In April, we interviewed Dr. Don Hasseltine, Vice President for College Advancement, Dickinson College, whose ““Performance Management Maturity Model” (PMMM) is aimed at helping fundraising professionals identify “a solution to increasing output and improving performance in an environment filled with short term presidents, persistent turnover, greater competition and higher board expectations…” This month, we asked Dr. Hasseltine to elaborate on the implementation of the model at his own institution and how it has changed—and helped—his organization.
WG: Dr. Hasseltine, in our last conversation you explained that the model is based on a five-phase maturity hierarchy: initiating, refining, managing, strategizing, and optimizing. When you implemented the PMMM at Dickinson College at what “stage” was your advancement organization and where are you today?
DH: When I arrived we were performing in the refining phase. Our infrastructure (data systems and research processes) were limited and not very sophisticated. There was little commitment to planned giving or parents. Similarly, our alumni relations program focused almost entirely on regional club events. Further, we acted in a isolated fashion. There was not a lot of connection with the rest of campus. That said, the staff was capable and committed and the senior leadership had a strong vision and a lot of energy. We also had attracted a number of significant commitments in the quiet phase of our campaign.
I used the model to help me think through the sequencing of commitments we needed to make for the program to move forward. The infrastructure became priority one. Without improved reports, data, and systems, our team would be hamstrung in putting together quality programs. Second, we were leaving money on the table by not investing in parents and planned giving. Third, we needed to raise the profile within the college campus. Again, without a broader commitment from our entire campus community we would never build the kind of meaningful relationships with our alumni as needed. And I am just now addressing our need to build a different type of alumni relations program. The steps might appear to be separate stand alone strategies, when they were actually an integrated part of our on-going and daily commitment to improve our output and performance.
With these changes, we are now firmly ensconced in the managing phase and showing signs of moving to the strategizing phase. Our conversations have shifted from an insular view of how do we do what we do better to now one of seeking partners across campus to support our endeavors. We are currently engaged at this level regarding our work with young alumni and current students (student life, alumni relations, communications and development); similarly conversations have begun around volunteer relations (development, alumni relations, admissions, and the career center) and communications (alumni relations, president’s office, development, advancement services, career center, and admissions). What is difficult to predict is the role the model plays outside of our division. If our career center is at a lower maturity phase will the department have the capacity to support our efforts at the managing or strategizing phase of performance. As we venture down this road, my hope is we will learn more about the model and how it informs our ability to work in the strategizing phase.
WG: You cite five key benefits (stated below) to using the PMMM. Have these benefits been realized at Dickinson, and if so briefly describe what was done to achieve each goal.
DH:
• Understanding of when and how to invest in people and programs
Benchmarking and assessment play an important role in identifying what staffing is needed to grow a program. The model gives you a sense of when (i.e. do you hire a director of advancement services before hiring more front line fundraisers) and the how part is connected to what kinds of training and development is needed. The two best examples come from the monograph which described our investment in a parents fund and advancement services positions. We hired the advancement services position first and then followed 6 months later with the parent’s position.
As we move into the last year of our capital campaign, our prospect pool has become shallower. Institutional demand for current use dollars has grown, and leadership wants to move into our next fundraising initiative in short order; these circumstances seem to call for an investment in another major gifts officer to address these issues and get the biggest return on investment. However, the model reminds us that infrastructure and growth will come from building the platform to grow donors. If we know our best pool for future major donors comes from high end annual fund. Then the first sequencing step to growing your major donors is to have a larger pool of high end annual fund supporters. With that rational, we are moving forward with hiring a director of individual giving who will focus entirely on growing the number of leadership annual fund donor pool. We also have also developed some marketing approaches at the annual fund level that mimic major gift type activity, such as asking for a 4- year pledges at the $10K and above levels.
Both of these investments have provided the impact we were anticipating. The model has helped identify the timing for our next investment, too. Instead of hiring another major gifts officer, we will hire a director of individual giving in the next few months. This decision comes at a time when we are concluding our current campaign and the expectation is we will move to another major initiative within 24 months.
• Sequencing performance improvement activities (see above)
• Overcoming organizational roadblocks
Getting increased funding in this economic climate has been difficult to say the least. In the last budget cycle, we secured funding for two additional positions when we were making cuts in many campus programs. Using both benchmarking and the model, I demonstrated how investing in the program will lead to long term success. Again the benchmarking helped give an external perspective to our performance and the model pointed inwardly about what we needed to invest in to perform at our highest level.
• Identifying staff training and development needs
When I arrived, there was concern expressed about our research area- not in the quantity of work- but in what was being produced. It lacked depth and there was no connecting of the dots. Each data element stood alone and was not being tied together into a story of what this prospect might be able to do for the college. The model showed me that our major gifts team was moving out ahead of our research area in terms of maturity. The noise of concern I heard was a call for this area to catch up. We invested in an internal audit by an outside firm and included some training for our research area. It has raised the bar significantly in this area and the noise of concern has disappeared.
