INTRODUCTION:

In the past, institutions have had no concrete incentives to keep systematic track of alumni. It is not uncommon to hear of institutions that are still without records of all graduates or even information on the current addresses of living graduates. With emerging needs of educational institutions, alma maters are beginning to understand the significant role that alumni can play in shaping the current and future direction of the institute. (Ref no. 77) described alumni support as “a unique, select and continuing source of support that is one of the most valuable resources any institution has”.

On one hand, academic institution is viewed by their alumni as an educational, networking and support resource for the rest of their life and on the other hand, alma mater see their alumni as the current and future leaders of their communities.

NEED AND RATIONALE:

Alumni are vital to institutions of higher education. Whether they are volunteering their time on committees, or at campus events, they are crucial to the survival of the institution. Alumni serve as ambassadors for the university to their communities and states. Visible alumni success (CEO’s, corporate Vice-presidents, etc.) in their careers are often determining factors in recruiting other students to the university (Ref no. 46). The lifetime customer value concept is even more relevant when one considers the role alumni play as potential word-of-mouth influencers of family, friends and acquaintances (Ref no. 33).

Nowadays, various institutions are conducting surveys periodically among their graduates to assess their satisfaction with the alma mater covering aspects such as student experience at the alma mater, alumnus’ willingness to participate in activities conducted by alma mater, etc. For example, Tennessee Tech University annually conducts alumni satisfaction project among cohort of graduates that received their degree two years prior to the implementation of the Alumni survey. The important aspects of this survey are student engagement/ competencies, post graduate involvement with the institution, and alumni giving.

METHODOLOGY:

An extensive exploratory search of prior literature was conducted on a range of online databases to provide a comprehensive list of journal articles on alumni giving behavior and its associations with other organizational constructs to study. In addition, we also searched through search engine Google Scholar for studies that included any of the below mentioned key terms. The online databases used were: Emerald Fulltext; EBSCO host; JSTOR; ERIC; including online research related sites such Research Gate and academia.edu. Few published and unpublished theses from UMI Proquest dissertation databases were also used for any meaningful insights.

The key terms used for reaching out the included articles for this paper from amongst the various journals are: Alumni giving, Philanthropy, alumni commitment, alumni satisfaction, institutional commitment, organizational identification, institutional prestige, solicitation, citizenship behavior. Additionally, we also researched the domain of citizenship behavior.

This paper is organized as follows: Literature relevant to alumni giving followed by proposed theoretical framework for future exploration between various alma mater related variables and the giving behavior of alumni which may be moderated by citizenship behavior (see figure 1). Thereafter, we review the literature about impact of each alma mater related variable on alumni giving behavior (refer table 1). Followed by brief about citizenship behavior, wherein we compile and share the definitions given by various researcher (refer Table 2) and also discuss the dimensions of citizenship behavior (refer Table 3) especially given by Ref no. 62. Finally, we explore the alumni giving behavior construct in terms of social and financial giving behavior (refer Table 4). We conclude this review paper by discussing the practical implications of empirically testing the proposed theoretical model including giving directions for future research.

LITERATURE REVIEW OF ALUMNI GIVING BEHAVIOR:

Alumni contributions to colleges and universities were the first known organized fund raising activity. Buildings were traditionally one of the most preferred projects where the benefactors’ name appeared in bricks and mortar. Scholarships were also a favorite of alumni giving; thereby, offering other individuals an opportunity to pursue the dream of educational advancement. Gifts and bequests from alumni throughout this era allowed colleges and universities to meet rising costs, admit more students, and improve their programs.

Many institutions rely upon alumni contributions such as gifts of cash, securities, real estate, and company products to support endowments, finance scholarships, and bolster the operating budget. Recent surveys conducted by the Council for Aid to Education show that alumni and non-alumni donors represent more than one-half of all sources of philanthropic support to universities and colleges (Ref no. 25).

While the philanthropic support of alumni is greatly needed, the other support they are able to offer is invaluable as well. Alumni speak in classes, create internships, hire other alumni, promote the institution, serve on boards, and assist as volunteers in a variety of ways. The question remains, what motivates alumni to give back and continue to support their alma mater after they graduate?

Understanding the decision making process for why or why not alumni choose to donate is a very important step (Ref no. 1). An institution's alumni giving rate does not adequately measure graduates' satisfaction with their educational experience. Unfortunately, alumni giving has become a handy proxy that really only measures an institution's success at generating philanthropic dollars (Ref no. 7).

