alma mater? - Yolakristinzummo.yolasite.com/resources/KZummo-Final Research Paper.pdf · alma mater has on the alumni employee perceptions of the school. Problem Statement The problem

Running Head: How are alumni perceptions of and behavior toward their alma mater affected by employment at the

alma mater?

How are alumni perceptions of and behavior toward their alma mater affected by employment at

the alma mater?

by

Kristin Zummo

Organizational Leadership

Mansfield University

for

ORL 5550-Research & Evaluation

Dr. Brian Bridgeforth

May 3, 2011

How are alumni perceptions of and behavior towards their alma mater affected by employment at the alma mater?

2

ABSTRACT

This research studied how alumni perceptions of and behaviors toward their alma mater

are affected when alumni work at their alma mater. The alumni constituency is an important and

ever-growing part of the collegiate community. As alumni support, specifically giving, becomes

increasingly important, alumni engagement with the alma mater becomes more significant. This

study presented a group of alumni employees with a survey measuring their understanding of

college function, satisfaction with the college, and giving behaviors toward the college. The

same survey was given to a control group of alumni not employed at their alma mater. The

hypotheses are as follows:

H10: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni understanding of college

function.

H1a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have a greater understanding of college

function.

H20: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni satisfaction with college

services.

H2a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have increased satisfaction with the college

services.

H30: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni intentions to give to the college.

H3a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have greater intentions to give to the college

financially.

Study results denied the null hypotheses and supported all three alternate hypotheses. As

compared to the alumni control group, alumni employees exhibited a greater understanding of

college function, increased satisfaction with the college, and increased giving behavior toward

the college.


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................4

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................4 Background ....................................................................................................................4 Hypotheses .....................................................................................................................5 Purpose Statement ..........................................................................................................5

Significance....................................................................................................................6 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................6 Summary ........................................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................8 Introduction ....................................................................................................................8

Alumni Significance and Behavior ................................................................................9

Organizational Identification .......................................................................................11 Higher Education Organizational Culture ...................................................................13

Customer and Student Loyalty.....................................................................................15 Customers as Employees .............................................................................................16

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS ...........................................................................18

Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................18 Research Design...........................................................................................................18

Data Collection ............................................................................................................19 Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................22 Limitations ...................................................................................................................22

Research Reliability .....................................................................................................23 Research Validity .........................................................................................................23

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................24 Survey A-Control Group..............................................................................................24

Survey B-Variable Group ............................................................................................27 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................31

Understanding College Function .................................................................................31

Satisfaction with the College .......................................................................................32 Giving Behaviors toward the College ..........................................................................34 Limitations ...................................................................................................................36 Implications..................................................................................................................37 Summary ......................................................................................................................39

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................40 APPENDIX A.. ..................................................................................................................43 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................51

APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................67


4

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The study of alumni behavior has been a topic of interest in higher education in recent

years (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Universities and colleges seek to understand and heavily value

the role that alumni play within the education community as marketing advocates for their

institution, volunteers, and especially donors. Higher education institutions rely heavily on the

financial support of alumni (Wertz & Ronca, 2008). The significance of this support is

reinforced through the use of alumni participation (donor) rate in rankings for U.S. News and

World Report.

In some cases, alumni seek employment at their alma mater. The affinity that alumni

employment represents is unique to higher education. Hiring alumni represents a distinctive

opportunity and challenge for both human resources and college advancement as a community

member becomes part of the administration of the community. Essentially, customers are being

hired as employees. Similar to this, much research has been done on viewing employees as

customers or about enforcing a customer mind-set with employees in order to increase

performance and morale. However, what is not well researched is the affect that working at the

alma mater has on the alumni employee perceptions of the school.

Problem Statement

The problem is that we do not know the affect that working at an alma mater has on the

alumni employee perceptions of the alma mater.

Background

Both working as an alumni relations professional and working at my own alma mater has

brought this topic to my attention on a regular basis. When observing alumni employee behavior


5

compared to other employees, there is a visible familiarity with the institution among alumni that

separates the two groups. This is true even of alumni employees that are new hires. This

familiarity and affinity is one of the reasons that alumni seek employment at their alma mater.

As with employees in any organization, perceptions of the organization change over time

as employees react to the organizational culture as well as major successes and challenges. As

it’s clear that alumni employees begin their employment with a different perspective than non-

alumni employees, the question is then, how do typical changes in employee perceptions affect

alumni employee perspectives?

As alumni perspectives of their alma mater become increasingly important to institutional

success, the understanding of the perspective of the alumni employee becomes significant from

both an internal and external relations viewpoint.

Hypotheses

H10: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni understanding of college function.

H1a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have a greater understanding of college function.

H20: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni satisfaction with college services.

H2a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have increased satisfaction with the college services.



financially.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this research is to determine the affect that employment at an alma mater

has on the alumni employee’s perception of the alma mater.


6

Significance

After receiving a degree from an educational institution, the newly graduated student

holds a distinctive viewpoint and affinity toward the institution. This perspective is significant to

the institution as alumni support through donations, volunteering, and recruiting have a major

impact on the institution.

When alumni secure employment with their alma mater, their alumni perspective could

be affected by their newly acquired employee perspective. If their perspective is, in fact,

impacted by their employment, this has implications for institutional human resources, alumni

relations, and development. Human Resources could benefit from a positive correlation between

employee familiarity and performance. But if a negative correlation exists, human resources

may need to prepare for this liability and prepare services for this group in a different way.

Likewise, alumni relations and development could benefit from a positive impact on alumni

perspective through employment. If employment deepens alumni understanding of and

satisfaction with the institution, support and donations could potentially increase, both during

and after employment. However, if employment decreases employee satisfaction, support and

donations could decrease. Beyond decreasing donation levels, an unsatisfied alumni employee

has the power to influence their personal alumni network through the dissemination of their own

perspectives.

Definition of Terms

Alumni- (plural) Graduates of a school, college, or university

Alumnus or Alum- (singular) Graduate of a school, college, or university


7

Summary

This study will attempt to measure the affect that employment of alumni at the alma

mater has on the alumni perspectives of the institution. Research method will be quantitative.

Measures will be created to gauge alumni understanding of institutional function and mission as

well as individuals ratings of satisfaction with the institution. Topics of interest in this study

include research on employee perspectives of organizational services, viewing employees as

customers, work conditions in higher education, and alumni giving behaviors. The

comprehensive literature review will reflect past research these topics.

The results of this study will offer information regarding the possible positive and

negative affect on alumni perspectives that employment at an alma mater can cause. This will

provide vital information for institutions as they consider hiring alumni. It will provide

significant information for alumni relations professionals as they determine how to serve alumni

employees and past alumni employees. It also has implications for development professionals in

the university setting as alumni employee perspectives could affect donor behavior.


8

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The literature search took place primarily through online searches. Databases such as

EBSCO, SpringerLink, and Mergent were used to find relevant articles. GoogleScholar was also

used to locate articles on the various related topics. The search was limited to peer-reviewed,

scholarly articles. Significantly, the initial search on the topic of alumni working at their alma

mater revealed no results. The search then turned to related topics in alumni satisfaction and

alumni behaviors. This search included articles on the significance of alumni to their institutions

as well as their donor and volunteer behaviors. This search produced several over two dozen on

alumni engagement with their institution. Both large and small universities’ alumni have been

researched. This literature, the majority of the findings, will provide the basis of this literature

review.

These searches turned up articles that alluded to research that would take alumni

perspectives one step further into alumni identification. The next step, then, was to search the

topic of organizational identity in relation to alumni. One researcher, Fred Mael, researched this

topic throughout his life. While over seven articles were found, the most recent from 1992

summarized much of his previous work and is the only one included in this paper. The search

then moved into the realm of understanding higher education culture and specific work

challenges within that environment. These results were sporadic, and search terms included

“universities,” “college,” “higher education,” and “organizational culture.” Though only a three

pieces of research were found, they provide a framework to understand the basis on employee

perspectives on organizational culture in higher education. The next topic of the search was


9

customer loyalty, which led to a review of literature relating to student loyalty. Many articles

were available on customer loyalty, but due to the focus on higher education, only a few were

selected. A greater focus was on the few articles found on student loyalty. Finally, in the related

realm, a search was done on corporate experiences with having and viewing employees as

customers. This information was, again, sporadic and somewhat unrelated, but a few articles,

relating to employee training shed some light on this topic.

Many of the searches required further investigation through the tracking of a specific

author or source of a paper that had turned up in the search. The literature did not always

directly relate to the focus of this paper, but all are important to the concepts driving the purpose

of the study.

Alumni Significance and Behavior

Alumni satisfaction and behavior is significant to their alma maters (Mael & Ashforth,

1992). “Few constituents are more important to an institution than alumni” (p. 106). Alumni

evaluation and feedback was used to reshape curriculum and create programs to better prepare

undergraduate student for life after college (Fleming & Francis, 1980). Also, educational

institutions relied on alumni outcomes as a measurement for institutional success, and these

results affected the viability of the institution (Hoey & Gardner, 1991).

The most crucial alumni behaviors extend beyond the outcomes of the alumni

themselves. Alumni support the institution in the areas of volunteerism, student recruitment, and

career assistance for students (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The most vital alumni behavior though,

is giving (Taylor & Martin, 1995). Weerts and Ronca (2008) propose that alumni donors have a

greater influence than alumni volunteers because their investment is long-term. As outside

funding from other sources continues to decline, alumni donors become increasingly important


10

(Wunnava & Lauze, 2000). Taylor and Martin (1995) propose that understanding the

importance of alumni giving behavior is key to the success of an institution, and that it is “the

single most important index of esteem in which the institution is held by a key group of

individuals” (p. 284).

Alumni donate for a variety of reasons including the desire to repay their institution for

the outcomes they’ve realized in their lives (Taylor & Martin, 1995). Research in alumni donor

behavior has found a strong positive correlation between alumni giving and satisfaction with the

institution (Hartman and Schmidt, 1995, Mael & Ashforth, 1992, Pearson, 1999, Wunnava &

Lauze, 2000). Other strong positive correlations exist between alumni giving and continued

involvement through volunteerism after graduation (Pearson, 1999) and ongoing readership of

college publications (Taylor & Martin, 1999). Additionally, there is a positive correlation

between alumni giving and distance of residency from the university (Wunna & Lauze, 2000).

Alumni perception of institutional financial need also affects giving behaviors, with alumni

giving increasingly when a clear and tangible need is present (Taylor & Martin, 1999). Pearson

(1999) proposes that the best way to communicate this need and successfully solicit alumni

donors is to show the impact of their gifts on the institution.

Pearson (1999) also suggested that donations are about the vitality of the relationship

between alumni and the institution. Weerts and Ronca (2008) propose that alumni donor and

volunteer behaviors are based on social exchange theory. They offer that alumni give to create a

balance between what the institution gave them through their student experience. This is based

on the premise that student satisfaction is vital to donor behavior, thus limiting the efforts that

can be made to convert alumni non-donors (Weerts & Ronca, 2008).


11

Hartman and Schmidt (1995) suggested that current institutional performance affects

alumni satisfaction, and “satisfied alumni will help institutional financially, provide positive

word-of-mouth communication, and supply jobs to subsequent graduates” (p. 198). Hartman and

Schmidt (1995) proposed that alumni satisfaction rests not only on the extent to which their

undergraduate experience met their expectation, but also the perceived quality of the service and

outcomes produced by the institution since graduation. Wunnava & Lauze (2000) suggested that

donors seek rewards through their gifts, not the least of which is recognition by an association

with an institution that they consider prestigious and successful.

Hartman and Schmidt (1995) also posited that the measurement of performance in higher

education is unique in that the consumer participates in the performance to achieve consumption.

Similar to social exchange theory, Hartman and Schmidt (1995) offered the theory of distributive

justice to explain relationships in higher education. Within this theory, exchanges exist in which

inputs and outputs exist in balance with one another. “The theory predicts that satisfaction

occurs when there is equality between the ratios of all parties involved in the exchange”

(Hartman & Schmidt, 1995, p. 202).

Alumni affinity toward their alma maters varies. The estimated percentage of alumni

who financially support their organizations is fewer than 25 percent, and “while alumni like their

alma maters, most remain apathetic and uninvolved” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 106).

Organizational Identification

Mael and Ashforth (1992) defined organizational identification as “a perceived oneness

with an organization and the experience of the organization’s successes and failures as one’s

own” (p. 103). Organizational identification is important to both the organization and its

“members,” those who identify with it (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Social identification provokes


12

a person to connect with the group’s success and failure, and while, individuals identify with

groups to enhance self-esteem, group failures can be debilitating to those individuals (Mael &

Ashforth, 1992). Reactions to organizational failure or corruption range, but the majority of

members have been shown to blame leaders, reduce their trust, and participate in low future buy-

in to the organization (Pelletier & Bligh, 2008).

Identification with one’s alma mater results from prestige, satisfaction, tenure as a

student, donations, volunteerism, and willingness to send their own children to that institution.

Identification among alumni is not affected by recency of attendance at the institution (Mael &

Ashforth, 1992). Continued identification with the alma mater provides intellectual stimulation,

prestige, identity stability, and an avenue for altruism for the alumni (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Hoey and Gardner (1999) suggested that alumni aren’t always able to accurately grasp or

measure their own outcomes, but that, through institutional identification, they are able to

measure institutional outcomes by observing students during their time as alumni. Research

indicates that organizational identification with one’s alma mater produces support, giving

behaviors, and continued involvement (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Organizational identification among employees is also vital to organizational support.

The “erosion of employee loyalty due to corporate takeovers and restructuring has stimulated

renewed interest in organizational identification and provoked exhortations that organizations

take member identification seriously” (Mael and Ashforth, 1992 p. 103). Identification among

employees produces increased support for organizational goals and outcomes (Mael & Ashforth,

1992). Similar to alumni correlations, length of tenure and satisfaction affect an employee’s

level of identification with the organization (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).


13

While organizations and companies can offer organizational identify to their employees,

colleges have a unique opportunity to produce very strong identity among their alumni. The

college is an arena in which “members share a common organization-wide identity and are less

likely to experience competing demands from, say, department-level or occupational identities”

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Additionally, colleges need alumni as a critical support

source, and thus identification affects the welfare of the college, making its importance. The

combination of low level competition and the deep need for organizational identification, make

organizational identity among alumni unique, full of potential, and critical to the institution

(Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The risks associated with alumni identification with the organization

are also higher, as there is a higher leader expectation (Pelletier & Bligh, 2008).

