Do Nonprofit Boards Make a Difference? An Exploration of the Relationships Among Board Structure, Process, and Effectiveness

Abstract

The contribution of board structure and process dynamics to organiza tional and board effectiveness is the focus of this article. Based on data collected from a cross section of Canadian nonprofit organizations, the results show a positive association between the perception of board effec tiveness and the use of many of the most widely advocated prescriptions on how a nonprofit board of directors should operate. However, when objective indicators of organizational performance are examined, the link between performance and board behaviors is found to be more limited.

Scaling Social Impact: A Governance Explanation Model

“…We remember from the literature on governance mechanisms and, in particular, from Dulewicz, MacMillan, and Herbert's (1995) and Bradshaw, Murray, and Wolpin's (1992) studies, that boards can be conceptualized as a chain of inputs, structures, processes and outputs. Two main inputs of the board are its members' skills and experience, and the time they are able to devote to their role.…”

Patterns of governance structures in trade associations and unions

“…The appearance of governance-problems in nonprofit organizations is widely acknowledged and has led to a debate on governance in nonprofits (Drucker, 1990;Bradshaw, Murray and Wolpin, 1992;Golensky, 1993;Alexander and Weiner, 1996;Holland and Jackson, 1998;Carver, 1997;Houle, 1997;Ostrower and Stone, 2006). According to the new institutional economics, a governance problem in an organization occurs if at least one of the following criteria has to be managed (Hart 1995): the division of ownership and control and the vertical integration.…”

Accountability in Public Policy Partnerships

“…Herman and Renz (1997), for example, identify the following list of commonly recommended good governance practices for non-profit boards: having a board nominating or board development committee, using a board profile when recruiting new members, conducting interviews with nominees, relying on written selection criteria for board members, providing members with a board manual, conducting orientation sessions for new members, adopting a policy concerning the attendance of meetings, dismissing members for absenteeism, giving all board members office or committee responsibilities, distributing agendas prior to meetings, organising an annual board retreat, establishing an executive committee with written roles and powers, conducting collective and individual evaluations and providing feedback on them, formulating expectations on giving and soliciting in writing, establishing a board process for appraising the CEO, limiting the number of possible consecutive terms and providing board members with recognition for their services after retirement. For lists or codes including similar criteria see, for example, Bradshaw et al, (1992), Canadian Comprehensive Audit Foundation (1996, Drucker (1998), Gill et al (2005), . For a good overview over relevant codes of corporate governance proposing similar measures see, for example, Gregory and Simmelkjaer (2002).…”