USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

The effects of decision-making and leadership styles on relationships and perceived effectiveness in the university deve...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effects of decision-making and leadership styles on relationships and perceived effectiveness in the university development context
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Van Loveren, Rachael K
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Fundraising
Trust
Organizational success
Structure
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
ABSTRACT: This study examined how employees' perceptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are associated with their perception of a development operations' effectiveness. Deans, development officers, central development staff, and unit development staff at the University of South Florida were surveyed via email. The results indicated that employees' perceptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are strongly related to their perceived job satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality and consequently their perception of the development operation's effectiveness.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Rachael K. van Loveren.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 69 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001919494
oclc - 184841585
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0002038
usfldc handle - e14.2038
System ID:
SFS0026356:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001919494
003 fts
005 20071218110643.0
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 071218s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0002038
040
FHM
c FHM
035
(OCoLC)184841585
049
FHMM
090
P90 (ONLINE)
1 100
Van Loveren, Rachael K.
4 245
The effects of decision-making and leadership styles on relationships and perceived effectiveness in the university development context
h [electronic resource] /
by Rachael K. van Loveren.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida,
2007.
3 520
ABSTRACT: This study examined how employees' perceptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are associated with their perception of a development operations' effectiveness. Deans, development officers, central development staff, and unit development staff at the University of South Florida were surveyed via email. The results indicated that employees' perceptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are strongly related to their perceived job satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality and consequently their perception of the development operation's effectiveness.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 69 pages.
590
Advisor: Derina Holtzhausen, Ph.D.
653
Fundraising.
Trust.
Organizational success.
Structure.
0 690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.2038



PAGE 1

The Effects of Decision-Making and Leadersh ip Styles on Relations hips and Perceived Effectiveness in the University Development Context by Rachael K. van Loveren A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Public Relations College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Chair: Derina Holtzhausen, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Kelli Burns, Ph.D. Co-Major Professor: Kelly Werder, Ph.D. Date of Approval: July 19, 2007 Keywords: fundraising, trust, orga nizational success, structure Copyright 2007, Rachael van Loveren

PAGE 2

iii Table of Contents Abstract iv Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review 4 Effectiveness 4 Leadership 5 Background 5 Communication 5 Shared Vision 6 Work Environment 7 Leadership Styles 7 Decision-Making 10 Background 10 Decision-Making Processes 10 Decision-Making Pitfalls 11 Participatory Decision-Making 12 Fundraising Models 12 Decision-Making and Job Sa tisfaction 14 Relationships 15 Background 15 Empowerment 15 Employee Satisfaction 17 Trust 19 Values 20 Chapter 4: Methodology 22 Subjects 22 Site 23 Research Instrument 24 Procedures 31

PAGE 3

iv Analysis 31 Chapter 5: Results 33 Chapter 6: Discussion 46 Chapter 7: Conclusion 55 References 60 Appendices 65 Appendix A Questionnaire 66 Appendix B Email to Participants 70

PAGE 4

v List of Tables Table 1 Frequencies 35 Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Leadership Items 37 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviati ons for Decision-Making Items 38 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations for Relationship Items 39 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations for Effectiveness Items 40 Table 6 Reliability Analysis of Constructs, Means and Standard Deviations 4 1 Table 7 Pearson Correlations 43

PAGE 5

vi The Effects of Decision-Making and Le adership Styles on Relationships and Perceived Effectiveness in the University Development Context Rachael van Loveren ABSTRACT This study examined how employees’ perc eptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are associated with th eir perception of a development operations’ effectiveness. Deans, development offi cers, central development staff, and unit development staff at the University of Sout h Florida were surveyed via email. The results indicated that employees’ percep tions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are strongly rela ted to their perceived job sa tisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality and consequently their perception of the development operation’s effectiveness.

PAGE 6

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Establishing an effective deve lopment operation at a university is important because philanthropic support allows universities to execut e initiatives that go beyond the university’s existing resources. For instance, private support can help a university increase its volunteer and alumni base, fund innovative res earch and educational programs, recruit talented faculty and students, and help an institution develop into a pr estigious, reputable university. This is especially important at public universities since their budge ts come from tuiti on and fees, sponsored funding, internal reallocations, state fund ing, and private giving (www.purdue.edu ). Development effectiveness is also critical at universities that are participating in capital fundraising campaigns. Universities participate in these campaigns because it allows them to raise millions, even billions of dollars over seve ral years and helps build prestige and recognition for the university. For instance, at the University of California at Lo s Angeles, the effectiveness of the development program helped the university ra ise $3.05 billion in nine years, making it one of the most successful fundraising campaigns in higher education history (Proctor, 2006). Capital campaigns of $1 billion or more are becoming more prevalent today, especially at public colleges and universities, because taxpayer support is diminishing and “com petition for philanthropic dollars is at an all-time high” (Strout, 2005, p. A34). This means that in today’s society, universities with significant philant hropic support have a competitive edge over their peers. For this reason, it is critical that universities have development programs that are highly effective.

PAGE 7

2 Defining and meas uring development effectiveness, ho wever, is diffic ult because it is multidimensional and not reducible to a single measure. This is further comp licated by the fact that people socially construct their idea of success (Herman & Renz, 1999). In spite of this challenge, researchers have found that employ ees’ perceptions of organizational structure, leadership style, decision-making processes, a nd relationships influence their perceptions of organizational effectiveness (P otosky & Ramakrishna, 2002). The researcher will review the strength of these theories on organizational effectiveness by surveying development employees at the Univer sity of South Florida. This is an ideal research site because the Univers ity of South Florida is about to begin a capital campaign to raise somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion in private donations Therefore, in order to execute its campaign goal, the university needs to ensure that all aspects of its internal development operation are effectiv e. By surveying deans, deve lopment professionals, and USF Foundation staff, the researcher aims to evaluate their perceptions of USF’s leadership, decisionmaking style, organizational relationships, and the overall perceived effectiveness of the development operation. This study is important because it could determine how to increase the perceived effectiveness of university developm ent operations and therefore help universities cultivate more prestige and recognition. This study is especially im portant to public relations practitioners because they are responsible for ensuring employees and external constituents have a pos itive perception of the organization. Employees’ overall perception of the organization is related to their perception of the organization’s leaders, decision-making processe s, relationships with colleagues and leaders, and by their overall perception of how effective the organization is at helping them achieve their goals and objectives. According to Srirames h, Grunig, & Dozier (1996), excellent public

PAGE 8

3 relations is possible in both a participatory and au thoritarian culture, but the participatory culture correlates more strongly with a sy mmetrical system of internal co mmunication, organic structure, and job satisfaction. This is most likely becau se participatory cultures emphasize collective responsibility, decision-making, values, and a co mmon mission. Furthermore, when public relations practitioners focus on the wants, needs, and expectations of organizations and publics, they can achieve the organization’s social, eco nomic and political goals (Ledingham, 2003). Therefore, this study could help public relations practitioners improve employees’ perceptions of the organization and cons equently their perception of their ability to be effective at achieving organizational goals and objectives.

PAGE 9

4 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Effectiveness Several factors influence an organization’s effectiveness. Effectiveness is important because the more effective an organization, the be tter it is at achieving organizational goals and building a positive image in the ey es of its stakeholders. The different attributes of an organization’ s internal audiences must be taken into consideration when leaders make decisions about how to run an organization. An organization’s image is especially critical to its internal audience, because employees’ perception of the organization influences their morale, produc tivity, goal execution, and overall satisfaction (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). Therefore, leaders mu st evaluate the most ef fective ways to ensure its employees have a positive perception of the or ganization. This can be quite challenging since peoples’ perceptions are influenced by a wide rang e of factors and persona l attributes; however, researchers have found that organizational structur e, leadership style, decision-making processes, and relationships significantly influence em ployees’ perceptions of an organization and, consequently, its effectiveness (Potosky & Rama krishna, 2002). These organizational factors will be discussed in detail in the text that follows.

PAGE 10

5 Leadership Background University leaders shape the environment and cu lture of the institution. The president, vice presidents, and deans set the university’s mi ssion, vision and goals and consequently the decisions they make influence the productivity and success of their development staff. Many researchers have different ideas about what constitutes effective leadership. According to Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (1992), for organizatio ns to be excellent they must have a strong participative culture, be orga nic and innovative, and have leaders who inspire instead of dictate. They argued that leader s should use strategic planning, establish an environment that is socially re sponsible, place emphasis on quality in all processes and establish a collaborative work environment. Effective leadership is important because it can facilitate the establishment of successful teams, which in turn can “improve orga nizational communication, productivity, quality, efficiency, timeliness, customer service, employee morale, and inn ovation” (Nichol 2000, p. 3). When management is comm itted to building strong teams, esta blishes systems a nd processes that are conducive to productivity and team-building, and empowers employees to take control of their jobs, they are establishing a culture that drives employees to go above and beyond to make the organization successful. Communication Holtzhausen (2002a) found that workplace demo cracy and democractic leadership styles have a positive effect on employee communicati on. Workplace democrac y was described as a decentralized system that enc ourages employee participation and symmetrical communication. Holtzhausen found that workpl ace democracy has a positive impa ct on organizational trust,

PAGE 11

6 information flow, face-to-face communication, a nd consequently reduces employees’ fear to communicate with superior s. These factors in turn fac ilitate positive relationships between employees and managers that are based on open communication. Decentr alized environments also encouraged employee particip ation in the decision-making pr ocess, which facilitated positive relationships between employees and their superiors. Shared Vision Communication seems to have a significant effect on developing and implementing an organization’s vision. Farmer, Slater, and Wright (1998) eval uated the ability of mid-sized organization to achieve a shared vision while it wa s undergoing change with the appointment of a new chancellor. The researchers chose this univers ity at this point in time, because they believed that organizations undergoing cha nge succeed or fail depe nding on their ability to cope with that change. They believed that a key factor in co ping with change was ach ieving a shared vision throughout all levels of the organizati on through effective communication. They found that a leader who decentralized the organization’s hierarchy and used effective two-way communication strategies to communicatate the vision to the employees was the most effective at facilitating a shared vision in the organization. Specifically, they concluded that employees were more likely to agree with the le ader’s vision when they received frequent information about the vision from the leader through memos, emails, meetings, and local newspapers. Employees also reported that they preferred to communica te with the chancellor about the institutions agenda rather than with th e vice chancellor, deans, department heads, or their colleagues. The researchers suggested th at public information officers should help the leader craft messages that are effective at facilita ting a shared vision, esp ecially because a shared vision helps nurture a positive work environment.

PAGE 12

7 Work Environment Today organizations face increased soci al and economic change and increased competition, especially as soci ety becomes more tec hnologically advanced. Therefore, for organizations to ensure long-term survival and success, they must increase organizational creativity and innovation. Certain environments se em to have an effect on organizations’ quality, productivity, innovation, job satisfaction, well bein g and profit (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). The environments that facilitate these positive outcomes are charact erized by a commitment to ambitious goals, freedom and au tonomy in task decisions and performance, encouragement of ideas, sufficient time for cr eating ideas, and managers w ho provide adequate feedback, recognition and rewards for crea tive work. Furthermore, th ese environments encourage participation, a shared concern for excellence and performance and support for innovative ideas. Similarly, employees’ perceptions of the work environment have been found to have a moderating effect on goal orientati on, self-efficacy and job performance. Positive perceptions of the organization are driven by in traorganizational communication, challenging job assignments, supportive management policies, and appropriate reward practices (Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002). Employees who view the en vironment as supportive have gr eater beliefs of self-efficacy in achieving goals and performing work tasks. Leadership Styles Researchers have also found that differen t styles of leadership influence employees’ perceptions of how to deal with leaders. Deluga (1990) evaluated the different types of leadership styles. Deluga (1990) investigated the effects of transformational, transac tional, and laissez faire leadership characteristics on subordinates’ appro ach to influencing their boss. Laissez faire leadership was defined as passive leaders who are reluctant to influence subordinates, give

PAGE 13

8 direction, and make decisions. Transactional lead ership was defined as reciprocal leadership in which leaders and subordinates bargain for po wer and benefits. Finally, transformational leadership was defined as a leader-subordinate relationship characterized by intense emotion where subordinates place a great deal of trust and confidence in the leader. Deluga (1990) found that employees take a ha rd influencing approach with laissez faire leaders. The hard approach is used by employ ees who maintain a str ong power position, expect resistance, and hold advantage over their lead er. These employees make demands, express emotion and act assertive. This leader-employee relationshi p can create an uncomfortable organizational environment in which subordi nates compete for their boss’s power. Employees used a soft influencing appro ach with transformational leaders, which involves the use of flattery and friendliness and is used when the subordinate has little power, expects resistance, and is at a relative disadvant age to the leader (Deluga 1990). This leaderemployee relationship can cause an inflated sense of self-image in leaders and trigger denigrating perceptual stereotyes of subordinates. Deluga concluded that the rationa l approach used with transactional leaders, which is characterized by logical arguments and negotiation, is the most effective at maintaining long-term organizationa l stability. In this dynamic, leaders and employees share equal power, which helps create a positive e nvironment for employees to succeed. In contrast, a different study concluded that employees strongly preferred transformational leaders to transactional lead ers, although they also sometimes preferred situational leaders who exercised qualities of both types when difficult circumstances arose (Aldoory & Toth, 2004). This st udy further defined transactiona l leadership as authoritative leadership that is characterized by certainty, clear direction, and personal oversight and that is the

PAGE 14

9 least supportive of intentional change. Transf ormational leaders were defined as charismatic leaders who inspire employees to execute ch allenging goals and feel invested in the organization’s mission. There was not much difference between men and womens’ perceptions, except that women found it sligh tly more important that leader s know how to establish good rapport and share decision-making power. Both ge nders agreed that men and women are equally capable of being good leaders. Furthermore, transformational leadership results in more engaged and devoted employees who go above and beyond the job requirements to achieve organizational goals (Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). In a st udy that evaluated the effect of leadership style on job satisfaction, it was found that employees who reported to transformational leaders rated their jobs as more challenging, meaningful and signficant, and the researchers believed this was in large part due to the fact that their j obs were linked to the broader purpose, goals, and mission of the organization. Thes e employees were more willing to do things that help others when it is not part of their job, work for the ov erall good of the company, do things to promote the company, and help th e commpany maintain a pos itive work environment. In summary, research shows th at strategic leadership can f acilitate organizational success. This signifies that if university leaders want to secure significant phila nthropic support for their institution, they should employ effective leader ship strategies that inspire development professionals to succeed. Furthermore, as leaders develop strategies, they should also determine how often to include development professionals in the decision-m aking process, especially in regards to goal achievement. In the secti on that follows, research on decision-making is presented to demonstrate how the decision-making process can shape employees’ perceptions of the organization and their ability to be effective at their jobs.

PAGE 15

10 Decision-Making Background Leaders are responsible for establishing a pr ocess by which decisions are made. This process is critical to organizations because it can hinder or facilitate goal execution, job satisfaction, and overall effectiven ess. Leaders must determine at what level of the organization decisions are made, how much participation and power employees have in the process, and the best approach to making decisions. The resear ch on decision-making attempts to address these issues. Decision-Making Processes Today’s work environment is becoming incr easingly turbulent and therefore managers must take responsibility for making good decisions in order to ensure the organization’s survival (Moss & Kinnear, 2007). Managers often have in complete information and inadequate time to make decisions, and therefore should be decisi ve because delaying decisions could negatively affect the organization. When making decisions, some researchers suggested that managers should try to gather information from as many levels of the organization as time allows, remember that their information sources might not be trustworthy or accurate, keep in mind that incorrect decisions could have consequences, a nd understand that a changing work environment could affect their decisions. These researchers al so believed that the most important thing was for managers to take responsibility fo r the outcomes of decisions and not blame others when things go wrong because pointing the finger at othe rs would only erode trust and respect. Kaval and Voyten (2006) ela borated on how to establish effective processes for making and implementing decisions. They believed that decisions fall into th ree categories: crisis, operational, and strategic. They defined thes e terms using a scenario in which a healthcare

PAGE 16

11 organization had 100 open nursing positions and 70% of new hires consistently resigned because of overtime requirements. In th is scenario, crisis d ecisions would be filli ng the positions quickly to meet patient care demands, operational decisi ons would concern assessing the issues that caused high turnover, and strategi c decisions would be determing how to put the right people in the positions during the nursing shortage. They belie ved that all three types of decisions should be considered to effectively addr ess the issue, and that it was impor tant to always clearly define the objective while allowing for flexibility in case circumstance s changed in the organization. Organizations should evaluate the nature of their culture and decision-making style and determine which decision-making process is mo st effective (Kaval & Voyten, 2006). They recommended that managers determine who should be involved in the decision-making process, consider how decisions will affect employees empower the staff to make and implement decisions, use effective communication to keep le aders and staff informe d, and determine what obstacles prevent the organization from effec tively making and implementing decisions. They believed that by being more proactive in the de cision-making process would help managers reach appropriate conclusions and prevent them from being caught in last minute decision-making. Decision-Making Pitfalls Some researchers also believe that managers must embrace ri sk as an opportunity while avoiding the common pitfalls of making deci sions (Kourdi, 2006). The pitfalls included overanalysis, failure to execute decisions, blaming employees for negative outcomes, perpetuating past mistakes, being overcautious and risk averse, giving disproportionate weight to the first information received, givng undue weight to a recent event, seeking information to support an existing decision and overes timateing the accuracy of forecasts.

PAGE 17

12 Participatory Decision-Making Avoiding these pitfalls is critical because managers’ everyday decisions can create or destroy a company’s strategy (Bow er & Gilbert, 2007). The rese archers said, “the cumulative impact of the allocation of resources by managers at any level has more real-world effect on strategy than any plans developed at a company’ s headquarters” (p. 72). Often times companies are made up of several hierarchical layers in wh ich managers at all levels of the organization implement strategies before getting official approv al from the top-level ch ief executive officers. Therefore, “at the same time that corporate sta ff is beginning to roll out initiatives, operating managers invariably are already acting in ways that either uncercut or enhance them” (p. 74). Operating managers can provide co rporate management with an inte grated picture of what their company could accomplish today and in the futu re, and therefore management should gather information from their subordinates in order to make strategic decisions. Furthermore, managers should observe empl oyees to assess the organization's strengths and weaknesses, and then tailor goals, communi cation, and organizational strategies to the employees (Hatch, 1997). Hatch believed that or ganizations generally make better decisions when they listen to and coll aborate with employees instead of just making decisions independently and persuading employees to adapt. Fundraising Models There has been a long-time debate about whet her development professionals should have a voice at the leadership level. At the leadership le vel, development officers are able to play a part in shaping the university’s goals and can particip ate in the decision-making process to determine the most effective way to practice fundraising. Kelly (1995) argued that employees should ha ve a voice in the decision-making process,

PAGE 18

13 especially when the organization is deciding whic h kind of fundraising model to practice. This decision is important because th e fundraising model determines how development professionals and senior management interact and how the institution interact s with donors in the fundraising process. Some fundraising models are more ethical and effective th an others, so it is important to know which model is best a nd implement it accordingly. Kelly’s (1995) research revealed that th e symmetrical model is the most effective fundraising model. In the symmet rical model, the head of the fundraising department is part of the dominant coalition; i.e., management team, and the rela tionship between development professionals and senior administrators is based on reciprocal communication and trust. This is the only model that correlates positiv ely and signicantly wi th the number of to tal dollars raised, it has the strongest relation with increased private support, and it allows the university to be the most ethical and socially responsible in its relations with donors. Although, in a study to determ ine the types of fundraising models that are actually used by U.S. charitable organizations today, Kelly (19 95) found that in 63% of U.S. charitable organizations, the head of the fu ndraising department is a member of the dominant coalition, but the university uses the asymmetrical model of fu ndraising. The asymmetrical model is not based on reciprocal communication and tr ust, and is characterized by unbalanced power and control between senior level administrators and staff. In the remaining 37% of charitable organizations, the head of the fundraising department is not a me mber of the leadership team and the university uses the press agentry model of fundraising. In this model, development propagandizes a philanthropic cause and uses manipulation and em otional appeals to solic it funds from donors. Kelly concluded most charitable organizations do not use the most effective model of fundraising. This means that if universities want to be successful in fundraising, they must re-

PAGE 19

14 evaluate which type of model is most conducive to their development staff’s success and make decisions accordingly. Decision-Making and Job Satisfaction Pincus, Knipp, and Rayfield (1990) evaluated the relationship between internal communication and job sati sfaction. They found that employ ees’ views of comm unication with their immediate supervis ors and top managers, and their ability to participate in the decisionmaking process was strongly related to their job satisfaction. They found that top management can foster job satisfaction for employees by allowi ng them to offer input and feedback regularly and by giving them greater ownershi p in the decision-making process. The level of employee involvement in the deci sion-making process seems to be enhanced by superior-subordinate communication (Holtzhaus en, 2002a); however, managers should keep in mind that employee involvem ent does not take place until the employee perceives that involvement. Therefore, managers must evalua te organizational success in terms of their employees’ perceptions. When the perceptions of the organization’s decision-making process are positive, it leads to increased motivation and pr oductivity, upward and downward communication flow, and job satisfaction. As a result, employees are able to make decisi ons with higher quality information, adapt better to the organization’s internal and ex ternal environment, and compete in successfully in the market. Many researchers have found that organizati onal structure, leadership style, and decision-making have an effect on employ ee relationships. Positive relationships between employees and managers have b een found to affect job satisfaction and organizational success. In the next secti on, research on organizational relationships is discussed to shed light on its importance to success in university development.

PAGE 20

15 Relationships Background Leaders are responsible for establishing a supportive work environment in which employees’ have positive interp ersonal relationships. This process is critical to organizations because it can hinder or faci litate goal execution, job satisfaction, and overall effectiveness. The research that fo llows attempts to demonstrate the importance of relationships to organizational success. Researchers have found that relationship management is critical to practicing excellent public relations (Ledingham, 2003). Building and su staining organizationpublic relationships requires both effective communicati on, and positive organizational and public behaviors. When public relations practitioners focus on the wants, needs and expectations of organizations and publics, they can achieve the organization’s social, economic and political goals. Practitioners should remember though that organizational relationships involve an ongoing exchange of needs and expectations, can shape peoples’ perceptions and behaviors, can change ove r time, and can be nurtured through mutual understanding and benefit. Empowerment If managers and employees have strong, positive relationships and collaborate effectively, it is likely that employees will feel empowered to achieve organizational goals. In a study to evaluate employee empowerment, King and Ernhard (1997) found that the attractiveness of an organization's culture infl uences employee empowerment, productivity, and loyalty. They discussed how employees move through a process when they develop attraction for an organization. Th e first step in the process is developing

PAGE 21

16 loyalty toward the organization, the second is value congruence, and th e third is affective commitment. They stated that when an employee reaches the final step, affective commitment, they are personally bonded to the organization and willing to perform beyond normal expectations for the good of the organization. Similarly, a different study found that tr ansformational leader ship resulted in more engaged and devoted employees who went above and beyond to achieve organizational goals (Purvanova, Bono, & Dz ieweczynski, 2006). These employees perceived their leaders as inspirational and supportive of their abil ity to achieve lofty goals, and therefore found their work more challenging, meaningf ul and signficant. As a result, employees were willing to go out of their way to help others, work hard to promote the company, and help maintain a positive work environnment. Establishing positive relationships with employees is important because it can help an organization reduce conflict and engender cooperation from its publics (Huang, 2001). Research has shown that there is a significant relationship between symmetricalethical communication and interpersonal comm unication, and between social activities and integrative resolutions. This research demonstrates that effective communication and positive interpersonal relationships helps ensure employees will not turn their back on the organization when conflicts occur. Furthermore, when employees are satisfie d with the organization and believe in its mission, they are committed to its long-term success (Brody, 2002). By using effective two-way communication, managers can establ ish positive relationships with employees that empower them to succeed. Consisten tly exceeding employees’ expectations for the organization helps ensure employees are sa tisfied with their jobs and with their

PAGE 22

17 relationships with senior managers, and consequently committed to the organization’s mission. Employee Satisfaction Employee satisfaction has also been found to increase an organization’s revenue (Maitland, 2005). In a study to determine the relationship between growth in net income and employee satisfaction levels, it was f ound that over a 12-month period, employees with high employee satisfaction outperformed the average rise in net income by 6 per cent, while those with low levels of satisfac tion underperformed by 9 per cent. In order to build relationships with employees that increase their job satisfaction, this study suggested that organizations help employees achieve personal growth, establish a culture of collaboration across the or ganization, communicate effect ively with employees, and lead in a way that inspires and excites staff. The morale of the organization is also a key component of job satisfaction. Positive relationships with senior level admi nistrators based on trust, communication, and recognition are critical to establishing pos itive morale (Johnsrud and Rosser, 1999). By ensuring employees are satisfied with their jobs they will be inspir ed to perform well and will feel they have a stake in the company’s su ccess. In contrast, if the organization does not maintain a positive relationship with empl oyees and does something that erodes trust, it is likely that employees will become dissatisfied with the organization and therefore prevent it from effectively executing its mission. Pincus, Knipp, and Rayfield (1990) investig ated the relationshi p between internal communication and job satisfaction among superv isors of commerical banks in southern California. They found that employees’ pe rceptions of organi zational communication

PAGE 23

18 were positively and significantly related to job satisfaction. Specifically, the results indicated that employees’ views of communicat ion with their immediate supervisors and top managers, and their ability to participat e in the decision-maki ng process was strongly related to their job satisfacti on. One of the most consistent findings in the study was that supervisors’ job satisfaction was mostly influenced by their communication with top management and their ability to influence workplace decisions, rather than by their communication with their immediate supervisors. This suggests that as individuals rise in the organizational hierarchy, top management should allow them to frequently participate in the decision-making process in or der to maintain and foster job satisfaction. Research has also shown that employees are more satisfied with their jobs when they work in environments that facilitate mutual trust and confidence, support for ideas, open relationships, challenge and mo tivation, commitment to the organization’s goals, freedom to seek information and an open exchange of opinions and ideas (Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). In a study that inve stigated the effect of mentor relationships and supportive communication on nurses’ job satisfaction, Kalbfleisch and Bach (1998) found that stress, burnout and turnover in the nursing field was signfican tly related to nurses feeling they worked hard with little recognition, were frequently cr iticized, and rarely rewarded for their efforts. Their study revealed that job satisfaction was si gnificantly related to supportive communication and positive mentor re lationships that encouraged them to do their best, supported them when others criticized, provided th em with needed information and defended them when administration made unfair decisions and showed a lack of respect. These studies demonstrate the impor tance of employees’ job satisfaction to the

PAGE 24

19 organization’s long-term success. In addition to all of the factors th at facilitate employee satisfaction, organizational trust has been found to have a significant impact on relationships in the organization. Trust The old models of internal organi zational communication do not motivate employees to accomplish management's goals, because they diminish employees' trust and faith in the organization's leadership (E.F. Harshman & C.L. Harshman, 1999). This lack of trust and faith erodes management's credibility and hinders performance at all levels of the organization. Research has show n that large organizations are becoming less hierarchical and are focusing more on em powering employees, teamwork and more integrated internal communication in order to establish positive rela tionships and achieve success. Joni (2004) agreed that trust was im portant because it helps build positive relationships and demonstrates an employee’s integrity and expertise. She discussed how managers can establish trust with employees through shared experiences in the workplace and by demonstrating they are know ledgeable in their field. Joni believed that is critical to constantly reassess one's relationships w ith employees because th e level and type of trust changes over time. Furthermore, in a study that examined th e relationship between managerial trust and employee empowerment in 128 manager-employee dyads from 13 different organizations, positive relationships between employees and managers were found to have a significant effect on managerial trust and employee empowerment (Gomez &

PAGE 25

20 Rosen, 2001). This study also argued that orga nizational and social structure is not as influential in establishing this relationshi p, although many other res earchers argue it is. Davidson, McElwee, and Hannan (2004) i nvestigated how trust and power are determinants of conflict reso lution strategy and outcome sa tisfaction. They found that equal power and high trust situations infl uence people to choose more cooperative strategies and to attain mo re satisfactory outcomes than low trust or unequal power situations. They discussed how high trust relationship dyads used less avoiding and dominating strategies in nego tiations, especially when power was equally distributed. The researchers argued that leaders must know how to reco gnize low trust climates so they can increase trust in their efforts to im prove the negotiation process. Since leaders are the most persuasive people in the workpl ace due to their power status, the researchers believed they would be the most effectiv e at preventing conflic t and strengthening morale. Balancing power and improving trus t should therefore stre ngthen relationships and performance outcomes in the organization. Values Organizational values also influen ce organizational performance outcomes (Fitzgerald & Desjardins, 2004). Specifically, organizational values that are congruent with employees’ values have a significant effect on empl oyee satisfaction, commitment and performance outcomes. Organizations that communicate and implement shared values effectively are able to get employ ees more involved in participatory decisionmaking and more committed to the organizati on’s success. To establish a culture that promotes shared values, managers should integr ate values at all leve ls of the organization and in all processes, includi ng hiring methods, performance management systems, and

PAGE 26

21 promotion and reward criteria. Effectiv ely implementing this value-laden culture encourages positive interactions between em ployees and between managers and their subordinates. Managers should also learn to balanc e values, interests, and power between leaders and employees in the organization in order to achieve harmony in the workplace. Prilleltensky (2000) believed leaders must balance personal a nd collective wellness (values), pulls to help ourselves and to help ot hers (interests), and th e values and interests of the public, workers, and leaders (power). By successfully balancing these aspects of the organization, leaders are ab le to effectively model valu e-based practices and foster positive relationships between employees. The literature makes it evident that employees ’ perceptions of orga nizational leaders, decision-making processes, and relationships are strongly related to their perception of the organization’s ability to help them be e ffective at their jobs. Based on the literature, the research questions are: RQ1: Do USF development employees percei ve the leadership style in the USF development operation as transformational or transactional? RQ2: Do USF development employees perceive decision-making in the USF development operation as participative? RQ3: Is there a relationship between lead ership style, decision-making style, perceived effectiveness and the relationship constructs of control mutuality, trust, satisfaction or commitment? RQ4: Do USF development employees perceive the USF development operation as having leaders who are effective?

PAGE 27

22 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY This study aimed to evaluate USF development employees’ perceptions of the USF development operation’s lead ership style, decision-maki ng processes, organizational relationships, and effectiveness in helpi ng employees’ achieve goals and objectives. Specifically, the researcher tried to determine if empl oyees’ perceived leaders as transformational leaders, if they percei ved the decision-making process to be participative, and if they pe rceived relationships in the U SF development operation to be based on control mutuality, trust, satisfacti on and commitment. The researcher also attempted to determine if employees perc eived the leaders in the USF development operation to be effective at he lping them execute developmen t goals and objectives. The final aim of the study was to evaluate the re lationship between employees’ perceptions of the USF development operation’s leadersh ip style, decision-making processes, organizational relationships and leadership effectiveness. Subjects The researcher strived for a census of the USF development operation, meaning she tried to obtain participat ion from every dean, development officer, unit development staff person, and central devel opment staff person in the USF development operation. A census is possible when the actual population is small and the researcher has access to all members of the population under study (S tacks, 2002). Within the development operation, there are a total of 125 people who wo rk in different parts of the development

PAGE 28

23 operation, including central development, the 9 unit development offices, the alumni association, business and financial services, and advancement operations. The researcher obtained a list of participants from th e USF development operation’s Web site. Site The University of South Florida is planning to launch a capital fundraising campaign to raise somewhere between $500 and $1 billion. Therefore, USF is trying to ensure that its internal development operati on is effective, which includes having great leaders, effective decision-making processes, the right number of motivated staff, and strategic collaboration between al l of the development units. According to Hall (2003), one of the f actors that can faci litate or hinder development effectiveness is the structure of the development operation. Unit development officers and chief advancement offi cers disagree about which office should have primary responsibility for setting development priorities, which coordination and control measures are the most effectiv e, and what kind of communi cation should exist between the central office and the units, as well as between chief advancement officers and faculty. Since there is not a best-practices m odel for structuring a developmen t program, each institution must tailor its structure to the unique needs of the development operation and its employees (Hall, 2003). Currently, USF has a hybrid structure, meaning it is both centralized and decentralized. It is centraliz ed through its central development office. There, the vice president of the entire development operati on and the vice president’s staff oversee the development operations procedures and make decisions that affect the way development operates. The development operation is decentralized through the associate vice

PAGE 29

24 presidents who manage the individual devel opment units and who work with their own development staff to execute the unit’s goals. Since the USF development operation’s structure is both centralized and decentralized, it is likely that there is some disagreement among employees about which type of structure is most effective in helpi ng them achieve their goa ls and objectives. The structure of the development operation affect s the way leaders run the organization, the way decisions are made, and the types of re lationships that exis t between employees. Therefore, employees’ perceptions of these organizational factors are related to their perceptions of the development operation’s abil ity to help them be effective at achieving development goals and objectives. Employees ’ ability to be effective is extremely important to development leaders, especially now that USF is entering into a capital fundraising campaign. Research on effectivenes s reveals that employees are able to be more effective at their jobs when they ha ve positive perceptions of the organization’s leadership style, decision-making processes, and organizational relationships (Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002). Therefore, the USF devel opment operation is an id eal site to evaluate employees’ perceptions of these organizationa l factors and how they relate to their perceptions of development lead ers’ ability to help them effectively execute goals. Research Instrument To evaluate employees’ perceptions of leadership, decision-making, relationships, and the USF development operation’s ability to help employees’ be effective at executing goals, the researcher emailed a questionnaire to all of the deans, development officers, central development staff and unit development staff in the development operation. The

PAGE 30

25 researcher chose to conduct survey resear ch because it gathers “relatively in-depth information about respondent attitudes and beliefs” (Stacks, p. 175, 2002). The questionnaire consisted of four sect ions that evaluate d the participants’ perceptions of leadership, d ecision-making, relationships and leadership effectiveness. The questions were based on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from ( strongly disagree ) to ( strongly agree ) with a mid-point for a neutral response. The constructs in the questionnaire were created based on the theories of leadership, decision-making, relationships, and effectiveness. The devel opment of these questionnaire constructs is discussed in the next secti on, starting with leadership. Leadership Research showed that employees strongly preferred transformational leaders to transactional leaders because these leaders were charismatic and inspir ed employees fulfill the organization’s mission (Purvanova, Bono, & Dzie weczynski, 2006). Transformational leaders were more likely to share decision-making po wer, establish good rapport, and communicate regularly with employees about the organizati on’s purpose, goals, and mission. This transformational leadership style resulted in more engaged and devote d employees who found their jobs more challenging, mean ingful and significant. In contrast, transactional leaders were defined as authoritative leaders who made employ ees feel they had to bargain for power and benefits. Theses leaders did not inspire empl oyees to go above and be yond to execute the organization’s goal (Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). Therefore, the leadership section of the questionnaire was designed to determine if employees’ perceived the leaders in the USF de velopment operation as transformational leaders or transactional leaders. To evaluate whether or not employees perceived leaders as transactional,

PAGE 31

26 the researcher asked participants to rate the following items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree: The leaders involved in development at USF do not get emotionally involved. The leaders involved in development at USF are in control at all times. The leaders involved in development at USF offer rewards and incentives. To evaluate whether or not employees pe rceived leaders as transformational, the researcher had employees rate the following statements: The leaders involved in development at USF think it is impo rtant to establish good rapport with development staff The leaders involved in development at USF share decision-making power. The leaders involved in development at USF practice participative management. Decision-Making The decision-making section of the que stionnaire was based on Thompson and Tuden’s research and Hatch’s research. Ba sed on Thompson and Tuden’s research, as cited in Hatch (1997), all types of decisions, no matter what th e magnitude, play a role in shaping the organization. Therefore, manage ment should observe employees to assess the organization's strengths and weaknesses, and then tailor goals, communication, and organizational strategies to the employees Managers are more likely to make good decisions when they listen to and collabora te with employees instead of just making decisions independently and pers uading employees to adapt. Therefore, the researcher designed the decision-making section of the questionnaire to determine if employees’ perceived the decision-making process as

PAGE 32

27 participative, authoritarian or indecisive. To evaluate pa rticipative decision-making, the researcher used the following statements: Decision making power is shared by all development professionals, deans, and USF Foundation employees; Employees take responsibility for the outcomes and consequences of their decisions. To evaluate authoritarian d ecision-making, the researcher us ed the following statement: Decisions about development are made by a few leaders at USF without input from employees involved in development. Finally, to evaluate indecisive decisionmaking, the researcher used the following statements: Decisions about development are often made at the last minute and with incomplete information. Decisions about development ar e made by trial and error. Relationships The relationship section of the survey was based on Grunig and Hon’s (1999) research. According to their relationship th eory, employees’ percepti ons of relationships can be measured. Grunig and Hon (1999) us ed the following elements to measure organizational relationships: Control Mutuality: This refers to degr ee to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another. Although some imbalance is natural, stable relationships require that organizations and public s each have some control over the other.

PAGE 33

28 Trust is based on a party’s level of conf idence in and willingn ess to open oneself to the other party. There are three dimens ions to trust. Integrity refers to the belief that an organization is fair and just Dependability refers to the belief that an organization will do what it says it wi ll do. Competence is the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it says it will do. Satisfaction: This relates to the extent to which each party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations a bout the relationship are reinforced. A satisfying relationship is one in which the benefits outweigh the costs. Commitment: This is the extent to whic h each party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote. Two dimensions of commitment are continuance commitme nt, which refers to a certain line of action, and affective commitment, wh ich is an emotional orientation. The researcher adapted Grunig and Hon’s re lationship theory in her questionnaire in order to evaluate employees’ perceptions of control mutuality, trust, commitment and satisfaction. To evaluate pe rceptions of control mutualit y, the researcher used the following statements: Employees working in development at USF are attentive to what each other say. Employees working in development at USF believe my opinions are legitimate. In dealing with people like me, employees working in development at USF have a tendency to throw thei r weight around. To evaluate perceptions of trust, the researcher used the following statements: Employees working in development at USF treat me fairly and justly.

PAGE 34

29 Whenever employees make an important decision about development, I know they will be concerned about me. The employees working in development at USF can be relied on to keep their promises. To evaluate perceptions of commitment, the researcher used the following statements: I feel that employees working in development at USF are trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me. I feel that employees working in deve lopment at USF want to maintain a relationship with me. There is a long-lasting b ond between the employees working in development at USF and me. To evaluate perceptions of satisfaction, the researcher used the following statements: I am happy with USF. I have a reciprocal relationship with th e employees working in development at USF. Most people working in development at USF are happy with their interactions with the organization. Leadership Effectiveness The leadership effectiveness part of the questionnaire was based on the literature on effectiveness. According to Nichol (2000), effective leadership is important because it can facilitate the establishment of successf ul teams, which in turn can “improve

PAGE 35

30 organizational communication, productivity, qua lity, efficiency, timeliness, customer service, employee morale, and innovation” ( p. 3). When management is committed to building strong teams, establishes system s and processes that are conducive to productivity and team-building, and empowers employees to take control of their jobs, they are establishing a culture that drives employees to go above and beyond to make the organization successful. To evaluate perceptions of effectivene ss, the researcher used the following statements: Leaders involved in development at USF help the development staff meet their development goals and objectives. Decisions about development result in e ffective strategies for implementation. Leaders involved in development at USF use two-way communication to facilitate mutual understanding with development staff. Leaders involved in development at USF build strong relationships with development professionals that facilitate goal achievement. Leaders involved in development help development staff create the right image for the university in order to raise funds. Leaders involved in development help development staff increase alumni, volunteer, and donor support. In addition to evaluating employees’ percep tions of these organizational factors, demographic information was collected for ever y participant in orde r to further analyze the results of the study.