Our review resulted in the development of a framework (see Figure 1) that integrates the organizational (alma mater) related variables which motivates alumni to give back to their alma mater (refer Table 1), citizenship behavior which may act as moderator, and alumni giving behavior- financial giving behavior and social giving behavior. Most of the reviewed studies focus on the antecedents and financial giving behavior of alumni. Our framework nevertheless provides researchers working in the field with a comprehensive overview and reveals the areas that require further analysis.

Table 1. Analysis of Attitudinal Antecedents of Alumni Giving Behavior as per Literature Review

Authors / Variables	Alumni Satisfaction	Alumni Engagement	Alma mater Identification	Alumni involvement	Affiliation to Non-academic Interest Group
Beeler (1982)	√
Haddad (1986)	√	√		√	√
Leslie and Ramey (1988)					√
Grill (1988)		√		√
Shadoian (1989)	√	√
Mael and Ashforth (1992)	√		√
Taylor and Martin (1995)	√	√		√	√
Klostermann (1995)	√			√
Harrison et al. (1995)					√
Young and Fischer (1996)	√			√
Baade and Sundberg (1996)
Miracle (1997)	√	√		√
Rosser (1997)	√			√
Pearson (1999)	√			√
Hunter et al. (1999)				√	√
Dugan et al. (2000)	√				√
Shim (2001)				√
Clotfelter (2001, 2003)	√	√			√
Cunningham and Cochi-Ficano (2001)
Monks (2003)	√	√			√
Arnett et al. (2003)	√
Hoyt (2004)	√	√		√
Gaier (2005)	√	√			√
Weerts and Ronca (2007)		√		√
Holmes et al (2008)				√	√
Newman and Petrosko (2011)	√			√
Etzelmueller (2014)	√		√

Authors / Variables	Sense of Pride	Emotional Attachment	Perceived need for financial support	Recipients of financial aid from their institution	Solicitation
Beeler (1982)		√		√
Haddad (1986)
Leslie and Ramey (1988)	√		√		√
Grill (1988)				√
Shadoian (1989)	√	√
Mael and Ashforth (1992)	√	√			√
Taylor and Martin (1995)			√		√
Klostermann (1995)					√
Harrison et al. (1995)		√			√
Young and Fischer (1996)					√
Baade and Sundberg (1996)	√			√	√
Miracle (1997)			√
Rosser (1997)				√	√
Pearson (1999)		√	√	√	√
Hunter et al. (1999)				√	√
Dugan et al. (2000)				√
Shim (2001)				√	√
Clotfelter (2001, 2003)	√			√
Cunningham and Cochi-Ficano (2001)	√			√	√
Monks (2003)				√
Arnett et al. (2003)	√			√
Hoyt (2004)			√	√	√
Gaier (2005)
Weerts and Ronca (2007)			√		√
Holmes et al (2008)	√
Newman and Petrosko (2011)	√		√
Etzelmueller (2014)	√			√

Ref no. 49 identified organizational distinctiveness, organizational prestige and intra-organizational competition as the organizational antecedents of identification of alumni with their alma mater. Identification of alumni with their alma mater resulted in support in form of willingness to advise one’s child and others to attend the institution and also ranking the institution in priority of their financial contribution. College identification was found to be a key factor linking a variety of college experiences and perceptions to alumni giving and promotions. Alumni with higher levels of college identification are likely to be more concerned with the well-being of the university (Ref no. 80; Ref no. 33; Ref no. 67; Ref no. 23).

Alumni Involvement:

Ref no. 33 in their study among alumni of a private university found that contributors had high level of participation in university sponsored social activities and they also read university publications more thoroughly. Alumnus involvement with the alma mater was a significant variable in alumni giving (Ref no. 44; Ref no. 8; Ref no. 10; Ref no. 94; Ref no. 40; Ref no. 26; Ref no. 55; Ref no. 74; Ref no. 52; Ref no. 85).

One contradiction to these findings is a study by Ref no. 16 at MIT in which they “discovered that involved alumni were no more likely to give than the general alumni body”. This would suggest that those that are involved are already predisposed to give. Ref no. 91 found that the supporter alumni are more likely to have attended events organised by the institution such as cultural activities, awards ceremonies, athletic events or visited campus libraries or the student re-union since graduation.

Affiliation to Non-academic Interest Group:

Survey among alumni of Southern Illinios University, Ref no. 54 found that 48% of the donors were involved in extra-curricular activities as undergraduates. Several studies found that alumni involved in extracurricular activities as students are more likely to be donors (Ref no. 42; Ref no. 31; Ref no. 30; Ref no. 59; Ref no. 76; Ref no. 3; Ref no. 69; Ref no. 65; Ref no. 25 and Ref no. 61). The results also provide evidence to contradict Ref no. 5; Ref no. 37; Ref no. 8; Ref no. 54; Ref no. 94 and Ref no. 2 in their claim that extracurricular activities are not significant indicators of future financial contributions.

Giving was found to be positively associated with fraternity/sorority affiliation (Ref no. 10). Ref no. 50 found that students who were members of non-academic groups--fraternities, sororities and athletic teams-- respond more favorably to requests for donations after graduation. Those who participated in campus activities again tend to give more than those who did not, particularly those who were involved in college fundraising as undergraduates (Ref no. 35).

Sense of Pride in their Alma Mater:

When alumni feel more pride in their alma mater, they align with their university's success in order to elevate their own level of personal success. It would therefore follow that, as alumni pride grows, their feeling of responsibility to their university community would grow as well (Ref no. 39). Donors prefer to give to established and successful institutions. Alumni prefer to give to an institution that other people are also willing to financially support (Ref no. 78).

According to Ref no. 35, alumni contributions increased in years when the college has achieved greater athletic prestige but felt down when academic prestige rises. Furthermore, recent alumni were found to be more influenced by institutional prestige than older graduates. Ref no. 75 and Ref no. 23 recommend that universities need to cultivate relationships with students as well as manage a favorable reputation in order to increase the support of alumni for university advancement in areas such as student recruitment, volunteers, donors, as well as leaders for the institution.

Emotional Attachment:

Sentimentalism, one of the most distinctive features of a social relationship, develops out of the retaining of emotional ties and the reliving of shared histories Ref no. 49. Results from various studies suggest that emotional ties to the institution are the strongest motivator for donors and those alumni are less motivated by the educational benefits for society. Ref no. 5 found emotional attachment to the institution was the best predictor of donor status of all 14 variables in his study.

Ref no. 29, Ref no. 27, Ref no. 48, Ref no. 71, Ref no. 59, Ref no. 8, and Ref no. 15, indicate that emotional attachment and quality of the relationship with the alma mater are key factors in alumni philanthropy. According to Ref no. 25, emotional attachment to the university is a product of the undergraduate experience and is reinforced with the alumni experience.

Perceived Need for Financial Support:

“Awareness of need is a first prerequisite for philanthropy”- Ref no. 6. Ref no. 47 concluded that alumni gave more when they perceived the needs of the institution to be greater, and that they gave for personal reasons rather than financial reasons. Using donor status, no. of years of contributing 100$ or above and amount contribution, perceived need for financial support was found to be among the best predictors of alumni giving alongwith higher degree attained and the decade in which alumni graduated (Ref no. 37). Perceived need for financial support was found to have discriminating power between donor and non-donor alumni groups in a research public university in US (Ref no. 76) as well as between high and low donors (Ref no. 8).

University graduates who perceive their alma mater as being in a good state of affairs may believe that because the university is doing well, it is not in need of donations affecting fund raising at public institutions such as state universities. Often alumni believe that state universities are less needy than their private counterparts because they think that state funding exists to cover costs (Ref no. 20) whereas Ref no. 9 found public subsidies and private philanthropy as independent sources of funding.

Recipient of Financial Aid’:

Several researchers have explored the link between receipt of financial aid as a student and alumni donor status. Ref no. 22 found that, "Students who receive small merit scholarships contribute more as alumni than students who receive either no merit scholarship or a large merit scholarship". Recipients of academic honour scholarships usually contribute larger gifts. Ref no. 38 reported that alumni in donor groups were much more likely to have received a scholarship of $1,000 or more. Ref no. 57 and Ref no. 50 found that receiving student loans had a negative correlation with donor status but that the receipt of need‐based grants increased the probability of giving. Ref no. 91 support these findings, noting that "Need-based loans recipients gave less to the institution, while alumni donors who had an academic scholarship while in college increased their gift size".

Ref no. 34 state that some former student aid recipients experience lower salaries and/or may still be repaying loans to the college; and therefore, they are less generous givers. For this latter reason, it was found loan recipients to be less generous than grant recipients. Ref no. 52 found that receiving loans was not predictive of donor status but that more alumni who graduated without institutional loans made gifts. Findings of Ref no. 23 suggest an appreciation of financial assistance, but it does not necessarily guarantee alumni donor support.

Solicitation:

In Ref no. 53 questioned if the reason that fewer alumni are giving each year was a result of not being asked, or not having been asked in a convincing manner. One of the primary reasons alumni gave for not giving is that they have never been asked to give (Ref no. 38; Ref no. 46). Ref no. 55 stated that “being asked was the strongest predictor of whether or not an individual donated to their alma mater”.

On one hand, the works of Ref no. 3; Ref no. 85, demonstrate a significant positive relationship between solicitation and alumni giving. On the other hand, Ref no. 48 demonstrate that alma mater’s efforts in soliciting donations have been shown to have a “reactive” effect, meaning that increased donation solicitation may actually lead to lower levels of donations. Ref no. 21 find that in response to frequent solicitations, donors develop defense mechanisms such as simply throwing out mail requests. Ref no. 83 used self-reported measures of solicitation frequency and giving behavior to find that additional appeals initially generate more donations, but after some point, donees become irritated and may actually reduce their giving. The effectiveness of solicitation is determined by the way potential donors are solicited (Ref no. 6).

Citizenship Behavior (CB):

Ref no. 62 defined “Citizenship Behavior is an individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.” Discretionary means the behavior that is not mandatory requirement of the role or the job, i.e. “the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.” Different researchers have defined citizenship behavior based on their study (refer Table 2) which helps us to understand it better.

Table 4. Types of Alumni Giving

Types of Alumni Giving/ Authors	Financial Giving		Social Giving
Types of Alumni Giving/ Authors	Contributed financially	Encouraged someone to financially contribute to state	Alumni volunteer with State	Alumni volunteer with School/College	Institution in will
Beeler (1982)	√
Leslie et al (1983)	√
House (1987)	√
Miller (1990)	√
Mael and Ashforth (1992)	√
Mosser (1993)					√
Taylor and Martin (1995)	√
Baade and Sundberg (1996)	√
Heckman and Guskey (1998)
Johnson and Eckel (1998)	√		√	√
Weerts (1998)				√
Hunter et al. (1999)	√
Dugan et al. (2000)	√
Clotfelter (2001, 2003)	√
Cunningham (2001)	√
Monks (2003)	√
Gallo (2003)	√
Arnett et al (2003)	√
Hoyt (2004)	√
Gaier (2005)	√	√	√
Thomas and Smart (2005)	√
Weerts and Ronca (2007)			√	√
Lawley (2008)	√			√
McDearmon (2009)	√
Vanderbout (2010)	√			√
Radcliff (2011)	√
Barber (2012)	√			√

Table 4 continued

Types of Alumni Giving/ Authors	Social Giving
Types of Alumni Giving/ Authors	Alumni Volunteer with Alumni association	Internship/ Externship Sponsor	Willing to Mentor	Volunteer Recruiter	Ambassadors of institution	Volunteering time	Helping in admission
Beeler (1982)
Leslie et al (1983)
House (1987)
Miller (1990)
Mael and Ashforth (1992)							√
Mosser (1993)
Taylor and Martin (1995)
Baade and Sundberg (1996)
Heckman and Guskey (1998)		√		√		√	√
Johnson and Eckel (1998)	√		√		√
Weerts (1998)
Hunter et al. (1999)
Dugan et al. (2000)
Clotfelter (2001, 2003)
Cunningham (2001)
Monks (2003)
Gallo (2003)
Arnett et al (2003)
Hoyt (2004)
Gaier (2005)	√
Thomas and Smart (2005)
Weerts and Ronca (2007)	√		√				√
Lawley (2008)	√
McDearmon (2009)
Vanderbout (2010)		√		√	√	√
Radcliff (2011)		√	√
Barber (2012)	√			√

Financial Giving Behavior:

In West, by the mid-to-late 1950s, university endowments were not providing sufficient growth to meet the needs of most institutions, and higher education leaders turned to alumni to boost endowment yield through support of the alumni fund (Ref no. 19). Alumni responded and, since the late 1950s, alumni have remained one of the top three sources of private giving to higher education. During 1979, college and university alumni overtook foundations and non-alumni individuals to become the largest source of private gifts to higher education. Alumni have retained their position as the largest donor group to higher education for 23 of the 27 subsequent years (Ref no. 18).

Although public colleges and universities have made significant progress at fundraising, one area of fundraising with which they struggle—compared to their private peers—is that of alumni giving. Private colleges and universities enjoy annual contributions from a much higher percentage of the alumni they solicit than do publics. According to the Council for Aid to Education, in fiscal year 2005, 18.7% of the alumni solicited by private research and doctoral institutions contributed to their alma maters, compared to 11.2% of alumni from public research and doctoral institutions. Among liberal arts institutions, 23.9% of private institution alumni donated to their alma maters, compared to 6.5% of public institution graduates. At master’s institutions, 13.1% of alumni from private institutions made contributions, compared to 6.7% of alumni from public master’s institutions (Ref no. 18).

SYNTHESIS OF ALUMNI GIVING RESEARCH AND AREAS OF FUTURE RESEARCH:

The future of higher education relies on the support of universities by their alumni. Alma mater related variables such as alumni satisfaction with their undergraduate experience, engagement of alumni with their alma mater post-graduation, identification with the institution, alumni involvement, affiliation to non-academic interest group, sense of pride, emotional attachment with alma mater, perceived need of financial support, recipient of financial aid from alma mater and solicitation efforts by the alma mater help in motivating alumni to give back to their institution.

Alumni can give back to their institution either financially or socially. Till now most of the studies have focussed on the financial giving behavior of alumni where alumni may contribute to alma mater by giving annual fund or special occasion funds. They may also encourage others to give to their alma mater. Contributions to alma mater through non-financial means may include planned giving which may include assets such as: securities, cash, life insurance, personal property, real estate, or part of your retirement plan. Alumni can volunteer with alumni association/ state, contact legislators on behalf of their alma mater and hosts alumni related activities. Alumni can volunteer its time with institution by serving on committees or advisory boards. Veteran alumni can also act as mentor to young alumni by helping with career, providing networking opportunities, etc. Alumni can help alma mater by extending internship or externship to the current students and/ or sponsor a student intern in their particular field of employment.

Though many studies have studied the factors which may impact the giving behavior alumni towards their alma mater but still we are yet to explore the behaviors which may moderate the relationship between these variables and giving behavior of the alumni. Citizenship behavior which has been described as pro-social behavior can motivate the alumni to give back to the institution. Ref no. 6 found altruism as one of the mechanisms that drive charitable giving because donors care about the consequences of donations for beneficiaries. Altruism is also one of the dimensions of citizenship behavior. Research in the field of alumni giving is still in its infancy in terms of identifying the moderating variables and there are many more questions to be addressed than have been have answered.

DIRECTION FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

Through this review of research on alumni giving behavior we have analyzed the general trend regarding its various antecedents in management research. Below are some areas of research that are, to date, underdeveloped—but will be critically important in helping to inform the field:

· What are the factors which impact alumni’s giving behavior? Various studies have found different alma mater related variables and demographic variables that impact the giving behavior towards their alma mater.

· We also intent to provide the groundwork for an emerging theory of citizenship behavior that spans various, hitherto disconnected research fields and cuts across disciplines such as emotional attachment, alumni satisfaction, perceived need for financial help, etc and alumni giving behavior.

· This review aims at stimulating cross-fertilization across these disciplines and providing guidance for future research needed to advance the field from an emergent to a paradigmatic status in Indian context.

· What are the implications for this research? How research can inform practice? Study will help institutions know how to maintain the relations with their alumni especially with everyone’s busy professional and personal schedules and turning graduates into active alumni.

· Empirical research will provide answer to the question- why do ex-students of some selected educational institutes have a strong bond compared to those of others?

· Empirical investigation of proposed model will establish how citizenship behavior is related to giving behavior alumni, guiding alma maters to accordingly emphasis upon building relationship with alumni and increase the citizenship behavior exhibited by them.

· Does the pattern of giving change across cultures? We are yet to establish relationship between alma mater related factors such as alumni commitment, alumni satisfaction, perceived need for financial help, etc. with alumni social and financial giving behavior in Indian context, warranting us to strive for focused and highly specialized research in this domain.

REFERENCES:

1. Akers, K. S., and McDearmon, J. T. (2010). Measuring the External Factors Related to Young Alumni Giving to Higher Education.

2. Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., and Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of marketing, 67(2), 89-105.

3. Baade, R.A., and J.O. Sundberg. (1996). What determines alumni generosity? Economics of Education Review 15, no. 1: 75–81.

4. Barber, Keith D. (2012). A Study of Alumni Engagement and Satisfaction as Related to Alumni Volunteerism and Philanthropy. (Doctoral dissertation, Valdosta State University).

5. Beeler, K.J. (1982). A study of predictors of alumni philanthropy in private universities. Doctoral Diss., University of Connecticut.

6. Bekkers, R., and Wiepking, P. (2010). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.

7. Brant, K. E., and Regan, P. J. (2002). The Spectrum of Alumni Involvement. Currents, 28(2), 22-28.

8. Brittingham, B. E., and Pezzullo, T. R. (1990). The Campus Green: Fund Raising in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports, The George Washington University, One Dupont Circle, Suite 630, Washington, DC 20036

9. Brooks, A. C. (1999). Do public subsidies leverage private philanthropy for the arts? Empirical evidence on symphony orchestras. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(1), 32-45.

10. Bruggink, T. H., and Siddiqui, K. (1995). An econometric model of alumni giving: A case study for a liberal arts college. The American Economist, 53-60.

11. Caboni, T. C. (2003). Toward professionalism: Norms and fund raising. The CASE International Journal of Educational Advancement, 4(1), 77-91.

12. Clotfelter, C. T. (2001). Who are the alumni donors? Giving by two generations of alumni from selective colleges. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 12 (2): 119 – 138.

13. Clotfelter, C. T. (2003). Alumni giving to elite private colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 109-120.

14. Cochi Ficano, C. K., and Cunningham, B. M. (2001, May). The determinants of donative revenue from alumni of higher education: An empirical inquiry. In Cornell Higher Education Research Institute Annual Conference, Cornell, NY.

15. Coll, G. and Tsao, J (2005). To give or not to give: Factors determining alumni intent to make donations as a PR outcome. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator 59 (4), Columbia, MO: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication

16. Collins, J. S., Hecht, W. J., and Strange, D. T. (1999). Planning and evaluating Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni services and fundraising. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1999(101), 23-41.

17. Conley, A. T. (1999). Student organization membership and alumni giving at a public, Research I University (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).

18. Council for Aid to Education. (2005). Collegiate Learning Assessment [CLA]: CLA in Context 2004- 2005. New York: Council for Aid to Education.

19. Curti, M. E., and Nash, R. (1965). Philanthropy in the shaping of American higher education. Rutgers University Press.

20. Diamond, W. D., and Kashyap, R. K. (1997). Extending Models of Prosocial Behavior to Explain University Alumni Contributions1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10), 915-928.

21. Diamond, W. D., and Noble, S. M. (2001). Defensive responses to charitable direct mail solicitations. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15(3), 2-12.

22. Dugan, K., Mullin, C. H., and Siegfried, J. J. (2000). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent alumni giving behavior. Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education Discussion Papers. DP–57.

23. Etzelmueller, K. L. (2014). Organizational Identification in Alumni Relations.

24. Fogg, P. (2008). How Colleges Use Alumni to Recruit Students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(34).

25. Gaier, S. (2005). Alumni satisfaction with their undergraduate academic experience and the impact on alumni giving and participation. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 5(4), 279-288.

26. Gallo, Peter J., and Betty Hubschman (2003). The Relationships between Alumni Participation and Motivation on Financial Giving. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Education Research Association

27. Gardner, P. M. (1975). A study of the attitudes of Harding College alumni with an emphasis on donor and non-donor characteristics (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University).

28. Graham, J. 1989. Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University, Chicago.

29. Greeley, A. M., and Spaeth, J. L. (1970). Political change among college alumni. Sociology of Education, 106-113.

30. Grill, A. J. (1988). An Analysis of the Relationships of Selected Variables to Financial Support Provided by Alumni of Public University (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University).

31. Haddad, F.D. (1986). An analysis of the characteristics of alumni donors and non-donors at Butler University. Doctoral diss., Butler University.

32. Harrison, W. B., Mitchell, S. K. and Peterson, S. P. (1995) Alumni donations and colleges’ development expenditures: Does spending matter? The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 54: 397 – 412.

33. Heckman, R., and Guskey, A. (1998). The relationship between alumni and university: Toward a theory of discretionary collaborative behaviour. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 6(2), pp. 97‐112

34. Holmes, J. A., Meditz, J. A., and Sommers, P. M. (2008). Athletics and Alumni Giving Evidence From a Highly Selective Liberal Arts College. Journal of Sports Economics, 9(5), 538-552.

35. Holmes, J. (2009). Prestige, charitable deductions and other determinants of alumni giving: Evidence from a highly selective liberal arts college. Economics of Education Review, 28(1), 18-28.

36. Horseman, A. M. (2011). The effects of new media on alumni engagement among millennials: A case study of the University of Kentucky College of Health Sciences Alumni.

37. House, M.L. (1987). Annual fund raising in public higher education: The development and validation of a prediction equation. Doctoral diss., University of Florida.

