Analysis of Board Effectiveness in Non-Profit Organizations in India

Bhardwaj, Sunil; Vuyyuri, Srivyal

doi:10.1080/09718923.2005.11892456

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have attempted to develop models that can measure nonprofit management performance but the results are generally inconclusive leading to a lack of consensus as to which is the best approach (Herman 1990;Moxham 2010;Taysir and Taysir 2012). There is no agreement that one performance measurement model is better than another and the findings from one study sometimes do not support the findings of another study (Cornforth 2012;Barnard and Lesirge 2012;Bhardwaj and Vuyyuri 2005;Holland, Chait and Taylor 1989;Ostrower and Stone 2010). There is also a positivist orientation evident in the current approach (Cornforth 2012), looking at how well the board as a whole carries out their responsibilities.…”

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

“…Poor communication can lead to conflict and confusion between the board and the members of the organisation. 5) Strategic planning (Bhardwaj and Vuyyuri 2005;Brown 2005;Brown and Iverson 2004;Forbes 1998;Green and Griesinger 1996;Herman and Renz 2002;Jackson and Holland 1998;Langabeer and Galeener 2007;Tucker and Parker 2013;Willems, Huybrechts, Jegers, Weijters, Vantibborgh, Didee and Pepermans 2012). There is broad agreement in the literature that having a strategic plan in place and board participation in the strategic planning process are major factors contributing to good organisational performance.…”

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…If the organisation is not generating enough income to meet its operating expenses then it will run at a loss and if this situation continues it will fail. 4) Communication (Bhardwaj and Vuyyuri 2005;Doherty and Hoye 2011;Widmer 1993). The board is responsible for ensuring that the proper vehicles are in place for efficient communication.…”

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

Hunt¹,

Nooriafshar²,

Krishnamurti³

2014

EJSBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A mathematical technique to measure nonprofit management performance has eluded researchers for more than three decades. Traditional, analytical techniques have failed to find a solution that has broad acceptance. This problem raised the following question: will heuristic methodology provide an acceptable, approximate solution to the measurement of individual management deficiency in a nonprofit organisation? The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that a heuristic methodology can be used to build a model that will measure individual management deficiency and produce an assessment of management strengths and weaknesses for the board members of nonprofit organisations. The heuristic methodology known as simulated annealing was adopted in an attempt to find an acceptable, approximate solution to the measurement of individual

show abstract

Section: Introductioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Building the Model Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Heuristic Model to Measure Nonprofit Management Deficiency

Hunt¹,

Nooriafshar²,

Krishnamurti³

2014

EJSBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no agreement on the factors associated with management performance (Alexander, Hearld and Mittler 2011) and there is no consensus that one performance measurement model is better than another. Current techniques produce results that have not been rigorously tested to validate the reliability of their measurement of performance (Heiberg and Bruno-van Vijfeijken 2009;Herman and Renz 2002) and the findings from one study sometimes do not support the findings of another study (Barnard and Lesirge 2012;Bhardwaj and Vuyyuri 2005;Cornforth 2012;Holland, Chait and Taylor 1989;Ostrower and Stone 2010). There is also a positivist orientation evident in the current approach (Cornforth 2012), looking at how well the board as a whole carries out their responsibilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Deficiencies in Nonprofit Management

Hunt¹,

Nooriafshar²,

Krishnamurti³

2015

The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need to measure the performance of nonprofit boards has been recognised for over 30 years primarily because of the direct relationship between board performance and organisation performance but also because identifying management strengths and weaknesses across a range of performance factors forms the basis for an effective management development programme. The results of past studies are generally inconclusive leading to a lack of consensus as to which is the best approach. The objective for this study was to demonstrate that a heuristic methodology does produce an acceptable, approximate solution to the measurement of individual management performance in a nonprofit board. Testing established that the heuristic model produced a satisfactory solution and was able to provide a detailed assessment of management strengths and weaknesses across a wide range of factors. Analysis of the results obtained from a sample of nonprofit board members provided clear evidence that management skills, management experience, relevant knowledge and commitment are key competencies for nonprofit board members. A direct, positive relationship between age and management performance was also identified.

show abstract