Organizational identification, despite the risks to the individual, does produce a level of

involvement that provides members with information regarding change processes within the

group. Research shows that alumni accept change with the institution if they feel informed and

can see that change is managed well (Pearson, 1999). While people do suffer loss when identity

changes, strong organizational identity can withstand those changes (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Organizational identification can be encouraged among groups through various means. Research

suggests organizations can increase the salience of the institution to its members. The use of

traditions, rituals, metaphors, and symbols, organizational management can provide compelling

images of what the group represents. This symbolic management can highlight organizational

distinctives and prestige thus bolstering member support (Mael & Ashforth, 1992).

Higher Education Organizational Culture

“All colleges and universities want to go to the ‘next level.’ They want to be better than

they currently are; they want to be perceived as better; and they desire to sustain and build upon


14

the fine reputations already established” (Breslin, 2000, p. 228). As institutions of higher

education strive to move forward, questions about the mission, values, and procedures arise

(Tierney, 1988). Institutional climate and culture vary from campus to campus (Moran &

Volkwein, 1988), and even “institutions will similar missions and curricula can perform

differently because of the way their identities are communicated to internal and external

constituencies and because of the varying perceptions of these groups” (Tierney, 1988, p. 3).

Institutions, influenced heavily by demographic, economic, and political conditions, are

also influenced by internal forces such as history and current goals (Tierney, 1988). Tierney

(1988) stated that higher education institutions “are characterized by lifetime employment,

collective decision making, individual responsibility, infrequent promotion, and implicit,

informal evaluation” (p. 7). This management model, relying heavily on positive employee

behavior, raises questions about employee loyalty and beliefs regarding the institution (Tierney,

1988, Folch & Ion, 2009).

Organizational climate in higher education influences motivation and individual behavior

(Moran & Volkwein, 1988). Research shows that within higher education work group culture

influences perception of organizational climate (Moran & Volkwein, 1988), particularly when

employees rely on one another for task completion (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Length

of employment, however, does not affect perception of organizational climate. It has also been

shown that administrators have significantly and consistently more positive perceptions of

climate than do faculty (Moran & Volkwein, 1988). Speaking to this discrepancy,

administrators have a greater grasp than faculty on conditions and decision making processes

that shape college culture and indoctrinate students (Tierney, 1988).


15

A specific concern affecting university culture is work life balance among employees

(Elliot, 2003). While this is an employee relations issue in many employment realms,

universities claim to have an “intellectual capital necessary to develop empirically based

solutions to such practical human problems” (Elliot, 2003, p. 157). University employees do

report great work life balance strain than their corporate counterparts, as staff struggle with

definitive schedules and faculty manage never ending workloads and unclear standards for

success (Elliot, 2003).

As university culture continues to change, relying increasingly on employees, employee

fit and ability to adapt to change is vital to the institution (Breslin, 2000, Folch and Ion, 2009).

Just as donors pledge because of their agreement with mission and philosophy, employees must

desire to invest based on organizational distinctive (Breslin, 2000). Tierney (1988) suggested

that people come to believe in an institution “by the ways they interact and communicate with

each other,” thus hiring for organizational fit is as important as skill set (p. 16). Institutions that

wish to sustain and advance their mission, character, and philosophy must assemble a critical

mass of believers (Breslin, 2000). Breslin (2000) offered that to maintain the mission of the

institution, colleges must hire based on college distinctives.

Customer and Student Loyalty

Research on customer loyalty is increasingly important in today’s highly competitive

markets. Research shows that customers report a strong positive correlation between satisfaction

and loyalty to the service or product (Tsai, Tasi, & Chang, 2010). Customer satisfaction takes

into account price, efficiency, service attitude, and business performance (Tsai, Et. al, 2010).

Additionally, customer satisfaction is positively correlated with customer evaluation of current

product or services offerings, even when the customer hasn’t experienced those offerings


16

themselves (Tsai, et al, 2010). Customer satisfaction also produces a loyalty that is less easily

deterred by increasing prices, than those customers who have not previous experience with the

product or have had a negative experience (Tsai, et al, 2010).

Higher education is becoming increasingly business-like (Nesset & Helgeson, 2009).

Colleges are increasingly being viewed as businesses with major good and clients (Brown &

Mazzarol, 2009), and thus, student loyalty has become a focus (Nesset & Helgeson, 2009).

Students have reported that learning quality has the greatest affect on their feelings of loyalty to

the school. Additionally, student loyalty is affected by their perception of the institutional

reputation; the better the reputation, the higher the level of loyalty (Nesset & Helgesen, 2009).

Similarly, Brown and Mazzarol (2009) find that student loyalty is predicted by satisfaction, and

satisfaction is affected by perceived value. Among students, customer satisfaction is trumped

by institution image as the key for loyalty.

Customers as Employees

A correlation has been found between employee attitude and customer satisfaction

(Griffith, 2001, Kennedy, Lassk, & Goolsby, 2002). These findings, along with recent marketing

literature, have stressed the “importance of creating an organizational culture that is attuned to

meeting and exceeding customer requirements” (Kennedy, Et. al, 2002, p. 159). Kennedy,

Lassk, and Goolsby (2002) suggested that companies should focus on introducing a customer

mind-set among employees. This customer mind-set (CMS) educates employees on the needs

and desires of employees by allowing them to walk in the customer’s shoes (Kennedy et al,

2002). Research on the affect of CMS on customer satisfaction shows that the deeper the CMS

is embedded in the employee base, the more often customer needs are met. These results also


17

showed that the greater the CMS, the more efficient processes, based on the elimination of

activities that did not yield customer-satisfying results (Kennedy et al, 2002).

On an organizational level, research shows that viewing employees as internal customers

is an important decision. A focus on internal customers increases employee satisfaction and

performance (Kennedy et al, 2002). Kennedy, Lassk, and Goolsby (2002) suggested that as

managers satisfy internal customers, employees will then derive greater meaning from their

work, and in turn, work to satisfy their fellow workers. This process will contribute to the

welfare of the organization (Kennedy, 2002).


18

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODS

The following section will discuss the research method that was utilized to measure and

compare understanding, satisfaction, and giving intentions of a group of college alumni and

college alumni employee. This chapter will explain the research design, participant selection,

and data analysis. This chapter will also discuss the researcher’s role, participant protection, and

the research limitations.

Hypotheses

H10: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni understanding of college function.

H1a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have a greater understanding of college function.

H20: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni satisfaction with college services.

H2a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have increased satisfaction with the college services.



financially.

Research Design

This research will be quantitative, employing the use of surveys as data collection tools.

As there is no history for this research topic, the procedure and plan for data analysis is newly

created for this study. The data will be analyzed by comparing understanding of the institutional

function and mission, general level of satisfaction, and intentions to donate between the

employee and non-employee groups.


19

Data Collection

Survey Instruments

Two short surveys will be used. The first, a control group survey (Appendix A), will be

given to a group of alumni who are not employees of the college. The second, an alternative

group survey (Appendix B), will be given to a group of alumni employees of the college. These

surveys will be identical except for the purposes of gathering information related to length of

employment from the alumni employee group.

