Accountability in Nonprofit Governance: A Process-Based Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Nonprofit Board Accountability: A Literature Review and Critique
2005
Accountability is a buzzword in today’s nonprofit society. The press is full of stories detailing the sordid affairs of nonprofit organizations that have betrayed the confidence and trust of the public. What does accountability mean to a nonprofit organization today? What role does the board play in establishing and maintaining this accountability? The purpose of this essay is to explore the current literature on board accountability and recommend a strategy for boards to follow in maintaining their own system of accountability. Three main areas of accountability will be addressed: financial and legal accountability, moral accountability, and outcomes accountability. Self-assessment tools will be reviewed as a means of identifying areas of accountability that a board may need to work on.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), pp. 1117–1136., 2012
This paper examines some of the main limitations of research on the governance of nonprofit organisations. It argues that there are limitations in both the way governance has been conceptualised and the ways in which it has been researched. It suggests that research has focussed too narrowly on the boards of unitary organisations, and ignored both the wider governance system and the more complex multi-level and multi-faceted governance structures that many organisations have evolved. It also argues that the dominant research designs employed have been cross-sectional and positivist in orientation. As a result too little attention has been paid to board processes and change and how they are influenced by contextual and historical factors. Based on this analysis some new directions for nonprofit governance research are briefly mapped out.
Resolving Accountability Ambiguity in Nonprofit Organizations
Accountability is a much studied subject in the social sciences and is known for its complexity, context dependence, and ambiguity. By conducting a comprehensive literature review and analysis across nonprofit, public, and private sector literatures, this article identifies the causes of ambiguities present in many accountability frameworks and describes the trend toward understanding accountability as a constructed concept combining both instrumental and interpretive elements. The relationship between legitimacy and accountability is considered. The authors develop a holistic accountability framework that facilitates defining and implementing accountability in complex, multi-stakeholder environments, by providing a means to operationalize commonly encountered but ambiguous accountability goals through a social process of deliberative dialogue. The authors conclude by summarizing limitations of the approach and describing future research needed.
Accountability in organizational life: problem or opportunity for nonprofits?
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1995
This article reviews the notion of accountability as an intrinsic experience in daily organizational lije and contrasts it with the more traditional construct of accountability as an external control or monitoring device. The concept of jelt responsibil-ity can provide an opportunity to ...
How nonprofit boards monitor, judge and influence organisational performance
2009
The law and popular opinion expect boards of directors will actively monitor their organisations. Further, public opinion is that boards should have a positive impact on organisational performance. However, the processes of board monitoring and judgment are poorly understood, and board influence on organisational performance needs to be better understood. This thesis responds to the repeated calls to open the 'black box' linking board practices and organisational performance by investigating the processual behaviours of boards. The work of four boards 1 of micro and small-sized nonprofit organisations were studied for periods of at least one year, using a processual research approach, drawing on observations of board meetings, interviews with directors, and the documents of the boards.
Nonprofit Accountability: Negotiating the Network
The concept of accountability in the nonprofit and public sectors has received significant attention in both research and practice, partly because of its importance, but also because it is challenging to define, measure and implement. The nature of accountability is complex, ambiguous and highly context-dependent. This paper provides an exegesis of the literature on accountability in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, and develops a holistic accountability framework that facilitates defining, measuring and implementing accountability in complex operating environments impacted by network governance arrangements, multiple stakeholders and the growth of transnational governance and a global civil society. An example of a nonprofit organization in the field of international development is used to illustrate how the holistic accountability framework can be used by senior management and policy makers for the purposes of developing an accountability strategy. A research agenda is proposed to increase the fidelity of the framework to understand the implications for managerial practice and to understand how the increasing prevalence of networked action in the global public sphere affects specific accountability mechanisms.
Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An economic perspective
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1995
A popular concern is whether the managers of nonprofit enterprise are accountable. This article considers accountability in the context of three questions. First, how do groups establish a basis on which to hold managers accountable? Second, to whom should a manager be accountable? Third, can a person or group make it important to a manager to act in the best interests of the person or group? These three questions are addressed by the fields of public choice theory, social choice theory, and principal-agent theory, respectively. A cynical way of summarizing the seminal findings in these areas of research is that public choice theory proves that groups will be unable toform, social choice theory proves that once a groupforms, it will be unable to make good decisions, and principal-agent theory proves that a decision, once reached, is impossible to implement. A more optimistic view is that the problems identified by these research findings contain the seeds of their own solution, and that thereby valuable lessons for nonprofit managers can be adduced.