IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/qrampp/v10y2013i3-4p347-368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Charity performance reporting: comparing board and executive roles

Author

Listed:
  • Phil Saj

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this study is to compare the use of performance information by board members and executives of a large Australian community service organization in order to ascertain what they focused on and how they worked together in effecting organizational governance. Design/methodology/approach - – Field based case study using stewardship theory. Findings - – While board members and executives worked closely together within a mutually agreed organizational space, there was a clear bifurcation of focus with the board concerned more with the financial performance and the executive more with service performance. Further differentiation of role with respect to financial performance was observed such that the board's attention was directed most to issues that presented the greatest risk to the organization. The study found that board members and executives “cut across” traditionally assigned roles, thus demonstrating a joint mode of organizational governance that was underpinned by organizational policies, processes and structures. Research limitations/implications - – This paper provides rich empirical evidence in relation to matters that have been subject to high levels of theorisation; by answering recent calls from scholars for in-depth research on governance processes; and by identifying the common threads that link research on not-for-profit governance with stewardship theory and the extended concepts of accountability. It contributes to practice by providing a comprehensive explanation of a contemporary governance arrangement. It contributes to the public policy debate since a key issue currently under review in Australia, and New Zealand, to name just two jurisdictions, is the attribution of responsibilities by key decision makers in charities, in particular, the vexed question of management involvement in governance processes. Originality/value - – The paper provides rich empirical data about an issue of ongoing importance to third sector organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Phil Saj, 2013. "Charity performance reporting: comparing board and executive roles," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(3/4), pages 347-368, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:10:y:2013:i:3/4:p:347-368
    DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-05-2013-0018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QRAM-05-2013-0018/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/QRAM-05-2013-0018/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/QRAM-05-2013-0018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maged Albaz & Mohamed Mostafa Ali Albaz, 2019. "Core Perspectives Of Performance Measurement In Npos: In Search Of Accountability And Legitimacy," Economic Archive, D. A. Tsenov Academy of Economics, Svishtov, Bulgaria, issue 3 Year 20, pages 3-16.
    2. Cate Watson & Gary Husband & Aileen Ireland, 2021. "Opening the ‘black box’: what does observational research reveal about processes and practices of governing?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(1), pages 189-221, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:qrampp:v:10:y:2013:i:3/4:p:347-368. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.