Selection of individuals to serve on major gift fundraising teams: a study of membership choice criteria

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector MarketingInt. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 17: 49–64 (2012)Published online 21 July 2011 in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.419

Selection of individuals to serve on majorgift fundraising teams: a study ofmembership choice criteriaRoger Bennett*London Metropolitan Business School, London Metropolitan University, UK

• Major gift fundraising (MGF) is a crucial activity for large UK charities and is one that is normally

undertaken by teams. This paper examines the criteria that the managements of large charities

apply when selecting individuals to serve on MGF teams. It also explores possible connections be-

tween team composition and MGF success. A questionnaire exploring this matter was distributed

to a sampling frame comprising 500 of the UK’s largest fundraising charities, resulting in 151

replies. It emerged that MGF teams which contained people who had been chosen on the basis of

their commitment to the MGF function, their communication and relationship nurturing abilities,

and their wide-ranging connections throughout an organisation were reported to perform better

than teams that were not deliberately assembled in this way. The more background research was

completed into an MGF prospect’s circumstances and preferences and the more diverse an MGF

team’s composition, the higher the probability of success. However, team size did not exert significant

effects on performance nor did (i) the personal status of any of a team’s members or (contrary to

expectations) (ii) the inclusion of individuals who knew a prospect personally. Teams withmembers

who possessed extensive experience of MGF did not perform substantially better than others.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: charities, fundraising, team-building, major gifts

Introduction

Most large UK charities have fundraising depart-ments containing sections or individuals whosemain job is to procure ‘major gifts’ from donors. Majorgifts (e.g. those with values in excess of £500000)come from individual philanthropists, trusts or founda-tions, companies or governments or emerge from bids

*Correspondence to: Roger Bennett, London Metropolitan Busi-ness School, LondonMetropolitan University, 84 Moorgate, LondonEC2M 6SQ, UK.E-mail: [email protected]


to collective fundraising entities such as telethons.These high-value donations represent an increasinglyimportant source of income for UK charities becauseof the growing concentration of income and wealthin the country. In 2008/2009, for example, the totalwealth of the UK’s 1000 richest individuals rose by29.9% (Sunday Times, 2010), with the UK’s 100wealthiest people giving £2.493 billion to goodcauses. Also in 2008/2009, the UK’s largest 100 familyfoundations donated £1.4 billion to charity, accountingfor 9% of all private philanthropic giving (Pharoah andKeidan, 2010). Data published in 2010 by Coutts Ltd.

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., February 2012

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

50 R. Bennett

reported that the number of donations with valuesexceeding £1 million was (at 201) higher in 2008/2009 than in any year since information on the mat-ter had been collected. Moreover, the total worth ofthese gifts (£1.548 billion) was greater than in anyprevious year (Breeze, 2010). Sargeant et al. (2002)observed how the wealth profile of the UK haschanged radically since the early 1980s, creating‘manymore people who are seriously rich’ and henceable and willing to make very large donations (p.7).Pre-existing literature on major gift fundraising

(MGF) has tended to focus on the drafting of suc-cessful bids (e.g. Hannah, 1997; Cluff, 2009), solic-itation strategies (e.g. Matheny, 1999; Sargeant andJay, 2004; Knowles and Gomes, 2009) and on report-ing and accountability issues (e.g. Kelly, 2000; Appelet al., 2007). A neglected topic concerns how largecharities organise their MGF efforts, notably vis-à-vishow they configure their MGF teams. The investiga-tion described in the succeeding sections addressedthis issue through an empirical study of the criteriaused by a sample of 151 charities to select employ-ees and outsiders to serve on MGF teams and howteam configuration decisions impacted on perceivedMGF performance.

Need for MGF teamworking

Major gift fundraising prospects may be identifiedfrom a charity’s database of existing supporters (e.g.its 50 highest value donors); from press reports of cer-tain individuals making multi-million pound gifts toother organisations; from contacts supplied by a char-ity’s board of governors; from well-wishers, govern-ment officials, politicians, executives in charitiesoperating in related areas or fundraising consultants;from expressions of interest by rich people; orfrom ‘cold’ speculative investigations. Overall re-sponsibility for preparing an approach to a pros-pect will be assumed by the charity’s head of MGF.It is highly unlikely however that this individual willbe able to succeed without the support of an MGFteam drawn from inside and outside the organisation(Cluff, 2009). Complex and multidisciplinary taskswill have to be completed requiring inputs from sev-eral departments, from employees at all levels of thecharity, and probably from external people. Researchinto a prospective donor’s characteristics, financialsituation, attitudes, values and personal preferences


is needed to establish both the compatibility ofthe charity’s work with the prospect’s interestsand the magnitude of the ask. An approach has tobe planned and delivered, and the probability of afavourable outcome must be assessed. Normally,the execution of all these duties will be beyond thecapacity of just one person. It is relevant to note inthis connection that, for very large gifts, the pro-spective donor is likely to seek advice from multiplesources (sometimes from a formally constitutedteam) before making a decision.

Assembling the team

Differences among major donors are frequently sub-stantial (Sargeant and Jay, 2004). Therefore, eachpitch should be individually crafted and is likely torequire the involvement of a different set of people.As various blends of expertise may be needed tomake a proposition attractive (cf. Homburg et al.,2002), effective MGF will often depend on selecting

the best team to deal with a prospect (Rader, 2000).An MGF team could include personnel from a largecharity’s marketing, fundraising, finance and opera-tions management departments, plus ad hocresearchers, a taxation professional, a lawyer, thecharity’s chief executive (or other top manager)and various outsiders (e.g. members of governingbodies, well-known celebrities, volunteers and/orexisting major supporters) (Hannah, 1997). The se-lected team will diagnose a potential donor’s values,wants and requirements, will nurture relationshipswith the person and develop a marketing mix spe-cifically tailored to the prospect’s preferences andwill prepare the ask (Knowles and Gomes, 2009).Normally, according to Sargeant et al. (2002),

the ask should be made by more than one personand with a financial advisor in attendance, becausemajor gifts involve ‘stop and think’ decisions that in-volve protracted and complex processes and aredriven by a broad range of motives. Sargeant et al.(2002) suggested that external team members whoare familiar with monied people (e.g. bankers, finan-cial planners) are especially useful in delivering theask. However, Sargeant et al. (2002) continued, acharity’s chief executive is not necessarily the mostappropriate person to lead the final approach, as theindividuals who prospected, cultivated and stew-arded a prospect may be far better equipped for


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

51Major gift fundraising

the task. Rader (2000) insisted nevertheless that thechief executive’s support should always be highly vis-ible because it demonstrates that the charity takes theprospect seriously. Knowles and Gomes (2009) ob-served how, as a matter of course, potential majordonors expect to be approached by people of appro-priate status and with ‘dignity and professionalism’.The use of inexperienced personnel to arrange theask could ‘irretrievably damage a relationship with amajor gift donor’ (p. 400), a point echoed by Hannah(1997) who observed that, too often, teams of inex-perienced staff were ‘launched directly into a (fun-draising) project without ensuring that factors vitalto success are in place’ (p. 169).

Diversity within the team

Much research has concluded that teams with par-ticipants possessing non-overlapping knowledgeand skills achieve superior performance (fordetails, see Mehra et al., 2001; Rodan and Galunic,2004; Auh and Menguc, 2005; Steward et al.,2010). Allegedly, teams containing diverse peopleare more competent. Often, diverse teams can ac-cess wider ranges of networks than teams with peo-ple from the same function (Emmerik et al., 2001),and this might stimulate group learning. Also, accessto broader networks may mean that diverse teamshave a greater variety of information sources (Melloand Ruckes, 2006). Diverse teams may be betterable both to distribute effort across multiple tasksand to deal with the demands of strategic complex-ity ( Jackson et al., 2003). Many synergies could oc-cur within a diverse team (Horwitz, 2005).The presence of a diverse range of abilities, skills and

perspectives within a gift solicitation team can, interalia, (i) facilitate the development of relationshipswith the prospect (cf. Homburg et al., 2002), (ii)stimulate the generation of creative ideas for craft-ing requests, (iii) open a wider range of communica-tion channels with a potential donor (cf. Peters andFletcher, 2004) and (iv) enable a charity to respondmore quickly and deeply to a prospect’s questions(cf. Hutt et al., 1985). A prospect will be exposed toa greater variety of useful and confidence-inspiringinformation, particularly in complicated donation sit-uations as may occur with, for instance, tax-efficientplanned giving (cf. Steward et al., 2010). The pros-pect might be impressed by a charity that makes its


request via a diverse multi-functional team, especiallyif the team includes respected outsiders.Diversity of thought within an MGF team could in-

duce enhanced learning, internal knowledge exchangeand the cross-fertilisation of ideas (Peters and Fletcher,2004). Moreover, diversity could create access to awider range of resources (Steward et al., 2010)and to a more influential list of contacts (Petersand Fletcher, 2004).However, research into organisational team build-

ing has identified a number of problems possiblyarising from team diversity. These difficulties in-clude ‘bottlenecks’ in information processing anddissemination and greater scope for disagreementconsequent to the presence within the team of abroader variety of viewpoints (Auh and Menguc,2005). The review of ( Jackson et al., 2003) on 63studies of the effects of team diversity reported sev-eral investigations which concluded that diversitycan have negative consequences for group cohe-sion, satisfaction and commitment. Communicationmight be more difficult within a diverse team; infor-mation passing between participants might not beunderstood. Members of diverse teams may be morelikely to disagree on their preferences for alternativecourses of action (Mello and Ruckes, 2006) and inconsequence may find it difficult to pool theirefforts to complete a single task. The leader of adiverse team might not be well informed about thenuances of each participant’s specialism and capa-bilities (Mello and Ruckes, 2006).The abovementioned problems suggest that cer-

tain conditions may need to exist for a functionallydiverse team to perform better than a homogeneousteam. One contingency relates to the types of peo-ple on the team. Jackson and Joshi (2004) arguedfor example that team diversity was most likely tosucceed if, despite its members representing differ-ent functions, the participants were socially alikeand shared common socio-demographic characteris-tics. A further consideration is the possibility that di-verse teams might work better on routine ratherthan complex tasks, given that the former typicallyrequire less discussion and exchange of opinion(Pelled et al., 1999), thus reducing the scope formiscommunication and conflict (Horwitz, 2005).Arguably, moreover, diversity is more likely to resultin positive outcomes if an organisation’s cultureemphasises ‘integration and learning’ and allows the


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

52 R. Bennett

open expression of preferences (Ely and Thomas,2001 p.259). Teams that are more homogeneous incomposition might perform better in organisationswhere statements of opinion by team members arenot valued.As the findings of the research literature in the

field differ considerably, the direction of the influ-ence of team diversity on team performance is opento question. Overall, however, results from studiesof the impact of functional team diversity on perfor-mance have suggested positive connections ( Jacksonet al., 2003). In view of this and for operational pur-poses, the present study hypothesises that

H1: MGF teams selected to include a highly di-

verse range of members tend to achieve superior

performance.

Team membership

Every prospect will possess certain characteristics,preferences and requirements. Therefore, it maybe better to vary the composition of each solicita-tion team to include members with skills and attri-butes specifically appropriate for dealing with aprospect’s particular needs (Mealiea and Baltazar,2005). Hence, it may be appropriate to tailor theprecise composition of an MGF team to correspondto the profile of the prospect (Arnett et al., 2005). Aconvenient way of commencing the team member-ship selection process might be for a researcher toestablish the sorts of information most likely to inter-est the prospect (Steward et al., 2010) and then toanalyse the types of people best suited to make theapproach. Staff within the organisation’s marketingdepartment could undertake this task, or a specialistexternal consultant may be engaged for the purpose(Boh et al., 2007). (Numerous fundraising consul-tancies advertise their services as external advisorson MGF matters.) The team’s leader needs to knowhow a prospect would prefer to be cultivated andby whom. Decisions must then be taken regardingwho to include in the team.Frequently, operations managers will join an MGF

team as they have expert knowledge about the pro-jects and activities intended to ensue from thehoped for gift. A survey of major donations to artsorganisations conducted by Sargeant et al. (2002)found that many givers mentioned the importance


of contacts with ‘doers’ at an organisation. Thiswas because doers were often regarded as ‘the mosteffective spokespeople and fundraisers’ (p. 32). Ifpossible, at least one team member should knowthe prospect personally (Steward et al., 2010). Thus,an outsider who already has some kind of relationshipwith the targeted individual might be recruited. Mem-bers of a charity’s Board of Governors or of its ‘Friend’sOrganisation’ or other influential current supportersmight participate or be able to locate and invite suit-able people from outside the charity (Hannah, 1997).The above implies that larger MGF teams should

be more effective than teams containing just a hand-ful of members, as larger teams should incorporate awider range of expertise and competence.In general, organisation theory has identified

team size as a major structural influence on teamperformance (Gooding and Wagner, 1985); althoughestablishing exactly what size of team is optimum interms of efficiency, productivity, stability and teammembers’ satisfaction (Slater, 1958) have provenproblematic. Larger teams may produce synergies,but diminishing returns to synergy could occur asgroup size increases (Fern, 1982). A large team mayoffer more anonymity to participants, hence encour-aging honest and spontaneous comment. However,intra-team communication and co-ordination maybecome problematic within a large team (Karotkinand Paroush, 2003), and team members might notfeelmotivated to participate in large groupings (Belbin,2010). Large teams can be more prone to attract‘free riders’ (Gooding and Wagner, 1985). Membersof smaller teams have been found to have higherlevels of identification with a group (Solansky,2011). Smaller teams may experience fewer commu-nication difficulties and engender higher levels ofmotivation among participants. Group interactionsmay be closer and more extensive within smallerteams (Hare, 1952), possibly leading to greater con-sensus and satisfaction among participants. Suchbenefits may be contingent on the presence of cer-tain supplementary factors including leadershipstyle and methods, complexity of the task, mem-bers’ interest in their duties and members’ knowl-edge and competence (Slater, 1958; Solansky, 2011).Although it is axiomatic that the actual number of

members of an MGF team should depend on therequirements of the specific case (Karbhari et al.,1994), it is unclear as to exactly how many


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


individuals should be included. For general pur-poses, team sizes of five or six people have beenrecommended for groups undertaking concurrent ac-tivities, with larger teams for more complex tasks(Karbhari et al., 1994).A study completed by Fern (1982) found that

eight-member teams generated significantly moreuseful ideas than four-member teams. Fern (1982)cited a plethora of studies which had concluded thatgroup sizes of between four and ten people werepreferable. As the literature is unclear as to whetherteams containing specific numbers of participantsare ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than others, it is hypothesisedhere, for convenience, that

H2: Larger MGF teams tend to achieve superior

performance.

