Strong planners versus weak planners: An analysis of nonprofit organizations

Author/s Giacomo Boesso, Fabrizio Cerbioni, Marco Ghitti
Publishing Year 2022 Issue 2022/2 Suppl.
Language English Pages 24 P. 143-166 File size 341 KB
DOI 10.3280/MACO2022-002-S1007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Previous academic research found that two broad approaches characterize non-profit foundations when setting objectives. In the first approach, the business-like model, nonprofit foundations are inspired by for-profit organizations, and they adopt methodologies, tools, and practices typical of business management to better respond to social issues connected to their local dimensions. The second approach, the charity-like model, conversely argues that hybridization toward the market risks undermining the peculiarities of the nonprofit sector, thereby emphasizing the need of nonprofit foundations to be guided by the solidarity of interests that resides in the natural interdependencies of various members of society. To date, no study has fo-cused on the role of nonprofit foundation employees to understand the impact of a business-like approach on employee professionalism and job performance. Using responses from 277 employees of nonprofit foundations, this study investigates whether increased participation in planning and control tools increases employees’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the grant process. The results show that a busi-ness-like approach to planning, if well-balanced and considered, can contribute to greater employee professionalism and lead to improved information clarity and project innovation.

Keywords: Philanthropy planning, Nonprofit control, Nonprofit business-like.

  1. Agyemang G., O’Dwyer B., Unerman J., Awumbila M. (2018), Seeking “conversations for accountability”: Mediating the impact of non-governmental organization (NGO) upward accountability processes, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, pp. 982-1007.
  2. Barbetta G.P. (2013). Le fondazioni. Il motore finanziario del terzo Settore, il Mulino, Bologna.
  3. Bish A., Becker K. (2015), Exploring expectations of nonprofit management capabilities. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(3), pp. 437-457.
  4. Carnochan S., Samples M., Myers M., Austin M.J. (2014), Performance measurement challenges in nonprofit human service organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), pp. 1014-1032.
  5. Chenhall R.H., Hall M., Smith D. (2010), Social capital and management control systems: A study of a non-government organization, Accounting, Organizations & Society, 35(8), pp. 737-756.
  6. Chenhall R.H., Hall M., Smith D. (2013), Performance measurement, modes of evaluation and the development of compromising accounts, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(4), pp. 268-287.
  7. Cooney K. (2006), The institutional and technical structuring of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), pp. 137-155.
  8. D’Angelo G., Amatucci F. (2007), The strategy of bank foundation in fostering local welfare, Finanza, Marketing e Produzione, 25(3), pp. 57-74.
  9. Dees J.G. (2012), A tale of two cultures: Charity, problem solving, and the future of social entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), pp. 321-334.
  10. Del Giudice A., Migliavacca M. (2019), Social impact bonds and institutional investors: An empirical analysis of a complicated relationship, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(1), pp. 50-70.
  11. Eikenberry A.M. (2009), Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582-596.
  12. Eikenberry A.M., Kluver J.D. (2004), The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), pp. 132-140.
  13. European Venture Philanthropy Association (2018), EVPA Survey, --
  14. Green J., Dalton B. (2016), Out of the shadows: Using value pluralism to make explicit economic values in not-for-profit business strategies, Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), pp. 299-312.
  15. Haddad L. (2002), La mue des associations françaises de solidarité, Économie et Humanisme, 256, pp. 45-64.
  16. Hersberger-Langloh S.E., Stühlinger S., von Schnurbein G. (2021), Institutional isomorphism and nonprofit managerialism: For better or worse? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31(3), pp. 461-480.
  17. Hinna A., Monteduro F. (2017), Boards, governance and value creation in grant-giving foundations, Journal of Management and Governance, 21(4), pp. 935-961.
  18. Hustinx L., De Waele E. (2015), Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial nonprofit in Belgium, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1666-1689.
  19. Hvenmark J. (2016), Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(6), 2833-2859.
  20. Hyndman N., McConville D. (2018), Making charity effectiveness transparent: Building a stakeholder-focussed framework of reporting, Financial Accountability & Management, 34(2), pp. 133-147.
  21. Hyndman N., McKillop, D. (2018), Public services and charities: Accounting, accountability and governance at a time of change, The British Accounting Review, 50(2), pp. 143-148.
  22. Indiana University (2018), The Global Philanthropy Environment Index - European edition, Indiana: IUPUI Indiana University - Lily Family School of Philanthropy.
  23. Iverson J., Burkart P. (2007), Managing electronic documents and work flows: Enterprise content management at work in nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(4), pp. 403-419.
  24. Maier F., Meyer M., Steinbereithner M. (2016), Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), pp. 64-86.
  25. Marchi L. (2019), Governo delle aziende e creazione di valore: da una prospettiva finanziaria ad una prospettiva economico-sociale, Management Control, 1, pp. 5-16.
  26. Maxham III, J. G., Netemeyer, R. G., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2008). The retail value chain: Linking employee perceptions to employee performance, customer evaluations, and store performance. Marketing Science, 27(2), 147-167.
  27. McConville D. (2017), New development: Transparent impact reporting in charity annual reports-benefits, challenges and areas for development. Public Money & Management, 37(3), pp. 211-216.
  28. McKay S., Moro D., Teasdale S., Clifford D. (2015), The marketisation of charities in England and Wales, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), pp. 336-354.
  29. Minciullo M. (2016), Fostering orientation to performance in nonprofit organizations through control and coordination: The case of corporate foundations and founder firms, Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance, vol. 5, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 207-232.
  30. Minciullo M. (2016), Il ruolo strategico delle Fondazioni d’Impresa: tra responsabilità sociale e vantaggio competitive, Impresa Progetto - Electronic Journal of Management, 1, pp. 1-22.
  31. Mitchell G.E. (2018), Modalities of managerialism: The “double bind” of normative and instrumental nonprofit management imperatives, Administration & Society, 50(7), pp. 1037-1068.
  32. Nouri H., Parker R.J. (1998), The relationship between budget participation and job performance: The roles of budget adequacy and organizational commitment, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5-6), pp. 467-483.
  33. O'Dwyer B., Boomsma R. (2015), The co-construction of NGO accountability: Aligning imposed and felt accountability in NGO-funder accountability relationships. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, pp. 36-68.
  34. Peng S., Kim M., Deat F. (2019), The effects of nonprofit reputation on charitable giving: A survey experiment, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), pp. 811-827.
  35. Perrini F., Vurro C. (2011), Social venture capital & venture philanthropy. Modelli e processi d'investimento nell'innovazione sociale, EGEA, Milano.
  36. Powell M., Osborne S.P. (2020), Social enterprises, marketing, and sustainable public service provision, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(1), pp. 62-79.
  37. Puntillo P. (2017), Inter-municipal cooperation in service delivery and governance: Insights from Italy. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 12(3), pp. 197-217.
  38. Quadro Curzio A. (2015), Fondazioni di origine bancaria e solidarismo innovative, in ACRI XX Rapporto annuale sulle fondazioni, ACRI, Roma, pp. 249-267.
  39. Rogers R. (2015), Why the social sciences should take philanthropy seriously. Society, 52(6), pp. 533-540.
  40. Sanders M.L., McClellan J.G. (2014), Being business-like while pursuing a social mission: Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprofit organizing, Organization, 21(1), pp. 68-89.
  41. Steers R.M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 46-56.
  42. Suykens B., De Rynck F., Verschuere B. (2020), Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist welfare state, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), pp. 909-930.
  43. Teles S. (2008), The rise of the conservative legal movement: The battle for control of the law, Princeton University Press.
  44. von Schnurbein G. (2014), Same same but different: Managerial influences on organisational performance in foundations and associations, Journal of Business Economics, 84(2), pp. 251-276.
  45. Yang C., Northcott D. (2018), Unveiling the role of identity accountability in charity outcome measurement practices, The British Accounting Review, pp. 214-226.

Giacomo Boesso, Fabrizio Cerbioni, Marco Ghitti, Strong planners versus weak planners: An analysis of nonprofit organizations in "MANAGEMENT CONTROL" 2 Suppl./2022, pp 143-166, DOI: 10.3280/MACO2022-002-S1007