How Managerial Practices Impact Perceived Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Corporate Foundations
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Conceptualization of Organizational Effectiveness in Nonprofit Organizations
2.2. Antecedents of Organizational Effectiveness
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Data Collection
3.2. Sample
3.3. Measures
- Independent variables
- Dependent variables
- Control variables
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Anheier, Helmut K. 2001. Foundations in Europe: A Comparative Perspective. Civil Society Working Paper 18. London: Centre for Civil Society (London School of Economics and Political Science). [Google Scholar]
- Balser, Deborah, and John McClusky. 2005. Managing Stakeholder Relationships and Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 15: 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berrett, Jessica L., and Jayce Sudweeks. 2023. Understanding Nonprofit Leaders’ Perceptions of Organizational Efficiency. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 33: 491–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bethmann, Steffen, and Georg von Schnurbein. 2015a. Effective Governance of Corporate Foundations. CEPS Working Paper Series; Basel: Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), University of Basel. [Google Scholar]
- Bethmann, Steffen, and Georg von Schnurbein. 2015b. Giving in Switzerland: High Engagement and International Outreach. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy, 1st ed. Edited by P. Wiepking and Femida Handy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 267–84. [Google Scholar]
- Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. 2017. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG). Berlin, Germany. Available online: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bdsg_2018/BDSG.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2020).
- Cattell, Raymond B. 1966. The Scree Test for the Number of Factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1: 245–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corporate Citizenship. 2013. The Foundations of Business. The Growth of Corporate Foundations in England and Wales. London. Available online: https://corporate-citizenship.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Corporate-Citizenship_Foundations.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Dillman, Don. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Dillman, Don, Jolene D. Smyth, and Leah Melani Christian. 2014. Web Questionnaires and Implementation. In Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 4th ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 301–50. [Google Scholar]
- DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolnicar, Sara, Helen Irvine, and Katie Lazarevski. 2008. Mission or Money? Competitive Challenges Facing Public Sector Nonprofit Organisations in an Institutionalised Environment. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 13: 107–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebrahim, A. 2016. The Many Faces of Nonprofit Accountability. In The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 4th ed. Edited by David O. Renz and Robert D. Herman. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 102–23. [Google Scholar]
- Eckhardt, Beate, Dominique Jakob, and Georg von Schnurbein. 2017. Der Schweizer Stiftungsreport 2017. CEPS Forschung Und Praxis. Basel: Center for Philanthropy Studies (CEPS), University of Basel. [Google Scholar]
- Forbes, Daniel P. 1998. Measuring the Unmeasurable: Empirical Studies of Nonprofit Organization Effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27: 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehringer, Theresa. 2021. Corporate Foundations as Hybrid Organizations: A Systematic Review of Literature. Voluntas 32: 257–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehringer, Theresa, and Georg von Schnurbein. 2020. Corporate Foundations in Europe. In Handbook on Corporate Foundations: Corporate and Civil Society Perspectives. Edited by Lonneke Roza, Steffen Bethmann, Lucas Meijs and Georg von Schnurbein. Cham: Springer, pp. 85–106. [Google Scholar]
- Goncharenko, Galina. 2021. The Multiplicity of Logics, Trust, and Interdependence in Donor-Imposed Reporting Practices in the Nonprofit Sector. Financial Accountability & Management 37: 124–41. [Google Scholar]
- Gordon, Teresa P., Saleha B. Khumawala, Marla Kraut, and Daniel G. Neely. 2010. Five Dimensions of Effectiveness for Nonprofit Annual Reports. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21: 209–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grieco, Cecilia, Laura Michelini, and Gennaro Iasevoli. 2015. Measuring Value Creation in Social Enterprises: A Cluster Analysis of Social Impact Assessment Models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44: 1173–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasel, Andreas, and Luise Burkhardt. 2024. Entwicklung des Stiftungssektors in Deutschland 2000–2023. Kennzahlen zu Bestand, Errichtungen, Dichte und Zwecken im Zeitverlauf. Stiftungsfokus Nr. 21. Berlin: Bundesverband Deutscher Stiftungen. Available online: https://www.stiftungen.org/fileadmin/stiftungen_org/Verband/Was_wir_tun/Publikationen/stiftungsfokus21-sektorentwicklung.pdf (accessed on 28 April 2024).
- Herman, R. D. 2016. Executive Leadership. In The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, 4th ed. Edited by David O. Renz and R. D. Herman. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 167–87. [Google Scholar]
- Herman, R. D., and D. O. Renz. 2004. Doing Things Right: Effectiveness in Local Nonprofit Organizations, a Panel Study. Public Administration Review 64: 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, R. D., and David O. Renz. 2000. Board Practices of Especially Effective and Less Effective Local Nonprofit Organizations. American Review of Public Administration 30: 146–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, R. D., and David O. Renz. 2008. Advancing Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness Research and Theory Nine Theses. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 18: 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hummel, Siri, Laura Pfirter, Johannes Roth, and Rupert Graf Strachwitz. 2020. Understanding Civil Society in Europe. A Foundation for International Cooperation. Ifa Editio. Stuttgart: Ifa (Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen e.V.). [Google Scholar]
- Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. 2018. The Global Philanthropy Environment Index 2018. European Edition. Indianapolis. Available online: https://globalindices.iupui.edu/doc/gpei18-europe.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
- Johnson, Paula D. 2018. Global Philanthropy Report. Perspectives on the Global Foundation Sector. Cambridge, MA, USA. Available online: https://cpl.hks.harvard.edu/files/cpl/files/global_philanthropy_report_final_april_2018.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
- Kaiser, Henry F. 1960. The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 141–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecy, Jesse D., Hans Peter Schmitz, and Haley Swedlund. 2012. Non-Governmental and Not-for-Profit Organizational Effectiveness: A Modern Synthesis. Voluntas 23: 434–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Boram, Rodolfo Sejas-Portillo, and Ian Fraser. 2023. Balancing Perspectives on Performance: ‘Measurement from the inside’ and ‘Measurement from the Outside’. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 34: 13–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liket, Kellie, and Karen Maas. 2015. Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness: Analysis of Best Practices. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44: 268–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGill, Lawrence T. 2016. European Foundation Sector Report 2016. New York: Foundation Center. [Google Scholar]
- Mews, Marius, and Silke Boenigk. 2015. Giving in Germany: Toward Systematic Information on a Fragmented Nonprofit Sector. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Philanthropy, 1st ed. Edited by Pamala Wiepking and Femida Handy. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 170–89. [Google Scholar]
- Minciullo, Marco. 2016. Fostering Orientation to Performance in Nonprofit Organizations through Control and Coordination: The Case of Corporate Foundations and Founder Firms. In Governance and Performance in Public and Non-Profit Organizations (Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance). Edited by Luca Gnan, Alessandro Hinna and A. Monteduro. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5, pp. 207–32. [Google Scholar]
- Minciullo, Marco, and Matteo Pedrini. 2014. Transfer to Transform. Leveraging Firm’s Knowledge to Mold Corporate Foundation’s Effectiveness. In Mechanisms, Roles and Consequences of Governance: Emerging Issues (Studies in Public and Non-Profit Governance). Edited by Gnan Luca, Alessandro Hinna and Fabio Monteduro. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 181–203. [Google Scholar]
- Minciullo, Marco, and Matteo Pedrini. 2015. Knowledge Transfer between For-Profit Corporations and Their Corporate Foundations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 25: 215–34. [Google Scholar]
- Minciullo, Marco, and Matteo Pedrini. 2020. Antecedents of Board Involvement and Its Consequences on Organisational Effectiveness in Non-Profit Organisations: A Study on European Corporate Foundations. Journal of Management and Governance 24: 531–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, George E. 2013. The Construct of Organizational Effectiveness: Perspectives from Leaders of International Nonprofits in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 42: 324–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, George E. 2015. The Attributes of Effective NGOs and the Leadership Values Associated with a Reputation for Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 26: 39–57. [Google Scholar]
- Mladenova, Irena. 2022. Relation between Organizational Capacity for Change and Readiness for Change. Administrative Sciences 12: 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrower, Francie. 2004. Attitudes and Practices Concerning Effective Philanthropy: Survey Report. Washington, DC. Available online: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/411067-Attitudes-and-Practices-Concerning-Effective-Philanthropy.PDF (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Ostrower, Francie. 2006a. Community Foundation Approaches to Effectiveness: Characteristics, Challenges, and Opportunities. Nonprofit Sector Research Fund Working Paper Series; Washington, DC: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund. Available online: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/files/content/docs/pubs/FINAL Ostrower.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2019).
- Ostrower, Francie. 2006b. Foundation Approaches to Effectiveness: A Typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35: 510–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrower, Francie. 2007. The Relativity of Foundation Effectiveness: The Case of Community Foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 36: 521–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedrini, Matteo, and Marco Minciullo. 2011. Italian Corporate Foundations and the Challenge of Multiple Stakeholder Interests. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 22: 173–97. [Google Scholar]
- Regierung des Fürstentums Liechtenstein. 2020. Landtag, Regierung Und Gerichte 2019. Rechenschaftsbericht Der Regierung an Den Hohen Landtag. Vaduz. Available online: https://www.llv.li/files/srk/rb19_gesambericht.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2020).
- Renz, David O., and R. D. Herman. 2016. Understanding Nonprofit Effectiveness. In The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 274–92. [Google Scholar]
- Rey-Garcia, Marta, María José Sanzo-Perez, and Luis Ignacio Álvarez-González. 2018. To Found or to Fund? Comparing the Performance of Corporate and Noncorporate Foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 47: 514–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roza, L., Steffen Bethmann, Lucas Meijs, and Georg von Schnurbein, eds. 2020a. Handbook on Corporate Foundations. Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies (An International Multidisciplinary Series). Cham: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Roza, L., Steffen Bethmann, Lucas Meijs, and Georg von Schnurbein. 2020b. Introduction. In Handbook on Corporate Foundations: Corporate and Civil Society Perspectives. Edited by L. Roza, Steffen Bethmann, Lucas Meijs and Georg von Schnurbein. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Salamon, Lester M., and Helmut K. Anheier. 1996. The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Salamon, Lester M., S. Wojciech Sokolowski, and Regina List. 2003. Global Civil Society. An Overview. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Shilbury, David, and Kathleen A Moore. 2006. A Study of Organizational Effectiveness for National Olympic Sporting Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 35: 5–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowa, Jessica E., Sally Coleman Selden, and Jodi R. Sandfort. 2004. No Longer Unmeasurable? A Multidimensional Integrated Model of Nonprofit Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 33: 711–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tran, Long. 2020. International NGO Centralization and Leader-Perceived Effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 49: 134–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Schnurbein, Georg, Marybel Perez, and Theresa Gehringer. 2018. Nonprofit Comparative Research: Recent Agendas and Future Trends. Voluntas 29: 437–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, Edward T. 2013. Signaling responsibility, deflecting controversy: Strategic and institutional influences on the charitable giving of corporate foundations in the Health sector. Research in Political Sociology 21: 181–214. [Google Scholar]
- Willems, Jurgen, Marc Jegers, and Lewis Faulk. 2016. Organizational Effectiveness Reputation in the Nonprofit Sector. Public Performance and Management Review 39: 454–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willems, Jurgen, Silke Boenigk, and Marc Jegers. 2014. Seven Trade-Offs in Measuring Nonprofit Performance and Effectiveness. Voluntas 25: 1648–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Daniel, and Kathy Babiak. 2023. A Study on Corporate Foundation and Philanthropy: Does Governance Matter for Organizational Performance? Nonprofit Management and Leadership 34: 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Switzerland | Liechtenstein | Germany | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Total number of charitable foundations | (2019) 13,293 | (2014) 1392 | (2019) 23,230 | |
Corporate foundations total estimate | ~200 | ~11 | 1617 | |
Corporate foundations in sample | 200 | 11 | 197 | |
Answers complete (>80%) | 21 (from both countries) | 19 | 40 | |
Answers partial (50–80%) | 3 (from both countries) | 1 | 4 |
N | Mean | SD | Median | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 40 | 21.63 | 13.92 | 17.50 |
Internationalization | 41 | 0.37 | 0.49 | - |
Headquarter | 39 | 0.74 | 0.44 | - |
Board size | 44 | 6.09 | 2.48 | 6.00 |
FTE employees | 36 | 3.22 | 7.42 | 1.00 |
Governance code | 39 | 0.82 | 0.39 | - |
Grants paid out (million EUR) | 32 | 2.84 | 5.80 | 0.65 |
Total Sample | |
---|---|
Model of activity (%) | |
Grant making | 39.0 |
Operating own programs | 22.0 |
Mixed | 39.0 |
Area of activity (%) | |
Culture and Recreation | 46.3 |
Education and Research | 87.8 |
Health | 39.0 |
Social Services | 24.4 |
Environment | 29.3 |
Development/Housing | 12.2 |
Law/Advocacy/Politics | 9.8 |
Phil. Intermediaries/Voluntarism Promotion | 4.9 |
International | 24.4 |
Religion | 2.4 |
Professional Associations/Unions | 9.8 |
Construct | Item No. | Factor Loading | Item Text | Mean | SD | Median | Eigen-Values | % of Variance | Cumulative % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beneficiaries (α = 0.877, CR = 0.905, AVE = 0.760) | 18_2 | 0.909 | Beneficiary consultation in design of activities | 3.23 | 1.43 | 3.50 | 3.298 | 29.986 | 29.986 |
19_2 | 0.885 | Beneficiary consultation in implementation of activities | 3.48 | 1.46 | 4 | ||||
20_2 | 0.819 | Beneficiary consultation in monitoring/evaluation of projects | 3.27 | 1.45 | 4 | ||||
Experts (α = 0.807, CR = 0.791, AVE = 0.656) | 18_1 | 0.863 | Expert consultation in design of activities | 3.75 | 1.14 | 4 | 1.977 | 17.972 | 47.958 |
19_1 | 0.846 | Expert consultation in implementation of activities | 3.84 | 1.12 | 4 | ||||
20_1 | 0.834 | Expert consultation in monitoring/evaluation of projects | 3.16 | 1.31 | 3 | ||||
Founding company (α = 0.569, CR = 0.740, AVE = 0.491) | 19_3 | 0.879 | Founding firm consultation in implementation of activities | 2.45 | 1.32 | 2 | 1.902 | 17.291 | 65.249 |
21_3 | 0.735 | Evaluation of the activities includes intended positive and potentially unintended negative effects on founding firm | 2.57 | 1.33 | 2.50 | ||||
Monitoring and evaluation (α = 0.632, CR = 0.905, AVE = 0.581) | 21_1 | 0.818 | Evaluation of the activities includes intended positive and potentially unintended negative effects on beneficiaries | 3.95 | 1.23 | 4 | 1.136 | 10.328 | 75.577 |
21_2 | 0.686 | Evaluation of the activities includes intended positive and potentially unintended negative effects on other people | 3.15 | 1.33 | 4 | ||||
21_4 | 0.578 | Evaluation of the activities includes intended positive and potentially unintended negative effects on the environment | 2.93 | 1.22 | 3 |
Item in Survey | Factor Loading | α | AVE | CR | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||||
No. 1_ Acquisition of Resources | 0.733 | 0.701 | 0.587 | 0.810 | |
No. 2_ Use of Resources | 0.802 | 0.875 | 0.581 | 0.905 | |
No. 3_ Flexibility | 0.762 | ||||
No. 4_ Innovation | 0.476 | 0.364 | |||
No. 5_ Expertise | 0.738 | 0.376 | |||
No. 6_ Contacts | 0.816 | ||||
No. 7_ Staff | 0.827 | ||||
No. 8_ Stakeholder | 0.811 | ||||
No. 9_ Goal Achievement | 0.494 | 0.581 | |||
No. 10_ Evaluation | 0.737 | ||||
Eigenvalues % of variance cumulative % | 4.834 48.336 48.336 | 1.331 13.307 61.643 |
Construct | Item No. | Factor Loading | Item Text | Mean | SD | Median |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived organizational effectiveness (α = 0.875, AVE = 0.581, CR = 0.905) | 4 | 0.595 | Innovation (e.g., creativity, pioneering) | 3.81 | 1.20 | 4.00 |
5 | 0.819 | Expertise (e.g., acquiring substantive knowledge) | 3.74 | 1.12 | 4.00 | |
6 | 0.804 | Contacts (e.g., networking/collaboration) | 4.02 | 1.01 | 4.00 | |
7 | 0.887 | Staff (e.g., quality people/a well-trained staff) | 3.14 | 1.28 | 3.00 | |
8 | 0.784 | Stakeholder satisfaction (e.g., recipients) | 3.84 | 0.998 | 4.00 | |
9 | 0.692 | Goal achievement (e.g., measurable progress) | 3.65 | 0.897 | 4.00 | |
10 | 0.718 | Outcome evaluation (e.g., using frameworks) | 2.35 | 0.997 | 2.00 | |
Eigenvalues % of variance | 4.067 58.107 |
Dependent Variable | ||
---|---|---|
Organizational Effectiveness | ||
Independent variables: Effectiveness-enhancing practices | Experts | 5.411 *** (0.000) |
Monitoring and Evaluation | 2.608 ** (0.016) | |
Founding company | 1.476 (0.154) | |
Beneficiaries | 0.769 (0.451) | |
Reporting and online publication | 1.135 (0.268) | |
Accessibility | −0.050 (0.961) | |
Control variables: foundation characteristics | Model of activity | 2.936 *** (0.008) |
Age | 1.937 * (0.066) | |
Internationalization | 1.758 * (0.093) | |
Governance code | −0.160 (0.874) | |
Size (FTE employees) | 0.195 (0.847) | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.638 | |
F statistic (df = 11; 22) | 6.284 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gehringer, T. How Managerial Practices Impact Perceived Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Corporate Foundations. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050096
Gehringer T. How Managerial Practices Impact Perceived Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Corporate Foundations. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(5):96. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050096
Chicago/Turabian StyleGehringer, Theresa. 2024. "How Managerial Practices Impact Perceived Organizational Effectiveness: A Study of Corporate Foundations" Administrative Sciences 14, no. 5: 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14050096