• Providing clarity about finding the right person for your positions
As we seek to hire the director of individual giving, we will seek a person who is ready to join the operation at the strategizing phase. This means this person will not only need basic skills to run a program and solicit gifts, but will need the ability to work in a larger context and across his/her reporting structure
WG: Have you encountered any setbacks or opposition in your effort to keep leadership and/or staff focused and committed? If yes, please describe.
DH: Following the model has not led to any opposition from my president. He is interested in having a productive and healthy college advancement shop. If the model helps produce that result and secure the necessary resources for the college, then he is supportive. The fact that the model cost very little to use probably makes the accounting for it by my boss less of an issue. I think most president’s like solutions that add value and do not cost very much.
The biggest setback in using the model for me has been it has identified weaknesses in the skill set of some of my staff who might not have the professional talents to move their program’s to the next maturity phase. A hypothetical situation might include a staff member who has performed well up to the managing phase and now must now work across departments and collaborate to move to the next maturity phase-- strategizing. This is often a place where staff run into problems. So how do you handle as a manager (and this is this why the model is not prescriptive)? I must either commit to train and coach the individual or make a staffing change. Regardless of whichever direction I choose, the model made me cognizant of the skill set required to grow the performance in this area. If I ignore the issue, I risk underperformance and adding a level of dysfunction to the team.
How many of our organizations have these lingering personnel issues? The model makes it clear what skills are required at each phase and can make it easier to describe to staff what skills are lacking and what must improve. The supreme challenge the model presents is leadership must either accept the competent, good staff member who can only perform to a certain level, or decide to make a change and hire the next level of talent to grow the operation to the next level. When you choose the latter, it often requires upgrading the position and salary level to attract the type of talent needed. The model helps make the case for increased support. Simply put, the model makes it easier to identify HR issues and encourages you to do what is best for your organization.
WG: Have you had full support from the top at Dickinson? Give an example of when or how top down support has been beneficial.
DH: As I mentioned in the last interview, presidents and boards are interested in outcomes. My president is aware of what I am doing but it consumes a very small part of what I talk with him about. The model is my tool to make sure our college advancement shop is focused on achieving optimal performance. I am committed to using the model because I believe it will lead to improved output and performance over time.
WG: You state, “To be an effective tool, the model requires only an honest assessment of current circumstances.” Did you find this process easier or harder than you expected?
DH: I found it to be quite intuitive and so have the colleagues who have piloted the model. The challenge for some might come in the way terms are defined. What is” chaotic” to one might simply be poor organization and staff incompetence by another. Another example of confusion might be the way the model discusses "integration." Some shops find it difficult to communicate within their own advancement shop, never mind the possibility of working with admissions or student life or the academic leadership. So some organizations might struggle with using the model to its fullest range of possibilities. If one runs into these types of obstacles, I am reminded of Jim Collins story about a public school physics teacher who built a circle of excellence within his department. If other parts of your campus are not at the same maturity phase as your unit, program or department, there is no reason not to adopt the PMMM model. You might not achieve full optimization, but there will certainly be opportunities for increased productivity and improved performance within your sphere of influence.
WG: You state that the model “provides a prescription for staff development but leaves the “how to” to each leader to define how best to accomplish the development of talent within the limits of that particular organization.” Describe a success story wherein you identified talent, or potential, and how you steered someone to achieve their potential.
DH: For HR purposes, PMMM might serve equally as well as a talent scout. The model offers a program/unit or department assessment and within that assessment are the people running those programs. The success of the model (and sometimes difficult for me) is it provides a clear set of skills required to be successful along the continuum. My 20+ years of experience in the field suggests that most college-educated, well trained advancement professionals, who are committed to their jobs, possess the skills that allow their organization to function at the managing phase. So it appears that most professionals can come into an organization and with the right circumstances move their programs, units, and departments through the initiating and refining phases, and then most can take it to the next level- the managing phase. The difficulty arises most frequently with the leap to the strategizing phase. Fewer professionals possess that skill set, and I have found it difficult to train or coach the strategic mindset required to act and communicate at this level.
WG: You represent the PMMM as “a solution to increasing output and improving performance.” Please cite a couple of specific examples of how you have achieved these outcomes at Dickinson.
DH: PMMM is a diagnostic tool that helps direct and discipline your thinking about how to increase output and improve performance. A similar analogy might be drawn from the coaching ranks- the coach does not make baskets or score goals, but he puts his team in the best position to make those things happen. The model works in a similar way. The model itself does not increase output, however, it builds awareness to help you make decisions that lead to better performance. Two examples from the monograph offer a couple of cases of organizational improvement: The first being the hiring of a director of parent giving. Within three years of hiring this person, parent giving has doubled the fundraising for this constituency. Second example was the hiring of a director of advancement services. He elevated our capacity by building a strong and effective infrastructure. In both cases, the model helped with skill identification and assisted me in sequencing the steps of how to build their respective programs.
I would add that the model needs much more rigorous research in this area. My plan for the coming year is to do a study that I am hoping will allow me to make a more definitive statement about how it impacts productivity. For the time being, the models greatest value is in the way it sequences and disciplines your thinking about how to strategically make your advancement shop more effective.
WG: Thank you