Also,

H2A: MGF teams that contain at least one mem-

ber who knows a prospect personally tend to

achieve superior performance.

H2B: MGF teams with variable customised

memberships tend to perform better than static

membership MGF teams.

Collaterally, the investigation asked heads of MGFin the sample charities to indicate which functionalspecialisms and characteristics of outside memberthey usually wished to include inMGF teams. As thereare many possibilities here, no particular hypothesesare specified.

Selection of team members

Weighing up of the costs and benefits of includingspecific individuals in a team and then allocatingduties to team members should be a core functionof the head of a charity’s MGF (cf. Boh et al.,2007). Once the team’s researcher has prepared aprofile of the prospect’s preferences, values and soon, the head of MGF needs to select individuals to,among other things, (i) describe the charity’s opera-tions, (ii) present the charity’s mission, (iii) assurethe prospect of the charity’s financial efficiency, (iv)create favourable images of the organisation, (v) initi-ate contacts with the prospect, (vi) engage the


prospect and act as key contacts and (vii) make theask (Sargeant et al., 2002). Literature in the generalteam-building area recommends the application ofcertain choice criteria when selecting individualsto participate in a team tasked with the solicitationof resources from others (see for example Anconaand Caldwell, 1992; Kilduff and Krackhardt, 1994;Mehra et al., 2001; Mealiea and Baltazar, 2005; Bohet al., 2007). These criteria, as applied to MGF, areoutlined in the succeeding paragraphs.

Commitment to MGF

As the members of a multi-functional MGF team willreport to their departmental managers, the head ofMGF will not have complete authority over them.This should not be a problem however provided thatthe participants are selected in part on the basis oftheir commitment to the MGF function (cf. Homburget al., 2002). Team members’ belief in the value ofand commitment to MGF should act as a motivatinginfluence, encourage participants to unify theirefforts, stimulate knowledge and information trans-fer, facilitate learning and induce collective problemsolving (Kettley and Hirsch, 2000). Conflict amongmembers should be reduced and co-ordinationmade easier. This suggests that

H3: MGF teams that contain members selected

in part on the basis of their high commitment

to the MGF function tend to achieve superior

performance.

Ability to nurture relationships

Major gift fundraising, according to Appel et al.(2007), requires ‘sophisticated approaches to build-ing relationships with individual donors, governmentagencies, private foundations, and corporations’(p. 343). Research has established that major giftdonors are more likely than lower value donorsto have strong feelings of trust in, satisfactionwith and commitment to a charity. Also, it ismore probable that they will believe that theirdonations will be employed in specified manners(Waters, 2008). The nurture of such beliefs and feel-ings is the business of relationship management,which is known to be extremely important for


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

54 R. Bennett

MGF (Rosso, 1993; Waters, 2008). However, certainindividuals are better than others at establishing,cultivating and maintaining relationships. Such peo-ple are excellent communicators, know when andhow to present various items of information, havethe ability to arouse interest and feelings of involve-ment among the individuals with whom they inter-act, exude appreciation and warmth (Knowles andGomes, 2009) and have high levels of ‘emotional in-telligence’ (Bennett, 2009). It seems reasonable topresume that an MGF team that comprises memberschosen in part for their competence at relation-ship cultivation will be more successful than ateam consisting of people who do not possessthis ability. Thus,

H4: MGF teams that contain members (other

than people occupying purely back-office roles

and who never come into contact with a pros-

pect) who are selected in part on the basis of their

high level of ability to nurture excellent relation-

ships with prospects tend to perform better than

MGF teams that do not contain such members.

Personal status of the team member

Possibly, the more senior and the higher the status ofthe members of an MGF team, the greater the readi-ness of other people in the organisation to co-operatewith the team, to furnish it with useful information, tooffer resources and to grant access to networks (cf.Steward et al., 2010). Also, individuals within theteam who are impressed by the status of their fellowteam members may be more motivated to contrib-ute to team activities (Kilduff and Krackhardt,1994). This might result in greater effort, improvedco-ordination and a higher probability of a success-ful outcome. The inclusion of at least a few veryhigh status people in a team is likely to encourageother people to want to join the team or otherwiseto associate themselves with its activities (Bromley,1993). Thus, teams containing high status members,internal or external, are likely to perform better be-cause the high status of certain team membersmay, of itself, motivate other people and facilitate ac-cess to useful connections. It is relevant to note in thisconnection that, typically, candidate members of anMGF team (internal or external) are extremely busy


individuals with multiple commitments and pressingdemands on their time. Joining a group that alreadycontains high status members might be seen by thesebusy people as an entrée to valuable networks and toa function that is regarded as important by the mostsenior levels of the organisation (Fiol et al., 2001).Accordingly, it is hypothesised that

H5: MGF teams that contain high status internal

members tend to achieve superior performance.

H5A: MGF teams that contain high status external

members tend to achieve superior performance.

Extent and quality of intra-organisationalrelationships

Irrespective of an individual’s status, the quality ofhis or her personal relationships with others in theorganisation can affect the person’s capacities to ob-tain information, access to specialised expertise andresources (Jarvenpaa and Majchrzak, 2008). A sub-stantial amount of research has established thatemployees at all levels are more likely to share infor-mation and resources with people with whom theyhave positive personal relationships (for details, seeBorgatti and Cross, 2003; Steward et al., 2010).Moreover, the closer, stronger and more convivialthese relationships and the more frequently the indi-viduals concerned interact, the more useful theknowledge and expertise that will be exchanged(Brown and Reingen, 1987). Tacit knowledge is es-pecially likely to be transferred among colleagueswhose relationships are close (Hansen, 1999). Com-munications will be less formal, more frequent andwill transmit a greater volume of ‘rich’ information(Schultz and Evans, 2002). Therefore, regardless ofthe status of a team’s members, a team that containspeople at any occupational level who enjoy goodpersonal relationships with individuals located in awide range of other sections within the organisationwill have an advantage. Thus,

H6: MGF teams that contain members from

within the charity who were selected in part

on the basis of the extent and quality of their in-

terpersonal relations with other people in the

charity tend to achieve superior performance.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Communication ability

Intra-team communication activities include formaland informal meetings (Ambrosini et al., 2007 p. 78)and events that involve ‘listening and respondingconstructively to views expressed by others’ (Moeet al., 2009, p. 481). Communication within a teamfacilitates (i) the co-ordination of its work via theprocess of ‘mutual adjustment’ (Ambrosini et al.,2007, p. 73), (ii) knowledge transfer (Costanzo,2008) and (iii) the team’s ability to self-manage(Moe et al., 2009). Open and regular communica-tion within a team makes it easier to locate specialistexpertise (Faraj and Sproull, 2000; Ustuner andGodes, 2006) and encourages co-operation (Appelet al., 2007). Extensive intra-team communicationcan reduce the incidence of work avoidance onthe part of certain group members and hencemay increase aggregate effort (Moe et al., 2009).Research has confirmed that effective communica-tion between team members is a primary factor inachieving superior team performance (Rajagopal,2008). Therefore, communication ability needs tobe found across the team’s membership, not justin a single team member who happens to be a goodcommunicator. Communication ability has beenfound to be particularly important in diverse teams(Holtzman and Anderberg, 2011). Accordingly,


in part on the basis of their high level of ability

as communicators tend to achieve superior

performance.

