Interdepartmental relations and voluntary organizations: An exploration of tensions and why they arise

Abstract

This article explores the nature of interdepartmental relations in voluntary organizations, looking, in particular, at the relationship between fundraising and service‐providing departments. The findings indicate that the relationship between these two departments can be problematic, and the sources of tension between them are outlined. The author examines the question of why tensions arise. The fact that, for the voluntary organization, the needs and preferences of the service funder and the service recipient can be very different may be part of the explanation. Finally, the implications of the findings for our understanding of the role of voluntary organizations and the strategies they adopt are explored.

Strategy formulation in nonprofit social services organizations: A proposed framework social services organizations

“…While profits may not be a primary concern of NPSOs, the financial well-being of the organization may still be a serious preoccupation, especially if the organization has been experiencing negative revenue growth. In nonprofit organizations, however, the "bottom line" involves the attempt to satisfy multiple stakeholders with varied, sometimes contradictory objectives (MacKeith, 1994), including diverse client and funding groups (Murray and Tassie, 1994) and paid staff and volunteers (Hoffman, Digman, and Crittenden, 1991). Funding may be highly volatile in NPSOs since significant funding sources can be gained or lost quickly, requiring significant organizational adjustments (Bailey and Grochau, 1993).…”

“…The vertical axis, therefore, reflects the munificence of the external environment, which is a major influence on strategy The mun$cence or attractiveness of the services offered, along with the attractiveness of the service urea, are relevunt s tru tegic fuc tors for most nonprofit organizations choice (Castrogiovanni, 1991). The most significant environmental inputs are funding and demand for the services provided, which may not be highly correlated since those who use and those who pay for the services may not be identical (McMurtry, Netting, and Kettner, 1990) and may have highly divergent interests (MacKeith, 1994). The munificence or attractiveness of the services offered, along with the attractiveness of the service area, are relevant strategic factors for most nonprofit organizations.…”

“…In evaluating service attractiveness, both the need for the service and the popularity of the service with funding sources are potentially relevant factors. Unfortunately, these often are not highly correlated, leaving service providers with a difficult choice between providing the needed service or providing popular services for which funding is available (MacKeith, 1994). In evaluating service area attractiveness, demographics and economics are likely candidates for inclusion as variables, including average household income in the service area, population growth rates, unemployment or job growth rates, housing costs, congruence of the service area with the mission of the nonprofit organization, and so on.…”