In this article, we build on the existing literatures on small group dynamics and public and nonprofit governance by exploring the link between small group dynamics, governance, and nonprofit performance. The results provide evidence that nonprofit governing boards can improve organizational performance by improving their governance behaviors. Specifically, we link survey data from Minnesota nonprofit charter school board members to hard measures of organizational performance in a path analysis predicting school-level math and reading proficiency levels. We find that boards exhibiting better group dynamics are more active in key governance areas, and that active governance is linked to increased organizational outcomes. Our findings advance scholarly understanding of nonprofit governance by identifying a pathway between nonprofit board governing dynamics and sustainable organizational performance gains. We conclude with practical advice on how nonprofit boards can increase their organizational performance through improved small group dynamics.
BrownW. A. (2005). Exploring the association between board and organizational performance in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(3), 317–339.
2.
CarverJ. (2006). Boards that make a difference. Jossey-Bass.
3.
ChaitR. B.RyanW. B.TaylorB. E. (2005). Governance as leadership. John Wiley.
4.
CornforthC. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116–1135.
5.
CoserL. (1956). The functions of social conflict. The Free Press.
6.
CouleT. M. (2015). Nonprofit governance and accountability: Broadening the theoretical perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 75–97.
7.
DelagardelleM. L. (2008). The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance (pp. 191–224). Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
FordM.IhrkeD. (2015b). Comparing nonprofit charter and traditional public school board member perceptions of the public, conflict, and financial responsibility: Is there a difference and does it matter?Public Management Review, 18, 972–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1028975
9.
FordM. R.IhrkeD. (2015c). Do school board governance best practices improve district performance? Testing the key work of school boards in Wisconsin. International Journal of Public Administration, 39, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.982293
10.
FordM. R.IhrkeD. (2015d). School board member definitions of accountability: What are they, and do they impact district outcomes?Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 198–222.
11.
FredetteC.BernsteinR. S. (2019). Ethno-racial diversity on nonprofit boards: A critical mass perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 931–952.
12.
GabrisG. T.NelsonK. L. (2013). Transforming municipal boards into accountable, high-performing teams: Toward a diagnostic model of governing board effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 472–495.
13.
GazleyB.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2018). What drives good governance? A structural equation model of nonprofit board performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(2), 262–285.
14.
GolembiewskiR. T. (1995). Practical public management. Marcel Dekker.
15.
GrissomJ. A. (2014). Is discord detrimental? Using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 289–315.
16.
HeemskerkE. M.HeemskerkK.WatsM. M. (2017). Conflict in the boardroom: A participant observation study of supervisory board dynamics. Journal of Management & Governance, 21(1), 233–263.
17.
HeemskerkK. (2019). The multidimensionality of conflict in supervisory boards in education in the Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219827302
18.
HeemskerkK.HeemskerkE. M.WatsM. (2015). Behavioral determinants of nonprofit board performance: The case of supervisory boards in Dutch secondary education. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(4), 417–430.
19.
HeidbrederB.GrasseN.IhrkeD.CherryB. D. (2011). Determinants of policy conflict in Michigan municipalities. State and Local Government Review, 43(1), 32–45.
20.
HessF.MeeksO. (2011). School boards circa 2010: Governance in an accountability era. National School Board Association.
21.
HillP. T. (2013). Picturing a different governance structure for public education. In MannaP.McGuinnP. (Eds.), Education governance for the twenty-first century (pp. 329–352). Brookings Institution Press.
22.
HochschildJ. L. (2005). What school boards can and cannot (or will not) accomplish. In HowellW. G. (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 308–323). Brookings Institution Press.
23.
HoninghM.van GenugtenM.van ThielS.BlomR. (2018). Do boards matter? Studying the relation between school boards and educational quality. Public Policy and Administration, 35, 65–83.
24.
IhrkeD. M.NiederjohnS. (2005). Conflict on city councils in Wisconsin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(4), 453–462.
25.
JehnK. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
26.
JehnK. A.MannixE. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
27.
JehnK. A.NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
28.
KerwinS.DohertyA.HarmanA. (2011). “It’s not conflict, it’s differences of opinion”: An in-depth examination of conflict in nonprofit boards. Small Group Research, 42(5), 562–594.
29.
LarsonL. (2011). Minnesota’s charter school law. Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives.
30.
LayJ. C.BaumanA. (2019). Private governance of public schools: Representation, priorities, and compliance in New Orleans charter school boards. Urban Affairs Review, 55(4), 1006–1034.
31.
LutzF. W.IannacconeL. (2008). The dissatisfaction theory of American democracy. In AlsburyT. L. (Ed.), The future of school board governance (pp. 3–24). Rowman & Littlefield.
32.
NathanJ. (1996). Possibilities, problems, and progress: Early lessons from the charter movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 18–23.
33.
NelsonK. L.GabrisG. T.DavisT. J. (2011). What makes municipal councils effective? An empirical analysis of how council members perceive their group interactions and processes. State and Local Government Review, 43(3), 196–204.
34.
NelsonK. L.NollenbergerK. (2011). Conflict and cooperation in municipalities: Do variations in form of government have an effect?Urban Affairs Review, 47(5), 696–720.
35.
OstrowerF.StoneM. M. (2009). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 901–924.
36.
PaarlbergL. E.HannibalB.McGinnis JohnsonJ. (2020). Examining the mediating influence of interlocking board networks on grant making in public foundations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019897845
37.
RenzD. (2006). Reframing governance. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(4), 6–13.
38.
SmoleyE. R. (1999). Effective school boards: Strategies for improving board performance. Jossey-Bass.
39.
StoneM. M.ZhaoJ.CuretonC. (2012). Charter school governance, financial management, educational performance and sustainability: Research pilot study report (pp. 1–28). Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
40.
SvaraJ. (1990). Official leadership in the city: Patterns of conflict and cooperation. Oxford University Press.
41.
TaconR.WaltersG.CornforthC. (2017). Accountability in nonprofit governance: A process-based study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(4), 685–704.
42.
TjosvoldD. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28.
43.
WalserN. (2009). The essential school board book: Better governance in the age of accountability. Harvard Education Press.
