Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Coalition Perspective on Nonprofit Governance Quality: Analyzing Dimensions of Influence in an Exploratory Comparative Case Analysis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We answer the call that governance research should focus more on processes outside the boundaries of boards, especially for nonprofit organizations. In particular, we suggest and elaborate concrete steps with respect to the advantages of a leadership coalition perspective to focus more on the behavioral and informal aspects of governance. Through a comparative case analysis of five nonprofit organizations, we explore contingencies between characteristics of nonprofit leadership coalitions and governance quality. We identify two dimensions to classify leadership coalitions: centralized versus diffused influence and specific versus holistic influence. These dimensions are subsequently related with observed governance quality. We frame our finding in the existing literature on group faultlines, which are socially constructed dividing lines within groups, and we discuss the importance of establishing a balanced coalition between a weak or nonexisting and a strong dominant coalition to ensure high governance quality. We also present propositions on how governance quality and its various sub-dimensions can be studied as a complex, nonlinear intermediate concept between coalitional aspects of leadership groups and nonprofit organizational performance. Finally, we discuss concrete avenues for further testing and verification of our theoretical interpretation.

Résumé

Nous répondons à la demande visant à ce que les recherches publiques portent davantage sur les processus en dehors du cadre des conseils, notamment pour les organisations à but non lucratif. Nous proposons et élaborons notamment des mesures concrètes en ce qui concerne les avantages de la perspective d’une coalition de leadership pour nous concentrer davantage sur les aspects comportementaux et informels de la gouvernance. Grâce à une analyse de cas comparative de cinq organisations à but non lucratif, nous explorons les éventualités entre les caractéristiques des coalitions de leadership des organisations à but non lucratif et la qualité de la gouvernance. Nous identifions deux dimensions pour classer les coalitions de leadership : une centralisée par rapport à une influence diffuse et une autre spécifique par rapport à une influence globale. Ces dimensions sont liées par la suite à la qualité de la gouvernance observée. Nous énonçons notre découverte dans la documentation existante sur les failles des groupes, qui sont des clivages construits socialement en leur sein, et nous examinons l’importance d’établir une coalition équilibrée entre une coalition faible ou inexistante et une coalition dominante forte pour assurer une gouvernance de qualité élevée. Nous présentons également des propositions sur comment étudier la qualité de la gouvernance et ses nombreuses sous-dimensions en tant que concept intermédiaire complexe non linéaire entre les aspects de la coalition des groupes de leadership et la performance organisationnelle des organisations à but non lucratif. Enfin, nous exposons des pistes concrètes pour des nouveaux essais et la vérification de notre interprétation théorique.

Zusammenfassung

Wir reagieren auf die Forderung, dass sich Forschungsarbeiten zur Führung und Steuerung mehr auf Prozesse außerhalb der Grenzen von Vorständen konzentrieren sollten, vor allem in Bezug auf gemeinnützige Organisationen. Insbesondere empfehlen wir konkrete ausgearbeitete Schritte mit Bezug auf die Vorteile der Perspektive einer Führungskoalition, um die Verhaltens- und informellen Aspekte der Steuerung vermehrt in den Vordergrund zu rücken. Mittels einer komparativen Fallanalyse von fünf gemeinnützigen Organisationen untersuchen wir das Verhältnis zwischen den Merkmalen von Führungskoalitionen in gemeinnützigen Organisationen und der Führungsqualität. Wir identifizieren zwei Größen zur Klassifizierung von Führungskoalitionen: den zentralisierten gegenüber dem zerstreuten Einfluss und den spezifischen gegenüber dem ganzheitlichen Einfluss. Diese Größen werden anschließend mit der beobachteten Führungsqualität in Beziehung gebracht. Wir umrahmen unser Ergebnis mit der existierenden Literatur zu Konfliktlinien in Gruppen, welche gesellschaftlich konstruierte Trennlinien innerhalb von Gruppen sind, und wir diskutieren die Bedeutung einer ausgewogenen Koalition zwischen einer schwachen bzw. nicht vorhandenen und einer stark dominanten Koalition zur Sicherstellung einer hochwertigen Führungsqualität. Wir unterbreiten zudem Vorschläge, wie die Führungsqualität und ihre diversen Unterbereiche als ein komplexes, nicht lineares intermediäres Konzept zwischen Koalitionsaspekten von Führungsgruppen und der Leistung einer gemeinnützigen Organisation untersucht werden können. Abschließend diskutieren wir konkrete Wege zur weiteren Untersuchung und Prüfung unserer theoretischen Auslegung.

Resumen

Respondemos al llamamiento de que la investigación sobre la gobernanza debe centrarse más en los procesos que se desarrollan fuera de los límites de los consejos, especialmente para las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. En particular, sugerimos y elaboramos pasos concretos con respecto a las ventajas de una perspectiva de coalición de liderazgo para centrarnos más en los aspectos informales y comportamentales de la gobernanza. Mediante un análisis de casos comparativo de cinco organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro, exploramos las contingencias entre las características de las coaliciones de liderazgo y la calidad de la gobernanza de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Identificamos dos dimensiones para clasificar las coaliciones de liderazgo: influencia centralizada frente a influencia difusa, e influencia específica frente a influencia holística. Estas dimensiones son relacionadas posteriormente con la calidad de la gobernanza observada. Enmarcamos nuestro hallazgo en el material publicado existente sobre las fisuras de grupo, que son líneas de división construidas socialmente dentro de los grupos, y hablamos de la importancia de establecer una coalición equilibrada entre una coalición débil o no existente y una coalición fuerte dominante para garantizar una calidad de gobernanza elevada. También presentamos propuestas sobre cómo la calidad de la gobernanza y sus diversas subdimensiones pueden ser estudiadas como un concepto complejo, intermedio no lineal entre los aspectos coalicionales de los grupos de liderazgo y el rendimiento organizativo de las organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Finalmente, hablamos de vías concretas para la verificación y prueba adicionales de nuestra interpretación teórica.

Chinese

本研究响应了以下呼吁:管治研究应当更注重董事会范畴之外的流程,对于非营利性组织尤其如此。特别地,我们提出并阐释了关于领导联合观点(更注重管治的行为与非正式方面)的优势的具体步骤。通过对五个非营利性组织进行比较案例分析,我们探究了非营利性组织领导联合(leadership coalitions)特性与管治品质之间的相依性(contingencies)。为了对领导联合进行分类,我们确定了两个维度:即集中影响(centralized influence)与分散影响(diffused influence),具体影响(specific influence)与 整体影响(holistic influence)。这些维度与随后所观察到的管治品质相关联。我们从现存的关于群体断层线(group faultlines)(群体中因社会原因而形成的分界线)的文献中获取结果,我们还对以下问题进行了讨论:为了确保高品质的管治,在一个弱小的或者不存在的联合以及一个强大的、具有支配性的联合之间建立一个平衡的联合的重要性。同时,我们还提出了以下议题:如何将管治品质及其各种次维度当作一种介于领导群体的联合方面与非营利性组织绩效之间的复杂的、非线性的中间概念(intermediate concept)进行研究。最后,我们针对对我们的理论阐述进行进一步测试与验证所需的具体手段进行了讨论。

Arabic

للربح. على وجه الخصوص، إننا نقترح وتفصيلا” خطوات ملموسة فيما يتعلق بمزايا وجهة نظر تحالف القيادة للتركيز أكثر على الجوانب السلوكية والغير رسمية من الحكم. من خلال تحليل مقارن لحالة خمس منظمات غير ربحية نكتشف الطوارئ التي يمكن أن تحدث بين خصائص قيادة تحالفات الغير ربحية وجودة الحكم. نحدد إثنين من الأبعاد لتصنيف تحالفات القيادة: مركزية مقابل تأثير منتشر، ومحدد ضد تأثير كلي. ترتبط هذه الأبعاد في وقت لاحق مع نوعية الحكم الذي تم ملاحظته. نحن نضع النتيجة لدينا في الكتابات الموجودة على مجموعة إنقسامات و إختلافات في الرأي ، التي يتم بناؤها إجتماعيا” كخطوط فاصلة بين المجموعات، و نحن نناقش أهمية إنشاء إئتلاف متوازن بين ضعيف أو غير موجود وإئتلاف مهيمن قوي لضمان جودة الإدارة الرفيعة. نحن نعرض مقترحات حالية أيضا” على كيف يمكن أن تدرس نوعية الحكم ، مختلف أبعاد فرعية على نحو مفهوم معقد، غير خطي وسيط بين جوانب إئتلافية من مجموعة القيادة والأداء التنظيمي الغير ربحي. أخيرا”، نحن نناقش السبل الملموسة للمزيد من الإختبارات والتأكد من التفسير النظري لدينا.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., & Jackson, G. (2003). The cross-national diversity of corporate governance: Dimensions and determinants. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 447–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baysinger, B. D., & Butler, H. N. (1985). Corporate governance and the board of directors: Performance effects of changes in board composition. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 1(1), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, M. M., & Stout, L. A. (2001). Corporate accountability: Director accountability and the mediating role of the corporate board. Washington University Law Quarterly, 79, 403–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for social network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R. (2000). Multiple raters in survey-based operations management research: A review and tutorial. Production and Operations Management, 9(2), 128–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An exploration of the relationships among board structure, process and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(13), 227–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W. A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2010). The contextual impact of nonprofit board composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource dependence perspectives. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(1), 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. R., & Bradford, D. L. (1989). Influence without authority: The use of alliances, reciprocity, and exchange to accomplish work. Organizational Dynamics, 17(3), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2001). What makes boards effective? An examination of relationships between board inputs, structures, processes and effectiveness in non-profit organizations. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(3), 217–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2003). The changing context of governance: Emerging issues and paradoxes (pp. 1–19). In Cornforth, Chris (Ed.) The Governance of Public and Non-Profit Organizations What Do Boards Do?—Routledge Studies in the Management of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations.

  • Cornforth, C. (2011). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C., & Edwards, C. (1999). Board roles in strategic management of non-profit organizations: Theory and practice. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 7(4), 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eeckloo, K., Van Herck, G., Van Hulle, C., & Vleugels, A. (2004). From corporate governance to hospital governance: Authority, transparency and accountability of Belgian non-profit hospitals’ board and management. Health Policy, 68(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulk, L., Willems, J. Johnson, J., & Stuart, A. (2016) Network connections and competitively awarded funding: The impacts of board network structures and status interlocks on nonprofit organizations’ foundation grant acquisition. Public Management Review. Published online before print. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1112421.

  • Flick, U. (2002). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J. (1997). Towards developing a methodology for doing qualitative research: The dynamic-comparative case study method. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 439–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2004). Context, behavior, and evolution: Challenges in research on boards and governance. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 34(2), 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 202–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M., Flynn, R. J., & Raising, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4), 381–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., & Heeringa, S. G. (2006). Responsive design for household surveys: Tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 169(3), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., van Werder, A., & Zajac, E. J. (2008). New directions in corporate governance research. Organization Science, 19(3), 381–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods: Free introductory textbook on social network analysis. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/.

  • Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M. (2009). Exploring methods and concepts in studies of board processes. In M. Huse (Ed.), The value creating board: Corporate governance and organizational behavior. Cheltenham: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Huse, M., Hoskisson, R., Zattoni, A., & Viganò, R. (2011). New perspectives on board research: Changing the research agenda. Journal of Management and Governance, 15(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaczmarek, S., Kimino, S., & Pye, A. (2012). Board task-related faultlines and firm performance: A decade of evidence. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(4), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Pitfalls and challenges for trust and effectiveness in collaborative networks. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt, D. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition and power in organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 342–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 794–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, L. E, Jr, Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClusky, J. E. (2002). Re-thinking nonprofit organizations governance: Implications for management and leadership. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(4), 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2007a). Boardroom strategizing in professional associations: Processual and institutional perspectives. Journal of Management Studies 44(8), 1454–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2007b). Internal Governance in the Nonprofit Boardroom: A participant observer study. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 923–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A, I. I. (1995). A structural analysis of dominant coalitions in small banks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(6), 1075–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1961). The analysis of goals in complex organizations. American Sociological Review, 26(6), 854–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A., & McNulty, T. (1995). Power and influences in and around the boardroom. Human Relations, 48(8), 845–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. In J. Pfeffer (Ed.), Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renz, D. O. (2006). Reframing governance. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(4), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renz, D. O. (2010). Leadership, governance, and the work of the board. In D. O. Renz (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renz, D. O., & Andersson, F. O. (2011). Leadership, power, and influence: The impact of the dominant coalition on nonprofit governance. Paper presented at the association for research on nonprofit organizations and voluntary action (ARNOVA) conference.

  • Renz, D. O., & Andersson, F. O. (2012). Bases of power and the dominant coalition in nonprofit organization governance. Paper presented at the 10th international conference of the international society for third sector research (ISTR).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siciliano, J. I. (1996). The relationship of board member diversity to organizational performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(12), 1313–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solansky, S. T., Duchon, D., Plowman, D. A., & Martínez, P. G. (2008). On the same page: The value of paid and volunteer leaders sharing mental models in churches. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W. B., Pearce, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1985). The concept of “coalition” in organization theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 256–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, W. B., & Radin, R. F. (2008). Social capital and social influence on the board of directors. Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 16–44.

    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 

  • Thompson, J. G., & McEwen, W. J. (1958). Organization goals and environment: Goal setting as an interaction process. American Sociological Review, 23(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Ees, H., Gabrielsson, J., & Huse, M. (2009). Toward a behavioral theory of boards and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(3), 307–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A., & Homan, A. C. (2011). Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations, 64(3), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2014). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Public Management Review. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.903658. Published online before print.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willem, A., & Lucidarme, S. (2014). Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review, 16(5), 733–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J. (2015). Building shared mental models of organizational effectiveness in leadership teams through team member exchange quality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Published online before print. doi:10.1177/0899764015601244.

  • Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Weijters, B., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012). Nonprofit governance quality: Concept and measurement. Journal of Social Service Research, 38(4), 561–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Jegers, M., & Faulk, L. (2016). Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 39(2), 476–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willems, J., Van Puyvelde, S., Jegers, M., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2015). Exploring board interlocking behavior between nonprofit organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics., 86(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1993). Applications of case study research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management of Public, Private and Nonprofit Organizations, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Jurgen Willems

  2. Applied Economics, Vrije Universiteit Brusssel, Brusssels, Belgium

    Jurgen Willems & Marc Jegers

  3. Public and Nonprofit Administration, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Fredrik O. Andersson

  4. Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, USA

    David O. Renz

Authors
  1. Jurgen Willems
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fredrik O. Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Jegers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David O. Renz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jurgen Willems.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willems, J., Andersson, F.O., Jegers, M. et al. A Coalition Perspective on Nonprofit Governance Quality: Analyzing Dimensions of Influence in an Exploratory Comparative Case Analysis. Voluntas 28, 1422–1447 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9683-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9683-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation