Advertisement

Journal of Management & Governance

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 375–397 | Cite as

The role of the board in shaping foundations’ strategy: an empirical study

  • Giacomo Boesso
  • Fabrizio Cerbioni
  • Andrea Menini
  • Antonio Parbonetti
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationships of the choice of philanthropic strategy with board capital (diversity and networks), board activities (board processes, internal board committees, and board effectiveness), and CEO leadership. Using a sample of 110 Italian foundations, the research shows that board processes have the strongest positive association with an evolved strategic approach to philanthropic institutional grant-giving, while board diversity and strong CEO leadership are associated with the strategic approach only under certain conditions. In particular, good governance processes (e.g., training the board, self-evaluation of trustees, setting the stage for effective board and committee meetings, implementing control software, and steering meetings to improve the board’s analysis) are positively associated with evolved strategic approaches to philanthropy (e.g., signaling other funders for the best grantees, improving the performance of grant recipients, and advancing selected social fields’ state of knowledge and practice).

Keywords

Governance Foundations Philanthropy Board capital Board processes CEO leadership 

References

  1. Alcock, P. (2012). New policy spaces: The impact of devolution on third sector policy in the UK. Social Policy & Administration, 46, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anheier, H., & Daly, S. (2006). Roles of foundations in Europe: A comparison. In K. Prewitt, M. Dogan, S. Heydemann, & S. Toepler (Eds.), The legitimacy of philanthropic foundations: United States and European perspectives (pp. 199–216). New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Barbetta, G. P. (1999). Foundations in Italy. In H. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), Private funds, public purpose (pp. 199–218). New York: Kluwer/Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boesso, G., Cerbioni, F., & Kumar, K. (2014). What drives good philanthropy? The relationship between governance and strategy in foundations. In L. Gnan, A. Hinna, & F. Monteduro (Eds.), Mechanism, roles and consequences of governance: Emerging issues (Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance, Vol. 2, pp. 159–180). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boesso, G., Cerbioni, F., Menini, A., & Parbonetti, A. (2015). Philanthropy by Decree: Exploring the governance and philanthropic strategies of foundations of banking origins. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(3), 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, P. (2009). A contingency approach to nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, W. A. (2007). Board development practices and competent board members: Implications for performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, W., & Guo, C. (2010). Exploring the key roles for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 536–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, W. A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CEP, Center for Effective Philanthropy. (2004). Foundation governance: The CEO viewpoint. Boston: CEP.Google Scholar
  11. Conger, J., Finegold, D., & Lawler, E. E, 3rd. (1998). Appraising boardroom performance. Harvard Business Review, 76, 136–148.Google Scholar
  12. Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and nonprofit organizations. What do boards do? London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cristofoli, D., Markovic, J., & Meneguzzo, M. (2012). Governance, management and performance in public networks: How to be successful in shared-governance networks. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalton, D. R., & Kesner, I. F. (1987). Composition and CEO duality in boards of directors: An international comparison. Journal of International Business Studies, 18, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Andrés-Alonso, P., Azofra-Palenzuela, V., & Romero-Merino, M. E. (2010). Beyond the disciplinary role of governance: How boards add value to Spanish foundations. British Journal of Management, 21, 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Du Bois, C., Caers, R., Jegers, M., Schepers, C., De Gieter, S., & Pepermans, R. (2007). The non-profit board: A concise review of the empirical literature. Journal for Public and Nonprofit Services, 1, 78–88.Google Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2005). Giving more for research in Europe: The role of foundations and the non-profit Sector in boosting R&D investment. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  18. Fazzi, L. (2012). Social enterprises, models of governance and the production of welfare services. Public Management Review, 14, 359–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. The Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fredette, C., & Bradshaw, P. (2012). Social capital and nonprofit governance effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22, 391–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frumkin, P. (2010). The essence of strategic giving. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behaviour, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management and Organization, 34, 11–36.Google Scholar
  23. Graddy, E. A., & Morgan, D. L. (2006). Community foundations, organizational strategy, and public policy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quaterly, 35, 605–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social service organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6, 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hamilton, R., Parzen, J., & Brown, P. (2004). Community change makers: The leadership role of community foundations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  26. Holland, T. P., & Jackson, D. K. (1998). Strengthening board performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houghton, J. P., & Stevens, A. (2011). City branding and stakeholder engagement. In City branding. (pp. 45–53). Macmillan: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  28. Inglis, S., & Cleave, S. (2006). A scale to assess board member motivations in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ISTAT. (2001). Censimento istituzioni nonprofit. Roma: ISTAT.Google Scholar
  30. Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Russel, P. (2014). Strategic philanthropy for a complex word. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Summer, 26–37.Google Scholar
  31. Kasper, G., & Clohesy, S. (2008). Intentional Innovation: How getting more systematic about innovation could improve philanthropy and increase social impact. Battle Creek: Kellog Foundation Reports.Google Scholar
  32. Lecy, J. D., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2013). Nonprofit sector growth and density: Testing theories of government support. Journal of Public Administrative Research and Theory, 23, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Letts, C. W., Ryan, W., & Grossman, A. (1997). What foundations can learn from venture capitalists. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 36–44.Google Scholar
  34. Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprise. International Journal of Social Economics, 33, 376–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mariani, L., & Cavenago, D. (2013). Redesigning Welfare Services for Policies Effectiveness: The non-profit organizations (NPOs) perspective. Public Management Review, 15, 1011–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mersland, R. (2011). The governance of non-profit micro finance institutions: lessons from history. Journal of Management and Governance, 3, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Millensen, J. L., & Martin, E. C. (2014). Community foundations strategy: Doing good and the moderating effects of fear, tradition and serendipity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 832–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853–886.Google Scholar
  39. Monteduro, F. (2014). Public–Private versus public ownership and economic performance: Evidence from Italian local utilities. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Muth, M. M., & Donaldson, L. (1998). Stewardship theory and board structure: A contingency approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 6, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nicholson, G., Newton, C., & McGregor-Lowndes, M. (2012). The nonprofit board as a team. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22, 461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 416–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paulus, O., & Lejeune, C. (2013). What do board members in art organizations do? A grounded theory approach. Journal of Management and Governance, 17, 963–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearce, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (1991). The relative power of CEOs and boards of directors: Associations with corporate performance. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Perrow, C. (1963). Goals and power structures: An historical case study. In E. Freidson (Ed.), The hospital in modern society. New-York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  46. Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (1999). Philanthropys new agenda: Creating value. Harvard Business Review, 12, 121–130.Google Scholar
  48. Robertson, P. J., & Choi, T. (2012). Deliberation, consensus, and stakeholder satisfaction. Public Management Review, 14, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siciliano, J. I. (2008). A comparison of CEO and director perceptions of board involvement in strategy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 152–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thumler, E. (2011). Foundations, schools and the state. Public Management Review, 13, 1095–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. U.S. Senate Finance Committee. (2004). Charity oversight and reform: Keeping bad things from happening to good charities. In 108th congress, second session.Google Scholar
  52. Westley, F., & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a difference. Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15, article 2.Google Scholar
  53. Zimmermann, J. A. M., & Stevens, B. W. (2008). Best practices in board governance: Evidence from South Carolina. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giacomo Boesso
    • 1
  • Fabrizio Cerbioni
    • 1
  • Andrea Menini
    • 1
  • Antonio Parbonetti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PadovaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations