An exploration of capital campaign team organization, functioning, and fund raising success

Introduction. The most arduous and chronic challenges facing academic institutions tend to involve resource development. One successful response to fund development challenges has been the organization and conduct of comprehensive capital campaigns. These programs boast the potential for an unparalleled return on investment of institutional resources.;Success at fund raising is attributed to multiple factors. This research focused on campaign team dynamics, particularly the interpersonal inner-workings of teams, and the relationship between those dynamics and success at fund raising.;Methods. This comparative case study explored three similar institutions that had historically different levels of success at fund raising. A heuristic framework developed from fund raising literature, organizational behavior literature, and interviews with fund raising professionals guided the exploration. Study participants included presidents, vice presidents for advancement, directors, consultants, trustees, and others associated with fund raising efforts.;Observations. Six key findings emerged: (1) Functional dysfunction: Participants perceived positive relationships between team dynamics and success at fund raising. However, amidst periods characterized by organizational and interpersonal dysfunction, each team exceeded its overall dollar goal. Dysfunction appeared not so much to keep teams from achieving campaign success inasmuch as it restrained optimal performance. (2) External to team orientation: Successful fund raising in the face of persistent team dysfunction was attributed to actions of individual fund raisers operating as "independent representatives" with strong external to the team relationships with donors. This was perceived as essential to major gift fund raising. (3) Pursuit of an "A team:" Teams valued personal attributes as much as technical skill when appointing team members. This increased turnover and instability owing to ongoing culling of personnel in search of an "A team." (4) Longevity leverage: Participants attributed success to prevailing team dynamics inasmuch as dynamics influenced employment length, which in turn influenced success at major gift soliciting. (5) President's mirror: Presidents modeled interactions and assembled teams as extensions of themselves. Team dynamics mirrored presidents' perceptions of the strength of the relationship between team dynamics and success. (6) Management rules: While leadership set standards, the execution of management functions guided interactions, out of which team dynamics emerged and teams reacted.