The first grouping of questions collects basic demographic information regarding their

graduation year from the institution and, in the case of alumni employees, their length of

employment with the college. Following this section is a section consisting of five questions

regarding the participants understanding of college function. These questions target

understanding of college history, administrative structure, student body, and current academic

offerings.

The next section includes five statements that participants are asked to respond to in a

Likert scale format. These statements involve the rating of participant satisfaction level both

currently and at the point of their college graduation. This section also asks participants to rate

their likelihood of choosing the college again for their own education or recommending the

college to others.

The final section includes five statements regarding giving behaviors and intentions.

Once again, participants are asked to respond in a Likert scale format. The statements in this

section revolve around both past and current giving history, as well as future intentions to give.

There is no clear separation between these sections in the survey. Surveys will be created and

managed through the SurveyMonkey survey tool.


20

Participant Selection

The population used for this survey will be the alumni employees of North College. Two

groups will be surveyed as part of the study. For the control group, fifty alumni who do not

work at their alma mater will be solicited to fill out the control group survey regarding their

perceptions of their alma mater. For the second group, fifty randomly selected alumni

employees will be asked to fill out the alternative group survey regarding their perceptions. The

goal is to have at least thirty-five participants for each group. Both solicited groups will be

identified through alumni listings offered by the alma mater. The control group will be solicited

through e-mail and Facebook. The alumni employee group will be solicited through e-mail

only.

Participant Protection

In order to protect the institution and the participants, the college has been given a false

name for this research. All participants will be briefed on the nature of the research and required

to sign an informed consent form prior to participation. The data collection tool, a survey, will be

anonymous. While some specifics regarding length of employment will be recorded, names will

be not attached to each survey. Survey data will be kept in electronic form, secured by a log-in

and password, or in hard copy in a locked area. As the surveys are anonymous, the reporting and

presentation will be free to specific participant information.

Alumni participant’s perceptions of their alma mater may change after consideration of

their understanding, satisfaction level, and intentions to give to the college. Alumni employee

participant’s perceptions of their employer may change after consideration of their

understanding, satisfaction level, and intention to give to the college. Participants may gain a

greater understanding of their own level of understanding of the college functioning, their


21

satisfaction with the college services, and their intentions to give to the college. Considering

their levels of satisfaction and giving intentions may lead alumni to a greater appreciation of

their alma mater and/or employer. Considering levels of satisfaction and intentions to give may

also lead alumni to a decreased appreciation of their alma mater and/or employer. These changes

in perception cannot be controlled as they will be strongly influenced by each participant’s

individual experience and current feelings. However, to assist participants in placing their

thought process within the research context, a full post-survey debrief will be provided, and the

results will be shared.

Researcher’s Role

As the primary researcher, my role is to inform participants about the study, request

participation, and analyze the data. I will seek cooperation from the college, manage the

distribution of surveys, protect participants, and analyze data. I will also distribute results to all

participants and college administration.

Bias

As an alum and employee of the researched institution, I do have pre-existing biases. Due

to the quantitative method of the research, the data will not be influenced in any way, but the

data analysis can be influenced. Also, the hypotheses are based on patterns of behavior I have

observed in this environment. To mitigate the bias, a control group has been added to boost

credibility of not only the results, but also the analysis of the results. Additionally, the originally

intended interview portion was removed to eliminate biased perception of the answers. Analysis

will be focused on quantitative data alone.


22

Data Analysis

The data will be analyzed by comparing understanding of the institutional function,

general level of satisfaction, and intentions to donate between the employee and non-employee

groups. There will also be analysis completed within the employee group, based on length of

employment at the institution. The qualitative data will be analyzed using basic statistics.

First, the five question sections will be separated and averaged for each group. The first section

regarding understanding college functioning will reflect a percentage of correct and incorrect

answers. The second section will be combined to create an average level of satisfaction for each

statement. The third section will be combined to create an average level of past and current

giving, along with giving intentions. The average from these sections will be compared between

the two survey groups.

Additionally, the employee group will undergo an internal analysis. Within the results

for this group, results will be analyzed based on length of employment. Surveys will be grouped

by employment length. Groupings will include the following 3 groups: 1-3 years, 4-8 years, and

9+ years. The same averaging and comparison analysis used between the groups will be used for

comparisons within this group.

The goal of this research is to show a correlation between alumni employed at their alma

mater and their understanding of the college, satisfaction with the college, and intentions to give.

The data analysis of these elements using length of employment as a variable will be used to

strengthen the correlation or lack of correlation that the results show.

Limitations

Several research limitations exist for this research. Research will be based on participant

responses. Participants could respond with false data. To maintain confidentiality, the accuracy


23

of the data (Ex. Giving behaviors) will not be verified. Additionally, participant responses are

based on perceptions. Individual perceptions are not always true to reality and are subject to

change at any time. This creates a challenge to reliability.

Another limitation is participant response. While a sufficient group of alumni and alumni

employees will be solicited, there is no guarantee that these individuals will response. A lowered

number of responses could decrease the accuracy of the results. Also, while participants will be

randomly solicited, there is a chance that those who respond may be alumni and alumni

employees who are already more engaged with college business. This increased engagement

could lead to skewed results as it would reflect a certain subculture within these groups instead

of the wider demographic.

Research Reliability

In order to establish research reliability, the same questions and statements will be used

both for the control and non-control groups. As this study is focused on individual’s perceptions,

and perceptions can change quickly, complete reliability will not be possible. However, focusing

on internal consistency by asking questions or making statements regarding understanding of

college functioning, general satisfaction level, and intentions to donate in multiple ways provides

a more complete and accurate data base from which to draw.

Research Validity

Validity will be established through several methods. First, a control group will be used

to eliminate any bias a single group survey could create and to provide a baseline comparison.

Second, the participants in the study will be fully briefed before completing the survey. This will

reduce hypothesis guessing. Finally, participants will be solicited and surveys will be sent

electronically, thus reducing some of the bias that I might bring to the study as the researcher.


24

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The control group of alumni who did not work at their alma mater received survey A.

The variable group of alumni who did work at their alma mater received survey B. These

surveys were identical except for one additional question on survey B asking the respondents

how long they have been employed by their alma mater.

One question, regarding the College offerings of graduate programs, needed to be removed when

analyzing the data. On the second day of the survey, college employees received an institutional

e-mail stating that the fourth graduate program had been approved, thus making it difficult to

determine the official “correct” answer for this question. The alumni control group, who had not

had this new information shared with them, selected the accepted answer of “three” at a rate of

55.3%. The alumni employee group selected “three” at a rate of 43.2% and “four” at 51.4%.

While in normal circumstances, this data would be included in the analysis and then explained

with a caveat in the limitations section, as the correct answer for this question was

undeterminable, it cannot be used.

Survey A-Control Group

Survey A was sent to 50 alumni who did not currently work at their alma mater. Forty-

seven alumni responded, following the initial invitation and a follow up reminder. Graduation

years for these respondents ranged from 1962 to 2010. Results for survey A can be viewed in

Appendix C.


25

Understanding of North College Function

Of the 47 respondents, 20 respondents (43.5%) responded correctly that the North

College serves 2500 students. Twenty-one (45.7%) responded that the North College serves

3500 students, and five (10.9%) responded that it serves 2000 students.

Regarding a question about the number of academic schools within the North College

structure, 19 respondents (41.3%) responded correctly that the North College serves is structured

in four schools. Eighteen (39.1%) responded that the North College has five schools, six (13%)

responded that it has seven schools, and three (6.5%) responded that it has two academic schools.

Forty-four respondents (93.6%) responded correctly that the North College was

established in 1909. One (2.1%) responded to each of the following answers: 1900, 1917, and

1929.

Regarding the North College’s higher ranking body, 29 respondents (63%) responded

correctly that the North College’s top ranking body is the Board of Trustees. Sixteen (34.8%)

responded that the North College’s president is the highest ranking position and one (2.2%)

responded that this position belonged to the President’s Cabinet.


College offers three graduate programs. Nineteen (40.4%) responded that the North College

offers four graduate program and two (4.3%) responded that it offers six graduate programs.

Satisfaction with North College

Rating the statement, “Upon graduation, I was generally satisfied with the North

College,” 28 (59.6%) of respondents selected completely agree and 16 (34%) selected agree.

Two respondents (4.3%) selected neutral and one (2.1%) selected completely disagree.


26

Rating the statement, “Currently, I am generally satisfied with the North College,” 19

(41.3%) of respondents selected completely agree and 18 (39.1%) selected agree. Seven

respondents (15.2%) selected neutral and two (4.3%) selected disagree.

Rating the statement, “I would choose the North College again for my undergraduate

education,” 23 (48.9%) of respondents selected completely agree and 15 (31.9%) selected agree.

Six respondents (12.8%) selected neutral and three (6.4%) selected disagree.

Rating the statement, “I would recommend a North College education to those I know,”

25 (53.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and 16 (34%) selected agree. Five

respondents (10.6%) selected neutral and one (2.1%) selected disagree.

Rating the statement, “I would encourage my own children to attend North College,” 17

(36.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and five (10.6%) selected agree. Two

respondents (4.3%) selected neutral, seven (14.9%) selected disagree, and sixteen (34%) selected

completely disagree.

Giving Behaviors toward North College

Responding to the statement, “Within the last year I have financially donated to North

College,” 17 (36.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and five (10.6%) selected agree.

Two respondents (4.3%) selected neutral, seven (14.9%) selected disagree, and 16 (34%)

selected completely disagree.

Responding to the statement, “Since graduation I have financially donated to North

College,” 17 (36.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and nine (19.1%) selected agree.

Two respondents (4.3%) selected neutral, four (8.5%) selected disagree, and 15 (31.9%) selected



27

Responding to the statement, “I plan to financially donate to North College in the

upcoming year,” 16 (34%) of respondents selected completely agree and five (10.6%) selected

agree. Eight respondents (17%) selected neutral, eight (17%) selected disagree, and 10 (21.3%)


Responding to the statement, “I plan to financially donate to North College in my

lifetime,” 22 (46.8%) of respondents selected completely agree and 13 (27.7%) selected agree.

Eight respondents (17%) selected neutral, two (4.3%) selected disagree, and two (4.3%) selected


Responding to the statement, “My level of satisfaction with North College upon

graduation affects my donor behavior toward North College,” 13 (28.3%) of respondents

selected completely agree and 16 (32.6%) selected agree. Two respondents (4.3%) selected

neutral, seven (15.2%) selected disagree, and eight (19.6%) selected completely disagree.

Responding to the statement, “My current level of satisfaction with North College affects

my donor behavior toward North College,” 14 (29.8%) of respondents selected completely agree

and 13 (27.7%) selected agree. Six respondents (12.8%) selected neutral, seven (14.9%) selected

disagree, and seven (14.9%) selected completely disagree.

Survey B-Variable Group

Survey B was sent to 50 alumni who currently worked at their alma mater. Thirty-seven

alumni employees responded. Graduation years for these respondents ranged from 1972 to 2009.

Length of employee ranged from one to 28 years. Results from survey B can be viewed in

Appendix D.


28

Understanding of North College Function


College serves 2500 students. Six (16.2%) responded that the North College serves 3500

students, and one (2.7%) responded that it serves 2000 students.

Regarding a question about the number of academic schools within the North College

structure, 34 respondents (91.9%) responded correctly that the North College serves is structured

in four schools. Two (5.4%) responded that the North College has five schools and one (2.7%)

responded that it has seven academic schools.

Thirty-six respondents (97.3%) responded correctly that the North College was

established in 1909. One (2.7%) responded that it was established in 1900.

Regarding the North College’s higher ranking body, 31 respondents (83.8%) responded

correctly that the North College’s top ranking body is the Board of Trustees. Six (16.2%)

responded that the North College’s president is the highest ranking position.


College offers three graduate programs. Nineteen (51.4%) responded that the North College

offers four graduate program and two (5.4%) responded that it offers six graduate programs.

Satisfaction with North College

Rating the statement, “Upon graduation, I was generally satisfied with the North

College,” 19 (51.4%) of respondents selected completely agree and 16 (43.2%) selected agree.

Two respondents (5.4%) selected disagree.

Rating the statement, “Currently, I am generally satisfied with the North College,” 11

(29.7%) of respondents selected completely agree and 21 (56.8%) selected agree. Four

respondents (10.8%) selected neutral and two (2.7%) selected disagree.


29

Rating the statement, “I would choose the North College again for my undergraduate

education,” 23 (63.9%) of respondents selected completely agree and 10 (27.8%) selected agree.

Two respondents (5.6%) selected neutral and one (2.8%) selected disagree.

Rating the statement, “I would recommend a North College education to those I know,”

22(59.5%) of respondents selected completely agree and 12 (32.4%) selected agree. Two


Rating the statement, “I would encourage my own children to attend North College,” 19

(51.4%) of respondents selected completely agree and fifteen (40.5%) selected agree. Two


Giving Behaviors toward North College

Responding to the statement, “Within the last year I have financially donated to North

College,” 16 (43.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and eight (21.6%) selected agree.

One respondent (2.7%) selected neutral, eight (21.6%) selected disagree, and four (10.8%)


Responding to the statement, “Since graduation I have financially donated to North

College,” 16 (43.2%) of respondents selected completely agree and 17 (45.9%) selected agree.

One respondent (2.7%) selected disagree and three (8.1%) selected completely disagree.

Responding to the statement, “I plan to financially donate to North College in the

upcoming year,” 12 (33.3%) of respondents selected completely agree and eight (22.2%)

selected agree. Eight respondents (22.2%) selected neutral, five (13.9%) selected disagree, and 3

(8.3%) selected completely disagree.

Responding to the statement, “I plan to financially donate to North College in my

lifetime,” 14 (37.8%) of respondents selected completely agree and 17 (45.9%) selected agree.


30

Three respondents (8.1%) selected neutral, two (45.4%) selected disagree, and one (2.7%)


Responding to the statement, “My level of satisfaction with North College upon

graduation affects my donor behavior toward North College,” five (13.5%) of respondents

selected completely agree and 19 (51.4%) selected agree. Six respondents (16.2%) selected

neutral, six (16.2%) selected disagree, and one (2.7%) selected completely disagree.

Responding to the statement, “My current level of satisfaction with North College affects

my donor behavior toward North College,” 5 (13.5%) of respondents selected completely agree

and 20 (54.1%) selected agree. Five respondents (13.5%) selected neutral, six (16.2%) selected

disagree, and one (2.7%) selected completely disagree.


31

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The discussion of these results is structured around the three sets of hypotheses. First, the

understanding of college function will be discussed, followed by alumni satisfaction, and then

giving behaviors. Finally, this section will offer implications, limitations, and suggestions for

future research.

Understanding College Function

H10: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni understanding of

college function.

H1a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have a greater understanding of

college function.

The results deny the null hypothesis and support the alternate hypothesis. The alternate

hypothesis regarding understanding of college function is accepted. The first section of each

survey contained five questions aiming to gauge the individual’s grasp of College function.

These questions inquired about size, structure, history, government and new initiatives. With the

exception of one question in which both groups scored above 90% accuracy, the alumni

employee group gave the correct answer more often than the alumni control group. The question

aforementioned, regarding the year of the College’s establishment, may have received highly

accurate answers from both groups due to the widely publicized College Centennial celebration

in 2009. For all other questions in this section the alumni control group gave the correct answer

30-50% less often than the alumni employee group. It was clear that the alumni employee group

had a stronger understanding of College functions in these areas.


32

This spread in knowledge is attributed to the familiarity and direct connection that alumni

employees have with the College. Being on campus several days a week, interacting with

current students, and having a professional responsibility to represent the College make this

knowledge more of a requirement than an option. The control group of alumni are reflecting

information they have learned from their, perhaps, periodical points of connection with the

College. This information could be assimilated through mass communications or through a pre-

existing relationship with someone well-connected to campus. Regardless, retention of this

information is not crucial to their career success or livelihood, and thus was reflected in the

results.

Satisfaction with the College

H20: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni satisfaction with college

services.

H2a: Alumni who work at their alma mater have increased satisfaction with the

college services.


hypothesis regarding alumni satisfaction is accepted. The second set of questions was focused

on satisfaction with the College. These questions asked respondents to read a statement and

respond via Likert scale on their feelings about that statement. For the sake of data analysis, the

results have been categorized into three groups, “Agree,” including those who agreed and

strongly agreed, “Neutral,” and “Disagree,” including those who disagreed and strongly

disagreed. Both groups responded with a “satisfaction upon graduation” rate of over 93%. The

biggest difference between the groups on these questions was a slightly higher (3.3%)

dissatisfaction rate among alumni employees.


33

Current satisfaction for both groups reflected a drop into the 80% range, with the alumni

control group agreeing that they were satisfied 80.4% of the time and the alumni employee group

agreeing that they were satisfied 86.5% of the time. Noteworthy for this question is that the

alumni control group was increasingly dissatisfied between graduation and the present,

increasing from 2.1% to 4.3% dissatisfaction. However, alumni employees decreased their

dissatisfaction from 5.4% to 2.7%.

Both groups would choose the College again for their undergraduate education with a

rate of over 80%, but the alumni employee group answered affirmatively 11% more often than

the alumni control group. The alumni control group said they would not select the college again

at a rate of 6.4%, while the alumni employees said they would not select the college again at a

rate of 2.7%.

Both groups would recommend the College to a friend with a rate of over 85%. Once

again, the alumni employees reflected a higher rate of 91.9% over the alumni control group of

87.2%.

Despite the affirmation of recommending the College to others, only 66% of the alumni

control group would encourage their own children to attend the College, and 8.5% would not

encourage their student to attend. The alumni employee group would encourage their children to

attend at a rate of 91.9%, and only 2.7% would encourage their children not to attend.

While several of these questions asked directly about satisfaction levels, three of the questions

sought to understand satisfaction through the lens of customer loyalty. Learning whether the

participants would choose the College again, recommend the College to a friend, or encourage

their own children to go indicates a level of loyalty that could represent satisfaction.


34

While there was a slightly higher rate of satisfaction among alumni employees when

asked about satisfaction directly, the spread between the groups was nominal. The only

noteworthy difference is that the alumni control group increased in their level of dissatisfaction

between graduation and the present (2.2%), and the alumni employee group decreased their level

of dissatisfaction during that time period (2.7%).

However, in the indirect satisfaction questions, the alumni employee group was

significantly higher than the alumni control group. More than 10% more of the alumni

employees would choose the College again over the alumni control group member. As alumni

employees have the increased opportunities to see the College’s current offerings, this may make

this group more interested in choosing the College again. Those alumni who do not interact with

the College as often may know the College only as they remember it from their time as students,

despite changes that have taken place that might entice them back. And while both groups

would recommend the College to others at high rates, the alumni employees would do this over

5% more often. Finally, alumni employees would encourage their children to attend the College

25% more often than the alumni control group. While encouraging your own child to attend

your alma mater is a great show of satisfaction and customer loyalty, a major player in this

question is tuition. The alumni control group may have responded hesitantly to this question due

to rising costs; however, the alumni employees have the added benefit of having tuition costs

waived for their children. This benefit may reduce their hesitancy and even encourage them

toward a decision to have their child attend the school.

Giving Behaviors toward the College

H30: Working at the alma mater has no impact on alumni intentions to give to the

college.


35

H3a Alumni who work at their alma mater have greater intentions to give to the

college financially.


hypothesis regarding giving intentions is accepted. The third section of the survey contained six

questions related to financial giving behaviors. Alumni employees had given this year at a rate

of 64.8%. The alumni control group had only given at a rate of 46.8%. 89.1% of alumni

employees said they had given at some point since graduation, while only 55.3% of the alumni

control group had given since graduation.

Regarding intentions to give, the 55% of the alumni employee group said they planned to

give this year, and 83.7% said they planned to give during their lifetime. Only 44.6% of the

alumni control group said they planned to give this year, and 74.5% said they planned to give

during their lifetime.

Alumni employees reported that their satisfaction at graduation affected their giving

behavior at a rate of 64.9%, and current satisfaction affected their giving behavior at a rate of

67.6%. The alumni control group reported that their satisfaction at graduation affected their

giving behavior at a rate of 60.9%, and current satisfaction affected their giving behavior at a rate

of 57.5%.

Alumni employees showed increased current giving as well as intentions to give. Once

again, as alumni employees interact with the College on a daily basis, their understanding of the

financial needs of the College may be more sophisticated than those alumni who interact only

from a distance. Specifically in the current economic struggles of higher education, alumni

employees are seeing the pattern of budget cuts, position eliminations, and program cancelations,


36

creating an urgency to the necessity to give that alumni non-employees may or may not

understand.

Limitations

This research has several limitations. While the survey groups were randomly selected,

the groups may not represent a fair comparison. With less than 50 respondents per group, the

sampling may not representative of these groups. To create a more accurate comparison, a larger

sampling would need to be taken from the alumni control group as it represents a much larger

population than the alumni employee group.

Also, there were several question or survey design challenges. One question in the first

section regarding the number of graduate program offerings needed to be removed due to the

lack of a correct answer. Another question regarding the encouragement of their children to

attend the College could have skewed results based on the cost discrepancy between the two

groups. Also, the survey was designed to reduce bias, but the familiarity that alumni employees

and the general alumni population have with me, as the researcher, may have affected the results.

Those alumni or alumni employees with whom I’ve interacted or work with regularly could be

more likely to fill out the survey. Their existing engagement with the Alumni Office and the

College could have given an unfair representation of opinions and behaviors.

Finally, because of the random sampling process, there is no way to accurately know if

those who filled out a survey in the alumni control group ever worked at the College previously.

If they did have previous work at the College, their results could skew the data. Future studies

should include an addition to the survey tool that would inquire about previous employment at

the alma mater.


37

Implications

These results are significant to the relationship between alumni and their alma mater and

how the alma mater views and interacts with alumni. With an increased level of understanding,

satisfaction, and giving behavior, the hiring of alumni as employees of their alma maters has

significant implications. Not only do institutions benefit from the preexisting knowledge of the

institution that alumni employees offer, they can expect to see a higher level of understanding,

satisfaction, and giving from these alumni employees than they do the general alumni

population.

Based on the data, it could be inferred that hiring alumni improves relationships with

these individuals, moving them to a level of greater understanding, satisfaction, and giving. So,

while their view on the institution may not be significantly higher than average at the point of

hire, employment can improve their perceptions and behaviors. This information could also

calm anxieties about the potential damage that alumni employees could have on the institutional

reputation within their personal networks. While there was not a 100% satisfaction rate among

alumni employees, the overwhelmingly positive response, along with the significantly higher

satisfaction rate than that of the alumni control group, shows that alumni employees tend to be

more satisfied. As Hartman and Schmidt (1995) suggest, satisfied alumni support the institution

by providing positive word of mouth communication to others. As higher education institutions

look to expand their network of influence, alumni employees should be key players in this

pursuit. These alumni employees are prime institutional ambassadors, armed with a high level of

institutional understanding and an impressive level of satisfaction both an alum and as an

employee. These individuals, in addition to their official employment roles, can play a critical


38

part in recruiting new students, connecting students to the existing alumni network, and soliciting

the general alumni population for gifts.

These alumni employees represent a ‘double investment,’ as these individuals choose not

only to attend the college, but also to work at the college at some point after graduation. This

level of loyalty creates strong institutional identification for these alumni employees. Mael and

Ashforth (1992) suggests that this type of identification plays an important role in the life of the

individual and provokes a person to connect to the group’s success and failures.

Additionally, and perhaps more institutionally significant, understanding the

identification that these alumni employees feel toward the institution has implications for

comprehension of general alumni behavior. If alumni identification can be understood in a

deeper way, programming can be geared toward greater engagement, and, ultimately, increased

alumni giving.

Mael and Ashforth (1992) suggests that individual need for organizational identification

make organizational identity among alumni unique, full of potential, and critical to the

institution. As institutions begin to analyze and discover the information, symbolism, and

traditions that produce such high levels of satisfaction and identification among alumni

employees, they can use symbolic and information management to extend this “inner circle”

feeling to the general alumni population. Extending a meaningful level of organizational

identification to the alumni constituency will produce support, involvement, and giving (Mael &

Ashforth, 1992).

Future research should include general alumni identification, studying how alums feel

regarding their relationships with their alma mater. Also, research should be conducted on how

general alumni populations would react to receiving internal institutional messaging, similar to


39

that which an employee would receive. Additionally, research should be pursued on how to best

utilize alumni employees in institutional ambassador roles. Part of this research might include

measuring the effectiveness of employees acting as third-party messengers to those outside the

organization.

Summary

The null hypotheses were rejected, and all three of the alternate hypotheses were

supported. The results reflect that alumni employees do have a better understanding of College

function, a higher level of satisfaction with the College, and a great intention to give to the

College than alumni who are not employees. The data infers that the increased contact,

understanding, and investment that alumni employees have with the institution can increase their

understanding of, satisfaction with, and giving behaviors toward the college. These results are

significant to higher education institutions as they considering their hiring practices, best utilize

their alumni employees, and engage the general alumni population. A fresh understanding of

alumni employee identification with the institution could provide vital clues to the type of

communication and engagement necessary to increase general alumni population giving

behavior.


40

REFERENCES

Breslin, R.D. (2000). Hiring to maintain mission. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and

Practice; 4(2), 227-238.

Brown, R.M., & Mazzarol, T.W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student

satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. High Educ, 58, 81-95.

Elliott, M. (2003). Work and family role strain among university employees. Journal of Family

and Economic Issues, 24(2), 157-181.

Fleming, P.L., & Francis, R.G. (1980). Pleasing some of the people some of the time: alumni

perspectives. Teaching Sociology, 7(4), 453-461.

Folch, M., & Ion, G. (2009). Analysing the organizational culture of universities: two models.

Higher Education in Europe, 34(1), 143-155.

Griffith, James. (2001). Do satisfied employees satisfy customers? Support-services staff morale

and satisfaction among public school administrators, students, and parents. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology. 31(8). 1627-1658.

Hartman, D.E., & Schmidt, S.L. (1995). Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a

consumer’s perspective: the effects of institutional performance and performance

outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 36(2), 197-217.

Hoey, J.J., & Gardner, D.C. (1999). Using surveys of alumni and their employers to improve an

institution. New Directions for Institutional Research, 101, 43-59.

Kennedy, K.N., Lassk, F.G., & Goolsby, J.R. (2002). Customer mind-set of employees

throughout the organization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 30(2). 159-

171.


41

Mael, Fred, & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

13, 103-123.

Moran, T.E., & Volkwein, J.F. (1988). Examining organizational climate in institutions of

higher education. Research in Higher Education, 28(4), 367-383.

Nesset, E., & Helgesen, O. (2009). Modelling and managing student loyalty: a study of

Norwegian university college. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(4),

327-345.

Pearson, Jerold. (1999). Comprehensive research on alumni relationships: four years of market

research at Stanford University. New directions for institutional research, 101, 5-21.

Pelletier, K.L., & Bligh, M.C. (2008). The aftermath of organizational corruption: employee

attributions and emotional reactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 823-844.

Robinson, S.L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: the influence of work

groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal,

41(6), 658-672.

Taylor, A.L., & Martin, J.C. (1995). Characteristics of alumni donors and nondonors at a

research I, public university. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283-302.

Tierney, W.G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: defining the essentials.

Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2-21.

Tsai, M., Tsai, C., & Chang, H. (2010). The effect of customer value, customer satisfaction, and

switching costs on customer loyalty: an empirical study of hypermarkets in Taiwan.

Social Behavior and Personality, 38(6), 729-740.


42

Weerts, D.J., & Ronca, J.M. (2008). Characteristics of alumni donors who volunteer at their

alma mater. Res High Educ, 49, 274-292.

Wunnava, P.V., & Lauze, M.A. (2001). Alumni giving at a small liberal arts college: evidence

from consistent and occasional donors. Economics of Educational Review, 20, 533-543.


43

APPENDIX A:

SURVEY A

Appendix A is the survey used to collect data from the control group of alumni.

What year did you graduate North College?

North College currently serves:

a) 1500 students

b) 2000 students

c) 2500 students

d) 3500 students

North College is structured in ____ academic schools:

a) 2

b) 4

c) 5

d) 7

North College was established in:

a) 1900

b) 1909

c) 1917

d) 1930

North College’s highest ranking body/individual is:

a) President

b) President’s Cabinet

c) North College Leadership Council

d) Board of Trustees

North College currently offers ____ Graduate Studies programs:

a) 3

b) 4

c) 5

d) 6

Upon graduation, I was generally satisfied with North College.


