Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Valuing Organizational Values: Assessing the Uniqueness of Nonprofit Values

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.

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.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    At this point, it is unclear whether there is one value prioritization group to which all nonprofit organizations belong, or whether several nonprofit value prioritization groups might exist.

  2. 2.

    Concerning population shares for these characteristics, no official statistical numbers are provided for Germany. Roundabout one-third of hospitals have teaching status. As larger hospitals are more likely to have teaching status, the higher proportion of hospitals with teaching status in our sample is in line with hospital size.

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.

  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.

  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.

  4. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

  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.

  6. Barney, J. B. (1986a). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.

  7. Barney, J. B. (1986b). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231–1241.

  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

  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.

  10. Blanchard, K. H., O’Connor, M. J., & Ballard, J. (1997). Managing by values. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

  11. Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: A dynamic perspective. Organization Studies, 34(4), 495–514.

  12. Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  17. Buchanan, J. M., & Tollison, R. D. (1972). The theory of public choice. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press.

  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.

  19. Calori, R., & Sarnin, P. (1991). Corporate culture and economic performance: A French study. Organization Studies, 12(1), 049–074.

  20. Cameron, K. S. (1980). Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, 9(2), 66–80.

  21. Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204–223.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. C. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50.

  28. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.

  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.

  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.

  31. Georgopoulos, B. S., & Mann, F. C. (1962). The community general hospital. New York: Macmillan.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  40. Houston, D. J. (2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 713–727.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  44. Jørgensen, T. B. (2007). Public values, their nature, stability and change. The case of Denmark. Public Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 365–398.

  45. Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

  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.

  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.

  48. Kuhn, D., & Park, S.-H. (2005). Epistemological understanding and the development of intellectual values. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 111–124.

  49. Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  53. Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209–225.

  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.

  55. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  56. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340.

  57. Miller, K. D. (2002). Competitive strategies of religious organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 435–456.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  62. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  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.

  64. Ouchi, W. G., & Wilkins, A. L. (1985). Organizational culture. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 457–483.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  72. Rettig, S., & Pasamanick, B. (1959). Changes in moral values among college students: A factorial study. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 856–863.

  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.

  74. Robichaux, C., & Sauerland, J. (2012). Health care quality and ethics: Implications for practice and leadership. Perioperative Nursing Clinics, 7(3), 333–342.

  75. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: The Free Press.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  79. Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  83. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1994). Politicians and firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 995–1025.

  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.

  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.

  86. Thye, S. R. (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 407–432.

  87. Tiemann, O., & Schreyögg, J. (2009). Effects of ownership on hospital efficiency in Germany. BuR—Business Research, 2(2), 115–145.

  88. Tiemann, O., & Schreyögg, J. (2012). Changes in hospital efficiency after privatization. Health Care Management Science, 15(4), 310–326.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  93. Viinamäki, O.-P. (2009). Intra-organizational challenges of values-based leadership. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 14(2), 6–13.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  99. Wright, B. E. (2007). Public service and motivation: Does mission matter? Public Administration Review, 67(1), 54–64.

  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.

  101. Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review, 42(5), 726–743.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Stefan Ingerfurth.

Additional information

The authors are listed in alphabetical order.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Table 6 Variables and items
Table 7 Measurement model assessment: values and success
Table 8 Assessment of discriminant validity of value factors
Table 9 Assessment of discriminant validity of success factors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Helmig, B., Hinz, V. & Ingerfurth, S. Valuing Organizational Values: Assessing the Uniqueness of Nonprofit Values. Voluntas 26, 2554–2580 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9530-6

Download citation

Keywords

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