PAGE 36

31 Procedures The researcher did not pre-test the qu estionnaire because it was such a small sample. The researcher emailed all 125 deve lopment employees to inform them of the study and her desire for their participation be fore emailing the questionnaire to them. She then sent a second email asking for thei r participation and told them that their identity would remain anonymous and their responses would be kept confidential. Employees were told that the questionnaire wo uld take 15 minutes to complete and that they could return the questionnaire via email or fax. For employees who participated, the researcher would confirm receipt of the questionnaire and thank them for their participation. The number of partic ipants ended up being 74 employees. For those who did not respond to the email, the researcher waited a week before emailing them again, and then wa ited four more days before emailing them a fourth time. Follow up telephone calls were made to the empl oyees who did not respond to the emails. Of the 51 who did not participate in the study, 22 declined participation, 21 never responded, and 8 no longer worked at USF. Analysis The researcher first ran frequency statis tics to determine the number of employees who were male versus female and who were in certain positions and departments across the university. The statistics also indicated the number of years employees worked at USF and their number of years of experience in fundraising. The researcher then ran descriptive statistics to see what the mean and standard deviation was for each construct and variable in the questionnaire. Next, the researcher ran Cronbach’s Alpha to test each construct’s reliability, including leadershi p, decision-making, control mutuality, trust,

PAGE 37

32 commitment, satisfaction, and leadership effectiv eness. After testing the reliability, the researcher used Pearson Correlations to de termine the significance and strength of the relationships between all of the items. Finally, the One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to help explain the sources of vari ance in the relationship of several demographic items with the constructs used in the study.

PAGE 38

33 CHAPTER 5: RESULTS This study aimed to evaluate USF development employees’ perceptions of the USF development operation’s lead ership style, decision-maki ng processes, organizational relationships, and effectiveness in helpi ng employees’ achieve goals and objectives. Specifically, the researcher tried to determine if empl oyees’ perceived leaders as transformational leaders, if th ey perceived the decision-maki ng process as participative, and if they perceived relationships in th e USF development operation to be based on control mutuality, trust, satisfa ction and commitment. The researcher also attempted to determine if employees perceived the leader s in the USF development operation to be effective at helping them execute development goals and objectives. The final aim of the study was to evaluate the relationship be tween employees’ perceptions of the USF development operation’s leadership style, decision-making processes, organizational relationships and leadership effectiveness. This section provides the results of this study, starting with a breakdown of the number of people who participated in the study. University of South Fl orida Employee Profile The researcher contacted 125 USF development employees to participate in the study. As previously stated, eight people on the list were no longer working at USF, which brought the population of the study to 117. A total of 74 people ended up

PAGE 39

34 participating, meaning there was a 63.2 percent participati on rate. Of the 74 respondents to the survey, 32.4 percent (n=24) were ma le and 67.6 percent (n=50) were female. Respondents included deans (n=3), developm ent officers (n=25), central development staff (n=26) and unit development staff (n =20). The Central Development Office represented 20.3 percent of the respondents, 17.6 percent were from the Health Sciences Development unit and the remaining responde nts were from a range of colleges, departments and units throughout the USF development operation. Participants varied in the number of years they had worked at USF, but 63.5 percent (n=47) worked there for five years or less. The participants also va ried in the number of y ears of experience they had in fundraising, although 49.3 percent (n=36) had 0-5 years of experience and 26 percent (n=19) had 15 or more years of experience. Tabl e 1 provides the number and percentage of people in each demographic.

PAGE 40

35 Table 1. Frequencies Item Category N Percent Sex Male 24 32.4 Female 50 67.6 USF Position Dean 3 4.1 Development Officer 25 37.8 Central Development Staff 26 35.1 Unit Development Staff 20 27.0 College/Department/Unit Central 15 20.3 Alumni Association 3 4.1 Business and Financial Services 3 4.1 Advancement Operations 9 12.2 WUSF/Public Broadcasting 1 1.4 Administration 1 1.4 Arts and Sciences 2 2.7 Athletics 5 6.8 Business Administration 3 4.1 USF Health Development 13 17.6 Education 2 2.7 Engineering 2 2.7 Library 3 4.1 Visual and Performing Arts 2 2.7 USF Sarasota Manatee 5 6.8 USF St. Petersburg 3 4.1 Suncoast Gerontology 1 1.4 FMHI 1 1.4 Years at USF 0-5 yrs 47 63.5 6-10 yrs 13 17.6 11-15 yrs 5 6.8 15+ yrs 9 12.2 Years of Experience in Fundraising 0-5 yrs 36 49.3 6-10 yrs 13 17.8 11-15 yrs 5 6.8 15+ yrs 19 26.0

PAGE 41

36 Descriptive Statistics This study aimed to evaluate the perceptions held by USF deans, development officers, central development staff and unit development staff in regards to the USF development operation. Tables 2 5 show the items used to evaluate employees’ perceptions of leadership, d ecision-making, relationships, and effectiveness. As stated previously, each survey statement was based on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ( strongly disagree ) to ( strongly agree ) with a neutral point for no opinion responses. Each table will be described in detail in the text that follows. Leadership Table 2 shows the items used to measure respondents’ perceptions of leadership. The respondents rated one of the items sligh tly higher than the re st, and this was the items that stated, “the leaders involved in development at USF thi nk it is important to establish good rapport with development sta ff” (m=4.95) Respondents rated two of the items on the lower end of the scale, and th ese items included the statements, “leaders involved in development at USF are in cont rol at all times” (m=3.80) and that “leaders involved in development at USF offer reward s and incentives” (m=3.60). The remaining three items were rated somewhere in between these two sides of the scale, and these statements included, “the leaders involved in development at USF do not get emotionally involved” (m=4.45), “the lead ers involved in development at USF share decision-making power” (m=4.39), and “the leaders involved in development at USF pr actice participative management” (m=4.32).

PAGE 42

37 Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations for Leadership Items N Mean Std. Deviation 1. The leaders involved in developm ent at USF do not get emotionally involved. 73 4.45 1.70 2. The leaders involved in development at USF are in control at all times. 74 3.80 1.54 3. The leaders involved in develo pment at USF offer rewards and incentives. 74 3.60 1.70 4. The leaders involved in developmen t at USF think it is important to establish good rapport with development staff. 74 4.95 1.67 5. The leaders involved in develo pment at USF share decision-making power. 73 4.39 1.62 6. The leaders involved in developm ent at USF practice participative management. 74 4.32 1.61 Decision-Making Table 3 shows the items used to measur e respondents’ percep tions of decisionmaking. The items rated highest included “decisions about development are made by trial and error” (m=4.55), and “employees take responsibility for the outcomes and consequences of their decisions” (m=4.33). The items rated lowest were “decisionmaking power is shared by all developmen t professionals, deans, and USF Foundation employees” (m=3.12), and “decisions about development are made by a few leaders without input from employees involved in development” (m=3.84). The remaining variable was rated in between these two sides of the scale, and this is the one that stated “decisions about development are often made at the last minute with incomplete information” (m=4.13).

PAGE 43

38 Table 3. Means and Standard Deviat ions for Decision-Making Items N Mean Std. Deviation 1. Decisions about development ar e often made at the last minute with incomplete information. 73 4.13 1.72 2. Decisions about development are made by trial and error. 74 4.55 1.58 3. Decision-making power is shared by all development professionals, deans, and USF Foundation employees. 73 3.12 1.46 4. Employees take responsibility for the outcomes and consequences of their decisions. 74 4.33 1.48 5. Decisions about development ar e made by a few leaders without input from employees involved in development. 73 3.84 1.58 Relationships Table 4 provides the 12 items used to measure respondents’ perceptions of relationships in the USF development opera tion. Respondents rated three items higher than the rest. These items included “employees working in development at USF treat me fairly and justly,” (m=5.09) “I am happy with USF,” (m=5.36) and “I have a reciprocal relationship with the employees working in de velopment at USF” (m=4.94). The lowest rated items included “whenever employees make an important decision about development, I know they will be concerned about me” (m=3.66), “most people working in development at USF are happy with their in teractions with the organization” (m=4.12), and “I feel that employees working in deve lopment are trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me” (m=4.16).

PAGE 44

39 Table 4. Means and Standard Devi ations for Relationship Items N Mean Std. Deviation 1. Employees working in development at US F are attentive to what each other say. 74 4.64 1.56 2. Employees working in development at USF believe my opinions are legitimate. 74 4.87 1.52 3. In dealing with people like me, employ ees working in development at USF have a tendency to throw their weight around. 73 4.69 1.51 4. Employees working in development at USF treat me fairly and justly. 74 5.09 1.42 5. Whenever employees make an importa nt decision about development, I know they will be concerned about me. 74 3.66 1.63 6. The employees working in development at USF can be relied on to keep their promises. 72 4.22 1.71 7. I feel that employees working in deve lopment at USF are trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me. 72 4.16 1.61 8. I feel that employees working in de velopment at USF want to maintain a relationship with me. 73 4.76 1.62 9. There is a long-lasting bond between th e employees working in development at USF and me. 73 4.30 1.46 10. I am happy with USF 74 5.36 1.31 11. I have a reciprocal relationship with the employees working in development at USF. 74 4.94 1.28 12. Most people working in development at USF are happy with their interactions with the organization. 74 4.12 1.49 Leadership Effectiveness As shown in Table 5, six items were used to measure responden ts’ perceptions of effectiveness. It is important to report the means for all six items, because the researcher’s primary aim in this study was to determine how responde nts’ perceptions of leadership, decision-making and relationships related to their perceptions of the development operation’s overall leadership eff ectiveness. Three of the items were rated slightly higher than the rest, and those included the items that stated “leaders involved in development help the development staff meet goals and objectives” (m=4.54), “leaders involved in development help development staff increase alum ni, volunteer and donor

PAGE 45

40 support” (m=4.68), and “leaders involved in development help development staff create the right image for the univers ity in order to raise funds” (m =4.73). The remaining three items were rated lower than the rest, and thos e included the items that stated “decisions about development result in e ffective strategies for implementation” (m=4.22), “leaders involved in development use two-way communi cation to facilitate mutual understanding with development staff” (m=4.23), and “lead ers involved in development at USF build strong relationships with development profe ssionals that facilitat e goal achievement” (m=4.29). Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Leadership Effectiveness Items N Mean Std. Deviation 1. Leaders involved in development help the development staff meet goals and objectives. 74 4.54 1.46 2. Decisions about development result in effective strategies for implementation. 74 4.22 1.43 3. Leaders involved in development at USF use two-way communication to facilitate mutual understandi ng with development staff. 73 4.23 1.47 4. Leaders involved in development at USF build strong relationships with development professionals that facilitate goal achievement. 74 4.29 1.52 5. Leaders involved in development help development staff create the right image for the university in order to raise funds. 73 4.73 1.59 6. Leaders involved in development help development staff increase alumni, volunteer, and donor support. 73 4.68 1.52

PAGE 46

41 Reliability of Constructs The researcher then tested the reliab ility of each construct using Cronbach’s Alpha. If the alpha is equal to or greater than (0.70), the construct is considered reliable (Stacks, 2002). As shown in Table 6, the alph as were greater than (0.70) for all of the constructs, meaning they were all reliable. Subsequently the items for each construct were collapsed into a single construct. The only construct that was not reliable was the transactional leadership construct, which ha d an alpha of (0.24). Because the Indecisive Decision-Making construct consisted of only two items a Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted in stead of a Conbach’s alpha Because the statisti cal significance and strength of the relati onship was strong enough ( r =.60, p<.001), these two items were subsequently collapsed into a single vari able. Table 6 presents the alphas for the leadership, decision-making and effectiveness constructs, and their means and standard deviations, as well as the mean and standard deviation for Indecisive Decision-Making. Table 6. Reliability Analysis of Constructs, Means and Standard Deviations Construct Alpha Mean Standard Deviation Transformational Leadership .87 4.56 1.45 Participative Decision-Making .75 3.77 1.23 Indecisive Decision-Making 4.35 1.51 Effectiveness .94 4.48 1.30 Control Mutuality .88 4.38 1.21 Trust .78 4.32 1.34 Commitment .87 4.40 1.39 Satisfaction .75 4.81 1.11

PAGE 47

42 Pearson Correlations The researcher ran Pearsons Correlati ons to measure the relationship between items (Stacks, 2002). Specificall y, these correlations showed the statistical significance and strength of the relati onship between items. Table 8 shows that there was a statistically significant relati onship between every variable (p<.001) and the strength of the relationships was moderate to strong. Stack s (2002) suggests that correlations that are less than or equal to (0.30) are weak, between or equal to (0.40) and (0.70) are moderate, and between or equal to (0.70) and (0.90) are strong. Based on this standard, the stronge st relationships existed between transformational leadership and trust ( r =.78, p<.001), transformational leadership and commitment (r=.72, p<.001), transformati onal leadership and satisfaction ( r =.76, p<.001), and transformational lead ership and effectiveness ( r =.75, p<.001). Strong relationships also existed between particip ative decision-making and effectiveness ( r =.75, p<.001), control mutuality and trust ( r =.73, p<.001), control mutuality and satisfaction ( r =.77, p<.001). There were also strong rela tionships between trust and commitment ( r =.75, p<.001), trust and satisfaction ( r =.77, p<.001), commitment and satisfaction ( r =.72, p<.001), and satisfaction and effectiveness ( r =.76, p<.001). The weakest relationship existed between indecisi ve decision-making and commitment ( r =.32, p<.001).

PAGE 48

43 Table 7. Pearson Correlations Indecisive DecisionMaking Index Participative DecisionMaking Index Control Mutuality Index Trust Index Commitment Index Satisfaction Index Leadership Effectiveness Index Transformational Leadership Index .45 .000 .62 .000 .59 .000 .78 .000 .72 .000 .76 .000 .75 .000 Indecisive Decision Making Index .58 .000 .49 .000 .47 .000 .32 .000 .52 .000 .61 .000 Participative DecisionMaking Index .65 .000 .65 .000 .50 .000 .65 .000 .73 .000 Control Mutuality Index .72 .000 .67 .000 .77 .000 .69 .000 Trust Index .75 .000 .77 .000 .67 .000 Commitment Index .72 .000 .64 .000 Satisfaction Index .76 .000 ANOVA Interpretation To help explain the sources of variance in the relationship of several demographic items with the constructs used in this st udy, the researcher used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Based on the factor analysis, the dependent items were transformational leadership, indecisive d ecision-making, participative decision-making, control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commit ment, and effectiveness. The demographic items were used as the independent it ems, and included sex, position at USF, college/department/unit in which employees worked, years employees worked at USF, and years of experience in fundraising. There were no statistically si gnificant differences between how men and women perceived the di fferent constructs, except in terms of effectiveness (F=6.818, p <.05). Men (m=3.92) had lower perceptions of effectiveness than women (m=4.75). There was not a statistically significant difference between employees’ position at USF and their perception of leadership in the development operation. There also was not

PAGE 49

44 a significant relationship between the area the employee worked in at USF and their perception of leadership in the developm ent operation, but there were significant relationships between the employees’ year s of experience in fundraising and their perceptions of cont rol mutuality(F=3.208, p <.05), commitment (F=3.671, p <.05), and satisfaction (F=6.818, p <.05). People who had 11-15 year s of experience represented 6.8% of the total respondent s, while people who had 15 or more years of experience represented 68% of the population. The peopl e who had 11-15 years of experience had lower perceptions (m=3.42) of control mutuality than the people who had 15 or more years of experience (m=5.28). The group with less experience also had lower perceptions of commitment (m=3.00) than the people who had more experience (m=5.07). Finally, the group with 11-15 years of experience also had lower perceptions of satisfaction (m=3.80) than the group who had 15 or more years of experience (m=5.32). In the next section, the researcher will discuss these findings in light of the six research questions the researcher initially posed in order to apply the theories to the research results.

PAGE 50

45 CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION The findings demonstrate that employees ’ perceptions of l eadership, decision making, and organizational relationships is si gnificantly related to their perception of leadership effectiveness. This means that employees believe th eir perceptions of leadership, decision-making, a nd relationships in the USF development operation is related to their perceived ability to be e ffective in achieving development goals and objectives. Employees indicated that they be lieve leadership effectiveness is strongly related to transformational leaders, participative decision-making, and employee satisfaction. The researcher will discus s the results of the st udy in light of the research questions. RQ1: Do USF development employees perceive the leadership style in the USF development operation as transformational or transactional? The reliability for transactional leadership was extremely low so the researcher could not determine if they perceive d the leaders in development to be transactional, because this part of the questionnaire did not effectively measure tr ansactional leadership. As for transformational leadership, employees did no t strongly agree or di sagree that the USF development operation had transformational leaders. They rated transformational leadership somewhere between “no opinion” and “somewhat agree” (m=4.56). This means that they almost somewhat agree that l eaders in development are transformational.

PAGE 51

46 The fact that employees only slightly agr eed that leaders in USF development are transformational is problematic for the deve lopment operation, because perceptions of leadership influence their productivity, morale, motivation, and goal execution. Furthermore, the data analysis reve aled that USF employees thought that transformational leadership wa s strongly related to trust, commitment, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Therefore, if they do not view leaders as transformational, they will probably not have very positive perceptions of the latter factors. The research on leadership shows that e ffective leaders shape the environment and culture of the institution and facilitate the establishment of successful teams which can “improve organizational communication, product ivity, quality, efficiency, timeliness, customer service, employee morale and innova tion” (Nichol, 2000). Therefore, if the USF development operation wants to improve employees’ perceptions of leadership, it will have to ensure its leaders possess the trai ts and behaviors that employees consider to be transformational. According to the lit erature, the USF development operation can cultivate a transformational le adership style by inspiring em ployees and by linking their jobs to the broader purpose, goals, and mission of the organization (Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). Transformational leader s result in more engaged and devoted employees who go above and beyond the job requirements to achieve organizational goals. Leaders will also need to establish reciprocal rela tionships based on trust and communication, and provide employees with supportive management policies and appropriate rewards practices so employees feel more confident in th eir ability to achieve organizational goals and objectives (Potos ky & Ramakrishna, 2002). By doing all of these things, leaders will be able to inspir e employees to care about the success of the

PAGE 52

47 development operation and motivate them to effectively execute fundraising goals and objectives. RQ2: Do USF development employees percei ve decision-making in the USF development operation as participative? When employees reported their perception of particip ative decision-making, they were somewhere between “no opinion” and “somewhat disagree” (m=3.77). This means that they slightly disagree that decision-ma king is participative in the USF development operation. This perception of decision-making means employees do not feel involved in the decision-making process. This is a problem for the USF development operation because employees reported that participative decisi on-making is strongly re lated to leadership effectiveness, meaning they believe participa tive decision-making is associated with their leaders helping them be effective at achie ving goals and objectives. Furthermore, research shows that when employees’ percep tions of the organizations’s decision-making process are positive, it leads to increase d motivation and productivity, upward and downward communication flow, and job sa tisfaction (Holtzhausen, 2002). Also, organizations generally make better decisions when they listen to and collaborate with employees instead of just making decisions independently and persuading employees to adapt (Hatch, 1997). Therefore, in order fo r USF to improve employees’ perceptions of the decision-making process, it should allo w employees to participate in the decisionmaking process, empower the staff to make and implement decisions, use effective communication to keep leaders and staff info rmed, and determine obstacles that prevent

PAGE 53

48 the organization from effectively making a nd implementing decisions (Kaval & Voyten, 2006). By establishing a participative decision-making process, leaders will improve employees’ perceptions of the development ope ration, and consequently their perceptions of effectiveness. Positive perceptions of these factors should make employees more effective at executing the developm ent operation’s goals and objectives. RQ3: Is there a relationship between leadership style, decision-making style, perceived effectiveness and the relation ship constructs of control mutuality, trust, satisfaction or commitment? Since there were four constructs used to evaluate employees’ perceptions of the overall relationship construct, they will first be discussed individually and then summarized as a group in terms of what they mean for the USF development operation. Control Mutuality Control mutuality refers “to the degr ee to which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another” (Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999, p. 3). Employees were somewhere between “no opinion” and “s omewhat agree” when they reported their perception of control mutuality (m=4.74). This means that they only slightly agreed that relationships in the USF development operation were based on control mutuality. This is important to USF because employees indicated that they believe control mutuality is strongly related to trust, sa tisfaction, and effectiveness. USF should take this percep tion as a warning sign. According to theories on organizational relationships, although some im balance is natural, stable relationships require that organizations and publics each ha ve some control over the other (Grunig,

PAGE 54

49 1999). This means that employees at USF do not view their relati onships with other employees as stable or unstable, but really do not have an opinion either way. Having no opinion is not necessarily negative, but that means it is not a positive perception either. According to a study conducted by Ki & Hon (2007) among all of the factors that affect relationships between employees, “perceptions of satisfaction and control mutuality are the best predictors of a positive attitude toward the organization” and this positive attitude is a “precursor to supportive behavioral intentions toward the organization” (Hon & J.E. Grunig, 1999, p. 1). Therefore, if leaders at USF want employees to work hard to achieve development goals and objectives, they must ensure employees are satisfied and that relationships between employees are based a we ll-balanced sharing of power and control. Finding the right balance can prove challenging, but what leaders can do is empower employees by including them in the decisi on-making process, comm unicating with them regularly about the organization’s mission a nd direction, and provi ding them with the necessary support and resources to do their jobs effectively. Trust Employees were somewhere between having “no opinion” and “somewhat agreeing” that relationships in the USF development operation were based on trust (m=4.32). Leaders should take these findings very seriously, because USF employees reported that their perceptions of trust are strongly relate d to their pe rceptions of commitment, satisfaction, and effectiveness. Therefore, if leaders want employees to be effective at their jobs and at achieving the development operation’s mission, they wi ll need to establish relationships

PAGE 55

50 characterized by a higher level of trust. Tr ust can be established by demonstrating one’s ability to deliver on a promise, by comm unicating regularly and effectively with colleagues, and through other shared experien ces in the workplace. One thing leaders should keep in mind is that relationships change over time and so does the level of trust, so it is critical to constantly reassess one’s relationships in the organization (Joni, 2004). Commitment USF development employees were somewhere between “no opinion” and “slightly agreeing” that relationships in the USF development operation were based on commitment (m=4.40). This is important to USF development leaders because employees stated that their perception of commitment is strongly related to their perception of satisfaction. Ther efore, if the environment of the development operation does not make employees feel their colleagues and leaders are committed to establishing positive, long-lasting relationships with them, th ey are less likely to be satisfied with the organization and effective at their jobs. Leaders set the tone and cu lture of the organization, so they are responsible for the types of relationships that exist betw een their employees. In order to improve organizational relationships and make employees feel their colleagues are committed to maintaining those relationshi ps, leaders must set a good ex ample by establishing positive relationships with employees. According to relationship theory, commitment is the extent to which each party believes and feel s that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote (Grunig & Hon, 1999). Leaders can show employees that they believe it is worth spending time on by communicating often with them, giving them ample support and resources to do their jobs, involving them in the decision-making

PAGE 56

51 process, and by allowing employees to evaluate their leadership skills and the aspects of the organization that could use improvement. By engaging in these behaviors, leaders will demonstrate they are interested in a l ong-lasting relationship with their employees, and therefore employees will be more likely to emulate these same behaviors in their own relationships with colleagues. Satisfaction Employees were somewhere between “no opinion” and “somewhat agreeing” that relationships at USF are satisfy ing (m=4.81). This is very impor tant to leaders in the USF development operation because employees indica ted that satisfaction is strongly related to their perception of leadership effectivene ss, meaning they believe that when they are satisfied with relationships, their leaders are more effective at helping them achieve development goals. As discussed earlier, satisfac tion is one of two factors th at significantly influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors toward an organization (Ki & Hon, 2007). Employee satisfaction has been found to increase an organization’s revenue (Maitland, 2005), enhance morale, increase productivity, and empower employees to go above and beyond the normal requirements of their job to ma ke the organization successful (Purvanova, Bono, & Dzieweczynski, 2006). Even more importantly, employees at USF specifically stated that their level of job satisfaction is related to thei r leaders ability to help them be effective at achieving their goals and objectives. Therefore, if leaders at USF want their employees to be effective at achieving de velopment goals and objectives, they must improve employees’ level of job satisfaction.

PAGE 57

52 Leaders can increase satisfaction by co mmunicating regularly with employees, allowing them to participate in the decision -making process, linking employees’ jobs to the broader purpose and mission of the organizat ion, facilitating mutual trust and respect, and by cultivating relationships that make employees feel the organization is committed to their long-term success and growth (Johnsr ud & Rosser, 1999). By engaging in these practices, leaders will improve employees’ pe rception of satisfacti on and consequently their perception of leaders’ ability to he lp them be effective at their jobs. RQ4: Do USF development employees perceive the USF development operation as having leaders who are effecti ve at helping them achi eve development goals and objectives? Employees were somewhere between “no opinion” and “somewhat agreeing” that leaders were effective at helping them achieve development goals and objectives (m=4.56). This means that they only slightly agreed that leaders help development staff meet goals and objectives, create the right image for the university in order to raise funds, and help them increase alumni, volunteer, and donor support. It is important to evaluate these findings in light of employees’ per ceptions of transfor mational leadership, participative decision-making, and employee satisfaction, because employees indicated that these factors are strongly relate d to leadership effectiveness. This implies that leaders in USF development must improve employees’ perceptions of these factors in order to improve employees ’ perceptions of leadership effectiveness. According to research, co mmunicating an organiza tion’s vision clearly and empowering employees to achieve goals and objectives is critical to an organization’s effectiveness (Ghoshal and Br uch, 2004). In a study that examined the

PAGE 58

53 public relations strategies us ed to communicate with an organization’s audience, goal compatibility was the strongest predictor of effectiveness across strategies (Werder, 2005). Research also shows that employees are mo re likely to be satisfied with their jobs and effective at achieving goa ls if they are involved in the decision-making process, inspired by transformational leaders to ex ecute challenging goal s, provided with sufficient support and resources, and involved in relationships with their colleagues that are built on trust, commitment, and satis faction (Potosky & Ramakrishna, 2002). Furthermore, research shows that the symme trical model of fundr aising, which is based on two-way communication and reciprocal relati onships, is the only model that correlates positively and significantly with the number of total dollars raised and has the strongest relation with increased privat e support (Kelly, 1995). Since employees did not perceive leaders to be very effective at helping them execute goals, leaders should try to improve their perceptions by engaging in more transfor mational leadership, participative decisionmaking, and relationships characterized by trust, commitment, and satisfaction.

PAGE 59

54 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION This study revealed that USF employees only slightly agr ee that the USF development operation has transf ormational leaders, particip ative decision-making, and relationships based on trust, commitment, a nd satisfaction. It also revealed that employees do not perceive thei r leaders to be effective at helping them execute development goals and objectives. This is important to the USF development operation because employees perceptions of the work environment significan tly impact their morale, job satisfaction, trust and productivity. If employees do not have positive perceptions of the environment, they are less likely to be happy in their jobs and less likely to be effective at achieving organizational goals and objectives. The previous discussions on leadership, decision-making, and relationships makes it evident that there are several things the development operation could do to improve these organizational factors. For one, it could ch ange its leadership style. Leaders could do a better job of outlining the organization’s vision and goals, be more transformational and inspire employees to feel they have a st ake in the organization’s future success, and provide the support and resources so employees feel able to effe ctively execute the organization’s mission. The organization coul d also change its decision-making process to be more participative so th at employees feel they have a voice at the management level and that their opinion matters to their leaders. Finally, th e organization could do a better

PAGE 60

55 job of establishing positive relationships with employees so they feel they can trust the organization and that it is committed to their long-term growth and success. By improving employees’ perceptions of their rela tionships with collea gues, it should also improve their perception of job satisfaction. One factor that has not been men tioned much is the structure of the development operation. The USF developm ent operation is a hybrid structure, meaning it is both centralized a nd decentralized. It has a cent ral development office that sets the development vision and goals, and oversees the coordination of development activities across the university. There are also development offices in the university’s academic colleges and departments, and the de velopment officers in these areas usually report to a dean or director, as well as their leaders at the central development office. This hybrid structure can sometimes cause tension between d eans, development officers, and vice presidents, because while they believe they coordinate and communicate well with each other, each party seldom thinks the other parties collaborate well (Hall, 2002). This hybrid structure also can be challenging for development officers in the academic units because they are work ing for both the dean of the unit and their leaders at the central development level, a nd sometimes these leaders have different development goals, fundraising philosophies, visions, leadersh ip styles, and different ways of making decisions. Therefore, it is likely that this hybri d structure is confusing to employees, especially development officers and staff in the academic units. The complicated structure prevents them from forming an overall perception of the development operation’s leadership, decisionmaking, and relationships becau se these factors change

PAGE 61

56 according to which level of the organization they are interacting with at the time. Within one day, they could be interacting with centr al development leaders, deans, and vice presidents of development in the academic units, while also interacting with colleagues and decision-making processes at each of these levels. This means that the USF development opera tion must re-evaluat e its structure in addition to its leadership, deci sion-making processes, and relati onships if leaders want to improve employees’ perceptions of the organizat ion. One thing leaders could do is try to establish a leadership style, decision-maki ng process, and relationships that are more uniform across the organization. For instance, instead of employees reporting to different central development staff, deans, and vice presidents of development, who all have different leadership styles, decision-making processes, and ways of interacting with employees, leaders from across the developmen t organization could work together more to help employees be effective at achieving their goals. Leaders in central development could meet with deans and vice presidents in the individual a cademic units throughout the year to outline development goals and objectives. For example, central development leaders could meet with the dean of medi cine, the vice president of development for medicine, and the development officers and staff in the academic unit to outline goals and objectives for the year, to develop effectiv e strategies to achieve those goals and objectives and to establish ways to evaluate progress toward those goals and objectives. These meetings could take place annually, quart erly, or as needed, and could also provide a chance for all employees around the table to communicate about the challenges and roadblocks they face in effec tively achieving their goals. By meeting on a regular basis and outlining goals and priori ties as a team, everyone has a clear view of where the

PAGE 62

57 development operation is headed and what they need to do in order to be effective. The central development office could also have development employees complete anonymous evaluations of their peers and leaders on a regular basis in or der to uncover the strengths and weaknesses in the development opera tion’s leadership, decision-making, and organizational relationships. These evaluati ons could help provide insight into the perceptions employees are forming about deve lopment, and allow leaders to determine strategies for improving the work environment. This study is important because it remi nds development operations and public relations practitioners that their employees ’ perceptions of leadership, decision-making, and relationships are strongly related to their perception of leadership effectiveness. If development leaders want development officer s and staff to be effective at achieving development goals and objectives, they must have transformationa l leaders who involve employees in the decision-making process and who establish relations hips based on trust, commitment, and satisfaction. It also reminds leaders to find th e weaknesses in their structure that hinder communication and goa l achievement, and put processes in place that facilitate them. These same concepts apply to effectiveness in other organizations because structure, leadership, decision-mak ing, and relationships are important in any organizational environment. No matter wher e an employee works, their perceptions of the environment are usually related to their pe rception of satisfaction and their ability to be effective at their jobs, and therefore it is up to leaders to ensure employees have positive perceptions of the organization. It is important to mention that there were some limitations in this study. The researcher obtained a 62.2 percent response ra te for her survey instead of the 100 percent

PAGE 63

58 she strived for. There were also many more staff who participated in the survey than development leaders. Specifically, only three of the nine deans at USF participated in the study. Furthermore, since this was a quant itative study, the resear cher uncovered what kinds of perceptions employees held about the development operation, but was not able to understand why they had these types of perceptions. Future research should use qualitative measures to determine why empl oyees form certain perceptions about the organization. These findings could help a practitioner determine how to cultivate leaders, establish decision-making processes, and nurture relationships that employees perceive in a positive light and that empower them to be effective at their jobs.

PAGE 64

59 REFERENCES Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and Gender in Public Relations: Perceived Effectiveness of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16 (2), 157-183. Basinger, J. (2003). More Power for Provosts: The Second in Command Has More Duties and Influence Than Ever Before. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49 (33), A26. Bower, J.L., & Gilbert, C.G. (2007). How Managers’ Everyday Decisions Create or Destroy Your Company’s Strategy. Harvard Business Review, 85 (2), 72-79. Davidson, J.A., McElwee, G., & Hannan, G. (2004). Trust and Power as Determinants of Conflict Resolution Strategy and Outcome Satisfaction. Journal of Peace Psychology, 10 (3), 275-292. Deluga, R.J. (1990). The Effects of Transf ormational, Transactional, and Laissez Faire Leadership Characteristics on Subor dinate Influencing Behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11 (2), 191-203. Demers, D.P. (1996). Corporate Newspape r Structure, Profits, and Organizational Goals. The Journal of Media Economics, 9 (2), 1-23. (2005). Facts and Figures: 746 College and University Endowments. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://chronicle.com/stats/endowments/

PAGE 65

60 (2006). Purdue University. Retrieved December 9, 2006 from http://www.purdue.edu/udo/planned_giving/endowment.shtml Farmer, B.A., Slater, J.W., & Wright, K.S. (1998). The Role of Communication in Achieving Shared Vision Under New Organizational Leadership. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10 (4), 219-235. Fitzgerald, G.A., & Desjardins, N.M. (2004). Organizational Values and Their Relation to Organizational Outcomes. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 12 (3), 121-145. Grunig, J.E., & Hon, L. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. The Institute for Public Relati ons Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation, 1-40. Grunig, L.A. (1989). Horizontal Structure in Public Relatio ns: An Exploratory Story of Departmental Differentiation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 1 (1-4), 175196. Grunig, L.A., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D.M. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Hall, M.R. (1993). The Dean’s Role in Fundraising. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hatch, M.J. (1997). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

PAGE 66

61 Holtzhausen, D.R. (2002). The Effects of a Divisionalized and Decentralized Organizational Structure on a Formal Internal Co mmunication Function in a South African Organization. Journal of Communication Management, 6 (4), 323339. Holtzhausen, D.R. (2002). The Effe cts of Workplace Democracy on Employee Communication: Implications for Competitive Advantage. Competitiveness Review, 12 (2), 30-48. Huang, Y. (2001). Values of Public Relations: Effects on Organization-Public Relationships Mediating Conflict Resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (4), 265-301. Kalbfleisch, P.J., & Bach, B.W. (1998). The Language of Mentoring in a Health Care Environment. Health Communication, 10 (4), 373-392. Kaval, V., & Voyten, L.J. (2006). Executive Decision-making: Effective Processes for Making and Implementing Decisions. Healthcare Executive, 21 (6), 16-22. Ki, E.J. (2007). Testing the Linkages Am ong the Organization-Public Relationship and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (1), 1-23. Kourdi, J. (2006). The Deciding Factor. Director, 60 (2), 33. Ledingham, J.A. (2003). Explicating Relatio nship Management as a General Theory of Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (2), 181-198. Mathisen, G.E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A Review of Instruments Assessing Creative and Innovative Environments with Organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16 (1), 119-140.

PAGE 67

62 Moss, H.K., & Kinnear, T.L. (2007). No thing Can Eliminate Responsibility. SuperVision, 68 (1), 3-4. Pincus, J.D., Knipp, J.E., & Rayfield, R.E. (1990). Internal Communication and Job Satisfaction Revisited: The Impact of Organizational Trus t and Influence on Commercial Bank Supervisors. Journal of Public Re lations Research, 2 (1-4), 173-191. Potosky, D., & Ramakrishna, H.V. (2002). The Moderating Role of Updating Climate Perceptions in the Relationship Between Goal Orientation, Self-Efficacy, and Job Performance. Human Performance, 15 (3), 275-297. Prilleltensky, I. (2000). Va lue-Based Leadership in Organizations: Balancing Values, Inerests, and Power Among Citizens, Workers and Leaders. Ethics & Behavior, 10 (2), 139-158. Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Job Characteristics, a nd Organizational Citizenship Performance. Human Performance, 19 (1), 1-22. Sriramesh, K., Grunig, J.E., & Dozier, D.M. (1996). Observation and Measurement of Two Dimensions of Organizational Culture and their Relationship to Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8 (4), 229-261. Stacks, D.W. (2002). Primer of Public Relations Research. New York: The Guilford Press. Stine, M., Thompson, T., Cusella, L. (1995) The Impact of S upervisory Listening Indicators on Subordinate Trust, In trinsic Motivation, and Performance. International Journal of Listening, 9 (1), 84-105.

PAGE 68

63 Strout, E. (2005). Fund Raisers Become Harder to Find and Tougher to Keep. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52 (10), A34. Werder, K.P. (2005). An Empirical Analysis of the Influence of Per ceived Attributes of Publics on Public Relations Strategy Use and Effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17 (3), 217-266.

PAGE 69

64 APPENDICES

PAGE 70

65 Appendix A Survey This survey is being conducted in partial fulfilment of the M.A. in Mass Communications. In compliance with the social scientist’s code of ethics, the researcher will keep confidential the individual su rvey documents when the accu mulated results of this study are published. Individual respondents to this survey will not be identified in any published report, and these quest ionnaires will always remain the confidential property of the student and supervising professor. Your participation in this study is impor tant and will be appreciated. Findings from this study will contribute to the body of knowledge of development practice in the university setting and will provide a deeper understanding of fact ors that affect practice at the University of South Florida. Please help by taking 15 minutes from your busy schedule to complete this telephone survey. Items in th e questionnaire ask you to answ er a question by selecting a number from “1” to “7” that best represents your opinion on a partic ular topic, with 4 being “no opinion”. THANK YOU in advance for your valuable contribution to our research project. Demographic Information: Sex: Male Female Position/Title/Role at USF: Other: College/Department/Unit: Other: Number of Years at USF: Other: Years of Experience in Development/Fundraising:

PAGE 71

66 In the following section, please indicate which option best represents your opinion: 1=strongly disagree 2=disa gree 3=somewhat disagree 4=no opinion 5=somewhat agree, 6=agree, 7=strongly agree LEADERSHIP: In this study, the term lead er refers to the deans and vi ce presidents of Advancement who make decisions about developmen t at the leadership level. Transactional Leaders 1. The leaders involved in development at USF do not get emotionally involved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. The leaders involved in developmen t at USF are in control at all times. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The leaders involved in developm ent at USF offer rewards and incentives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Transformational/Pluralistic Leaders 4. The leaders involved in development at USF think it is important to establish good rapport with development staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. The leaders involved in developm ent at USF share decision-making power. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. The leaders involved in developmen t at USF practice par ticipative management. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Goal Compatibility 7. The leaders involved in developmen t at USF share similar goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. The leaders involved in developmen t at USF have different goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. The leaders involved in development at U SF have goals that are compatible to my goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DECISION-MAKING: Decision-Making Style 10. Decisions about development are often made at the last minute and with incomplete information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. Decisions about development ar e made by trial and error. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 72

67 Participatory 12. Decision making power is shared by all development professionals, deans, and USF Foundation employees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. Employees take responsibility for the outcomes and consequences of their decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Authoritarian 14. Decisions about development are made by a few leaders at USF without input from employees involved in development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RELATIONSHIPS: Control Mutuality 15. Employees working in development at USF are attentive to what each other say. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Employees working in development at USF believe my opinions are legitimate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. In dealing with people like me, empl oyees working in development at USF have a tendency to throw their weight around. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Trust 18. Employees working in development at USF treat me fairly and justly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. Whenever employees make an important decision about development, I know they will be concerned about me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. The employees working in development at USF can be relied on to keep their promises. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Commitment 21. I feel that employees working in development at USF are trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. I feel that employees working in deve lopment at USF want to maintain a relationship with me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. There is a long-lasting b ond between the employees working in development at USF and me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 73

68 Satisfaction 24. I am happy with USF. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. I have a reciprocal relationship with th e employees working in development at USF. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Most people working in development at USF are happy with their interactions with the organization. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EFFECTIVENESS: 27. Leaders involved in development at USF help the development staff meet their development goa ls and objectives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. Decisions about development result in e ffective strategies for implementation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. Leaders involved in development at USF use two-way communication to facilitate mutual understanding with development staff. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Leaders involved in development at USF build strong relationships with development professionals that facilitate goal achievement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. Leaders involved in development help development staff create the right image for the university in order to raise funds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. Leaders involved in development help development staff increase alumni, volunteer, and donor support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

PAGE 74

69 Appendix B Email to Participants Dear (Name), I would really appreciate your participati on in my thesis survey. I am evaluating development at USF and your answers and id entity will obviously remain confidential and anonymous. Would you mind completing the attached survey and emailing it back to me? I am sure you are very busy but I promise it only ta kes about 10 minutes and I think your participation would be a valuable co ntribution to my research. Thank you so much (name)! If you have any qu estions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks again! I hope you have a wonderful day! Sincerely, Rachael van Loveren