Experience of MGF

People with experience of MGF might be expectedto contribute more to an MGF team than individualswithout experience (cf. Rynes et al., 1997). Indeed,a head of MGF might regard experience of MGF asmore important than qualifications in a particularfunction (cf. Bashford, 2005). In principle, experi-ence of MGF should provide a person with opportu-nities to develop competencies and expertise inMGF methods (cf. Geletkanycz and Black, 2001).Such experience can help team members to extendpreviously learned techniques or concepts into newcontexts, apply previously acquired knowledge ofrelevant tactics and perhaps enable them to avoid re-peating past mistakes (Rerup, 2005). Much research


has concluded that people benefit from experience(Rerup, 2005). Experience of a function allegedlyraises performance standards (Segers et al., 2008),enhances an individual’s self-confidence (Dickmannand Harris, 2005) and stimulates adaptability (Segerset al., 2008). Experience can provide knowledge ofthe aspects of a task or situation that are criticallyimportant and those that may be safely ignored,the tasks or issues that are difficult and complexand those that are easy to complete (Kahnemanand Tversky, 2000). On the other hand, team mem-bers’ extensive prior involvement with MGF mightresult in the development of ‘a narrow mindsetfocused on familiar policies’ (Geletkanycz andBlack, 2001, p. 7) plus an unwillingness to adoptnew ideas. All problems might be tackled accordingto pre-determined rules, automatically and withoutreflection (Dokko et al., 2009). The present studyhypothesises that


in part on the basis of the extent of their past

experience of MGF tend to achieve superior

performance.

A diagrammatic representation of the above hy-potheses is given in Figure 1. The model alsoincludes the extent and nature of the charity’s re-search into prospects’ values, characteristics, atti-tudes and so on as a determinant of fundraisingsuccess. Literature on MGF is unanimous in positingthat extensive and targeted research of this nature isdesirable. Hence,

H9: MGF teams that undertake extensive research

into prospects’ characteristics tend to achieve

superior performance.

Interactions among some of the proposed deter-minants of MGF performance (too many to displayin the figure) could exist. For example, the poten-tially negative influences on MGF performance ofteam diversity might be partially mitigated if teammembers have high levels of commitment to theMGF function, communication ability, extensive ex-perience of MGF and widespread intra-organisationalconnections. Similar comments could be made in re-lation to team size. The influence of personal statuson MGF performance may be stronger if the indivi-duals involved are committed to a team’s activities.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Team composition• Diversity• Size• Includes someone

who knows the prospect (where feasible)

Team membership selection criteria

• Commitment to the MGF function

• Ability to nurture relationships

• Personal status• Extent of intra

organisational relations

• Communication ability• Experience of MGF

Perceived MGF performance• Number of major gifts• Total value of major gifts• Exceed targets• Exceed senior

management expectations

Extent of research into the prospect’s:

• Financial situation• Background and

characteristics• Values, opinions, etc.

Figure 1. A suggested model.

56 R. Bennett

High levels of relationship nurturing ability may in-crease the impact of high personal status on perfor-mance. Tests for these possible interactions werecompleted when the model was estimated.

The study

A questionnaire covering the above-mentioned con-structs was drafted and pre-tested via (i) discussionswith two heads of MGF in leading UK charities and(ii) a mailing to 50 organisations drawn at randomfrom the sampling frame used for the main investiga-tion. The preliminary mailing elicited 11 replies,analysis of which did not suggest any need to amendthe document. Hence, the questionnaire was sent tothe UK’s 500 largest fundraising charities (measuredin terms of number of employees), excluding thosereplying to the pre-test. Consequent to follow-ups,140 replies were received, which when added tothe other 11 gave a 151-strong sample (30.2% ofthe sampling frame). The questionnaire is sum-marised in the Appendix 1 of the paper, which alsoshows the literature sources from which varioussets of items were adapted. Standard tests for early,late and non-response bias were completed, andno evidence of such biases emerged. These tests fol-lowed the procedure suggested by Armstrong andOverton (1977) whereby the responses in the firstthird of the returned questionnaires were comparedwith the responses in the last third of the returneddocuments. Armstrong and Overton showed thatthe absence of differences between early and late


respondents indicated that late respondents sharedcharacteristics with non-respondents. Mean valuesand standard deviations of the main constructs mea-sured in the present investigation did not differ sub-stantially between the first and last sets of responses,and correlations among key variables were similarwithin each group. As an additional check, a slipwas sent to 75 non-respondents asking them to tickoff one of seven possible reasons for their decisionnot to respond. Seventeen people returned the slip,of which nine stated that they had been ‘too busy’and five stated that it was company policy not to com-plete questionnaires. In the light of the above, it isconcluded that non-response bias was not an issuein the current study.Section 5 (Appendix 1) of the questionnaire

contained four items concerning the respondent’sperceptions of MGF performance. Four dimensionsof perceived MGF performance were considered.The first was ‘obtaining high value individual gifts’,which was included on the grounds that numerouscharities operate ‘high value giving departments’,implying thereby that the pursuit of large individualdonations is regarded as a critical task. It is knownmoreover that many charities evaluate MGF teamsin terms of how many major gifts they obtain overa given period (Dove, 1988; Knowles & Gomes,2009). This was employed as a performance mea-sure, even though Dove (1988) criticised the metricfor detracting MGF departments from developinglong-term relationships with key prospects whomight not necessarily give within a particular inter-val. Exceeding targets is a common assessment


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


criterion used to measure the effectiveness of salesteams (Behrman and Perreault, 1984). By analogy,this may equally be applied to MGF. The fourth ele-ment of perceived performance used in the currentinvestigation was performance relative to ‘seniormanagement expectations’. This was incorporatedon the basis that some high value gifts will have stra-tegic importance for a charity (Cluff, 2009) so thatMFG will often be seen by senior management as avital function. As such, it will be afforded a greatdeal of top management attention (Hall, 2002).As the questions on performance were answered

by heads of MGF, a slip containing the same fouritems was mailed or emailed to the chief executivesof the charities that participated in the study in or-der to check the accuracy of the MGF managers’responses. Sixty-eight responses were received, thecontents of which generally indicated strong agree-ment between the assessments of the heads ofMGF and the chief executives. Correlations betweenthe estimates of the two parties exceeded .75 for allfour items. Considering that the four items werehighly specific in content, the magnitude of thesecorrelations suggest a broad correspondence ofviews between the two parties. Nevertheless, varia-tions in interpretations of the concepts of ‘excep-tions’, ‘exceeding’ a target, ‘large number’ and so onare likely to explain the absence of 100% agreement.

Estimation method and formation of variables

In view of the modest sample size and because theitems pertaining to five of the core constructs mea-sured through the questionnaire were casual in na-ture in that they formed rather than reflected theseconstructs (as evidenced by multiple-factor solu-tions to factor analyses of each of the sets of items,low inter-item correlations, and a priori considera-tions), the model depicted in Figure 1 was estimatedvia the method of partial least squares. The forma-tive constructs were ‘extent of research’ (section 2[a]), ‘ability to nurture relationships’ (4 [c]), ‘perceivedperformance’ (section 5), status of employees (4 [d] 1)and status of outside members (4 [d] 2). Otherwise, allthe items in sections 4 (a), (b), (e) and (f) loaded signif-icantly onto the leading factor of the relevant item set.Hence, their influences were regarded and estimatedas reflective indicators. Although the ‘extent of


research’ items factored into four dimensions (i.e. item[i]; items [ii] and [iii] together; item [iv]; and item [v]),the items were highly inter-correlated (R> .75), indi-cating that a charity that researched one aspectwas highly likely to research the other aspects.Thus, ‘extent of research’ was measured as a singleconstruct without splitting the variable into dimen-sions for research into financial situation, character-istics of the prospect and so on. The two MGFexperience items (4 [g]) were highly correlated(R=.87), so only the first item (4 [g] i) was used inthe estimations as this contributed more to overallgoodness-of-fit in the test of the model. Team sizewas measured as a stand-alone variable, with item3 (c) likewise querying whether the charity ‘nor-mally’ sought to include in a team someone whoknew a prospect personally.

Results

Descriptive results

The charities in the sample had an average of 1350full-time employees and covered a wide range ofsectors. All the respondents ticked the Appendix 1option 1 (b) (iii) indicating that MGF was under-taken by teams involving people beyond an MGFsection; a result anticipated a priori consideringthe eclectic duties and activities associated withthe function and the widespread use of outsiderssuch as members of boards of governors and adhoc existing major supporters. Also, chief execu-tives and/or other very senior managers were fre-quently reported to belong to MGF teams. Thismeant of course that all the respondents tickedAppendix 1 item 1 (c) (ii), indicating that the MGFteam varied in composition to some extent betweencases. Hence, H2B, that is that teams with variablemembership are perceived to perform better, couldnot be tested. The result is unsurprising perhapsgiven the need to involve different types of outsiderin each situation and the changing availability of out-siders (most of whom would be doing this work vol-untarily) over time. Also, the involvement of chiefexecutives, heads of functions and other very seniormanagers is likely to vary from case to case.The average level of potential gift at which the

respondents deemed it worthwhile assembling ateam was £0.55 million. On average, MGF teams


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Table 2. Regression analysis

Beta p value

Team diversity (H1) 0.29 (2.47) 0.015Team size (H2) 0.05 (0.91) 0.364Try to include someone whoknows the prospect personally (H2A)

0.15 (1.13) 0.260

Commitment to the MGF function (H3) 0.38 (4.12) 0.000Ability to nurture relationships (H4) 0.36 (4.01) 0.000

58 R. Bennett

contained 5.2 members, range two to 13. Fifteen percent of the charities had MGF teams with nine ormore people, indicating that at least some of themanagements in the sample subscribed to H2, thatis that large team were likely to improve perfor-mance. Seventy-six per cent of the responses fell inthe top three categories of section 2 (a) item (i) re-garding extensive research into a prospect’s finan-cial situation. It seems therefore that most charitymanagements perceived H9 to be true, that is thatextensive research would generate better results. Be-tween 55% and 65% of the replies to the other section2 queries concerning research fell in the top three cat-egories. Research activities themselves were com-pleted by an MGF department in 33% of the charities,by amarketing department in 25%, by a fundraising de-partment in 20% and by a consultant in 12%.Table 1 section A lists the internal parties that the

respondents considered to provide the most impor-tant contributions to MGF teams (seven-point scale:1=marginally significant; 7=critically important).Chief executives were regarded as furnishing the

greatest contribution, followed by staff from a charity’sfundraising, research and operations departments. Theoutsiders regarded as making the most importantcontributions were existing major donors, membersof boards of governors and well-known celebrities(Table 1 section B). As regards the team membersthat the participants most preferred to be involvedin making the ask, the respondents favoured firstlytheir chief executives (specified by 65% of therespondents), secondly members of boards of gover-nors (55%) and thirdly existing major supporters(52%). Two-thirds of the sample members ‘normally’sought to include in an MGF team, someone who

Table 1. Perceived contributions

Mean Standard deviation

A. To MGF teams in generalChief executives 5.8 0.8Fund-raising departments 5.4 0.9Research staff 4.9 1.1Operations staff 4.5 1.1B. Contributions of outsidersExisting major donors 6.0 0.9Members of boards of governors 5.4 1.0Well-known celebrities 4.9 0.9

Seven-point scale: 1=marginally important; 7=critically important.


knew the prospect personally (cf. H2 [a]), but onthe average, this was only possible in 30% of allcases. Responses to the items listed in the Appendix1 sections 4 (a) to (g) were relatively evenly dividedacross the seven categories, although with positiveskews for 4 (d) 2 (i.e. status of external members)and 4 (g) (i.e. experience of MGF). Hence, behaviourwas divided in relation to H1, H3, H4, H6 and H7,with majorities favouring H5 and H8.

Test of the model

Table 2 presents the partial least squares regressionestimates for the model depicted in Figure 1, plusthe interaction effects (see above) that attained sig-nificance. It can be seen from Table 2 that teamscontaining members who had been selected accord-ing to certain criteria, and which had been sup-ported by extensive prior research into prospects’characteristics, were reported to perform betterthan others. Diversity within a team had a positiveand significant influence on perceived performance,confirming H1. Two interaction terms involvingteam diversity attained significance, that is the

Personal status of internal teammembers (H5)

0.11 (1.12) 0.265

Personal status of external teammembers (H5A)

0.09 (1.05) 0.296

Extent of intra-organisationalrelationships (H6)

0.41 (4.28) 0.000

Communication ability (H7) 0.35 (3.88) 0.000Experience of MGF (H8) 0.10 (1.08) 0.282Extent of research (H9) 0.44 (4.99) 0.000Interaction termsTeam diversity times extentof intra-organisational relations

0.02 (2.91) 0.004

Team diversity times commitmentto the MGF function

0.03 (3.14) 0.002

N=151. Standardised coefficients. T-values in parentheses.Dependent variable is perceived MGF performance. ModelR-square=.501.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


impact of team diversity on team performance, wasstronger the greater the degrees to which teammembers were (i) committed to MGF and (ii) wellconnected with other employees in charity. The othersignificant influences on self-reported performance in-volved the inclusion of individuals who were highlycommitted to the MGF function (H3), were good atnurturing relationships with prospects (H4), hadsound interpersonal relationships with people withinand throughout their own organisations (H6) andwereexcellent communicators (H7). However, four of thehypothesised variables failed to attain significance,namely team size, having amemberwho knows a pros-pect personally, MGF experience and status of teammembers. Thus, hypotheses H2, H2A, H5 and H8 arerejected.

Discussion

The insignificance of team size as a determinant ofperceived MGF performance suggests that it is theexpertise within the team, the appropriateness ofthe diversity of its composition, and the motivationand commitment of the team’s members that affectsperformance, not the numerical size of a grouping.In contrast to the findings of some previous literaturein the field (e.g. Hannah, 1997; Sargeant et al., 2002),the inclusion within an MGF team of an individualwho knows a prospect personally did not impactsignificantly on self-reported performance. Amongthe present sample, the average incidence of suchinclusion, at 30%, was low, and when it occurred,it did not appear to make a difference. Presumably,prospects were impressed more by the contents ofa bid, by the attractiveness of a particular causeand by the level of professionalism of the ask thanby knowing personally someone involved in makingthe approach. Overall, team abilities rather than therecruitment of individuals familiar with a prospectseem to have been more important for the success-ful solicitation of really big donations. It is relevantto note in this connection that the decisions of ma-jor givers will often be guided by their own expertadvisors, hence mitigating the impact of a prospect’spersonal involvement with one or more of an MGFteam’s members.Teams that were deliberately selected to incorpo-

rate high status individuals (internal or external) did


not perform significantly better than others, implyingthat the presence of high status people did not moti-vate other members to greater effort or engender inthem a deeper desire to participate in MGF activities.Rather, the inherent commitment and abilities of theteam members as a whole and regardless of theirstatus apparently led to superior performance. Itcan also be the case that high status individuals arenot always the most competent. Indeed, the inten-tional inclusion in an MGF team of high status peoplewho have little MGF competence might actually cre-ate a liability for the remaining team members. Expe-rience of MGF was insignificant. Personal qualities asopposed to experience of the MGF function exertedmore powerful roles. Simply experiencing MGFduties was not of itself sufficient to improve an indi-vidual’s contributions. It should be pointed out how-ever that the study examined the selection of teammembers and not the team’s leader. Experience ofMGF could well be vital for the leadership of a suc-cessful MGF team.

Conclusion

Among other things, the study examined the role ofteam membership selection criteria as a determi-nant of the perceived performance of MGF teams,concluding that success was more likely if (i) peoplepossessing certain characteristics were chosen toserve on teams, (ii) teams were diverse and (iii)MGF was underpinned by detailed and extensiveresearch into prospects’ circumstances, values andpreferences. The personal characteristics thatexerted significantly positive effects on MGF perfor-mance involved commitment to the MGF function,communication and relationship building skills, andthe extent and depth of a participant’s intra-organisa-tional contacts. It appears from the results that,within typically complex MGF situations that requiremultiple competencies, team selection does indeedaffect how an MGF team operates, its internal rela-tions and how it interacts with the rest of the organisa-tion. Hence, the optimisation of team membershipdemands a focus on specific criteria when choosingparticipants. In particular, it is necessary to considercandidate members’ relational and communicationskills as well as their technical competences. Certainpeople were deemed to make especially important


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

60 R. Bennett

contributions to an MGF team’s activities, for examplechief executive officers, fundraising executives andoperations managers. The most favoured outsiderswere existing major donors, charity governors(many of whom will be high status people) andexisting major donors.The outcomes to the study have a number of man-

agerial implications. To the extent that the sound se-lection of members is crucial for an MGF team’sperformance, it becomes essential for a head of fun-draising to be capable of identifying the presence ofrelevant personal traits within candidate team mem-bers and thereafter to be able to persuade appropriatepeople to join a team. Therefore, the careful choice ofteammembers must be regarded as a critical elementof a head of MGF’s role, and suitable training shouldbe provided to the person to enable him or her to un-dertake the task. In-house or external training is alsonecessary for current or possible future MGF teammembers in relation to relevant interpersonal MGFskills: relationship nurturing, inter-departmentalnetworking, communication ability and so on. Thefindings revealed a powerful link between theamount of research completed into prospects’ finan-cial circumstances, attitudes and values and MGFsuccess. This confirms the utility of investing sub-stantially in research of this nature.Several limitations apply to the investigation. The

sample size was modest, and less than a majority ofthe charities in the sampling frame participated inthe study. However, the response rate was satisfac-tory for a questionnaire-based survey of this nature(indicating the recipients’ interest in the subject),and there was no statistical evidence of responsebias. The data on performance were self-reported,but the outcomes were generally confirmed throughan approach to a second source in each of the sam-ple organisations. Within the confines of an alreadycrowded questionnaire, it was not feasible to exploreall the variables that might affect MGF performance,notably the impacts of good or bad team leadershipand of various approaches to team co-ordination. Fur-ther research is needed into these matters andalso into the antecedents of the influences of par-ticular personal traits and other factors such asintra-organisational connections. Future studiesmight examine a wider range of possible explana-tory variables than were included in the presentstudy. The research took place in a single country,


the UK. It would be useful to replicate the studyin other nations and cultures. Another valuablearea for additional research would be the detailedanalysis of how prospective major givers interactwith a charity’s MGF team. For example, how exten-sively do prospects seek advice on bids from charitiesand who do they counsel? How do prospects per-ceive the relationship nurturing behaviour of anMGF team’s members? What sorts of communicationdo prospects find most attractive and how do theyprefer communications to be delivered? It is clear thatthere is much more to discover about the dynamicsand difficulties of MGF.

References

Ambrosini V, Bowman C, Taylor S. 2007. Inter-team coor-dination and customer satisfaction. Human Relations

60(1): 59–98.Ancona D, Caldwell D. 1992. Bridging the boundary: ex-ternal activity and performance in organizational teams.Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 634–665.

Appel N, Campbell S, Lynch N, Novotny J. 2007. Creatingeffective advisory boards for schools of nursing. Journalof Professional Nursing 23(6): 343–350.

Armstrong J, Overton T. 1977. Estimating non-responsebias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research

14(3): 396–402.Arnett D, Barry M, Wilcox J. 2005. The role of core sell-ing teams in supplier–buyer relationships. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 25(1): 27–42.

Auh S, Menguc B. 2005. Top management team diversityand innovativeness: themoderating role of interfunctionalcoordination. Industrial Marketing Management 34:249–261.

Bashford S. 2005. Professional development: raising thebar. Marketing 2 November 2005: 1–3.

Behrman D, Perreault W. 1984. A role stress model of theperformance and satisfaction of industrial salespeople.Journal of Marketing 48: 9–21.

Belbin R. 2010. Management Teams: Why They Succeedor Fail. Elsevier: New York.

Bennett R. 2009. Reaching the board: factors facilitatingthe progression of marketing executives to senior posi-tions in British companies. British Journal of Manage-

ment 20(1): 30–54.Boh W, Ren Y, Kiesler S, Bussjaeger R. 2007. Expertise col-laboration in the geographically dispersed organisa-tion. Organisation Science 18: 595–612.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Borgatti S, Cross R. 2003. A relational view of informationseeking and learning in social networks. Management

Science 49: 432–445.Breeze E. 2010. The Coutts Million Pound Donors Report2010. University of Kent and Coutts Ltd.: London.

Bromley D. 1993. Reputation, Image and Impression Man-agement. John Wiley: London.

Brown J, Reingen P. 1987. Social ties and word-of-mouthreferral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 14:350–362.

Cluff A. 2009. Dispelling the myths about major donorfundraising. International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing 14: 371–377.

Costanzo L. 2008. Enhancing organisational learning inteams: has the middle manager got a role? Team Perfor-

mance Management 14(3/4): 146–164.Dickmann M, Harris H. 2005. Developing career capitalfor global careers: the role of international assignments.Journal of World Business 40(3): 399–408.

Dokko G, Wilk S, Rothbard N. 2009. Unpacking prior ex-perience: how career history affects job performance.Organisation Science 20(1): 51–68.

Dove K. 1988. Conducting a Successful Capital Campaign.AComprehensive Fundraising Guide for Nonprofit Orga-nizations. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Ely R, Thomas D. 2001. Cultural diversity atwork: the effectsof diversity perspectives on work group processes andoutcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly 6: 229–273.

Emmerik H, Jawahar I, Schreurs B, de Cuyper N. 2001. So-cial capital, team efficacy and team potency: themediating role of team learning behaviours. CareerDevelopment International 16(1): 82–99.

Faraj S, Sproull L. 2000. Coordinatingexpertise in softwarede-velopment teams.Management Science 46: 1554–1568.

Fern E. 1982. The use of focus groups for idea generation:the effects of group size, acquaintanship, and moderatoron response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing

Research 29(1): 1–13.Fiol C, O’Connor E, Aguinis H. 2001. All for one and onefor all? The development of transfer of power acrossorganisational levels. Academy of Management Re-

view 26: 224–242.Geletkanycz M, Black S. 2001. Bound by the past? Expe-rience-based effects on commitment to the strategicstatus quo. Journal of Management 27(1): 3–21.

Gooding R, Wagner J. 1985. A meta analytic review of therelationship between size and performance: the produc-tivity and efficiency of organisations and their sub-units.Administrative Science Quarterly 30(4): 462–481.


Hall M. 2002. Fundraising and public relations: a compar-ison of programme concepts and characteristics. Inter-national Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Marketing 7(4): 368–381.Hannah K. 1997. Alternative funding for libraries: a plan

for success. The Bottom Line: Managing Library

Finances 10(4): 169–175.Hansen M. 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of

weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization sub-units. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 82–111.

Hare A. 1952. A study of interaction and consensus indifferent sized groups. American Sociological Review

17(3): 261–267.Holtzman Y, Anderberg J. 2011. Diversify your teams and

collaborate: because great minds don’t think alike. TheJournal of Management Development 30(1): 75–92.

Homburg C, Workman J, Jensen O. 2002. A configura-tional perspective on key account management. Jour-nal of Marketing 66(2): 38–60.

Horwitz S. 2005. The compositional impact of team diver-sity on performance: theoretical considerations.Human

Resource Development Review 4(2): 219–245.Hutt M, Johnston W, Ronchetto J. 1985. Selling and buying

centers: formulating strategic exchange patterns. Jour-nal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 5(1):33–40.

Jackson S, Joshi A. 2004. Diversity in social context: Amulti-attribute, multi-level analysis of team diversityand sales performance. Journal of Organisational Be-haviour 25: 675–702.

Jackson S, Joshi A, Erhardt N. 2003. Recent research onteam and organisational diversity: SWOT analysis andimplications. Journal of Management 29(6): 801–830.

Jarvenpaa S, Majchrzak A. 2008. Knowledge collabora-tion among professionals protecting national security:role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledgenetworks. Organization Science 19: 260–276.

Kahneman D, Tversky A. 2000. Choices, Values andFrames. Russell Sage: New York.

Karbhari V, Burns J, Wilkins D. 1994. Total quality design:an approach for customer satisfaction in critical advancedtechnologies. Benchmarking for Quality Management

and Technology 1(1): 65–88.Karotkin D, Paroush J. 2003. Optimum committee size:

quality versus quantity dilemma. Social Choice and

Welfare 20: 429–441.Kelly K. 2000. Stewardship: the missing step in the public

relations process. In Handbook of Public Relations,Heath RL (ed.). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

62 R. Bennett

Kettley P, Hirsch W. 2000. Learning from cross-functionalteamwork. Institute for Employment Studies Report

356, Brighton, UK.Kilduff M, Krackhardt D. 1994. Bringing the individualback in: a structural analysis of the internal market forreputation in organizations. Academy of Management

Journal 37: 87–108.Knowles P, Gomes R. 2009. Building relationships withmajor-gift donors: a major-gift decision-making, rela-tionship-building model. Journal of Nonprofit and

Public Sector Marketing 21: 384–406.Lewis K. 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems inthe field: scale development and validation. Journal ofApplied Psychology 88: 587–604.

Matheny R. 1999. Major Gifts: Solicitation Strategies.CASE Books: Washington, DC.

Mealiea L, Baltazar R. 2005. A strategic guide for buildingeffective teams. Public Personnel Management 34:141–160.

Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass D. 2001. The social networks ofhigh and lowself-monitors: implications forworkplaceperfor-mance.Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 121–146.

Mello A, Ruckes M. 2006 Team composition. Journal ofBusiness 79(3): 1019–1039.

Moe N, Dingsoyr T, Dyba T. 2009. A teamwork model forunderstanding an agile team: a case studyof a Scrumproject.Information and Software Technology 52: 480–491.

Pelled L, Eisenhardt K, Xin K. 1999. Exploring the blackbox: an analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and per-formance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1–28.

Peters L, Fletcher K. 2004. A market-based approach tounderstanding communication and teamworking: amulti-disciplinary literature review. Academy of Mar-

keting Science Review 2: 1–37.Pharoah C, Keidan C. 2010. Family FoundationGivingTrends2010. Cass Business School, City University London: London.

Rader H. 2000. Fundraising in academic libraries: theUnited States experience. The Bottom Line: Managing

Library Finances 13(2): 93–99.Rajagopal R. 2008. Team performance and control pro-cess in sales organizations. Team Performance Man-

agement 14(1/2): 70–85.Rerup C. 2005. Learning from past experience: footnoteson mindfulness and habitual entrepreneurship. Scandi-navian Journal of Management 21(4): 451–471.

Rodan S, Galunic C. 2004. More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerialperformance and innovativeness. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal 25: 541–562.


Rosso H. 1993. Achieving Excellence in Fund Raising. Jos-sey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Rynes S, Orlitzky M, Bretz R. 1997. Experienced hiringversus college recruiting: practices and emergingtrends. Personnel Psychology 50(2): 309–339.

Sargeant A, Jay E. 2004. Reasons for lapse: the case offace-to-face donors. International Journal of Non-

profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 9(2): 171–182.Sargeant A, Lee S, Jay E. 2002. Major Gift Philanthropy—Individual Giving to the Arts. Centre for Voluntary Sec-tor Management, Henley Management College, Artsand Business Henley-on-Thames: UK.

Schultz R, Evans K. 2002. Strategic collaborative commu-nication by key account representatives. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 22: 23–31.

Segers J, Inceoglu I, Vloeberghs D, Bartram D, Hender-ickx E. 2008. Protean and boundaryless careers: a studyon potential motivators. Journal of Vocational Behav-iour 73(2): 212–230.

Sin L, Tse A, Yau O, Chow R, Lee J, Lau L. 2005. Relation-ship marketing orientation: scale development andcross-cultural validation. Journal of Business Research58: 185–194.

Slater P. 1958. Contrasting correlates of group size. Soci-ometry 21(2): 129–139.

Solansky S. 2011. Team identification: a determining factorof performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology

26(3): 247–258.Steward M, Walker B, Hutt M, Kumar A. 2010. The coordi-nation strategies of high-performing salespeople: inter-nal working relationships that drive success. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 38: 550–566.

Sunday Times. 2010. The Sunday Times Rich List. SundayTimes: London, 25 April 2010.

Ustuner T, Godes D. 2006. Better sales networks. HarvardBusiness Review, Special Double Issue. Sales 84:102–112.

Waters R. 2008. Applying relationshipmanagement theoryto the fundraising process for individual donors. Jour-nal of Communication Management 12(1): 73–87.

Waters R. 2009. Measuring stewardship in public relations:a test exploring impact on the fundraising relationship.Public Relations Review 35: 113–119.

Weiss A, Anderson E, MacInnis D. 1999. Reputation man-agement as a motivation for sales structure decisions.Journal of Marketing 63: 74–89.

Zinkhan G, Lacanda W. 1988. ESSCA: A multi-dimensionalanalysis tool for marketing research. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science 16(2): 36–46.


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Appendix: The questionnaire Section 3: Team membership


Section 1: The charity

(a) Charity sector and number of full-time employees.(b) Is the MGF function completed by

(i) the MGF manager working alone;(ii) the MGF manager with assistance drawn only

from a MGF department;(iii) a more broadly based team of people?

(c) If MGF is completed by a team, which of thefollowing applies?(i) The composition of the team remains constant

(i.e. the same people always serve on the team)regardless of the identity of the targeted majordonor.

(ii) The charity varies the composition of the team inorder to deal with different potential majordonors.

(d) At what level of potential donation would youconsider it worthwhile assembling a team to dothe work associated with soliciting a major gift?

Less than£100K

(e) How ma

Copyrigh

Between£100Kand £250K

ny people nor

t © 2011 Jo

Between£251Kand £500K

mally serve on

hn Wiley &

Between£501Kand £1 million

MGF teams?

Sons, Ltd.

More than£1 million

Section 2: Extent and nature of researchundertaken

Seven-point scale: 7=very strongly agree; 1=verystrongly disagree. Formative construct: R-square=.56.

(a) The charity normally undertakes extensive re-search into a prospective major donor’s:

(i) Financial situation (PLS weight [W]=.42;T=6.66)

(ii) Background and personal characteristics (W=.41;T=6.75)

(iii) Values, attitudes and/or opinions (W=.22;T=2.91)

(iv) Requirements from the charity (W=.20;T=2.17)

(v) How the person would prefer to beapproached (W=.31; T=4.99).

(b) If any of the above are undertaken, who com-pletes the research? Marketing department/fun-draising department/MGF department/outsideconsultant/other (please specify).

(a) For each charity department and outsider in-cluded in yourMGF team or teams, please indicatehow important you regard their contribution.

Seven-point scale: 7=critically important; 1=marginallyimportant.

(i) Internal

Marketing/fundraising/finance/operations/thechief executive/legal/research.

(i) External

Members of the board of governors/existingmajor supporters/well-known celebrities/fundraising consultants/tax professionals orother financial advisors/lawyers/bankers.Which three of the above would you mostprefer to be involved in making the ask?Do you normally seek to include in the teamsomeone who knows the prospect personally?If so, in approximately what percentage ofrecent cases has this been possible?

Section 4: Selection criteria

Seven-point agree/disagree scale.

(a) Diversity

Literature source: Lewis (2003). Reflective con-struct: lambda=3.1; Cronbach’s alpha=.82.

(i) The people in the charity’s MGF team(s) are se-lected on the basis that each has knowledge ofan aspect of the team’s work that no other teammember possesses. (Factor loading [h]=.69)

(ii) Members of the MGF team(s) are selected tohave the highest possible degree of overlap-ping knowledge. (Reverse scored) (h=.72)

(iii) We seek to incorporate into our MGF team(s)the widest range of different skills and knowl-edge as possible. (h=.88)

(iv) We deliberately make our MGF team(s) as di-verse as possible in relation to the functionalbackgrounds of the people who serve on them.(h=.80)

(b) Commitment to the MGF function

Literature source: Zinkhan and Lacanda (1988). Reflec-tive construct: lambda=3.2; Cronbach’s alpha=.89.When selecting people to serve on our MGF team(s), we deliberately choose individuals who


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

64 R. Bennett

(i) are genuinely committed to the MGF func-tion (h=.88)

(ii) believe that MGF is extremely important (h=.85)(iii) really care about the success of the charity’s

MGF activities (h=.77)(iv) feel a strong sense of involvement with

MGF activities (h=.68).(c) Ability to nurture relationships

Literature sources: Sin et al. (2005); Waters (2009).Formative construct: R-square=.54.When selectingpeople to serve on our MGF team(s) (other thanpeople who occupy totally back-office roles and willnever be in contact with a prospect), we deliber-ately choose individuals who

(i) are good at developing close personal relation-ships with prospects (W=.37; T=4.44)

(ii) are good at creating impressions of them-selves as being trustworthy, reliable and help-ful (W=.2; T=1.99)

(iii) are good at sharing a prospect’s feelings andseeing things from a prospect’s point ofview (W=3.0; T=3.10)

(iv) will devote much personal attention to nurtur-ing a high-quality relationship with the pros-pect (W=.42; T=6.61)

(v) will go out of their way to interact and com-municate with the prospect (W=.23; T=2.66).

(d) Personal statusLiterature source: Weiss et al. (1999).Formative con-struct: R-square=.29.

(1) When selecting people from inside the charityto serve on our MGF teams, we deliberatelychoose people who

(i) occupy high status positions within the charity(W=.31; T=4.31)

(ii) are highly regarded by other people within thecharity (W=.44; T=5.97).

Formative construct: R-square=.67.

(2) When selecting outsiders (other than paid con-sultants) to serve on our MGF teams, we deliber-ately choose people who

(i) have high status in the community (W=.37; T=4.42)

(ii) are well known to the public (W=.40; T=4.99)(iii) are of high social status (W=.29; T=3.09).(e) Extent and quality of intra-organisational

relations


Literature source: Steward et al. (2010). Reflectiveconstruct: lambda=3.3; Cronbach’s alpha=.89.When selecting people from inside the charity toserve on MGF teams, we deliberately choose indivi-duals who

(i) have excellent working relationships withother people in the charity (h=.90)

(ii) interact with a large number of people in thecharity (h=.85)

(iii) have close working relationships with a largenumber of people in the charity (h=.79)

(iv) interact very frequently with a large numberof people in the charity (h=.75).

(f) Communications ability

Literature source: Moe et al. (2009). Reflective con-struct: lambda=3.9; Cronbach’s alpha=.80.Whenselecting people (internal or external) to serve onMGF teams, we deliberately choose individuals who

(i) are always willing to exchange large amountsof information (h=.81)

(ii) are always willing to clarify and expand the in-formation that they transmit (h=.75)

(iii) go out of their way to ensure that their com-munications are understood (h=.69)

(iv) can be relied upon not to withhold informa-tion (h=.70)

(v) are excellent communicators (h=.80).(g) Experience of MGF

Pearson R=.87.When selecting people to serve onMGF teams, we deliberately choose people who

(i) have a great deal of past experience of MGF(ii) have already served on MGF teams.

Section 5: Performance

Seven-point scale: 7=outstanding; 1=needs a great dealof improvement. Literature source: Behrman and Per-reault (1984). Formative construct: R-square=.49.How would you rate your charity’s recent MGF

performance in terms of

(i) obtaining a large number of major gifts (W=.22;T=3.03)

(ii) obtaining very high value individual gifts(W=.27; T=4.09)

(iii) exceeding targets (W=.35; T=4.88)(iv) senior management’s expectations (W=.37;

T=4.92)?


DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Documents

Selection of individuals to serve on major gift fundraising teams: a study of membership choice criteria