A Grounded Qualitative Study of the Meanings of Effectiveness in Canadian ‘Results-Focused’ Environmental Organizations

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

This research examines the manner in which effectiveness is socially constructed and interpreted within a subpopulation of “practical solution delivering” Canadian environmental organizations. Key findings are that effectiveness is not framed by ENGO staff in terms of sustainability-related outcomes of value, despite contextual reasons why this might be so. Instead, effectiveness is interpreted in terms of popularity and engagement with the public, with funders and with other key stakeholders. This suggests that despite organizational and population affirmations to the contrary, the environmental programs and activities are designed to engage human awareness and affect more than to create practical environmental change.

Keywords

Environmental organization Nonprofit organization Effectiveness Social construction 

Résumé

Cette recherche examine la manière dans laquelle l’efficacité est socialement construite et interprétée dans une sous famille de « distribution de solution pratique » d’organisations environnementales Canadiennes. Les points clés montrent que l’efficacité n’est pas structurée par l’équipe de ENGO en termes de durabilité apparentée au résultat de valeur, malgré des raisons contextuelles pourquoi en serait il ainsi. Par contre l’efficacité est interprétée en termes de popularité et d’engagement avec le public, avec les fondateurs et les actionnaires principaux. Ceci propose qu’en dépit d’organisations et d’affirmation de la population contraires, les programmes environnementaux et les activités sont conçus pour attaquer la sensibilité humaine et l’affecter plus que de créer un changement environnemental réalisable.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Forschungsarbeit untersucht, wie Effektivität innerhalb einer Teilgesamtheit von kanadischen Umweltorganisationen, die “praktische Lösungen liefern”, sozial konstruiert and interpretiert wird. Hauptsächliche Forschungsergebnisse sind, dass Effektivität von ENGO-Personal nicht im Hinblick auf nachhaltigkeitsbezogene Ergebnisse von Wert gemessen wird, trotz kontextbezogener Gründe, warum dies so sein könnte. Stattdessen wird Effektivität hinsichtlich Popularität und Pflege der Beziehungen zu Öffentlichkeit, Geldgebern und anderen Schlüsselakteuren interpretiert. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass trotz anderslautender Bekräftigungen durch die Organisationen und die Bevölkerung Umweltprogramme und –aktivitäten so ausgelegt sind, mehr das menschliche Bewusstsein und Emotion zu wecken als praktisch die Umwelt zu verbessern.

Resumen

Este estudio analiza cómo la eficacia se construye socialmente y se interpreta dentro de una subpoblación de organizaciones medioambientales canadienses que « ofrecen soluciones prácticas ». Uno de sus hallazgos más destacados es que la eficacia no depende del personal de las ONG medioambientales en términos de resultados relacionados con la sostenibilidad del valor, pese a las razones contextuales que apuntan a que éste debería ser el caso. Más bien, la eficacia se interpreta en términos de popularidad y compromiso con el público, con los patrocinadores y con otros de los principales interesados. Ello sugiere que, pese a que las organizaciones y la población afirman lo contrario, los programas y las actividades medioambientales están diseñados para despertar la conciencia humana e influyen más que crear un cambio medioambiental práctico.

摘要

此项研究的目标是“实际解决方案交付”型的加拿大环保组织中的一个亚群体,旨在考察他们对于效能的社会构建及解读方式。主要的发现是,就与可持续性相关的价值结果而言,效能并不是由民间环保组织的员工所构建的,尽管存在使之成为可能的种种理由。实际上,对效能的解读是以普及型以及公众、出资人和其他关键利益方的参与程度为出发点的。这说明,环境计划及活动的目的是唤醒人们的环保意识并影响更多人,而不是促成实际的环境变化,尽管组织和群体的看法与此相反。

要約

本研究では、カナダの環境団体の「実用的な解決策」の部分母集団における社会的な構成と解明方法を調査する。調査結果から、主として、ENGOスタッフにとっては、理由に関わらず、持続的な結果に対しては有効ではないことがわかった。代わりに、主要な利害関係者や設立者の評判や公約が有効だと考えられる。組織や人員の規模には関わらず、実用的な環境変化に応じて、環境プログラムと活動が人々の認識を向上させることがわかった。

ملخص

هذا البحث يختبر الطريقة التي بها الفاعلية يتم إنشاءها إجتماعياً ويتم تفسيرها خلال فئة من قطاع سكان “ تسليم الحل العملي” من المنظمات البيئية الكندية. أهم النتائج أن الفاعلية لا يحكمها موظفي المنظمة اللاحكومية (ENGO) من حيث الإستدامة- المتصلة بنتائج قيمة، على الرغم من أن أسباب هذا السياق قد يكون هو السبب ، بدلا من ذلك ، يتم تفسير الفاعلية من حيث الشعبية والتعامل مع الجمهور ، مع الممولين ومع أصحاب المصلحة الرئيسيين الآخرين. هذا يشير إلى أنه على الرغم من التأكيدات التنظيمية والسكان على العكس ، البرامج والأنشطة البيئية مصممة لإشراك وعي الإنسان وتؤثر أكثر من خلق التغير البيئي عملياً.

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

References

  1. Babbie, E. (1986). The practice of social research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Balser, D., & McClusky, J. (2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baruch, Y., & Ramalho, N. (2006). Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, M. (2003). Nothing ventured, nothing gained? Conceptualizing social movement “success” in the lesbian and gay movement. Sociological Perspectives, 46(3), 353–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bluedorn, A. (1993). Pilgrim’s progress: Trends and convergence in research on organizational size and environments. Journal of Management, 19(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cable, S., & Degutis, B. (1997). Movement outcomes and dimensions of social change: The multiple effects of local mobilizations. Current Sociology, 45(3), 121–136.Google Scholar
  8. Cutt, J., & Murray, V. V. (2000). Accountability and effectiveness evaluation in non-profit organizations. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dart, R. (2005). Practically green. Alternatives Journal, 31(2), 26.Google Scholar
  11. Dean, J. H., & Bush, R. A. (2007). A community psychology view of environmental organization processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 40(1–2), 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiMaggio, P. (1986). Nonprofit enterprise in the art : Studies in mission and constraint. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Earl, J. (2000). Methods, movements and outcomes: Methodological difficulties in the study of extra-movement outcomes. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, 22, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giugni, M. G. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 371–394.Google Scholar
  16. Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about it. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, M., Phillips, S., Meillat, C., & Pickering, D. (2003). Assessing performance: Evaluation practices & perspectives in Canada’s voluntary sector. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy/ImagineCanada.Google Scholar
  18. Hall, N. L., & Taplin, R. (2007). Solar festivals and climate bills: Comparing NGO climate change campaigns in the UK and Australia. Voluntas, 18(4), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Handy, F. (2001). Advocacy by nonprofit environmental organisations—an optimal strategy for addressing environmental problems? International Journal of Social Economics, 28(8), 648–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heifetz, R., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2004). Leading boldly. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2, 20–31.Google Scholar
  21. Heimovics, R., Herman, R., & Jurkiewicz, C. (1993). Executive leadership and resource dependence in nonprofit organizations: A frame analysis. Public Administration Review, 53(5), 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Herman, R., & Renz, D. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herman, R., & Renz, D. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Holden, W. N., Jacobson, R. D., & Moran, K. (2007). Civil society opposition to nonferrous metals mining in Montana. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(3), 266–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, T. (2005). Motivating sustainable consumption: A review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. Surrey, UK: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, M. B. (2007). The multiple sources of mission drift. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 299–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaplan, R. S. (1996). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Light, P. C. (2000). Making nonprofits work: A report on the tides of nonprofit management reform. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute: Brookings Institition Press.Google Scholar
  29. Martin, P., & Verbeek. (2002). 50 million Australians: Is sustainability possible? Canberra, Australia: Land and Water Australia.Google Scholar
  30. McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Murray, V. V. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations. In R. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 345–370) Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, V. V., & Cutt, J. (2000). Accountability and effectiveness evaluation in nonprofit organizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Neuman, L. (1994). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  34. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. AMR, 15(2), 203–223.Google Scholar
  35. Osborn, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  36. Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprises. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. Piliavin, J. (1991). Giving blood: The development of an altruistic identity. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rojas, R. R. (2000). A review of models for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(1), 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Scott, K. (2003). Funding matters: The impact of Canada’s new funding regime on nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Ottawa, ON.Google Scholar
  41. Shaffer, M. (1995). The internal dynamics of environmental organizations: Movement interest groups, communal advocacy groups, and the policy process. Review of Policy Research, 14(1–2), 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shapiro, I. (2005). Theories of change. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond intractability. Boulder, Colorado: Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  43. Sowa, J., Selden, S., & Sandfort, J. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 711–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stern, S. N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The Stern review. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  45. Stone, M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations. Administration and Society, 31(3), 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Tassie, B., Murray, V., & Cutt, J. (1998). Evaluating social service agencies: Fuzzy pictures of organizational effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 09(1), 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tassie, B., Murray, V., Cutt, J., & Bragg, D. (1996). Rationality and politics: What really goes on when funders evaluate the performance of fundees? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trent UniversityPeterboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations