Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organizational Crisis Resistance: Examining Leadership Mental Models of Necessary Practices to Resist Crises and the Role of Organizational Context

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores which governance practices nonprofit leaders consider necessary to avoid organizational crises. Further, it explores whether these leadership mental models of crisis resistance depend on the organizational context. This helps determine whether practical learning points are organization specific or can be applied broadly. With a multilevel sample of 304 leaders from 44 Belgian nongovernmental development organizations, an exploratory path analysis reveals that nonprofit leaders consider continuous improvement, as a governance practice, particularly relevant for effective organizational crisis resistance. A multilevel analysis also shows that variations in leadership mental models cannot be explained by the organizational variables used in this study (organizational size, leadership group size, operational activities, and languages in the leadership group). This article concludes with a discussion of consequences for further research.

Résumé

Cette étude explore les pratiques de gouvernance que les chefs d’organisme sans but lucratif jugent essentielles pour éviter les crises organisationnelles. Elle cherche aussi à découvrir si les modèles mentaux de résistance aux crises dépendent du contexte organisationnel. Cela permet de déterminer si les points d’apprentissage pratiques sont spécifiques à un organisme ou peuvent être appliqués à grande échelle. À l’aide d’un échantillon multiniveau de 304 chefs de 44 organismes belges de développement non gouvernementaux, une analyse exploratoire révèle que les chefs d’organisme sans but lucratif considèrent que l’amélioration continue est, comme pratique de gouvernance, particulièrement pertinente dans le contexte de la résistance organisationnelle aux situations de crise. Une analyse multiniveau démontre aussi que les écarts observés dans les modèles mentaux du leadership ne peuvent pas être expliqués par les variables organisationnelles utilisées dans la présente étude (taille de l’organisme, taille du groupe de direction, activités opérationnelles et langues utilisées au sein du groupe de direction). Cet article se conclut sur une discussion des conséquences aux fins de recherche subséquente.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie untersucht, welche Führungspraktiken die Führungskräfte gemeinnütziger Organisationen für notwendig erachten, um organisatorische Krisen zu vermeiden. Zudem wird erforscht, ob diese mentalen Modelle der Führung zur Krisenresistenz vom organisatorischen Kontext abhängig sind. So lässt sich bestimmen, ob praktische Lerninhalte organisationsspezifisch oder weitgehend anwendbar sind. Anhand einer mehrstufigen Stichprobe von 304 Führungskräften aus 44 belgischen gemeinnützigen Entwicklungsorganisationen zeigt eine explorative Pfadanalyse, dass die Führungskräfte gemeinnütziger Organisationen eine kontinuierliche Verbesserung als Führungspraktik insbesondere für eine effektive Krisenresistenz einer Organisation als relevant betrachten. Eine mehrstufige Analyse zeigt zudem, dass sich Unterschiede in den mentalen Modellen der Führung nicht anhand organisatorischer Variablen in dieser Studie erklären lassen (Größe der Organisation, Größe der Führungsriege, betriebliche Aktivitäten und Sprachen in der Führungsriege). Der Beitrag schließt mit einer Diskussion über die Konsequenzen für weitere Forschungsarbeiten.

Resumen

El presente estudio explora qué prácticas de gobernanza consideran necesarias los líderes de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro para evitar las crisis organizativas. Asimismo, explora si estos modelos mentales de liderazgo de resistencia a la crisis dependen del contexto organizativo. Esto ayuda a determinar si los puntos de aprendizaje prácticos son específicos de la organización o pueden ser aplicados más ampliamente. Con una muestra multinivel de 304 líderes de 44 organizaciones belgas no gubernamentales de desarrollo, un análisis exploratorio revela que los líderes de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro consideran la mejora continua, como una práctica de gobernanza, particularmente pertinente para una resistencia efectiva a la crisis organizativa. Un análisis multinivel también muestra que las variaciones en los modelos mentales de liderazgo no pueden ser explicados por las variables organizativas utilizadas en el presente estudio (tamaño organizativo, tamaño del grupo de liderazgo, actividades operativas e idiomas en el grupo de liderazgo). El presente artículo concluye con un debate de consecuencias para ulteriores investigaciones.

要約

本研究探索非营利组织领导应考虑何种治理实践来避免组织危机。而且,本文还探索这些危机预防的领导思维模式是否依赖于组织背景。这将有助于确定特定学习重点是否具有组织特异性,或是否能广泛应用。通过来自44个比利时非政府发展组织的 304 名领导人的多层样本,一项探索路径分析显示,作为一种治理实践,非营利组织领导人考虑持续改进,特别是有关有效预防组织危机。多层分析还显示,无法由本研究中所使用的组织变量(组织规模、领导团体规模、运营活动和领导团体中的语言)来解释领导思维模式的变化。本文利用针对进一步研究结果的讨论,而作出结论。

ملخص

تستكشف هذه الدراسة ممارسات الحوكمة التي يأخذها في الإعتبار زعماء المنظمات الغير ربحية اللازمة لتجنب الأزمات التنظيمية. علاوة على ذلك، فإنها تستكشف ما إذا كانت هذه النماذج العقلية لقيادة مقاومة الأزمة تعتمد على السياق التنظيمي. هذا يساعد على تحديد إذا كانت نقاط التعلم العملي هي منظمة معينة أو يمكن تطبيقها على نطاق واسع. مع عينة متعددة المستويات من 304 من قادة 44 منظمة غير حكومية للتنمية البلجيكية، يكشف تحليل المسار الإستكشافي أن قادة المنظمات الغير ربحية يأخذون في الإعتبارالتحسين المستمر، ممارسة الحكم، أهمية خاصة لفعالية مقاومة الأزمة التنظيمية. يبين تحليل متعدد المستويات أيضا أن الإختلافات في النماذج العقلية للقيادة لا يمكن شرحه بالمتغيرات التنظيمية المستخدمة في هذه الدراسة (الحجم التنظيمي، حجم المجموعة القيادية، الأنشطة التشغيلية، واللغات في مجموعة القيادة). تختتم هذه المقالة مع مناقشة العواقب لمزيد من البحث.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1994). Sustainable human development: Concepts and priorities. UNDP Human Development Report Office 1994 Occasional Papers.

  • Beck, T. E., Lengnick-Hall, C. A., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2008). Solutions out of context: Examining the transfer of business concepts to nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 19(2), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R. (2000). Multiple raters in survey-based operations management research: A review and tutorial. Production and Operations Management, 9(2), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(13), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A., Hillman, A. J., & Okun, M. A. (2012). Factors that influence monitoring and resource provision among board members. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees, and organizational efficiency: The case of nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37, 255–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombes, S. M. T., Morris, M. H., Allen, J. A., & Webb, J. W. (2011). Behavioural orientations of nonprofit boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: Does governance matter? Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 829–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C., & Simpson, C. (2003). The changing face of charity governance: The impact of organisational size. In C. Cornforth (Ed.), The governance of public and nonprofit organizations: What do boards do? (pp. 187–206). London: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, M. A., Weingart, L. R., & Todorova, G. (2011). Dynamics in groups: Are we there yet? Academy of Management Annals, 5, 571–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewaelheyns, N., Eeckloo, K., Van Herck, G., Van Hulle, C., & Vleugels, A. (2009). Do nonprofit nursing homes separate governance roles? The impact of size and ownership characteristics. Health Policy, 90(2&3), 188–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. (2001). Measuring the impact of the nonprofit sector on society is probably impossible but possibly useful: A sociological perspective. In P. Flynn & V. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector (pp. 249–272). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organizations effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Raising, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(4), 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunewald, D. (2008). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act will change the governance of nonprofit organizations. Journal of Business Ethic, 80, 399–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and failure of nonprofit organizations: Theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and future research. VOLUNTAS, 25(6), 1509–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(2), 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18(4), 399–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K., & Subramanian, S. V. (2009). Developing multilevel models using MLwiN 2.1: A training manual.

  • Jun, K., & Shiau, E. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 632–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno, T., Furuta, K., & Kitahara, Y. (2013). A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14, 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16(4), 581–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecy, J. D., Schmitz, H. P., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS, 23(2), 434–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, B., & Klein, K. J. (2006). Team mental models and team performance: A field study of the effects of team mental model similarity and accuracy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 403–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (1999). Assessing interrater agreement on the job relevance of a test: A comparison of CVI, T, r WG(J), and r*WG(J) indexes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 640–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClusky, J. E. (2002). Re-thinking nonprofit organizations governance: Implications for management and leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, C. N., Edwards, J. R., & Antonakis, J. (2014). Reflections on partial least squares path modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 210–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2012). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G. E. (2013). The construct of organizational effectiveness: Perspectives from leaders of international nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(2), 324–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monecke, A. (2013). Package semPLS: Structural equation modeling using partial least squares. http://cran.r-project.org/. January 27, 2015.

  • Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 26(6), 854–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size, composition, and function of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(2), 218–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(1), 90–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radbournes, J. (2003). Performing on board: The link between governance and corporate reputation in nonprofit arts boards. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasbash, J., Charlton, C., Browne, W. J., Healy, M., & Cameron, B. (2005). MLwiN Version 2.02. Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.

  • Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). www.smartpls.de, Hamburg.

  • Rojas, R. R. (2000). A review of model for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11(1), 97–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J., & Ringle, C. M. (2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. Advances in International Marketing, 22, 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., & Schloderer, M. P. (2010). Developing a measurement approach for reputation of nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 15(3), 276–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sowa, J. E., Selden, S. C., & Sandfort, J. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, R. D., Dawley, D. D., & Stephens, D. B. (2004). Commitment on the board: A model of volunteer directors’ levels of organizational commitment and self-reported performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(3), 416–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valéau, P., Willems, J., & Parak, H. (2016). The effect of attitudinal and behavioral commitment on the internal assessment of organizational effectiveness: A multilevel analysis. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi:10.1007/s11266-016-9703-6.

  • Van Puyvelde, S., Brown, W. A., & Willems, J. (2014). Board size and board effectiveness in nonprofit organizations. Paper presented at the ARNOVA Conference, Denver.

  • Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C., & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 431–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J. (2015). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. doi: 10.1177/0899764015601244

  • Willems, J., Andersson, F.O., Jegers, M., and Renz, D. O. (2016). A coalition perspective on nonprofit governance quality: Analyzing dimensions of influence in an exploratory comparative case analysis. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. doi: 10.1007/s11266-016-9683-6.

  • Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Weijters, B., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012a). Nonprofit governance quality: Concept and measurement. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(4), 561–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Faulk, L. (2016b). Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(2), 476–497. doi:10.1080/15309576.2015.1108802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Van den Bergh, J., & Deschoolmeester, D. (2012b). Analyzing employee agreement on maturity assessment tools for organizations. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(3), 142–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Van Puyvelde, S., Jegers, M., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2015). Exploring board interlocking behavior between nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics., 86(1), 73–88. doi:10.1111/apce.12067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, S., Bedwell, W. L., Kramer, W. S., & Salas, E. (2014). The cognitive underpinnings of adaptive team performance in ill-defined task situations: A closer look at team cognition. Organizational Psychology Review, 4, 49–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 9, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

    Jurgen Willems

Authors
  1. Jurgen Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jurgen Willems.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study did not receive funding.

Appendix

Appendix

Crisis resistance was measured using three crisis scenarios, described below. For each scenario, the respondents answered six randomly ordered items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Rather disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Rather agree, 6 = Agree, and 7 = Strongly agree).

  • We have the capacity to find a sustainable solution for this.

  • Our NGO has access to the necessary information to evaluate this problem in detail.

  • Our decision processes enable us to formulate a thoughtful solution for this problem.

  • Based on the current way of working, we are able to address this issue with an innovative solution.

  • We have the necessary competencies in the board of directors and/or the management team to solve this problem.

  • It would be difficult in our NGO to implement a solution for this situation in practice (reversed).

The three scenarios were as follows:

Case 1: Financial Downturn

Your NGO is situated approximately halfway through the budgeted year, and suddenly it appears that the grants for the following year will fall back dramatically. Moreover, it also appears that donations and “commercial income” (e.g., sales, and/or services to third parties) will be much less than expected due to the ongoing crisis.

Roughly estimated, the income of next year will probably be reduced to about 60 % of the current budget.

If a similar situation would occur in your NGO, to what extent do you agree with the following statements (for your info: some statements are formulated in a negative way).

Case 2: Damage to the Image of the Organization

It is the beginning of a new day and you see that your mailbox (like the mailboxes of other people in the board of directors and the management team) is loaded with questions from journalists. It turns out that the night before an official message appeared on the fact that one of the members of the board has been accused of corruption. The confusion is huge and plenty of rumors are already public, making it very difficult to find out the actual truth. As it regards someone of the board members of your NGO, also rumors appear that the organization is possibly involved in the scandal.

Because of these rumors your NGO might be confronted with a very large image damage toward many stakeholders such as staff, members, volunteers, donors, and partner institutions.

If a similar situation would occur in your NGO, to what extent do you agree with the following statements (for your info: some statements are formulated in a negative way).

Case 3: Pressure on the Sector

A research organization publishes a book in which a number of findings about the NGO sector are given. In this book, a number of allegations are made about NGOs. Three examples of such statements are

  • “Only a small proportion of donations to NGOs reaches the poor people in the Third World.”

  • “When comparing NGOs to businesses, they are less professional and they are not up to date.”

  • “NGOs are not independent because of a large proportion of government subsidies, and therefore they are too strongly driven by political agendas.”

Due to the large commercial publicity made for the book, the media excessively builds on it and brief overviews and extracts from this book are given on television and in newspapers. Also some politicians make public statements that they will dig into this matter and they will take action. For several weeks, this theme is dealt with in the media. Consequently, the public opinion regarding the functioning of NGOs becomes more critical.

If a similar situation would occur in your NGO, to what extent do you agree with the following statements (for your info: some statements are formulated in a negative way).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willems, J. Organizational Crisis Resistance: Examining Leadership Mental Models of Necessary Practices to Resist Crises and the Role of Organizational Context. Voluntas 27, 2807–2832 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9753-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9753-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation