Why Conflict Happens: The Chair’s Structural Reality
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be signed in to view this content.
Field Guide Series Reframing the Fundraising Cycle: The Collaborative Donor Relationships Framework The traditional fundraising cycle (identification, qualification, cultivation, solicitation, stewardship) is a useful infrastructure. It gives CRMs their architecture, keeps teams aligned on goals, and provides a shared language for measuring progress. But it is often used to track institutional activity, not donor experience. When it becomes the primary lens for managing relationships, something slips: conversations start to orbit the ask, donor values stay surface-level, and the relationship begins to feel like a transaction to both parties. Introducing the Collaborative Donor Relationships Framework The Collaborative Donor Relationships framework is the other side of that coin. Where the fundraising cycle tracks where the institution is, this framework tracks where the donor is through five phases: Awareness, Interest, Connection, Partnership, and Investment. Each phase is defined by a central question and two outcomes: what the donor needs to feel, and what the institution learns as a result. Together, the two models do what neither can do alone. What Makes This Approach Different Three things distinguish this approach: it anchors engagement in donor values rather than giving history or capacity; it asks gift officers to understand their own leadership style and adapt […]
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Members must be logged in to view this content.
Higher education employees want more than ever. Institutions are delivering less than they think. Something significant is happening in higher education, and it shows up clearly in the data. For the seventh consecutive time, we surveyed nearly 2,000 higher education professionals, including faculty, staff, administrators, and senior leaders, on professional development, leadership, job satisfaction, and engagement. Year after year, the findings tell a consistent story. This year, one chapter stands out: 84.9% of employees said they were at least moderately interested in additional leadership development, up from 75% in 2023. This ten-point swing in just two years reflects a meaningful shift in employee sentiment, one the sector would be wise to take seriously. A Gap With Real Consequences It would be easy to treat this as a satisfaction gap, a case of employees wanting more than institutions can realistically provide. But the data suggests something more consequential is at play. In this year’s survey, we included a new question asking employees to rate their institution’s effectiveness at developing leaders. We expected it to correlate with satisfaction. But it does more than just that. The data found that effective leadership development didn’t just improve job satisfaction (r = .52, a positive relationship). It also reduced burnout (r = -.39, a […]
Members must be signed in to view this content.