IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04862387.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Many Indicators of Nonprofit Success as Seen by Nonprofit Leaders

Author

Listed:
  • Florentine Maier

    (Universität Wien = University of Vienna)

  • Wenjuan Zheng

    (HKUST - The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology)

  • Christof Brandtner

    (EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Leila Cornips

    (Universität Wien = University of Vienna)

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations are increasingly compelled to demonstrate their success to stakeholders, drawing scholarly interest toward systematizing indicators of their success. But what best indicates success is in the eye of the beholder, as success is socially constructed. This paper examines the multifaceted success indicators used by nonprofit leaders in practice and explores how they align with scholarly conceptions of nonprofit success. We develop a framework of nonprofit success from the perspective of nonprofit leaders that is more comprehensive and generalizable than previous ones by analyzing responses from leaders of 861 randomly sampled nonprofit organizations in three metropolitan regions representing different institutional contexts—Vienna (Austria), Shenzhen (China), and San Francisco (USA). Despite contextual differences, leaders' understandings have much in common across settings. The indicators overlap with existing scholarly understandings of nonprofit performance and effectiveness, focusing on internal actions and external stakeholder relationships. However, our findings also uncover two practically relevant groups of indicators that are under‐appreciated in scholarly discourse: relationships within the organization (cohesiveness and social inclusion), and the uptake behavior of external stakeholders (engagement with the organization's offerings). Our findings categorize these indicators in terms of whether they manifest inside or outside the organization and whether they emphasize actions or relationships. The two‐dimensional framework thereby maps common ground among nonprofit leaders across diverse national and organizational contexts, noting how the priority of success aspects varies. Our comparative data underscore the wide‐ranging applicability of the proposed framework, illuminating new directions for research on nonprofit success.

Suggested Citation

  • Florentine Maier & Wenjuan Zheng & Christof Brandtner & Leila Cornips, 2024. "The Many Indicators of Nonprofit Success as Seen by Nonprofit Leaders," Post-Print hal-04862387, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04862387
    DOI: 10.1002/nml.21641
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04862387v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04862387v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/nml.21641?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lall, Saurabh Ajay, 2017. "Measuring to Improve Versus Measuring to Prove: Understanding the Adoption of Social Performance Measurement Practices in Nascent Social Enterprises," SocArXiv 8wa5c, Center for Open Science.
    2. George E. Mitchell & Sarah S. Stroup, 2017. "The reputations of NGOs: Peer evaluations of effectiveness," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 397-419, September.
    3. Paul M. Hirsch & Daniel Z. Levin, 1999. "Umbrella Advocates Versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 199-212, April.
    4. White, Howard, 2009. "Some Reflections On Current Debates In Impact Evaluation," 3ie Publications 2009-1, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Belen Lopez & Alfonso Torres & Alberto Ruozzi & Jose Antonio Vicente, 2020. "Main Factors for Understanding High Impacts on CSR Dimensions in the Finance Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, March.
    2. Jacopo Zotti & Andrea Bigano, 2019. "Write circular economy, read economy’s circularity. How to avoid going in circles," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 36(2), pages 629-652, July.
    3. Ian Ruthven, 2021. "Resonance and the experience of relevance," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(5), pages 554-569, May.
    4. Manuel Sánchez-Pérez & Nuria Rueda-López & María Belén Marín-Carrillo & Eduardo Terán-Yépez, 2021. "Theoretical dilemmas, conceptual review and perspectives disclosure of the sharing economy: a qualitative analysis," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(7), pages 1849-1883, October.
    5. Marta Solórzano-García & Julio Navío-Marco & Luis Manuel Ruiz-Gómez, 2019. "Ambiguity in the Attribution of Social Impact: A Study of the Difficulties of Calculating Filter Coefficients in the SROI Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Sonia Adam-Ledunois & Sébastien Damart, 2016. "Innovation managériale… ou pas ? Design d'une méthodologie d'analyse critique des objets de management," Post-Print hal-01780623, HAL.
    7. Phillips Susan D., 2019. "Putting Humpty Together Again: How Reputation Regulation Fails the Charitable Sector," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 1-11, December.
    8. Andrea Cecchin & Roberta Salomone & Pauline Deutz & Andrea Raggi & Laura Cutaia, 2021. "What Is in a Name? The Rising Star of the Circular Economy as a Resource-Related Concept for Sustainable Development," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 83-97, June.
    9. Michaelis, Timothy L. & Scheaf, David J. & Carr, Jon C. & Pollack, Jeffrey M., 2022. "An agentic perspective of resourcefulness: Self-reliant and joint resourcefulness behaviors within the entrepreneurship process," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(1).
    10. Joshua K Ault & Aloysius Newenham-Kahindi & Sanjay Patnaik, 2021. "Trevino and Doh’s discourse-based view: Do we need a new theory of internationalization?," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(7), pages 1394-1406, September.
    11. Howard White, 2009. "Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 271-284.
    12. Meglio, Olimpia & Risberg, Annette, 2011. "The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 418-433.
    13. Joep P. Cornelissen & Jean S. Clarke, 2010. "Imagining and rationalizing opportunities : Inductive reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures," Post-Print hal-02276730, HAL.
    14. Yuan, Ruizhi & Luo, Jun & Liu, Martin J. & Yu, Jiang, 2022. "Understanding organizational resilience in a platform-based sharing business: The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 85-99.
    15. Alex Bitektine & Patrick Haack & Joel Bothello & Johanna Mair, 2020. "Inhabited Actors: Internalizing Institutions through Communication and Actorhood Models," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 885-897, June.
    16. Julia Hillmann, 2021. "Disciplines of organizational resilience: contributions, critiques, and future research avenues," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 879-936, May.
    17. Ewa Stańczyk-Hugiet & Janusz Strużyna & Katarzyna Piórkowska & Sylwia Stańczyk, 2016. "Space and Species. Business School Exemplifications," International Journal of Social Science Research, Macrothink Institute, vol. 4(1), pages 26-43, March.
    18. Jorge Walter & Daniel Z. Levin & J. Keith Murnighan, 2015. "Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1447-1465, October.
    19. Patrick Haack & Oliver Schilke & Lynne Zucker, 2021. "Legitimacy Revisited: Disentangling Propriety, Validity, and Consensus," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 749-781, May.
    20. Kirchherr, Julian & Reike, Denise & Hekkert, Marko, 2017. "Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 221-232.

    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:hal:journl:hal-04862387. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.