three asks open-ended questions about nonprofit advancement success or failure due to the interactions of organizational leadership and non-fundraising staff with nonprofit funders.  The questionnaire provided an explanation of terms, such as organizational leader, that may be unfamiliar terms to the participant.

The questionnaire was created using three existing surveys as a model. The Personal Leadership Questionnaire as developed at Tarleton State University of Texas.  The Leadership Assessment Personal Satisfaction Survey as developed at the Learning Center by Dr. Arky Ciancutti (2011).  The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument as developed by Cameron and Quinn (2000) and downloaded from the Illinois State University website (http://my.ilstu.edu/~llipper/com435/survey_ocai_culture.pdf).  Permission was obtained by Dr. Cameron to use the OCAI to conduct this research.  “Dr. Cameron grants you permission to use the OCAI, and your variation on the instrument, free of charge” (Mecham Smith, 2012). 

The survey instrument was submitted to fellow colleagues who had experience in the organizational development field.  Feedback was incorporated into the instrument.  The instrument was validated as a means for capturing organizational climate within the particular organization of the nonprofit advancement.  The survey instrument was also provided to other colleagues to test its functionality and layout.  Feedback was incorporated to make changes in the answer choices and which answer would default.  A “select a rating” option was added to make sure the participant understood they were to rate the statement. 

Question structure was developed by the researcher based on questions in the featured resources.  No direct questions were quoted from either of the instruments.  Some of the questions were used to form the structure of the questions asked in this survey.  The questions also focused on the concept of fundraising.  Since organizational climate is a construct based on perception, I wanted to capture the perception of nonprofit advancement about their organization’s climate. 

Using an exploratory survey process, two specific fundraiser experiences were explored:

1. Describe an experience where a funding opportunity was lost considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

2. Describe an experience where you were successful in securing a donation considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

The result of the exploratory study process was a picture of the lived experiences of nonprofit advancement and the impact of organizational climate on their success.  In the qualitative approach, the benefits for this research discovered the lived experiences of the individuals involved.  The participants provided stories of how organizational climate of their nonprofit organization impacted the ability of nonprofit advancement to secure or lose nonprofit funding.  The only envisioned downside for this research is do we really want to know the answer? 

Human Subject Considerations

According to Frankel and Siang (1999) there are three principles for protecting human subjects: autonomy, beneficence, and justice. 

The first principle, autonomy, requires that subjects be treated with respect as autonomous agents and affirms that those persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to special protection.  The second principle, beneficence, involves maximizing possible benefits and good for the subject, while minimizing the amount of possible harm and risks resulting from the research.  The last principle, justice, seeks a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits associated with research, so that certain individuals or groups do not bear disproportionate risks while others reap the benefits (pg 2).

To address the first principle of autonomy, all participants were treated as autonomous agents.  There was special attention given to make sure that all participants were treated equally and have equal access to participating in the study. Personal tracking information was not associated with responses to the study. 

“Benefits can be defined as gain to society or science through contribution to the knowledge base, gain to the individual through improved wellbeing, or empowerment of the individual by giving him or her a voice” (Frankel, et al., 1999, pg 3).  A benefit of participating in this research was an opportunity to contribute to the knowledge base and empowerment of the individual. 

An identified burden of this research was the time it took to complete the survey.  Another burden was the possible emotional aspect of telling the stories of organizational climate impacting the fundraiser negatively.  The balance between the benefits and the burdens are fairly equal.

As the subjects are all adults and not part of a protected class of individuals, this research poses only a minimal risk and qualifies to be considered Exempt research. “(M)inimal risk exists when the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (IRB Guidelines Ch III, 1993).  The study was approved by CTU as meeting the criteria for Exempt Research.

Another area of concern was confidentiality.  “Confidentiality is necessary when personal identifiers such as name, birth date, telephone number, photograph, email address or mailing/street address are collected” (Society for Science, NA).  The email addresses and names came from the membership rolls of the two identified AFP chapters.  This information was used to send the survey to the participants. 

Analysis

The responses from Section Two, the questions about organizational climate, gave good reflection of how nonprofit advancement perceived the organizational climate.  Questions also solicited information of how they felt about being a part of their organization; whether they felt appreciated; and whether they had clear expectations and felt committed to the organization.  Perceptions of organizational leadership’s and non-fundraising organizational member’s role in funding acquisition were also obtained.  Individual responses are presented using frequency distributions and select measures of dispersion and central tendency.

