Business as Usual?

Abstract

This article explores the process through which civil society organizations (CSOs) adopt and develop reliance on corporate management knowledge and practices. It draws on theories related to organizational change and critical approaches to managerialism in an analysis of how and with what consequences a large and democratically governed Swedish CSO adopted the balanced scorecard. The analysis suggests that the adoption of corporate management knowledge and practices (1) involves a dialectic relationship with other change processes, in this case centralization and professionalization, (2) institutionalizes the idea that the corporate world provides valid solutions for how to assess and develop CSOs, and (3) creates or widens the divide between internal democratic governance and executive structures. The concluding section discusses these results and suggests further research.

Business-Like and Still Serving Society? Investigating the Relationship Between NPOs Being Business-Like and Their Societal Roles

“…Regarding the use of management tools, we asked respondents to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from not present to often used ) to what extent they use the following management tools: SWOT analysis, SMART goals, lean management, benchmarking, pay for performance, quality management (e.g., ISO), and key performance indicators (e.g., based on a balanced scorecard). This selection of management tools was based on previous studies on nonprofit managerialism (e.g., Hvenmark, 2013) and consultation with nonprofit directors. Regarding performance measurement, we asked respondents to indicate on a 4-point Likert-type scale (from not measured to often measured ) to what extent their organization measures the following aspects of nonprofit performance: (a) openness toward beneficiaries, (b) efficient spending, (c) mission fulfillment, (d) meeting expectations of beneficiaries, (e) service quality, and (f) making programs known to stakeholders.…”

“…Although managerialist and democratic practices can be combined in an organization, and management practices may include stakeholder participation, in practice there often seems to be an interpretation frame effect in which organizations favor one set of practices over the other. Qualitative studies are fairly unanimous in finding that managerialist practices undermine participation and organizational democracy (e.g., Eizenberg, 2012; Hvenmark, 2013; Kreutzer & Jager, 2011; Skocpol, 2013) and weaken the role of NPOs as facilitators of civic engagement. For example, Baines et al (2011) find that the standardization of operational processes leads to reduced opportunities for employee participation in decision-making processes.…”

The management and organization of philanthropy: New directions and contested undercurrents

“…Since the 1990s, business thinking and managerial practices have re‐emerged in the non‐profit sector generally, organizations increasingly becoming more business‐like and influenced by managerialism (Hvenmark, 2013; Maier & Meyer, 2011; Maier et al., 2016), leading them to focus objectives on specific strategic targets (Thompson, 2018, p. 51). Popular modern philanthropic practice concepts—such as strategic philanthropy (Frumkin, 2006), venture philanthropy (LaFrance & Latham, 2008) and collective impact (Kania & Kramer, 2011), embraced widely by foundations and their donors—are derived from the broader business‐focused strategic management literature, whereby foundations are understood to play key roles, enhancing the impact of a field by agreeing objectives and measures of success, and aligning available charitable, public and private resources to tackle social challenges.…”

Policy professionals in civil society organizations

“…This contribution is primarily based on new institutional theory, seeing the concepts of myth, decoupling, discretion, and avoidance as techniques for maintaining face and manifesting organizational hypocrisy (Brunsson 1986;Meyer & Rowan 1977). This perspective is often used in studying professionalization (e.g., Meyer & Bromley 2013;Lilja 2014;Polat 2021), including in studies of civil society (e.g., Hwang & Powell 2009;Hvenmark 2013;Åberg 2015;Marberg, Korzilius & Kranenburg 2019;Mason, Margerum, Rosenberg et al 2021). The perspective renders an understanding of how organizations commonly respond to contradictory external and/or internal pressures (Schmitter & Streeck 1999;Berkhout 2013).…”