Individual Executive Characteristics: Explaining the Divergence Between Perceptual and Financial Measures in Nonprofit Organizations

Ritchie, William; Anthony, William P.; Rubens, Arthur

doi:10.1023/b:busi.0000039417.15488.17

Cited by 16 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This scale has 16 items (please see the Appendix) and measures whether respondents believe that business managers control their own destiny or are controlled by chance or powerful outside forces. The measure was tested and validated in previous studies with managers (e.g., Hodgkinson, 1992;Ritchie, Anthony, & Rubens, 2004;Ritchie & Sherlock, 2009), and the Cronbach's alpha of .72 found in our sample is consistent with the reliabilities reported in the past. The Locus of Strategic Control scale was the average of all 16 items with higher scores representing a more external locus of control (i.e., that managers are more controlled by powerful outside sources).…”

Section: Locus Of Strategic Controlsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Scale was adapted from the Strategic Locus of Control scale developed by Hodgkinson (1992) and validated in use by other studies (e.g., Ritchie et al, 2004;Ritchie & Sherlock, 2009). Scale was average of all 16 items with higher scores representing a more external locus of control (i.e., that managers are more controlled by powerful outside sources).…”

Section: Appendix Scales and Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personality, perceptions and retrenchment decisions of managers in response to decline: Evidence from a decision-making study

Musteen

Liang

Barker

2011

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Locus Of Strategic Controlsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Appendix Scales and Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality, perceptions and retrenchment decisions of managers in response to decline: Evidence from a decision-making study

Musteen

Liang

Barker

2011

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first measure was coded based on data obtained from Carnegie classifications to delineate among foundations associated with larger doctoral and research universities (coded 1), master' s colleges and universities (coded 2), and bachelor's colleges (coded 3). Previous research has suggested that this measure is a proxy for industry munificence (Ritchie, Anthony, and Rubens, 2004). This measure was used as a basis for post hoc analyses because its inclusion in the cluster analyses, along with our continuous strategy measures, could produce clusters that are determined mainly by this categorical measure.…”

Section: Control Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic group membership and nonprofit organization performance

Marlin

Ritchie

Geiger

2009

Nonprofit Mgmnt & Ldrshp

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzed the resource characteristics of a sample of university foundations and identified five distinct strategic groups. We found significant performance differences among them. Specifically, the group that focused most heavily on fundraising activities had the highest financial performance. Also performing well was the group with the highest ratio of contributions to total revenues combined with the highest level of slack. The research and managerial implications of this study' s findings are discussed. INCREASED DEMAND for nonprofit organization accountability, coupled with competition for funding from private and governmental entities, continues to fuel the need for further study of nonprofit organization effectiveness and performance. Recent studies centering on performance measurement testify to the importance of this area of inquiry (Brown and Moore, 2001;Forbes, 1998;Friedman and Phillips, 2004;Herman and Renz, 1999;Ritchie and Kolodinsky, 2003;Rojas, 2000;Sargeant, 2001). This stream of research has provided a foundation for researchers to explore a variety of antecedents to organizational performance, yielding many fruitful research findings. One area of growing research interest is the realm of organizational strategy formulation and its performance consequences. For example, much has been written about the efficacy of managerial tools used in the formulation of nonprofit organization strategy (Barry, 1997;Bryson, 1995;Stone, Bigelow, and Crittenden, 1999;Stone and Crittenden, 1993). In related literature, Miles and Snow' s strategic types (1978) have been applied in the context of the nonprofit sector to establish relationships with board structure (Brown and Iverson, 2004). Other studies have investigated causal relationships between strategy and nonprofit performance such as board involvement in strategic planning (Green and Griesinger,

show abstract

“…Indeed, one of the primary problems facing charities when assessing social impact is that different donors will assess different performance measures in a different way. In fact, CEOs and financial officers do not necessarily agree on what should be measured regarding a charity or nonprofit organizations' performance (Richie et al, 2004). Thus, it is unclear what information should be communicated internally and externally as part of social value.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the social impact of charitable organizations—four alternative approaches

Polonsky

Grau

2010

J of Philanthropy and Mktg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increased societal pressure on charities to improve performance. The questions that they must ask are: (1) Who is our audience? (2) What evaluation measures are important to the organization? and (3) What evaluation measures are best for the organization? There are a number of different approaches available for assessing performance, ranging from social accounting to more informal qualitative assessments of whether the organization's mission is being achieved. This paper draws on the industry and academic discussion of evaluations of nonprofit organizations to develop a four-category typology of alternative approaches for audiences. It then identifies the benefits and limitations of each. The goal is to identify the steps that charities should use to determine which approach is most suited to their specific circumstances. It is proposed that a collaborative development of evaluation criteria, of whichever type, may be most appropriate as will draw together the experiences and resources of multiple parties, and may have broader appeal than evaluations proposed by individual nonprofits.

show abstract

Individual Executive Characteristics: Explaining the Divergence Between Perceptual and Financial Measures in Nonprofit Organizations

Cited by 16 publications

References 61 publications

Personality, perceptions and retrenchment decisions of managers in response to decline: Evidence from a decision-making study

Personality, perceptions and retrenchment decisions of managers in response to decline: Evidence from a decision-making study

Strategic group membership and nonprofit organization performance

Assessing the social impact of charitable organizations—four alternative approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About