The open-ended questions in section three required some reflection by nonprofit advancement.  “The initial step in qualitative analysis is reading” (Maxwell, 2005, pg 96). As I reviewed the open-ended questions, I organized the data along concepts such as significant statements, meaning units or an essence description.  The method of the qualitative research was inductive.  The researcher created meaning from the collected data.  In social constructionist approaches, “the inquirer works more from the “bottom” up, using the participants’ views to build broader themes and generate a theory interconnecting the themes” (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007, p23). 

The responses to Section Three of the questionnaire were the primary focus of this research.  I sought to allow the open-ended answers to reflect themes or groupings.  These themes or groupings created an initial coding definition.  “(T)he goal of coding

is not to count things, but to fracture” (Strauss, 1987, p.29) the data and rearrange them into categories that facilitate comparison between things in the same category” (Maxwell, 2005, pg 96).  Codes or groupings discovered during the reading of the data were checked for drifting.

Chapter 4: Results

While the study was designed to be exploratory, an electronic survey process was used to capture both quantitative and qualitative data. To determine the nonprofit advancement’s perceptions about the organization’s climate, a Likert scale was applied to a set of statements.  Following the quantitative section, a series of open-ended items were presented to get to the main issue being researched which is a picture of the lived experiences of nonprofit advancement.  The participants shared stories of how nonprofit advancement secured or lost nonprofit funding due to the interaction of organizational leadership and/or non-fundraising organizational members. 

Research Context

The study took place with a community of advancement professionals.  The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) has several chapters throughout the world.  Two particular chapters were selected as mentioned in chapter three (The Mid-America and the Greater Wichita Chapters of AFP).  These groups consist of advancement professionals, consultants and others who support fundraising activities and training.  The chapters span a geographical area from Kansas to North Dakota.

Research Participants

The particular participants for this study consisted of those within the aforementioned groups that were fulltime advancement professionals for a particular organization.  There was no real attempt to select genders or ages of the participants.  Participants did provide their gender, level of education and length of time with the organization.  Length of time as nonprofit advancement was not considered though it was mentioned by some in their qualitative responses.

Research participants consisted of 21 individuals, three males and 18 females.  The two targeted groups selected for this study consisted of 255 individuals.  This sample of 21 represented 8.25% of the target population. 

Research Instruments

The electronic survey consisted of 27 questions.  There were six demographic items.  There were 16 items involving a Likert scale to determine nonprofit advancement’s view of the organization’s climate.  The remaining five questions were open ended questions about nonprofit advancement’s experience with organizational leaders and other non-fundraising organizational members and their success or not of securing funds for their organization.

Demographics of the Sample

The demographic data were placed into SPSS for analysis.  Using crosstabs, the information shows variation in length of employment and level of education.  

The demographic items show that there were three males and 18 females who responded to the survey.  Each of the participants have at least a bachelor’s degree, eight have a masters and one with a doctorate.

Table 2 Sample Demographics (N=21)

How long have you worked for this organization?	Male	Female	Bachelors	Masters	Doctorate
less than one year	1	6	4	3	0
more than 1 year less than 3 years	0	6	3	3	0
more than 3 years less than 5 years	1	1	1	1	0
more than 5 years less than 10 years	1	5	4	1	1
Total	3	18	12	8	1

Perceptions of Organizational Climate

The 16 Likert scale items each measured an individual characteristic of organizational climate.  The questionnaire was created using three existing surveys as a model. The Personal Leadership Questionnaire as developed at Tarleton State University of Texas.  The Leadership Assessment Personal Satisfaction Survey as developed at the Learning Center by Dr. Arky Ciancutti (2011).  The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument as developed by Cameron and Quinn (2000) and downloaded from the Illinois State University website (http://my.ilstu.edu/~llipper/com435/survey_ocai_culture.pdf).  Using SPSS, frequency tables were created for each of the 16 items showing the percentages and counts of subjects’ degree of agreement or disagreement with each item.  As the data was reviewed three distinct categories of items emerged.  These categories were items related to nonprofit advancement, organizational leadership and non-fundraising organizational members. (see Table 3)

Table 3 Organizational Climate Items by Category

Category	Number of Survey Items
Nonprofit Advancement Member	7
Organizational Leadership	6
Non-fundraising organizational members	3

The discussion of findings is presented below by category with tables showing the frequency distribution for each.

Nonprofit Advancement Category of Organizational Climate Items.  The responses that generated the highest number of subjects that strongly agreed were all categorized as being related to the nonprofit advancement.  Two items had over 80% of the subjects strongly agreeing: I am committed to the organization (86%) and I am clear regarding the expectation of raising funds (81%). The items involving feeling appreciated for efforts varied as when the item speaking to appreciation of the funds collected had a high overall agreement (95%) with 71% who strongly agree and 24% who somewhat agreed. However, the item I believe leadership appreciates me had an overall agreement of just 76% with 43% strongly agreeing and 33% somewhat agreeing. There was 91% overall agreement that organizational leadership trusts me to make the right decisions; 48% strongly agreed and 43% somewhat agreed. Lastly, regarding whether the subjects often tell people this is a great place to work., 57% strongly agreed with another 19% somewhat agreeing with this statement. 

An interesting finding for the Nonprofit Advancement Category items were that two items within this category had 19% and 14% of the subjects indicating they were neutral for the item.  These percentages were among the highest for responses that were neutral.  The item I tell people often that this organization is a great place to work had 19% of the subjects choosing a neutral response. I believe that organizational leadership appreciates me had 14% of the subjects choosing to be neutral in response.  See Table 4. 

Table 4 Nonprofit Advancement Organizational Climate Items Frequency Distribution (N=21)

Individual Organizational Climate Items	Strongly Agree (n/%)	Somewhat Agree (n/%)	Strongly Disagree (n/%)	Somewhat Disagree (n/%)	Neutral (n/%)	I do not Know (n/%)	No Answer (n/%)
I am committed to this organization.	18/86%	2/10%	0	0	1/5%	0	0
The organization expects me to ask for personal, corporate, foundation and church donations.	17/81%	1/5%	1/5%	2/10%	0	0	0
The organization appreciates when I obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.	15/71%	5/24%	0	0	1/5%	0	0
I tell people often that this organization is a great place to work.	12/57%	4/19%	0	0	4/19%	0	1/5%
I believe that organizational leadership trusts me to make the right decision.	10/48%	9/43%	0	1/5%	1/5%	0	0
The organization clearly communicates its goals and strategies to me.	9/43%	11/52%	0	1/5%	0	0	0
I believe that organizational leadership appreciates me	9/43%	7/33%	0	1/5%	3/14%	0	1/5%

Organizational Leadership Category of Organizational Climate Items.  The leadership category had responses in several of the Likert scale choices.  There were some very close scores across the four scales of strongly agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree and somewhat disagree.  The next highest rankings of strongly agree and somewhat agree of the entire survey were categorized as being related to organizational leadership.  77% responded strongly agree or somewhat agree that organizational leadership trusts the staff to make the right decisions.  24% strongly agreed and 53% somewhat agreed.  However, 10% responded to this same statement (organizational leadership trusts the staff to make the right decisions) as somewhat disagree and 14% responded neutral. 

77% of respondents chose strongly agree or somewhat agree to organizational leadership involves others in the planning process.  54% somewhat agree and 33% strongly agree.  33% responded strongly disagree or somewhat disagree to organizational leadership involves others in the planning process.  14% strongly disagree and 19% somewhat disagree.  10% responded as neutral.

76% responded that organizational leadership appreciates the staff of the organization.  33% strongly agreed and 43% somewhat agreed.  14% responded to this statement (organizational leadership appreciates the staff of the organization) as somewhat disagree. 

62% of respondents responded that organizational leadership appreciates the staff and creates an atmosphere of mutual trust.  43% somewhat agree and 19% strongly agree.  33% responded somewhat disagree to organizational leadership appreciates the staff and creates an atmosphere of mutual trust.  

Organizational leadership involves others in the planning process received 57% of responses of strongly agree (33%) and somewhat agree (24%).  This statement also garnered 33% of the strongly disagree (14%) and somewhat disagree (19%) of the responses.  10% responded as neutral.

The highest scores of strongly disagree and somewhat disagree relate to organizational leadership is asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations (48%) and Organizational leadership understands their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations (43%).  24% strongly disagree and 24% somewhat disagree and 24% strongly disagree and 19% somewhat disagree respectively.  Yet, this was not a clear distinction, as 52% also responded strongly agree (33%) or somewhat agree (19%).  5% responded neutral to organizational leadership understands their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.  See Table 5.

Table 5 Leadership Organizational Climate Items Frequency Distribution (N=21)

Organizational Climate	Strongly Agree n/%	Somewhat Agree n/%	Strongly Disagree n/%	Somewhat Disagree n/%	Neutral n/%	I do not know n/%	No Answer n/%
I believe that organizational leadership trusts its staff to make the right decisions.	5/24%	11/53%	0	2/10%	3/14%	0	0
I believe that organizational leadership appreciates the staff of the organization.	7/33%	9/43%	0	3/14%	1/5%	1/5%	0
Organizational leadership creates an atmosphere of mutual trust.	4/19%	9/43%	0	7/33%	0	0	0
Organizational leadership involves others in the planning process.	7/33%	5/24%	3/14%	4/19%	2/10%	0	0
Organizational leadership is asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.	7/33%	4/19%	5/24%	5/24%	0	0	0
Organizational leadership understands their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.	7/33%	4/19%	5/24%	4/19%	1/5%	0	0

Non-fundraising Organizational Member Category of Organizational Climate Items.  The final category of the non-fundraising organizational members provided the highest in negative scores for two of the three questions related to this section.  58% strongly disagreed or somewhat disagreed that non-fundraising organizational members are asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations. It was an even response of 29% for each.  52% strongly disagreed (19%) or somewhat disagreed (33%) that non-fundraising organizational members understand their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.  5% responded neutral or I do not know to this statement as well.

The category also received some positive responses as well.  67% responded that commitment to this organization runs high (48% strongly agree, 19% somewhat agree).  10% responded strongly disagree (5%) and somewhat disagree (5%) to commitment to this organization runs high.  An interesting twist on this statement is that 14% responded neutral and 10% responded as I do not know.  24% of the respondents did not have a clear picture of the commitment within the organization.  See Table 6.

Table 6 Non-fundraising Organizational Member Organizational Climate Items Frequency Distribution (N=21)

Organizational Climate	Strongly Agree n/%	Somewhat Agree n/%	Strongly Disagree n/%	Somewhat Disagree n/%	Neutral n/%	I do not know n/%	No Answer n/%
Other non-fundraising organizational members are asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.	4/19%	4/19%	6/29%	6/29%	0	1/5%	0
Other non-fundraising organizational members understand their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.	1/5%	7/33%	4/19%	7/33%	1/5%	1/5%	0
Commitment to this organization runs high.	10/48%	4/19%	1/5%	1/5%	3/14%	0	2/10%

Placing all three sections together can be seen in Chart 1.  The strongly agree and somewhat agree are added together and strongly disagree and somewhat disagree are added together.  You can see that the highest positive scores are in the nonprofit advancement (NPA) section and the highest negative scores are in the organizational leadership (OL) and the non-fundraising organizational member (STF) sections.

Chart 1 - All respondents with total scores on agree and disagree

 Responses to Open-ended questions

Analysis of the open-ended responses brought three themes to light, focus on the money, focus on the mission and focus on the donor.  Each of these themes expressed themselves in the positive and negative stories provided.  To set the stage for this section, 23% of the participants did not answer the five open ended questions.  53% of participants answered all five of the questions.  Not all answers provided insight.  Many wrote that they had not experienced the theme discussed in the question.

Focus on the Money.  In a research project where successful fundraising is based on organizational climate, you would think that focusing on the money would be a good thing.  However, this is not the case.  One respondent wrote, “The organizational leadership was too concerned about the dollar goals and not about the donor’s wishes.”  Another respondent stated that the Executive Director of the organization lacked the courage to face issues and talk with donors and no ability to share the vision of the organization.  Another respondent wrote, “a higher level manager has come in after me and taken the sponsorship for anther division making all of my work null and void.”  Leadership was focused on the money for their personal reasons and not about the relationship that breeds funding.

Focus on the mission.  This theme is similar to focusing on the money.  Organizational leadership can focus on the mission of the organization without creating a connection with the donor.  “The Dean asked for a lot of money, but did not have an explanation of why the program would need it.”  Another respondent wrote, “the President did an exceptional job showing the vision and impact the university is having.”  Focusing on mission works both ways, being able to articulate the mission in a way that engages the funding source is positive.  Focusing on the mission and not creating this engagement is detrimental to securing funding.

Focus on the donor. Focusing on the donor has positive and negative impacts.  “The donor perceived that the gift they were willing to make was not appreciated by the organization and its leadership.”  “Leadership does too much talking and not enough listening in meetings with donors.”  Others wrote about experiences were the donor felt a connection with organizational leadership, has a good experience as a volunteer, or a direct benefit from a program designed by non-fundraising staff.  “The donor felt good chemistry with the organizational leadership and that made them want to support our mission.”  “A donor felt good about a bad situation after working with a sincere program staff member.” 

The responses to the open ended questions did not give a perfectly clear picture.  There were positive stories and negative stories for each of the questions.  The following table gives a numerical value to those that responded to each question with an example.  See Table 7.  

Table 7 Participants that answered the question with an example (N = 16)

A. How long have you worked for this organization?	Number of participants in this criteria	unsuccessful organizational leadership	successful organizational leadership	unsuccessful non-fundraising organizational members	successful non-fundraising organizational members	“smooth things over”
Less than one year	4/25%	4	4	0	2	2
more than 1 year less than 3 years	6/38%	2	6	1	6	4
more than 3 years less than 5 years	1/6%	1	1	1	1	1
more than 5 years less than 10 years	5/31%	4	4	3	3	4
Total # stories (n=53)		11	15	4	12	11

Chapter 5: Conclusions

The premise of this research was that the climate of any nonprofit organization will enhance or deter the ability of nonprofit advancement to function most effectively. If nonprofit advancement resides in an environment with less than an ideal climate, the ability to create and maintain an effective relationship (secure funding) will be hindered.  Nonprofit advancement may in itself have a good organizational climate; however, the larger organizational climate creates the greater influence on the success or not of nonprofit advancement.

The primary goal of this research was to understand the influence of organizational climate on nonprofit advancement’s success in securing funding for the nonprofit organization.  The methodology was an exploratory study of the lived experiences of nonprofit advancement and their perceptions regarding how the organization’s climate has impacted their ability to be successful.  The literature review demonstrated that organizational climate does impact organizational effectiveness and success.  Other literature describes success for nonprofit advancement as a role that only they play in their success. In addition to a survey measuring organizational climate perceptions about how the organization impacts nonprofit advancement’s success or not, nonprofit advancement was asked to tell two stories.

·         An experience where an opportunity was lost considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

·         An experience where you were successful in securing a donation considering conditions within your organization and/or a donor’s experience with your organization separate from your relationship.

  The data led to three conclusions that follow the discussion in chapter one. First, nonprofit advancement climate is good; second, nonprofit organizational climate varies at the organizations represented and last, views regarding successful fundraising varied among nonprofit advancement participating.

Nonprofit Advancement Climate is good

Measuring organizational climate is critical because of the link to organizational success.  As discussed in chapter one, nonprofit advancement can have a separate and good climate outside of the overall nonprofit organization.  The dynamics of nonprofit advancement are important in building the necessary relationships to create funding for the organization.  There are many nonprofit advancement teams that function quite well as a unit.  They are successful in creating funding for their organization.  They are creative in building relationships with long term donors and engaging new donors to get involved in the mission of the nonprofit organization. 

With the highest scores on the Organizational Climate survey relating to this section (nonprofit advancement, NPA); I conclude that the NPA Climate is good.  NPA commitment runs high.  NPA understands their role and expectation in securing funding.  They are appreciated for their success.  They share with others that this is a great place to work.  Johannsen, Johnson & Stinson (1976) investigated relationships between organizational climate, productivity and satisfaction among coal miners.  Corporate effectiveness was observed when the perception of employees’ of involvement in decision making, information sharing and management support was greater.  The implications are that hiring right can lead to success in fundraising.  Organizational climate was described with five aspects that were found to correlate significantly with productivity: “concern for employee welfare, skill development, reflexivity, innovation and flexibility and performance feedback” (Patterson, et al, 2004, pg 206).  Employees that perceived their organization placing more emphasis on these aspects were more productive than others. 

Future researchers may want to segment the nonprofit organizations into groups of similarity based on their size and mission.  A smaller nonprofit organization may have a better organizational climate and a better nonprofit advancement climate versus a larger nonprofit’s organizational climate and its larger nonprofit advancement office.  This was not considered in this research but may provide additional insight as we study organizational climate and its impact on successful fundraising.

Nonprofit Organizational Climate varies at the organizations represented

Organizational Climate is what outsider’s see about the organization.  “Organizational climate is a relatively ending quality of the internal environment that is experienced by the members, influences their behavior and can described in terms of values of a particular set of characteristics of the organization (Renato Tagiuri, 1968)” (Wordpress, 2008).  The research demonstrated that the perception of nonprofit advancement of organizational climate was mixed.  There were responses for strongly agree and strongly disagree.  The telling answers may have been the neutral answers.  These responders chose not to offer an opinion.  Glisson, et al. (1998) found that service effectiveness had more relationship to organizational climate than to system configurations. The implication is that nonprofit organizational leadership and non-fundraising organizational members need to understand their role in obtaining funding and to want to be asked to secure such funding. 