44

a) Completely Disagree

b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

Currently, I am generally satisfied with North College.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

I would choose North College again for my undergraduate education.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

I would recommend a North College education to those I know.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

I would encourage my own child to attend North College.



45

b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

Within the last year I have financially donated to North College.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

Since graduation, I have financially donated to North College.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

I plan to financially give to North College in the upcoming year.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

I plan to financially give to North College in my lifetime.



46

b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

My level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North College.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree

My current level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North

College.


b) Disagree

c) Neutral

d) Agree

e) Completely Agree


47

APPENDIX B:

SURVEY B

Appendix B is the survey used to collect data from the variable group of alumni employees.

What year did you graduate North College?

How many years have you been employed at North College? (If you’ve worked at the College

more than once, please list total years of employment.)


e) 1500 students

f) 2000 students

g) 2500 students

h) 3500 students

North College is structured in ____ academic schools:

e) 2

f) 4

g) 5

h) 7


e) 1900

f) 1909

g) 1917

h) 1930

North College’s highest ranking body/individual is:

e) President

f) President’s Cabinet

g) North College Leadership Council

h) Board of Trustees


e) 3


48

f) 4

g) 5

h) 6


f) Completely Disagree

g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree



g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree



g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree

I would recommend a North College education to those I know.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree


49

j) Completely Agree

I would encourage my own child to attend North College.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree



g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree

Since graduation, I have financially donated to North College.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree

I plan to financially give to North College in the upcoming year.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree


50

j) Completely Agree

I plan to financially give to North College in my lifetime.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree

My level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North College.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree

My current level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North

College.


g) Disagree

h) Neutral

i) Agree

j) Completely Agree


51

APPENDIX C:

Survey A (Alumni Control Group) Results

Alumni Survey A-Question #1


Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

1500 students 0.0% 0

2000 students 10.9% 5

2500 students 43.5% 20

3500 students 45.7% 21

answered question 46

skipped question 1

Alumni Survey A

1500 students

2000 students

2500 students

3500 students


52

Alumni Survey A-Question 2

North College is currently structured in ______ academic schools:


Response Count

2 6.5% 3

4 41.3% 19

5 39.1% 18

7 13.0% 6


skipped question 1

Alumni Survey A

2

4

5

7


53




Response Count

1900 2.1% 1

1909 93.6% 44

1917 2.1% 1

1929 2.1% 1


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

1900

1909

1917

1929


54


North College's highest ranking body/individual is:


Response Count

President 34.8% 16

Leadership Council 0.0% 0

Board of Trustees 63.0% 29

President's Cabinet 2.2% 1


skipped question 1

Alumni Survey A

President

Leadership Council

Board of Trustees

President's Cabinet


55

Alumni Survey A-Question #5 (REMOVED FROM ANALYSIS)



Response Count

3 55.3% 26

4 40.4% 19

6 4.3% 2

8 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

3

4

6

8


56




Response Count

Completely Disagree 2.1% 1

Disagree 0.0% 0

Neutral 4.3% 2

Agree 34.0% 16

Completely Agree 59.6% 28


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


57




Response Count


Disagree 4.3% 2

Neutral 15.2% 7

Agree 39.1% 18



skipped question 1

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


58




Response Count


Disagree 6.4% 3

Neutral 12.8% 6

Agree 31.9% 15



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


59


I would recommend a North college education to those I know.


Response Count


Disagree 2.1% 1

Neutral 10.6% 5

Agree 34.0% 16



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


60


I would encourage my own children to attend North College.


Response Count


Disagree 8.5% 4

Neutral 25.5% 12

Agree 29.8% 14



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


61




Response Count


Disagree 14.9% 7

Neutral 4.3% 2

Agree 10.6% 5



Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


62


Since graduation I have financially donated to North College.


Response Count


Disagree 8.5% 4

Neutral 4.3% 2

Agree 19.1% 9



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


63


I plan to financially donate to North College in the upcoming year.


Response Count


Disagree 17.0% 8

Neutral 17.0% 8

Agree 10.6% 5



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


64


I plan to financially donate to North College in my lifetime.


Response Count


Disagree 4.3% 2

Neutral 17.0% 8

Agree 27.7% 13



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


65


My level of satisfaction with North College upon graduation affects my donor behavior toward North College.


Response Count


Disagree 15.2% 7

Neutral 4.3% 2

Agree 32.6% 15



skipped question 1

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


66


My current level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North College.


Response Count


Disagree 14.9% 7

Neutral 12.8% 6

Agree 27.7% 13



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey A

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


67

APPENDIX D:

Survey B (Alumni Employee Group) Results

Alumni Survey B-Question #1



Response Count



2500 students 81.1% 30

3500 students 16.2% 6


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

1500 students

2000 students

2500 students

3500 students


68


North College is currently structured in ______ academic schools:


Response Count

2 0.0% 0

4 91.9% 34

5 5.4% 2

7 2.7% 1


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

2

4

5

7


69




Response Count

1900 2.7% 1

1909 97.3% 36

1917 0.0% 0

1929 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

1900

1909

1917

1929


70


North College's highest ranking body/individual is:


Response Count

President 16.2% 6

Leadership Council 0.0% 0

Board of Trustees 83.8% 31

President's Cabinet 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

President

Leadership Council

Board of Trustees

President's Cabinet


71

Alumni Survey B-Question #5 (QUESTION REMOVED)



Response Count

3 43.2% 16

4 51.4% 19

6 5.4% 2

8 0.0% 0


skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

3

4

6

8


72




Response Count


Disagree 5.4% 2

Neutral 0.0% 0

Agree 43.2% 16



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


73




Response Count


Disagree 2.7% 1

Neutral 10.8% 4

Agree 56.8% 21



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


74




Response Count


Disagree 2.8% 1

Neutral 5.6% 2

Agree 27.8% 10



skipped question 1

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


75


I would recommend a North college education to those I know.


Response Count


Disagree 2.7% 1

Neutral 5.4% 2

Agree 32.4% 12



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


76


I would encourage my own children to attend North College.


Response Count


Disagree 2.7% 1

Neutral 5.4% 2

Agree 40.5% 15



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


77




Response Count


Disagree 21.6% 8

Neutral 2.7% 1

Agree 21.6% 8



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


78


Since graduation I have financially donated to North College.


Response Count


Disagree 2.7% 1

Neutral 0.0% 0

Agree 45.9% 17



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


79


I plan to financially donate to North College in the upcoming year.


Response Count


Disagree 13.9% 5

Neutral 22.2% 8

Agree 22.2% 8



skipped question 1

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


80


I plan to financially donate to North College in my lifetime.


Response Count


Disagree 5.4% 2

Neutral 8.1% 3

Agree 45.9% 17



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


81


My level of satisfaction with North College upon graduation affects my donor behavior toward North College.


Response Count


Disagree 16.2% 6

Neutral 16.2% 6

Agree 51.4% 19



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree


82


My current level of satisfaction with North College affects my donor behavior toward North College.


Response Count


Disagree 16.2% 6

Neutral 13.5% 5

Agree 54.1% 20



skipped question 0

Alumni Survey B

Completely Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Completely Agree

Documents

alma mater? - Yolakristinzummo.yolasite.com/resources/KZummo-Final Research Paper.pdf · alma mater has on the alumni employee perceptions of the school. Problem Statement The problem