38. Hoyt, J. E. (2004). Understanding Alumni Giving: Theory and Predictors of Donor Status. Online Submission.

39. Hummel, R. (2010). Factors influencing alumni connection and commitment (Doctoral dissertation, Lethbridge, Alta.: University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Arts and Science, c2010).

40. Hunter, C. S., Jones, E. B., and Boger, C. (1999). A study of the relationship between alumni giving and selected characteristics of alumni donors of Livingstone College, NC. Journal of Black Studies, 523-539.

41. Johnson, J. W., and Eckel, P. D. (1997). Preparing seniors for roles as active alumni. In J. N. Gardner, and G. VanDerVeer (Eds.), The senior year experience: Facilitating integration, reflection, closure, and transition (pp. 227- 241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

42. Keller, M.J. (1982). An analysis of alumni donor and non-donor characteristics of at the University of Montevallo. Doctoral diss., University of Alabama.

43. Klostermann, B. K. (1995). Development and concurrent validity of a motivation to give scale. (Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale).

44. Korvas, R.J. (1984). The relationship of selected alumni characteristics and attitudes to financial support at a private college. Doctoral diss., University of Toledo.

45. Lambert, S.J. (2006) Both art and science: Employing organizational documentation in workplace-based research. In Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E.E., and Sweet, S. (Eds.). The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches. (pp.503-525). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

46. Lawley, C. D. (2008). Factors that affect alumni loyalty at a public university. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.

47. Leslie, L., Drachman, S. S., Conrad, C. F., and Ramey, G. W. (1983). Factors accounting for variations over time in voluntary support for colleges and universities. Journal of Education Finance, 213-225.

48. Leslie, L. L., and Ramey, G. (1988). Donor behavior and voluntary support for higher education institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 115-132.

49. Mael, F., and Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

50. Marr, KA., C.H. Mullen, and J.J. Siegfried. (2005). Undergraduate financial aid and subsequent alumni giving behavior. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 45: 123–43.

51. McAlexander, J. H., and Koenig, H. F. (2001). University experiences, the student-college relationship, and alumni support. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 21-44.

52. McDearmon, J. T., and Shirley, K. (2009). Characteristics and institutional factors related to young alumni donors and non-donors. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2), 83-95.

53. McNally, F. E. (1984). An analysis of alumni philanthropy related to personal, academic, and social characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of San Francisco.

54. Miller, M. T., and Casebeer, A. L. (1990). Donor Characteristics of College of Education Alumni: Examining Undergraduate Involvement.

55. Minniear, C. R. (2006). Donor motivations in higher education: The impact of incentives, involvement and opportunity on alumni giving. ProQuest.

56. Miracle, William Dunavent (1977). Differences between givers and non-givers to the University of Georgia annual fund. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia.

57. Monks, J. (2003). Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective institutions. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 121-130.

58. Morris, Donald Arthur Adams (1970). An analysis of donors of $10,000 or more to the $55 million program at the University of Michigan. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.

59. Mosser, J. W. (1993). Predicting Alumni/ae Gift Giving Behavior: A Structural Equation Model Approach.

60. Myran, G., Baker, G. A. III, Simone, B., and Zeiss, T. (2003). Leadership strategies for community college executives. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

61. Newman, M. D., and Petrosko, J. M. (2011). Predictors of alumni association membership. Research in Higher Education, 52(7), 738-759.

62. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

63. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97

64. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2005). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Sage Publications.

65. Pearson, J. (1999). Comprehensive research on alumni relationships: Four years of market research at Stanford University. New Directions for Institutional Research 101: 5–21.

66. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., and Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. doi: 10.1177/014920630002600307

67. Porter, T., Hartman, K., and Johnson, J. S. (2011). Books and balls: antecedents and outcomes of college identification. Research in Higher Education Journal, 13 (1), 1-14.

68. Radcliffe, S. (2011). A Study of Alumni Engagement and Its Relationship to Giving Behaviors.

69. Rosser, A. W. (1997). A Stratificational Analysis of the Relationship Between and Among Selected Variables Related to Alumni Annual Giving to the Association of Former Students of Texas A and M University (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A and M University).

70. Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 23–47.

71. Shadoian, H. L. (1989). A study of predictors of alumni philanthropy in public colleges.

72. Shim, J. M. (2001). Relationship of selected alumnae characteristics to alumnae financial support at a women’s college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL

73. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., and Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of applied psychology, 68(4), 653.

74. Sun, X., Hoffman, S. C., and and Grady, M. L. (2007). A multivariate causal model of alumni giving: Implications for alumni fundraisers. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(4), pp. 307‐332

75. Sung, M., and Yang, S. U. (2009). Student–university relationships and reputation: a study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university. Higher Education, 57(6), 787-811.

76. Taylor, A. L., and Martin Jr, J. C. (1995). Characteristics of alumni donors and nondonors at a research I, public university. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 283-302.

77. Taylor, B. E., and W. F. Massy (1996). Strategic Indicators for Higher Education: Vital Benchmarks and Information to Help You Evaluate and Improve Your Institution’s Performance. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s

78. Terry, N., and Macy, A. (2007). Determinants of alumni giving rates. Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, 8(3), 3-17.

79. Thomas, J. A., and Smart, J. (2005). The Relationship between Personal and Social Growth and Involvement in College and Subsequent Alumni Giving. Online Submission.

80. Tom, G., and Elmer, L. (1994). Alumni willingness to give and contribution behavior. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(2), 57-62.

81. Tromble, W. W. (1998). Excellence in advancement: Applications for higher education and nonprofit organizations. Royal Society of Chemistry.

82. Vanderbout, J. L. (2010). Impact the undergraduate student experience has on the development of alumni loyalty. Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia

83. Van Diepen, Merel, Donkers, Bas, Franses, Philip Hans, (2006a). Irritation due to direct mail from charities. Working Paper. Erasmus Institute of Management. May.

84. Van Horn, D. L. (2002). Satisfaction with the undergraduate experience as motivation for smaller dollar alumni donations. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina.

85. Wang, L., and Ashcraft, R. F. (2014). Organizational Commitment and Involvement Explaining the Decision to Give to Associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2 suppl), 61S-83S.

86. Wastyn, M. L. (2009). Why alumni don’t give: A qualitative study of what motivates non-donors to higher education. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 9(2), 96-108.

87. Webb, C. H. (1993). The role of alumni affairs in fund raising. Educational fund raising: Principles and practice, 303-310.

88. Weinstein, S. (2009). The complete guide to fundraising. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

89. Weerts, D. J. (1998). Back on Track: If your alumni board members are spinning their wheels, these seven strategies can get them moving again. Currents-Washington, 24, 35-37.

90. Weerts, D. J., Cabrera, A. F., and Sanford, T. (2010). Beyond giving: Political advocacy and volunteer behaviors of public university alumni. Research in Higher Education, 51(4), 346-365.

91. Weerts, D. J., and Ronca, J. M. (2007). Profiles of supportive alumni: Donors, volunteers, and those who “do it all”. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 7(1), 20-34.

92. Williams, L. J., and Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601-617.

93. Wunnava, P. V., and Okunade, A. A. (2013). Do Business Executives Give More to Their Alma Mater? Longitudinal Evidence from a Large University. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72(3), 761-778.

94. Young, P. S., and Fischer, N. M. (1996, May). Identifying undergraduate and post-college characteristics that may affect alumni giving. In annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM.

95. Zhang, Deww. (2011). Organizational Citizenship Behavior. White Paper

Received on 20.02.2017 Modified on 25.03.2017

Asian Journal of Management. 2018; 9(1):23-34.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5763.2018.00005.7

Year	Authors	Definitions of Citizenship Behavior
1988	Organ	Citizenship Behavior is an individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.
1997	Organ	Updated the definition of Citizenship Behavior to "contributions to the maintenance and enhancement of the social and psychological context that support task performance"
2005	Organ et al.	Emphasized the discretionary nature of CB by defining it as "discretionary contributions that go beyond the strict description and that do not lay claim to contractual recompense from the formal reward system"
2006	S J Lambert	“Citizenship behavior, defined… as behavior that goes beyond the basic requirements of the job, is to a large extent discretionary, and is of benefit to the organization
2011	Deww Zhang	Citizenship behaviour is a term that encompasses anything positive and constructive that employees do, of their own volition, which supports co-workers and benefits the company.

Year	Dimensions of Citizenship Behavior	Author(s)
1983	Altruism and Generalized Compliance	Smith et al.
1988	Altruism, Conscientiousness, Courtesy, Sportsmanship and Civic Virtue	Organ
1989	Interpersonal helping, Loyalty Boosterism, Organizational Obedience, Organizational Loyalty, Organizational Participation	Graham
1991	Citizenship Behavior-I, Citizenship Behavior-O	William and Anderson
2000	Helping Behavior, Organizational Loyalty, Sportsmanship, Individual Initiative, Civic Virtue, Organizational Compliance and Self- development	Podskoff et al