Search results

The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on the way the cross-sector collaboration (CSC) process can foster gender-focused sustainability initiatives to improve female workers’ conditions in developing countries. The study does so by introducing and examining the influence of nonprofit boundary work during the CSC process.

The paper is based on thirty-four interviews and qualitative fieldwork. It draws on a case analysis of a regional CSC between multiple organizations operating locally in the apparel industry of Bangladesh, a developing country.

Scaffolding work in the CSC formation stage – performed by development agency implementers who construe boundaries – and sensitization work in the CSC implementation stage – performed by a non-governmental organization (NGO) implementers who blur and expand boundaries – emerge as two conceptual categories of nonprofit boundary work. This allows NGO implementers to identify and enable the agency of sustainability envoys or socially privileged individuals who capitalize on their social credentials to support female workers in the factory and in the community.

The study offers novel insights into the CSC process. It contributes to the CSC literature and the literature on boundary work, with a focus on gender-focused sustainability initiatives for female workers in developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the topic and review the contributions of the special issue papers on cross-sector dialogue for sustainability. The paper also presents avenues for further research.

The paper is based on a review of the current literature on cross-sector partnership and dialogue. It explores the current issues in cross-sector partnerships through a discussion of the papers accepted for the special issue, their focus, findings and key contributions.

It highlights three main key research themes and learnings from the special issue papers: a high level of “hybridity” of collaboration forms, which involve important tensions; a need to understand partnership in its context and the importance of the individual level in cross-sector collaboration.

The authors call for attention to be paid to two forms of myopia: a tendency to view partnerships primarily from a resource-based view (without much attempt to measure societal impact) and a reluctance to be explicitly critical (despite empirical evidence of some suboptimal aspects of partnerships).

The authors call for researchers to move away from a resource-based approach to one that is situated in exploring the value derived from partnerships in the broader societal context. The authors suggest some avenues for further research to move the discussion beyond the partnership imperative.

The paper outlines the need to critically revisit the very essence of what real partnership means and whether dialogue is really taking place.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how corporate and nonprofit leaders partner on public relations for corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs.

Through semi-structured interviews across the USA, and stretching into Europe and South America, leaders (n=24) from US-based corporations top-ranked for corporate citizenship, and the nonprofit organizations with which they have developed CSR programs, shared insights and best practices.

Corporate and nonprofit leaders who collaborate on CSR programs spoke independently about several essential shared values, including community-focused collaboration, fiscal responsibility, and strategic alignment. How they described their CSR partnerships reflects a mutual commitment to a distributed leadership model, which involves the need to span organizational boundaries, share unique expertise across levels and roles, and sustain long-term relationships. Consistent with prior research, this study also suggests that communication leaders in both corporations and nonprofit organizations leverage transactional (process-focused) and transformational (people-focused) leadership styles, as they work to build and foster these long-term partnerships.

The findings pinpoint how principles of the distributed leadership model come to life across CSR partnerships and contribute to the success of such partnerships. Corporations and their nonprofit partners must mutually focus on spanning, sharing, and sustaining as they build programs together. These shared principles exemplify a distributed leadership model and help define what CSR partnership truly means.

This study looks at CSR programs beyond just the perspective of the corporation and the public, taking into account the critical role the nonprofit organization plays as a partner in some CSR programming, and within a distributed leadership model.

Third sector organizations regularly innovate through collaboration with other organizations in order to secure resources and to increase the potential to more effectively meet each collaborator's mission. Following a review of relevant literature, the purpose of this paper is to explore and document the variety of ways that third sector organizations collaborate with other nonprofit organizations.

The paper reviews the literature regarding motivations to collaborate, barriers to collaboration, and ways to ensure that collaboration is successful. Drawing on exemplary cases of collaboration that applied for a national (USA) prize, the paper describes the range of collaborations that third sector organizations used to enhance their performance and productivity.

The analysis culminates in eight models: the fully integrated merger, partially integrated merger, joint program office, joint partnership with affiliated programming, joint partnership for issue advocacy, joint partnership with a new formal organization, joint administrative operations, and confederation.

All cases are drawn from one country in one part of the world, the USA; some models will have less veracity in other countries or contexts, and the nonprofit sectors of other countries will likely generate additional kinds of models not anticipated by the USA cases. Second, the eight models generated by the method are the result of debate, deliberation, and iterative process carried out by two coders. Other coders employing the same analytic process might generate more or fewer models.

Once nonprofit boards, staff, and other advocates understand the potential that can come with collaboration, blurring boundaries and giving up autonomy might not seem so intimidating. The practical value of our work is in reporting the wide array of options available to nonprofits – models that staff and board can use to plot their way forward.

The value of our work to research is identification of the assortment of ways that nonprofits collaborate. Future research may consider how any of the issues discussed in the literature – trust, co-opetition, resource dependence, network connectedness – vary or are conditioned by differences across these models of collaboration.

The paper documents collaboration as a viable strategy for the enhancement of performance and productivity among third sector organizations in the USA. For each model described, the paper discusses the circumstances in which they might be used, as well as the challenges and advantages associated with implementation.

Although extant theory has illuminated conditions under which organizations mimic each other in form and practice, little research examines how organizations seek to differentiate themselves from conventional forms. Our comparative ethnographic studies examine how the Burning Man and Open Source communities developed organizations to help coordinate the production of an annual temporary arts event and nonproprietary, freely distributed software. Both communities sought to differentiate their organizations from reference groups, but this was not a sufficient condition for sustaining organizational novelty. We found that the ability to pursue a differentiated strategy was moderated by environmental conditions. By exploring the organizing decisions that each community made at two critical boundaries: one defining individuals’ relationship with the organization; the second defining the organization's relationship with the market, we show how organizing practices were recombined from the for-profit and nonprofit sectors in unexpected, novel ways. This comparative research contributes a grounded theoretical explanation of organizational innovation that adjudicates between differentiation and environmental conditions.

The nonprofit sector has come to deliver the majority of state-funded social services in the United States. Citizens depend on nonprofit organizations for these services, and nonprofits depend on government for financial support. Scholars have begun to ask important questions about the political and civic implications of this new organizational configuration. These questions have direct ramifications for the anti-prison movement given the explosive growth of nonprofit prison reentry organizations in recent years. To see how such organizations may impact political engagement and social movements, this chapter turns its focus on the intricate dynamics of client-staff interactions. Leveraging a yearlong ethnography of a government-funded prison reentry organization, I describe how such organizations can be politically active and at the same time contribute to their clients' political pacification. Staff members engaged in political activities in surrogate representation of their clients. While staffers advocated on their behalf, clients learned to avoid politics and community life, accept injustices for what they are, and focus instead on individual rehabilitation. By closely studying what goes on within a nonprofit service provider, I illustrate the nonprofit organization's dual political role and its implications for social movements and political change.

The purpose of this article is to develop a nonprofit integrated social accounting (NISA) model that takes into account the particular objectives of nonprofit organizations (achieving their mission and remaining viable as an organization), their specific characteristics (e.g., the engagement of volunteers), and their economic, social and environmental impacts. The conceptual framework includes defining social accounting, setting the boundaries of the reporting entity, identifying the objectives of nonprofit reporting, identifying the users of the accounts and their information needs, and considering the questions that have to be answered in order to know if the organization is achieving its goals. From the conceptual framework, the NISA model is developed, incorporating four elements: (1) economic and human resources; (2) economic, social and environmental value creation; (3) internal systems and processes; and (4) organizational learning, growth and innovation. Overall, the model provides a mechanism to address both functional and strategic accountability concerns of the organization, its effectiveness and efficiency, and to drive behavior through feedback and readjustment. In this way, accounting plays an important role in shaping the ‘reality’ of the organization.

Rarely is emotional labor explicitly discussed as a required aspect of crisis response work. While the gender inequities in withdrawal from the workforce emerging from the pandemic are well documented, we know little about the emotional toll of managing the ongoing disruption of the pandemic for women with different degrees of membership in organizations.

This research uses a dynamic mixed-methods approach in studying emotional labor among women during times of disruption. Specifically, we explore with surveys, daily diary entries, and semistructured interviews the emotional experiences of women working at a California-based nonprofit organization during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. With our data, we are able to compare the emotional expectations and experiences of full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) employees.

Results show differences in emotional experiences and labor by group membership, with FT employees reporting higher rates of surface acting: FT employees suppressed (28%) and inauthentically expressed (12%) emotions more often than PT employees (23% and 5%, respectively). Qualitative evidence suggests socialization is occurring more formally for FT employees and informally for PT employees, influencing perceived emotional expectations and subsequent emotional labor.

The contributions to this volume focus on an understudied topic in nonprofit management: emotional experiences in times of disruption. Novel evidence on differing emotional experiences, particularly surface acting, as a function of group membership may motivate other research to disentangle issues of change management during crises.

These differing rates of surface acting have meaningful implications for burnout and retention of employees in a sector that is heavily reliant on voluntary and PT engagement. Thus, this work serves to provide organizational leadership and management insight on mechanisms shaping employee outcomes.

The findings here have important implications for employee well-being and are crucial to the way individuals across society manage the stress of working during times of crisis.

PT work is subject to different emotional norms than FT work. These novel findings provide value to organizational leaders who oversee a workforce with varying degrees of group membership.

The results from this qualitative study suggest that CEOs of Faith-Based Nonprofit Organizations (FBNPOs) define and measure their organization's effectiveness primarily based on the outcomes achieved in meeting the immediate needs of their clients and in resolving root causes to those needs. Other indicators of organizational effectiveness- including financial reports, amount of services provided, client satisfaction, stake holder support and perceptions -were also used by the CEOs of FBNPOs to measure organizational effectiveness. The findings indicate that faith is the source of “why” and “how” these FBNPOs conduct their activities. Measuring the impact faith has on those whom they serve varies among the FBNPOs in this study along a continuum of not being measured to being intentionally measured.

The purpose of this paper is to examine corporate social responsibility (CSR) partnerships from the often-overlooked perspective of nonprofit beneficiaries, situated in the rapidly evolving higher education funding environment.

In-depth interviews with corporate relations officers from public research universities across the USA were conducted. Qualitative coding procedures from Lindlof and Taylor (2019) were employed to analyze transcript data.

Three main factors have contributed to a rapidly evolving climate for corporate partnerships: CSR partnerships help universities build their reputations rather than endowments; feature new preferences in communication-based stewardship practices; and raise questions about university autonomy and authority.

New interpretations of interdependent relationships and stewardship may be needed to explain new corporate funding models, while threats to nonprofit organizational authority and autonomy may be growing.

Nonprofit practitioners may better understand how to position their organizations as more attractive to corporations while learning how to advocate for mutual benefits. They may also benefit from a new understanding of corporate stewardship.

While previous research has documented detrimental effects to nonprofits in CSR partnerships, higher education fundraisers in this study detail their struggles with new models of measuring success, new expectations for stewarding corporate partners and perceived threats to autonomy. Their voices add to a fuller understanding of rapidly evolving relationship management practices in higher education.