Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Sustainability Approaches in Non-Profit Organizations
- A. One perspective emphasize various dimensions of organizational sustainability, considered critical in NPO survivability:
- (a)
- focused on financial viability or long-term economic growth of non-profits [47,48,49,50,51,52] emphasizing indicators like liquidity, solvency or margin [48]. Some scholars consider current ratio and capital ratio [49], others consider days of cash on hand [50,51] or cash and cash reserve ratio [52]. The large number of studies comprising financial viability as a main dimension of sustainability can be attributed to the literature that detects financial indicators predicting financial vulnerability of NPOs [47,53,54].
- (b)
- (c)
- focused on developing new methodologies to identify and assess those organizational characteristics critical for NPOs sustainability, based on an assessment of core attributes such as leadership capabilities and management competencies, organizational capacity to provide specific services, or ability to anticipate and cope with change [58,59].
- B. Another perspective focus on value-generation process, emphasizing one or several phases such as inputs, organizational capacity, output or outcomes [1].
- (a)
- focused on inputs. The non-profit sector has been dominated by a result-oriented perspective, leading to performance evaluation frameworks which take into account that non-profits are working under the constraint of budget and resources [60]. Thus, assessing how the inputs have been acquired and used is argued as a key dimension of non-profit sustainability. The main concepts dominating this perspective are resource acquisition and use [61,62] and expenditure [60,63]. Two main approaches derived from this: (1) acquisition and use of resources and preparation of programs and services [61,64]; (2) emphasis on expenditures [60,61,63]. Expenditure-focused measurement is commonly used in the public and non-profit area in grants and contract management [60].
- (b)
- focused on NPO organizational capacity, centred around developing the non-profit capability to effectively generate outputs or outcomes [27,40,65], by identifying and assessing effective internal processes and structures, developing the required capacity to deliver its products or services, adopt required innovations and adapt its operations to meet changing needs [27]. Various scholars highlight the need for non-profits to improve internal processes that deliver value to their beneficiaries, reduce operating expenses or improve organizational capacity in terms of management and program capacity [65].
- (c)
- focused on NPO output, centred around the activities of the non-profit, as they relate and contribute to the fulfilment of its mission [31,62,63,64,66,67]. Output measurement addresses whether non-profit activities achieved the specific targets initially intended [60]. Output measures are important in sustainability measurement as they are being easier and cheaper to monitor than other indicators and are also known to be important drivers of behaviour within the organization [31].
- (d)
- focused on NPO outcome, centred around non-profit results and substantial changes in the non-profit target group or factors related to target group, such as behaviour or environmental conditions. As such, it looks beyond organizational activities and seeks to assess the impact of these activities on the targeted setting or population [66]. A definition of an outcome is “the state of the target population or the social condition that a program is supposed to have changed” [68]. The different approaches to measuring outcomes in the literature can be broadly grouped into three categories: (1) behavioural and environmental changes approach, focusing on the non-profit accomplishment of substantial changes in its target group or an environmental condition [64,69,70]; (2) customer satisfaction approach, focusing on measuring the quality of service an NPO is providing by measuring consumer perceptions of quality through satisfaction surveys and customer complaints [61,67,70]. Specific indicators include physical and cultural accessibility, timeliness, courteousness, physical condition of facilities, overall satisfaction, client retention and new client acquisition [27,71]; (3) public value accomplishment approach, which argue that the ultimate value of a non-profit organization should be evaluated by the public values that it produces for society [40,72,73]. It focuses on community-oriented outcomes and broader benefits to society, emphasizing the global contribution of the non-profit. Various studies consider different indicators, such quality of life, well-being, happiness, social cohesion, social inclusion, safety and security, equality, tackling deprivation and social exclusion, promoting democracy and civic engagement [74] or service delivery, innovation, advocacy, individual expression, social capital creation and citizen engagement [73].
- C. Finally, one last perspective discusses NPO sustainability in terms of success or failure [10,31,75,76,77].
- (1)
- organizational success approach. Various concepts were used to explain organizational success, including performance, sustainability, viability and even efficiency [26], which led to a rather divergent literature on the topic [78]. While organizational success is simple to understand in the case of for-profit organizations, namely profit maximization [30], profitability and shareholder value [79,80], it cannot be used in the case of non-profits since they have to be assessed in conjunction with a broader array of indicators and various organizational goals [81].
- (2)
- organizational failure approach. This focus on factors that cause NPOs to fail [10,46], since one definition of organizational failure is that “it occurs when an organization’s ability to compete deteriorates in a way that threatens its viability” [10]. Failure is associated with organizational mortality, exit, decline, bankruptcy or loss of viability [10]. However, there is controversy in assessing organizational failure since, for instance, it is possible that a non-profit close when its mission has been accomplished but this situation is not considered as a failure [88].
3. The Model
3.1. Conceptual Model
- (1)
- People: Policies and practices around the engagement of staff and volunteers, with 8 variables;
- (2)
- Business Model: The economic logic of an organization, with 7 variables;
- (3)
- Operations: Organizational apparatus engaged in administration and service delivery, with 6 variables;
- (4)
- Strategy: Any systematic approach to charting an organization’s future business activity, with 6 variables;
- (5)
- Culture: The shared assumptions, beliefs, values, expectations, rules and predominant practices collectively held by members of an organization, with 5 variables. See Table 1.
- (a)
- First, while there are various sustainability frameworks for non-profits [48,90,91,92], most of them are rather unidimensional. Success Factor Analysis is one framework that manage to comprehensively measure sustainability in 5 critical areas of any organizations while being simultaneously specific for non-profits. The framework is more complex than others in terms of variables defined, with 32 variables considered.
- (b)
- Second, while adapted to non-profit sector, considering specific features like Involvement in advocacy/systemic change activities, Board as distinguished external brand, Board contribution to leadership or Volunteer engagement, it is at the same generally enough to be used regardless of non-profit main focus. This is important since most of the sustainability frameworks for non-profits are generally very specific, being suitable for non-profits operating in health, education or community services. Hence, we avoid using for-profit sustainability frameworks, which are definitely well-known but lack specificity to non-profit sector while being generally enough to fit our sample of non-profits focused on various activities.
- (c)
- Third, we seek to use a framework with incorporates various perspectives of sustainability. As such, Success Factor Analysis use financial viability approach and organizational characteristics critical for NPOs sustainability approach and covers all value generation phases.
3.2. Context
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Variables
4.1.1. Independent Variables
4.1.2. Dependent Variable
4.2. Sampling
- (a)
- all selected participants have to be non-profits CEOs or board members. In our opinion, the most pertinent opinions on how sustainable an organization come from those directly involved in its decision making.
- (b)
- availability (willingness to participate in the study). When we contacted NPOS representatives, we found out that some of them were reluctant to get involved in the study, contact data for some of them was outdated etc. Therefore, convenience sampling was used based on whether we could access the participants and their willingness to answer our questions.
- (c)
- overall experience of respondents. All respondents had to work for at least 5 years in the non-profit sector. We consider this timeframe as adequate to allow a non-profit to prove its viability, for each respondent to have the chance to experience failure.
4.3. Data Collection
4.4. Scale Validation
5. Results and Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lee, C.; Nowell, B. A Framework for Assessing the Performance of Nonprofit Organizations. Am. J. Eval. 2015, 36, 299–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helmig, B.; Ingerfurth, S.; Pinz, A. Success and Failure of Nonprofit Organizations: Theoretical Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Future Research. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2014, 25, 1509–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceptureanu, S.I.; Ceptureanu, E.G.; Orzan, M.C.; Marin, I. Toward a Romanian NPOs Sustainability Model: Determinants of Sustainability. Sustainability 2017, 9, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valentinov, V.; Vaceková, G. Sustainability of Rural Nonprofit Organizations: Czech Republic and Beyond. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9890–9906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwu, C.G.; Kapondoro, L.; Twum-Darko, M.; Tengeh, R. Determinants of Sustainability and Organizational Effectiveness in Non-Profit Organizations. Sustainability 2015, 7, 9560–9573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerawardena, J.; McDonald, R.E.; Sullivan Mort, G. Sustainability of non-profit organizations: An empirical investigation. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceptureanu, E.G.; Ceptureanu, S.I.; Luchian, C.E.; Luchian, I. Quality management in project management consulting. A case study in an international consulting company. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 215–230. [Google Scholar]
- Grunert, K.G.; Hildebrandt, L. Success factors, competitive advantage and competence development. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 459–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duckles, B.M.; Hager, M.A.; Galaskiewicz, J. How nonprofits close: Using narratives to study organizational processes. In Best Papers from the Davis Conference on Qualitative Research; Elsbach, K.D., Ed.; Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, UK, 2005; pp. 169–203. [Google Scholar]
- Mellahi, K.; Wilkinson, A. Organizational failure: A critique of recent research and a proposed integrative framework. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2004, 5, 21–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, M. Third Sector: The Contribution of Non-Profit and Cooperative Enterprises in Australia; Allen & Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Salamon, L.M.; Anheier, H.K. Toward a common definition. In Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-Sectional Analysis; Salamon, L.M., Anheier, H.K., Eds.; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 29–50. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, E.; Slivinski, A. Nonprofit organizations and the market. In The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook; Powell, W.W., Steinberg, A., Eds.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2006; pp. 140–158. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, R.E. An investigation of innovation in non-profit organizations: The role of organizational mission. Non-Profit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2007, 36, 256–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijkström, F. The Swedish non-profit sector in international comparison. Ann. Public Cooper. Econ. 1997, 68, 625–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunle, A. Staffing, retention, and government funding: A case study. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2004, 14, 453–465. [Google Scholar]
- Kessler, D.P.; McClellan, M.B. The effects of hospital ownership on medical productivity. Rand J. Econ. 2002, 33, 488–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chetkovich, C.; Frumkin, P. Balancing margin and mission: Nonprofit competition in charitable versus fee-based programs. Adm. Soc. 2003, 35, 564–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dart, R. Being ‘business-like’ in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2004, 33, 290–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharir, M.; Lerner, M. Gauging success ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerawardena, J.; Sullivan Mort, G. Learning, innovation and competitive advantage in not-for-profit aged care marketing: A conceptual model and research propositions. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2001, 9, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eikenberry, A.M.; Kluver, J.D. The marketization of the non-profit sector: Civil society at risk. Public Adm. Rev. 2004, 64, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholls, A.; Cho, A. HSocial entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change; Nicholls, A., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 99–188. [Google Scholar]
- Cairns, B.; Harris, M.; Hutchison, R.; Tricker, M. Improving performance? The adoption and implementation of quality systems in UK nonprofits. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2005, 16, 135–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moxham, C. Performance measurement: Examining the applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit organizations. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2009, 29, 740–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baruch, Y.; Ramalho, N. Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2006, 35, 39–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.S. Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2001, 11, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, M.H. Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2000, 29 (Suppl. 1), 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drucker, P.F. Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Principles and Practices; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mankiw, G.N. Principles of Economics; Cengage Learning: Mason, IA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sawhill, J.C.; Williamson, D. Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2001, 11, 371–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassi, A.; Vincenti, G. Toward a New Metrics for the Evaluation of the Social Added Value of Social Enterprises. CIRIEC-España Revista de Economía Pública Social y Cooperativa 2015, 83, 9–42. [Google Scholar]
- Peredo, A.M.; McLean, M. Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macedo, I.M.; Pinho, J.C. The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation: The specific case of non-profit organizations. Eur. J. Mark. 2006, 40, 533–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forehand, A. Mission and organizational performance in the healthcare industry. J. Healthc. Manag. 2000, 45, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Durst, S.L.; Newell, C. The who, why, and how of reinvention in non-profit organizations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2001, 11, 443–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zolkiewski, J. Marketization and the delivery of UK health services: Three case studies. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 1012–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cordes, J.; Henig, J.; Twombly, E. Nonprofit Human Service Providers in an Era of Privatization: Organizational Adaptation to Changing Environments in Three Policy Areas. In Nonprofits in Urban America; Hula, R.C., Jackson-Elmoore, C., Eds.; Quorum Books: Westport, CT, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- De Vita, C.; Fleming, C.; Twombly, E. Building Nonprofit Capacity. A Framework for Addressing the Problem. In Building Capacity in Nonprofit Organizations; De Vita, C.J., Fleming, C., Eds.; The Urban Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, R.; Moore, M.H. The Public Value Scorecard: A Rejoinder and an Alternative to ‘Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Profit Organizations’; Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations Working Paper, no. 18; Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, Harvard University: Boston, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Sowa, J.E. The collaboration decision in nonprofit organizations views from the front line. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2009, 38, 1003–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritchie, W.J.; Kolodinsky, R.W. Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: An evaluation of new and existing financial performance measures. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2003, 13, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barman, E. What is the bottom line for nonprofit organizations? A history of measurement in the British voluntary sector. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2007, 18, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacIndoe, H.; Barman, E. How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits: Exploring a multidimensional measure. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2013, 42, 716–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, J.J. Causes of dissolution among Spanish nonprofit associations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2008, 37, 113–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lecy, J.D.; Schmitz, H.P.; Swedlund, H. Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2011, 23, 434–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenlee, J.S.; Trussel, J.M. Predicting the financial vulnerability of charitable organizations. Non-Profit Manag. Leadersh. 2000, 11, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prentice, C.R. Why So Many Measures of Non-profit Financial Performance? Analyzing and Improving the Use of Financial Measures in Non-profit Research. Non-Profit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2016, 45, 715–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weikart, L.; Chen, G.; Sermier, E. Budgeting & Financial Management for Non-Profit Organizations: Using Money to Drive Mission Success; CQ Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- McLaughlin, T. Streetsmart: Financial Basics for Non-Profit Managers; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Coe, C. Non-Profit Financial Management: A Practical Guide; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Zietlow, J.; Hankin, J.; Seidner, A. Financial Management for Non-Profit Organizations: Policies and Practices; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hager, M.A. Financial vulnerability among arts organizations: A test of the Tuckman-Chang measures. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2001, 30, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trussel, J.M. Revisiting the prediction of financial vulnerability. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2002, 13, 17–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheirer, M.A. Is Sustainability Possible? A Review and Commentary on Empirical Studies of Program Sustainability. Am. J. Eval. 2005, 26, 320–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harvey, G.; Hurworth, R. Exploring program sustainability: Identifying factors in two educational initiatives in Victoria. Eval. J. Australas. 2006, 6, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C.; Bone, L.R. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Educ. Res. 1998, 13, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Okorley, E.L.; Nkrumah, E.E. Organizational factors influencing sustainability of local non-governmental organizations. Lessons from a Ghanaian context. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2012, 39, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffer, S.; Stelletello, M.; Jones-Romansic, M.; Polissar, N.; Neradilek, M. Success Factors for Nonprofit Organizations. A New Approach to the Development of Thriving Mission-Driven Enterprises; Public Interest Management Group: Seattle, WA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Moxham, C. Quality or quantity? Examining the role of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations in the UK. In Proceedings of the 16th International European Operations Management Association Conference, Goteborg, Sweden, 14–17 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Medina-Borja, A.; Triantis, K. A conceptual framework to evaluate performance of nonprofit social service organizations. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2007, 37, 147–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, J.; Knapp, M. Measuring the performance of voluntary organizations. Public Manag. Rev. 2000, 2, 105–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutt, J.; Murray, V. Accountability and Effectiveness Evaluation in Nonprofit; Routledge: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Berman, E.M. Performance and Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, 2nd ed.; M.E. Sharpe: Armonk, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Sowa, J.E.; Selden, S.C.; Sandfort, J.R. No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2004, 33, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagnoli, L.; Megali, C. Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2011, 40, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poister, T.H. Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Rossi, P.H.; Lipsey, M.W.; Freeman, H.E. Evaluation: A Systemic Approach, 7th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Greenway, M.T. The emerging status of outcome measurement in the nonprofit human service sector. In Measuring the Impact of the Nonprofit Sector; Flynn, P., Hodgkinson, V.A., Eds.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Penna, R.M. The Nonprofit Outcomes Toolbox: A Complete Guide to Program Effectiveness, Performance Measurement, and Results; John Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Newcomer, K. Using performance measurement to improve programs. In Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs; Newcomer, K., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Anheier, H.K. What kind of nonprofit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections. Am. Behav. Sci. 2009, 52, 1082–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulton, S.; Eckerd, A. Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2012, 41, 656–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hills, D.; Sullivan, F. Measuring Public Value 2: Practical Approach; The Work Foundation: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Barrett, H.; Balloun, J.L.; Weinstein, A. Success factors for organizational performance: Comparing business services, health care, and education. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 2005, 70, 16–28. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton, D.; Baskerville, R.; Cordery, C. A development agenda, the donor dollar and voluntary failure. Account. Bus. Financ. Hist. 2010, 20, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wollebaek, D. Survival in local voluntary associations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2009, 19, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, K.S. Organizational effectiveness: Its demise and re-emergence through positive organizational scholarship. In Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development; Smith, K.G., Hitt, M.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 304–330. [Google Scholar]
- Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Menichini, T.; Rosati, F.; Sanfelice, G. Turning corporate social responsibility-driven opportunities in competitive advantages: A two-dimensional model. Knowl. Process Manag. 2013, 20, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chad, P.; Kyriazis, E.; Motion, J. Development of a market orientation research agenda for the nonprofit sector. J. Nonprofit Public Sect. Mark. 2013, 25, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herman, R.D.; Renz, D.O. Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2008, 18, 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oster, S.M. Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations: Theory and Cases; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Kanter, R.M.; Summers, D.V. Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In Public Sector Management: Theories Critique & Practice; McKecitt, D., Lawton, A., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 1994; pp. 220–236. [Google Scholar]
- Weisbrod, B.A. Modeling the nonprofit organization as a multiproduct firm: A framework for choice. In To Profit or Not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector; Weisbrod, B.A., Arrow, K.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
- Helmig, B.; Spraul, K.; Tremp, K. Replication studies in nonprofit research: A generalization and extension of findings regarding the media publicity of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2011, 41, 360–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amendola, A.; Garofalo, M.R.; Nese, A. Is the third sector an emerging economic institution? Social preferences versus poverty traps. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2011, 40, 850–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nobbie, P.D.; Brudney, J.L. Testing the implementation, board performance, and organizational effectiveness of the policy governance model in nonprofit boards of directors. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2003, 32, 571–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hager, M.A.; Galaskiewicz, J.; Larson, J.A. Structural embeddedness and the liability of newness among nonprofit organizations. Public Manag. Rev. 2004, 6, 159–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffer, S.; Polissar, N.; Neradilek, M. Exploratory Analysis of Nonprofit Success Factors; Public Interest Management Group: Seattle, WA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kapucu, N.; Healy, B.F.; Arslan, T. Survival of the fittest: Capacity building for small nonprofit organizations. Eval. Program Plan. 2011, 34, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kearns, K.P.; Bell, D.; Deem, B.; McShane, L. How Nonprofit Leaders Evaluate Funding Sources: An Exploratory Study of Nonprofit Leaders. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2014, 43, 121–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liket, K.C.; Rey-Garcia, M.; Maas, K.E.H. Why Aren’t Evaluations Working and What to Do About It: A Framework for Negotiating Meaningful Evaluation in Nonprofits. Am. J. Eval. 2014, 35, 171–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fundaţia pentru Dezvoltarea Societăţii Civile (FDSC). Barometrul Liderilor ONG; FDSC: Bucureşti, Romania, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Institutul Național de Statistică. Forța de Muncă în România: Ocupare și Șomaj; Institutul Național de Statistică: București, Romania, 2015; Available online: http://www.insse.ro/cms/sites/default/files/field/publicatii/forta_de_munca_in_romania_ocupare_si_somaj_in_anul_2015_0.pdf (accessed on 22 September 2017).
- Fundaţia pentru Dezvoltarea Societăţii Civile (FDSC). România 2017. Sectorul Neguvernamental—Profil, Tendințe, Provocări; FDSC: Bucureşti, Romania, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- USAID. The 2015 CSO Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1861/Europe_Eurasia_CSOSIReport_2015_Update8-29-16.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2017).
- Charity Aid Foundation. Future World Giving Unlocking the Potential of Global Philanthropy; Charity Aid Foundation: Kings Hill, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Asociația pentru Relații Comunitare. Tendințe ale Comportamentului Filantropic în România; Asociația pentru Relații Comunitare: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2016; Available online: http://arcromania.ro/content/documente/Tendinte.pdf (accessed on 11 September 2017).
- Sivesind, K.H. Assessing the Impact of the Third Sector in Europe: From Concept to Metrics. Progress on Indicators and Method; TSI European Policy Brief no. 02/2015 2015; Third Sector Impact: Oslo, Norway, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Rentschler, R.; Radbourne, J.; Carr, R.; Rickard, J. Relationship marketing, audience retention and performing arts organisation viability. Int. J. Non-Profit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2002, 7, 118–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceptureanu, S.I.; Ceptureanu, E.G.; Sassu, R.V. Financing of Romanian Non-governmental Organizations. Manag. Econ. Rev. 2017, 2, 68–77. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, F.J.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Packard, T. Staff perceptions of variables affecting performance in human service organizations. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2010, 39, 971–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, D.C.; Fields, D. Top management team diversity and performance of Christian churches. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2010, 39, 825–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santora, J.C.; Bozer, G. How nonprofit organizations can ensure stability and sustainability through succession planning: Make HR a strategic partner in the process. Strateg. HR Rev. 2015, 14, 245–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deaton, A.V.; Wilkes, S.B.; Douglas, R.S. Strengthening the next generation: A multi-faceted program to develop leadership capacity in emerging nonprofit leaders. J. Nonprofit Educ. Leadersh. 2013, 3, 34–46. [Google Scholar]
- Callen, J.L.; Klein, A.; Tinkelman, D. The contextual impact of nonprofit board composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource dependence perspectives. Voluntas Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2010, 21, 101–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombes, S.M.T.; Morris, M.H.; Allen, J.A.; Webb, J.W. Behavioural orientations of non-profit boards as a factor in entrepreneurial performance: Does governance matter? J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 829–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balser, D.; McClusky, J. Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2005, 15, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, J. Strategic stakeholder orientations and performance consequences—A case of private nonprofit performing arts in the US. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2010, 15, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solansky, S.T.; Duchon, D.; Plowman, D.A.; Martinez, P.G. On the same page: The value of paid and volunteer leaders sharing mental models in churches. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2008, 19, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, E.T.; McCarthy, J.D. Legitimacy, strategy, and resources in the survival of community-based organizations. Soc. Probl. 2010, 57, 315–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.S.; Norton, D.P. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Campbell, D.A.; Lambright, K.T.; Bronstein, L.R. In the eyes of the beholders: Feedback motivations and practices among nonprofit providers and their funders. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2012, 36, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carman, J.G.; Fredericks, K.A. Nonprofits and evaluation: Empirical evidence from the field. New Dir. Eval. 2008, 119, 51–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckerd, A.; Moulton, S. Heterogeneous roles and heterogeneous practices: Understanding the adoption and uses of nonprofit performance evaluations. Am. J. Eval. 2011, 32, 98–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomson, D.E. Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2010, 39, 611–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carman, J.G. Evaluation practice among community-based organizations research into the reality. Am. J. Eval. 2007, 28, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factors | Variables | Description |
---|---|---|
People | Attribute-skill recruitment balance | Measures recruitment effectiveness |
Job definition clarity | Measures consistency of staff perceived roles and expectations | |
Staff support systems | Measures consistency of perceived support across positions | |
Clarity of Performance accountability | Measures consistency of clear accountability standards and application of standards across positions | |
Staff retention | Measures degree of staff retention for both employees and volunteers | |
Board as an external brand | Measures social recognition of board members in the community | |
Board contribution to leadership | Measures degree of board involvement in strategic and management decision-making | |
Volunteer engagement | Measures degree of non-board volunteer involvement in organization | |
Business Model | Diversity of revenue sources | Measures number of major revenue sources in the operating budget |
Intentionality of subsidies | Measures level of financial analysis and proactive use of data in service mix decisions | |
Issue urgency/priority | Measures relative prominence of non-profit key issues in national and local media | |
Earned income contribution to revenue mix | Measures level of annual operating revenues from non-profit service delivery | |
Major individual donor contribution to revenue mix | Measures level of annual operating revenues from individual charitable contributions | |
Event-based fundraising contribution to revenue mix | Measures level of annual operating revenues from special events | |
Board engagement in revenue development | Measures degree of direct board involvement in revenue mix | |
Operations | Data orientation in operations and decision-making | Measures degree to which data is used in relationship management, administration and decision-making |
Efficiency of operations | Measures cost-efficiency of service delivery | |
Quality control systems | Measures service quality performance and, where applicable, system evaluation | |
Client-centricity of service | Measures degree of client focus and input into service design | |
Training investment | Measures degree of annual operating budget allotted for staff training | |
Involvement in advocacy activities | Measures engagement in advocacy activities | |
Strategy | Clarity of theory of change | Measures articulation between desired change and expected efficacy |
Impact/results goals | Measures level of mission-related results/targets relative to other similar non-profits | |
Engagement of external stakeholders | Measures degree and range of stakeholder engagement included as core components of organizational strategy | |
Investment in revenue-generation | Measures planned investment in revenue-generation infrastructure and/or personnel | |
Formal strategic plan | Measures if organization has adopted a board-approved multi-year strategic plan | |
Emphasis on new revenue sources | Measures degree of planned reliance on one or more new revenue sources | |
Culture | Cohesiveness of philosophy | Measures clarity of organizational philosophy to managers, staff and volunteers |
Business focus overlaying program development, management and operations | Measures degree of cultural integration of business sector practices in non-profit operations | |
Predominance of mission-rooted values in management | Measures degree to which core values are incorporated into criteria for decisions and internal processes | |
Inclusiveness of decision-making | Measures extent of inclusion staff, board members and stakeholders in strategic decision-making processes | |
Change tolerance | Measures degree of board members and staff’ response to significant internal and external change events |
Success Factors | Variables | Statement in Our Survey | Measurement |
---|---|---|---|
People | Attribute-skill recruitment balance | In my organization, recruitment is effective and balanced | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Job definition clarity | In my organization, job descriptions are clear and easy understandable | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Staff support systems | In my organization, there are staff support systems employed | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Clarity of Performance accountability | In my organization there are clear accountability standards and these are employed across positions | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Staff retention | In my organization staff retention, for both employees and volunteers, is a priority | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Board as an external brand | In my organization CEO and board members are an external brand of organization, being recognized as such in the community | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Board contribution to leadership | In my organization board involvement in strategic and management decision-making is instrumental in results | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Volunteer engagement | In my organization volunteer engagement is high | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Business Model | Diversity of revenue sources | In my organization there is a diversity of revenue sources in the operating budget | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Intentionality of subsidies | In my organization sound financial analysis is employed, relying on a proactive use of data in decision process | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Issue urgency/priority | There is a clear awareness of key issues advocated by my organization in media or public agenda | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Earned income contribution to revenue mix | There is a large share of my organization annual operating revenues coming from service delivery | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Major individual donor contribution to revenue mix | In my organization there are major individual donor contributions to revenue mix | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Event-based fundraising contribution to revenue mix | In my organization there are event-based fundraising contributions to revenue mix | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Board engagement in revenue development | In my organization there is a direct board involvement in revenue generation | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Operations | Data orientation in operations and decision-making | In my organization there is common practice to use data in management of operations and decision-making | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Efficiency of operations | In my organization monitoring cost-efficiency of service delivery is common practice | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Quality control systems | In my organization there are quality control systems to assess quality performance | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Client-centricity of service | In my organization there is a focus on client and its inputs are incorporated in services | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Training investment | In my organization there are investments allotted to staff training | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Involvement in advocacy activities | My organization is involved in advocacy and systemic change activities | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Strategy | Clarity of theory of change | In my organization there is a clear articulation between desired change and expected efficacy | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Impact/results goals | In my organization there are clear specifications of mission-related results and targets relative to organizational values | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Engagement of external stakeholders | My organization rely on external stakeholders’ engagement, which are included as core components of organizational strategy | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Investment in revenue-generation | My organization has plans to invest in revenue-generation infrastructure and personnel | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Formal strategic plan | My organization has adopted a board-approved multi-year strategic plan | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Emphasis on new revenue sources | In my organization there is an emphasis on new revenue sources | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Culture | Cohesiveness of philosophy | In my organization there is a clear organizational philosophy among managers, staff and volunteers | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Business focus | In my organization exists a cultural integration of business practices in operations | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Predominance of mission-rooted values in management | In my organization there is an integration of mission-rooted core values in decisions and internal processes | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Inclusiveness of decision-making | In my organization there is a high level of inclusiveness in decision-making | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Change tolerance | In my organization there is a high degree of board members and staff’ response to significant internal and external change events | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Result | Factor | Variables | Measurement |
---|---|---|---|
Organizational Sustainability | Economic results | Continuous activity | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
High degree of autonomy | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
Significant economic risks | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
Small number of employees | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
Social results | Explicit scope and mission | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | |
Budget and financial transparency | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
Decision making is not based on NPO equity | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
Stakeholder involvement in financial decisions | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree | ||
High number of volunteers | 1 = Strongly disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly agree |
Characteristics | Share in the Sample | |
---|---|---|
NPO age (years) | Less than 5 years old | 14.29% |
5–10 years | 26.19% | |
10–15 | 35.71% | |
15–20 | 16.67% | |
Over 20 | 7.14% | |
NPO size (employees and volunteers) | <10 | 28.57% |
10–49 | 52.38% | |
>50 | 19.05% | |
NPO location (county) * | Argeș | 16.67% |
Călărași | 9.52% | |
Dâmbovița | 16.67% | |
Giurgiu | 14.29% | |
Ialomița | 11.90% | |
Prahova | 19.05% | |
Teleorman | 11.90% | |
Respondent seniority as CEO or board member (years) (not necessarily in the same organization) | Less than 5 years | 35.80% |
5–10 years | 45.68% | |
10–15 years | 9.88% | |
>15 years | 8.64% | |
Respondent position in organizational hierarchy | CEO | 72.84% |
Board member | 27.16% | |
Respondent education ** | ISCED 4 or less | 3.70% |
ISCED 5 and 6 | 83.95% | |
ISCED 7 or more | 12.35% | |
Previously failure experienced *** | Yes | 51.85% |
No | 48.15% |
Factor 1. People | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α |
In my organization, recruitment is effective and balanced | 0.837 | 0.842 |
In my organization, job descriptions are clear and easy understandable | 0.809 | |
In my organization, there are staff support systems employed | 0.722 | |
In my organization there are clear accountability standards and these are employed across positions | 0.793 | |
In my organization staff retention, for both employees and volunteers, is a priority | 0.889 | |
In my organization CEO and board members are an external brand of organization, being recognized as such in the community | 0.815 | |
In my organization board involvement in strategic and management decision-making is instrumental in results | 0.837 | |
In my organization volunteer engagement is high | 0.902 | |
Factor 2. Business Model | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α |
In my organization there is a diversity of revenue sources in the operating budget | 0.769 | 0.749 |
In my organization sound financial analysis is employed, relying on a proactive use of data in decision process | 0.809 | |
There is a clear awareness of key issues advocated by my organization in media or public agenda | 0.756 | |
There is a large share of my organization annual operating revenues coming from service delivery | 0.869 | |
In my organization there are major individual donor contributions to revenue mix | 0.709 | |
In my organization there are event-based fundraising contributions to revenue mix | 0.726 | |
In my organization there is a direct board involvement in revenue generation | 0.763 | |
Factor 3. Operations | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α |
In my organization there is common practice to use data in management of operations and decision-making | 0.942 | 0.893 |
In my organization monitoring cost-efficiency of service delivery is common practice | 0.869 | |
In my organization there are quality control systems to assess quality performance | 0.809 | |
In my organization there is a focus on client and its inputs are incorporated in services | 0.856 | |
In my organization there are investments allotted to staff training | 0.784 | |
My organization is involved in advocacy and systemic change activities | 0.832 | |
Factor 4. Strategy | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α |
In my organization there is a clear articulation between desired change and expected efficacy | 0.746 | 0.816 |
In my organization there are clear specifications of mission-related results and targets relative to organizational values | 0.806 | |
My organization rely on external stakeholders’ engagement, which are included as core components of organizational strategy | 0.912 | |
My organization has plans to invest in revenue-generation infrastructure and personnel | 0.851 | |
My organization has adopted a board-approved multi-year strategic plan | 0.811 | |
In my organization there is an emphasis on new revenue sources | 0.816 | |
Factor 5. Culture | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α |
In my organization there is a clear organizational philosophy among managers, staff and volunteers | 0.869 | 0.895 |
In my organization exists a cultural integration of business practices in operations | 0.783 | |
In my organization there is an integration of mission-rooted core values in decisions and internal processes | 0.856 | |
In my organization there is a high level of inclusiveness in decision-making | 0.792 | |
In my organization there is a high degree of board members and staff’ response to significant internal and external change events | 0.765 |
Overall | Respondents That Did Not Experience Failure | Respondents Which Experienced Failure | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | Spearman Rho | p-Value | μ | Std. Dev. | Spearman Rho | p-Value | μ | Std. Dev. | Spearman Rho | p-Value | μ | Std. Dev. |
Factor 1. People | ||||||||||||
Attribute-skill recruitment balance | 0.60 | 0.23 | 2.12 | 1.0 | 0.68 | 0.04 | 3.0 | 0.7 | 0.53 | 0.4 | 3.0 | 1.3 |
Job definition clarity | 0.61 | 0.16 | 2.30 | 0.7 | 0.73 | <0.001 | 3.8 | 0.5 | 0.50 | 0.3 | 3.7 | 0.9 |
Staff support systems | 0.63 | 0.19 | 1.96 | 0.9 | 0.47 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.78 | 0.08 | 3.1 | 0.9 |
Clarity of performance accountability | 0.78 | <0.001 | 2.00 | 0.7 | 0.78 | <0.001 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.78 | <0.001 | 3.8 | 0.7 |
Staff retention | 0.64 | 0.02 | 1.95 | 0.7 | 0.74 | <0.001 | 3.3 | 0.6 | 0.54 | 0.03 | 3.3 | 0.7 |
Board as an external brand | 0.14 | 0.60 | 1.91 | 1.0 | 0.18 | 0.5 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 0.11 | 0.7 | 3.1 | 0.8 |
Board contribution to leadership | 0.34 | 0.18 | 1.83 | 1.0 | 0.37 | 0.05 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.31 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 1.3 |
Volunteer engagement | 0.17 | 0.70 | 2.00 | 1.5 | 0.23 | 0.6 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 0.11 | 0.8 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
Factor 2. Business Model | ||||||||||||
Diversity of revenue sources | 0.76 | <0.001 | 2.36 | 1.0 | 0.81 | <0.001 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.71 | <0.001 | 3.9 | 1.2 |
Intentionality of subsidies | 0.70 | <0.001 | 2.16 | 1.2 | 0.70 | <0.001 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 0.70 | <0.001 | 2.7 | 1.1 |
Issue urgency/priority | 0.10 | 0.34 | 1.97 | 1.2 | 0.10 | 0.5 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 2.9 | 1.1 |
Earned income contribution to revenue mix | 0.20 | 0.10 | 2.36 | 1.3 | 0.20 | 0.2 | 3.5 | 1.2 | 0.20 | <0.001 | 3.5 | 1.3 |
Major individual donor contribution to revenue mix | 0.39 | 0.05 | 1.92 | 1.1 | 0.39 | 0.1 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.39 | <0.001 | 2.7 | 1.2 |
Event-based fundraising contribution to revenue mix | 0.15 | 0.25 | 1.48 | 1.2 | 0.15 | 0.4 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 2.0 | 1.0 |
Board engagement in revenue development | 0.16 | 0.22 | 1.58 | 1.2 | 0.18 | 0.4 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 0.15 | 0.05 | 2.2 | 1.0 |
Factor 3. Operations | ||||||||||||
Data orientation in operations and decision-making | 0.73 | 0.05 | 1.91 | 0.9 | 0.73 | <0.001 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 2.8 | 0.9 |
Efficiency of operations | 0.30 | <0.001 | 1.79 | 0.3 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 4.2 | 0.3 |
Quality control systems | 0.78 | 0,10 | 1.91 | 1.1 | 0.78 | <0.001 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.78 | 0.2 | 2.9 | 1.0 |
Client-centricity of service | 0.07 | 0,24 | 1.84 | 0.6 | 0.07 | 0.5 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 0.07 | <0.001 | 4.3 | 0.4 |
Training investment | 0.63 | 0,16 | 1.96 | 0.8 | 0.63 | <0.001 | 3.1 | 0.6 | 0.63 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 0.9 |
Involvement in advocacy activities | 0.16 | 0.40 | 1.98 | 1.3 | 0.16 | 0.3 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 0.16 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 1.4 |
Factor 4. Strategy | ||||||||||||
Clarity of theory of change | 0.66 | 0.14 | 2.11 | 1.1 | 0.66 | 0.3 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 0.66 | <0.001 | 3.1 | 1.1 |
Impact/results goals | 0.74 | <0.001 | 1.84 | 0.5 | 0.74 | <0.001 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.74 | <0.001 | 4.4 | 0.4 |
Engagement of external stakeholders | 0.48 | 0.18 | 2.47 | 1.3 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 0.48 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 1.6 |
Investment in revenue-generation | 0.79 | <0.001 | 1.70 | 0.7 | 0.73 | <0.001 | 3.0 | 0.9 | 0.85 | <0.001 | 4.2 | 0.5 |
Formal strategic plan | 0.40 | 0,12 | 1.62 | 1.0 | 0.42 | 0.22 | 2.4 | 1.2 | 0.39 | 0.03 | 3.7 | 0.9 |
Emphasis on new revenue sources | 0.15 | 0,19 | 1.92 | 0.9 | 0.18 | 0.4 | 2.8 | 0.7 | 0.13 | <0.001 | 3.8 | 1.1 |
Factor 5. Culture | ||||||||||||
Cohesiveness of philosophy | 0.36 | 0.08 | 2.30 | 0.9 | 0.4 | <0.001 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 2.2 | 1.1 |
Business focus | 0.56 | 0.08 | 1.71 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.16 | 2.9 | 1.0 | 0.80 | <0.001 | 3.9 | 0.6 |
Predominance of mission-rooted values in management | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.40 | 0.9 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 3.9 | 0.8 | 0.09 | <0.001 | 3.7 | 1.0 |
Inclusiveness of decision-making | 0.11 | 0.24 | 1.97 | 1.2 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.11 | 0.4 | 2.7 | 1.3 |
Change tolerance | 0.01 | 0.33 | 2.16 | 1.0 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 0.01 | 0.5 | 3.1 | 1.1 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ceptureanu, S.I.; Ceptureanu, E.G.; Bogdan, V.L.; Radulescu, V. Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020294
Ceptureanu SI, Ceptureanu EG, Bogdan VL, Radulescu V. Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis. Sustainability. 2018; 10(2):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020294
Chicago/Turabian StyleCeptureanu, Sebastian Ion, Eduard Gabriel Ceptureanu, Vlad Liviu Bogdan, and Violeta Radulescu. 2018. "Sustainability Perceptions in Romanian Non-Profit Organizations: An Exploratory Study Using Success Factor Analysis" Sustainability 10, no. 2: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020294