Contingency and Institutional Approaches to Conceptualizing Organizational Performance in Non-Profit Sector
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52962/ipjaf.2022.6.3.137Keywords:
Organisational Performance, Organisational Effectiveness, Contingency Theory, Institutional Theory, Not-for-Profit SectorAbstract
The conceptualization of organizational performance has received considerable attention in both the management accounting and nonprofit (NFP) literature. However, it is difficult to reach consensus on what constitutes "organizational performance." The unique nature of NFP, as well as the considerable size and influential impact of this sector in the Western economy, leads us to better understand the nature of performance of such organizations. Some argue that NFPs benefit from taking the same perspective on organizational performance as their commercial counterparts, while others argue that NFPs are so unique that the concept of the commercial sector is inappropriate or very difficult to implement. The paper argues that the seemingly conflicting views of how to conceptualize organizational performance in the NRP sector can be adjusted. The conclusions presented can guide researchers and practitioners in considering the nature of performance in this important sector.
Downloads
References
Anthony, R.N. & Govindarajan, V. (2004). Management Control Systems, (11th Ed.) McGraw-Hill/ Irwin, New York, NY.
Atkinson, A. A. & Shaffir, W. (1998). Standards for field research in management accounting, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 41-68.
Baines, A., & Langfield-Smith, K. (2003). Antecedents to management accounting change: a structural equation approach, Accounting Organizations and Society, 28(7/8), 675-698.
Baruch, Y. & Ramalho, N. (2006). Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 39-65.
Beck, T.E., Lengnick-Hall, C.A., & Lengnick-Hall, M.L. (2008). Solutions out of context. examining the transfer of business concepts to non-profit organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 19(2), 153-171.
Bennett, M., Rikhardsson, P. & Schaltehher, S. (2003). Adopting environmental management accounting: EMA as a value-added activity, In A. Tukker, Environmental Management Accounting-purpose and progress, Vol. 12. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1-14.
Bielefeld, W. (2006), Quantitative research for non-profit management, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(4), 395-409.
Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 70-737.
Brown W.A. (2000). Understanding organizational configurations and models of board governance in non-fit organizations, Paper presented at the Association for Research on Non-profit Organizations and Voluntary Action Annual Conference, November, New Orleans, LA.
Brown, W.A., & Iverson, J. O. (2004). Exploring strategy and board structure in non-profit organizations, Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), pp. 377-400.
Casteuble, T. (1997). Using financial ratios to assess performance, Association Management, 49(7), 29-36.
Chenhall, R. H. (1997). Reliance on manufacturing performance measures, total quality management and organizational performance, Management Accounting Research, 8(2), 187-206.
Chenhall, R.H. (2003). Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(2/3), 127-168.
Chenhall, R.H., & Langfield-Smith, K. (1998). The relationship between strategic priorities, management techniques and management accounting: an empirical investigation using a systems approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(3), 243-264.
DiMaggio, P.J, & Powell, W.W. (1991). Introduction to the new institutionalism in organizational analysis'', in DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 1-38.
DiMaggio, P.J., & Powell, W.W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications, Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Doty, D.H., Glick, W.H., Huber, G.P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: a test of two configurational theories, Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250.
Epstein, M. J.,, & Birchard, B. (2000), Counting What Counts, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA.
Forbes, D.P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: empirical studies of non-profit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(2), 183-202.
Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: values and strategy in non-profit human services, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 141-163.
Govindarajan, V. (1988). A contingency approach to strategy implementation at the business-unit level: integrating administrative mechanisms with strategy, Academy of Management Journal, 3(4), 828-853.
Govindarajan, V., & Fisher, J. (1990). Strategy, control systems, and resource sharing: effects on business unit performance, Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 259-285.
Govindarajan, V., & Gupta, A.K. (1985), Linking control systems to business unit strategy: impact on performance, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 10(1), 51-66.
Gray, R., Bebbington, J., & Collison, D. (2006), NGOs, civil society, and accountability: making the people accountable to capital, Accounting, Auditing, And Accountability Journal, 19(3), 319-348.
Gray, R, Owen, D. & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and Accountability; Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting, Prentice-Hall Europe, Harlow.
Ittner, C.D., & Larcker, D.F. (1998). Innovations in performance measurement: trends and research implications, Journal of Management Accounting Research, 10, 205-239.
Ittner, C.D., & Larcker, D.F. (1997). Quality strategy, strategic control systems, and organizational performance, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(3/4), 295- 314.
Kaplan, R.S. (2001). strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 353-370.
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992), The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kelly, M., & Alam, M (2008). Management accounting and the stakeholder value model, Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 6(1), 75-87.
Khandwaila, P. N. (1972). The effect of different types of competition on the use of management controls, Journal of Accounting Research, 10(Autumn), 275-285.
Lewis, D. (2002). Organization and management in the third sector: toward a cross-cultural research agenda, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(1), 67–83.
Lewis, D. (1998). Nongovernmental organizations, business, and the management of ambiguity, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(2), 135-151.
Lindenberg, M. (2001). Are we at the cutting edge or the blunt edge? improving ngo organizational performance with private and public sector strategic management frameworks, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 247-270.
Mara, C. M. (2000). A strategic planning process for a small non-profit organization: a hospice example, Non-profit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 211-222.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Indian-Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Site users
Copyright of all articles published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) belongs to their respective authors. Site users are permitted to download and print the articles for personal use. Further reproduction and/or distribution is not permitted, except for brief excerpts or quotations intended for inclusion in some other original works. In this case, proper attribution must be made to the author/copyright holder, and the place of publication must be acknowledged. Altering, editing or otherwise modifying the content of information obtained from the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) is a breach of copyright.
Authors
While you retain the copyright of your original material, by publishing in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) , you will have agreed to the following contractual terms:
- The article is the original work of the stated author(s).
- The work has not been published previously.
- If the Article contains copyright material owned by others, written permission has been obtained from the copyright owner(s) to republish such material in any print or electronic medium and that you have included appropriate acknowledgement of such rights in the Article.
- The author agrees to grant a non-exclusive license to the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) to communicate the work to the public.
- The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) may use the article for publicity purposes.
- The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) may publish the article on third-party sites.
- Any subsequent publication of the article by the authors will carry the acknowledgement: First published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) [http://ipjaf.omjpalpha.com]
Disclaimer
The Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) has taken all reasonable measures to ensure that material contained in this website is the original work of the author(s). However, the Journal gives no warranty and accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or the completeness of the material; no reliance should be made by any user on the material. The user should check with the authors for confirmation.
Articles published in the Indian Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance (IPJAF) do not represent the views held by the editors and members of the editorial board. Authors are responsible for all aspects of their articles except the editorial screen design.
