Decoupling theory suggests inconsistencies in what nonprofits do and what they claim to do. Accountability is a potential antidote to such inconsistencies in the nonprofit sector. To test whether different features of accountability prevent decoupling, I examine the divergence in statements about managerialism among nonprofit organizations in a major U.S. metropolitan area. The analysis compares a survey of organizations to public discourse based on five-million-word website text. Professionalism and evaluation indeed prevent organizations from embellishing their discourse. However, inconsistencies between managerial practices and managerial discourse remain frequent: Organizations continue to present symbolic displays of managerialism to the general public, particularly when their missions are tangible. Furthermore, ratings generate inconsistencies by leading organizations to downplay managerial practices. This study develops an institutional understanding of managerial talk and action, shows that the problem of decoupling in the “age of accountability” is multifaceted, and has implications for the estimation of nonprofit practices using automated text analysis.
ÅbergP. (2013). Managing expectations, demands and myths: Swedish study associations caught between civil society, the state and the market. Voluntas, 24(3), 537–558.
2.
ArvidsonM.LyonF. (2013). Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. Voluntas, 25(4), 869–886.
3.
BarmanE. (2016). Caring capitalism: The meaning and measure of social value. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BartleyT.Egels-ZandénN. (2016). Beyond decoupling: Unions and the leveraging of corporate social responsibility in Indonesia. Socio-Economic Review, 14(2), 231–255.
5.
BaruchY.HoltomB. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139–1160.
6.
BenjaminL. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.
7.
BernsteinE. S. (2017). Making transparency transparent: The evolution of observation in management theory. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 217–266.
8.
BrandtnerC. (2017). Putting the world in orders: Plurality in organizational evaluation. Sociological Theory, 35(3), 200–227.
9.
BrandtnerC.HorvathA.PowellW. W. (2021) From iron cage to glass house in the nonprofit sector [Working paper]. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
10.
BromleyP.HwangH.PowellW. W. (2012). Decoupling revisited: Common pressures, divergent strategies in the U.S. nonprofit sector. M@n@gement, 15(5), 468–501.
11.
BromleyP.PowellW. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.
12.
CarlosW. C.LewisB. W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 130–169.
13.
CarmanJ. G. (2010). The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 256–274.
14.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.
15.
DartR. (2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.
16.
DeephouseD. L.BundyJ.TostL. P.SuchmanM. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.LawrenceT.MeyerR. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 27–54). SAGE.
17.
DickP.CouleT. (2017). Nonconformance with regulatory codes in the nonprofit sector: Accountability and the discursive coupling of means and ends. Business & Society, 59(4), 749–786.
18.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
19.
DobbinF. (2009). Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton University Press.
20.
EikenberryA. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.
21.
EbrahimA. (2019). Measuring social change: Performance and accountability in a complex world. Stanford University Press.
22.
EdelmanL. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1531–1576.
23.
EspelandW. N.LomStaceyE. (2015). Noticing numbers: How quantification changes what we see and what we don’t. In KornbergerM.JustesenL.MouritsenJ.MadsenA. K., Making things valuable (pp. 18–36). Oxford University Press.
24.
EspelandW. N.SauderM. (2016). Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
FrankD. J.HironakaA.SchoferE. (2000). The nation-state and the natural environment over the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 96–116.
26.
FrumkinP. (2005). On being nonprofit. Harvard University Press.
27.
FyallR.MooreM. K.GugertyM. K. (2018). Beyond NTEE codes: Opportunities to understand nonprofit activity through mission statement content coding. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 677–701.
28.
GreenwoodR.RaynardM.KodeihF.MicelottaE. R.LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity & organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
29.
GrimmerJ.StewartB. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21(3), 267–297.
30.
GuoB. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138.
31.
HallettT. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 152–174.
32.
HansmannH. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organization. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 27–42). Yale University Press.
33.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the Nonprofit Sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.
34.
JurafskyD.MartinJ. H. (2009). Speech and language processing. Prentice Hall.
35.
KalbergS. (1980). Max Weber’s types of rationality: Cornerstones for the analysis of rationalization processes in history. American Journal of Sociology, 85, 1145–1179.
36.
KirkG.NolanS. B. (2010). Nonprofit mission statement focus and financial performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(4), 473–490.
37.
KochB. J.GalaskiewiczJ.PiersonA. (2015). The effect of networks on organizational missions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(3), 510–538.
38.
KreutzerK.JägerU. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Accountability, strategy, and international nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661.
39.
KrippendorffK. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
40.
LecyJ. D.AshleyS. R.SantamarinaF. J. (2019). Do nonprofit missions vary by the political ideology of supporting communities?Public Performance & Management Review, 42(1), 115–141.
41.
LitofcenkoJ.KarnerD.MaierF. (2019). Methods for classifying nonprofit organizations according to their field of activity. Voluntas, 31, 227–237.
42.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata (2nd Ed.). Stata Press.
43.
MacIndoeH.BarmanE. (2013). How organizational stakeholders shape performance measurement in nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 716–738.
44.
MacLeanT.LitzkyB. E.HoldernessD. K. (2015). When organizations don’t walk their talk. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 351–368.
45.
MaierF.MeyerM. (2011). Managerialism and beyond: Discourses of civil society organization and their governance implications. Voluntas, 22(4), 731–756.
46.
MaierF.MeyerM.SteinbereithnerM. (2014). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.
47.
McCarthyJ. D.ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212–1241.
48.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organization: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
49.
MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R. (1983). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. Pine Forge Press.
50.
MinkoffD. C.PowellW. W. (2006). Nonprofit mission: Constancy, Responsiveness, or Deflection. In PowellW. W.SteinbergR. (Eds.), The nonprofit sector (pp. 591–611). Yale University Press.
51.
MorleyJ. (2016). Social impact reporting as reputation management: Effective Practice, Symbolic Adoption or Business-Washing. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2698249
52.
NichollsA. (2009). “We do good things, don’t we?” “Blended value accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6-7), 755–769.
53.
PaxtonP.VelascoK.ResslerR. W. (2020). Does use of emotion increase donations and volunteers for nonprofits?American Sociological Review, 85(6), 1051–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420960104
54.
PopeS.BromleyP.LimA.MeyerJ. W. (2018). The pyramid of nonprofit responsibility: The institutionalization of organizational actorhood across sectors. Voluntas, 29(6), 1300–1314.
55.
PowellW. W.HorvathA.BrandtnerC. (2016a). Click and mortar: Organizations on the web. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 101–120.
56.
PowellW. W.ObergA.KorffV.OelbergerC.KloosK. (2016b). Institutional analysis in a digital era. In KrückenG., et al. (Eds.), New themes in institutional analysis (pp. 305–344). Edward Elgar.
57.
PowerM. (1997). The audit society. Oxford University Press.
58.
SaxtonG. D.GuoC. (2011). Accountability online: Understanding the web-based accountability practices of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 270–295.
59.
SchudsonM. (2015). The rise of the right to know: Politics and the culture of transparency, 1945-1975. Harvard University Press.
60.
ScottM. B.LymanS. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.
61.
ScottW. R.RuefM.MendelP. J.CaronnaC. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. University of Chicago Press.
62.
SloanM. F. (2009). The effects of nonprofit accountability ratings on donor behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(2), 220–236.
63.
SnellmanK. E. (2011). Battles in boardrooms: The diffusion of shareholder value rhetoric and practices in Finland, 1990-2005. Stanford University.
64.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
65.
StrathernM. (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. Taylor & Francis.
66.
SuarezD. F. (2010). Street credentials and management backgrounds: Careers of nonprofit executives in an evolving sector. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 39(4), 696–716.
67.
TurcoC. (2014). Difficult decoupling: Employee resistance to the commercialization of personal settings. American Journal of Sociology, 118(2), 380–419.
68.
VermeulenF.MinkoffD. C.van der MeerT. (2016). The local embedding of community-based organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 23–44.
69.
WeberR. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. SAGE.
70.
WestphalJ. D.ZajacE. J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 127–153.
71.
WijenF. (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 302–323.
72.
WilliamsA. P.TaylorJ. A. (2013). Resolving accountability ambiguity in nonprofit organizations. Voluntas, 24(3), 559–580.
73.
YoungD. R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability: Looking inside as well as outside. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3–19.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
