New Zealand Alumni Survey: Experiences, Attitudes and Engagement

Implications of Findings

New  Zealand Networking

A key question which drove the genesis of the New Zealand International Alumni Survey was whether and too what degree alumni of New Zealand universities would be willing to support their alma maters and by extension New Zealand as a country. The survey’s findings have indicated a clear case for improved and expanded efforts on behalf of each New Zealand university, but also by the New Zealand Government, to support alumni networking efforts.

Alumni indicated consistently that they were interested in broader, New Zealand-wide networking efforts. For example, more than 40% stated they would attend an event hosted by multiple New Zealand universities, and nearly 50% indicated they would attend an embassy event (answers indicating “yes”). The high overall level of affinity to new Zealand should make such programming efforts relatively easy.

Differences in interest levels of course exist and therefore a granular approach would be required. Alumni from one university, for example, indicated they would not prefer multi-university events but rather focus on events focused on their own alma mater. In some countries, alumni were much less keen on embassy events than in others (most notably: Australia).

An emerging and by definition broad networking platform are online communities. The survey revealed that only a small minority of mostly young alumni currently use online communities to connect with their alma mater and each other. This is partially a function of such platforms just being adopted, and the near complete lack of compelling New Zealand universities online community networking groups.

Given globally observed adoption dynamics and the inherent network-centric nature of these platforms, these platforms should be integrated into programming efforts as soon as possible. While an outright “all New Zealand” approach might not be suitable, various implicit and explicit aggregation scenarios of more focused networking efforts would serve to support the overall New Zealand brand position.

In practical terms, networking efforts should consider that alumni are increasingly taking charge of networking dynamics on their own, either through traditional vehicles such as clubs or chapters, or online. Both universities and the New Zealand Government should therefore carefully and selectively aid efforts without appearing to be heavy handed. In addition, attempts to introduce artificial networking dynamics (such as a purported “New Zealand alumni network”) would appear bound to fail. Instead, alumni preferences expressed in this survey should be used as a guide for engaging with alumni on their terms.

University Alumni Offices and Networks

This full, New Zealand-wide report was drawn up to provide a broad perspective on alumni of all new Zealand universities.  Results for the eight participating universities were made available in separate reports, including recommendations on how alumni relations programming efforts could be improved.

Therefore, the following comments will focus on general observations:

• Alumni Relations offices and efforts differ notably amongst New  Zealand’s eight universities. A few are well resourced and adequately staffed. The majority operates with a minimum of staff and what can only be deemed inadequate resources. A few are close to being non-functional owing to a compound lack of staff, training, and resources. Given this diverse landscape, no unified view on Alumni Relations offices is possible and in turn, these office cannot support alumni networking efforts in any remotely similar fashion.
• The technical capabilities of Alumni Relations Offices mirror the differences described above. A few have built functional databases, designed adequate websites, and rolled out a diverse set of programs and networking initiatives. Yet most other offices, despite staff members’ best efforts, continue to struggle to offer their alumni compelling services and benefits because the aforementioned programming and infrastructure components on their respective campus do not give rise to a clearly articulated and compelling product from an alumni perspective. Again, under-resourcing, under-staffing, and a lack of training are key culprits.
• Alumni networking support outside New Zealand is a prism through which many of the listed issue can be seen quite clearly. A few universities have managed to create a basic infrastructure for alumni residing outside New Zealand to connect and network. The majority of New Zealand universities has not. Reasons can be again found in the lack of resources, but also in the relative geographic remoteness which limits the number of on-site visits and centrally organized events. Moreover, reflecting changing student recruiting patterns, alumni are increasingly geographically dispersed.

In conjunction with alumni preferences expressed in the survey, it is therefore recommended to utilise (organisational) leverage models to improve the networking experience for alumni. This will require devolving network organisation tasks to alumni themselves, as well as to increasingly and rapidly engage on relevant social online community platforms such as Facebook or LinkedIn. In addition, most New Zealand universities will have to revisit the question whether the resources they make available to alumni programming efforts are sufficient; this report has shown clear evidence that they are not.

Additional Recommendations

At the conclusion of the report, three additional recommendations are offered:

• As the survey demonstrated, alumni perspectives are substantially shaped by alumni’s experiences as a student. While many alumni reported highly positive experiences, positive perceptions slipped amongst some younger alumni age categories and most notably for alumni from a number of Asian countries. In order to arrest if not reverse any of these dynamics, it is recommended to create targeted student services programmes which address this issue head on.
• Technology could be considered somewhat of an Achilles heel of the participating university Alumni Relations offices. Challenges included the alumni databases, communication applications, respective websites, and the ability to track and analyse alumni behaviour. In addition, the minor and non-strategic uptake of online communities with the ensuing lack of alumni data integration – a topic of major discussion amongst alumni relations professionals since 2008 – is worrisome. It is recommended to address this issue by conducting an audit of current practices with a view on both institutional and possibly cross-institutional improvements.
• A final recommendation concerns staff training. Alumni relations as a profession is facing a rapid shift in staff skills requirements, on-campus organisational role, and new tools becoming available. At the same time, demands on Alumni Relations offices have risen while resourcing has rarely reflected these added demands. It is thus recommended to bridge these conflicting strands by conducting repeated, high quality training of alumni relations staff in order to equip them with the necessary skills to respond to these challenges.