Future researchers may want to survey nonprofit organizational leadership about their specific fundraising experience or knowledge before becoming an organizational leader.  Future researchers may want to survey those non-fundraising organizational members on their understanding of their role in obtaining funding.

Views regarding successful fundraising varied among the fundraisers participating

The point of this research was to learn about successful fundraising as it relates to organizational climate.  Since the organizational climate results were mixed, the successful fundraising results were also mixed. Nonprofit advancement stories were of success and failure in securing funding.  Looking back at Table 7, 11 of the 16 respondents shared a story of failure working with organizational leadership.  Fifteen of the 16 respondents share a story of success working with organizational leadership.  Four shared a story of failure and 12 shared a story of success working with non-fundraising organizational members.  Eleven shared a story of having to smooth things over.  Those with more than 3 years less than 5 years had the most stories of success working with both organizational leadership and non-fundraising organizational members. Those with less than one year or more than 5 years less than 10 years were even on stories of success and failure working with organizational leadership. Each had four stories of success and failure.  Not everyone had a story.  Some chose not to answer or “go into detail.”  

An implication is that nonprofit advancement needs to spend more time educating the nonprofit organization on its role and impact on fundraising.  It is not typically the role of nonprofit advancement to create or sustain an organizational climate.  Organizational climate is created by leadership.  The studies mentioned in chapter two related organizational climate to productivity, effectiveness, customer perception, employee involvement and retention.  These are particular to organizational leadership and not nonprofit advancement.  Another implication is that nonprofit advancement may need to celebrate the successes of those within the NPO that do bring success.  But as Cooil, et al. (2009) found that a positive organizational climate is necessary for financial success but not the cause of such success (italics mine).

Future researchers may want to take into account the length of tenure with a nonprofit. It seems that the three – five year span of time influences something about the success of nonprofit advancement.  The new person to the nonprofit organization, less than one year, as well as the more tenured person, more than 5 less than 10, seem to have more difficulty with organizational leadership. The more than 5 less than 10, also have more issues with non-fundraising organizational members.  I believe that these are factors for more research.

Future researchers may also want to look at segmenting the nonprofits along size and mission here as well.  Influencing the organizational climate may work better at a smaller nonprofit organization rather than a larger nonprofit organization.

Closing Comments

It is the opinion of the researcher that this adds to the literature around organizational climate and fundraising.  I believe it is an area for future study.  I believe this research can enlighten NPOs on the significance of organizational climate as it relates to funding acquisition.  I believe nonprofit organizations will benefit from this research and find ways to look at their organization as a whole and create a climate that lends itself to funding acquisition success.  Nonprofit organizations are looking for ways to increase their funding acquisition.  I believe that creating a better climate within the organization will not only lead to better services for the clients but better funding to provide those services.  To restate Arthur Brooks (2004) “Fundraising performance is an evaluation focus that governments and other funders will almost certainly increasingly adopt in their contracting and granting processes” (pg 364).  Brooks (2004) discusses two ratios of fundraising: one that deals with what is left over after fundraising and the other in an organization’s ability to retain and target donors (italics mine). 

Appendix A

Section One Demographic Information
How long have you worked for this organization?   less than 1 year      more than 1 less than 3 years      more than 3years less than 5 years   more than 5 years less than 10 years      more than 10 years
Gender:   Male   Female  Prefer not to answer
Identify your highest level of education:  High School      Some College      Associates      Bachelors      Masters      Doctors
What was the field or discipline of your highest degree?
Do you carry any type of licensure or certification?   Yes, please describe                                                                                      No
Section Two Organizational Climate (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Somewhat Disagree, (3) Neutral, (4) Somewhat Agree, (5) Strongly Agree, (6) Do not know
Select the number appropriate for your answer	1	2	3	4	5	6
1 The organization clearly communicates its goals and strategies to me.
2 I believe that organizational leadership appreciates me.
3 I am committed to this organization.
4 I believe that organizational leadership appreciates the staff of the organization. (Organizational leadership refers to those who are at the highest level on the organizational chart)
5 I believe that organizational leadership trusts me to make the right decision.
6 I believe that organizational leadership trusts its staff to make the right decisions.
7 I tell people often that this organization is a great place to work.
8 Organizational leadership creates an atmosphere of mutual trust.
9 Organizational leadership involves others in the planning process.
10 Commitment to this organization runs high.
11 The organization expects me to ask for personal, corporate, foundation and church donations.
12 The organization appreciates when I obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.
13 Other non-fundraising organizational members are asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.
14 Other non-fundraising organizational members understand their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.
15 Organizational leadership is asked to obtain personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.
16 Organizational leadership understands their role in obtaining personal, corporate, foundation or church donations.
Section Three These questions are open-ended.  Please provide as much information as you need to. All answers will be kept confidential and not individually reported in a way that your identity or your organization would be revealed.
17           Describe an experience where you were unsuccessful in securing a donation due to an encounter between organizational leadership and the funding source.
18           Describe an experience where you were successful in securing a donation due to an encounter between organizational leadership and the funding source.
19           Describe an experience where you were unsuccessful in securing a donation due to an encounter between non-fundraising organizational members and the funding source.
20           Describe an experience where you were successful in securing a donation due to an encounter between non-fundraising organizational members and the funding source.
21           Describe an experience where you had to “smooth things over” with a funding source because of an encounter with your organization that was outside your direct relationship with the funding source.

Appendix B

From: Cameron, Kim [mailto:cameronk@umich.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 08:07
To: 'brotheryo@GMAIL.COM'
Subject: RE: OCAI use

Dear Matt,

Thank you for your inquiry about using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI).

The OCAI instrument (Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument) was copyrighted by Professor Kim Cameron in the 1980s, but because it is published in the Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture book, it is also copyrighted by Jossey Bass.  

The instrument may be used free of charge for research or student purposes, but a licensing fee is charged when the instrument is used by a company or by consulting firms to generate revenues.  Because you fall into the first category, Dr. Cameron grants you permission to use the OCAI, and your variation on the instrument, free of charge.  He would appreciate it if you would share your results with him when you finish your study.

Please let me know if you have other questions.

Best regards,

Meredith Mecham Smith

Assistant to Kim Cameron

Kim Cameron
William Russell Kelly Professor
Ross School of Business
and Professor of Higher Education
School of Education
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
734-615-5247
Kim_Cameron@umich.edu

From: Matt [mailto:brotheryo@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:21 PM
To: kim_cameron@umich.edu
Subject: OCAI use

Dr. Cameron,

I am a doctoral student with CTU Doctoral in Colorado Springs, CO.  My topic is discussing the effects of organizational climate on a fundraiser’s success in securing funding for a nonprofit.  The OCAI does assess culture.  I believe that climate is the outward expression of culture.  I would like permission to use the OCAI as a model to structure questions for my research instrument.  I do not plan to use exact questions.  I have attached my proposed questionnaire.

Thank you for your consideration.

Matt Johnson

Doctoral Candidate

316.250.1979

References

Bednar, S. G.  (2003).  Elements of satisfying organizational climates in child welfare agencies.  Families in Society.  Vol. 84, Iss 1.  New York.  P 7 - 12

Brooks, A. C.  (2004).  Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit fundraising.  The Policies Study Journal.  Vol. 32, No. 3 pg 363 – 374

Cahalane, H., Sites, E. W.  (2008).  The climate of child welfare employee retention.  Child Welfare League of America. Vol. 87, #1 p. 91 – 114

Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., Keiningham, T. L., Maryott, K. M.  (2009).  The relationship of employee perceptions of organizational climate to business unit outcomes: An MPLS approach.  Journal of Service Research 2009 11:278 – 294  DOI 10.1177/1094670508328984

Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L.  (2007).  Designing and conducting mixed methods research: Sage Publications Inc.

Denison, D. R.  (1996).  What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars.  Academy of Management Review 1996.  Vol. 21 No. 3, p 619 - 654

Deshpande, R., Webster, Jr., F.E. (1989).  Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda.  Journal of marking.  Vol. 53 (January 1989) pp 3-15

Edmondson, A. C., McManus, S. E.  (2007).  Methodological fit in management field research.  Academy of Management Review, Vol 32, N0 4, 1155 – 1179.  Retrieved 1.10.09 from CTU-IAS Moodle classroom.

Elankumaran, S.  (2004).  Personality, organizational climate and job involvement: An empirical study.  Journal of Human Values 2004 10:117  DOI 10.1177/097168580401000205

Fawcett, S. E., Brau, J. C., Rhoads, G.K., Whitlark, D., Fawcett, A.M.  (2008).  Spirituality and organizational culture: Cultivating the ABCs of an inspiring workplace.  International Journal of Public Administration, 31:420-438  Tayor & Francis Group, LLC.  DOI: 10.1080/01900690701590819

Frankel, M. S., Siang, S.  (1999). Ethical and legal aspects of human subjects research on the internet.  American Association for the Advancement of Science.  http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/sfrl/projects/intres/main.htm

Gelade, G. A., Ivery, M.  (2003).  The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance.  Personnel Psychology.  56, 383-404

Glisson, C., Hemmelgarn, A.  (1998).  The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems.  Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp 401-421

Glisson, C. (2007).  Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective services.  Research on Social Work Practice 2007 17: p 735-747  DOI 10.1177/1049731507301659

Guzley, R.M.  (1992).  Organizational climate and communication climate: Predictors of commitment to the organization.  Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 4 pp 379-402

James, L.R., Choi, C.C., Ko, C.E., McNeil, P.K., Minton, M.K., Wright, M., Kim, K.  (2008).  Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research.  European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17 (1), 5-32  DOI: 10.1080/13594320701662550

Johannsen, R. D., Johnson, T. W., Stinson, J. E. (1976).  Organizational climate and productivity.  Journal of Management 1976 2:65  DOI: 10.1177/0149206376002002009

Jung, T., Scott, T., Davies, H. T. O., Bower, P., Walley, D., McNally, R., Mannion, R.  (2009).  Instruments of exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature.  Public Administration Review.  November/December 2009.  pp 1086 - 1096

Kangis, P., Gordon, D., Williams, S., Organisational climate and coorperate performance: An empirical investigation.  Management Decision. London: 2000. Vol. 38, Iss 8, p. 531-5540

Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd Ed.) (p 136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nazari, J. A., Herremans, I. M., Isaac, R. G., Manassian, A., Kline, t. J. B.  (2011). Organizational culture, climate and IC: an interaction analysis.  Journal of Intellectual Capital.  Vol 12 No. 2.  Pp 224-248 Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1469-1930 DOI 10.1108/146919311111223403

Neal, A., West, M. A., Patterson, M.G.  (2005). Do organizational climate and competitive strategy moderate the relationship between human resources management and productivity?  Journal of Management 2005 31:492 DOI 10.1177/0149206304272188

Noordin, F., Omar, S., Sehan, S., Idrus, S.  (2010). Organizational climate and its influence on organizational commitment.  The International Business & Economics Research Journal; Feb 2010; 9, 2; ABI/INFORM Global pp 1-9

National Philanthropic Trust.  (2010).  Charitable Giving Statistics http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/statistics/

 Patterson, M., Warr, P., West, M.  (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level.  Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.  June 2004: 77.  ABI/INFORM Global pg 193 – 216

Patterson, M. G., West, M. A., Shackleton, V. J., Dawson, J. F., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., . . . Wallace, A. M. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 379-379+. http://search.proquest.com/docview/224880237?accountid=26967

Puusa, A.  (2006).  Conducting research on organizational identity.  Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies.  Retrieved 2.15.2009 from http://ejbo.jyu.fi/pdf/ejbo_vol11_no2_pages_24-28.pdf

Rogg, K. L., Schmidt, D. B., Shull, C., Schmitt, N.  (2001).  Human resource practices, organizational climate and customer satisfaction.  Journal of Management 2007 27:431 DOI: 10.1177/014920630102700403

Sargeant, A.  (2001).  Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal.  Nonprofit Management & Leadership.  Vol. 12 No. 2  p. 177 – 192

Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., Osborn, R.  (2008). Organizational behavior (10th Ed.)  Hoboken, NJ John Wiley & Sons

Schneider, B., Snyder, R. A.  (1975).  Some relationships between job satisfaction and organizational climate.  Vol. 60, No. 3.  318-328

Shadur, M.A., Kienzie, R., Rodwell, J.J.  (1999). The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of involvement.  Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 4 pp 479-503

Shapiro, S. L.  (2010) Does service matter?  An examination of donor perceptions of service quality and college athletics.  Sport Marketing Quarterly.  West Virginia University 19.  154 – 165

Society for Science (NA).  Risk Assessment.  www.societyforscience.org/isef/document/.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists.  Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, M. (nd).  Organizational climate perception and job element satisfaction: A multi-frame application in a higher education setting.  http://www.leadingtoday.org/weleadinlearning/mt05.htm

Woodman, R. W., King, D. C.  (1978). Organizational climate: Science or folklore?  Academy Management Review.  The academy of Management Review (pre-1986).  Oct 1978; 3, 000004; ABI/INFORM Global p 816 – 826

Wordpress (2008).  Organizational climate.  http://organizationalclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/organizational-climate/

Zhang, J., Liu, Y.  (2010). Organizational climate and its effects on organizational variables: An empirical study.  International Journal of Psychological Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2 www.ccsenet.org/ijps