- 2015-03-09 (x)
- Industrial marketing (x)
- Nonprofit organizations -- Management (x)
- Search results
Search results
Show moreThe term "capacity building" has caught on quickly within the nonprofit sector, specifically with Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs). In fact, many funding organizations, agencies and foundations are now requesting that their partners engage in capacity building activities. How then, do we determine which organizations have the capacity to adhere to their mission statements and to deliver their services in a sustained fashion? This is an important question for two reasons. First, it asks us to identify the factors which lead to capacity, and second, it suggests that capacity building is a continuous process. This study proposes a relational process of building an organization's future. It supports a greater appreciation and awareness of the importance of building multi-organizational and global capacities. The relational capacity building framework introduces definitions, insights and guidelines that help the organization create capacity at different levels as well as define core capabilities. This framework allows organizations to see where they are today and establish a vision for tomorrow. It helps them to clerly understand their directions, views, values and capabilities to create a learning environment for capacity building at the same time they are actively involved in creating their future. In so doing, it offeres both utility and value for NGOs, donor organizations, governmental agencies, researchers and policy makers. While predominately donor driven, capacity building cannot be understood by only considering a Northern NGO (NNGO) or donor's perspective. The issue is driven by the interdependency between NNGOs and Southern NGOs (SNGOs). This study will conser both perspectives and was created from an in-depth analysis of four NNGOs, and data from a thorought literature review and meta-ethnography of six SNGOs. The Global Excellence in Management Initiative (GEM) organization worked with the researcher in the proposal stage to help identify the key research questions and other primary and secondary sources of information. GEM is a university-based program of learning and education that works in partnership with U.S. Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) and international NGOs (INGOs) to conduct capacity building programs. The study answers specific questions from multiple perspectives: What is capacity? What is capacity building? What is organziational capacity, multi-organizational capacity and global capacity? what are the core capabilities that allow for capacity at each level? The nature of the design was a multi-method qualitative study, combining a formal synthesis of selected published studies with original field investigation. The field study used an organizational development process known as appreciative inquiry in the design of the interview protocols, collection of data and preparation and analysis of cases. Appreciative inquiry is a method which attempts to discover "the best of what is" in any organizational/human system. Over 100 interviews were completed with thirty-two participants -- scholars, policy makers and practitioners in the field, primarily from Christian Relief World Resource Committee (CRWRC), the Center for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), Counterpart International and Pact -- to discover and understand the ways in which these orgranizations and their partners build capacity. These same research questions were used in a meta-ethnography (interpretive synthesis) of six published studies involving SNGOs. It is important to note that this project was not intended as purely theoretical work. Instead, it is the intention of the researcher to offer a contribution which is both practical and actionable. The study concludes with the development of the framework and a discussion of capacity building as a relational process for organizaing and creating an organization's future.
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less
Show moreThis is a study of the differing perspectives of business-oriented board members and a nonprofit CEO, providing insight into their relationships and into board governance practices. The study illuminates reasons why boards and CEOs find it difficult to fully use and leverage their joint skills. Background Nonprofit organizations are facing increased pressure and new challenges. They must contend with a shrinking resource base, greater competition for donor dollars and a donor market focused on the events of 9/11. Additionally, nonprofits are being asked to deliver more services, with fewer resources, to meet increased need. Adding to this mix is a generation of younger, more demanding donors with significant funds. They want to involve themselves with nonprofits that demonstrate operational effectiveness and generate a ‘return on investment.’ Consider Bill Gates. There are several Gates backed health initiatives “that are bringing the software mogul’s famously hardball business tactics to a philanthropic arena that has been hobbled by inefficiency and lack of funds.” The economic downturn and the resulting erosion in stock values compound these challenges and have clearly impacted charitable giving. Addressing these realities, George Guimaraes, an executive at Save the Children says, “We have to be accountable to our donors and to deliver on our commitment. Donors want defined, pragmatic outcomes.” And, nonprofit governance is being challenged in the wake of the Enron debacle. Examples of management negligence and incompetence are surfacing. The negative impact of these stories is compounded by the seeming lack of board awareness or action in the face of these disclosures. The resulting wave of publicity has shocked organizations most affected including the national Red Cross. In a recent expose’ by 60 Minutes of its San Diego chapter an interviewee said on national TV, based on what went on, she “would never consider donating to the Red Cross ever again.” Regina Herzlinger, wrote, “as a result of such revelations about some nonprofits, all nonprofits face increased scrutiny from both benefactors and regulators.” All of this has forced new, mostly unfamiliar demands on nonprofit management and boards. These demands may include more efficient management, an increased use of metrics to measure performance and the need to adhere to a clear strategy. For the board, there are implications relating to governance, responsibility and involvement with the respective nonprofit organization as Herzlinger describes. As a businessman, it appears the market is demanding greater accountability from nonprofit boards and management. Yet, according to Warren McFarlan, the typical nonprofit board is often a treasure trove of skills and ability that can well serve any organization in meeting the demands of the market. He cites a study showing that four- fifths of Harvard Business School students are involved in some way with nonprofits.
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less
Show moreHow board and chief executive officers (CEOs) engage to govern nonprofit organizations is not universally understood nor has such engagement been closely examined. The dialectic suggests that boards are either apathetic in governance (nannies of the CEO), or so operationally focused that they have lost sight of their mission. Likewise, CEOs have been accused of either running the board or as being enslaved to them. Much of the literature tries to separate the roles and responsibilities that the board and CEO have in governance. Other literature attempts to define what the board should do (versus what the CEO should do) to govern effectively. In contrast, this present quantitative study focuses more on engaging roles and responsibilities, rather than uncoupling what boards and CEOs do. The study provides a new understanding of board commitment. For example, this study adapts individual level variables to explore how engaged roles mediate differences and relationships. It can be shown, through multi-source data from 319 board-member/chief-executive pairs, that boards ground their interactions and relationships in practices that conjoin their roles; and that by doing so, board members are highly committed to the organization. Moreover, these findings indicate that relational practices facilitate role engagement in co-operative organizations, providing perspicacity into the complex governance situations faced by boards and CEOs.
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less
Show moreStrong arguments have been made that traditional definitions of accountability- financial health, internal controls and regulatory compliance- do not fully capture an organization’s performance (Ospina et al, 2002; Behn, 2001; Kearns, 1996). Failures evidenced by multiple breakdowns of accountability in nonprofit organizations have resulted in calls for boards to pursue a broadened level of accountability. There is little or no corresponding guidance in the literature to show how that could be accomplished. This research paper proposes to explore the “how” by adopting the notion of “moves” (Pentland, 1992), which are the verbal and/or nonverbal actions, routines or accomplishments undertaken to turn a problematic event or issue into an unproblematic one. This research into the practices of NPO boards is an attempt at rethinking traditional definitions of accountability in order to aid NPO Board actions. It seeks to empirically identify the nature of concrete “moves” that are made by boards towards gaining a conception of and capacity for broadened accountability. Looking into board “moves” is intended to provide new insights into the multi-dimensional aspects of accountability.
Doctorate of Management Programs
Show less