Search results

The paper examines aspects of not-for-profit leadership and in particular the importance of values in such leadership.

Drawing on the literature for leadership in charities, not-for-profits and social enterprise, the paper also uses two detailed case studies to illustrate dilemmas and challenges specific to the not-for-profit sector. These examples are the Salvation Army and Emmaus, both of which are found across many countries.

The paper identifies the importance of value sets in not-for-profits – in particular the voluntarist element that especially distinguishes these organisations from those in the private and public sectors. However, it also identifies common ground between some aspects of not-for-profit leadership and those other sectors.

The paper furnishes a composite of literature on leadership reinforced by detailed case studies as well as observations on characteristics that both link and separate leadership in the different sectors.

Policymakers worldwide have proposed a new contract – the ‘social impact bond’ (SIB) – which they claim can allay the underperformance afflicting not-for-profits, by tying the private returns of (social) investors to the success of social programs. We investigate experimentally how SIBs perform in a first-best world, where investors are rational and able to obtain hard information on not-for-profits’ performance. Using a principal-agent multitasking framework, we compare SIBs to inputs-based contracts (IBs) and performance-based contracts (PBs). IBs are based on a piece-rate mechanism, PBs on a non-binding bonus mechanism, and SIBs on a mechanism that, due to the presence of an investor, offers full enforceability. Although SIBs can perfectly enforce good behaviour, they also require the principal (i.e., government) to relinquish control over the agent’s (i.e., not-for-profit’s) payoff to a self-regarding investor, which prevents the principal and agent from being reciprocal. In spite of these drawbacks, in our experiment SIBs outperformed IBs and PBs. We therefore conclude that, at least in our laboratory test-bed, SIBs can allay the underperformance of not-for-profits.

This study examined donor development processes in a faithbased, 501(c)(3) publicly-supported, tax-exempt organizational setting. The conceptual framework is relationship marketing theory as informed from a systems theory alignment perspective. Organization-public relationship (OPR) dynamically predicts donor willingness to contribute unrestricted funds. It is proffered that the discrepancy variable, “values-fit incongruence,” significantly affects this dynamic. This contention is explored by asking the following two questions: (a) does donor-organization values-fit incongruence significantly negatively predict donor willingness to contribute unrestricted funds, and b) is the OPR construct strengthened with the patent inclusion of values-fit incongruence as an interactive moderator variable. Results suggest values-fit incongruence significantly negatively predicts donor willingness to contribute unrestricted funds. The results also suggest the OPR model is not strengthened by patently including the values-fit incongruence variable, as it may already be latently accounted for.

Not‐for‐profit organisations often experience accounting problems when dealing with the restrictions that donors impose on how the organisations may spend funds. Part of the accountability and stewardship that the managements of not‐for‐profit organisations assume is adhering to the wishes of donors and reporting compliance with restrictions. Fund accounting is a general phenomenon among not‐for‐profit organisations. The use of different funds usually stems from the restrictions imposed by donors, and funds are used to account for restricted resources. Separate funds are often used to separate restricted funds from other funds in these organisations, and to present information to the users of financial statements, indicating that the organisation has indeed complied with donor‐imposed restrictions. This article discusses the principles of some accounting standards already issued specifically for not‐for‐profit organisations in the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, and presents the results of empirical research on how donor‐imposed restrictions could be recorded in the financial statements of not‐for‐profit organisations.

Not‐for‐profit organisations often have accounting problems in the recognition of donations where donors impose restrictions on how funds are spent. The specific receipts which cause most problems relate to grants made ‘in advance’, grants received for a specific purpose, and capital grants. This article investigates whether some of these restricted receipts must be recorded as income in the income statement; whether others must be recorded directly against a fund, or whether unused funds must be recorded as a liability. This article discusses these problems and the principles of accounting standards already issued specifically for not‐for‐profit organisations in some countries. This article also presents the results of an empirical study done in South Africa which has a bearing on the recognition of certain restricted receipts. Recommendations are made on the most appropriate way for not‐for‐profit organisations to record receipts in advance, receipts for specific purposes and capital grants in their accounting systems.

The motivation behind this research is to remedy a gap in the literature on the role of branding within small to medium‐sized not‐for‐profit organisations that are not part of the charity or voluntary sector.

To understand the role precisely, a qualitative study based on in‐depth interviews with not‐for‐profit small to medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) was undertaken. The study identifies how these organisations develop their brands and the role that branding plays within such organisations. Two new models are presented to visually demonstrate the processes – a brand development matrix as a guide to the brand development decision process, and a focal model for the role of branding within not‐for‐profit SMEs.

Significantly, the study finds that employees play an important role as “ambassadors” of the brand. Forging links and working in partnerships were found to be exceptionally valuable in helping the organisations establish “a name” as well as raising awareness. Consequently, associations linked to the brand come from interactions that customers and other stakeholders have had with employees.

The study was qualitative and, therefore, more subjective in nature.

This study sought to explore how not‐for‐profit SMEs develop their brands to begin to remedy a gap in the current literature. The objectives of the study that the researchers set out to achieve have been aided by the development of two new models. The findings show evidence of similarities between the more conventional models of branding, whilst also revealing new findings not currently in the literature.

The horizon for not‐for‐profit organisations is changing. This has put increasing pressure on such organisations to establish “a name” for themselves. Although a considerable amount has been published on the role of branding in large commercial organisations, the researchers believe this is the first study to explicitly explore the role of branding to not‐for‐profit SMEs (not part of the charity/voluntary sector).

Not‐for‐profit organizations, sometimes called charities or voluntary organizations, are assumed to be serving their customers well – but are they? A customer segmentation is proposed of beneficiaries, supporters, stakeholders and regulators, each group having intermediaries through which the end customer may be reached. Lays out structural reasons why not‐for‐profits may not value or respect their customers, including excess demand, lack of competition, professional dominance and distance, lack of consumer research, lack of appreciation of supporters (both donors and volunteer service workers), comparatively lower salaries of staff, and argues that the “inter constituency tension” of the different and competing needs of beneficiaries, supporters, stakeholders and regulators plus the production orientation of many not‐for‐profits means that, in practice, customers are not sufficiently valued or respected.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether intention to report fraud varies by organization type or fraud type. Employees who self-select into not-for-profits may be inherently different from employees at other organizations.

The authors conduct a 2 × 2 experiment in which (n=107) individuals with a bookkeeping or accounting background respond to a fraud scenario. Analysis of covariance models are used for data analysis.

The authors find evidence that not-for-profit employees are more likely to report fraud and that reporting intention does not differ significantly by fraud type.

Limitations of this study include the simulation of a fraud through a hypothetical incident and the use of online participants.

This study expands the commitment literature by examining the role that commitment plays in the judgment and decision-making process of a whistleblower. Findings suggest affective commitment, which is an employee’s emotional attachment to the organization, and mediate the path between organization type and reporting intention. Affective commitment significantly predicts whistleblowing in not-for-profit organizations but not in for-profit organizations.

This research provides insight into how organization type influences whistleblowing intentions through constructs such as organizational commitment and public service motivation.

The ability of investors, taxpayers and researchers to compare financial statements issued by hospitals, universities and other governmental agencies is affected by their understanding of current accounting and reporting rules. Publicly owned not-for-profit organizations report different financial results from those that are privately owned. This study looks at the historical events that brought about the accounting and reporting divergences, discusses the recognition and reporting differences, and explores the implications for statement users.

This paper aims to focus on governance theories and practice variables in Not-For-Profit Service Organizations. The research answers two questions: what the prevalent governance practices of Not-for-Profit Service Organizations (NPSO) are, and whether there is a crossover among NPSO governance practices and For-Profit-Organization theories in the literature.

A questionnaire to the 285 organizations within the defined parameters obtained a 18 percent response. Data were collected regarding the boards' predominant roles in the organizations' governance activities, the top executives' predominant roles in the organizations' operations and their interrelationship with the boards, and the boards' most common meeting agenda topics.

The findings prove that governance models in NPSO are mostly driven by Agency Theory (52 percent of the sample). Stewardship and Resource Dependence Theories also contribute to existing governance models (28 percent), while some of the organizations have developed Hybrid Models (20 percent) drawing from the various theories.

The limited number of organizations participating in the research does not allow a generalization. However the diversity of organization types and sizes within the scope do provide a panoramic view of the not-for-profit service sector.

Having proved that there is a crossover of governance practices among For-Profit and Not-for Profit Organizations, this research opens the door to the evaluation of many other existing or potential crossovers in governance and other management elements.

This research is novel in its approach to look for similarities rather than differences between For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Organizations. The approach allows both sectors to learn from each other and seek for fresh improvement alternatives.