This study examines the relationships between the influence of different stakeholders and mission-based strategic planning, community development, and economic effectiveness. Our purpose is to highlight the unique and incremental contribution of rank-and-file stakeholders, that is, stakeholders without any specific grade or status, such as nonboard volunteers or beneficiaries. We analyze reported data from 227 nonprofit organizations (NPOs) using structural equation modeling and bootstrap mediation analysis. Our results show that when rank-and-file stakeholders manage to remain influential, strategic planning tends to be more directly rooted in the mission, which contributes to both perceived community and economic effectiveness. These results are discussed with regard to the utility, legitimacy, and urgency of more direct forms of democratic governance giving rank-and-file stakeholders the power to contribute to mission-based strategic planning.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
2.
ArchambaultE. (2001). Historical roots of the nonprofit sector in France. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 204-220.
3.
AxelrodN. R. (1994). Boardship and board development. In HermanR. D. (Eds.), Nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 119-136). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
BazinC.DurosM.LegrandF.PrevostatG.MaletJ. (2017). La France associative en mouvement [France in motion] (15ème ed.). Paris, France: Recherches & Solidarité.
5.
BrysonJ. M. (1988). A strategic planning process for public and non-profit organizations. Long Range Planning, 21, 73-81.
6.
BuseK.BernsteinR. S.BilimoriaD. (2016). The influence of board diversity, board diversity policies and practices, and board inclusion behaviors on nonprofit governance practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 179-191.
7.
CallegaroM.ManfredaK.VehovarV. (2015). Web survey methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CallenJ. L.KleinA.TinkelmanD. (2010). The contextual impact of nonprofit board composition and structure on organizational performance: Agency and resource dependence perspectives. Voluntas, 21, 101-125.
9.
CampbellA.YeungS. (1991). Brief case: Mission, vision and strategic intent. Long Range Planning, 24, 145-147.
10.
CarverJ. (1990). Boards that make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Chatelain-PonroyS.EynaudP.SponemS. (2015). Civil society organization governance. In LavilleJ. L.YoungD.EynaudP. (Eds.), Civil society, the third sector and social enterprise: Governance and democracy (pp. 58-74). London, England: Routledge.
12.
ConnorsT. D. (2001). The nonprofit handbook: Management. New York, NY: Wiley.
13.
CornforthC. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75, 11-32.
14.
CouleT. (2013). Nonprofit governance and accountability: Broadening the theoretical perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 75-97.
15.
CummingG. D. (2008). French NGOs in the global era: Professionalization “without borders”?Voluntas, 19, 372-394.
16.
DahlR. A. (1961). Who governs? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17.
DartingtonT. (1998). From altruism to action: Primary task and the not-for-profit organization. Human Relations, 51, 1477-1493.
18.
DeesJ. G. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship.”Kansas, MO: Kauffman Foundation.
19.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 32-53.
20.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
21.
DruckerP. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
22.
DuffyB.SmithK.TerhanianG.BremerJ. (2005). Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 47, 615-639.
23.
DurkheimE. (1893). De la division du travail social. Doctoral thesis.
24.
EbrahimA.RanganV. K. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance (Working Paper 10-099). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
25.
EnjolrasB. (2009). A governance-structure approach to voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 761-783.
26.
FraisseL.GardinL.LavilleJ. L.PetrellaF.Richez-BattestiN. (2015). Social enterprise in France: At the crossroads of the social economy, solidarity economy and social entrepreneurship?Louvain, Belgium: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models.
27.
FraserN. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25, 56-80.
28.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
29.
GawellM. (2013). Social entrepreneurship: Action grounded in needs, opportunities and/or perceived necessities?Voluntas, 24, 1071-1090.
30.
GranovetterM. S. (1973).The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
31.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
HafsiT.ThomasH. (2005). Strategic management and change in high dependency environments: The case of a philanthropic organization. Voluntas, 16, 329-351.
33.
HaughH. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 161-182.
34.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 185-206.
35.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64, 694-704.
36.
HermanR. D.RenzD. O. (2008). Advancing nonprofit organizational effectiveness research and theory: Nine theses. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 399-415.
37.
HouleC. O. (1997). Governing boards: Their nature and nurture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268-298.
39.
IngramR. T. (1989). Ten basic responsibilities of nonprofit boards. Washington, DC: National Center for Nonprofit boards.
40.
JonesM. B. (2007). The multiple sources of mission drift. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 299-307.
41.
JunK. N.ShiauE. (2012). How are we doing? A multiple constituency approach to civic association effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 632-655.
42.
KanterR. M.SummersD. (1987). Doing well while doing good. In PowellW. W. (Ed.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 154-166). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
KelleyM.LuneH.MurphyS. (2005). Doing syringe exchange: Organizational transformation and volunteer commitment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 362-386.
44.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45.
KreutzerK. (2009). Nonprofit governance during organizational transition in voluntary associations. Nonprofit Management &Leadership, 20, 117-133.
46.
KreutzerK.JagerU. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 634-661.
47.
LavilleJ. L. (2017). L’économie sociale et solidaire [The social and solidarity economy]. Paris, France: Seuil.
48.
LavilleJ. L.YoungD.EynaudP. (2015). Civil society, the third sector, social enterprise: Governance and democracy. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
49.
LecyJ. D.SchmitzH. P.SwedlundH. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. Voluntas, 23, 434-457.
50.
Mac DonaldR. E. (2007). An investigation of innovation in nonprofit organizations: The role of organizational mission. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 256-281.
51.
MairJ.BattilanaJ.CardenasJ. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 353-373.
52.
MalloyD.AgarwalJ. (2010). Ethical climate in government and nonprofit sectors: Public policy implications for service delivery. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 3-21.
53.
MartinezB. R. (2009). Structure, power, and discourses of development in Spanish NGOs. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20, 203-218.
54.
MedleyB. C.AkanO. H. (2008). Creating positive change in community organizations: A case for rediscovering Lewin. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 18, 485-496.
55.
MeyerV.PascucciL.MurphyP. J. (2013). Volunteers in Brazilian hospitals. Voluntas, 24, 293-310.
56.
MichelsR. (1915). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York, NY: The Free Press.
57.
MintzbergH. (1983). Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
58.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
59.
MintzbergH.WatersJ. A. (1985). Of strategies, Deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6, 257–272.
60.
MorrisonJ. B.SalipanteP. (2007). Governance for broadened accountability: Blending deliberate and emergent strategizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 195-217.
61.
NormanA. T.RussellC. A. (2006). The pass-along effect: Investigating word-of-mouth effects on online survey procedures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 1085-1103.
62.
OstrowerF.StoneM. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 901-924.
63.
PacheA. C.SantosF. M. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455-476.
64.
PetrellaF.Richez-BattestiN. (2016). Patterns of evolutions of social enterprises in France: A focus on work integration social enterprises. International Review of Sociology, 26, 234-246.
65.
PfefferJ.SalancikG.R. (1978). The external control of organizations. A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Classics.
66.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
67.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
68.
Raines-EudyR. (2000). Using structural equation modeling to test for differential reliability and validity: an empirical demonstration. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 7, 124-141.
69.
RamusT.VaccaroA. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 307-322.
70.
ReidW.KarambayyaR. (2009). Impact of dual executive leadership dynamics in creative organizations. Human Relations, 62, 1073-1112.
71.
RothschildJ.StephensonM. J. (2009). The meaning of democracy in non-profit and community organizations: Charting the currents of change. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 800-806.
72.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1992). In search of the non-profit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas, 3, 125-151.
73.
SantosF. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335-351.
74.
SchachterH. L. (2011). Reflections on political engagement and voluntary association governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 703-719.
75.
SowaJ. E.SeldenS. C.SandfortJ. R. (2004). No longer unmeasurable? A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 711-728.
76.
ValeauP. J. (2015). Stages and pathways of development of nonprofit organizations: An integrative model. Voluntas, 26, 1894-1919.
77.
ValeauP. J.BonclerJ. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in France. Management et Humanisme en Entreprise–International, 10, 46-64.
78.
ValeauP.WillemsJ.ParakH. (2016). The Effect of Attitudinal and Behavioral Commitment on the Internal Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness: A Multilevel Analysis. Voluntas, 27, 2913-2936.
79.
VerbruggenS.ChristiaensJ.MilisK. (2011). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 5-32.
80.
WeickK.SutcliffeK. M.ObstfeldD. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409-421.
81.
WeisbrodB. A. (2004). The pitfalls of profits. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2, 40-47.
82.
WillemsJ.JagerM.FaulkL. (2016). Organizational effectiveness reputation in the nonprofit sector. Public Performance and Management Review, 39, 454-475.
83.
YuK. H. (2012). Formal organizations and identity groups in social movements. Human Relations, 65, 753-776.
