Advertisement

Holistic Management Systems for Nonprofit Organisations

A Study-Based Comparison Between Germany and Australia
  • Bernd Schwien
Chapter

Abstract

For more than 20 years governments from all over the world have tried to measure the organisational performance of nonprofit organisations (NPO) for better control of financial funding. Neo-liberal developments are increasing drivers (Salomon, Anheier, List, Toepler, Sokolowski, 1999, p. 4 f.) for the Third Sector and force nonprofits to measure, manage and communicate their outcome and accomplished added value.

To evaluate the amount of vision- and mission-achievement, financial measures alone are not sufficient to express the rate of success in such organisations. Criteria such as improved quality of life for clients or regional economic improvements through organisational social activities expressed through a Social Return on Investment (SROI) can measure the success of a social enterprise. Therefore NPO leaders need to be familiar with the use of integrated management systems in the social sector to get a multi-dimensional or holistic view on their social organisation.

For the two OECD-countries Germany and Australia, with their comparable healthcare systems and attitudes towards social justice (Bertelsmann foundation 2011), a questionnaire-based study was carried out in the first half of 2014 in collaboration with the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, supported by Professor Myles McGregor Lowndes, director of the Australian Centre of Philanthropy and Nonprofit-Studies (ACPNS). The investigation focussed on whether holistic corporate management is or will be practised in modern and complex NPOs, often on the basis of corporate governance initiatives, by integrating several known management instruments. Twelve German and fourteen Australian NPO-leaders from nonprofit organisations, usually with more than 1000 employees, were interviewed.

Specifically, several controlling tools, which are regarded holistic, were investigated. These are Balanced Scorecard (BSC), Quality Management, Risk Management, Performance Planning and Review (for example goal-oriented personnel talks on a regular basis), social added value and outcome. Additionally, tendencies of the strongly regulated German market versus the more freely developing Australian NPO market are of general interest.

Five established and answered hypothesis will be explored in this article.

Keywords

Holistic corporate management Balanced scorecard Risk management Social added value Outcome Nonprofit organisations 

References

  1. ACFID. Code of Conduct. 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). Juli 2013, Version 2. Governance for Good.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Government Productivity Commission. 2010. Contribution of the Not-For-Profit Sector – Productivity Commission Research Report.Google Scholar
  4. Bertelsmann Foundation. 2011. Social Justice in the OECD – How do Member States Compare? Self-publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Bleicher, Knut. 2002. Integriertes Management als Herausforderung. In Integrierte Managementsysteme: Konzepte, Werkzeuge, Erfahrungen, Hrsg. S. Schwendt, D. Funck, 2–23. Heidelberg: Physica.Google Scholar
  6. Brandsen, Taco, Wim van de Donk, and Kim Putters. 2005. Griffins or Chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent an inevitable characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of Public Administration 28: 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Maggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EvaSys. http://www.evasys.uk/education.html. Zugegriffen: 09.Sept 2015.
  9. Forbes, Daniel P. 1998. Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organisation effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 27(2): 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonschorrek, Ulrich, and Werner Pepels. 2004. Ganzheitliches Management. Berlin: BWV.Google Scholar
  11. Horváth & Partners (issuers). 2007. Balanced Scorecard umsetzen, 4th edn. Stuttgart: Schäffer/Poeschel.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan, Robert S. spring 2001. Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organisations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 11(3): 353–370.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplan, Robert S., and David P. Norton. March 2004. Strategy maps. In Strategic Finance, 27–35. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lyons, Mark. 2001. Third sector – The contribution of nonprofit and cooperative enterprise in Australia. Crows Nest: Griffin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rathgeb Smith, Steven. 2014. Hybridity and nonprofit organisations: The research agenda. American Behavioral Scientist 1–15. doi: 10.1177/0002764214534675.
  16. Salamon, Lester M., Helmut K. Anheier, Regina List, and Stefan Toepler, S. Wojciech Sokolowski. 1999. Global civil society – dimensions of the nonprofit sector. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  17. Schwien, Bernd. 2015. Ganzheitliche Unternehmensführung in Nonprofit-Organisationen – Ein Systemvergleich zwischen Deutschland und Australien. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Seibel, Wolfgang. 1994. Funktionaler Dilettantismus. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  19. Seibel, Wolfgang. 1999. Successful failure: An alternative view of organisational change. In When things go wrong: Organisational Failures and breakdowns, eds. Helmut K. Anheier, 91–105. Thousand oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Werther, William B., and Evan M. Berman. 2001. Third sector management – the art of managing nonprofit organisations. Washington D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FB Wirtschafts- und SozialwissenschaftenHochschule NordhausenNordhausenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations