A Framework for Advancement and Academic Leadership

President Brooke Barnett and Jonathan Purvis argue that academic leaders need a clearer way to assess whether their advancement teams are truly effective. The article begins with a question they received at a national conference: “How do I know if my advancement team is good or not?” Their answer is a framework built around disposition and data, and strong advancement teams need both. A leader may be mission-centered, persuasive, and relationship-oriented but ineffective if results do not follow. Conversely, a team may raise money while damaging trust, collaboration, or institutional alignment.

The authors define strong advancement disposition as mission-centered, collaborative, transparent, institutionally integrated, strategic, persistent, and skilled at aligning donor interests with institutional priorities. Weak qualities include guarding donor relationships, avoiding direct asks, operating secretively, disconnecting from campus partners, or prioritizing “friend-raising” over fundraising.

They then outline a focused set of key performance indicators to evaluate results without getting lost in too much data. At the program level, leaders should examine cost to raise a dollar, long-term growth in total dollars raised, the health of the major-gift pipeline, and donor retention. At the gift-officer level, they recommend tracking portfolio size, time since last prospect contact, number of major-gift proposals submitted, and number granted.

The article concludes with a diagnostic matrix that helps leaders assess whether advancement work is aligned with institutional values, strategic priorities, transparent collaboration, and sustainable results. Fundraising, the authors argue, should animate an institution’s highest aspirations without ever compromising its mission.

Read the full story.