3 JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Volume 16, No. 1 • 2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Nonprofit Management Practice Articles 

Adding Assets to Need: Creating a Community Data Landscape



Women and Men as Board Chairpersons: Their Acceptance/Rejection of Eighteen Expectations Described in the Nonprofit Literature



Bowling Together Revisited: A Longitudinal Analysis of Nonprofit Mergers



Fighting Poverty with Passion and a University Partner: The Creation of a High Impact AmeriCorps VISTA Program



The Relationship between Learning Organization Dimensions and Performance in the Nonprofit Sector



Seeking Elements of Growth at the Start-Up Stage of Iranian Non-Governmental Education Providers (A Grounded Theory Approach)

PUBLISHED BY

390 George Street, 5th Floor New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901 Phone: (732) 932-8758 Ext. 10 http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/CentersandProgram s/nonprofit.aspx

305 Seventh Avenue at 27 Street, 11th Floor New York, New York 10001-608 Phone: (212) 924-6744 www.supportcenter.org

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

EDITORIAL BOARD

Ronald Quincy, PhD Director, Center for Nonprofit Management and Governance, School of Social Work Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Dwight Denison, PhD University of Kentucky

John Brothers, MBA, MPA, LP.D, CFRE Senior Fellow, Support Center/Partnership in Philanthropy

SUPPORT STAFF Alexis Biedermann, LSW Operations Editor Julia Lu, MPA Publications Editor Ben Chastain, MSW Assistant Publications Editor Meghan Flaherty, BASW Editorial Assistant Ashley Rushford Editorial Assistant

Jeri Eckhart-Queenan, MBA Bridgespan Group Judy Freiwirth, Psy.D. Nonprofit Solutions Associates Shauwea Lynn Hamilton, MBA Newark, New Jersey Public Schools Jason Patnosh National Association of Community Health Centers Harriet Sanford, MPA NEA Foundation Anne Sherman, MPA Growth Philanthropy Network Karun Singh, PhD, CSWM Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Pete York, PhD TCC Group

Copyright ©2013 by Rutgers School of Social Work and Support Center/Partnership in Philanthropy. All authors retain the rights to their articles. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without permission from the individual authors. Authors retain the rights of their articles. For further information please contact the editors at [email protected].

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

CONTENTS FROM THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF ……………………………………………………………….…….4 ADDING ASSETS TO NEED: CREATING A COMMUNITY…………………………………………….….5 DATA LANDSCAPE Margaret M. Roudebush, Robert L. Fischer & Jeffrey L. Brudney BOWLING TOGETHER REVISITED: A LONGITUDINAL ……………………………………………...19 ANALYSIS OF NONPROFIT MERGERS Julie Pietroburgo & Stephen P. Wernet WOMEN AND MEN AS BOARD CHAIRPERSONS: THEIR ……………………………………….……33 ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION OF EIGHTEEN EXPECTATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE NONPROFIT LITERATURE Stephen R. Block & Steven A. Rosenberg FIGHTING POVERTY WITH PASSION AND A UNIVERSITY …………………………………………...46 PARTNER: THE CREATION OF A HIGH IMPACT AMERICORPS VISTA PROGRAM Thomas A. Bryer, Maria-Elena Augustin, Mukta Barve, Valerie Perez & Norma Gracia SEEKING ELEMENTS OF GROWTH AT THE START-UP STAGE ………………………………………61 OF IRANIAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS (A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH) Babak Shahmansouri & Morteza Nazari THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING ORGANIZATION ………………………………………...90 DIMENSIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR John M. Wetherington & Michael K. Daniels Page 2

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

ABOUT THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF ………………………………………………………………....108 ABOUT THE EDITORIAL BOARD …………………………………………………………………110 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ……………………………………………………………………….…..113 CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE NEXT EDITION ……………………………………………………...117 CONTACT INFORMATION …………………………………………………………………………119

Page 3

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT FROM THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Dear Readers,

Welcome to the next edition of the Journal for Nonprofit Management, an innovative partnership between the Support Center/Partnership in Philanthropy and the Center for Nonprofit Management and Governance at Rutgers University School of Social Work. We are proud of our work in producing the only peer-reviewed journal where nonprofit practitioners and academics studying the sector can come together and produce quality written material that advances the work of sector leaders and the research and writing of those in the academic world. Per our commitment to the strong development of this journal, you should see continued improvements to the journal including new nationally-recognized peer reviewers, an updated design for the journal and expanded sections of the journal’s website. Additionally, the Journal for Nonprofit Management saw submissions from around the world, a first for our journal. We hope that you find these updates favorable. This open-themed issue includes articles and topics that are dominant in the nonprofit sector today such as using community data, nonprofit board leadership, and international start-up organizations. The following are our offerings in this journal:  Adding Assets to Need: Creating a Community Data Landscape by Margaret M. Roudebush, Robert L. Fischer & Jeffrey L. Brudney is an outstanding insight into how community data and needs are obtained.  Women and Men as Board Chairpersons: Their Acceptance/Rejection of Eighteen Expectations Described in the Nonprofit Literature by Stephen R. Block & Steven A. Rosenberg outlines the requirements of the important position of Board Chair.  The Relationship between Learning Organization Dimensions and Performance in the Nonprofit Sector by John M. Wetherington & Michael K. Daniels showcases how nonprofits can share and learn from each other to increase performance.  Seeking Elements of Growth at the Start-up Stage of Iranian Non-Governmental Education Providers (A Grounded Theory Approach) by Babak Shahmansouri and Morteza Nazari discusses the growing importance and status of educational providers in Iran.  Fighting Poverty with Passion and a University Partner: The Creation of a High Impact AmeriCorps VISTA Program by Thomas A. Bryer, Maria-Elena Augustin, Mukta Barve, Valerie Perez & Norma Gracia emphasizes the importance of partnering with universities.  Bowling Together Revisited: A Longitudinal Analysis of Nonprofit Mergers by Julie Pietroburgo & Stephen P. Wernet uses the framework of a classic book to give clues into the impact of nonprofit mergers.

The above articles, threaded together, discuss the various momentums seen in nonprofit management and outline lessons that can help practitioners move and think strategically about their efforts. We, as editors, hope that the journal will continue to be a strong resource for professionals, nonprofit organizations and academics involved in the important work of the nonprofit sector. As always, we look forward to your continued readership. Best Regards, Dr. Ronald Quincy Editor-in-Chief Center for Nonprofit Management and Governance

Dr. John Brothers Page 4 Editor-in-Chief Support Center/Partnership in Philanthropy

ADDING ASSETS TO NEEDS: CREATING A COMMUNITY DATA LANDSCAPE

Margaret M. Roudebush, MNO, is the Director of the Center for Research and Scholarship, School of Nursing at Case Western Reserve University. Robert L. Fischer, Ph.D. is a Research Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Center on Urban Poverty & Community Development at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University. Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D. is the Betty and Dan Cameron Family Distinguished Professor of Innovation in the Nonprofit Sector in the Department of Public and International Affairs at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. The nonprofit sector is increasingly focused on using data to inform practice. Social and economic indicators describing the needs of communities are readily available, but data on community assets are often hard to find. This article critically reviews the movement underway to bring together both community indicators of need as well as data on community assets in a common data portal. These portals have emerged largely outside the purview of academic researchers, nonprofit practitioners, philanthropic funders, government and community leaders and service users. Although the initiatives provide powerful frameworks for the collection, display, and analysis of community data, they do not meet all the needs of these highly disparate audiences. This article reviews these new community geographic data systems, discusses the advantages and challenges of launching and sustaining them, and presents suggestions regarding next steps for development in this field.

INTRODUCTION A movement is underway in the nonprofit sector that will make geographically-based social and economic indicators along with community asset data more widely usable and available. With such titles as National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP), Open Indicators Consortium, and Community Platform, these systems have the potential to support and change decision-making in communities in general and in nonprofits in particular. Yet, the identity and characteristics of these systems are largely unknown to nonprofit scholars, practitioners, leaders, funders, and clients. Moreover, although these systems have captured the attention of some nonprofits, governments, and funders, the challenges and opportunities they confront have not been sufficiently discussed in the scholarly literature. In this article we examine the development of community geographic data systems across the United States, illustrate their potential by reviewing applications operating in various locations, describe the challenges confronting these systems, and make recommendations for further use and expansion.

Page 5

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

A WEALTH OF DATA The rapid advance of geographic information systems and other information technology; the increasing availability of tax and other records pertaining to nonprofit and public organizations and the broader community; and the development of integrative tools to interlink these rich resources spatially have given practitioners, scholars, and leaders unparalleled access to a wide variety of data organized by geographic location. Many local community data system initiatives are underway working to provide a visual snapshot of the needs of the community through demographic and socioeconomic data together with community asset data provided via nonprofit organization, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and service provider data. These community geographic mapping systems provide decision-makers with an array of information tied to location that could not have been imagined even a few years ago. In the early 2010s, the technology exists to provide in a single geographic database a large volume of useful information, such as finance and tax, program spending and outputs, emergency services and shared resources, and community needs and resources, all of which can be viewed spatially (Urban Institute, 2011). Tailored to meet the needs and preferences of individual communities, these systems can integrate some or all of these features or modules. The data systems can also be designed to focus on specific “industries” in the community in which nonprofits are actively involved, such as early childhood education, prenatal services, or low income housing. Another advantage of these systems is that they offer the convenience and simplification of providing disparate community data and indicators in a single portal. Consequently, these systems would appear to have great appeal—and use—for a range of community stakeholders. Since the databases may over time incorporate information, community planners can utilize them to depict, understand, and anticipate complex community needs, trends, and growth and decline patterns, as well as experiment with “what-if” scenarios, both geographically and longitudinally. These systems bring together diverse data that can facilitate comprehensive analysis and planning. For researchers, these systems can yield data useful for basic research as well as applied projects that respond directly to immediate circumstances and needs in the community. For government decision-makers, the geographic data systems offer potential for discovering previously hidden community assets that might be brought to bear on public problems, as well as revealing unfortunate shortfalls and voids that ought to be addressed. Examples of hidden assets include such resources as a local food pantry or an after-school program that may be unknown to government (or other) decision makers due to the lack of public funding, but which may be revealed through a GIS (geographic information system) community portal populated by local community data. The systems attempt to compile local investment of nonprofit, public and private organizations, and persistent service needs, in particular service domains, such as unemployment and health care. The availability of better, more comprehensive information can possibly turn discussion, debate, and deliberation from a focus on “government budgeting” for a particular service to a refined emphasis on “community budgeting.”

Page 6

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

For individual citizens and groups interested in making a difference in their communities, the geographic data systems identify areas where they can be more involved, for example, through donating and volunteering. Conversely, for families and individuals requiring assistance in such areas as nutrition, childcare, job training, and housing these systems can show where and how it might be obtained in the community. For diligent funders, too, these geographic data systems can help to provide guidance in identifying and quantifying community needs, deploying scarce philanthropic resources to meet them, demonstrating the impact of these benefactions thereby “moving the needle” on community conditions. To this listing of stakeholders, we would add nonprofit organizations -- whose financial, tax, and program data typically constitute the backbone of these systems. For nonprofits, which are frequently exhorted to consider the advantages of merger, consolidation, collaboration, shared facilities and “back office” operations with other agencies (Fischer, Coulton, & Vadapalli, 2012), having ready access to information on potential partners is crucial. These systems can provide the impetus to forming collaborations, partnerships, and broader associations among nonprofits (as well as with government agencies and private firms) that may share information, resources, referrals, and the like to rationalize service delivery. Alternatively, for nonprofits committed to making a go of it on their own -- much like their counterparts in business and government -- these systems are equally valuable in understanding the marketplace for particular services and appreciating the dynamics of location and catchment area (Paarlberg & Varda, 2009). These mapping tool platforms also provide a mechanism to collect data on the many nonprofit organizations that fall “under the radar” of IRS reporting requirements by using local nonprofit data such as United Way 2-1-1 information and allowing organizations to register with the community data system and update their information. As Brent Never observes, “By providing a map, we provide legitimacy not only to the entire sector, but especially to those organizations that slip through the formal taxonomies of those who belong in the ‘official’ sector” (2011, p. 187). In this manner, the data systems enable a larger voice for the smaller nonprofit. Smaller nonprofits and faith-based organizations are often at the heart of a local community, providing tailored assistance where needed most. Yet, these nonprofits are usually not required to register with the IRS and may go undetected through the usual data tracking mechanisms. In the local data system, though, faith-based and smaller nonprofits may enter the arena of community service provision. Their activities can then be recognized and made more visible to the larger community, including donors, volunteers and clients. They have an incentive to participate in the local GIS portal to gain partners, allies, funders, and other supporters. Sandi Scannelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Community Foundation of Brevard, Florida, reports, the Brevard County Community Platform (“Connect Brevard”) “brought small nonprofits to the table, where they typically don’t have a table” (Urban Institute, 2012).

TAKING STOCK OF THE MOVEMENT Over the past 20 years, several initiatives have aimed at increasing access to community-level data. As technological advances have occurred in storing, hosting, and presenting data and Page 7

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT information electronically, these initiatives have rapidly increased clustering around several goals. Many community data efforts develop organically in response to specific regional needs for data. Several initiatives have emerged to coordinate and support the development of community data by providing an organizational host or forms of self-governance. Table 1 summarizes basic information on major multi-site initiatives. Dating to 1995, these efforts include the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership, the Open Indicators Consortium, United Way’s 2-1-1, the Urban Institute’s Community Platform, and the Foundation Center’s Philanthropy In/Sight. TABLE 1: EFFORTS TO EXPAND COMMUNITY-LEVEL DATA ON NEEDS ASSETS Member Statement of Initiative Host Launch Sites Objective National Urban Institute 1995 36 To further the Neighborhood development and use of Indicators neighborhood-level Partnership information systems in community-building www.neighborhoo and policymaking. dindicators.org 2-1-1 United Way 1997 In all 50 2-1-1 provides an easy Worldwide/ states way for everyone to http://211us.org/ Alliance of access comprehensive Information & and specialized Referral information and referral Systems services to their (AIRS) community. Open Indicators Consortium/WEA VE

 Local/regional United Ways and partners

University of Massachusetts Lowell

2008

15

To transfer publicly available data into visually compelling and actionable indicators to inform public policy and community-based decision makers.

 Members of the OIC  The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation  The Barr Foundation

Urban Institute

2010

9

To support transformative community change by enabling publicspirited citizens and nonprofit organizations to work together in new and more effective ways.

 The Boston Foundation  The Charles Stewart Mott Foundation  The Kresge Foundation

www.openindicato rs.org

The Community Platform

Initial/ Ongoing Funders  The Annie E. Casey Foundation  The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

www.urban.org/ce nter/cnp/projects/

Page 8

Figure 1 shows the location of the sites involved in these initiatives (with the exception of 21-1 and Philanthropy In/Sight, both of which exist much more broadly across the United States). All of these community mapping platforms claim to provide an important tool to bridge the information gap between the needs of the community and the areas served by nonprofits. We examine them more closely below. FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF COMMUNITY DATA SITES

Tracking Community Conditions A primary goal of these tools has been to create publicly-available (usually web-based) portals housing data on community needs and conditions. These efforts have as a central feature developing indicators of community conditions and making them available at varying levels of spatial geography. The National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) is one of these efforts; it focuses on building local capacity to maintain regional data repositories to further the development and use of neighborhood information systems (Urban Institute, 2012a). NNIP works to make available a range of social, economic, and environmental indicators based on local needs and the organizational capacity and mission of each NNIP partner site. Page 9

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Hosted by the Urban Institute, the National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership includes partner sites in 37 cities. The sites develop indicators related to such topics as births, deaths, crime, health, educational performance, public assistance, and property conditions. Because a key goal of NNIP is democratizing information, a central tenet involves “facilitating the direct practical use of data by city and community leaders, rather than preparing independent research reports.” These sites have adopted as a primary purpose “using information to build the capacities of institutions and residents in distressed urban neighborhoods” (Urban Institute, 2012b). The NNIP has drawn on the network’s collective capacity to expand knowledge in such areas as public health, early childhood and school readiness (Howell, Pettit, Ormond, & Kingsley, 2003; Kingsley & Hendey, 2010). Figure 2 provides an example of a map showing a NNIP community indicator, population change. FIGURE 2: EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY INDICATOR MAP

[Reprinted with permission from Data Driven Detroit]

The Open Indicators Consortium (OIC) consists of universities, community organizations, foundations, and regional and state agencies that have come together to promote access and use of high-quality data pertaining to community indicators, services, and government performance. Launched in 2008, the OIC has 16 sites organized in a collaborative network around the development and refinement of “Weave,” an open-source platform. The OIC formed “to support and guide the development of Weave and its application as a high-performance open source data analysis and visualization platform free to all” (Open Indicators Consortium, 2009). Weave enables the user to visualize social indicator data, and the patterns underlying them, nested within Page 10

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

and across geographic locations, whether neighborhoods, municipalities, states, regions and nations. Weave is supported by a sliding fee-based membership (www.openindicators.org). Mapping/Accessing Community Assets A related dimension of the movement toward community data platforms has focused on geographic displays of information about community assets and resources. The premise for this approach is that needs assessment also requires identifying and understanding community assets as a central feature of community conditions, and that positive community change emanates from an asset-based approach (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). In practical applications, this premise often led to the creation of community maps that revealed not only needs but also key assets such as schools, parks, community gardens, nonprofit organizations, and governmental services. Such maps are useful in informing community planning efforts but are restricted by the detail available on the particular assets, and can quickly become dated. We return to this issue later in our discussion of challenges to these community data systems. In addition to its benefits for community planning, resource mapping is crucial in connecting individuals and families in need with relevant and proximal community resources. Since 1997, the United Way has undertaken a national effort to meet community needs through its 2-1-1 referral systems. Originally, 2-1-1 systems developed as telephone-based referral points for individuals seeking assistance in a wide range of service domains including food, housing, employment, childcare, mental health, substance abuse, and more. The 2-1-1 systems have gradually migrated to the Internet so that they allow individuals to search for referrals in their area with the aid of geographic mapping. Merging Data on Community Conditions and Assets The most recent initiative in the movement toward community data systems is to bring together data on needs and assets in a single, dynamic system. Launched in 2010, the Urban Institute’s Community Platform, is the most notable example. Under development or in operation in over 10 states and counties nationwide, the Community Platform provides sites access to base data on community conditions from the U.S. Census Bureau. This information includes population and social/economic data from the American Community Survey. In addition, sites receive relevant data on nonprofit organizations (i.e., 501c3’s that serve the region encompassed in the community platform, ranging from single cities to multi-county areas, to entire states, based on IRS Form 990 data (Urban Institute, 2011). The data on nonprofit organizations include geographic location, core services, size and history (e.g., year of incorporation). According to the Urban Institute, easily accessible core data allow participating sites to launch a community platform at relatively low cost (an estimated $20,000-40,000 for initial start-up) that provides basic data on community conditions and resources. Sites can also upload locally-available data from nonprofits operating “under the radar” (see above) as well as other information such as crime rates, housing/business foreclosures, and local school and district performance. Individual nonprofit organizations can add data about their programs and services to the sites to enhance the information available. Figure 3 illustrates how a community platform brings together or maps a community need (in this case child poverty rates) with community assets (relevant human service agencies) to address the problem. Page 11

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 3: EXAMPLE OF COMMUNITY MAP SHOWING SERVICE LOCATIONS AND NEED INDICATOR [Reprinted with permission from the Louisiana Initiative for Nonprofit & Community Collaboration (LINCC)]

Another unique mapping platform, Philanthropy In/Sight, focuses on grant makers and grant recipients data overlaid with demographic and socio-economic data. The Foundation Center leverages its wealth of institutional philanthropy data to create an interactive mapping tool for grant makers, grant seekers, policy makers, researchers, and service providers where they can display giving patterns, analyze foundation impact, or see areas of greatest need. Launched in 2009, users can select from a wide range of customizable options to create maps revealing funding and giving patterns locally, regionally, nationally and globally, and overlay the data with Page 12

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

a choice of over 200 demographic, socio-economic and other data sets. The data sets come from a variety of national and international sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Social Science Research Council’s American Human Development Project, the United Nations Annual Human Development Report, the Data Catalog of the World Bank and many other government agencies (Foundation Center, 2013). The mapping makes evident areas where funding exists, areas of limited resources and allows a direct comparison to community need. Features allow the user to drill down to reveal detailed information on organizations, funders, and recipients. The Foundation Center customizes the platform for specific community needs or areas of interest, and pledges to update the philanthropic data weekly, and demographic and socio-economic data as it becomes available. While data is available at the local level, by zip code, city or metro area, the system does not allow direct data input by individuals or community organizations.

CHALLENGES TO THE MOVEMENT The considerable benefits and advantages of these community geographic data systems notwithstanding, like any other management or research tool, they confront challenges that should be taken into account. Data Access Community data systems are powered and limited by the underlying data available. Though some data are publicly and readily available (e.g., Census Bureau), access to many other types of data must be negotiated at the local and regional levels. Such data often emanate from administrative databases maintained by public entities as well as nonprofit organizations operating in a specific domain. These data pertain to such phenomena as crime, early childhood services, use of public assistance, child mistreatment, court involvement, school performance, and unemployment. Such data often require the negotiation of data use agreements between the data provider and the community data repository and may involve costs associated with providing and processing the data. Negotiations may need to address such topics as data security, protection of human subjects, as well as compliance with relevant protections under federal law (i.e., Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [HIPAA], Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 [FERPA]). Such considerations have implications for the level of data availability (i.e., individual or group); the need for review of these systems by Institutional Review Boards when universities are involved, and the possible requirement of informed consent procedures in obtaining particular individual-level data. Normally, such concerns do not extend to publicly-available data such as those provided through the Community Platform, but they are relevant when sites pursue locally-available data for inclusion in their community geographic data systems. Data Quality Community data systems earn credibility in communities by having data that are accurate, recent, and available for the geographies relevant to users. Typically, better performance on each of these dimensions requires higher burdens placed on the data partners and greater costs associated with managing the data system. More accurate data are achieved by understanding the Page 13

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

institutional processes that generated the data, subjecting files to data cleaning procedures, and even suppressing some data of lower reliability. In order to be useful, data provided by local entities must be subjected to routinized approaches to cleaning and verification. Even national data that have been subjected to extensive analysis are fraught with serious weaknesses and errors, such as with IRS Form 990 data (Froelich & Knoepfle, 1996; Froelich, Knoepfle, & Pollak, 2000). The risk of analytic errors becomes even more of a concern when dealing with smaller geographies such as those used in local level data portals. Data systems require continuous updating of data in order to meet the real-time demands of users. More recent data are achieved by having more frequent data extracts from relevant sources and timely processing of these data for inclusion in the community data system. Some data, however, may be available only at specific intervals due to limitations or procedures adopted by various data providers. Geographically relevant data are achieved by having source data that can be geo-coded into a range of geographic boundaries or jurisdictions (for example, municipalities, neighborhoods, city wards or districts, etc.). Yet, street address information may be considered identifying information that is protected by the data provider and may be suppressed prior to transmission. Providing for the accuracy and updating of the data in these portals must be taken into account in system funding. Access to nonprofit organization data raises its own set of challenges. Available literature has certainly benefitted from the accessibility and digitizing of IRS Form 990 data for nonprofit organizations, but this same research has also documented the limitations of these data, which are exacerbated at the local, community level as in the nonprofit geographic data systems described in this study (Froelich & Knoepfle, 1996; Froelich, Knoepfle, & Pollak, 2000; Roudebush & Brudney, 2012). IRS tax data may only capture as little as 10 percent (Smith, 1997) to as much as 75 percent (Salamon & Dewess, 2002) of nonprofit organizations. As in any data-driven system, the results must be limited by the quality of the input data. Data Visualization Community data systems seek to convey information about the scope and scale of community issues and assets and their geographic location. Presenting such information in the most usable fashion remains a distinct challenge for data systems. Often systems allow the creation of tabular information and/or location data in map form. Such output can be very useful but can have limitations as well, particularly for specific users. For example, individuals seeking a childcare facility may be able to use a map to find a nearby provider but may need to search other sources to find detailed information on the program, its quality, and availability in real time. Similarly, a funder of after-school programs may be able to see on the map the programs that exist in an area but may need to use other means to assess whether a shortage or surplus of services is available. Recent developments in the field include strategies to integrate geographic and tabular data so that users can see multiple presentations of data in an interactive fashion. Such data visualization techniques allow users to more intuitively explore the relationship between social conditions and their geographic spread. The Open Indicators Consortium is (re)developing and refining the Weave open-source application around such strategies. Page 14

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Sustainability of Data Systems Even with the facilitation and technical support provided by such entities as the Urban Institute (2011) for one of the geographic data systems, the Community Platform initiative, funders must step forward to underwrite these systems locally. Despite the evident benefits of these systems, as yet only a handful of communities have been able to mobilize the financial commitment (for example, the 12 sites for the Community Platform shown in Figure 1). This situation is aggravated by the fact that these data systems require not only start-up funding but also ongoing, operational support—the kind of “ask” that oftentimes presents a more daunting challenge. Although considerable community interest may accompany (and motivate) the launch and front-end investment in such systems, community data systems require a significant investment of funding and data over their useful life cycle. These systems thrive when data agreements are reliable and provide for regular updates over time. Commitments for data access can be difficult to maintain, especially when the organizations that provide data experience organizational and leadership changes that impact data sharing philosophies. Changes in elected or appointed leadership in public agencies or in CEO/board leadership positions in nonprofit organizations can lead to disruptions or restrictions in data access. Negotiations for data access must consider how to develop arrangements that are reliable and durable over time and resistant to organizational changes. Similarly, the funding required to host and maintain data systems should be developed toward a multiple year horizon. Start-up funding partnerships are crucial, but systems will require sustained core funding over time to support further growth, applications, and functionality of such community data systems. As communities change and evolve, additional funding may be necessary to underwrite specific projects, special analyses and reports, dissemination activities, and system extensions. Technological Divide Although the goals of these systems typically embrace “community building” (Urban Institute, 2011), access to the interactive GIS technology is not distributed evenly throughout the relevant communities of either residents or nonprofit organizations. Those who may need the technology and data most, both individuals and organizations, may encounter greatest obstacles to locating and using them. Portions of the data, or access to the geographical information system itself, may remain proprietary or restricted to a membership group who can best afford it, thus limiting involvement and benefits for the entire community. Another challenge involves building community capacity to use these data systems, which can present a formidable task to those new to the technology. Unless marketing, education, and training are provided—and budgeted— residents, families, and other individuals, as well as charitable and nonprofit organizations, will not know that these resources exist and how to use them effectively. And not all nonprofits will be enthusiastic about having their organizational information posted on a public website that is not controlled by them. Assessing Program Quality: Nonprofit Rating Agencies Ideally, community geographic data systems, such as the ones discussed here, would provide information indicating which nonprofit organizations are best suited to respond to a community Page 15

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

need (Never, 2011). Yet, available data on the existence of a nonprofit organization(s) does not convey information about the performance of the nonprofit, who it serves, or how effective it is. In an attempt to make up for this shortcoming and generate high quality data for informed giving, several organizations have been founded with the goal of rating nonprofits and publishing evaluative information about them on the internet. Most of these watchdog organizations rate nonprofits based on financial information from IRS Form 990 and annual reports, and many are limited to large organizations with revenues over $1 million. GuideStar, an online reporting service, covers the broadest range of nonprofit organizations, hosting information on over 1.8 million of them, but it is still limited by a lack of performance or effectiveness measures (GuideStar, 2012). The focus on providing information to aid in donor decision making does not include discussion of geographical areas served, area service competition, duplication of services, or service gaps. The movement toward community geographic data systems aims to provide such information. System designers and funders should endeavor to integrate the evaluative data from the rating agencies to provide a more complete picture of the community nonprofit landscape.

CONCLUSIONS Community geographic data systems have emerged in the absence of great scrutiny from practitioners and academic researchers. Accordingly, in this article we have described the different systems that encompass the movement toward community geographic data systems, illustrated their considerable advantages, and elaborated the serious challenges that must be confronted to realize their full potential. In our view, these systems can be a highly useful tool to promote positive community change provided they are used and embraced broadly across relevant stakeholders in the community. We believe that the joint mapping of socio-economic needs alongside nonprofit resources can help to promote knowledge, engage community discussion, and enable more efficient use of resources as gaps as well as duplication in services are more easily identified. The design of community geographic data systems will benefit from increased attention to the interests of various stakeholders, as well as funding arrangements that provide for both start-up and ongoing developments and changes. For communities to realize the potential advantages of such data systems that will allow for dynamic analysis of both needs and assets of a community, plans must be built on a sustainable model. In addition to providing high quality data in a timely fashion, a marketing, and education plan must be put in place to encourage and train public, private and nonprofit leaders and individuals to use and support the system. Plans must include the participation of data providers along with data users. The design and implementation process merits the kind of systematic scrutiny we have endeavored to present in this article. Given its distinctive history and service-delivery patterns, each interested community will likely approach creation and implementation of a community geographic data system somewhat differently. The lack of standardized measures threatens the usefulness of the data beyond the local community. Nevertheless, we anticipate that the reliance on the same established sources for most data, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service, will help to Page 16

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

standardize data collection for use by nonprofit managers for benchmarking and scholars for comparative research. Because local governments and philanthropic funders might have the most to gain from these systems with respect to increasing their ability to make informed decisions, they might reasonably be expected to take a leading role in this process. As pointed out at the outset of this article, the emergence of community geographic data systems has outpaced academic attention to them -- despite their importance for both government and nonprofit practitioners and academic researchers. We have been able to provide the current state of the art, which combines disparate threads and developments, but many questions and issues lie beyond the scope of our inquiry as well as available data and published research. First, although the community portals vary by host site, we do not know the advantages and disadvantages of their different features. Second, at this writing we have not been able to obtain information on the operation of these systems, including the crucial questions of data accuracy and updating. Third, research has not yet assembled evaluations from the various stakeholders that will be key to the further development and improvement of these community data systems. With such new information, we could begin to offer informed advice concerning whether the potential benefits of these data portals warrant some form of federal or state reporting mandate to participate in data collection. We are at work investigating these questions and hope that our continuing study will inform academic research, community practice, and public policy

REFERENCES Fischer, R. L., Vadapalli, D., & Coulton, C. (in press). Merge ahead, increase speed: Bringing human services nonprofits together to explore restructuring. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Froelich, K. A., & Knoepfle T. W. (1996). Internal revenue service 990 Data: Fact or fiction? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(1), 40-52. Froelich, K. A., Knoepfle, T. W., & Pollak, T. H. (2000). Financial measures in nonprofit organization research: Comparing IRS 990 return and audited financial statement data. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 232-254. Foundation Center. (2013) About Philanthropy In/Sight. Retrieved June 20, 2013 from http://philanthropyinsight.org/Help/About.aspx 2013. GuideStar. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://www.guidestar.org/. Howell, E. M., Pettit, K. L. S., Ormond, B. A., & Kingsley, G. T. (2003). Using the national neighborhood indicators partnership to improve public health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 9(3), 235-242. Page 17

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Kingsley, G. T., & Hendey, L. (2010). Using data to promote collaboration in local school readiness systems. Washington: The Urban Institute. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Never, B. (2011). The case for better maps of social service provision: Using the Holy Cross dispute to illustrate more effective mapping. Voluntas, 22, 174-188. Open Indicators Consortium. (2009). Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://www.openindicators.org/portal. Paarlberg, L. E., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Community carrying capacity: A network perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 597-613. Roudebush, M. M., & Brudney, J. L. (2012). Making policy without parameters: Obtaining data on the nonprofit sector in a local community. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 3(1), 1-23. Salamon, L. M., & Dewees, S. (2002). In search of the nonprofit sector. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1716-1740. Saunders, R. C. & Heflinger, C. A. (2004). Integrating data from multiple public sources: Opportunities and challenges for evaluators. Evaluation, 10(3), 349-365. Smith, D. H. (1997). The rest of the nonprofit sector: Grassroots associations as the dark matter ignored in prevailing “flat earth” maps of the sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 114-131. Urban Institute. (2011). The community platform: Engagement, analysis, and leadership tools. Washington: Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy. Urban Institute. (2012a). About NNIP. Retrieved December 10, 2012 from http://www.neighborhoodindicators.org/about-nnip. Urban Institute. (2012b). NNIP Concept. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://www.neighborhoodindicators.org/about-nnip/nnip-concept.

Page 18

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

BOWLING TOGETHER REVISITED: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF NONPROFIT MERGERS

Julie Pietroburgo, MPA, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy Analysis at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in Edwardsville, Illinois. Stephen P. Wernet, MSW, PhD, is a Professor in the School of Social Work and Department of Public Policy Studies in the College of Public Service, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri. Nonprofit associations are seeking to remain viable in increasingly competitive environments, with mergers more frequently being pursued as a reorganizational option. In 2006, a study was undertaken to evaluate the experiences of 11 associations attempting to merge and the factors impeding and facilitating their partnering. Six years later, this study reevaluates the impacts and outcomes of the mergers for four of these associations. The cases illustrate that mergers involve a range of partnering options, lead to significant leadership changes, and represent only a point along a continuum of restructuring strategies. Further, the cases show that once merged, organizations refocus their efforts from internal to external matters and adopt new metrics to gauge the success of their merged operations.

While slower to the game than their for-profit counterparts, nonprofit organizations have given more consideration to the merit of merging. Financial difficulties, executive turnover, membership demands and industry consolidation often point to the need for organizations to join forces. Nonprofit associations, in particular, have found limited literature available discussing the merger experiences unique to their sector positioning and useful to guiding their partnering efforts (Prokuski, 2002). Anecdotal evidence suggests that many nonprofit merger efforts are never consummated or fail to fulfill their initial promise. Further, little has been written about the long-term outcomes of nonprofit mergers and the utility of such actions as a viable restructuring strategy. Among the limited nonprofit merger literature available is a study undertaken from 2005 to 2007 which investigated the phenomenon of mergers among professional and trade associations in the U.S. This qualitative study was underwritten by the William E. Smith Institute for Association Research and involved the examination of 11 association merger cases from the point of initial consideration through implementation. Associations that were successful in implementing a merger, as well as associations that never consummated possible mergers, were evaluated. The study sought to understand the factors prompting organizations to pursue mergers, the elements facilitating and impeding merger progress, the differences between organizations that successfully merge and those that do not, and how mergers are actualized. Page 19

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Yet, the recency of the merger actions for many of the originally studied associations prevented thorough analysis of several of the study questions. As a result, this research summarizes the results of a follow-up to the original study undertaken five years later which provides a longitudinal analysis of merger success for these associations through the finer lens of time and experience.

MERGERS DEFINED Mergers among nonprofit organizations have become more common with an estimated merger rate of 1.5% in the sector and one in 10 nonprofits believed to be considering a merger option (Philanthropy Journal, 2009). Generally defined, a merger is a form of integration and is the legal act of combining two or more separate entities into one entity with a single governing body (McCormick, 2001). It is differentiated from other types of collaborative activities in the degree of inherent formality (use of legal contracts and agreements) and finality in the arrangement. Mergers may take one of two dominant forms. First, they may involve the dissolution of one organization and its assimilation within another with the surviving organization keeping or changing its name. Second, a merger may occur when two or more organizations dissolve and establish a new structure that integrates the operations and programs of the original organizations (Kohm, LaPiana, & Gowdy, 2000). Hannan and Carroll (1992) distinguish between these types of merger describing the former as “absorption by merger” and the latter as “equal status merger,” either of which can occur in nonprofit organizations. The overarching reason for merging organizations varies by economic sector. Within the forprofit context, organizations combine to attain strategic goals more quickly and inexpensively than would occur if the firm acted alone (Marks & Mirvis, 1998). Other benefits include the opportunity to diversify product and service lines, vertically integrate the organization, enter new markets, share the risk in innovative projects, stimulate innovation, cut costs and enhance efficiencies. Studies and literature emanating from the private sector have emphasized the differences in motives and outcomes based on the vertical or horizontal nature of the merger. Horizontal mergers involve the joining of firms in the same industry and in the same stage of production, e.g., an electronics manufacturer merging with another electronics manufacturer. Economies of scale and scope are the anticipated benefits. Vertical integration allows a merging of upstream suppliers and its downstream buyers and is typified by joining of firms engaged in different parts of production in the same industry with the expected benefit being in the lowering of transaction costs. In general, the literature notes expectations of increased income, less cyclicality of income, greater market recognition, the spreading of risk and a more balanced enterprise as incentives for pursuing a merger strategy (be it horizontal or vertical). Yet, there is recognition that such corporate marriages frequently fail due to over-optimism regarding results, lack of contingency planning and personality incompatibilities between managements (Pfeffer, 1972; Bradley & Korn, 1982; Heide, 1994; Varadarajan & Jayachendran, 1999). Within the nonprofit context, mergers occur as a strategy for growth and expansion particularly where resource scarcity and environmental uncertainty are prevalent (Wernet & Page 20

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Jones, 1992). Others (Golensky & DeRuiter, 2002; Kohm et al., 2000; Arsenault, 1998; Schmid, 1995; Singer & Yankey, 1991) have suggested that factors motivating mergers relate to access to more reliable funding, increased operational efficiency, building of political strength, expanding of market share, and enhancement of service quality. The availability of resources, the dominant decision-making style in the organization and recommendations by funding bodies also may be stimuli for merging. Existing literature does not address the differing nature of horizontal and vertical integration strategies in the nonprofit sector. The limited literature on nonprofit mergers indicates that such endeavors are not easy. Obstacles to successful mergers and prevalent reasons for rejecting such opportunities include concerns relating to loss of independence, fear of the unknown, problems of turf and ego, costs and time, loss of identity and personal security, and polarized community desires (Kohm et al., 2000). Nonprofit merger efforts also have been depicted as failing with regard to cost effectiveness, attainment of operational goals, market expansion and diversification (Schmid, 1995). As a result, merger strategies are not often undertaken by nonprofits as a first response to financial or operational threats. Rather, mergers typically demand more intense deliberation and planning than other reorganization options with far fewer organizations following the transaction through to completion than contemplate it in the first place (Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004; Alexander, 1999). Several models have been proffered for explaining mergers and acquisitions (Wernet & Jones, 1992). The predominant models emphasize efficiency or process. The efficiency model of mergers evolves from the rational choice perspective (Wernet & Jones, 1992; Pietroburgo & Wernet, 2004, 2007). The model utilizes a vocabulary of strategic analysis, economy, growth and expansion and focuses on the front end, analytic rationale for combining two or more organizations into a single entity. Further justification for merging is related to the synergy created or derived from the merger. The model also concentrates on the strategic fit and complementary nature of organizations, and how the acquiring firm’s strategic goals are achieved through the acquisition. These goals include an enhanced financial position through greater control, economies of scale and effort, and improved predictability of the marketplace. The emphasis of the efficiency model of merger is one benefit for the acquiring organization. The efficiency model of merger is uni-dimensional, i.e., it presents an elite, winner’s or acquirer’s perspective of the merger, and neglects the perspective of the acquired firm. Although the efficiency model of mergers has received the most attention, the process model is better supported by research. The process model of mergers focuses on the interpersonal dynamics of the acquisition and post-merger process (Wernet & Jones, 1992; Jemison & Sitkin, 1986; Walsh, 1989; Albo & Henderson, 1988). Both phases of the merger process are of equal interest. It assumes that the process of merging affects the outcome. The process model highlights the role of power, the organizational fit of the actors and the negotiation processes. It attends to the competing and complementary interests of the stakeholders who negotiate the merger. People’s motivations, objectives, perceptions, hopes, needs, expectations and goals are emphasized by the process model. How the negotiation process itself evolves is of paramount Page 21

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

interest. With its focus on the negotiation, the model is interested in bargaining and the approach utilized in the process. Attention is given to the impact of negotiation processes and post-merger challenges. Of particular interest are the attempts to find common ground, compromises, reconciliation, conflict resolutions and solutions reached among the key actors and stakeholders. It questions the utility of market value pricing in the assessment of mergers and acquisitions, especially among nonprofit organizations. In summary, the process model emphasizes the role of the stakeholders, their competing and complementary interests, and the negotiation process as the keys to understanding the success, or failure, of mergers. The process model stipulates four issues as determinant of the success or failure of a merger. They include 1) balancing strategic and organization fit; 2) balancing pressure to merge and post-integration concerns; 3) balancing pre-merger ambiguity and need for post-merger clarity; and 4) balancing winners’ arrogance with losers’ mourning.

THE MERGER CASES In 2006, the William E. Smith Institute for Association Research commissioned a study to investigate mergers among associations. A number of key findings emerged that gave light to the motivations for and manner of such mergers. However, even as the researchers set final pen to paper for that study, it was clear that the significance of certain findings were better gauged over time. As a result, this follow-up report conducted six years later summarizes the longer-term merger reflections of four of the associations involved in the original merger study. (Of the original 11 associations participating in the study, five attempted but did not consummate the merger and two declined to participate given their significant changes in leadership and form since the merger). Specifically, the research addressed four questions:    

What procedural aspects of the merger were significant to its completion? What has changed over the years since the merger? Were the goals for the merger achieved? What factors contributed to or impeded the long-term success of the merger?

The original and follow-up research employed a qualitative case study approach to understand the phenomena of nonprofit, association mergers. Study data were derived through in-depth, face-to-face and telephone interviews with association personnel. In the original study, four interviews were conducted: one with each of the executive directors of the associations involved in the merger transaction and one with the board president of the newly merged association. Interview questions were both semi-structured and open-ended. These questions encouraged participants to identify a) factors motivating merger decisions; b) processes involved in the merger negotiations; c) factors impeding merger decisions; d) decision-making capacity within the organization; and e) strength of resource bases. The researchers also analyzed a number of the merger planning documents including the transition plan, minutes from meetings, voting platforms, external media releases and internal memoranda. The follow-up research Page 22

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

conducted in 2012 involved face-to-face and telephone interviews with the executive directors, board leaders and key staff managers of the associations. Triangulation entailing the use of multiple data sources afforded the researchers the opportunity to test for multiple explanations and to eliminate competing explanations (Patton, 1990). The case was analyzed through an iterative process (Miles & Huberman, 1994). As key patterns emerged, the data was reduced to isolate and illustrate prominent factors. Taxonomic and componential models were useful in this process (Creswell, 1998). In addition, pattern matching for rival explanations was employed to facilitate the comparisons of empirically based patterns emerging from the qualitative data with predicted patterns (Yin, 1994).

FINDINGS: EXAMINING MERGED ASSOCIATIONS SIX TO TEN YEARS LATER  What procedural aspects of the merger were significant to its completion? As representatives of the four merged organizations reflected on the procedural aspects of their merger experiences, they drew clear distinctions in the type of activity actually undertaken. Two of the associations identify their consolidations as mergers or the blending together of two or more roughly equivalent organizations and two of the organizations described their activities as acquisitions. The latter was described as a take-over or absorption of a smaller association by a larger one. They note that the term “acquisition” was politically incorrect and insensitive to the players from the partner organization. Using the parlance of the private sector, all of these mergers were more horizontal in nature. With time and distance, the players are now more candid about the event. “After providing management services to them for nearly four years, the smaller group voted to merge with us at their initiative. They saw there were things we could do which they just never would be able to accomplish” (Association for Retail Environments [ARE]1). “A merger is more of a joining together of two more or less equal organizations… (in which)… you get synergy…. 1 + 1 = 2 ½… you get a value-add to memberships of both organizations… where in an absorption, you can’t find a vestige of the former organization” (Battery Council International [BCI]2).

 What has changed over the years since the merger? Changes in the organizations were most evident among the factors of leadership, physical location, operations, culture, and mission. The degree of change experienced along these factors varied by organization, but in each organization at least one element of moderate transformation is noted.

Page 23

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 1: POST-MERGER FACTORS OF CHANGE Mission ARE

Culture

BCI

Operations

FPA

Location

USBC

Leadership 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0/1 = Little change; 2= Limited Change; 3= Moderate Change; 4=Significant Change

Leadership: Since their mergers, all the associations indicated changes in their boards. Three of the four associations indicated change had occurred in the executive paid and volunteer leadership. In the case of two of the organizations, the leadership changes were very pronounced with few remnants of the board and executive personnel of the predecessor organizations still being associated with the merged association. In the other two organizations, either the board or the executive leadership had changed dramatically. “We have seen a complete change in leadership. What we have lost is some knowledge and institutional memory. What we have gained is new ideas, fresh sets of eyes and openness to new processes, relationships and opportunities” (U.S. Bowling Congress [USBC]3). “(We have had a)…. cross-pollenization [sic] between the Boards…. (but)…we have had very little personnel turnover… same people…. less turnover than normal… less staff turnover than normal primarily due to poor labor market” (ARE).

Physical location: For two of the associations, a move of the headquarters from one city to another followed shortly after their mergers. In the case of the two other organizations, the headquarters’ offices remained fixed but relatively small. With the physical move of headquarters’ sites, associations noted that personnel changes were substantial. “When we merged, we initially maintained offices in Atlanta and Denver for four years. When we made the decision to move all the headquarters to Denver, some people from Atlanta didn’t make the move and of those who did, none are any longer at the association” (Financial Planning Association [FPA]4). “The merger made the move possible. And with the move, our employees are now a younger demographic…. we also saw a shift in technology use in the office and greater efficiencies in how we do things” (USBC).

Operations: All of the associations noted that operational practices were altered after the merger. For the largest of the association mergers (USBC), the operational changes were very marked with some changes in structure, accounting, practices and a move toward metrics-based Page 24

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

management. Only one of the associations depicted the merger-induced changes as inconsequential over the long term. “After the merger, we gained a more direct focus on financial planning as a profession and reorganized operations around that focus” (FPA). “Nothing really changed as a result of the merger. Pre-merger, there were no competing meetings or membership, so we essentially just absorbed their limited functions into our existing operation” (BCI).

Culture: Three of the organizations noted a transformation in the culture of the association either as a result of or concurrent with the merger. Changes in leadership and operational staff, moves in headquarters’ locations, and the blending of practices all contributed to change in the established culture. Two of the organizations indicated that adherence to pre-merger cultures and practices still impeded organizational progress to some extent. “There has been a dramatic cultural shift from a family, parochial culture to one that is based on a business model. Some of that has to do with the retirement of long-time employees. Some of it has to do with trying to reinvent the culture toward the business of bowling” (USBC). “There is still some chapter alignment based on which predecessor organization they were aligned with. There is still some bias, but it continues to diminish” (FPA).

Mission: The missions of all four organizations were described as different from their pre-merger articulation. Strategic planning had reshaped the missions as had alliances with new organizations and pursuits of broader domestic and international markets. The associations adopted expanded visions and had evolved from classic, narrowly focused trade associations to broader, more inclusive associations reflecting the changes occurring in their industries. This mission evolution they noted as being a hallmark of a successful merger. “As a result of the merger and the events that have followed, we have reshaped the organization to a more professional stance and raised the professional bar for membership” (FPA). “…saw where future was… more than manufacturing… membership was broader than just store display… changed the focus of the association… a broadening of mission and strategy… a whole rebranding program… a Big Tent Strategy…” (ARE). “… (we are having a conversation about hosting)… a World Congress Conference…” (BCI).

 Were the goals for the merger achieved? Across the cases, there were three indicators and ultimate measures of merger success noted by the organizations. Association representatives pointed to improvements in financial position, economies and efficiencies of operation and market positioning as being important evaluative criteria.

Page 25

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Financial position: With respect to financial position, the distinction between acquisitions and mergers became key to gauging any improvements. In mergers, the surviving organizations improved their financial positions by eliminating redundancies in the back office operations, enhancing productivity and work effort thereby reducing operating costs and improving cash flow of the operation. Two of the associations began their move toward mergers through more limited management contracts with smaller associations. These limited arrangements led to a greater understanding between the associations and eventually to discussion of more significant joining of the associations. When the merger ultimately occurred, the back office operations already were run on the same platform thereby allowing efficient (and cost effective) blending of the business processes. “… cash flow is massively improved over the last four years…” (USBC). “… saved money by combining resources… have one organization focused solely on the sport…” (USBC).

In acquisitions, the surviving or acquiring organization solidified its financial position by acquiring a competitor and improving its financial position in its operating environment. Specifically, the improved financial position occurred through the membership gains coming from the former association. However, these organizations were quick to point out that membership gains (and consequently financial benefits) were not always substantial. “We really did this merger for the efficiencies. Membership and finance wise we have been flat” (FPA). “We have a broader membership… (which meant)… evolution from a classic trade association focused on manufacturing to focusing on a pathway to prospective customers…” (ARE).

Economies of scale and effort: Again, the distinction between mergers and acquisitions was central to the efficiency benefits organizations realized. For mergers, several gains were noticeable; some were operational efficiencies and others were operational improvements. First and foremost, revenues were saved through reduction of expenses. Resources from the merged organizations were pooled; redundancies were addressed and eliminated, especially in back office operations. In addition, freed up resources were used for improving member services. For example, organizations noted that communication often improved between the association and its members. In addition, there was improvement in project work because of pooled personnel and concentrated attention on project activities. The use of physical facilities also became more flexible and cost-effective. “… support of the locals was improved…created efficiencies in internal operations… reinforced and improved lines of communication within the organization…” (USBC). “… we have rejuvenated some of the activities from 20 years ago in NADI…” (ARE). “… we added a marketing group…” (BCI).

Page 26

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

For acquisitions, the organizations noted that economies gained were in the elimination of competition and the focusing of attention on other environmental issues. The gains were seen in redirected energy and resources available for more productive organizational work. Improved positioning in the marketplace: The cases showed that there are several aspects to improving one's position in the marketplace through merger activity. The mergers offered the possibility of consolidating and strengthening one's position vis-à-vis competitors in the operating environment especially in recruiting and retaining membership. Some of this occurred through the elimination of a former competitor; some from the stronger resource base created through the merger itself. In nearly every case, the merged associations become a, if not the, major player in their markets. Another aspect of marketplace improvement was the enhanced ability to respond to change. There was a greater focus on where the organization was positioned in the external marketplace. The associations reported increased flexibility for responding to change, including both nimbleness in response time and broadening of the organizations' response solutions. Several organizations noted that they had expanded their staff thereby bringing new ideas into the organization. The associations were in a continuing state of search and response in which they were seeking opportunity, developing services and testing for impact. These included a simplification of the membership organization and its public presentation, a refocusing on the target market, increased opportunities for collaborating with others in the operating space, and a renewed focus on customer service. In every case, retention of or increase in membership was the ultimate indicator of success. Success also led to other opportunities for new, ongoing collaborations with other associations in the operational space. Three of the four associations reported new collaborations or new merger activities after the initial merger six years ago. “… synergies from the merger… (include)… redeveloping identity and reimaging of the sport… renewed focus on reviving the sport of bowling…” (USBC). “… (we are)… getting maximum flexibility with organization structures and cooperation between BPAA and USBC…” (USBC). “… we have incorporated other groups… there is (enormous) change in the operating environment (for our membership)… and a growing international presence (for us)…” (ARE).

 What factors contributed to or impeded the long-term success of the merger? During their merger processes, the associations identified a number of factors critical to merger success. In a post-merger environment, the approach taken to each of these factors and their managerial emphasis had evolved. Communications: While communications was a factor noted in the first study as significant to merger success, the communication emphasis tended to be internally focused on employees and internal stakeholders critical to the merger transaction itself. All associations now note that the Page 27

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

primary audiences in a post-merger environment are members and external constituencies. In addition, associations noted that the need for frequent and meaningful communication with stakeholders continues to be critical to organizational success. “Not enough emphasis had been put on the communications with membership bodies during the merger. As a result, some hostilities and resistance to the merger existed far longer than it should have” (FPA). “The benefits of the merger have been in the ability to advocate for financial planning as a profession. There are advocacy and public relations benefits from having a stronger, consolidated voice” (FPA).

Time: The first study also identified time as crucial to merger success. Adequate intervals were noted as necessary for operational practices to be ironed out, cultures blended, leadership to be identified, and legalities and finances to be reconciled. On reflection five years later, the associations noted that the time to affect their merger was longer than they had initially anticipated. In addition, a number of the associations noted that other significant events essentially marked the end point to their merger processes. These included moves of headquarters, changes in leadership, changes in staff composition, and significant accomplishments on the regulatory front. “We thought we took ample time to get it right, but sticky issues still surfaced…. The mark of merger completion was when we were able to accomplish some things that we couldn’t have done independently. Our success in bringing forth a major lawsuit for the industry was an indication of merger success” (FPA).

Leadership: As expected, leadership proved to be essential before, during and after each merger. However, all but one of the organizations noted that the type of leadership needed in a postmerger environment was different than that before the merger. As an example, the executive leadership at USBC was essentially new three years after the merger with two of the top executives coming from other sports or industries. USBC representatives indicated that in the new environment, there was less emphasis on managing the internal polity and more concern with leading and managing relationships within the external polity. “At merger, we essentially had two leaders. It was clear over time that the kind of leader we needed had to be perceived as neutral with no previous strong allegiances” (FPA).

Culture: A central emphasis of the initial study was the manner in which disparate cultures would be blended when two associations were merged. Much attention was paid before and during the merger processes on uniting different values, traditions, behaviors and norms. While culture dominated the discussion during and immediately after each merger, the associations indicated significantly less attention is paid to management of the internal culture several years out. “The internal culture is not of prime concern …” (USBC).

Social capital: Consistent with the concern for culture, the first study found associations interested in the building of social capital and trust as they forged their new merged entities. While trust issues among those associated with the respective former organizations have not Page 28

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

been completely eliminated, changes in personnel and leadership have diminished these issues. Consequently, associations say they spend less time tending to the building of social capital within the organization. “There is still some tension, but time and turnover of boards and chapters has helped this… We have undertaken leadership development efforts and tried to do a better job of communicating our values and purpose and taking this as an association to the chapters” (FPA).

CONCLUSIONS A number of conclusions can be drawn about mergers through these longer-term analyses of association experience. First, while the term merger is loosely applied to many forms of organizations coming together, mergers in practice differ in structure and outcome. As was clear in the experiences of the four associations, a range of merger types exists. The fact that all of these mergers exhibited a joining of organizations within the same industry and in the same stage of production, may be indicative of the necessity and relative ease of horizontal mergers over vertical types for servicebased associations. These cases also indicate that some mergers are more of an acquisition of a smaller, struggling organization by a stronger one with very few vestiges of the struggling organization remaining over time. Other mergers will bring together similarly situated organizations and will result in the crafting of a substantially new and different organization through the merger process. Rhetoric surrounding the merger often emphasizes bringing together equal partners. In fact, such rhetoric is useful and perhaps necessary for selling the merger idea to boards, staff and other stakeholders. However, as found in the first phases of this study, no evidence exists to suggest a merging of true equals in any of these transactions. One partner always brings to the table superior resources (personnel, financial, political, skill) that are determinative in shaping the new organization. Over time, attention to assuring equality of partner interests and ways of doing business wanes. Second, leadership changes are inevitable to the merger process. These associations showed that the leadership required before and during the merger process is not necessarily the same type of leadership required in a post-merger environment. This may be related to the change in focus of the organization from internal and operational to external. Leadership changes focus from solidifying and consolidating the merged organizations and moving away from previously embedded parochial cultures to responding to a new environment with a fresh set of ideas, solutions and approaches. Third, given the significant step that mergers represent, organizations that successfully emerge from the process appear conditioned and more capable of tackling other types of organizational restructuring. The associations viewed their mergers not as a conclusive end point for organizational restructuring, but as a major point along a continuum of restructuring that provided a significant catalyst for further change.

Page 29

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Six years post-merger, the organizations indicate that they viewed their mergers as complete and that, in some cases, the impacts were indistinguishable from the effects of other major events in organization’s history. Other significant events after formal merger date had essentially tipped the scale toward merger “culmination” (headquarters move, discontinuation of services, instigation of new or reintroduction of previously discontinued services). The locus of organizational attention shifts from the internal to external polity as the organization moves away from the merger event. The act of merging appropriately forces focusing organizational energy on internal polity issues (culture, operations, leadership, for example). Organizations become decidedly more externally focused in a post-merger environment. While during the merger process, attention was on the internal melding of cultures, processes, finances, operations, governance, in the post-merger world focus largely shifted to consolidation and responding to external issues, challenges and concerns (financial viability, membership development, customer service). Finally, the metrics for gauging merger and organizational success evolve. After mergers, the need for economic stability and efficiency in a constrained economic environment are prevailing concerns. Contrary to these being just espoused interests as in the earlier study, organizations are now more aware of the impacts (data and metrics are available, acknowledged and monitored throughout management ranks), business implications related to organizational survival are understood and leaders/managers are responding by testing competitive/marketing strategies to address these impacts. These newly blended organizations aim to support, develop, sustain and expand their memberships because they are, after all, membership associations.

NOTES 1

Association for Retail Environments (ARE) is a non-profit trade association advancing the retail environments industry and member companies. 2

Battery Council International (BCI) is the trade association for the lead-acid battery industry.

3

United States Bowling Congress (USBC) is the organization serving amateur adult and youth bowlers in the United States. 4

Financial Planning Association (FPA) is a leadership and advocacy organization for those who provide, support and benefit from financial planning.

REFERENCES Albo, W. P., & Henderson, A. R. (1988). Mergers and acquisitions of privately held businesses. (2nd ed.).Toronto: CICA. Page 30

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Alexander, J. (1999). The impact of devolution on nonprofits: A multiphase study of social service organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(1): 57-70. Arsenault, J. (1998). Forging nonprofit alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bradley, J., & Korn, D. (1982). The changing role of acquisitions. Journal of Business Strategy, 2(4): 30-42. Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Golensky, M., & DeRuiter, G. (2002). The urge to merge. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(2): 169-186. Hannan, M., & Carroll, G. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Heide, J. (1994). Interorganizational governance in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 58(1): 71–85. Jemison, D. B., & Sitkin, S. B. (1986). Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 145-163. Kohm, A., La Piana, D., & Gowdy, H. (2000). Strategic restructuring: Findings from a study of integrations and alliances among nonprofit social service and cultural organizations in the United States. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hill Center for Children. Marks, M., & Mirvis, P. (1998). Joining forces. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McCormick, D. (2001). Nonprofit mergers: The power of successful partnerships. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publications. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publications. Philanthropy Journal. (March 18, 2009). Nonprofit mergers may increase. Raleigh, NC: A. J. Fletcher Foundation. Pietroburgo, J,. & Wernet, S. (2004). Joining forces, fortunes and futures: Restructuring and adaptation in nonprofit hospice organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(1): 117-137. Page 31

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Pietroburgo, J., & Wernet, S. (2007). Investigation of Association Mergers. Chicago, IL: The William E. Smith Institute for Association Research. Pfeffer, J. (1972). Merger as a response to organizational interdependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3): 382-394. Prokuski, B. (2002). Anatomy of a merger. Association Management, 43-48. Schmid, H. (1995). Merging nonprofit organizations: Analysis of a case study. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(4): 377-391. Singer, M., & Yankey, J. (1991). Organizational metamorphosis: A study of eighteen nonprofit mergers, acquisitions, and consolidations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 1(4): 357-369. Varadarajan, R., & Jayachandran, S. (1999). Marketing strategy: An assessment of the state of the field and outlook. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(2): 120-143. Walsh, J. P. (1989). Doing a deal: Merger and acquisition negotiations and their impact upon target company top management turnover. Strategic Management Journal, 10(4), 307322. Wernet, S., & Jones, S. (1992). Merger and acquisition activity between nonprofit social service organizations: A case study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(4): 367-380. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Page 32

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

WOMEN AND MEN AS BOARD CHAIRPERSONS: THEIR ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION OF EIGHTEEN EXPECTATIONS DESCRIBED IN THE NONPROFIT LITERATURE

Stephen R. Block, PhD, is a Research Professor at the School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver & Chief Executive Officer of the Rocky Mountain Human Services. Steven A. Rosenberg, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychiatry, University of Colorado- Anschutz Medical Campus.

This article reports on the findings of a survey conducted to determine whether male and female board chairpersons’ accept or reject the board role expectations as expounded in the nonprofit normative and analytic literature. The roles and responsibilities and popular “do’s and don’ts” that populate the literature were synthesized into eighteen role expectations. Ninety-nine (46 female and 53 male) nonprofit board chairpersons completed an online 30-item questionnaire designed to ascertain their level of agreement about adhering to the 18 expectations. Board chairpersons’ agreements with the 18 expectations were analyzed using analysis of variance. Two findings from this study are especially intriguing: when male board chairpersons receive assistance from their executive directors, they are more apt to agree with the expectations culled from the nonprofit board literature. In contrast, women board chairpersons prefer to achieve the expectations without any help.

The expansive literature on nonprofit boards has been a vehicle for reinforcing popular ideas and promoting beliefs about the best way for board members to govern (Brown & Guo, 2010; Herman & Van Til, 1989; Widmer & Houchin, 2000). In 1983, there were approximately 200 volumes on nonprofit organizational management identified by using three major bibliographic sources (Block, 1987). Today, Amazon.com lists over 1,200 titles on nonprofit boards and related nonprofit management topics. Due to this burgeoning nonprofit literature, it is understandable that certain ideas, theories, and board models advanced by various authors would share some common ground. Over time, several shared ideas about board member behaviors have become accepted as norms and symbolic of what it means to be a worthy and committed board member, such as making financial contributions and not missing board and committee meetings. Contributions and attending meetings are just two of numerous published ideas that have become expectations for individuals serving on nonprofit boards of directors. In fact, Herman (1989) concluded that board members must engage in “heroic behavior” to accomplish all of what is expected of them. Indeed, there are many challenges to being an effective board member, including balancing the legal responsibilities as a volunteer with the personal responsibilities of a job, family or other important life events (Nesbit, 2012). Page 33

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Although the research literature on nonprofit boards has flourished, the extant literature is scarce in its body of empirical research in three areas: the role of the board chairperson, the differences and similarities between male and female board chairs, and how role expectations shape how boards of directors enact their responsibilities. Harrison and Murray’s (2012) enlightening study stands out because it does tackle the subject matter of nonprofit board chairs. They found that effective board chairs were able to balance their use of influence and exert their leadership power because of the quality of their relationships with other board members and the CEO. Their study has no mention of gender. Other research findings assessed the transactional qualities (Ronquillo, 2011) of board members as leaders. For example, Jager and Rehli (2012) examined the power relationships between the board chair and executive director and found that a balance of power between the roles is advantageous. Instead of considering the balance of power between the CEO and board chairperson, Iecovich and Bar-Mor (2007) were interested in knowing which leadership role was dominant and influential. Their sample chose the CEO. Kearns (1995) found that chairpersons and executive directors preferred similar traits and characteristics in their choice of board members. However, his study did not report on the preferred attributes of a board chairperson. One of the dimensions that the normative and analytic literature has in common is the paucity of information on women as board chairpersons. One of the lone references came from Pynes (2000). She identified 25 female board chairpersons in her study on gender differences of executive directors of nonprofit organizations in a Midwest community. While the professional literature has increased its studies on women in board positions in both the corporate (Nielsen & Huse, 2010) and nonprofit sectors (Bradshaw, Murray & Wolpin, 1996; Gibelman, 2000; Odendahl & O’Neill, 1994; Pynes, 2000, Themudo, 2009), a keyword search using Summon, a search engine serving as a gateway into three university libraries extensive electronic and print collections, produced no results of peer-reviewed studies on gender differences of board chairs or women as nonprofit board chairpersons. The role of board chairperson has been a popular topic in the prescriptive literature. In Houle’s (1997) considered opinion, the board chair is ultimately responsible for the effectiveness of the governing board, while Carver states that the chairperson is “responsible for the integrity of the board process” (Carver, 1997, p. 143). Overall, there appears to be universal agreement that the role of the board chair is one of leadership, characterized by an ability to facilitate and engage the board members during its meetings (Harrison & Murray, 2012; O’Connell, 2003). However, the prescriptive literature, too, does not address gender, other than to suggest the importance of achieving diversity among board members (Bradshaw & Fredette, 2012; Brown, 2007; Daley, 2002). This article reports on the findings of a survey on nonprofit board chairpersons’ acceptance of board role expectations. Four key questions propelled this study: 1. Do nonprofit board chairpersons accept the board role expectations described in the professional literature? 2. Are the behaviors of board members and board chairpersons consistent with the expectations that board scholars equate with the role of the board? Page 34

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

3. Are there differences in the way that female and male board chairpersons execute their board role? 4. Do female and male board chairpersons rely more or less on their CEO to accomplish governing responsibilities?

METHOD Thus far, we have advanced the idea that board scholars established board role expectations. They also created a conceptual distinction between board members considered effective and loyal, from board members deemed ineffective or noncommittal. The key difference between being an effective or ineffectual nonprofit board member, according to Wright and Millesen (2008), is role clarity. They found a direct relationship between role clarity or role ambiguity and the strength of a nonprofit board members’ engagement. Role expectations are an important component in psychological studies of work role requirements (Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2007) because they serve as antecedents of role behavior (Jackson, 1981) in the work place. The construct of role expectations in the workplace is applicable to the role behaviors of nonprofit board members and board chairpersons. The first step in this discovery was to identify the numerous board member expectations that authors advanced through the scholarly and popular governance literature (for example, Carver, 1997; Chait, Holland & Taylor, 1996; Conrad, 2003; Herman & Heimovics, 1991; Houle, 1997; Inglis, Alexander & Weaver, 1999; O’Connell, 2003). The roles and responsibilities and popular “do’s and don’ts” that populated the literature were synthesized into 18 expectations, as follows: Expectation 1. The roles and responsibilities of board members should be spelled out in a board job description or in a written policy with copies distributed to all board members. Expectation 2. Board members should be required to participate in the organization's fundraising activities. Expectation 3. Annually, board members should personally contribute money to the organization, not just give time. Expectation 4. Recruiting board members should be a year-round activity, not just when there is a vacancy. Expectation 5. Board members should leave the board after two or three consecutive terms. Expectation 6. Board members should develop, write, and adopt organizational policies, as needed. Expectation 7. Board members should attend all board meetings. Page 35

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Expectation 8. Board members should have a developed interview process that is used with all board candidates to personally inform the candidates about the organization's mission, goals, financial condition, and the time and effort that will be expected of them as board members. Expectation 9. Besides providing information during the recruitment phase, the board should provide new board members with additional orientation and training. Expectation 10. Board members should be terminated or quit if they miss three or more consecutive board or Committee meetings. Expectation 11. The board should have guidelines and use them to remove board members who fail to meet the board's minimum expectations. Expectation 12. Board members should be collegial by encouraging each other to participate in board and Committee meetings and invite different viewpoints including disagreement. Expectation 13. The board chair should create a spirit of unity among the board and ensure that board meetings and the work of the board is effective, ethical and meaningful. Expectation 14. The board should not accept everyone who wants to serve on the board. Instead, the board should have a thoughtful and deliberate recruitment process that systematically identifies the characteristics and skills that would be desired in new board members. Expectation 15. Because the board has ultimate responsibility for the organization, the board should be concerned about its performance and have a formal method for evaluating individual board members and the board as a whole. These evaluations should occur at least annually. Expectation 16. Annually, the board should evaluate the performance of its executive director and based on its findings, the board should either fire or reward him/her. Expectation 17. If a board does not undertake to carryout substantive tasks on their own, then the executive director needs to initiate and follow through on the process, but attribute success to the board. Expectation 18. The board should be expected to define and evaluate the organization's mission, approve the budget, establish or adopt plans, ensure financial controls, and perpetuate the existence of the board. To represent the opinions of board members, the survey was limited to board chairpersons who self-selected into the study. An assumption was made that board chairs would be the most engaged players on nonprofit boards of directors and most likely to adhere to the 18 Page 36

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

expectations. After agreeing to participate, 99 (46 female and 53 male) nonprofit board chairpersons from throughout Colorado were given a Web address to access an online 30-item questionnaire designed to ascertain their level of agreement about adhering to the 18 expectations. For Expectations 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18, the questionnaire provided the respondents with an opportunity to note agreement or disagreement with the expectations when the executive director aided the board in the fulfillment of the specific expectation. In addition, questions were included that would help determine if there was agreement or disagreement when board members were solely responsible for the fulfillment of each specific expectation. With Expectations 3, 5, 7, 10, 16 and 17, board chairs could report their agreement or disagreement with these six expectations without any reference made to the board acting alone or receiving help from their executive director. Agreement and disagreement were scored one and zero, respectively.

RESULTS Board chairpersons’ agreements with the 18 expectations were analyzed using analysis of variance. This was accomplished by summing agreement (Cronbach's alpha=.87) for items that asked respondents their opinion regarding the board member’s responsibility to achieve an objective when the executive director provided assistance (see Table 1). TABLE 1: AGREEMENT WITH EXPECTATIONS WHEN HELP IS PROVIDED Position Gender Mean Standard Deviation Chair

Female Male Total

7.83 9.68 8.82

4.34 2.93 3.75

N 46 53 99

A second summary variable (Cronbach's alpha=.91) was created for items that indicated agreement or disagreement when no assistance was provided by the executive director (see Table 2). TABLE 2: AGREEMENT WITH EXPECTATIONS WHEN NO HELP IF PROVIDED Position Gender Mean Standard Deviation Chair

Female Male Total

7.96 7.75 7.85

3.92 3.92 3.90

N 46 55 99

The analysis of variance for the sum of questions regarding agreement when help was provided was significant for position (F=10.71, p=.001). Significant differences were also found for gender (F=5.46, p=.02), and for the interaction between position and gender (F=7.82, p=.006) Page 37

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

which primarily reflected the lower level of agreement of female board chairs. For the sum of items that assessed agreement with expectations when the executive director provided no help, significance was obtained for position only (F=15.21, p=.001).

BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF EXPECTATIONS Board chairpersons approached the 18 expectations with critical thinking and assigned different levels of importance to the expectations. Board chairs ranked their top three expectations as follows: 1.(#7) Board members should attend meetings. 2.(#18) Board members should define and evaluate the organization's mission, approve the budget, plan, ensure financial controls, and perpetuate the board. 3.(#16) The board should evaluate the performance of its executive director, and based on its findings, the board should either terminate or reward him or her. The three expectations that received their lowest level of agreement included: 1. (#17) If a board does not undertake substantive tasks on their own, the executive director should attribute success to the board. 2.(#6) Board members, without assistance, should develop, write and adopt organizational policies, as needed. 3.(#2) Board members, without assistance, should be required to participate in the organization's fundraising activities. As a group, board chairs were generally accepting of the conventional board expectations culled from the literature, although the strength of acceptance for each of the 18 expectations varied. Fifty percent of board chairs agreed with the traditional governance expectation that board members should be solely responsible for developing, writing, and adopting organizational policies, as needed. In addition, they split equally when it came to the executive director initiating and following through on substantive governance tasks that the board should be handling on their own. In this situation, half of the group thought it was reasonable for successful outcomes to be attributable to the board, although the executive director completed the bulk of the work. The perpetuation of a board of directors is a critical responsibility. Finding board members that are in alignment with the mission of the organization and have certain knowledge or skill that would benefit the board’s governance role is not an easy assignment and may take a substantial amount of time to identify and recruit the best candidate. Although cultivating board prospects that possess certain qualities and characteristics may lead to more effective board member participation, only 56 percent of the board chairs accepted the expectation that recruiting board members should be a year-round activity, not just when a vacancy exists. When the executive Page 38

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

director assisted in the recruitment process, agreement with the expectation increased to 74 percent. A similar upward spike occurred with Expectation #1, when the executive director supported the board by writing and distributing board job descriptions outlining the board’s roles and responsibilities. In another recruitment related responsibility (Expectation #8), 59 percent of the board chairs agreed that the board was in charge of informing board candidates about the organization's mission, goals, financial condition, and the amount of time and effort they would spend as volunteers. When this same task included help from their executive director, 78 percent of board chairs agreed with the expectation.

GENDER AND EXPECTATIONS Conflict among board members can be a thorny experience, especially if the issue is about terminating a board member or encouraging his or her resignation. Presented with this problem, the strength of agreement varied between female and male board chairs. Specifically, 74 percent of the male board chairs agreed that Expectation #11 was reasonable for removing board members who fail to meet the board's minimum expectations and to terminate the board member with help from their executive director. In contrast, only 43 percent of the female board chairs agreed with that scenario. Female board chairs were more reluctant to involve their executive director and were of the belief that this difficult task should rest with the board alone. In fact, when asked their opinion about board members being solely responsible for the removal of a board member, the agreement level among women board chairpersons increased to 78 percent. Improving board performance through an annual evaluation is a recommended practice (Cornforth, 2001; Brown, 2007) and reflected in Expectation #15. Assessing the board’s effectiveness can occur using various formats, such as an open discussion about the board’s successes and failures, a written survey focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the board, or using checklists designed to identify gaps in board performance. Regardless of the approach used, when the evaluative process relied on the assistance of the executive director, 48 percent of female board chairs agreed with the expectation compared to 72 percent of the male board chairs. Board evaluation is not a highly desirable task, but female board chairs were more inclined (67 percent) to support an annual evaluation if conducted without any staff assistance. Board chairpersons could indicate agreement levels with 12 expectations using the assistance of the executive director. As indicated by the analysis of variance results, gender differences were noted with agreement on expectations when assistance is provided. With all 12 expectations, women board chairs expressed less agreement than men do. Additionally, with eight out of those twelve expectations female board chairs agreed more strongly in the expectation than male board chairs did, if accomplished by board members alone. Male board chairs demonstrated a tendency to reduce the strength of their agreement when the executive director was not involved in helping the board members fulfill expectations. A representative example is Expectation #18. In this case, 93 percent of the male board chairs agreed that with help from their executive director, the board should define and evaluate the organization's mission, approve the budget, establish or adopt plans, ensure financial controls, and perpetuate the existence of the board. Their agreement Page 39

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

diminished by approximately 25 percent after eliminating the executive director’s support. Although the prevailing traditional view is that board members are responsible for writing and establishing policies, male board members demonstrated a discernible difference in their opinions with this responsibility. With the aid of the executive director, 83 percent of the male board chairs agreed to the expectation about establishing policies or job descriptions and ensuring its distribution to all board members. When the board was to act without the support of the executive director, the level of agreement plunged to 47 percent. Almost all of the board literature takes the position that board members must engage in fundraising for their nonprofit organization (Tempel, Seiler, Aldrich, & Maehara, 2010; Mastracci & Herring, 2010). However, the requirement to fundraise can be a highly charged subject among board members (Perry, 2007). Among the male board chairs, 85 percent of them expressed agreement to participate in raising funds with the support of their executive director. When expected to fundraise by themselves, the male board chairs evidenced a noticeable decline in their support with 59 percent in agreement.

DISCUSSION Two findings from this study are especially intriguing. We unexpectedly discovered differences in how female and male board members think about board expectations and prefer to accomplish them. First, male board members are more apt to agree with the expectations when they can receive assistance from their executive directors. Second, women board chairs prefer to go it alone. In an attempt to interpret the reasons for the differences in how female and male board chairpersons approach their board role, we found the professional literature of little help. There is nonprofit literature reporting the significance of gender (Themudo, 2009; Mastracci & Herring, 2010), gender and volunteering (Taniguchi, 2006), gender discrimination in the nonprofit sector (Gibelman, 2000), gender stereotyping affecting advancement for women (Evans, 2011) employees in the nonprofit sector with women remaining disadvantaged as wage earners (Sampson & Moore, 2008). However, we could not find a satisfactory explanation for the differences in leadership behavior between female and male board chairs. Despite what seems to be a general belief that there are differences in the leadership styles of men and women, evidence is rather sparse (Champoux, 2000; Jonsen, Maznevski, & Schneider, 2010) with claims that similarities outweigh the differences (Robbins, 2003). Jonsen, Maznevski, & Schneider (2010) write that “the role of gender and leadership over the last 20 years remain largely inconsistent” (p. 550). One article that surfaced during our search (The Economist, 2003) offered an explanation as to why women board chairs are apt to reject help from either their female or male executive directors. The article suggests that women are less likely to form networks, thus leaving them to work alone. Discussions with female colleagues generated some similar views on the matter. One explanation is that men have more experience working in teams and relying on team members for success. Another explanation rejected the stereotypical characterization of women leaders as Page 40

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

being more nurturing and willing to share power and information. Instead, a female colleague suggested that women might believe that their success is contingent on being competitive and guarded, thus the preference to work alone. While we are in no position to draw a definitive conclusion about gender differences and leadership, overall our research findings do illuminate important patterns of agreement and disagreement among male and female organizational leaders. Gender and position has some bearing on one’s belief and agreement with how board members fulfill role expectations as delineated in the professional literature. Female board chairs favor traditionalist models of board governance. Traditionalist views (such as, Houle, 1997) and board models that reinforce hierarchical relationships (such as, Carver, 1997) have long permeated the nonprofit board literature. Female board chairs preferences to fulfill their responsibilities without the aid of the executive director is in line with Carver’s Policy Governance Model. In fact, Carver places a heavy burden on board members to not waiver in their governance roles and responsibilities. He states, No matter how well the CEO tells the board what to do and when to do it, governance cannot be excellent under these conditions. Going through the motions, even the ‘right’ motions, is fake leadership that transforms a CEO into a baby-sitter. Only a deluded board waits for its CEO to make it a good board. (1997, p. 123).

Houle’s traditionalist tripartite model places the board chair in a dominant hierarchical position and distinguishes between the power lines of the executive director and board chairs. He states, Some executives are afraid of strong chairmen, fearing a focus of leadership competitive with their own. But, if boards are to be well organized and are to do their jobs properly, they need just such a focus. The executive must administer the institution. The chairman must guide, develop, and coordinate the work of the board. When either tries to carry out the other’s responsibilities, trouble probably lies ahead (p. 13).

In contrast, male board chairs prefer governance models that are collegial and team oriented (Leduc & Block, 1989; Jager & Rehli, 2012) or board-centered (Herman & Heimovics, 1991). After exploring the many expectations of how board members should fulfill their roles and responsibilities, it is understandable that many board members look for help from the prescriptive board literature. The level of legal responsibility assumed by board members creates pressures to function properly, as captured by a statement made by Peter Drucker (1977, p. 8) more than three decades ago, “Whether it is being done right or not will determine largely whether the enterprise will survive and prosper or decline and ultimately fail.” Looking to ease their burden, some board members migrate to cookbook formulas to guide the business of the board of directors. Prescriptive advice can provide a framework for improving nonprofit organizational performance, but not all advice is good advice. More specifically, our concern is with the overload of standards about how board members should act; labeling board members as “failures” when they do not adhere to all of the expectations. Certainly, adherence to the 18 Page 41

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

expectations will make a positive difference in the outcome of nonprofit organizations, but we do not support the viewpoint that the board should act alone in all governance matters. In our experience, nonprofit boards have demonstrated effective outcomes when board members and executive directors exercised more tolerance and understanding for the busy volunteer who could not fulfill some board tasks because of many life-related obligations. When the board does not have the ability to complete their work, they may find benefit in using the executive director to assist or work behind the scenes to help board members be successful (Block, 1998; Herman & Heimovics, 1991).

CONCLUSION In this study, we were able to examine the reaction of male and female board chairpersons to 18 expectations culled from the board literature. In answer to our four questions, some variability exists in the strength of certain expectations, but overall the board chairs tend to demonstrate consistency with their role expectations. There are similarities and differences between female and male board chairs. However, the divergence becomes recognizable in relation to their working relationship with their CEO. Given the results, it seems reasonable to speculate that the achievement of board projects and tasks would improve if assigned to men with the assistance of their executive director. Additionally, the findings imply that successful outcomes would occur more often if women board members carried out certain assignments by working independently, rather than working in committees or accepting offers of assistance from their executive director. While the article helps fill the void of information about gender and the role of board chairpersons, the implications for these findings is still open to further interpretation and analysis. We could also benefit from learning more about role expectations and gender among other board member positions. For instance, we do not know whether board members holding other officer positions would respond differently than their board chair. Likewise, would role expectations differ among board members who are not officers? Additionally, future research should explore how board members become exposed to the role expectations. Do they learn what is expected of them by reading books and journal articles, attending conferences, observing other board members, board development training, advice from board consultants or from their executive director? Indeed, there is still more to learn about the relationships between gender, board roles and the activities that shape perceptions about board member performance.

REFERENCES Block, S. R. (1987). The academic discipline of nonprofit organization management: Past, present, future. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado. Block, S. R. (1998). Perfect nonprofit boards: Myths, paradoxes, and paradigms. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Page 42

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Bradshaw, P., & Fredette, C. (2012). A study of large Canadian nonprofit organizations determinants of the range of ethnocultural diversity on nonprofit board. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/0899764012453085. Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1996). Women on boards of nonprofits: What difference do they make? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(3). Brown, W. A., (2007). Board development practices and competent board members implications for performance. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(3). Brown, W. A., & Guo, C. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39. Carver, J. (1997). Boards that make a difference: A new design for leadership in nonprofit and public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chait, R., Holland, T., & Taylor, B. (1996). Improving the performance of governing boards. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. Champoux, J. E. (2000). Organizational behavior: Essential tenets for a new millennium. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. Conrad, W. J. (2003). The new effective voluntary board of directors: What it is and how it works. Athens, OH: Swallow Press. Cornforth, C. (2001). What makes boards effective? An examination of the relationships between board inputs, structure, processes and effectiveness on non-profit organizations. Corporate Governance, 9. Daley, J. M. (2002). An action guide for nonprofit board diversity. Journal of Community Practice, 10. Dierdorff, E. C., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Consensus in work role requirements: The influence of discrete occupational context on role expectations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5). Drucker, P. F. (1977). People and performance: The best of Drucker on management. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Evans, D. (2011). Room at the top: Advancement and equity for women in the business world. National Civic Review, 100(2). Gibelman, M. (2000). The nonprofit sector and gender discrimination. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10(3). Page 43

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2012). Perspectives on the leadership of chairs of nonprofit organization boards of directors: A grounded theory mixed-method study. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 22(4). Herman, R. D. (1989). Concluding thoughts on closing the board gap. In R. D. Herman & J. Van Til (Eds.) Nonprofit Boards of Directors: Analyses and Applications. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Herman, R., & Heimovics, R. D. (1991). Executive leadership in nonprofit organizations: New strategies for shaping executive-board dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Herman, R. D., & Van Til, J. (Eds.) (1989). Nonprofit boards of directors: Analyses and applications. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Houle, C. O. (1997). Governing boards: Their nature and nurture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Iecovich, E., & Bar-Mor, H. (2007). Relationships between chairpersons and CEOs in nonprofit organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31(4) 21-40. Inglis, S., Alexander, T., & Weaver, L. (1999). Roles and responsibilities of nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 10. Jackson, S. E. (1981). Measurement of commitment to role identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40. Jäger, U. P., & Rehli, F. (2012). Cooperative power relations between nonprofit board chairs and executive directors. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 23. Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M. L., & Schneider, S. C. (2010). Gender differences in leadership – believing is seeing: Implications for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity & Inclusion: An International Journal, 29(6). Kearns, K. P. (1995). Effective nonprofit board members as seen by executives and board chairs. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5(4). Leduc , R. F., & Block, S. R. (1989). Conjoint directorship: Clarifying management roles between the board of directors and the executive director. In R. Herman and J. Van Til (Eds.), Nonprofit boards of directors: Analyses and applications. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Mastracci, S. H., & Herring, C. (2010). Nonprofit management practices and work processes to promote gender diversity. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 2 (2).

Page 44

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Nesbit, R. (2012). The influence of major life cycle events on volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6). Nielsen, S., & Huse, M. (2010). The contribution of women on boards of directors: Going beyond the surface. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18(2). O’Connell, B. (2003). The board members book: Making a difference in voluntary organizations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Foundation Center. Odendahl, T., & O’Neill, M. (Eds.). (1994). Women and power in the nonprofit sector. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Perry, G. (2007). Fired-up fundraising: Turn board passion into action. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Pynes, J. E. (2000). Are women underrepresented as leaders of nonprofit organizations? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20(2). Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior (7th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall, 2003. Ronquillo, J. C. (2011). Servant, transformational, and transactional leadership. In K. A. Agard (Ed.) Leadership in nonprofit organizations: A reference handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sampson, S. D., & Moore, L. L. (2008). Is there a glass ceiling for women in development? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(3). Taniguchi, H. (2006). Men's and women's volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1). Tempel, E. R., Seiler, T. L., Aldrich, E. E., & Maehara, P. (2010). Achieving excellence in fundraising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. The Economist (2003, October 25). The trouble with women. October 25, 2003. Themudo, N. S. (2009). Gender and the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4). Widmer, C., & Houchin, S. (2000). The art of trusteeship: The nonprofit boards guide to effective governance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Wright, B. E., & Millesen, J. L. (2008). Nonprofit board role ambiguity: Investigating its prevalence, antecedents, and consequences. American Review of Public Administration, 38(3). Page 45

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

FIGHTING POVERTY WITH PASSION AND A UNIVERSITY PARTNER: THE CREATION OF A HIGH IMPACT AMERICORPS VISTA PROGRAM

Thomas A. Bryer is the Director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management at the University of Central Florida. Maria-Elena Augustin is the Assistant Director of the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management at the University of Central Florida. Mukta Barve is an AmeriCorps VISTA Member and Master of Public Administration Student at the University of Central Florida. Norma Gracia is an AmeriCorps VISTA Member and Master of Nonprofit Management Student at the University of Central Florida. Valerie Perez is an AmeriCorps VISTA Member and Master of Nonprofit Management Student at the University of Central Florida. With pressures to both develop skills necessary for an emerging job market and to develop strong, active, and ethical citizens, higher education institutions are facing a period reform. This article presents a case study of an academic center that strives, as part of its mission, to cultivate civically healthy communities through strategic university-community partnerships. Specifically, the case study examines the role of an academic center hosting an AmeriCorps VISTA program in building the capacity of school district, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations that are individually and collectively seeking to enhance educational resources and opportunities for K-12 homeless students. The article describes the rationale, theory, design, and early results of this partnership, and it suggests implications for both universitycommunity partnerships and national service initiatives.

INTRODUCTION In higher education today, there are two pressures being applied for reform. The first has the muscle of state governors and legislative leaders behind it; the second is promoted by educational and civic leaders. One is most concerned about value for the dollar, with value defined as student ability to get a job and contribute to the economy upon graduation; the other is concerned with the declining civic health of our communities. Advocates of one reform path often neglect the other, give the other lip service, or chastise the other for being ill conceived. Fundamentally, the concerns share a common foundation: how to strengthen our citizens and our communities to be empowered, skilled, self-reliant, and concerned for the whole body politic. Different reforms will emphasize each component differently, but the core remains. Page 46

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

This article presents a case study of an academic center housed within the School of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Specifically, the case examines how the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM) has built a program and sustainable foundation for contributing to the development of citizens, strengthening of communities, and teaching of skills to students and community members. Through a grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service, the CPNM designed and implemented an AmeriCorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) program that seeks to build capacity of school districts, nonprofit, and faithbased organizations to better meet the needs of K-12 homeless students. The program enables promotion of volunteer service, development of skills to build organizational and relational capacity across sectors, and enhancement of overall community capacity to respond to the unique needs of K-12 students who are at high-risk of academic underperformance due to their unstable housing situation. By framing the case of the CPNM and the development of its AmeriCorps VISTA program within historical, theoretical, and practical contexts, this article will discuss the implications of a model for university-community partnerships as it relates to higher education reform, and national service.

BRIEF HISTORY OF NATIONAL SERVICE AND AMERICORPS VISTA Volunteerism is documented to have positive social, economic, and self-efficacy benefits for volunteers and the communities they serve (Nesbit & Brudney, 2010). According to the Volunteering in America report (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2012) :  In 2011, the number of volunteers reached its highest level in five years (64.3 million Americans)  Americans volunteered approximately eight billion hours  The most popular place for volunteering was in schools or other youth serving organizations Since the 1930s and more specifically since the 1960s, the U.S. government has promoted volunteer service as a vital attribute of active citizenship. Whereas Republican and Democratic presidential administrations have varied in their approach to promoting the ideals of citizenship and their philosophy regarding the role of the federal government in such promotion, both parties have been consistent in their emphasis on volunteerism and national service (Bryer, 2012). The Franklin Roosevelt administration was the first to venture into the concept of federally-sponsored volunteer service as a means to achieve broader societal goals. At that time, the administration was concerned with putting able bodied men to work in the thick of the Great Depression, while simultaneously working to preserve and rebuild an expanding acreage of national forests—twin interests that gave rise to the Civilian Conservation Corps (Egan, 2009). In the 1960s, the United States saw a renewed interest in fighting poverty, and governmental leaders sought avenues for citizens to serve the community and nation at home, just as they were able to do internationally through the Peace Corps. Thus, during the Johnson administration, we Page 47

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

saw the launch of VISTA, Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, and the Retired Senior Volunteer Program—all initiatives to engage citizens in service activities to strengthen communities and fight poverty. As described to VISTA members in their official handbook: [T]he purpose of VISTA, as authorized in the Domestic Volunteer Service Act (DVSA) of 1973, as amended is: To strengthen and supplement efforts to eliminate and alleviate poverty... in the United States by encouraging and enabling persons from all walks of life, all geographic areas, and all age groups, including low-income individuals... to perform meaningful and constructive volunteer service in agencies, institutions, and situations where the application of human talent and dedication may assist in the solution of poverty and poverty related problems.

The sacrifice expected of volunteers was apparent. President Johnson stated, in swearing in the first 20 VISTA members in 1964, “your pay will be low; the conditions of your labor often will be difficult, but you will have the satisfaction of leading a great national effort, and you will have the ultimate reward which comes to those who serve their fellow man” (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2006). VISTA members commit to one year of service, receive a small living allowance, access to health services, and they get an educational grant at the end of their year of service. George H. W. Bush’s administration was next to renew attention on national service, with his creation of the Commission on National and Community Service to support full time service and encourage service learning in schools. The Clinton administration followed and ushered in the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) and AmeriCorps. VISTA was placed under this umbrella to stand as it does today as AmeriCorps VISTA, a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations increased popular and financial support to national service programs. President Bush called on Americans to devote two years of their lives or 4000 hours to service and volunteerism; President Obama’s first legislative accomplishment was the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which increased funding for the range of CNCS programs, including AmeriCorps VISTA. Since 1994, there have been over 800,000 AmeriCorps and VISTA members who have served the nation with over one billion hours of service (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2013). VISTA members have engaged in a range of activities to help alleviate poverty through government, faith-based, and nonprofit capacity building, through cultivation of new programs, development of new systems of volunteer management, and creation of donor database systems to communicate with donors and track donations. Continued support for national service programming is backed by research indicating a number of benefits. For instance, those who participate in service are more likely to continue volunteering, to engage civically and politically in their community, and seek a career in government or nonprofit service (Nesbit & Brudney, 2010). Further, data suggest that AmeriCorps has maintained neutrality in its volunteer activities and populations served, without bias in gender or race (Simon, 2002). National service programs are not without challenge Page 48

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

however. There remain questions on the ability of public policies, such as national service programs, to increase volunteering beyond levels that would otherwise be achieved, as well as the ability of volunteerism to have lasting impact on pressing social issues (Nesbit & Brudney, 2010). The difficulty of measuring outcomes associated with volunteerism presents perhaps the most significant challenge for continued support to entities and programs like the CNCS and AmeriCorps (Reingold & Lenkowsky, 2010). It is also one challenge which strategic partnerships between government agencies and higher education institutes and centers can help to address.

UNIVERSITY AS A COMMUNITY PARTNER As the U.S. government has sought to promote volunteerism and citizenship through federal programs and initiatives, institutions of higher education have been concerned with cultivating citizens as one of several of their significant functions (Watson, Hollister, Stroud & Babcock, 2011; Williams, 2012). Developing citizens to serve the needs of the state and society is not a new function of educational institutions; it is a role that dates to antiquity when the need was for preparing citizen-soldiers who were physically fit and loyal to the state (Murrou, 1956). In the present day, the challenge presented to higher education institutions includes the following (National Task Force, 2011):  “Champion civic learning explicitly and repeatedly in its fullest democratic-enhancing dimensions as a fundamental U.S. priority and a component of all educational programs, including those that relate to job training and workforce development” (p. 41).  “Strategically refocus existing funding streams to spur—from school through college and beyond—civic learning and practice in the curriculum, co-curriculum, and experiential education” (p. 42).  “Create financial incentives for students, including first-generation students and those studying in career and occupation fields, to facilitate their access to college while expanding their civic capacities as part of their education” (p. 43).  “Tie funding for educational reform and research initiatives—at all levels—to evidence that the funded initiatives will build civic learning and democratic engagement, both U.S. and global” (p. 43).  “Report regularly on the levels of civic and democratic learning, set national and state goals for expectations about students’ achievement in civic learning before they graduate, and make such outcomes a measurable expectation of school and post-secondary education in public, private, and for-profit degree granting institutions” (p. 43). In the past several decades, higher education institutions have become more open and widely available for the diverse populations in the United States. What began with an offering of higher education for returning soldiers through the GI Bill evolved to an opportunity for citizens from all socio-economic backgrounds. Democratized education presented new opportunities and challenges for institutions; with an increasing number of students passing through their halls, colleges and universities needed to be responsive to their diversity (through the development of new classes and programs in emergent disciplines such as women’s and gender studies) while also maintaining a set of core commitments to universal notions of citizenship (Loss, 2012). Page 49

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Judging by the array of books and popular media articles that have been produced in the past decade alone, we can suggest that higher education has not met normatively desirable objectives of citizenship (Dewey, 1916; Ehrlich, 2000). Some of the statistics that suggest the need for new thinking and action on how higher education can promote citizenship include the following (National Task Force, 2011, p. 7):  U.S. ranked 139th in voter participation of 172 world democracies in 2007  The 2010 Civic Health Index indicates that only 10 percent of citizens contacted a public official in 2008-2009  Twenty four percent of graduating high school seniors scored at the proficient or advanced level in civic in 2010, fewer than in 2006 or in 1998  Fewer than 70 percent of high school seniors reported learning about important parts of civic knowledge in 2010, including the U.S. Constitution, Congress, or the court system  Half of the states no longer require civic education for high school graduation  College seniors scored only 54 percent correct answers on a test measuring civic knowledge  Opportunities to develop civic skills in high school through community service, school government, or clubs are available disproportionately to wealthier students  Just over one third of college faculty surveyed in 2007 strongly agreed that their campus actively promotes awareness of U.S. or global social, political, and economic issues  35.8 percent of college students surveyed strongly agreed that faculty publicly advocate the need for students to become active and involved citizens  One third of college students surveyed strongly agreed that their college education resulted in increased civic capacities To address the decline of civic health requires not only attention paid to civic education and a preparation of citizens to participate in procedural democracy, but also to the ideal of substantive democracy. In order to engage the vast array of citizens, both those who are students at universities and those who are not, procedurally and equally in democratic institutions, there must be a fair and equitable foundation for providing citizens with the means to meet their basic needs (Eikenberry, 2009). The role of higher education, we suggest, is to be a partner in cultivating civically healthy communities, defined as communities in which participatory processes are inclusive and diverse and in which participants have the skills, tools, and confidence to contribute meaningfully to the social, economic, and intellectual strengthening of communities. This level of health is less likely achieved if citizens’ basic needs are unmet. Basic needs typically are thought to include (Skidelsky & Skidelsky, 2012): (1) health as the “full functioning of the body, the perfection of our animal nature” (p. 153); (2) security as “an individual’s justified expectation that his life will continue more or less in its accustomed course, undisturbed by war, crime, revolution or major social and economic upheavals” (p. 156); (3) respect, meaning to “respect someone is to indicate, by some formality or otherwise, that one regards his views and interests as worthy of consideration, as things not to be ignored or trampled on” (p. 157); (4) personality as “the ability to frame and execute a plan of life reflective Page 50

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

of one’s tastes, temperament and conception of the good” that also includes “an element of spontaneity, individuality, and spirit” (p. 160); (5) harmony with nature as a “sense of kinship with animals, plant and landscapes” (p. 162); (6) friendship, meaning when “each party embraces the other’s good as his own, thereby bringing into being a new common good” (p. 163) and when people “love one another for what they are, not for what they can offer” (p. 164); and (7) leisure as “that which we do for its own sake, not as a means to something else” or due to some “external compulsion” (p. 165). Partnerships between universities and the community are vital for the establishment of basic needs for all citizens. As Bryer (2011, p. 90) states: “Collaboration between universities and communities is potentially significant to successfully achieve both the educational objectives of the university and the public service objectives of community partners.” The university brings to bear the full breadth and depth of faculty expertise, student passion, and an interest in both community-engaged research and teaching that can produce innovative research outputs and enhanced learning experiences. Community partners bring experiential knowledge, a set of needs and challenges with a range in complexity, and a generally open posture to receiving assistance. A model for partnership that seeks to forge this kind of mutually beneficial relationship and achieve a more civically healthy community—promoting both procedural and substantive democracy—is discussed next.

FORMING AN AMERICORPS VISTA PROGRAM WITH THE CENTER The Center for Public and Nonprofit Management (CPNM) at the University of Central Florida seeks to strengthen communities through relevant research by faculty and students and through capacity building services to public and nonprofit organizations. It represents the formalization and expansion of services and research already being conducted through various faculty members within the School of Public Administration, and facilitates the dissemination of the research. Current core research areas for the CPNM, defined by faculty and supported by the advisory council, are collaborative governance, democracy and citizen engagement, diversity and inclusiveness, and sustainability. The CPNM was first established in 2003 as the Capacity Building Institute, which secured over $2 million in funded awards for 11 major nonprofit capacity building projects. Working with more than 200 diverse secular and faith-based community organizations across the university’s 11 county service area, the services delivered by the CPNM included capacity building research, training, technical assistance, and evaluation through a unique team approach utilizing faculty, graduate students, and local nonprofit professionals. Two research projects on healthcare access and quality were coordinated and presented at six conferences and research forums. In fall 2009, a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services supported capacity building for 80 small nonprofits to improve economic recovery in their areas. Grant funded work through the Corporation for National and Community Service began in 2010 with a project to develop and incorporate performance management systems for nine Page 51

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

targeted nonprofit organizations. In 2012, CNCS awarded the CPNM an AmeriCorps VISTA program to work with the Homeless Education Programs of two school districts to build their capacity and sustainability. Figure 1 summarizes the structure of the Center’s AmeriCorps VISTA program FIGURE 1: STRUCTURE OF THE CENTER’S AMERICORPS VISTA PROGRAM

Addressing a Need Local to the University, Orange County identifies 7,232 homeless students as of May 2013 (3.8% of enrollment) and another, Seminole County, identified 2,229 homeless students (3.5% of enrollment). The CPNM AmeriCorps VISTA program provides capacity building services to identified partners in the community to ensure children and youth have access to education and other services and that such children and youth have an equal chance of meeting the same challenging state student academic achievement standards as any other student, despite their tenuous housing situation. VISTA Member Activities Enhancing the capacity of organizations and programs to alleviate poverty is a core principle of the CNCS AmeriCorps VISTA Program and a critical component of the CPNM AmeriCorps VISTA program. The activities of VISTA members most directly relate to capacity building. VISTA members strengthen and support organizations by building infrastructure, expanding community partnerships, securing long-term resources, coordinating training for participants, and more, as dictated by local needs. They create systems that remain long after their service ends. Page 52

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

The CPNM VISTA members have been in service since August 2012 in the CNCS focus area of education, with the objective of K-12 success. They are building the capacity of organizations providing services to students living in poverty to improve academic performance and academic engagement. The project includes two action plans, one per school district homeless education program. One of the programs strives to build internal capacity for organizations, while the other seeks to strengthen organizations’ external capacity developing community partnerships. Internal Capacity Building To deliver internal capacity building, four VISTA members have been placed in the Families in Transition program in a local school district. The main goal of these VISTA members is to provide capacity building within the school district office and a partnering faith-based organization dedicated to serving K-12 homeless students. The VISTA members work at the Families in Transition (FIT) office, and an additional two member’s work at the faith-based partner organization. The FIT VISTA members work on one of the following: involvement in tutoring and other school related activities, staff education, shelter liaison, or community awareness and outreach development. At the faith-based organization, two VISTA members work on community volunteer recruitment and management as well marketing of its programming to assist homeless students. In a second school district, three VISTA members are stationed at homeless shelters to build capacity for new programs and services targeted at homeless youth residing in the shelter. The VISTA members also seek to build relationships with the school district, which is an externally focused role and thus also fits in that category. External Capacity Building To deliver external capacity building, two AmeriCorps VISTA members work in the second school district to provide services to the Homeless Education Program and partnering nonprofit organizations in the areas of: organizational development, program development, collaboration and community engagement, leadership development, and evaluation of effectiveness. The goal of external capacity building is to aid organizations in increasing the quality and effectiveness of educational services for children experiencing homelessness. One of the CPNM VISTA members who serves with the school district’s Homeless Education Program (HEP) provides services to support the program’s development as well as enhance community engagement. Activities include creating and updating print materials and updating website content and social media pages. Additional roles include evaluating the tutoring program and tutoring manuals, identifying and securing new Partners in Education, and creating a process of acknowledgement and recognition that sustains community engagement. The second CPNM VISTA member serving with HEP is responsible for providing nonprofit capacity building services to the agency’s overall program development and collaboration efforts with service agencies. The VISTA member’s activities include identifying and collaborating with early childhood programs, shelter and youth facilities in the county and community service agencies that provide services for homeless families. Page 53

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Supporting the VISTA Members through the Center The CPNM not only serves as the supervisor of the VISTA members and the overseer of the AmeriCorps program, but it also is a resource to VISTA members. Central to that role, the CPNM convenes all VISTA members on a weekly basis for professional development training on a range of subjects related to the work in their assigned organizations. For instance, the CPNM has conducted workshops on collaboration, fundraising, volunteer management, public speaking, e-mail etiquette, strategic planning, and needs assessment. Figure 2 depicts VISTA members engaged in one interactive workshop, in which VISTA members learned about the fragmentation of the social service delivery system in homeless services. The resulting discussion considered both the fragmentation of service delivery and the potential formation of partnerships to create more seamless access to services as it related to promoting substantive democracy in which more citizens can engage in politics and governance. FIGURE 2: AMERICORPS MEMBERS FACILITATING WORKSHOP ON SOCIAL SERVICE FRAGMENTATION

Early Results from the VISTA Program The program has already proven to be successful in enhancing collaboration between multiple agencies serving homeless students. Through the assessment process, the program is first exposing the cracks in the existing systems, and now plans to fill in the gaps to enhance services to the youth. One of the community partners offers the following testimony to the success achieved thus far (Anonymous, 2013): Page 54

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

In a non-profit setting with limited resources, it is often difficult to set aside time to build systems that would eventually help ease the everyday difficulties of service. The CPNM VISTA project is an invaluable resource at this time where we have experienced our highest numbers of identified homeless students yet stagnant funding to increase staff to address capacity building. Our VISTAs are helping us create a more efficient and effective operation, so that we can meet the student need during these challenging times.

Results across the two school districts can be categorized into two broad sets of activities: internal capacity building and enhanced collaboration with external stakeholders. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results and specific task accomplishments from the first six months of the project. TABLE 1: INTERNAL CAPACITY BUILDING Core Achievement Sustainable Output Two organizations implemented  Wrote a brochure for recruiting volunteers effective volunteer management  Developed volunteer job descriptions for a Family Resource practices Advocate  Created volunteer database Thirteen staff and community volunteers received training

 Trained 12 volunteer Resource Advocates on the emotional and behavioral needs of the parents and children and the resources to assist them  Conducted a one-on-one session with a social worker using a new database

Three new/enhanced systems and business processes were put in place as a result of capacity building services

 Modified computer based system to track homeless youth in order to improve identification of student needs and issues to be successful in school  Created training materials on documenting homeless students in (Cayan) database  Created sponsor/donor database

Six additional (education) activities/outputs produced by the program Dollar value of cash resources leveraged

 1,814 homeless students have been identified (target of 1,200)  $28,000 in donations from newsletter recipients

TABLE 2: STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS Core Achievement Sustainable Output Six staff and community  Trained case managers and intake specialists at three volunteers received training partnering sites about the McKinney-Vento Act and the importance of identification with the school district

Page 55

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Two new/enhanced systems and business processes were put in place as a result of capacity building services Three additional (education) activities/outputs produced by the program

 Developed awareness/procedural folders targeted specifically to under-identifying schools  One partnering site is fully implementing a process whereas all parents of school-aged students receive informational material during intake  In two partnering sites, promotional materials have been created and posted in regards to utilizing existing academic resources such as tutoring for students residing in the facility  Created a parent bulletin board at two partnering facilities, informing parents of current education resources in the surrounding area  Developed “What’s next after high school” brochure, for parents to discuss college and technical school options with their child

Challenges and Opportunities An academic center hosting an AmeriCorps VISTA program is unique. There are other examples (e.g., the Center for Public Service at Tulane University and Baylor University’s School of Social Work), but the authors know of no other examples where the VISTA members are focused on a singular issue and social need. In that, the Center’s homeless education AmeriCorps VISTA program stands apart. It is not without challenges, however, some of which may be unique to an academic center and others may apply to the model of a third party institutions hosting multiple VISTA members who are then sub-granted out to other organizations. Although seen as a challenge, there is also a benefit to academic centers hosting AmeriCorps VISTA programs including having the expertise of diverse faculty to train VISTA members. Further, access to university library resources is a benefit. The challenge is in meeting unique needs to a small fraction of the VISTA members through the delivery of whole population workshops. Developing more customized trainings regiments for VISTA members is desirable but not if such customization significantly increases costs of the training. A second challenge also mirrors an opportunity. Whereas it is desirable if not imperative to engage multiple stakeholders in capacity building for such a complex issue as homeless student education services, not all partners may have understanding or leadership capacity to manage the VISTA members on a day-to-day basis. The academic center can provide simultaneous training to partner organization leadership and staff that complements the training received by VISTA members, but this may not be feasible on a voluntary basis for leadership and staff who are already pressed for time and resources. One challenge that is likely not unique to an academic center is in the integration and socialization of VISTA members into the cultures of their work placements. VISTA members are not full-time employees of the organization, and they are likely only to remain in the organization (as individuals) for a period of one year. Investing heavily in them as part of an Page 56

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

organizational “family” may not seem worth it for partner organizations. However, such investment can ensure both VISTA member satisfaction and ultimate alignment of their work with the larger aim of the organization. Thus, participating in staff meetings, social events, and other workplace activities can be vitally important for the success and sustainability of VISTA member work. Finally, two opportunities or advantages of hosting an AmeriCorps VISTA program within an academic center seem notable. First, as a university-based entity, the Center has access to a range of students and recent alumni to recruit for VISTA member positions. This can be particularly helpful in conducting targeted recruitment of students with known skills and credentialed training aligned with the needs of partner organizations. Second, and to the point raised previously about national service programs not having a clear outcomes-based record of accomplishment, academic centers can rigorously and systematically keep a focus on measuring impact across VISTA members and partner agencies. The Center has the capacity for ultimately tracking any “movement of the needle” with respect to social concerns, such as homeless student academic success.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL SERVICE AND UNIVERSITY-COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS With declining revenues available to local governments, increasing need for services, and more pressure to achieve outcomes with less, it is vital for partnerships and collaborations to develop in sustainable ways if, as a society, we want to meet our most pressing social and economic objectives. In the case of homeless education, we know that without support beyond a standard school day, homeless students, due to emotional trauma, poor nutrition, and unstable living conditions, are likely to underperform in school. The broader implication of this is that underperformance in elementary school is not easily corrected. A student who is not reading on grade level by third grade is likely to be challenged throughout his or her educational career. Middle school kids who have no permanent home to go to after school, or who have little or no food available once they get home, are likely to have a more difficult time focusing on their studies than kids in a more stable environment. High school students who are forced by family necessity to take part-time work to help stabilize their family may not graduate high school on time, if at all, and if they do, it may not be with the same competence and passion for higher learning as might otherwise be the case. Partnerships are vital when budgets are constrained across sectors, need is high for providing even the most basic needs to citizens, and there are untapped resources available through institutions, like colleges and universities. The civically healthy community—through which citizens have their basic needs met universally and without bias in order to participate equally in our political and governance processes—demands creative collaboration that leverages the resources of a university. Universities have faculty with research agendas, students with passion, and instructional needs that can be met through strategic placement of students and alumni with community partner organizations. Fundamentally, if universities are seen as instruments through which to develop skills of students to enter an evolving workforce and as instruments through which to cultivate strong and ethical citizens, the university cannot operate in isolation. Page 57

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

The lessons from the Center’s AmeriCorps VISTA program for university-community partnerships and national service are several. Taken together, they may be seen as a collection of principles on which to consider structuring programs in the future, or they may be seen as recommendations—in either case, they are based on the experience of a single academic center’s experiences in the formation and early development of an AmeriCorps VISTA program and should be interpreted with this limitation in mind. It is our hope that the ideas be taken to advance the dialogue more than as fully refined notions that equal a formula for success. First, we must recognize the politically tenuous position of national service programs despite bipartisan support over the past two-plus decades. Ongoing support for CNCS programs and projects, including AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA is not guaranteed. Yet, we know the data reported previously show benefits to both volunteers and communities. Citizens are cultivated; communities are strengthened. Through strategic alliance with CNCS, colleges and universities can strive towards an ideal in which democracy is actively pursued on college campuses through teaching, training, and community outreach. This strategic alliance can take the form of a sponsored AmeriCorps VISTA program, or it can be less intensive and take the form of annual recruitments for national service positions elsewhere. More compellingly, if we should see the time when CNCS is defunded and national service programs eliminated from the federal budget, we might look to colleges and universities to take up the torch in more structured and strategic ways. Second, universities must recognize that their opportunity to provide education and individual empowerment does not stop at the edge of their campus. This is not a new idea, but it is a significant one. Preparing an “elite” few to be active and ethical citizens is helpful for the sustainability of our democratic institutions, but it is not sufficient if, as a society, we recognize the need for not only sustaining but strengthening of our institutions. Through service learning, applied research partnerships, and creative national service collaborations, education can be democratized to the benefit of faculty, students, communities, and society. Third, universities must develop flexibilities to opening their resources—such as library resources—to citizens who are committed volunteers through national service or related local service initiatives, as the Center has done for its VISTA members. Access to information and expertise can make the difference between a high-impact service project and a service project that merely makes the volunteer feel good about him or herself. New rules should be explored so that committed volunteers can more easily register for classes, obtain a parking pass, borrow material from the library, browse library collections from off-campus, and receive appropriate discounts for special events similar to discounts students might receive. Finally, universities should incentivize participation in national service programs. Several public and private colleges and universities offer to match the education award presented to AmeriCorps VISTA members at the end of their service, but the total number that makes this offer is a fraction of the population of institutions. Offering the matching scholarship is good for the university, as it can help recruit students with great passion, applied experience, and strong Page 58

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

commitments to public service. It is also, obviously, good for the volunteer—who can remain in the community after his or her year of service ends, rather than leaving for another city or another university where a benefit is offered. Keeping active and passionate citizens living locally and contributing locally serves a vital interest that can help transform communities from civically depressed to civically healthy. Indeed, working together, universities and national service can fight poverty with a passion and achieve sustainable impact.

REFERENCES Anonymous. (2013). Personal Interview. April 13, 2013. Bryer, T. A. (2011). Linking students with community in collaborative governance: A report on a service learning class. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 17(1): 89-114. Bryer, T. A. (2012). Encouraging citizenship in U.S. presidential administrations: An analysis of presidential records. In H. L. Schachter and K. Yang (Eds.). The State of Citizen Participation in America, 55-76. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Corporation for National and Community Service. (2006). The history of AmeriCorps VISTA. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorps-vista/vista-history Corporation for National and Community Service. (2012). Volunteering and civic life in America. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/ Corporation for National and Community Service (2013). AmeriCorps Fact Sheet. Retrieved March 1, 2013 from https:/www.nationalservice.gov/about/media_kit/factsheet_americorps.asp/ Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Egan, T. (2009). The big burn: Teddy Roosevelt & the fire that saved America. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ehrlich, T. (Ed). (2000). Civic responsibility & higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Eikenberry, A. (2009). Giving circles: Philanthropy, voluntary association, and democracy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Loss, C. P. (2012). Between citizens and the state: The politics of American higher education in the 20th century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Page 59

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Murrou, H. (1956). A history of education in antiquity. London: Sheed and Ward. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement. (2012). A crucible moment: College learning and democracy’s future. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Nesbit, R. & Brudney, J. L. (2010). At your service? Volunteering and national service in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70: S107-S113. Reingold, D. A. & Lenkowsky, L. (2010). The future of national service. Public Administration Review, 70: s114-s121. Simon, C. A. (2002). Testing for bias in the impact of AmeriCorps service on volunteer participants: Evidence of success in achieving a neutrality program objective. Public Administration Review, 62: 670-678. Skidelsky, R. & Skidelsky, E. (2012). How much is enough? Money and the good life. New York, NY: Other Press. Watson, D., Hollister, R. M., Stroud, S. E. & Babcock, E. (2011). The engaged university: International perspectives on civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. Williams, J. J. (2012). History as a challenge to the idea of the university. In G. A. Olson & L. Worsham (Eds.) Education as Civic Engagement: Toward a More Democratic Society. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Page 60

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

SEEKING ELEMENTS OF GROWTH AT THE START-UP STAGE OF IRANIAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS (A GROUNDED THEORY APPROACH)

Babak Shahmansouri is a faculty member in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. Morteza Nazari is a graduate student at the School of Management and Economics at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran. This article investigates the growth of non-governmental education providers of Iran utilizing a grounded theory approach. The article begins with a brief historical review of the Iranian education system revealing the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the education system of Iran. Theoretical concepts of NGOs as well as organizational growth are reviewed to illustrate the boundaries of the study. We introduce an open and axial coding of the observations conducted from Iranian NGOs, which concludes in categorization of similar factors observed into seven groups. These series of activities result in identifying seven main factors essential to growth of Iranian educational NGOs.

INTRODUCTION The process of societal development requires purposeful interventions from many sources, including the government and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Beverly & Sherraden, 1997). Facilitating societal development through education necessitates implementing purposeful programs by both NGOs and governments. The role of NGOs may become more important when educational innovation, for whatever reason and despite rhetoric to the contrary, is not a priority of the government. In this context, although educational change and innovation through NGOs is not the only solution, it is a fundamental part of the solution and non-governmental education providers can be vital catalysts for facilitating societal development. While the available literature about educational NGOs may suggest factors which either deter or support organizational growth, it is a matter of debate as to what extent these findings and generalized suggestions can be applied to a specific situation such as that of Iran. Some studies have considered the challenges and characteristics of NGOs in the Middle East and described the unique complexities and dynamics of NGOs of this particular region (Bayat, 2002). Similarly, there are many available studies about organizational growth life-cycle (e.g., Adizes, 2004; Daft, 2001) and specifically NGO growth life-cycle (e.g., Avina, 1993) that are based on the assumption that all organizations have similar characteristics and consequently face the same challenges. However, the characteristics and socio-political situations of NGOs vary for specific regions or countries, such as Iran (Bayat, 2002). Therefore, this study proposes to understand the Page 61

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

elements and mechanisms of organizational growth for Iranian educational NGOs at their startup stage and provide context-specific information regarding factors facilitating the growth of new Iranian educational NGOs.

THE CONTEXT OF IRANIAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM From a historical perspective, the Iranian educational system has undergone periods of substantial change. For over 100 years, Iran has seen continual shifts in the nature of the system, availability and coverage of services, organizational players, centralization of the system, and ideology. Religious schooling was the core of the education system until 1851. After that, a formal nation-wide centralized schooling system gradually formed through the interactions of the modern education system and the traditional religious one; in other words, it formed through the interaction among specific organizational players and ideologies. While the government has played the most significant role as a change agent during the history of the education system in the last century, other organizational players also performed an important role, especially in the last three decades. For example, the religious schooling system performed a significant supporting role in the first educational reform after the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. After the revolution, religious schooling became a part of the formal educational system, as it had been in the 19th century. In 1997, a second reform occurred in which NGOs performed a major role, unlike the first reform which was led by the government (Arjmand, 2008). Hess (2006) suggests an institutional educational change can be generally implemented using three vehicles, (a) individual schools, (b) governments, or (c) NGOs. Due to the current economic and political situation of Iran, the first two vehicles (individual schools and the government) are less effective in initiating and implementing educational changes. The following is a description of each of the vehicles and their operational feasibility: a. Individual Schools: Utilizing individual schools is considered a conservative approach. Most Iranian schools have scarce resources needed to fulfill even basic mandates. Additionally, the centralized policymaking functions controlled by the government are decisive impediments preventing individual Iranian schools from actively participating in any major change. b. Government: Considering the centralization of educational governance in Iran, a topdown promotion of educational innovations by government may seem to be the most effective approach; however, such promotion is not a realistic solution in some cases. This is due to lack of government interest and/or lack of implementation capability. The former may be attributable to the control process or probable misalignments of the educational innovation with the ideologies of the government. Generally this control process takes a long time and at the same time government educational institutions are overloaded by their routine activities. In the latter case, implementation is impeded by the bureaucracy of the governmental education systems. These factors make the bottom-up educational changes by NGOs a more realistic solution in some cases. Page 62

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

c. NGOs: There are outstanding cases of local NGOs that have sustained fundamental educational projects for a lengthy period of time, by developing their own strategies of dealing with social and religious norms and promoting decisions on a national scale.

REVIEW OF ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH LITERATURE Van de Ven & Poole (1995) claim there are four approaches to studying the growth of organizations: evolutionary, dialectic, life-cycle and teleological. The evolutionary model views change through a repetitive sequence of variation, selection, and retention among entities (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). The dialectic model is based on opposing entities with different viewpoints that through confrontation and conflict they move through a cycle of growth (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). The life-cycle model is a process of natural and logical stages of change (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Lastly, the teleological approach is a cycle of goal formation, implementation, evaluation and modification (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). The dialectical and evolutionary approaches are considered when there are interactions within multiple units of change or a group of organizations, whereas teleology and life-cycle are reviewed when there are single entities or change within an organization (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Since an organization is considered one unit of change in this study, the approach to be used is either the teleological or life-cycle model (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Unlike the life-cycle model, teleology does not follow a sequence of events or typical stages of organizational development in order to identify specific challenges and solutions (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Therefore, among the four approaches described, this study is based on the life-cycle approach. While there are a large number of organizational life-cycle models for business and for-profit organizations, the number of life-cycle studies on NGOs and non-profit organizations are relatively small. Some of the NGO life-cycle models are modified models from business organizations (e.g., Barnett, 1988); on the other hand, there are models based on real experiences and case studies of NGOs (e.g., Avina, 1993; Santora & Sarros, 2008; Schmid, 2007). The Barnett model (1988) describes three stages for the growth of NGOs. Avina (1993) has developed a model based on his valuable experience with NGOs during his work at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Santora & Sarros’ model (2007) is among the more recent studies on the life-cycle of NGOs. Schmid’s (2006) research on NGO life-cycle models is based on the appropriate leadership style in each stage of the growth and does not include a comprehensive review of different organizational aspects. Bess (1998) summarizes the findings of ten different models and suggests six different stages for non-profit organization. Among the reviewed models, the authors will delve into the Barnett (1988) model which is a sample of modified-from-business models, as well as the Avina (1993) model which is an example of models based on particular observations. Barnett Model of NGOs’ Life-Cycle Adapted from a life-cycle model developed by business researchers, Barnett (1988) suggests a three-stage model for the growth of NGOs and non-profit organizations (NPOs) which includes (1) the start-up, (2) professionalization and (3) institutionalization stages. Page 63

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

1. Start-Up Stage: at this stage a group of motivated individuals start to address a perceived need. Generally, they work on a part-time basis, and the administration board is active in all areas of the organization. The operating procedures are informal and flexible and the available funding is limited and based on one initial source (Barnett, 1988). 2. Professionalization Stage: the whole organization has agreed upon a particular way of service provision in order to address the perceived need. The organization has a professional full-time staff and the board becomes more of a financial board instead of a working board (Barnett, 1988). 3. Institutionalization Stage: there is a reliable, steady flow of revenue in the third stage. Moreover, there are standard operating procedures for service provision and welldesigned and well-executed, internal systems for internal evaluation and controls. The board plays more of an advisory role rather than a financial one (Barnett, 1988). Avina Model of NGOs’ Life-Cycle Avina (1993) suggests four stages for the life-cycle of an NGO. He believes that although some NGOs follow all these stages in a sequence, other NGOs may skip stages or even experience a regression. The Avina model includes the following four stages: 1. Start-Up Stage: According to this model, new NGOs can be clustered into two groups of self-generating start-ups and externally assisted NGOs. Self-generating start-ups are characterized by internal financing, a charismatic leadership, flexible and informal organizational procedures, low level of administration, and a small resource base. Externally assisted start-up NGOs usually begin their activities upon a pretested model and their leadership style, administration procedures and organizational structure are more formal than their internally financed fellow early-stage organizations (Avina, 1993). 2. Expansion Stage: The expansion of NGOs can be either conscious or spontaneous. While in a conscious expansion there is sufficient time for developing a formal organizational structure and fostering resources for the expanded mission or scope, a spontaneous expansion may lead to a gradually less formalized organizational adjustment. The level of success in the expansion stage depends on several factors including: the financial feasibility; the cultural changes driven by the expanded geographical scope; the optimal pace for expansion; and external social political factors (Avina, 1993). 3. Consolidation Stage: All NGOs may consolidate their activities at various times in their evolution. During the consolidation stage, in either a planned or spontaneous manner, an NGO reconsiders its development methodology, organizational structure, service focus, operational procedures, and development priorities (Avina, 1993). 4. Close-Out Stage: Similar to the consolidation, a close-out can be either planned or unintended. A close-out can be defined as either a full-scale-termination or a partial reduction in service provision. Thus, an NGO may close a segment or a project in order to guarantee the success of the whole organization in the long run (Avina, 1993). Since NGOs, especially in developing countries, may be actively engaged with particular political, cultural, and social situations which require inimitable organizational policies in addition to performing organizational activities to achieve their mission, findings of life-cycle models of NGOs in other sociopolitical contexts cannot be easily generalized to Iranian NGOs. Page 64

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

In fact, the meaning of organizational growth, as it specifically relates to Iranian educational NGOs, should be reflective of real experiences and success stories of NGOs founders who sustained the growth of their organizations for a long period of time. Placing an emphasis on the unique cultural, social and political characteristics of Iranian NGOs in studying individual organizations’ growth fits well with a constructivist epistemology. Constructivism claims humans generate knowledge and meaning from their experiences (Crotty, 1998) and places an emphasis on the influence of cultural power in the construction of knowledge and views of reality (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011). Thus, applying a constructivist approach to NGO leaders’ stories to interpret the distinct meaning of organizational growth for Iranian educational NGOs may enhance the quality of findings of this study.

METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study was to acquire knowledge about the phenomenon of growth in Iranian educational NGOs from their founders’ point of view. The study was framed based on a grounded theory methodology. According to the grounded theory methodology, the researcher initially approaches an inquiry with a fairly open mind, although realistic preconceptions cannot be totally abandoned (Yancey & Turner, 1986). This methodology frames the research process, including data gathering and interviews, and makes possible the ultimate aim of generating openended conversations through which qualitative knowledge about the growth of Iranian educational NGOs can be documented. The sampling process was a purposeful intensity sampling (Patton, 2001) identifying at least five educational NGOs that had more than 10 years of experience with the presumption that such organizations had survived through their start-up stage. Rather than achieving a statistically significant number of participants, the goal was to form a sample representation with a broad range of experience among the participants. Therefore, the individual participants were the cofounders and/or managers of selected educational NGOs who had the following three characteristics: (1) a high level of personal interest in participating in research—which was necessary due to the rational and understandable wariness of the participants to answer questions regarding the recent sociopolitical atmosphere of Iran; (2) a comprehensive knowledge about the history of the NGO; and (3) a general knowledge about different organizational aspects, procedures and strategies. A semi-structured interview was recognized to be the most appropriate way to aid the interviewees in providing data on their organization. Therefore, in a series of in-depth interviews participants and the researcher worked collaboratively to respond to the research questions about each NGO. Prompting from the researchers was necessary in order to help the participants more easily re-construct the particular history of growth challenges and related solutions in their organization. The analysis process started with coding and categorizing the data in search of specific themes which illustrated the main growth challenges and appropriate solutions for Iranian Page 65

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

educational NGOs at their start-up stage. The process of data analysis involved three main levels of coding: (1) open coding; (2) axial coding which generated the main themes and categories of ideas collected from interviews; and (3) selective coding with the aim of seeking the core elements among emerged themes.

FINDINGS When trying to merge the open code analysis to develop axial codes, the researchers categorized similar items mentioned in the interviews into clusters. The process of identifying clusters of themes was followed by a literature review about the main concepts of each cluster as well as asking participants follow-up questions. This second literature review helped refine the specificity of the preliminary clusters which is noted in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF OPEN AND AXIAL CODING ANALYSIS Themes’ Name after Discussion

Axial Coding Labels

Times * (out of 11)

#1

Founders’ Attitude and Organizational Culture

Founders’ Attitude

11

#2

Organizational Learning

Feedback, Learning & Flexibility

10

#3

Shared & Transformational Leadership Style

Organizational Leadership

9

#4

Retention of Human Resources

Human Resources

8

#5

Externalization of Tacit to Explicit Knowledge

Regulations & Documentation

8

Page 66

Sample of Open Coding Labels in the First Round of Analysis (+) respect of humanity (+) high level of trust and respect by founders, managers, and then volunteers (+) great passion for the mission (+) passion and optimistic attitude toward the mission (+) encouraging feedback (o) inevitability of being a learning organization (+) being flexible and an organic organization (+) feedback for flexibility (+) learning at the individual & team levels (+) shared leadership and attitude of leaders (+) building and leading balanced teams (+) communicating the shared vision (+) shared policy making & decision making (+) collective consciousness for making decision (participative leadership) (-) human resource conflicts (+) individual learning as a motivation policy (-) problem of favorite/dominant members (-) delegation without enough experience (-) informal communications and trust (+) standards and regulations (+) regulations for feedback and evaluation (+) documentation for transferring knowledge (+) contract with volunteers (+) code of organizational citizenship

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

#6

Adopting a Social Enterprise Revenue Model

Financial Issue

7

#7

Fitness of Mission and the Legal Structure

Legal & Registration

6

Other items

4

(-) financial problems (o) making revenue through service provision (-) impossibility of international fundraising (+) creative fundraising models (o) connection between financial model and mission (-) legal and registration issue (-) investigate all possible options for the legal registration (-) registration the first challenge though not an ongoing one (+) benchmarking from international best-practice (+) strong resource investigation (+) understanding the consumer (+) consumers’ feedback as the ultimate evaluation

Legend: (+) Mentioned as a growth facilitator (-) Mentioned as a growth challenge (o) Mentioned as potentially both facilitator or challenge * Time: the number of times this theme was mentioned by different people.

Element #1: The Founders’ Attitude In all interviews, participants placed a profound emphasis on the “attitude of founder(s)” as one of the most decisive elements for organizational growth at the start-up stage. Attitudes or beliefs held by founders that were linked to organizational development included: a demonstrated respect of humanity; a high level of trust and respect by founders, managers, and then volunteers; a great passion for the mission; and optimistic attitude toward the mission. In some instances, founders’ spoke about this element without being asked any question. For example, one participant began (Quote 1.1): P-II: Before starting our interview, I would like to mention a very important point: I have been active in NGOs and social activities for more than eleven years; I’ve had a very positive and optimistic attitude during all these years; this is the way I am. This attitude helped me to accomplish my mission… since I believe in people, I easily become friend [sic] with my audience during my interactive workshops… even our current institution is a result of such attitude; a group of participants, in one of my workshops, persuaded me to establish this institution and we did it together.1

Generally, participants believed organizational culture develops as a result of founders’ decisions and choices. Several interviewees indicated they considered some organizational characteristics during the start-up phase, such as the leadership style and a culture of open feedback, as the by-product of the attitude of the organizations’ founders. While the attitude of founders may seem an especially significant element during start-up, this element was also described as having ongoing effects as well. In several narrations, Page 67

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

interviewees described the importance of the founders’ attitude towards informal communication as having a profound impact on human resource management and fostering a culture of learning internally. Element #2: A Culture of Feedback, Learning & Flexibility During our open coding, a large number of the labels were about feedback, individual and team learning, and organizational flexibility; in fact, 10 of the interviewees exposed various examples about feedback and organizational learning, even when they were nominally explaining other issues. They mentioned feedback and learning as essential factors in both individual and team levels. Research Team: In reviewing your archive we found that at the first ten years there were some large-scale projects, but gradually your NGO approach to breaking those broad, even national-level, educational project to small units. Have you deliberately done this? What is the reason for this new approach? P-III: Let’s say something more important than the reason of this specific approach. In the last 32 years we spent on the X project [with small working units], in all steps, our method and procedure has been developed by itself through a collective consciousness. This is possible when you encourage feedback within your organization. A solution developed by just one person is totally different from a solution with the feedback of five persons, you and other team members. Four more pieces of advice and feedback provides you with understanding four more aspects of the work (Quote 2.1).

Most of the interviewed founders believed that feedback and learning is an inevitable necessity in educational organizations, and especially educational NGOs, in order to evaluate themselves and develop reliable outputs. Based on this approach, they purposefully encourage a culture of feedback through certain operating guidelines and practices. Another reason for placing an emphasis on feedback was the necessity of organizational flexibility for Iranian NGOs. We found a number of codes labeled as feedback together with other labels about flexibility. According to the observations and interviews, flexibility is a crucial character of Iranian NGOs in dealing with their surrounding environment. Most of the NGO founders exposed—among them three persons clearly stated—that feedback within an NGO is the foundation of acting organically and flexibly at the organizational level. Element #3: Organizational Leadership Another important category in clustering the open coding labels and forming the axial codes was collective organizational leadership. Nine out of 11 interviewees directly named leadership as a significant growth element, and in the narration of two others there are examples and evidence related to the leadership style. In open coding analysis, the most important finding about leadership style was the shared and participative nature of leadership in almost all of the interviewed organizations. For instance, although one of the observed NGOs was a relatively large organization with 14 branches placed in four different provinces of Iran, they have regular monthly meetings for making shared decisions at the headquarters and similar meetings at each branch. In fact, for the branch managers, the most effective way of coordination with the headquarters is to participate in the headquarters’ monthly meetings. Page 68

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

P-X: As long as a person works with this NGO s/he should be involved in all organizational aspects; because this organization is evaluated as a whole and all of us are responsible in this community. Research Team: What about decision-making and policy making? Are they involved in these activities as well? P-X: I’ll explain the real situation in response to this question. In our monthly meetings someone who has encountered a problem—for example in a family education program— explains that problem and all of us try to find the best solution. This helps all of us learn something new; in addition, many of our decisions and new policies have been made in these monthly meetings… Even decisions about the budget or essential new training in a branch can be made in these meetings; but not all decisions. Few specific organizational policies require the approval of the steering committee of the NGO. In addition, for technical decisions, we have professional teams, again with their regular monthly meetings; however, anyone can participate in this technical meeting to present a new problem. Research Team: Isn’t it hard to coordinate such regular meetings and potential conflicts? How did you make it a norm? P-X: The answer is informal communication. This level of collaboration is not possible without a friendly atmosphere in the organization; and probably this differentiates our leadership style (Quote 3.1).

During the interviews, we asked about both benefits and problematic aspects of participative decision making. According to the interviews, facilitating the process of developing a shared vision as well as building effective teams were two important beneficial outcomes of participative leadership approach, despite problematic aspects such as experiencing probable conflicts or a time-consuming decision-making process. While actualizing this leadership style costs NGOs in terms of time and human assets, they strongly believed respecting collective consciousness should become a characteristic of organizational culture in educational NGOs. Although nine interviewees directly mentioned the leadership style as an important element, our observations revealed, in 10 of the observed NGOs, some levels of participative and shared leadership style. Element #4: Human Resources: Valuable Asset with Potential Challenges One other category shaped through the axial coding analysis was human resources. This group of evidence refers to all organizational characteristics and norms relating to human capital. The reason this category is not merged with organizational leadership was the nature of coded observations. Generally, this cluster includes human resource issues which cannot be completely addressed by organizational leadership. There was almost no evidence about any challenge in recruiting new members and volunteers in the interviewed organizations. However, the human resource issues started after people began working with NGOs. Page 69

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

The human resource challenges observed in this research can be clustered into three main themes: organizational conflicts, the problem of dominant members, and delegation challenges. However, these three themes mostly result in the same problem of having a high rate of turnover. But to respond to these issues, the interviewees suggested various solutions, in terms of policies, regulation and informal activities of the organization. First, according to the observations, different types of conflicts—the most flagrant cases such as technical and personal conflicts among team members, conflict between paid staff and volunteers, and conflicts between technical groups—were the most significant growth menaces. In four NGOs, which were relatively larger than the two others in terms of staff population, conflict resolution was mentioned as a serious challenge and informal communication was generally recognized as more effective than organizational regulations. The second common challenge was the dominance of so-called “favorite members,” a group of staff who may become favored or dominant members because of their technical or personal competencies. More tasks are assigned to this group of people, making them more experienced over time; and this leads to the deterioration of the situation and, in some cases, the loss of demotivated members. Four interviewed NGOs experienced such a problem. The solutions adopted in those NGOs varied. In one NGO, they imposed a regulation asking the more capable members to spend a certain amount of time educating and empowering others. Other policies were created, certain educational programs, rotational task assignment and development of standard procedures for routine tasks in order to help new members become involved in team interactions. P-I: Another important issue is human resource; fortunately we do not have any problem with the recruitment of new volunteers. There is always a high demand for working with us. However, we do have specific problems with motivation of volunteers. Specifically, I would mention two challenges that we have always had: first, most of the time two-three persons become the most popular in a group; or they become popular in accomplishing specific activities. This sounds to other volunteers that they are not considered qualified enough anymore. The second problem is the conflicts. I believe these conflicts are a part of our system. We have both technical conflicts and personal conflicts. All these conflicts affect the whole organizational achievements, outputs, image, possibility of fundraising, and etc. Research Team: and what is the NGO policy for managing these two challenges? P-I: We managed the problem of “favorites” with asking the favorites themselves to help other volunteers, to hold workshops and educational sessions for others. Regarding the conflicts issue, first, I would say it may be necessary in educational activity; but, in problematic cases we managed it through informal communication with volunteers. Although this policy is hard and time consuming but we understood a lot about our organization in informal tea breaks for personal talk and nagging! In these regular tea breaks, a number of managers and I participate just to listen. Listening itself works in some cases since they understand we care about them (Quote 4.1).

Page 70

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

The last challenge was that, while there was a basic need for delegation of some parts of available organizational tasks, there were not as many experienced members as necessary. In four of the interviewed NGOs, different types of succession planning have been formulated in response to this challenge. However, there were still problems in successfully implementing the succession plans. For instance, middle managers and volunteers of two NGOs believed there were not sufficient supports for members after taking the responsibility of delegated tasks. Element #5: Standards, Regulations and Documentation One other category formed during the open coding was standards, regulations and documentation. In all of the observed NGOs, there were detailed standards and regulations for different organizational activities. Interviewees believed both the educational nature and voluntary basis for activities imply having a thorough set of standards for any activity. In two of the organizations, volunteers are asked to sign a contract, and they are expected to work like a formal job with serious work standards. One other NGO even had a code of citizenship which is regularly promoted by founders and top managers through informal interactions with staff. By organizational citizenship we mean optional individual behaviors which are not “directly recognized by the formal reward system and in the aggregate promote the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1997). P-II: One of our key strength is our regular weekly staff meetings; and at the same time making detailed minutes from those meetings. Mr. X designed us a very organized procedure for holding those staff meetings which helped us document our decisions and constantly evaluate our organization (Quote 5.2).

In the follow-up questions, the research team asked about the reason for this profound emphasis on standards and documentation. The answers of NGO managers to that question reveal two main themes: (a) standards and documentation facilitated accumulating organizational knowledge and transferring it to new organizational generations; (b) it was essential for facilitating organizational feedback which improved the output. P-IV: One other important aspect of our NGO is the documentation. From the very beginning weeks of forming the organization we started to document everything. The whole content of the board meeting and steering committee has been regularly published and been available to anyone. Because the board and steering committee are responsible to all organizational members. Research Team: Wasn’t it an inevitable -but fortunate- consequence of your problem of not having a physical office? Probably, these documents had reflected the identity of your organization in those years. P-IV: No. I do not believe that. The reason is our need to feedback. The whole organization wanted to reflect on itself, to clarify its obligations, to modify itself. That great emphasis was, and still is, because of an absolute need for feedback within our organization. We published those minutes and bulletins to evaluate ourselves; to understand in what aspect we had been successful and in what others we had not (Quote 5.4).

Page 71

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Element #6: Financial Resource During the open coding, we found a number of labels about financial issues such as financial problems, fundraising models, and a connection between financial model and organizational mission. In seven interviews, participants talked about different financial topics, and the importance of financial resources for sustaining the organization; however, only two persons believed financial resources to be the most important growth element. P-I: As you know I participate in different projects of different educational NGOs. I believe the financial issue is different in these organizations. Their total financial needs and even the appropriate revenue model for them is totally different. It is depended to the organization’s mission I guess. Research Team: What are the challenges? And what are the common revenue models? P-I: One important challenge is few available governmental grants and almost no international funding source. This leads to innovative revenue models in educational NGOs. For example, in our NGO there is a very wide range of revenue source from publication to supportive concert by music celebrities who believe in the mission of this organization (Quote 6.1).

Among different financial problems, almost all participants focused on the scarcity of governmental and international funds. They believed this problem forced NGOs to develop creative revenue models. Among six observed NGOs, in two of them essential financial resource comes from their direct service provision; in three NGOs there was a mixed-revenue model including funds/grants and service/products. In one of the observed NGOs, the financial source was completely based on grants; however, they were in the process of designing a mixedrevenue model. P-II: I guess, regarding your background, you know that international fundraising is absolutely impossible. I believe this helps educational NGOs in addition to makes them problems. I mean, this situation helps educational NGO and let’s say all NGOs to find other source of funding; thus, many of them develop a revenue model instead of just rely on grants and funds (Quote 6.2).

When the research team asked about the three types of revenue models in the follow-up interviews, two participants believed that there is a connection between organizational mission and the financial model of NGOs. They said there are two groups of educational NGOs, the first group’s mission is to develop educational content and the mission, the second group is to duplicate and promote an already developed educational service or product. According to those two participants, it is easier for NGOs with the latter type of mission to generate revenue just through service or product provision. The reason is that in NGOs with the former type of mission, a major part of organizational activities is research and development which imply greater amount of financial needs. According to the observations of this research, there is no counterexample to disprove this argument; however, it may need observations from more NGOs.

Page 72

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Element #7: Registration and Legal Issue In response to the question about challenges and problems, six respondents pointed out the registration and legal issues among their first answers. They noted one of the most crucial challenges in establishing an educational NGO in Iran is the registration process. P-I: I would say our first problem was our interaction with governmental organizations in registering the organization. Every single member of board of trustees should be background checked. We revised our organizational constitution several times. Although in the end there was no problem, the whole process was really time-consuming (Quote 7.1).

According to Article 584 of Iranian Commerce Law, NGOs can be registered as foundations, councils, or centers. However, registering an NGO is a vexing procedure which might take several years. For instance, two members of our research team who served as the board members of an educational NGO, recollect the three-year-long registration period as a marathon: We finally finished the job after three years, but it was quite a marathon. We spent lots of our time and energy during those years on registering the organization instead of working on our mission. If we wanted to do this again, we would have registered an institution instead of an NGO (Quote 7.3).

Because of the persecution of NGOs in the current political situation of Iran, most of the organizations which can be identified as NGOs, prefer to be registered as less controversial legal structures such as cultural or research institutions. For example, in the seven interviewed organizations, four of them are de-facto NGOs which have been registered as institutions and only three of them are legally NGOs.

DISCUSSION The following section discusses the findings of the current study with respect to the existent body of research and literature on theories of organizational development and leadership. Discussion #1: Founders’ Attitude and Organizational Culture Researchers conducted in-depth follow-up questioning and analysis regarding the interviewees’ remarks about founders’ specific attitudes or views and the impact on organizational culture. In reviewing the interviewees’ remarks, two different attitudes were associated with creating a strong organizational culture: first, founders’ attitude toward humanity and second, founders’ attitude toward the importance of their organizations’ mission. The former was identified by interviewees as more important to entrepreneurial success stating that founders’ would sacrifice their organizations’ well-being and mission to maintain their own personal core values. The researchers believe that founders’ emphasis on personal integrity is related to the educational character of such organizations. In other words, founders’ believed that sacrificing the rights of a section of the population is inconsistent, incompatible- even mutually exclusive with the goal of universal education.

Page 73

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Furthermore in the preparation analysis of NGO #1, the research team thoroughly reviewed all of the minutes, bulletins and documents of the first five years of that NGO as well as some of their recent documents. We found a very surprising fact. From 15 percent to 30 percent of the words of their documents are the names of different people. They have been so respectful of every single person who has helped them in accomplishing their mission. We asked the interviewee about this case: P-III: Let us review the background of people who contributed in founding this organization. We were from families who contributed in the Iranian Constitutional Revolution and elites who aimed to improve their country at that time. All of us have such a background… we wanted to continue what our families had started… what we have learned from our grandparents was that education is not a matter of class and school. You can learn from people. We did not limit our education to books and articles. In fact, we believe in a lifelong learning from anyone (Quote 1.7).

Through our first three interviews, we encountered a major obstacle to our research: entrepreneurs did not talk about specific organizational challenges especially as it related instances which had led to growth. Instead, they would reflect on creative innovations to practice and policies. In the fourth interview, the research team asked one of the NGO cofounders who had trained a large number of leaders of Iranian NGOs and community-based organizations (CBO) about the apparent omission of details regarding barriers to development. He responded saying: P-II: Of course they cannot talk about their challenges; because they do not consider those as challenge or threat. They have a great passion for accomplishing a goal and almost always their optimistic approach and perseverance help them to find creative solutions (Quote 1.8).

In essence, because of his/her great passion, founders of surviving organizations do not perceive challenges as threats; their positive approach toward their experiences shapes their perception because they insist success. Presumably, the organizational aspect of the founders’ attitude can be summarized as these two themes: a great passion, and a positive approach. We found ample evidence for this finding, among which we offer here one of the most compelling which are the concluding remarks of an NGO founder and manager with about 35 years of experience. P-IV: The first thing I would say to other ‘Babak’s, ‘Homa’s, and ‘Masoomeh’s [other people who are interested in educational entrepreneurship, just like the research team] is that you need to understand and study the content of your education. By this studying and understanding, you need to arouse a lifelong passion in your heart. This passion helps you to express their educational mission in a beautiful and effective manner. This passion helps you to explain why you believe in that mission and why you seek any possible way to accomplish that […] This passion brings you a pleasure; and by expressing that happiness, you can persuade others to join you in carrying out that educational mission together (Quote 1.9).

Page 74

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Discussion #2: Becoming a “Learning” Educational NGO Learning organizations are “organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 1990b, p. 3). In reviewing the interviews and organizational documents from the perspective of learning at the organizational level, we came to the following questions: is encouraging feedback sufficient for forming a learning organization; generally, what is the mechanism of learning at the organizational level; what elements are essential to become a “learning educational NGO”. The concept of learning at the organizational level has been considered from different perspectives in the literature. While some theories focus on the mechanism of learning, (e.g., Argyris, 1977; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; March, 1975; Shravistava, 1983) other models focus on the essential elements in order to implement organizational learning (e.g., Kim, 1993; Senge, 1990b). There are findings on the specific characteristics of the organizations within the scope of this research, namely educational organizations (Imants, 2003; Senge, 2000) and not-for-profit organizations (Bontis & Serenko, 2009). According to the literature as well as our follow-up observations, we suggest that becoming a learning organization entails specific requirements in Iranian educational NGOs. The following three sections will explain these discussions and suggestions. Multicultural Founders and Double-Loop Learning Argyris (1977) introduced the concept of double-loop learning- or simply learning how to learn- as a key in improving individual and organizational learning. In single-loop learning, individuals or groups of people observe the difference between expected and obtained results and accordingly, they modify their actions. However, in a double-loop learning process, they start questioning their presumptions, values and beliefs which led to the corrective actions in the single-loop learning process. These deeply ingrained assumptions and generalizations that influence how people understand the world and how they take action are called their mental models in the literature of learning organizations (Argyris, 1977; Senge, 1990b; Senge, 1994). The most significant barrier of individuals and groups in re-evaluating their mental models is the fact that they identify themselves with those assumptions and values. People may need certain events or experiences to challenge their basic assumptions. For instance, an individual or organizational crisis may help people reflect on their mental models (Mashayekhi, 2010). Interestingly, in the interviewed organizations, we observed that in four out of the six organizations there are founders who either are multicultural or have an experience of living in another country for a long time. We believe this has helped them to openly reflect on their basic beliefs and assumptions. Dialogue among Teammates, a Link between Individual and Organizational Learning Kim (1993) places an emphasis on the shared mental model as a mechanism of transferring from individual to organizational learning. By shared mental model he means making the individual mental models explicitly expressed and then developing a collective mental model. Kim (1993) believes organizational documents, regulation and information are the static part of Page 75

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

organizational memory and the shared mental model is the active part of this memory; therefore, he concludes that the key in making an organization a learning one is to employ the shared mental model for reflecting to the organizational culture, deep-rooted assumptions and artifacts. In this regard, Imants (2003) suggests learning communities, or in his words “interactions among teachers and other workers in and around the school,” are important requirements for leading an educational institution to become a learning organization. In five (out of six) interviewed organizations, team learning, team working and team decision-making were clearly observed. In some instances, NGOs’ regulations even force organizational members to perform their activities and make their decisions within a team. During our research team’s participation, as observers, in team discussions and dialogues in two different organizations, we observed the interaction and questioning of individual mental models. However, when we asked about the problematic aspects of this team-based performing and decision-making, some founders and leaders believed it is a time-consuming policy which requires a skillful facilitator within each organizational team. Organizational Learning and Other Growth Elements Since we were interested in considering all essential aspects of developing a learning organization, we started reviewing the labels of open coding analysis from the perspective of Senge’s (1990a) learning organization model. According to this model, five disciplines are essential for forming a learning organization. In addition to (1) mental models and (2) team learning which were explained above there are three more disciplines: (3) Personal mastery is continually clarifying and deepening a personal vision, for focusing people’s energies, for developing patience, and for seeing reality objectively; building a (4) shared vision involves the skills of creating and communicating the shared "pictures of the future" that foster commitment and enrollment rather than compliance; and (5) systems thinking is first about seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause-effect chains, and secondly, seeing processes of change rather than snapshots. In reviewing the findings of open coding analysis to observe evidence about three other disciplines of organizational learning, we found a connection between organizational learning and one other growth element, namely organizational leadership. Almost all the codes we found about personal mastery and shared vision placed within the codes previously categorized in the leadership category. Therefore, we reviewed the literature to find any theoretical evidence about this linkage.2 In 2009, Bontis performed a study to identify antecedents and consequences of effective human capital management on organizational learning in both for-profit and not-forprofit sectors. According to his findings, managerial leadership is a key antecedent of organizational learning. The interviews and organizational documents of observed NGOs show that in only two of them did organizational members have an educational program for improving their systems thinking. However, we did not have a thorough enough observation about the systems thinking skills of other organizations to allow meaningful comment.

Page 76

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Discussion #3: A Shared Transformational Leadership After we found organizational leadership as one of the key elements for facilitating the growth of Iranian educational NGOs, we became interested in understanding more details about this concept. We sought the particular characteristics of the leadership style of such organizations and conducted an axial coding analysis within the labels of leadership category, which revealed two important aspects about the leadership style in the observed NGOs: a collective nature and a transformational approach. A Collective (rather than Directive) Nature of Leadership One significant aspect of the leadership style in the observed organizations was their collective nature. This element has been addressed by different models and definitions in the leadership literature including collaborative leadership, participative or democratic leadership, and shared leadership: a. A collaborative leader is simply someone who builds a team through influencing other people through his/her behavior and communication, in order to accomplish a shared purpose (Rubin, 2009). Chrislip (2002) describes the concept in more detail: “if you [a collaborative leader] bring the appropriate people together in constructive ways with good information, they will create authentic visions and strategies for addressing the shared concerns of the organization or community.” Although researchers have performed studies on collaborative leadership in both NGO context (e.g., Chrislip, 2002) and educational organizations (e.g., Rubin, 2009), this term is more often assigned to collaborations at the interorganizational level such as strategic partnerships (Archer, 2009; Kanter, 1994). b. A participative or democratic leader seeks to involve and encourage all team members, discover new opportunities and challenges, and to cope through sharing knowledge (Somech, 2005). This style of leadership focuses on joint-decision making; the role of the leader is to provide the team with instructions after consulting with them. Hence, because of the involvement of the team members in decision making, they have a stronger commitment. In this style, the ultimate aim is to make the most reliable decision and also increase the level of commitment to that decision; thus, the main focus of collaboration is “during and after” the process of decision-making. Generally, participative leadership provides less focus on preparation and empowerment of members before making a decision. c. In shared leadership, the leader is responsible for the education and empowerment of all team members to shape an effective team of experts to ultimately achieve a common goal (Lambert, 2002). While in the participative or democratic style there is an emphasis on the joint-decision making, in the shared leadership style the interaction is not just during and after making a decision. In a shared leadership process, learning and leading come together (Lambert, 2002); thus, all members accept a responsibility to empower each other in order to form a powerful team. Because of this great emphasis on the learning element together with the leading element, the literature of this style of leadership has been developed in the context of knowledge-based organizations and teams. For Page 77

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

example, Pearce & Conger (2003) has made a connection between this style of leadership and innovation process (see chapter three of his book); a number of researchers study this leadership style in educational organizations (e.g., Lambert, 2002). Table 2 reveals the main elements of these three leadership style. TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF THREE LEADERSHIP STYLES WITH COLLABORATIVE NATURE Leadership Definition (leader’s role) Discussion Main elements Style Although this approach has - Constituency for Change Collaborative “Bring the appropriate people together in been adopted in both NGO (Chrislip, 2002) leadership constructive ways with contexts (e.g., Chrislip, 2002) - Facilitative leadership good information” to and educational organizations (Chrislip, 2002; Rubin, achieve the shared vision (e.g., Rubin, 2009), it has been 2009) in collaboration (Chrislip, applied more at the institute 2002) level rather than individual level (Archer, 2009; Kanter, 1994). In this approach, the main - Joint Decision-Making Participative “Encourage all team members to discover new focus of collaboration is (Somech, 2005) or opportunities and during and after decision- Encouragement by leader Democratic challenges through making and less in (Somech, 2005) leadership sharing knowledge” empowering members before (Somech, 2005) that. “Facilitating an Regarding the great emphasis - Teams for learning and Shared interactive process among on education and leading (Lambert, 2002; leadership members to educate and empowerment of team Pearce & Conger, 2003) lead each other in members, this approach - Facilitation by achieving their common sounds more relevant to supervisor (Pearce& goal.” (Lambert, 2002; educational organizations. Conger, 2003) Pearce & Conger, 2003)

The Transformational Aspect of Leadership Another important aspect of the leadership style in the observed NGOs was its transformational nature. A transformational leader communicates and maintains a dynamic vision and inspires followers to strive for that vision (Beugré, Acar, & Bra, 2006; Pawar & Eastma, 1997). The transformational leadership literature which started with Burns in 1978, followed by other basic studies (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Kouzes & Posner, 2002), identifies the concept of transformational leader as a charismatic leader who provides followers with “intellectual stimulation,” “individualized consideration” and “inspirational motivation” (Ackoff, 1998; Avolio & Bass, 1995; Bass, 1985; Beugré, 2006; Burns, 1978; Pawar, 1997; Yukl, 1989). The “idealized influence” is also considered as the fourth base of transformational leadership and Page 78

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

this four-aspect definition, named as “Four Is” model, becomes almost the most common definition of transformational leadership (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Kirby (1992) conducted research about the “Four Is” model in an educational context; he suggested people prefer leaders with intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration in such organizations. Table 3 reveals our reflections on the observed NGOs from the perspective of these four elements of transformational leadership. The collaborative culture of the observed NGOs may improve elements I, II, and III of the Bass transformational leadership model; however, generally the shared aspect of organizational leadership provides more effectiveness than the transformational aspect in the observed organizations. TABLE 3: THE FOUR-IS TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP MODEL IN THE OBSERVED NGOS Brief Definition Factors of Four Is (Avolio & Bass, Discussion about observed NGOs Model 1995; Bass, 1998) It means consideration - According to the first discussion in the section I. Idealized for followers’ needs 6.1, in the observed NGOs, the founders influence and providing them emphasize on deep respect of all stakeholders, with admiration and including organizational members, may provide respect. this element. It means bringing meaning and challenge to work.

- Leaders can provide this by creating and communicating a dynamic shared vision (Beugre et al., 2006; Pawar & Eastman, 1997). Since one benefit of the shared decision-making is developing and communicating the shared vision, the idealized influence can be addressed to some levels.

III. Intellectual stimulation

It requires a creative problem solving procedure.

- Interaction of members in making the teams’ decisions and seeking solutions for their problems in implementing those decisions may result in some levels of intellectual stimulation. In addition, the special emphasis on group learning within teams may also address this element.

IV. Individualized consideration

It refers to the attention to every single follower’s growth and achievements.

- In only two NGOs there were purposeful policies for providing individualized consideration.

II. Inspirational motivation

- Example: in one NGO, there are seasonal informal meetings in which organizational members are asked to portray they personal vision and other participants try to find possible ways for helping them achieve that vision. Page 79

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Discussion #4: Fairness, Recognition and Work/Life Balance for Staff Retention The literature on human resource (HR) management clusters HR functions into a number of groups including: human resource planning; recruitment and staffing; motivation and retention; training and development; performance appraisal; and finally, human resource relations, benefits and security (Bratton, 1999). All HR functions work together as a system. For instance, a problem with retention of organizational members can be a result of poor planning or performance appraisal. In this study, the common challenges of interviewed NGOs can be as a result of motivation and retention. A literature review was conducted on this specific issue in order to first identify the most common HR challenges at the start-up stage, and second, to understand the possible policies for improving the retention of employees. At first, regarding our interest in understanding the most common HR challenges in the startup stage of organizations, we focused on human resource issues in small and medium sized enterprises. In very comprehensive research, Heneman, Tansky, & Camp (2000) analyze answers of 173 entrepreneurs as well as 403 relevant articles and about 129 articles specifically on small and medium sized enterprises. According to his findings, the top priority of founders and entrepreneurs is human resource retention which is consistent with the result of our observations. In the second step, we conducted a literature review about the key factors affecting employee retention and possible solutions for addressing staff turn-over. By reviewing the previous work on the retention issue, Sheridan (1992) indicates that there are different paradigms in considering the retention of staff. While a group of traditional research focuses on the individual variables and job termination, new scholarship suggests a macro perspective in the analysis of this issue. Ramlall (2004) conducted a comprehensive review on the implication of motivation theories on retention of staff. He reviewed the literature of different motivation theories including need theory of motivation, Maslow’s needs hierarchy theory, McClelland theory, equity theory and expectancy theory; then, based on his thorough analysis, he suggests a number of critical factors for enhancing retention which include: (a) needs of employee; (b) work environment; (c) supervision style; (d) fairness (being rewarded regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.); (e) employees’ development; and (f) feedback. In a number of the follow-up interviews, we asked about the suggested factors affecting employee retention. According to the opinions of both founders and volunteers working with NGOs, the most significant critical factors were fairness, affiliation (by a focus on recognition of employee), and work/life balance. P-IX and P-X: I remember when we accept the responsibility of leading an organizational team, there was almost no support for us. At first, we interpreted it as a high level of trust and it was really interesting for us; however, just after evaluation of our output, we understood that our mistakes were results of a lack of support. We had not even understood our responsibilities very well! There was not enough support for us and the disappointing feedback did not sound fair to us. We believe this is the main reason that a number of excellent members decided to leave the organization. In our case, our informal communications and level trust helped us to disregard that experience and

Page 80

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

continue working with the NGO. As we told another important reason is the voluntary nature of the work which affects the work/life balance. We know that, in some cases, our colleagues sacrifice their personal life to be on-time in delivering their responsibilities (Quote 4.4).

Discussion #5: Externalizing Tacit Knowledge to Explicit Knowledge Since knowledge is one important input in performing organizational activities, all institutions need to perform a knowledge management process including knowledge creation, knowledge storage and retrieval, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application (Gottschalk, 2005). There are two types of knowledge in organizations: tacit and explicit. Tacit knowledge is subjective and experience-based; and it is not easy to express in sentences or formulas. Cognitive skills such as beliefs, images, intuition and mental models are among organizational tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is objective and rational knowledge that can be expressed in sentences or formulas; it includes theoretical approaches, problem solving, manuals and databases (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2007). In the literature of knowledge management, there are different paradigms that focus only on explicit knowledge, or focus on both tacit and explicit knowledge (Christensen & Kaasgaard, 2003). For instance, models and tools generally based on IT and documentation (e.g., Carrillo, Robinson, Anumba, & Bouchlaghem, 2006) models describing products for transferring information (e.g., Orna, 1996), and also models for transferring knowledge between two different organizations (e.g., Parise & Henderson, 2001) are basically focusing on explicit knowledge. On the other hand, knowledge management models considering the human resource management focus on both tacit and explicit knowledge (e.g., Nonaka, 1994; Hall, Sapsed, & Williams, 2000). From the latter perspective, Nonaka (1994) suggests a spiral process for knowledge creation and transfer which starts from either tacit or explicit form. According to this model, through the externalization process, tacit knowledge gets transferred to an explicit form and gets prepared for storage/accumulation and transfer to the future organizational members. FIGURE 1: FOUR MODES OF KNOWLEDGE CONVERSION (Nonaka, 1994)

Page 81

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

In our observed cases, there was ample evidence for the socialization, combination and internalization procedures; however, there were few organizational norms for the knowledge creation stage and this step was driven by organizational founders on an individual basis rather than an organizational procedure or norm. In fact, the observed NGOs were generally dependent on their founders for the knowledge externalization process. When the research team asked about this conclusion in the follow-up interviews, participants cited examples that revealed the knowledge creation was still dependent on organizational founders. Research Team: If the founders decide to retire themselves now, do you think this NGO would work well? Which aspects may affect the most? P-I: I would say in some specific aspects we still highly depended on them; for instance, in particular conflict resolutions and definitely in improving organizational knowledge. I say, even in accumulating our current generating knowledge (Quote 5.5).

Discussion #6: Scarcity of Grants Necessitates a Social Enterprise Approach In reviewing and analyzing the participants’ remarks about financial issues and the revenue model of interviewed NGOs, the research team observed that only one NGO is completely grantfunded and all other NGOs have other sources of revenue. The one NGO also had an in-progress plan for designing a revenue model. In fact, problems and limitations of fundraising in the current situation in Iran forces NGOs to develop a sustainable source of funding. In the literature, this Social Enterprise Approach toward NGOs’ financial model was introduced by Nobel Prize winner, Muhammad Yunus who presented the concept of social enterprises or social businesses and their role in social development (Yunus, 2007; Yunus, Moinegon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). A social entrepreneurship may have different financial sources; in one extreme it is completely voluntary based and in another extreme it may be a social business. While a social business, by definition, never compromises its social mission, it seeks alliances and sources of revenue exactly like a business organization (Nicholls, 2006). In fact, a social business is basically the same as the existing profit-maximizing businesses (PMB) in its organizational structure; but it differs in its objectives (Yunus, 2007). Figure 2 highlights the distinguishing characteristics of a social business contrasted to both common PMB and nonprofit institutions (including NGOs). FIGURE 2: DIFFERENCE OF A SOCIAL BUSINESS FROM A BUSINESS OR NON-PROFIT (Yunus, 2010)

Theory Approach)

Page 82

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Among the observed NGOs, at least two of them were notable examples of a social business. In the follow-up interviews the participants asked about essential organizational specifications for developing such a financial model. Their answers revealed two main items: trust and network. They believed the first step in forming a social business is persuading investors and partner organizations to invest or collaborate in such an organization instead of a common profitmaximizing business and this needs a high level of trust. The other important element, network, is essential regarding the innovative nature of such fundraisings; in the observed NGOs, accomplishing their revenue targets was absolutely impossible without their network with other people and organizations. Regarding the essential organizational qualifications, Dowla (2006) conducted an analysis on Yunus’ activities in Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. He suggests three essential aspects for creating a social business including trust, norms, and network. His ideas on trust and network are similar to those of the interviewees in our research. By norms, Dowla (2006) means organizational norms such as transparency, discipline in repayments, group liability, and other norms which are context-related items guaranteeing the sustainability of this financial model over time. Furthermore, Yunus et al. (2010) himself introduced five lessons for building a social business. He believes there are three similarities with conventional business model innovation including: (1) challenging conventional wisdom and basic assumptions; (2) finding complementary partners; and (3) undertaking a continuous experimentation process. He also introduces two important specificities of social business models which are: (1) favoring social profit-oriented shareholders; and (2) clearly specifying the social profit objective. Discussion #7: The First Challenge though not an Ongoing One During the discussions of the research team, we understood that although registration is among the important challenges of the observed NGOs, it is not an ongoing problem. In many legal structures, after finishing registration, there are few problems regarding the legal issues unless the organization aims to publish or sell its educational products. In particular legal structures, community-based organizations and councils, the board of trustees should be evaluated and approved by the government every other year (Katirai, 2005). This kind of legal requirement and burden may devalue CBO and council structure; however, donors generally prefer to allocate their funds to these organizations rather than institutions or other structures with no regular approval by the government. After registering an NGO, other than the approval process in some legal structures, there are not many other ongoing essential activities; thus, participants did not consider the registration as a dynamic challenge such as human resource retention or leadership challenges. In our follow-up interviews we asked about the reasons underlying the choice of a particular legal structure for registration. Participants’ responses could be clustered into two main topics. First, choosing the specific legal structure in the observed NGOs had been dependent on the founder’s attitude. Second, the majority of participants strongly recommended that potential new NGO founders Page 83

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

should thoroughly investigate the appropriateness of each available legal structure to their organizational mission. Research Team: Your colleagues told us that one of your major challenges at the starting point was the registration procedure; do you consider the registration a challenge as well? P-III: We follow the regulations of our country and, in this case, there was a whole legal procedure to follow. We did all they asked and finally registered the organization. I do not consider it as a major challenge; but it might be interesting to know: when the government agents understood our honesty and truthfulness in accomplishing our mission of educating Iranian children, they responded to us favorably and those officers became our supporters. Do not forget, they are all human beings and they recognize that we are not in this for any personal profit (Quote 7.6).

CONCLUSION This article explained the open coding and axial coding findings. Results of open coding analysis were clustered into seven groups; then, for each group, an iterative, back-and-forth process of reviewing literature and conducting follow-up observations helped get to a saturated main theme for each cluster. The first growth element was the founders’ attitude. Both personal and organizational aspects of founders’ attitude were important in facilitating the growth of an educational NGO. The second element was a culture of feedback, learning and flexibility or, in specific technical terms, becoming a learning NGO. The third item was organizational leadership. It was revealed that there were two important aspects in the leadership style of the observed NGOs: collective nature of leadership and transformational style of leadership. The fourth growth element pointed out human resource challenges. It was found that the primary human resource problem of the observed NGOs was retention. The literature of human resource management in NGOs together with follow-up interviews suggested work/life balance, fairness, and recognition as key solutions to the retention problem in such organizations. The fifth element was organizational standards and documentation or knowledge management. According to the literature review and follow-up observations, the specific knowledge management problem of the observed NGOs was in externalizing tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. The sixth growth element was brought up as financial resources. It was discussed that scarcity of external sources of money forced the observed NGOs to adopt a social enterprise approach toward their revenue model. Finally, the seventh element was registration and legal issues; although registering an NGO was among the first challenges of founding an NGO, it was not an ongoing challenge. Hence, with grasping the main elements of growth in Iranian NGOs, the next question would be analyzing the significance of each of these elements in the start-up stage along with their interdependent relations; only in this way we could achieve a comprehensive and dynamic understanding of the growth in Iranian NGOs. With this being said, the authors plan to integrate Page 84

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

these elements into their future studies, into a dynamic model describing Iranian NGOs’ behavior in their start-up stage.

NOTES 1

Names of all participants have been changed to numbers in order to maintain confidentiality.

2

The finding of this review was separately written as an article named “system as a transformational leader” which was accepted for a presentation in the 55th conference of Comparative and International Education Society.

REFERENCES Ackoff, R. L. (1998). A systemic view of transformational leadership. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(1), 23-36. Adizes, I. (2004). Managing corporate lifecycles. The Adizes Institute Publishing. Archer, D. (2009). Collaborative leadership: How to succeed in an interconnected world. Burlington: Butterworth- Heinemann. Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115125. Arjmand, R. (2008). Inscription on stone: Islam, state and education in Iran and Turkey. Stockholm: PhD Dissertation. Avina, J. (1993). The evolutionary life cycles of nonFserng‐governmental development organizations. Public Administration and Development, 13(5), 453-474. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218. Barnett , J. H. (1988). Non-profits and the life cycle. Evaluation and Program Planning, 11(1), 13-20. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Bayat, A. (2002). Activism and social development in the Middle East. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 34(1), 1-28. Page 85

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Bess, G. (1998). A First Stage Organization Life Cycle Study of Six Emerging Nonprofit Organizations in Los Angeles. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 35 - 52. Beugré , C. D., Acar, W., & Bra, W. (2006). Transformational leadership in organizations: An environment-induced model. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 52-62. Beverly, S. G., & Sherraden, M. (1997). Investment in human development as a social development strategy. Social Development Issues, 19, 1-18. Bontis, N., & Serenko, A. (2009). A causal model of human capital antecedents and consequents in the financial services industry. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 53-69. Bratton, J. (1999). Human Resource Management. Taylor & Francis. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership Harper & Row. New York. Carrillo, P. M., Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., & Bouchlaghem, N. M. (2006). A knowledge transfer framework: The PFI context. Construction Management and Economics, 24(10), 1045-1056. Chrislip, D. D. (2002). Collaborative leadership fieldbook: A guide for citizens and civic leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Christensen, K. S., & Kaasgaard , H. (2003). Knowledge management in a project-oriented organization: Three perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 116-128. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Sage Publications Limited. Daft, R. L. (2001). Essentials of organization theory & design. South-Western College Pub. Dowla, A. (2006). In credit we trust: Building social capital by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. Journal of Socio-economics, 35(1), 102-122. Fiol, M. C., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review, 803-813. Gottschalk, P. (2005). Strategic knowledge management technology. Igi Global. Hall, J., Sapsed, J., & Williams, K. (2000). Barriers and facilitators to knowledge capture and transfer in project-based firms. 4th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation. Curitiba, Brazil.

Page 86

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Heneman, R. L., Tansky, J. W., & Camp, S. M. (2000). Human resource management practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: Unanswered questions and future research perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(1), 11-26. Hess , F. M. (2006). Tough love for schools: Essays on competition, accountability, and excellence. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Imants, J. (2003). Two basic mechanisms for organisational learning in schools. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(3), 293-311. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108. Katirai, N. (2005). NGO Regulations in Iran. International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, 7(4), 28-42. Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management. Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. Key Works in Critical Pedagogy, 285-326. Kirby, P. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding transformational leadership. The Journal of educational research, 85(5), 303. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge. Vol. 3. Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://mclink.library.mcgill.ca/sfx?sid=google&auinit=JM&aulast=Kouzes&title=The%2 0leadership%20challenge&genre=book&isbn=0787968331&date=2003 Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1975). The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambuiguity. European Journal of Political Research, 3(2), 147-171. Mashayekhi, A. N. (2010). Improving the learning capacity: The challenge of managers and leaders. Tehran: Sadat Foundation. Nicholls, A. E. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change. OUP Oxford. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.

Page 87

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Orna, E. (1996). Information products and presentation in organisations: Accident or design? International Journal of Information Management, 16(5), 341-351. Parise, S., & Henderson, J. C. (2001). Knowledge resource exchange in strategic alliances. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 908-924. Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications. Pawar, B. S., & Eastma, K. K. (1997). The nature and implications of contextual influences on transformational leadership: A conceptual examination. The Academy of Management Review, 80-109. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications, Incorporated. Ramlall, S. (2004). A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business 5(1/2), 52-63. Rubin, H. E. (2009). Collaborative leadership: Developing effective partnerships for communities and schools. Corwin Press. Santora, J. C., & Sarros, J. C. (2008). Founders, leaders, and organizational life cycles: The choice is easy–learn or fail! Development and Learning in Organizations, 22(3), 12-15. Schmid, H. (2007). Leadership styles and leadership change in human and community service organizations. Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations, 395-409. Senge, P. M. (1990a). Give me a lever long enough … and single-handed I can move the world. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. M. (1990b). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Page 88

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Senge, P. M. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday. Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy of Management Journal, 35(5), 1036-1056. Shrivastava, P. (1983). A typology of organizational learning systems. Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 7. Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777-800. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 510-540. Yancey, M. P., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251-289. Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business and the future of capitalism. PublicAffairs. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 30.

Page 89

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEARNING ORGANIZATION DIMENSIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

John M. Wetherington, DBA, is the Chief Operating and Finance Officer for the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. M. Kenneth Daniels, PhD, is faculty at the University of Phoenix, School of Advanced Study. The purpose of this quantitative descriptive correlational study was to examine the relationship between the dimensions of the learning organization and several measures of performance. The study included a random sample of chief executive officers of nonprofit organizations in the United States rated by at least two of the three major ratings groups: the American Institute of Philanthropy, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator. The study confirmed the relationships found in earlier studies between the dimensions of the learning organizations and financial, knowledge, and mission performance. There were only limited significant relationships found between the ratings from the three ratings groups and the dimensions of the learning organization or other measures of performance studied.

Nonprofit organizations are major contributors to the economy and public well-being (National Council of Nonprofit Associations, 2005). Despite the sector’s rapid growth, there are several issues with organizations in the sector meeting their full potential. The performance in the nonprofit sector is characterized as limited by scarce resources, inefficiencies, and the inability to measure performance outcomes (Light, 2000; Niven, 2008). To provide funders and other interested parties with qualitative data, charity-rating organizations are rating nonprofits (Lowell, Trelstad, & Meehan, 2005). The nonprofit sector’s size and impact is substantial, employing 1 out of every 15 Americans and generating $1.59 trillion in revenue in the U.S. (Lowell, Silverman, & Taliento, 2001; National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2012). Nonprofit organizations typically operate with limited resources, inefficient operations, and limited measures of performance (Light, 2000, 2002, 2005; Niven, 2008). One prescriptive approach to address resource and performance issues is to apply features of learning organizations demonstrated to be linked with improved organizational performance (Ellinger, Ellinger, Yang & Howton, 2002; McHargue, 2003; Perkins, Bess, Cooper, Jones, Armstead, & Speer, 2007). The study utilized the dimensions of learning organization model developed by Marsick & Watkins (2003) and adapted to nonprofit organizations by McHargue (1999). The dimensions include the ten constructs of continuous learning opportunities, promoting dialogue and inquiry, Page 90

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

promoting collaboration and team learning, development of systems to retain and share information, empowerment of people with a common vision, linking an organization with its environment, and provision for strategic leadership for learning (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Dimensions also include financial performance and knowledge performance (Marsick & Watkins, 2003). McHargue (1999) added mission performance as a 10th construct. The Dimensions of Learning Organization Questionnaire (DOLQ) nonprofit version has 65 questions with a 6 point Likert-type scale to collect raw data synthesized into the ten constructs (McHargue, 1999). Three performance measures are constructed from answers to the DOLQ. The financial, knowledge and mission performance measures are based on averages of multiple questions. Financial performance measures such metrics as fiscal health and resource availability. Knowledge performance measures include metrics regarding staff development, improved services, and upgrades to technology. Mission performance measures such issues as the use of resources to provide services, the success of the services, and such outcomes as the number of clients served or services performed. In addition to these measures derived from questionnaire responses, multiple financial statistics were collected indirectly from IRS filings as measures of operational performance. Third-party ratings include measures from American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP)1, now known as Charity Watch. The organization rates 600 charities from A (excellent) to F (poor) based on share of funds spent on charitable purposes, the expense to raise $100 and the presence of excess asset reserves. Better Business Bureau (BBB) Wise Giving Alliance2 rates charities on 20 criteria measuring spending patterns, government policies, truthfulness and willingness for public disclosure. There is an additional voluntary fee based program where qualifying charities receive a Seal which can be publically displayed. The third agency, Charity Navigator3, at the time of the study, rated charities on the measures of organizational efficiency and organizational capacity and published a rating of one to four stars.

METHODOLOGY A learning organization is “an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Garvin, 1993, p. 80). The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to examine the relationship between learning organization measures and performance in nonprofit organizations, including ratings by third-party organizations as a measure of performance. In the current study, learning organizations were organizations exhibiting the characteristics of dimensions of the learning organization as present in the Dimensions of the Learning Organization Questionnaire (DLOQ) described in Figure 1 (McHargue, 1999).

Page 91

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

FIGURE 1: DIMENSIONS OF LEARNING

Dimensions of Learning Activities •Capacity Building Needs & Opportunities •Accountility Needs & Opportunities

Needs

• Create continuous learning opportunities • Promote inquiry & dialogue • Encourage collaboration & team learning • Establish systems to capture & share learning • Empower people toward a collective view • Connect organization to environment • Leader models & supports learning

•Mission Performance •Third Party Ratings •Operating Performance

Outputs/ Outcomes

Table 1 below shows a theoretical model of nonprofit sector performance. Two critical issues in the nonprofit sector, capacity building and accountability (Hudson, 2005; Light, 2004; Snibbe, 2006), are substituted for the resource portion of the McHargue (1999) model. The substitution was made based on McHargue’s findings of limited relationships with the resource variables. Research subsequent to McHargue revealed the quality and effectiveness of inputs, not quantity, should be the focus of nonprofit leaders (Bradley, Jansen, & Silverman, 2003; Light, 2004; Niven, 2008). This needs-based model represents the relationship between the critical needs of the sector and the dimensions of learning organizations.

Page 92

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

TABLE 1: THEORETICAL MODEL OF NONPROFIT SECTOR PERFORMANCE Learning Dimensions Variable 5 6 7 Serving Ration -.04 -.07 -.02 Debt Ration

-.18 *

-.17 *

-.27 ***

Net Assets

-.14

-.09

-.04

Financial Performance

.51 ****

.47 ****

.53 ****

Knowledge Performance .63 **** .56 **** .64 **** Mission Performance .47 **** .39 **** .48 **** CN Overall Rating .09 .04 -.07 CN Efficiency Rating .11 .13 -.08 CN Capacity Rating .06 -.06 -.03 AIP Ratings (n=67) .08 .15 -.03 Twenty Point BBB Rating * .08 .07 .02 Have the BBB Seal * .09 .04 .01 Note Learning Dimensions: 1= Continuous Learning; 2= Dialogue and Inquiry; 3= Team Learning; 4= Systems to Capture Learning; 5= Empowerment; 6= Connect to the Environment; 7= Leadership for Learning. *p < .05 ** p < .01 ***p < .005 **** p < .100. *Coding: 0= no; 1=yes Survey data was collected from executive directors of nonprofit organizations in the United States who have been rated by at least two of the three major ratings groups: American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP), the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance, and Charity Navigator. Additional data was collected from publicly available sources including the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) and Guidestar. A random sample of 603 organizations was selected from the 880 organizations in the population. Up to four pieces of correspondence were sent to senior leaders of these 603 organizations. The response rate was 21.7%; 131 leaders of the 603 target organizations returned a completed 6-point Likert scale questionnaire. The current study extended beyond existent research by reaching new populations of nonprofits and adding the new element of third-party ratings. The results further knowledge of how nonprofit board members and executives can align operations with factors related to high performance.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Four research questions guided the study. The first question considered the relationship between the dimensions of learning organization and various performance measures. The second Page 93

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

question considered the relationship between alternative measures of performance and thirdparty ratings. The third research question addressed the relationship between size and types of organizations and performance measures to determine if certain demographic measures influence performance. The final question considered combinations of dimension of learning organization constructs to determine the combination of variables which explain various performance measures. In this section, the results of hypothesis testing are discussed for each of the four research questions. Conclusions are presented for each component of the four research questions. The findings are discussed as they pertain to the literature on learning organizations and organizational performance of nonprofit organizations. Refer to Table 1 shown above for select statistical findings from the study. Research Question 1 The first research question asked if there is a relationship between the dimensions of the learning organization and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and thirdparty performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. The associated null and alternative hypotheses tested for RQ1 were as follows: H10: No relationship exists between dimensions of the learning organization and operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. H1a: A relationship exists between dimensions of the learning organization and operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations.

In the findings, there is a significant positive relationship between all seven dimensions of learning organization and the three performance measures for financial, knowledge, and mission performance collected via the DLOQ. Scoring high in each of the seven dimensions of learning organization is associated with better organizational performance. The highest correlation is associated with knowledge performance, followed by financial performance and then the mission performance. Mission performance, critical for the nonprofit sector, includes such attributes as number of clients served, completion rates of programs, success rates of programs, and resources provided to services and programs (McHargue, 1999). As nonprofit leaders focus on organizational mission instead of financial returns, the positive statistical significance is of particular importance to these leaders and other constituents of the sector. While nonprofit leaders focus on their organization’s missions, attributes linked to higher mission performance can also support better financial performance and knowledge performance. Leaders of organizations with higher dimensions of learning are more likely to implement indicators of knowledge performance including new services and have higher levels of staff development and resources available. Organizations with higher dimensions of learning were associated with higher financial performance, a measure that includes efficiency, contributions, productivity, and volunteer support. Organizations with relatively high dimensions of the learning organization have increased likelihood of improved public support from donations and Page 94

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

volunteers, indicating funders might be drawn to organizations with efficient operations and productive staff and seek to leverage their program funds through financial support of learning activities at the organizations being funded. As was found in an earlier study by McHargue (1999) all seven dimensions of the learning organization had significant positive relationships with the performance measures of financial, knowledge, and mission performance and the individual dimensions are ranked consistently with each performance measure except for the three lowest ranked dimensions. The leadership for learning dimension with the highest correlation was associated with r2 equal to 41.0, 28.1, and 23.0% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. This analysis supports the earlier finding of the importance of the role of leaders in supporting organizational learning (Zahra & O’Neill, 1998). The empowerment learning organization dimension was associated with r2 equal to 39.7, 26.0, and 22.1% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. The findings support earlier work indicating that organizational leaders who share a clear vision with constituents and use feedback from these constituents are more likely to have higher organizational performance (Epstein, 2008; Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski, & Flowers, 2004). The systems to capture learning dimension was associated with r2 equal to 38.4, 25.0, and 20.3% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. The findings support previous indicators that organizational leaders who are able to harness information and competencies above the individual and team level have a higher likelihood of superior organizational performance (Light, 2004; Marsick & Watkins, 2003; Niven, 2008). The team learning dimension was associated with r2 equal to 32.5, 25.0, and 21.2% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. These findings support the previous work demonstrating organizations whose leaders promote collaboration, cooperation, and learning in teams are likely to have higher performance than organizations not exhibiting these attributes (Jensen, 2005; Light, 2000; Yang & Chen, 2005). The connecting to the environment learning dimension was associated with r2 equal to 31.4, 22.1, and 15.2% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. The findings support previous observations that organizations whose leaders look outwardly and build boundary-spanning networks between organizational staff and others outside the organization are more likely to have higher organizational performance (Crutchfield & Grant, 2008; Hudson, 2005). The dialogue and inquiry learning organization dimension was associated with r2 equal to 27.0, 24.0, and 13.0% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. The results for the current study confirm previous findings demonstrating Page 95

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

a relationship between an engaging culture encouraging inquiry and cooperation with higher organizational performance (Marsick & Watkins, 1999). The continuous learning dimension was associated with r2 equal to 26.0, 22.1, and 15.2% of the variance with knowledge, financial, and mission performance measures, respectively. The results of the current study support the previous findings of the importance of continuous learning and the facilitation of knowledge development in organizational performance (Antal & Sobczak, 2004; Chunharas, 2006; Epstein, 2008). The organization’s debt ratio had significant negative correlations with six of seven learning dimensions (the learning dimension of learning and dialogue and inquiry were the exception). Higher dimensions of learning are associated with lower debt ratios supporting earlier findings (McHargue, 1999). The negative relationship between higher debt and lower dimensions of learning levels might be a result of conflict in the ability to fund learning activities while servicing debt. This indicates that organizations with higher levels of the dimensions of the learning organization might generate additional resources and require less debt to finance operations. Higher debt might also be associated with certain organizational groups and group characteristics that might intervene with the dimensions of learning organizations. Where significant, the variance associated with dimensions of learning and debt ratio ranged from a low of r2= 2.9% (r= -.17) to r2= 7.3% (r= -.27) for leadership for learning. All relationships were at r2 levels considered weak or demonstrating no relationship and might not have operational significance to leaders and funders of organizations (Salkind, 2008). In the current study, with the single exception of team learning and net assets, no statistically significant relationship was found between the seven learning organization variables derived from the DLOQ and the measures of the operational performance element of net assets. The correlation between team learning and net assets was r = -.20, a weak correlation (Salkind, 2008). No statistical significance was found between these seven dimensions of the learning organization and the savings rate (the excess of revenue over expense divided by the expense). The results of the current study confirm the findings of earlier studies indicating net assets and savings rates have limited relationships with the dimensions of the learning organization (McHargue, 1999). Third-party ratings were not found to have any statistically significant relationship with the dimensions of the learning organization (continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, systems to capture learning, empowerment, connect to the environment, and leadership for learning). The findings do not support using the construct of learning organization to predict the six third-party ratings of the Charity Navigator overall rating, the Charity Navigator capacity rating, the Charity Navigator efficiency rating, the AIP rating, the 20-point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. Reports in the nonprofit press indicated that rating systems only measure financial performance and fail to tell users about the achievement of desired results (Greenwell, 2008; Preston, 2008). The findings confirm research that demonstrated ratios used in calculating ratings Page 96

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

often fail to measure quantity and quality of outputs and outcomes and do not measure performance tied to mission and sustainability (Ralser, 2007; Tinkelman & Donabedian, 2007). The statistical relationships between learning organization attributes and organizational performance calculated to address the first research question support earlier findings in the literature. The findings from the current study extend previous work conducted in both for-profit and nonprofit sectors by including a broader population of nonprofit organizational groups. The statistical relationships in the current study are generally higher than those found by McHargue (1999). The extent to which statistical relationships vary from those found by McHargue could be a result of the different population used or due to changing perceptions in nonprofit leadership in the intervening time between the studies. The broader population used in the current study might have lower correlations than those found in the human services organizations, which was the population for McHargue’s (1999) study. Alternatively, leaders in the nonprofit sector might have different perceptions about the dimensions of the learning organization or the performance measures in the current study than was the case during the time of the earlier study. Recognition of the growing importance of knowledge workers, intellectual property, and the pervasiveness of technology might have changed the perceptions of leaders surveyed in the current study compared to their counterparts in earlier studies. Leaders might view mission performance in more qualitative terms than earlier studies and therefore perceive the attributes of learning organizations differently than in earlier times. Research Question 2 The second research question asked if there is a relationship between the operational and mission measures of performance and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. The associated null and alternative hypotheses tested for RQ2 were as follows: H20: No relationship exists between operational and mission measures of performance and thirdparty performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. H2a: A relationship exists between operational and mission measures of performance and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations.

As only one statistically significant relationship (p < .05) was found in the 18 combinations between the performance variables including financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, savings ratio, debt ratio, or net assets and one of three Charity Navigator ratings, the 1 significant result might be an error. At a statistical significance level of p= .05, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the calculated relationship is a result of sampling error (Babbie, 2007). The 1 in 18 result is about equal to the expected sampling error of 1 in 20. The correlation coefficient between mission performance and the Charity Navigator capacity rating was r = .17, which is an indication of only a weak or no significant relationship (Salkind, 2008). There were no significant relationships between mission performance and five of six Page 97

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

third-party ratings of the Charity Navigator overall rating, the Charity Navigator efficiency rating, the AIP rating, the 20-point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. There were no significant relationships between the broad scope of performance measures, savings ratio, debt ratio, net assets, financial performance, knowledge performance, and the six third-party ratings of the Charity Navigator overall rating, the Charity Navigator capacity rating, the Charity Navigator efficiency rating, the AIP rating, the 20-point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. The results support the finding that third-party measures have a limited scientific base of support, do not measure the quantity and quality of organizational outputs, might rely on poor data sources, and do not measure how well nonprofit organizations meet their missions (Light, 2004; O’Flanagan, Harold, Brest, 2008; Preston, 2008; Tinkelman & Donabedian, 2007). The most common measures of financial performance include fundraising and program spending ratios (Lammers, 2003; Light, 2004; Nelson, 2004; Urban Institute, 2007). Rating groups share the use of ratios but have inconsistencies on allowable levels (Lowell et al., 2005). As the third-party ratings are solely or significantly based on ratios, the findings support the finding that ratios have limited utility in measuring the quality and quantity of organizational outputs and outcomes (Lammers, 2003; Ralser, 2007). Research Question 3 The third research question asked if there is a relationship between organizational characteristics of size and group (predictor variables) and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations (criterion variables). The associated null and alternative hypotheses tested for RQ3 were as follows: H30: No relationship exists between organizational characteristics of size and group and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. H3a: A relationship exists between organizational characteristics of size and group and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations.

The results support no relationship between the size elements of income total and net assets and total assets and net assets. The results also support no relationship between the National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) group (predictor variable) and the 20-point BBB rating. Support was demonstrated for the alternative hypothesis of a relationship between income total and net assets and total assets and net assets and the NTEE group and the 20-point BBB rating. The results support accepting no relationship between the size variables of number of volunteers or number of employees and the measures of savings rate, debt ratio, net assets, financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, Charity Navigator overall rating, Charity Navigator efficiency rating, Charity Navigator capacity rating, AIP rating, the 20Page 98

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. The results support accepting no relationship between NTEE group and the measures of savings rate, debt ratio, net assets, financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, Charity Navigator overall rating, Charity Navigator efficiency rating, Charity Navigator capacity rating, AIP rating, and the BBB seal. It is not a surprise that organizations with higher net assets would have a significant positive relationship with higher total assets and higher total income. Net assets was the only organizational characteristic with a significant relationship with any of the size variables of the number of volunteers, number of employees, income total, and total assets. No significant relationships existed between the four size variables and the measures of savings rate, debt ratio, net assets, financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, Charity Navigator overall rating, Charity Navigator efficiency rating, Charity Navigator capacity rating, AIP rating, the 20-point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. The lack of significance with demographic variables might support the generalizability of the measures. If size, including the number of volunteers, number of employees, income total, and total assets, or the NTEE group were significantly related to performance, the performance measures would not be applicable to broader populations. The lack of significance of the relationship between the dimensions of the learning organization and measures of organizational size confirms earlier findings. McHargue (1999) found no relationship between the dimensions of the learning organization and the number of employees. Continuous learning and systems to capture learning were the only dimensions of the learning organization shown to have statistically significant relationships with the number of volunteers, but the correlation was weak (r = .13 and r = .17, respectively). Research on nonprofits using the constructs of organizational performance and mission performance is limited (McHargue, 1999). Yang et al. (2004) found the dimensions of learning organization construct was valid across multiple for-profit business types and organizational sizes for financial and knowledge performance measures. External validity is concerned with the generalizability of a research design from one sample to another and therefore to the population itself (Salkind, 2006). A lack of significant relationships in the current study between group and size and performance measures provides further evidence that performance measures are not significantly impacted by demographic characteristics. Research Question 4 The fourth research question asked about the combination of dimensions of the learning organization and organizational characteristics that best explains the predictive relationship between these variables and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations (criterion variables). The associated null and alternative hypotheses tested for RQ4 were as follows: H40: No relationship exists between a combination of dimensions of the learning organization and organizational characteristics and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. Page 99

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

H4a: A relationship exists between a combination of dimensions of the learning organization and organizational characteristics and measures of operational performance, mission performance, and third-party performance ratings of nonprofit organizations. The results supported there was no combination of variables with a relationship to financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, Charity Navigator overall rating, and the 20-point BBB rating. Support was demonstrated for the alternative hypothesis that there are combinations of variables with a significant relationship with financial performance, knowledge performance, mission performance, Charity Navigator overall rating, and the 20point BBB rating. There were similarities in the combinations of variables, with the highest significant relationship with financial performance, knowledge performance, and mission performance. In each case, a higher number of employees and the leadership for learning dimensions were included in the combination that provided the best relationship with higher performance in financial performance, knowledge performance, and mission performance. The NTEE groups of health and human services were included in the combination with the highest relationship with financial performance, knowledge performance, and mission performance, and both health and human services groups negatively related to the performance measures. The presence of leadership for learning in each combination of highest significant relationships confirms the importance of the role of leadership in organizational learning (Zahra & O’Neill, 1998). The number of employees and the NTEE group were not found to have a significant relationship with financial, knowledge, and mission performance. In combination with other variables, the number of employees was the only size element present in the combinations most predictive of performance. Employees are the fundamental measure of learning, so performance is higher based on this measure versus another measure of size such as income total and net assets. Both health and human services groups have negative betas, meaning these groups are associated with lower performance than other major groups. These groups might have special issues with operations or leadership not typical of other groups. The models developed in the current study to address RQ4 provide support for research indicating that performance is a multidimensional construct (Herman & Renz, 1999). Previous research regarding the relationship between nonprofit organizational type and the organizational and mission performance constructs is limited (McHargue, 1999). The presence of the NTEE groups of health and human services in the models developed to answer RQ4 provides evidence that performance in different types of nonprofits should be considered in groups of like organizations (Guidestar, 2009a; Ralser, 2007).

RECOMMENDATIONS Organizational leaders can use the application of organizational learning to improve performance along several measures, including financial, knowledge, and mission performance. The dimensions of the learning organization provide a framework for identifying the status of Page 100

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

organizational learning and a means to impact learning at the individual, group, and organizational level. Leaders applying the dimensions of learning have a systematic and comprehensive means of developing and applying intangible assets toward supporting stakeholders. Leaders of nonprofit organizations should understand what the dimensions of the learning organization include and determine means to improve the application of the attributes of the dimensions to their organizations. The relationships between the learning dimensions and multiple performance measures provide guidance to nonprofit practitioners on opportunities to improve organizational performance. Leaders can improve performance by designing jobs and directing resources to support learning. Nonprofit leaders should act as role models emphasizing learning and promoting learning by others and establishing a culture and reward structure tied to learning. The growing evidence of the significant positive relationship between systems, policies, cultures, and investments supporting learning in nonprofit organizations does not have an impact unless it motivates improvements at the organizational level (Ellinger et al., 2002; Watkins & Dirani, 2013; McHargue, 2003; Yang, Watkins, & Marsick, 2004; Zhang, Zhang, & Yang, 2004). Unless awareness of the relationships between learning and performance is translated into action, organizational performance might not be maximized. Leaders can improve performance by exhibiting a focus on learning and by influencing learning throughout the organization. Leaders should focus on creating a culture of openness and cooperation to facilitate performance. The challenge to nonprofit leaders is how to create such a culture with limited resources and in an environment in which spending on select capacities is criticized and penalized. Nonprofit board members support the nonprofit organization and act as organizational representatives to the outside environment. Board members are often donors and support the fundraising efforts of the organizations they serve. With the findings that the dimensions of the learning organization have a positive, statistically significant relationship with several performance measures, members of nonprofit boards should consider the status of the organizations that they govern and determine if organizational plans and budgets are aligned with learning, enabling activities that are linked to performance. Board members should also seek to fund capacity-building activities that support learning in the organizations and indirectly make the organization more likely to support its mission and be financially strong. Funders of nonprofit organizations might be able to leverage their investments in programs by supporting organizational learning as part of a comprehensive view of support, instead of the typical approach of isolating funds to direct program activities. Supporters of an organization’s mission might see higher measures of organizational success if they allow supported organizations to use funds to build organizational learning in addition to funding services provided to clients. Donors and other funders interested in funding organizations based solely on their third-party ratings without considering organizational effectiveness will risk limiting the benefit of their funds. Thus, supporters should consider additional measures instead of focusing solely on ratings. Page 101

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Watchdog groups have been criticized for the lack of relationships between their ratings and outcomes and continue to base their methodologies on measures with a limited research base. Although leaders of these organizations have developed significant organizational coverage and broad stakeholder utilization, they might measure attributes not tied to successful performance. New measures need to be developed with greater utility that focus on results and not just on narrowly defined financial ratios. Members of federal governmental units such as the Senate Finance Committee and IRS have criticized the spending by nonprofit leaders and have publicly embraced using data derived from IRS Form 990 to assess organizational performance using metrics similar to those used by charity rating organizations (McCambridge, 2005). Elected officials and federal employees support using data such as fundraising ratios and program expense measures despite criticism that evaluating organizations are using fixed ratio thresholds not applicable to all organizations (Lammers, 2003). Any legislation or regulatory actions supported by these measures might not yield desired results and might be harmful. Adverse actions might penalize nonprofit organizations serving their constituents well and reward nonprofits that might be ineffective or present distorted numbers.

CONCLUSION The nonprofit sector’s size and impact is substantial and the sector is growing rapidly (Blackwood, Wing, & Pollak, 2008; Lowell et al., 2001; United Way of America, 2004). Leaders of nonprofit organizations have unique issues such as defining accountability and capacity, but like organizational leaders in other sectors, they seek higher performance. The purpose of the quantitative descriptive correlational study was to examine the relationship between learning organization measures (predictor variables) and performance in nonprofit organizations (criterion variables), including the introduction of ratings by third-party organizations as a measure of performance. Four research questions guided the current study to extend prior research to new populations while adding ratings of nonprofit organizations as a performance measure. A random sample of 603 organizations was selected from the 880 organizations in the population; 131 leaders returned a completed questionnaire. The current study confirmed prior research supporting the relationship between the dimensions of the learning organization and multiple measures of performance, adding evidence to the view that learning matters in nonprofits. The current study expanded prior research to a broader population of nonprofit organizations. The study revealed no significant relationships between the seven predictor variables derived from the DLOQ (continuous learning, dialogue and inquiry, team learning, systems to capture learning, empowerment, connect to the environment, and leadership for learning) and the third-party performance rating variables of Charity Navigator overall rating, Charity Navigator efficiency rating, Charity Navigator capacity rating, AIP rating, the 20-point BBB rating, and the BBB seal. Suggestions for future research support further examination of the relationship between learning and performance and what, if any, relationships exist between third-party ratings and Page 102

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

organizational performance. The suggestions include studying the convergence between forprofit and nonprofit organizations, with more depth of analysis between different types of organizations common to the sectors. Another recommendation is to monitor measures under development by existing rating organizations and developing organizations to guide donors. A final recommendation is to study broader measures of nonprofit performance, including the qualitative analysis of programs and the way qualitative measures relate to learning attributes of organizations.

NOTES 1

American Institute of Philanthropy Now known as Charity Watch located at http://charitywatch.org/. The organization rates 600 charities from A (excellent) to F (poor) based on share of funds spent on charitable purposes, the expense to raise $100 and the presence of excess asset reserves. 2

Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance Located at http://www.bbb.org/us/charity/. Charities are measured on 20 criteria measuring spending patterns, government policies, truthfulness and willingness for public disclosure. There is an additional voluntary fee based program where qualifying charities receive a Seal which can be publically displayed. 3

Charity Navigator Located at http://www.charitynavigator.org/. At the time of the study charities were rated on the measures of organizational efficiency and organizational capacity and a rating of one to four stars assigned based on the analysis For a complete copy of the research project described, please contact John Wetherington [email protected].

REFERENCES Antal, A. B., & Sobczak, A. (2004). Beyond CSR: Organisational learning for global responsibility. Journal of General Management, 30(2), 77-98. Retrieved August 11, 2006 from the EBSCOhost database. Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Blackwood, A., Wing, K. T., & Pollak, T. H. (2008). The nonprofit sector in brief. Facts and figures from the Nonprofit Almanac 2008: Public charities, giving, and volunteering. Retrieved February 8, 2009 from http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/kbfiles/797/Almanac2008publicCharities.pdf Page 103

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Bradley, B., Jansen, P., & Silverman, L. (2003). The nonprofit sector’s $100 billion opportunity. Harvard Business Review, 81(9), 94-103. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from EBSCOhost database. Chunharas, S. (2006). An interactive integrative approach to translating knowledge and building a “learning organization” in health services management. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84, 652-657. Retrieved August 25, 2006 from the EBSCOhost database. Crutchfield, L. R., & Grant, H. M. (2008). Forces for good: The six practices of high-impact nonprofits. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Yang, B., & Howton, S. W. (2002). The relationship between the learning organization concept and firm’s financial performance: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 5. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from the EBSCOhost database. Epstein, M. J. (2008). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June 23, 2006 from http://www.primisonline.com Greenwell, M. (2008). New way to rate charities sought. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com Guidestar. (2009a, November). A donor's 10-step guide to giving wisely. Retrieved December 26, 2009 from http://www2.guidestar.org/ViewCmsFile.aspx?ContentID=2590 Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107-126. Retrieved March 7, 2007 from the Sage database. Hudson, M. (2005). Managing at the leading edge: New challenges in managing nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jensen, P. E. (2005). A contextual theory of learning and the learning organization. Knowledge and Process Management, 12(1), 53-64. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from the EBSCOhost database. Lammers, J. A. (2003, March 21). Know your ratios? Everyone else does. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34-39. Light, P. C. (2000). Making nonprofits work. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Page 104

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Light, P. C. (2002). Pathways to nonprofit excellence. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Light, P. C. (2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Light, P. C. (2005). Searching for social entrepreneurs: Who they might be, where they are found, what they do. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from http://www.wagner.nyu.edu/performance/files/Searching%20for%20Social%20Entrepren eurship.pdf Lowell, S., Silverman, L., & Taliento, L. (2001). Not-for-profit management: The gift that keeps on giving. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 146-155 Retrieved July, 12, 2013 from EBSCOhost database. Lowell, S., Trelstad, B., & Meehan, B. (2005). The ratings game. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 39-45. Retrieved March 30, 2006 from http://www.ssireview.com/pdf /2005SU_feature_lowell.pdf Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations. Aldershoot, England: Gower. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5, 132-151. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from the Sage database. McCambridge, R. (2005). Is accountability the same as regulation? Not exactly. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 12(4), 6-9. McHargue, S. K. (1999). Dimensions of learning organization as determinants of organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(6), 2147A. (UMI No. 9975108) McHargue, S. K. (2003). Learning for performance in nonprofit organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 196. Retrieved April 16, 2006 from http://adh.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/5/2/196 National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2012). Quickfacts about nonprofits. Retrieved July 12, 2013 from http://nccs.urban.org/statistics/quickfacts.cfm National Council of Nonprofit Associations. (2005). The United States nonprofit sector. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.ncna.org/_uploads/documents/live//us_sector_report_2003.pdf Page 105

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Nelson, P. D. (2004). Useful, but limited: What donors need to know about rating services. Retrieved January 12, 2005, from http://www.philanthropyroundatable.org Niven, P. R. (2008). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. O’Flanagan, M., Harold, J., & Brest, P. (2008). The nonprofit marketplace: Bridging the information gap in philanthropy. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from http://www.givingmarketplaces.org/materials/whitepaper.pdf Perkins, D. D., Bess, K. D., Cooper, D. D., Jones, D. L., Armstead, T., & Speer, P. W. (2007). Community organizational learning: Case studies illustrating a three-dimensional model of levels and order of change. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 303-328. Retrieved February 10, 2009 from the EBSCOhost database. Preston, C. (2008). Making a measureable difference: Creator of rating tool seeks to improve charity effectiveness. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 21, 13-15. Ralser, T. (2007). ROI for nonprofits: The new key to sustainability. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Salkind, N. J. (2006). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Exploring research (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2004). Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future. Cambridge, MA: The Society for Organizational Learning. Snibbe, A. C. (2006). Drowning in data. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4(3), 39-45. Tinkelman, D., & Donabedian, B. (2007). Street lamps, alleys, ratio analysis, and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 5-18. Retrieved November 24, 2009 from the EBSCOhost database. Watkins, K. E., & Dirani, K.M. (2013). A meta-analysis of the dimensions of a learning organization questionnaire: Looking across cultures, ranks, and industries. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(2), 148-162. Retrieved July 12, 2013 from the Sage database. United Way of America. (2004, June 21). Trends in philanthropy and the economy. Retrieved May 31, 2005 from http://national.unitedway.org/research/Trends_ in_Philanthropy_Public_Website.ppt#320,6,Competition Continues to Grow

Page 106

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Urban Institute. (2007). National Center for Charitable Statistics. Retrieved May 24, 2007 from http://www.nccs.urban.org Yang, B., Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (2004). The construct of the learning organization: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 15, 31. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from the EBSCOhost database. Yang, J. S., & Chen, C. Y. (2005). Systemic design for improving team learning climate and capability: A case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 16, 727-740. Retrieved August 25, 2006 from the EBSCOhost database. Zahra, S., & O’Neill, H. (1998). Charting the landscape of global competition: Reflections on emerging organizational challenges and their implications for senior executives. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4), 13-21. Retrieved September 1, 2004 from the EBSCOhost database. Zhang, D., Zhang, Z., & Yang, B. (2004). Learning organization in mainland China: Empirical research on its application to Chinese state-owned enterprises. International Journal of Training and Development, 8, 258-273. Retrieved December 20, 2009 from the EBSCOhost database.

Page 107

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

ABOUT THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF RONALD QUINCY is the Director of the Center for Nonprofit Management and Governance at the Rutgers School of Social Work. He teaches in the nonprofit and public management concentration, as well as a leadership course in the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences Honors College Program. At the Center, he leads a team of professional and student staff that manage projects as diverse as advisory services for nonprofit organizations, research and advocacy on public policy issues, direct service programs for youth “aging out” of the New Jersey foster care system, and the AmeriCorps Healthy Futures Initiative.

Earlier in his career, Dr. Quincy served as the Director of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, Director of the Michigan State Office of Human Resource Policy and Special Projects, and as a member of the Cabinet for two Michigan Governors. His other previous positions include: Associate Vice President and Assistant to the President of Harvard University; Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change; Executive Director/President of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.; President of the White House Fellows Association and Chairman, White House Fellows Foundation; Senior Management Consultant, for one of the world’s largest management consulting firm; Special Assistant to the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Foreign Policy Advisor, United States State Department, Africa Bureau. In 1985-1986 he was selected by the President of the United States to serve as a White House Fellows. Dr. Quincy earned his Ph.D. from the College of Social Sciences at Michigan State University.

Page 108

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

JOHN BROTHERS is the Principal of Quidoo Consulting, a consulting firm servicing nonprofit, philanthropic and government efforts throughout the U.S. and internationally. Quidoo Consulting has been contracted by hundreds of organizations and Dr. Brothers has trained or spoken to thousands in all areas of philanthropy, public policy, capacity building and organizational development. Dr. Brothers began his career as a practitioner, serving in a variety of roles ranging from frontline to program management to executive roles, including COO and CEO. Dr. Brothers has a Doctorate in Law and Policy from Northeastern University, an MPA in Nonprofit Management from New York University and an MBA in Public Policy from American Public University from which he started at Columbia. He has taken additional studies at Georgetown University and the London School of Economics. He is an adjunct professor in social welfare policy at Rutgers University and teaches nonprofit and philanthropic studies at New York University. Dr. Brothers recently served as a Visiting Scholar at the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University and has served in fellowships with the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs and the Children's Defense Fund. He is currently serving as a Visiting Fellow with the University of Ulster and the Third Sector Research Centre in Northern Ireland and the U.K. Dr. Brothers, a Certified Fundraising Executive, is also the Co-Editor of the Journal for Nonprofit Management in his role as a Senior Fellow with the Support Center/Partnership in Philanthropy. Dr. Brothers is a writer with the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Nonprofit Quarterly and the Huffington Post and has a recent book on organizational change through Jossey-Bass. He has been interviewed, referenced or quoted in dozens of local, national and international media outlets including the Washington Post, Newsweek-Japan, ABC News, The New York Post and the Wall Street Journal.

Page 109

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

ABOUT THE EDITORIAL BOARD DWIGHT DENISON is currently a Professor of Public and Nonprofit Finance at the Martin School of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Kentucky. He is the Director of Graduate Studies for the Masters in Public Policy program and the Masters in Public Administration program. Dr. Denison’s areas of teaching and research include debt management, financial management, and tax administration. His research has been published in various books, reports, and journals including: National Tax Journal, Public Finance Review, Public Administration Review, Public Budgeting and Finance. Dr. Denison is the past Chair of the Association for Budgeting and Financial Management, an international organization for professionals in the field of public budgeting and finance. He has served as a public-finance consultant to many well-known organizations including the Citizen's Budget Commission, Council of State Governments, and Association of Government Accountants. JERI ECKHART-QUEENAN is currently a partner of the Bridgespan Group in the Boston office, bringing twenty-five years of strategy and management experience in the private, public and nonprofit sectors. Eckhart leads the Bridgespan Group by consulting work in the global development area. Some of her work includes projects with Goldman Sachs and their 10,000 Women Initiative. Before joining Bridgespan, Eckhart built Strategic Resolve, a consulting practice that provided guidance to nonprofit organizations on issues of strategy, managing change, and board governance. Her clients stretched across the areas of arts, education, environment, health, advocacy, and nonprofit management. As a senior governance consultant for BoardSource, she has also assisted national networks in developing highly effective boards and governance. Jeri has donated thousands of hours to nonprofit organizations as a volunteer and board member. She has also served on the MicroEnsure Board of Opportunity International and the board of the BOMA Fund. JUDY FREIWIRTH is an organization development consultant, trainer, researcher, and national speaker with Nonprofit Solutions Associates. She has been consulting to and training for nonprofit and public organizations for over 30 years. Nationally-known, she is considered a leader in the area of nonprofit governance and served as a keynote speaker and presenter at many national and regional conferences. She serves as the Chair of the Community-Engagement Governance™ Action Research Project, developing new nonprofit governance frameworks and serves on the board of directors of the national Alliance for Nonprofit Management. In addition, she has published numerous articles and publications for The Nonprofit Quarterly, Nonprofit Boards and Governance Review, and the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. She is a chapter author for two forthcoming books, New Perspectives in Nonprofit Governance (published by Routledge Publishers) and You and Your Board: New Practices for Challenging Times from Researchers, Provocateurs, and Practioners.

Page 110

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

SHAUWEA LYNN HAMILTON is the Director of External Affairs at Newark Public Schools, where she is charged with aligning public support and private funding with the district's strategic vision, maximizing opportunities to drive progress toward goals. Shauwea also serves as a spokesperson for State Superintendent, Cami Anderson, to elected officials, the business community, and philanthropic organizations as well as manage key aspects of governmental relations. She was previously employed as the Manager of Community Affairs and State Public Affairs Operations for Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG). Shauwea received her MBA in Marketing and Management with a concentration in Global Sustainability from Fordham University’s Graduate School of Business. She is a member of the board of directors for Womanspace in Trenton, New Jersey. She earned her BA in Psychology from Rutgers University and holds a Graduate Certificate in Professional Communications from LaSalle University. JASON PATNOSH is the Associate Vice President of the National Association of Community Health Centers. He is the National Director of Community HealthCorps, the largest health-care based AmeriCorps program in the nation. He is also a consultant in the field of program development and management for nonprofits specializing in volunteerism, AmeriCorps, and community health. HARRIET SANFORD is the President and CEO of the NEA Foundation and has led the work of the Foundation since 2005. Harriet began her career as a public school classroom teacher, which led to a senior executive career that spans more than 28 years, with 22 years as the president and chief executive officer of non-profit/public organizations including the Arts and Science Council in Charlotte, North Carolina and the Fulton County Arts Council in Georgia. Her career is bound together by an unwavering commitment to strengthening community by building on the skills, talents, and aspirations of each of its members. Sanford holds an honorary Doctor of Humane Letters degree and a BA in Education from New England College, as well as a MPA from the University of Connecticut. ANNE SHERMAN is the Vice President for Nonprofit Strategy at the Social Impact Exchange, an initiative of the Growth Philanthropy Network (GPN). Before GPN, she was the Director of Strategy at TCC Group, a consultancy that assists nonprofits, foundations, and corporate community involvement programs. Prior to TCC Group, she was Community Initiatives Manager at Minneapolis Way To Grow, a citywide school-readiness initiative. Sherman holds master’s degree in public affairs from the University of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs. Her volunteer work includes serving as chair of the governing body of the Center for Family Life in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, and as a member of the board of SCO Family of Services. She also serves on the selection committee of the New York Community TrustNew York Magazine Nonprofit Excellence Awards. Sherman is the co-author of Building Nonprofit Capacity: A Guide to Managing Change Through Organizational Lifecycles, published in 2011 by Jossey-Bass. Page 111

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

KARUN K. SINGH is the Director of the Master’s in Social Work Program at Rutgers University School of Social Work-Newark Campus and Lecturer within the Rutgers School of Social Work. He has PhD and MS degrees from Columbia University. His teaching, research, and consulting interests focus on nonprofit and public human services management, community organizing leadership, strategic planning, social entrepreneurship, grantwriting, and capacity building. He developed the Singh Strategic Planning Measure for Excellence to help nonprofit human service organizations achieve superior organizational performance. His volunteer activities include serving as Chair of the Network for Social Work Management-New Jersey Chapter and Editorial Board Member of the Journal for Nonprofit Management. PETE YORK is Senior Vice President and Director of Research at TCC Group. York leads TCC Group’s research and evaluation practice, which includes designing and implementing evaluations of grant-funded capacity building initiatives throughout the country and world. Some of his recent work includes facilitating evaluations of capacity building for grantee organizations of funders like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Gap, Inc., the Atlantic Philanthropies, Massachusetts Cultural Council, the California Endowment, and the Ontario Arts Council. He has helped lead the design of learning systems for organizations like the Philadelphia Zoo, Girl Scouts USA, and the New York Boys Club.

Page 112

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

ABOUT THE AUTHORS MARIA-ELENA AUGUSTIN is the Assistant Director and Programs Coordinator for the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management at the University of Central Florida. Maria-Elena received her Bachelors of Science with a focus on Psychology from Illinois Institute of Technology and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Central Florida. Maria-Elena also holds a Graduate Certificate in Nonprofit Management. Prior to receiving her multiple degrees, MariaElena serve in the United States Marine Corps for over thirty-two years. MUKTA BARVE is a Project Coordinator- Training and Development- at the University of Central Florida in the Center for Public and Nonprofit Management Department. Barve is also an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer at the Coalition for the Homeless for Central Florida. Barve received her Masters of Business Administration from the University of Mumbai in 2006 and her Masters of Public Administration from the University of Central Florida in 2012; she was also inducted into Pi Alpha Alpha. STEPHEN A. BLOCK is a Research Professor at the University of Colorado’s School of Public Affairs, teaching in the Nonprofit Management Concentration. As a Fulbright Scholar, he taught Nonprofit Management, and Cross-Cultural Management Issues at the Moscow State University of Management. He authored Why Nonprofits Fail (Jossey-Bass, 2004) and Perfect Nonprofit Boards (Simon & Schuster, 1998), co-authored a 2010 textbook translated into the Russian language to advance the teaching of NGO management in the Russian Federation. He is the founding CEO of Rocky Mountain Human Services, a nonprofit with nine specialized human service programs serving more than 7,000 individuals and families. He received his PhD from the University of Colorado – Denver, and an MSW degree from Indiana University. JEFFREY L. BRUDNEY, PhD, is the inaugural holder of the Betty and Dan Cameron Family Distinguished Professorship of Innovation in the Nonprofit Sector at the University of North Carolina Wilmington (UNCW). Dr. Brudney is the Faculty Director of Quality Enhancement for Nonprofit Organizations (QENO), a partnership between UNCW, funders, civic leaders and other community organizations to build the capacity of nonprofit organizations and increase philanthropy in southeastern North Carolina. He is the author of Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector: Planning, Initiating, and Managing Voluntary Activities, which received the John Grenzebach Award for Outstanding Research in Philanthropy for Education, and the coauthor of Applied Statistics for Public and Nonprofit Administration, now entering its ninth edition, which has been used for instruction in more than 120 colleges and universities. Dr. Brudney is the Editor in Chief of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, the premiere journal in nonprofit studies. Page 113

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

THOMAS A. BRYER is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at the University of Central Florida. Dr. Bryer received his Bachelor’s in Political Science from American University, a Master’s of Public Administration from George Washington University with a concentration in Policy Analysis and Program Evaluation, and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Public Administration from the University of Southern California. Dr. Byer’s research interests include, but are not limited to: Government-Citizen Relations, Bureaucratic Responsiveness, Collaborations and Networks, Public Management and Citizen Engagement. M. KENNETH DANIELS, PhD, has held various leadership roles in nonprofit organizations such as a homeless shelter, inner-city youth programs and addiction treatment centers. He formerly taught at the University Wisconsin-Milwaukee for eight years and currently serves in a faculty position in the School of Advanced Study at the University of Phoenix. ROBERT L. FISCHER is a Research Associate Professor at the Jack, Joseph & Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences of Case Western Reserve University. He serves as CoDirector of the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development and Director of the Masters of Nonprofit Organizations (MNO) degree program. Dr. Fischer specializes in evaluation and applied research, leads a variety of funded studies, and teaches program evaluation and design methods. An active member of the American Evaluation Association, Fischer served for six years as President of the Ohio Program Evaluators’ Group. He has served as an Evaluation Methods Consultant in such areas as human services intervention, faith-based programming, and minority health programming. Dr. Fischer received his PhD from Vanderbilt University in policy development and program evaluation and holds a master degree from Vanderbilt’s Peabody College of Education and a bachelor degree from Duke University, both in public policy studies. NORMA GRACIA is serving at the Orange County Public Schools as an AmeriCorps VISTA member. Here she provides nonprofit capacity building services to the Homeless Education Program of Orange County Public Schools and partnering nonprofit organizations. Gracia holds an Associate in Arts degree with a concentration in Public Administration from Broward College in 2010, a Bachelors of Science with a concentration in Public Administration in 2012 from the University of Central Florida. Gracia is also expected to receive her Master of Nonprofit Management in 2014 from the University of Central Florida. Gracia has also received a number of awards, including: Burnett’s Honors College and Phi Theta Kappa Honors Society. MORTEZA NAZARI is a graduate student in Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. He is a member of the steering committee of Asemaan Group, an Iranian voluntary organization working on improving the quality of education in Iran. The mission of Asemaan registered as a research center at Sharif University- is to provide Iran’s current students and Page 114

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

future decision-makers with essential individual skills that are not adequately addressed in the country’s formal education system. His work and research interests focus on collective action, democratization, political institutions, leadership in public sector and nonprofit management. VALERIE PEREZ is an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer and a student in the University of Central Florida’s Master of Nonprofit Management program. JULIE PIETROBURGO, MPA, PhD is an Associate Professor in the Department of Public Administration and Policy Analysis at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville in Edwardsville, Illinois. Dr. Pietroburgo teaches courses in Organizational Theory, Fundraising, Grantsmanship and Nonprofit Management. She has published in the area of nonprofit organizational change and management, with particular focus on public/private partnerships and the transition of associations and hospice organizations to new organizational forms. Dr. Pietroburgo is a 2012 Fulbright Scholar having served at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. Prior to her academic career, Dr. Pietroburgo worked in the private sector as a Director of Government Relations for Southwestern Bell and in the nonprofit sector as a Development Director. STEVEN A. ROSENBERG was trained as a child psychologist at Vanderbilt University. He is an Associate Professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry. Over the course of his career much of his work has focused on services for children who have disabilities and their families. He has been principal investigator or evaluator on more than a dozen federally funded studies. In recent years, his research has made use of administrative and survey data to determine the prevalence of developmental delays among infants and toddlers in the general population and among maltreated children. MARGARET M. ROUDEBUSH has her Master’s in Nonprofit Organizations, and is the Director of the Center for Research and Scholarship at the School of Nursing, Case Western Reserve University. Her research and consulting interests include nonprofit management, nonprofit policy and strategic planning. BABAK SHAHMANSOURI is the Co-Founder and Director of the Asemaan Group, an Iranian voluntary organization working on improving the quality of education in Iran. The mission of Asemaan- registered as a research center at Sharif University- is to provide Iran’s current students and future decision-makers with essential individual skills that are not adequately addressed in the country’s formal education system. He is a double major with an MBA from Sharif University of Technology and an MA (Educational Leadership) from McGill University. His research and consulting interests includes the growth dynamics in nonprofits, social entrepreneurship, strategic planning and organizational leadership in social sector. Page 115

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

STEPHEN P. WERNET, MSW, PhD is Professor, School of Social Work and Department of Public Policy Studies, College of Public Service, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO. Dr. Wernet is a 2006 Fulbright Scholar having served at Ostrava University in Ostrava, Czech Republic. His scholarship focuses on the adaptation and change of nonprofit organizations. Current research includes consummated and unconsummated mergers, venture grant funding, joint ventures and web-based education in social work. He is co-author of Cases in Macro Social Work Practice Third Edition (Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 2008) with David P. Fauri and F. Ellen Netting. JOHN WETHERINGTON, D.B.A., has spent the past 15 years in executive roles in nonprofit organizations after a career in financial services and 20 years of nonprofit volunteer roles. His nonprofit experience includes organizations in transition, from those doubling in size to those in financial distress. His efforts include applying business-like strategies and accountability while managing to the ambiguity of nonprofit missions.

Page 116

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

CALL FOR PAPERS The peer reviewed, online Journal for Nonprofit Management is a forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of all aspects of nonprofit management practice. Scholars, practitioners, and students are invited to submit their manuscripts for publication in the Journal for Nonprofit Management. The journal welcomes submissions from all areas of nonprofit management practice. Examples of desirable submission topics include, but are not limited to, the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Nonprofit board and governance Organizational change Succession planning Strategic and business planning Leadership Ethics of nonprofit management Theories of nonprofit management Fundraising and marketing Performance management and evaluation Conflict management Human resource management Volunteer management Budget and finance Management of information technology Supervision Public relations – media, community, legislative and other governmental relations Grant writing and contract management

MANUSCRIPT GUIDELINES The Journal for Nonprofit Management accepts submissions of: • Articles • Shorter Contributions • Case Studies • Book Reviews

Page 117

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

Submissions must be written in English, double-spaced, using 12-point Courier or Times New Roman font in Microsoft Word. The submission should be within the maximum page length of 25-30 pages and include: • An abstract of 100-150 words • A brief paragraph on the author(s) • An APA formatted works cited page Authors should review the Guidelines for Submission and the APA Style Guide’s electronic publication format appendix online at http://www.apastyle.org/ for additional details on criteria the journal expects in submissions.

SUBMISSION The Journal for Nonprofit Management accepts submissions on an ongoing basis with reviews occurring on the first of the month in January, May, and September. Manuscripts should be submitted via email to: [email protected] You may also submit a hard copy to: Journal for Nonprofit Management Rutgers University – Center on Nonprofit Management and Governance 390 George Street, 5th Floor New Brunswick, NJ 08901

CONTACT THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS AT [email protected]

Page 118

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT

ACCESS THE JOURNAL ONLINE Volume 16 of the Journal for Nonprofit Management is available online The Center for Nonprofit Management and Governance’s website: http://socialwork.rutgers.edu/CentersandPrograms/nonprofit/JournalforNonprofit.aspx The Support Center /Partnership in Philanthropy website: www.supportcenteronline.org

PURCHASE A HARD COPY OF THE JOURNAL To purchase a hard copy of the journal at $10.00 contact [email protected]

ACCESS TO FUTURE ISSUES To ensure that you receive notice of when future issues of the Journal for Nonprofit Management are available, please e-mail the editors at [email protected].

SPECIAL NOTES FROM LAST EDITION ADDITIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS The Journal for Nonprofit Management forgot to include an author of a book cited in the last edition. Anne Sherman is a co-author of the Building Nonprofit Capacity book, published by Jossey-Bass. The Journal for Nonprofit Management regrets the omission.

CONTACT INFORMATION Please direct questions, comments and concerns to [email protected]

Page 119

2013

JOURNAL for NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT