Skip to main content

Managerialism and Beyond: Discourses of Civil Society Organization and Their Governance Implications

Abstract

Different disciplinary, theoretical, and empirical lenses have contributed to a kaleidoscopic picture of the governance of civil society organizations (CSOs). Most of the time, CSO governance is contrasted with corporate governance in business organizations; only rarely is the broad variety of CSOs taken into account. To widen this perspective, we develop an empirically grounded typology of five discourses of organization in CSOs: managerialist, domestic, professionalist, grassroots, and civic discourse. We argue that each of these discourses gives specific answers to the three core questions of governance: To whom is the CSO accountable, i.e., who are the key actors who need to be protected by governance mechanisms? For what kind of performance is the CSO accountable? And which structures and processes are appropriate to ensure accountability? The way in which different discourses answer these questions provides us with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the manifold notions of governance in CSOs.

Résumé

Différentes approches disciplinaires, théoriques et empiriques ont contribué à la création d’une image kaléidoscopique de la gouvernance d’une OSC (Organisation de la société civile). On oppose habituellement la gouvernance d’OSC à la gouvernance d’entreprise au sein des organisations professionnelles. Ainsi, la grande variété des OSC n’est que rarement prise en compte. Afin d’élargir cette perspective, nous développons une typologie empiriquement fondée et comptant cinq discours d’organisation dans les OSC, à savoir directorial, domestique, professionnaliste, local et civique. Notre argument est que chacun de ces discours apporte des réponses spécifiques aux trois questions essentielles de la gouvernance : À qui l’OSC doit-elle rendre compte, c’est-à-dire quels sont les acteurs clés ayant besoin d’être protégés par les mécanismes de gouvernance ? De quel type de résultats l’OSC est-elle redevable ? Et quels sont les structures et processus adéquats afin de garantir une responsabilisation ? La manière dont ces différents discours répondent à ces questions nous dote d’une compréhension plus approfondie des motifs sous-jacents aux notions multiples de gouvernance au sein des OSC.

Zusammenfassung

Verschiedene disziplinäre, theoretische und empirische Betrachtungsweisen haben ein kaleidoskopisches Bild der Governance zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen geschaffen. In den meisten Fällen wird die Governance zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen als Gegenstück zur Corporate Governance in Unternehmen dargestellt; nur selten wird die große Vielfalt zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen berücksichtigt. Zur Erweiterung dieser Perspektive entwickeln wir eine emprisch begründete Typologie von fünf Organisationsdiskursen in zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen: einen betriebswirtschaftlichen, einen familiären, einen professionalistischen, einen basisdemokratischen und einen bürgerschaftlichen Diskurs. Wir argumentieren, dass jeder dieser Diskurse spezifische Antworten auf die drei wesentlichen Fragen zur Governance bereithält: Wem gegenüber ist die Organisation verantwortlich, d. h. wer sind die Hauptakteure, die durch Governancemechanismen geschützt werden müssen? Für welche Art von Leistungen ist die Organisation verantwortlich? Und welche Strukturen und Verfahren sind zur Gewährleistung der Verantwortlichkeit angemessen? Die Weise, in der die verschiedenen Diskurse diese Fragen beantworten, vermittelt uns ein besseres Verständnis, warum es so viele unterschiedliche Vorstellungen zur Governance von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationen gibt.

Resumen

Diversos puntos de vista en los ámbitos disciplinario, teórico y empírico han contribuido con la variada gama de administración de las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil (OSC). En la mayoría de los casos, la administración de las OSC se compara con la gestión corporativa que se realiza en las compañías comerciales; no es común que se tenga en cuenta la gran variedad de OSC. Para ampliar esta perspectiva, hemos desarrollado una tipología con fundamento empírico de cinco discursos organizacionales en las OSC: administrativo, doméstico, profesional, de base y discurso cívico. Exponemos que cada uno de estos discursos brindan respuestas específicas a las tres preguntas principales sobre administración: Ante quién es responsable la OSC, por ejemplo: ¿Quiénes son los actores clave que deben protegerse a través de los mecanismos administrativos? ¿Por qué tipos de rendimiento es la responsable la OSC? Y, ¿qué estructuras y procesos son adecuados para asegurar la responsabilidad? La forma en que los diferentes discursos responden a estas preguntas nos proporciona un entendimiento más claro sobre los argumentos que fomentan las nociones de administración en las OSC.

摘要

关于公民社会组织(CSO)治理,人们以不同的学科、理论和经验为着眼点,构成了一幅众说纷纭的景象。大多数时候,在商业组织中,公民社会组织治理与企业治理之间泾渭分明,极少有人考虑公民社会组织的广阔差异。为了广泛阐述这一观点,我们从经验出发,将关于公民社会组织的论述分为五类:管理学家、国内、专业人士、基层群体和公民的论述。我们认为,上述每种论述都针对治理中的三个核心问题给出了自己的答案:公民社会组织对谁负责,即,哪些人是需要靠治理机制保护的主要行为人?公民社会组织对何种绩效负责?为了确保责任担当,适宜采用何种结构和过程? 不同的论述分别以各自的方式回答了上述问题,因而我们能更深入地了解,关于公民社会组织治理的观点千差万别的潜在原因。

ملخص

لقد ساهمت مختلف التخصصات ، النظريات و العدسات التجريبية في صورة حكم متلون لمنظمة المجتمع المدني (CSO). يتناقض حكم منظمة المجتمع المدني (CSO) معظم الوقت مع حكم الشركات في منظمات الأعمال، نادراً فقط مجموعة واسعة متنوعة من منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) تؤخذ في الحسبان. لتوسيع نطاق هذا المنظور، وضعنا أسس تصنيف تجريبي من خمسة مناقشات في منظمة من منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs): إدارية عامة، داخلية، مهنية، أساسية، مناقشات مدنية. إننا نقول إن كل من هذه المناقشات تعطي إجابات محددة على الأسئلة الأساسية الثلاثة للحكم : لمن منظمات المجتمع المدني(CSO) عرضة للمحاسبة ، مثل، من هم الفاعلين الرئيسيين الذين يحتاجون إلى الحماية من خلال آليات الحكم؟ عن أي نوع من الأداء منظمات المجتمع المدني عرضة للمحاسبة ؟ والهياكل والعمليات التي هي مناسبة لضمان المساءلة؟ الطريقة التي تجيب المناقشات المختلفة على هذه الأسئلة توفر لنا فهماً أعمق عن الأسباب الكامنة وراء مفاهيم متعددة للحكم في منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSO).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Alexander, J. A., & Weiner, B. J. (1998). The adoption of the corporate governance model by nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 223–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendix, R. (1956). Work and authority in industry: Ideologies of management in the course of industrialization. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyes, T., & Jäger, U. (2005). Erforschung multidiskursiver Organisationen: NPO-Management aus systemtheoretischer Sicht. Die Betriebswirtschaft, 65(6), 627–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomgren Bingham, L., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation. Public Adminstration Review, 65(5), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: Economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, P. (2002). Reframing board-staff relations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, P. (2009). A contingency approach to nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, L. A., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2004). Lost in cyberspace: Shedding light on the dark matter of grassroots organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3 suppl), 32S–53S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brainard, L. A., & Siplon, P. D. (2004). Toward nonprofit organization reform in the voluntary spirit: Lessons from the internet. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costea, B., Crump, N., & Amiridis, K. (2008). Managerialism, the therapeutic habitus and the self in contemporary organizing. Human Relations, 61(5), 661–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deth, J. W. v. (2006). Citizenship and involvement in European democracies. A comparative analysis (1st publ. ed.). London, New York: Routledge.

  • Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15, 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16(1), 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enjolras, B. (2009a). Between market and civic governance regimes: Civicness in the governance of social services in Europe. Voluntas, 20(3), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enjolras, B. (2009b). A governance-structure approach to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5), 761–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evetts, J. (2003a). The construction of professionalism in new and existing occupational contexts: Promoting and facilitating occupational change. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23(4/5), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evetts, J. (2003b). The sociological analysis of professionalism: Occupational change in the modern world. International Sociology, 18(2), 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman/Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: The third logic: On the practice of knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design. Organization Studies, 29(3), 459–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P., & Tyler, M. (2004). ‘MOT your life’: Critical management studies and management of everyday life. Human Relations, 57(5), 619–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, C. J., & Lynn, L. E. (Eds.). (2000). Governance and performance: New perspectives. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodge, B., & Coronado, G. (2006). Mexico Inc.? Discourse analysis and the triumph of managerialism. Organization, 13(4), 529–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, S., & Maier, F. (2008). Theoretical and methodological aspects of Foucauldian critical discourse analysis and dispositive analysis. In M. Meyer & R. Wodak (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegers, M. (2009). “Corporate” governance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreutzer, K. (2009). Nonprofit governance during organizational transition in voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(1), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeRoux, K. (2009). Paternalistic or participatory governance? Examining opportunities for client participation in nonprofit service organizations. Public Adminstration Review, 69(3), 504–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liou, K. T. (2001). Governance and economic development: Changes and challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(10), 1005–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2003). Organization. In T. Bakken, & T. Hernes (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 31–52): Oslo et al.: Abstrakt/Liber/Copenhagen Business School Press.

  • Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Why? How? In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 1–33). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W. (2005). Management models as popular discourse. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(2), 133–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1980). Structure in 5’s: A synthesis of the research on organization design. Management Science, 26(3), 322–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumayr, M., Meyer, M., Pospíšil, M., Schneider, U., & Malý, I. (2009). The role of civil society organizations in different nonprofit regimes: Evidence from Austria and the Czech Republic. Comparative Social Research, 26, 167–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2006). Governance: Research trends, gaps, and future prospects. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 612–628). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M. (2002). Against management: Organization in the age of managerialism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M., Fournier, V., & Reedy, P. (2007). The dictionary of alternatives: Utopianism and organization. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the public services: Cuts or cultural change in the 1990s? (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, S. M., Jones, J. P., & Fröhling, O. (2005). NGOs and the globalization of managerialism: A research framework. World Development, 33(11), 1845–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saidel, J. R., & Harlan, S. L. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2004). Global civil society. Dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, U., Badelt, C., & Hagleitner, J. (2007). Der Nonprofit Sektor. In Österreich (pp. 55–80). 4. Auflage ed. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.

  • Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speckbacher, G. (2008). Nonprofit versus corporate governance: An economic approach. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(3), 295–320.

    Article  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 

  • Taylor, S. (2001). Evaluating and applying discourse analytic research. In S. Yates, S. Taylor, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp. 311–330). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2003). Handbook on non-profit institutions in the system of national accounts. New York: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. New York: Bedminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M. (2001). Debates in discourse research. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice: A reader (pp. 380–399). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1988). Discourse analysis and the identification of interpretative repertoires. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation (pp. 168–183). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (Eds.). (2001a). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. (2001b). Discourse theory and practice: A reader. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, J. A. M., & Stevens, B. W. (2008). Best practices in board governance: Evidence from South Carolina. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florentine Maier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maier, F., Meyer, M. Managerialism and Beyond: Discourses of Civil Society Organization and Their Governance Implications. Voluntas 22, 731–756 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9202-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9202-8

Keywords