Valuing Organizational Values: Assessing the Uniqueness of Nonprofit Values

Original Paper

Abstract

Practitioners and researchers alike often assume a unique nonprofit value set as a nonprofit-specific source of competitive advantage. Empirical research assessing this values–performance link remains scarce though. In response, this study tests for the predicted competitive advantage derived from nonprofit values and assesses value prioritization and value implementation with a twofold measurement. An empirical study, conducted among German hospitals, reveals that differences in value prioritization exist and are partially linked to hospital ownership. However, these findings reject the idea of a unique nonprofit value prioritization; no performance differences arise across value prioritization groups. Nonprofit organizations do not differ in their value implementation either, though some implemented values serve as organizational resources and are associated with better performance. The authors discuss the managerial importance of values as a firm asset, as well as avenues for further research.

Keywords

Nonprofit value set Hospital industry Organizational performance Resource-based view Nonprofit management 

Résumé

Les spécialistes et les chercheurs supposent souvent qu’une valeur unique des organisations à but non lucratif est définie comme une source d’avantage concurrentiel spécifique au secteur à but non lucratif. Les recherches empiriques qui examinent ce lien entre valeurs et performance restent cependant rares. C’est pourquoi cette étude teste l’avantage concurrentiel prévisible tiré des valeurs du secteur à but non lucratif et évalue la hiérarchisation des valeurs et leur application avec une double mesure. Une étude empirique, menée auprès des hôpitaux allemands, révèle qu’il existe des différences dans la hiérarchisation des valeurs et qu’elles sont en partie liées à la propriété de l’hôpital. Toutefois, ces conclusions rejettent l’idée d’une hiérarchisation unique des valeurs dans le secteur à but non lucratif : aucune différence de performances n’apparait entre les groupes de hiérarchisation des valeurs. Les organisations à but non lucratif ne présentent pas non plus de différence dans la mise en œuvre des valeurs, bien que certaines valeurs atteintes servent de ressources organisationnelles et sont associées à de meilleures performances. Les auteurs examinent l’importance managériale des valeurs comme un atout commercial ainsi que des pistes de recherche.

Zusammenfassung

Sowohl Praktiker als auch Forscher gehen oftmals davon aus, dass eine einzigartige Wertemenge im gemeinnützigen Bereich eine für diesen Bereich spezifische Quelle für einen Wettbewerbsvorteil darstellt. Es existieren jedoch kaum empirische Studien, welche die Verbindung zwischen Werteorientierung und Leistung untersuchen. Daher prüft diese Studie den prognostizierten Wettbewerbsvorteil, der sich von gemeinnützigen Werten ableitet, und bewertet die Wertepriorisierung und -implementierung mittels zwei unterschiedlicher Messverfahren. Eine in deutschen Krankenhäusern durchgeführte empirische Studie zeigt, dass es Unterschiede bei der Wertepriorisierung gibt und sie teilweise mit der Trägerschaft des Krankenhauses in Verbindung stehen. Allerdings verwerfen die Ergebnisse das Konzept einer einzigartigen Wertepriorisierung im gemeinnützigen Bereich; es existieren keine Leistungsunterschiede zwischen den Wertepriorisierungsgruppen. Gemeinnützige Organisationen unterscheiden sich auch nicht in der Implementierung ihrer Werte; auch wenn einige implementierte Werte als organisatorische Ressourcen dienen und mit einer besseren Leistung assoziiert werden. Die Autoren diskutieren die betriebliche Bedeutung von Werten als ein fester Vermögenswert sowie Wege für weitere Forschungen.

Resumen

Los profesionales y también los investigadores asumen a menudo un conjunto único de valores de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro como una fuente de ventaja competitiva específica de dichas organizaciones. Aunque la investigación empírica que evalúa este vínculo de desempeño de valores sigue siendo escasa. En respuesta a ello, el presente estudio pone a prueba la ventaja competitiva pronosticada derivada de los valores de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro y evalúa la priorización e implementación de valores con una doble medición. Un estudio empírico, realizado entre hospitales alemanes, revela que existen diferencias en la priorización de valores y que están vinculadas parcialmente a la propiedad del hospital. Sin embargo, estos hallazgos rechazan la idea de una única priorización de valores de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro; no surge ninguna diferencia de desempeño en grupos de priorización de valores. Las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro tampoco difieren en su implementación de valores, aunque algunos valores implementados sirven como recursos organizativos y se asocian a un mejor desempeño. Los autores examinan la importancia gerencial de los valores como un activo firme, así como también como vías de investigación adicionales.

摘要

通常,从业人员和研究人员一样, 作为具体的非盈利性的竞争优势的来源,从属于不同的独特的非盈利性价值集合,实证研究评估了价值和绩效之间的这种关联,对此, 本研究对预测的、源自非营利性价值的竞争优势进行了测试,对价值优先顺序和价值的实施进行了双重考量。 在德国的一家医院进行一项实证研究说明存在价值优先顺序差异,而且和医院的所有权之间有存部分关联。但是,这些发现推翻了非盈利价值存在独特的优先顺序的理念, 不同的价值优先小组之间并没有绩效差异。 虽然一些实施的价值是组织机构的资源,而且和更好的绩效之间存在关联,但是不同的非盈利性组织之间在价值实施上并不存在差异。 作者讨论了价值作为企业资产和进一步研究的手段对管理的重要意义。

要約

実践者および研究者は、競争優位性において特定の非営利団体をユニークな非営利の価値として仮定する。しかしこの性能値のリンクを評価する実証的研究は少ない。これに対して、本研究では非営利の価値から予測される競争優位性をテストして、価値の優先順位と二重測定値の実装を評価する。ドイツの病院で実施された実証的研究は、価値の優先順位付けの相違を明らかにして、病院の所有者に部分的にリンクしている。ただしこれらの調査結果は非営利の価値の優先順位を否定するが、価値の優先順位グループ間における実施の違いは生じない。非営利団体では実装の価値は異ならないが、いくつか実装の価値は組織の資金として機能し、実装を向上させる。著者は、さらなる研究のための手段として、会社の資産として経営の価値の重要性を議論する。

ملخص

يفترض الممارسين والباحثين على حد سواء في كثير من الأحيان قيمة غير ربحية فريدة توضع كمصدر غير ربحي محدد للميزة التنافسية. البحوث التجريبية تقوم بتقييم هذا الرابط لأداء القيم الذي يبقى على الرغم من ندرته. ردا˝على ذلك٬ هذه الدراسة تجري إختبارات على الميزة التنافسية المتوقعة المستمدة من القيم الغير ربحية و تقييم قيمة الأولويات و قيمة التنفيذ مع قياس ذو شقين. أجريت دراسة تجريبية بين المستشفيات الألمانية، تكشف أن الإختلافات في ترتيب الأولويات موجود ويرتبط جزئيا˝ بملكية المستشفى. مع ذلك، هذه النتائج ترفض فكرة تحديد قيمة الأولويات الغير ربحية الفريدة؛ لم ينشأ أي إختلافات الأداء عبر مجموعات قيمة الأولويات. المنظمات الغير ربحية لا تختلف في تنفيذ قيمتها على حد سواء، على الرغم من بعض القيم التي تم تنفيذها يخدم بمثابة الموارد التنظيمية وترتبط مع أداء أفضل. يناقش المؤلفون أهمية القيم الإدارية كأصل ثابت، وكذلك السبل لإجراء مزيد من البحوث.

References

  1. Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackroyd, S., Kirkpatrick, I., & Walker, R. M. (2007). Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: A comparative analysis. Public Administration, 85(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, L. B., Pallesen, T., & Holm Pedersen, L. (2011). Does ownership matter? Public service motivation among physiotherapists in the private and public sectors in Denmark. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31(1), 10–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.Google Scholar
  5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barney, J. B. (1986a). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barney, J. B. (1986b). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bart, C. K., & Tabone, J. C. (1999). Mission statement content and hospital performance in the Canadian not-for-profit health care sector. Health Care Management Review, 24(3), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blanchard, K. H., O’Connor, M. J., & Ballard, J. (1997). Managing by values. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
  11. Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brandl, J., & Güttel, W. H. (2007). Organizational antecedents of pay-for-performance systems in nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 18(2), 176–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brewer, G. A., & Brewer, G. A., Jr. (2011). Parsing public/private differences in work motivation and performance: An experimental study. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 3), i347–i362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown, E., & Slivinski, A. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and the market. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 140–158). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55. Special Issue: Collaborative Public Management.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buchanan, J. M., & Tollison, R. D. (1972). The theory of public choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Büchner, V. A., Schreyögg, J., & Schultz, C. (2014). The impact of the board’s strategy-setting role on board-management relations and hospital performance. Health Care Management Review, 39(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Calori, R., & Sarnin, P. (1991). Corporate culture and economic performance: A French study. Organization Studies, 12(1), 049–074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cameron, K. S. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drevs, F., Tscheulin, D. K., & Lindenmeier, J. (2014). Do patient perceptions vary with ownership status? A study of nonprofit, for-profit, and public hospital patients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 164–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Filbeck, G., & Preece, D. (2003). Fortune’s best 100 companies to work for in America: Do they work for shareholders? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(5), 771–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fleury, M.-J., Grenier, G., Bamvita, J.-M., Wallot, H., & Perreault, M. (2012). Determinants of referral to the public health care and social sector by nonprofit organizations: Clinical profile and interorganizational characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flynn, F. J., Chatman, J. A., & Spataro, S. E. (2001). Getting to know you: The influence of personality on impressions and performance of demographically different people in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. C. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
  29. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (p. 232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the nonprofit human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 141–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Georgopoulos, B. S., & Mann, F. C. (1962). The community general hospital. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Giacalone, R. A., & Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2003). Toward a Science of Workplace Spirituality. In R. A. Giacalone & C. L. Jurkiewicz (Eds.), The handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational performance (pp. 3–28). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  33. Handy, F., & Katz, E. (1998). The wage differential between nonprofit institutions and corporations: Getting more by paying less? Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(2), 246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helmig, B., Hinz, V., & Ingerfurth, S. (2014). Extending miles & Snow’s strategy choice typology to the german hospital sector, Health Policy. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.06.006
  35. Helmig, B., Ingerfurth, S., & Pinz, A. (2014). Success and failure of nonprofit organizations: Theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, and future research. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1509–1538.Google Scholar
  36. Herwartz, H., & Strumann, C. (2012). On the effect of prospective payment on local hospital competition in Germany. Health Care Management Science, 15(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hinz, V., & Ingerfurth, S., (2013). Does ownership matter under challenging conditions?: On the relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and performance in the healthcare sector. Public Management Review, 15(7), 969–991.Google Scholar
  38. Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Horn, R. (1983). An overview of trialectics within applications to psychology and public policy. In R. Horn (Ed.), Trialectics: Toward a practical logic of unity (pp. 1–39). Lexington: Information Resources.Google Scholar
  40. Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am? Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 236–255.Google Scholar
  42. Jakimow, T. (2010). Negotiating the boundaries of voluntarism: Values in the Indian NGO sector. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(4), 546–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jobson, J. D., & Schneck, R. (1982). Constituent views of organizational effectiveness: Evidence from police organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(1), 25–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jørgensen, T. B. (2007). Public values, their nature, stability and change. The case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 365–398.Google Scholar
  45. Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. (2004). A values framework for measuring the impact of workplace spirituality on organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kim, L., & Lim, Y. (1988). Environment, generic strategies, and performance in a rapidly developing country: A taxonomic approach. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 802–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Labitzke, G., Svoboda, S., & Schultz, C. (2014). The role of dedicated innovation functions for innovation process control and performance—an empirical study among hospitals. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leete, L. (2006). Work in the nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector. A research handbook (pp. 159–179). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Lindrooth, R. C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2007). Do religious nonprofit and for-profit organizations respond differently to financial incentives? The hospice industry. Journal of Health Economics, 26(2), 342–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marlin, D., Ketchen, D. J., Jr, & Lamont, B. (2007). Equifinality and the strategic groups—performance relationship. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(2), 208–232.Google Scholar
  55. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller, K. D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Milliman, J., Ferguson, J., Trickett, D., & Condemi, B. (1999). Spirit and community at Southwest Airlines: An investigation of a spiritual values-based model. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(3), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nelson, W. A., Gardent, P. B., Shulman, E., & Splaine, M. E. (2010). Preventing ethics conflicts and improving healthcare quality through system redesign. BMJ Quality & Safety, 19(6), 526–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nevile, A. (2009). Values and the legitimacy of third sector service delivery organizations: Evidence from Australia. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20(1), 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ng, K.-Y., Koh, C., Ang, S., Kennedy, J. C., & Chan, K.-Y. (2011). Rating leniency and halo in multisource feedback ratings: Testing cultural assumptions of power distance and individualism–collectivism. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 1033–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  63. O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ouchi, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 457–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pijnenburg, M. A. M., Gordijn, B., Vosman, F. J. H., & ten Have, H. A. M. J. (2008). Catholic healthcare organizations and the articulation of their identity. HEC Forum, 20(1), 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reboussin, B. A., Ip, E. H., & Wolfson, M. (2008). Locally dependent latent class models with covariates: An application to under-age drinking in the USA. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society), 171(4), 877–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rego, G., Nunes, R., & Costa, J. (2010). The challenge of corporatisation: The experience of Portuguese public hospitals. European Journal of Health Economics, 11(4), 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ren, T. (2013). Sectoral differences in value congruence and job attitudes: The case of nursing home employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rettig, S., & Pasamanick, B. (1959). Changes in moral values among college students: A factorial study. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 856–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Richins, M. L. (2004). The material values scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robichaux, C., & Sauerland, J. (2012). Health care quality and ethics: Implications for practice and leadership. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 7(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rothschild, J., & Milofsky, C. (2006). The centrality of values, passions, and ethics in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2), 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Salamon, L. M., Geller, S. L., & Newhouse, C. L. (2012). What do nonprofits stand for? Renewing the nonprofit value commitment. Johns Hopkins Listening Post Communiqué, 22, 1–23.Google Scholar
  78. Salge, T. O., & Vera, A. (2009). Hospital innovativeness and organizational performance: Evidence from english public acute care. Health Care Management Review, 34(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.Google Scholar
  80. Schlesinger, M., Quon, N., Wynia, M., Cummins, D., & Gray, B. (2005). Profit-seeking, corporate control, and the trustworthiness of health care organizations: Assessments of health plan performance by their affiliated physicians. Health Services Research, 40(3), 605–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendel, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Sessanna, L., Finnell, D., & Jezewski, M. A. (2007). Spirituality in nursing and health-related literature: A concept analysis. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25(4), 252–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Politicians and firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 995–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration & Society, 31(3), 378–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thornton, P. H. (2002). The rise of the corporation in a craft industry: Conflict and conformity in institutional logics. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thye, S. R. (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 407–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tiemann, O., & Schreyögg, J. (2009). Effects of ownership on hospital efficiency in Germany. BuR—Business Research, 2(2), 115–145.Google Scholar
  88. Tiemann, O., & Schreyögg, J. (2012). Changes in hospital efficiency after privatization. Health Care Management Science, 15(4), 310–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tiemann, O., Schreyögg, J., & Busse, R. (2012). Hospital ownership and efficiency: A review of studies with particular focus on Germany. Health Policy, 104(2), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vahey, D. C., Aiken, L. H., Sloane, D. M., Clarke, S. P., & Vargas, D. (2004). Nurse burnout and patient satisfaction. Medical Care, 42(2 Suppl), II-57–II-66.Google Scholar
  91. van der Wal, Z., de Graaf, G., & Lasthuizen, K. (2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 473–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Viinamäki, O.-P. (2009). Intra-organizational challenges of values-based leadership. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 14(2), 6–13.Google Scholar
  94. Vinson, D. E., Scott, J. E., & Lamont, L. M. (1977). The role of personal values in marketing and consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 41(2), 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wang, Y. (2009). Examination on philosophy-based management of contemporary japanese corporations: Philosophy, value orientation and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. White, K. R., Begun, J. W., & Tian, W. (2006). Hospital service offerings: Does catholic ownership matter? Health Care Management Review, 31(2), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 534–545.Google Scholar
  98. Wood, V. R., Bhuian, S., & Kiecker, P. (2000). Market orientation and organizational performance in not-for-profit hospitals. Journal of Business Research, 48(3), 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review, 67(1), 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wright, B. E., Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Pulling the levers: Transformational leadership, public service motivation, and mission valence. Public Administration Review(online first), 1–10.Google Scholar
  101. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit ManagementUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Hamburg Center for Health EconomicsUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations