Non-profit organizations (NPOs) are increasingly obliged to demonstrate performance in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. The introduction of performance measurement systems is advocated not only to promote external accountability but also for internal coordination purposes. However, studies concentrating on the use of performance measurement systems within NPOs and on how they balance both internal management needs and external accountability reporting obligations within their implemented performance measurement systems are scarce. We would like to narrow this gap by addressing this question with regard to NPOs in Austria. Therefore we analyze the design and instrumental purposes of their performance measurement systems employed, explore who exerts influence on the development of performance measurement systems and discuss several contingency factors in this context. Additionally, we inquire how the NPOs interviewed assess the cost-benefit ratio of the performance measurement systems imposed on them.
CarmanJ. G. (2007). Evaluation Practice among Community-Based Organizations: Research into Reality. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 60–75.
2.
ChendallR. H. (2007). Theorizing Contingencies in Management Control Systems Research. In ChapmanC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Volume 1 (pp. 163–205). Amsterdam, & Oxford: Elsevier.
3.
ChongV. K., & EggletonI. R. C. (2003). The decision-facilitating role of management accounting systems on managerial performance: The influence of locus of control and task uncertainty. Advances in Accounting, 20, 165–197.
4.
DemskiJ. S., & FelthamG. A. (1976). Cost determination: A conceptual approach. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
5.
EbrahimA. (2005). NGOs and Organizational Change. Discourse, Reporting, and Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
EbrahimA. (2010). The many faces of nonprofit accountability. In RenzD. (Ed.), The Handbook of Nonprofit Management and Leadership (3rd ed.) (pp. 101–121). San Francisco, SF: John Wiley & Sons.
7.
ErkkiläT. (2007). Governance and Accountability - A Shift in Conceptualisation. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(1), 1–38.
8.
EtzioniA. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Boston, BOS: Pitman.
10.
GreilingD. (2009). Performance Measurement in Nonprofit Organisationen, Wiesbaden: Gabler.
11.
GreilingD. (2010). Balanced Scorecard Implementation in German Nonprofit Organisations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement, 59(6), 534–554.
12.
GreilingD. (2011). Performance Measurement Systems in Nonprofit Organisations as Management Tool or an Option for Strategic Responses? Paper presented at the 13th biannual conference of CIGAR, Gent, Gent University (Belgium), June 9–10, 2011.
13.
GreilingD., & SpraulK. (2010). Accountability and the Challenges of Information Disclosure. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 338–377.
14.
HallM. (2010). Accounting information and managerial work. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(3), 301–315.
15.
HalliganJ. (2007). Accountability in Australia: Control, Paradox and Complexity. Public Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 453–479.
16.
HarrisonJ. S., BosseD. A., & PhillipsR. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility function and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 58–74.
17.
HillC. W., & JonesT. W. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 127–154.
18.
HsiehH.-F., & ShannonS. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
19.
JonesT. W. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.
20.
KanterR. M., & SummersD. S. (1987). Doing good while doing well: Dilemmas in performance measurement in nonprofit organisations and the need for a multiple constituency approach. In PowellW. (Ed.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (pp. 154–166). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
KaplanR. S., & NortonD. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Accounting Horizons, 15(1), 87–104.
22.
KearnsK. P. (1994). The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations: An Analytical Framework. Public Administration Review, 54(2), 185–192.
23.
Langfield-SmithK. (2007). A Review of Quantitative Research in Management Control Systems and Strategy. In ChapmanC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Management Accounting Research, Volume 2 (pp. 753–783). Amsterdam, & Oxford: Elsevier.
24.
LeRouxK., & WrightN. S. (2010). Does Performance Measurement Improve Strategic Decision Making?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 571–587.
25.
Lynch-CeruelloK., & CooneyK. (2011). Moving from Output to Outcomes: A review of the Evolution of Performance Measurement in the Human Service Nonprofit Sector. Administration in Social Work, 35(4), 364–388.
26.
MitchellR. K., AgleB. K., & WoodD. J. (1997). Towards a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the principles of who and what counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
27.
MoxhamC. (2009). Performance measurement: Examining the applicability of the existing body of knowledge to nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Operation & Production Management, 29(7), 740–763.
28.
MoxhamC. (2010). Help or Hindrance? Examining the Role of Performance Measurement in UK Nonprofit Organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 33, 342–354.
29.
MurrayV. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations. In RenzD. O. (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook in Nonprofit Leadership and Management (3rd ed.) (pp. 303–324). San Francisco, SF: John Wiley & Sons.
30.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
SalamonL. M., GellerS. L., & MengelK. L. (2010). Nonprofits, innovation and performance measurement: Separating facts from fiction. Communiqué No. 17, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
32.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategies and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
33.
WallF., & GreilingD. (2011). Accounting information for managerial decision-making in shareholder management versus stakeholder management. Review of Managerial Science, 5(2/3), 91–135.
34.
YinR. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
