Funding implications of normal and excessive profitability in the nonprofit sector

We study nonprofit profitability and its effect on nonprofit external funding. In a sample of over 273 thousand U.S. NPOs during 1999–2019, we find that profitability is associated with greater public support; however, when NPOs are excessively profitable, they receive fewer subsequent donations. We find a similar relationship, but to a smaller degree, between profitability and government funding. We infer that funders desire moderate but not overly high profitability. We also find that donors are more tolerant of normal and excessive profitability for NPOs in the healthcare industry, smaller NPOs, and NPOs with shorter planning horizons. The relationship between profitability and external funding is weaker during recession periods, with funders not penalizing excessively profitable organizations during economic downturns.     

The accountability information needs of key charity funders

Government and philanthropic funders are key charity stakeholders, yet we know little about their accountability information needs. This New Zealand study captures these stakeholders’ perceptions of the background, financial and non-financial performance information they need from charities. It also reveals how, in addition to imposing reporting requirements, these key funders engage in ‘institutional work’ to ensure they receive appropriate accountability information.     

Funder demands for quality management in the non-profit sector: challenges and responses in a non-profit infrastructure network

External pressure by funders can be a catalyst for a more proactive and strategic approach to quality management in the non-profit sector, however it can also lead to cynical responses which do little to promote learning and improvement. This case study of a national infrastructure organization that supports a network of local non-profit organizations provides insight into the attitudes and challenges that can arise from such external, top-down pressure.     

Capacidades,liderazgos y estrategias de gestión de organizaciones de la sociedad civil en zonas rurales

Poverty in rural areas of Mexico is still an unresolved problem. Experiences of civil society organizations in other countries show that they can be allies of the government to contribute to rural development because of their roles and capabilities. This article focuses on the role of civil society organizations to improve living conditions in rural areas of the State of Mexico by analyzing the work of six civil society organizations under a qualitative perspective. Leadership and commitment are some of the most important capabilities of their female founders. They have created and implemented management strategies that allow them to obtain and generate resources to satisfy local needs. Thus, their management strategies are seen as a methodological model and a key to work in a close partnership whit rural communities which can be seen as an added-value to civil society organizations and community participation for rural development.     

Directing strategically financial management education and training

Competence, capability and capacity in financial management are crucial for the success of all commercial organizations. Financial literacy is required of most if not all of the significant decision makers within organizations, no matter what their official status might be, if those organizations are to function effectively. Traditionally, developing this literacy has been seen as just another training issue on the agenda for the company's training department. This paper will argue that financial literacy is so important to organizations that financial management education and training should be seen more as part of the financial management control system of the organization than as a self development issue.

Directors of finance need to become involved in the financial education and training process, particularly at a strategic level, so as to ensure that the company's competence, capability and capacity in financial management are appropriate to the pace and direction of company development.     

Mary Parker Follett,managerial responsibility,and the future of capitalism

In this paper we examine the work of Mary Parker Follett as it relates to current management practice. Specifically, we focus on her development of the concepts of integration and participation with respect to the employer–employee relationship in the context of the low-skill workforce. At their core, both of these concepts relate to the idea that management should attend to the concerns of workers. However, recent trends that have had the effect of reducing the attachment of workers to their organizations, particularly changes in the psychological employment contract and the use of contingent and temporary workforces, also reduce the likelihood of genuine integration and participation in organizations. We then connect these changes to the problem of income inequality and suggest that the same organizational practices that have reduced employee attachment may also lead many people to question the legitimacy of capitalism as an economic system through the absence of a societally shared prosperity. We suggest that by reconnecting to Follett's concepts of integration and participation in the employer–employee relationship, better results can be obtained for both organizations and workers, leading to restored faith in capitalism. We close with an agenda for future research based on the implications of Follett's work for present-day organizations and society.     

How process enterprises really work

Many companies have succeeded in reengineering their core processes, combining related activities from different departments and cutting out ones that don't add value. Few, though, have aligned their organizations with their processes. The result is a form of cognitive dissonance as the new, integrated processes pull people in one direction and the old, fragmented management structures pull them in another. That's not the way it has to be. In recent years, forward-thinking companies like IBM, Texas Instruments, and Duke Power have begun to make the leap from process redesign to process management. They've appointed some of their best managers to be process owners, giving them real authority over work and budgets. They've shifted the focus of their measurement and compensation systems from unit goals to process goals. They've changed the way they assign and train employees, emphasizing whole processes rather than narrow tasks. They've thought carefully about the strategic trade-offs between adopting uniform processes and allowing different units to do things their own way. And they've made subtle but fundamental cultural changes, stressing teamwork and customers over turf and hierarchy. These companies are emerging from all those changes as true process enterprises--businesses whose management structures are in harmony, rather than at war, with their core processes. And their organizations are becoming much more flexible, adaptive, and responsive as a result.     

Opening the books

For years, small companies have experimented with forms of open-book management. Open-book systems have smoothed change efforts by giving workers the why instead of just the how of initiatives; they have enabled employees to think like owners. Now divisions of large organizations such as R.R. Donnelley & Sons and Amoco Canada are finding opening the books can work for them, too. It isn't easy, and companies must adapt the principles to their own situations. AES Corporation, for example, found that it had to declare all its employees "insiders" when it went public. One of the reasons for large companies' interest in open-book management is the success of a role-model company, Missouri-based Springfield ReManufacturing. Leaders of divisions of large companies have been able to visit and ask questions. Other early adopters are also showing competitive advantages. Among them are Wabash National, now the nation's leading truck and tractor manufacturer, and Physician Sales & Service, a distributor of supplies to doctors' office. Open-book principles are the same whether a company is large or small: every employee must receive all relevant financial information and be taught to understand it; managers must hold employees accountable for making their unit's goals; and the compensation system must reward everyone for the overall success of the business. Hexacomb Corporation is one large organization that has done well. Workers at the company's seven plants are inspired by a system of splitting profits over budget fifty-fifty: half goes to the company and half to the bonus pool. Such companies are learning the benefits of having everyone work to push the numbers in the right direction.     

Through the organizational looking glass: you can't plan tomorrow's organizations with today's assumptions

It's hard to imagine what our industrial society would be like if, for instance, there were no factories. How would things get produced, how would business survive? But are we, in fact, an industrial society? Are factories going to be the prime production place for a society that is conserving energy and doesn't need to travel to work because the silicon chip makes it more efficient to work at home? Who knows what the impact of energy conservation and women in the work force will be on future organizations? One thing we can be sure of, this author writes, is that whatever tomorrow brings, today's assumptions probably cannot account for it. We are, he asserts, entering a period of discontinuous change where the assumptions we have been working with as a society and in organizations are no longer necessarily true. He discusses three assumptions he sees fading--what causes efficiency, what work is, and what value organizational hierarchy has--and then gives some clues as to what our new assumptions might be. Regardless of what our assumptions actually are, however, our organizations and society will require leaders willing to take enormous risks and try unproved ways to cope with them.     

The search for meaning in a changing work context

The nature of work is currently undergoing a complete transformation. In response to economic pressures organizations are reshaping themselves into totally new forms. Information technology is underpinning this transformation by providing the backbone for new organizational structures and new ways of working. The implications of this transformation are far reaching, particularly as the entire concept of work changes. The boundaries which have traditionally existed between organizations, individuals, family, home life and community will disappear as work increasingly becomes situation-independent and centred in the home. Our current understanding of the meaning of work will become increasingly obsolete and therefore will force individuals to search for new meanings of work in their lives. As a result work will take on an entirely different meaning. This article explores the problems of the meaning of work in a context of change. We look forward to a future in which the nature of work as we know it now will have changed beyond recognition. The question we address is this: what will work mean to us in the future?     

Big Business: The Corporatization of Primary Care in the UK and the USA

The corporatization of primary care in the USA and the UK over recent years has transformed the way that these services are managed and delivered. Traditional approaches based around small practices of doctors and their teams as the primary organizational unit have been largely overtaken by new models in which doctors, nurses and other primary care professionals work within much larger organizations. This article explores the experience in the USA and the UK of seeking to organize primary care more corporately, and suggests that a tightly managed organizational model does not work well in primary care. Looser, network-based models are needed in which some of the benefits of corporatization can be achieved while the traditional small-organization virtues of primary care can continue to thrive.     

Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks

When looking for help with a task at work, people turn to those best able to do the job. Right? Wrong. New research shows that work partners tend to be chosen not for ability but for likability. Drawing from their study encompassing 10,000 work relationships in five organizations, the authors have classified work partners into four archetypes: the competent jerk, who knows a lot but is unpleasant; the lovable fool, who doesn't know much but is a delight; the lovable star, who's both smart and likable; and the incompetent jerk, who.. .well, that's self-explanatory. Of course, everybody wants to work with the lovable star, and nobody wants to work with the incompetent jerk. More interesting is that people prefer the lovable fool over the competent jerk. That has big implications for every organization, as both of these types often represent missed opportunities. Because they are liked by a disproportionate number of people, lovable fools can bridge gaps between diverse groups that might not otherwise interact. But their networking skills are often developed at the expense of job performance, which can make these employees underappreciated and vulnerable to downsizing. To get the most out of them, managers need to protect them and put them in positions that don't waste their bridge-building talents. As for the competent jerks, too often their expertise goes untapped by people who just can't put up with them. But many can be socialized through coaching or by being made accountable for bad behavior. Others may need to display their competence in more isolated settings. Intriguingly, managers aren't limited to leveraging people that others like and changing those that others loathe. They also can create situations in which people are more apt to like one another, whatever their individual qualities.     

What does organizational change mean? Speculations on a taken for granted category

Despite widespread research on why and how organizations change, what constitutes change is often taken for granted. Its definition is avoided. Studies based on individuals’ rational choice imply that change flows from purposive actions in accordance with an objective, external reality whereas contextualism argues that change results from institutional pressures, isomorphisms and routines. But both depict change as the passage of an entity, whether an organization or accounting practices, from one identifiable and unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether reality is independent, concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that actors (or researchers) can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes. This reflects modernist beliefs that organizational space and time are unique and linear. The paper takes issue with this and argues that ‘a-centred organizations’ and ‘drift’ should replace conventional definitions of organizations and change. The arguments are inspired by the arguments of the sociology of translation and constructivism, and insights from two case studies of Enterprise Resource Planning system implementations in large multinational organizations. The latter illustrate how defining change is problematic—as new systems gave rise to multiple spaces and times within the organizations. The paper traces the implications of this for control and accounting studies tout court.     

Sense and reliability. A conversation with celebrated psychologist Karl E. Weick. Interview by Diane L. Coutu

Most of us see the organizations we operate in--our schools or companies, for instance--as monolithic and predictable, subjecting us to deadening routines and demanding dehumanizing conformity. But companies are more unpredictable and more alive than we imagine, according to Karl Weick, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan and an expert on organizational behavior. Weick says executives can learn a lot about managing the unexpected from organizations that can't afford surprises in the workplace--nuclear plants, firefighting units, or emergency rooms, for instance. In this conversation with HBR senior editor Diane Coutu, Weick examines the characteristics of these high-reliability organizations (HROs) and suggests ways that other organizations can implement their practices and philosophies. The key difference between high-reliability organizations and other companies is the mindfulness with which people in most HROs react to even very weak signs that some kind of change or danger is approaching. For instance, nuclear-plant workers Weick has studied immediately readjust dials and system commands when an automated system doesn't respond as expected. Weick contrasts this with Ford's inability to pick up on weak signs in the 1970s that there were lethal problems with the design of the Pinto gas tank. HROs are fixated on failure. They eschew plans and blueprints, looking instead for the details that might be missing. And they refuse to simplify reality, Weick says. Indeed, by cultivating broad work experiences and enlarging their repertoires, generalist executives can avoid getting paralyzed by "cosmology episodes"--events that make people feel as though the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system.     

The new landscape for nonprofits.

For most of this century, society's caring functions have been the work of government and charities. But social services in the United States are in a period of transition. Today the U.S. government no longer considers nonprofits to be entitled--or even best qualified--to provide social services. Profit-seeking companies like Lockheed Martin are now winning contracts for such services. William Ryan describes how government outsourcing and a new business mind-set have changed the landscape of social services. The change raises fundamental questions about the mission and future of nonprofits. Ryan attributes the growth of for-profits in the social service industry to four factors: size, capital, mobility, and responsiveness. While those attributes give for-profits an advantage in acquiring new contracts, nonprofits have not yet lost their foothold. Ryan cites examples of organizations like the YWCA and Abraxas to demonstrate various ways that nonprofits are responding--from subcontracting to partnership to outright conversion to for-profit status. By playing in the new marketplace, nonprofits will be forced to reconfigure their operations and organizations in ways that could compromise their missions. Because nonprofits now find themselves sharing territory with for-profits, sometimes as collaborators and sometimes as competitors, the distinctions between these organizations will continue to blur. The point, Ryan argues, is not whether nonprofits can survive opposition from for-profits. Many have already adjusted to the new competitive environment. The real issue is whether nonprofits can adapt without compromising the qualities that distinguish them from for-profit organizations.     

The new boundaries of the "boundaryless" company

In an economy founded on innovation and change, one of the premier challenges of management is to design more flexible organizations. For many executives, a single metaphor has come to embody this managerial challenge and to capture the kind of organization they want to create: the "corporation without boundaries." According to Larry Hirschhorn and Thomas Gilmore of the Wharton Center for Applied Research, managers are right to break down the boundaries that make organizations rigid and unresponsive. But they are wrong if they think that doing so eliminates the need for boundaries altogether. Once the traditional boundaries of hierarchy, function, and geography disappear, a new set of boundaries becomes important. These new boundaries are more psychological than organizational. They aren't drawn on a company's organizational chart but in the minds of its managers and employees. And instead of being reflected in a company's structure, they must be "enacted" over and over again in a manager's relationships with bosses, subordinates, and peers. In this article, Hirschhorn and Gilmore provide a guide to the boundaries that matter in the "boundaryless" company. They explain how these new boundaries are essential for both managers and employees in coping with the demands of flexible work. They describe the typical mistakes that managers make in their boundary relationships. And they show how executives can become effective boundary managers by paying attention to a source of data they have often overlooked in the past: their own gut feelings about work and the people with whom they do it.     

Family learning in the workplace: nurturing lifelong learning

Lifelong learning must become a reality for all employees if we are to create and sustain organizations which can survive in the knowledge economy of the future. But how do we engage those who never access training and development opportunities at work? In this article it is argued that these people may be attracted back to learning by offering them opportunities at work to learn with their families.This different method of facilitating lifelong learning is examined here. The benefits to business and the wider community of encouraging families to learn together at work are explored. It is concluded that the addition of family learning in organisations to our current range of training and development activities can engage a new constituency in learning at work and can model the importance of lifelong learning to a new generation of future employees.     

Financialization in the workplace: Hegemonic narratives,performative interventions and the angry knowledge worker

This paper uncovers how the pressures of financialization were passed from top management to employees and achieved performative hegemony in a subsidiary of a knowledge intensive, high technology, multinational corporation. Qualitative insights from subsidiary directors, management and knowledge workers are presented. The paper demonstrates that financialization is a performative phenomenon which elevates the role of accounting in organizations. It highlights how budgets can serve as a performative mechanism through which top management can narrate a desired reality and pass down a myriad of performative interventions to achieve this reality. The paper uncovers how financialization can cause insecurity, work intensification, suppression of voice and the enactment of falsely optimistic behaviours; all of which prompt distress and anger amongst knowledge workers. The paper also uncovers sources of counter performativity and resistance but demonstrates that employees ultimately participate in their subordination. Employees pursue financialized performative interventions as they interpret them as the primary method of securing their role in a pervasively insecure work environment.     

A '3Rs' Strategy for Public Service Turnaround: Retrenchment, Repositioning and Reorganization

Problems of public service 'failure' are high on the political agenda in the UK, and many national and local organizations are searching for effective turnaround strategies. Although little research on turnaround in the public sector has been undertaken, there is a substantial number of studies of decline and recovery in private firms. Evidence from these studies suggests that turnaround is more likely in companies that pursue retrenchment, repositioning and reorganization. The relevance of this '3Rs' strategy to the public sector is analysed, and the potential consequences for public service improvement are evaluated. This article will help managers to think more clearly about turnaround strategies that could work in their organizations.     

Power failure in management circuits

When one thinks of "power", one often assumes that a person is the source of it and that some mystical charismatic element is at work. Of course, with some people this is undoubtedly so; they derive power from how other people perceive them. In organizations, however--says this author--power is not so much a question of people but of positions. Drawing a distinction between productive and oppressive power, the author maintains that the former is a function of having open channels to supplies, support, and information; the latter is a function of these channels being closed. She then descriges three positions that are classically powerless: first-line supervisors, staff professionals, and, surprisingly, chief executive officers. These positions can be powerless because of difficulties in maintaining open lines of information and support. Seeing powerlessness in these positions as dangerous for organizations, she urges managers to restructure and redesign their organizations in order to eliminate pockets of powerlessness.