557361

research-article2014

NVSXXX10.1177/0899764014557361Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyHarrison and Murray

Article

The Effect of an Online

Self-Assessment Tool
on Nonprofit Board
Performance

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

123
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0899764014557361
nvsq.sagepub.com

Yvonne D. Harrison1 and Vic Murray2

Abstract
This article reports on perceptions of the effectiveness of nonprofit organization
boards of directors and changes in governance behavior obtained from the first
1,446 users of a free online board performance self-assessment tool known as the
Board Check-Up (www.boardcheckup.com), Board Effectiveness Survey Application
(BESA). Respondents came from 122 organizations in Canada, the United States,
Australia, and other countries. The article describes the conceptual framework for
the study and the underlying theory of change on which it is based. It presents findings
on the types of governance issues respondents perceived as most problematic in
their boards. It also describes changes in governance behavior and practices reported
by respondents, who completed an impact assessment some time after the use of
the online self-assessment tool. The results provide empirical support for the value
of utilizing the online board performance self-assessment application and insights into
its impact as a means of making changes in the governance process. Next steps in this
international longitudinal research study are discussed.
Keywords
nonprofit organizations, boards of directors, online self-assessment, board
performance, board effectiveness, change, governance behavior, governance
practices, governance process

1University
2University

at Albany, State University of New York, USA

of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Yvonne D. Harrison, Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College of Public
Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York, 135 Western Ave., Milne Hall 217,
Albany, NY 12203, USA.
Email: yharrison@albany.edu

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Introduction
In recent years, nonprofit organizations throughout the world have been forced to
respond more rapidly to changing conditions in the economic, social, technological,
and political environments in which they operate. Making decisions about the future is
an important aspect of nonprofit governance; hence, it is vital that this process should
be as effective as it can be. The focal point for governance decisions in nonprofit organizations is the board of directors.
One of the few practices that have been empirically linked to improvements in
governance effectiveness is board performance evaluation (Gazley & Browers, 2013;
Herman & Renz, 2004). This has led to a recurring theme in the literature on nonprofit
governance calling on boards to conduct regular assessments of their performance (see
Barber, 2012; Carver, 2006; Dowdy, 1996; Lorsch, 1995; Nadler, 2004; Phillips,
2012). Some governance experts have developed models that define what they believe
to be optimal models of board governance then base the measurement of effectiveness
on how closely the board approaches the model (Carver, 2006; Chait, Holland, &
Taylor, 1996; Dowdy, 1996; Lorsch, 1995; Nadler, 2004; Schwartz, 2001). Holland
(1991) suggested that, even though many nonprofits agree with the need to evaluate
their performance, most lack the resources and/or know-how to develop sophisticated
instruments for doing the job and analyzing the results. Finally, missing altogether
from the nonprofit governance literature is a detailed examination of the use of one
particular approach to assessing board performancethat of online self-assessments
by board members themselves and those with whom they interact. There are also no
longitudinal studies of the extent to which self-assessment of board performance leads
to actual changes in board behavior or the ultimate effect of such changes on the
impact of the board on the organization it governs.
This article is the first study to report on the effect of an online board performance
self-assessment application developed to increase the capacity of boards to make
changes in governance practices. It reports on perceptions of the effectiveness of nonprofit boards of directors and changes in governance behavior as reported by the first
1,446 users of an online tool developed to conduct research and fill a gap in a boards
technical capacity to assess its own performance. It goes further by reporting how and
why boards change, or fail to change, their governance practices over time and what
factors are associated with changes in perceptions of board effectiveness. The results
of this research will be helpful in addressing a long-standing problem that Holland
(1991) first discussedthe under-performance of boards of directors of nonprofit
organizations. As he suggested, the problem of under-performance may not necessarily be one of ineptitude, but rather an inability to undertake the task of performance
assessment.
The article presents preliminary results from this longitudinal study within the following framework of research questions:
Research Question 1: What issues are most commonly seen as challenges to the
effectiveness of nonprofit boards of directors and how do they change over time?

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Harrison and Murray

Research Question 2: To what extent does online self-assessment of board performance result in changes in board behavior and nonprofit governance practices?
Research Question 3: What factors are associated with perceptions of nonprofit
board effectiveness?
The article begins with a brief overview of the literature on nonprofit governance.
This is followed by a discussion of the theory and conceptual framework underlying
the larger study. The research methodology and findings, organized under the three
research questions, follow. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings and
next steps in the research.

Literature Review
To inform the proposed research, an overview of the study context is presented. This
includes the literature on the governance of nonprofit organizations.
Recent trends indicate that governments throughout the world are increasingly partnering with the nonprofit sector as a means of building social capital and community,
solving socio-economic problems, and providing a viable and lower cost alternative to
government and the market in the provision of public goods and services (Blackenburg,
2000; Brock, 2002; Rifkin, 2003). This new form of participation has manifested itself
in pressures for nonprofit organizations to be more accountable and effective (Brock,
2002; Candler & Dumont, 2010; Chait et al., 1996; Chait, Ryan, & Taylor, 2005; Hall
& Kennedy, 2008). As Hall and Kennedy (2008) have pointed out, however, a central
problem with nonprofit accountability and effectiveness is a lack of consensus on
which organizational characteristics are most likely to correlate with effective program outcomes in specific areas (p. 310). With no agreement on what constitutes
nonprofit organizational effectiveness, they suggest that characteristics of boards of
directors are among the most important indicators . . . (p. 310).
One characteristic of nonprofit organizations is the governing role volunteers play
in directing and overseeing their performance to ensure they are effective, responsible and accountable for their actions (Cornforth, 2012). In the corporate governance
literature, for-profit boards of directors, while paid, play similar roles in overseeing
and regulating the behavior of private corporations to ensure they return value to
company shareholders (Davies, 2000; Miller, 2002). Davies (2000) suggests the role
for-profit boards of directors play as accountability agents (i.e., in governing agency
problems) is not well understood. Miller (2002) suggests the role is even less clear in
the nonprofit sector.
Ostrower (2007), who conducted the first large-scale representative study of U.S.
nonprofit boards of directors, states that the SarbanesOxley corporate governance
legislation has had the by-product effect of increasing expectations for nonprofits to be
more accountable and effective and that many boards responded by adopting corporate
governance practices. The problem Murray (2004), Herman and Renz (2004, 1998),
and Ostrower (2007) have pointed out is that empirical research has not validated the
claim that adoption of these practices will increase accountability and effectiveness.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

The OECD (2005) reveals an additional problem; most corporate governance practices were not developed with the issues that challenge nonprofit governing boards and
organizations in mind.
In an empirical study of Canadian charities, Salterio and Legresley (2011) found
charities with budget sizes between Can$1 million and Can$10 million faced accountability and effectiveness challenges that smaller and larger sized charities did not.
They attribute the problem to the greater complexity of financial reporting and lack of
staff and capability to prepare such reports. This research provides empirical support
for the assertion nonprofit organizational governance scholars have frequently made
with respect to the significance of organizational size and other organizational variables on nonprofit governance effectiveness (Cornforth, 2012; Ostrower, 2007;
Ostrower & Stone, 2010).
Phillips (2012), who reviewed nonprofit regulatory reforms in Canada, asserts that
increased competition for scarce resources, technological changes in how nonprofit
organizations operate and raise financial resources, and a number of high-profile fundraising scandals have resulted in a reframing of regulatory policy from a focus on
informed donors to the well-performing charity (p. 808). The response of the
Canadian federal government has been to introduce new guides on fundraising . . . to
ensure governance systems are up to state determined standards . . . and sector-led
certification systems are in place to create a community of practice for self-improvement (p. 811). Phillips concludes that the goal of these reforms is to communicate to
the public that federal governmentregistered charities have met certain standards. At
the same time, the reforms increase governance effectiveness by providing charities
with information about where they need to make improvements. While Phillips suggests that the purpose of this type of co-regulatory regime is to increase accountability
and effectiveness of nonprofits, she acknowledges that it is largely based on untested
assumptions about what makes a charitable organization effective.
In the United States, Barber (2012) notes similar regulatory concerns and challenges with regard to charitable fundraising. Barber, like Phillips, reports limits to
solving fundraising challenges through donor information. He suggests the trend in
the United States is toward greater emphasis on performance assessment and oversight of charitable solicitations and fundrasing practices by nonprofit organizations.
By way of example, in the State of New York, the Office of the State Comptroller
(OSC) has developed a program to help nonprofit leaders detect and prevent fraud in
their organizations, which they estimate amounts to a potential loss of US$6.6 billion in organizational revenue in the State of New York alone (Office of State
Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability, 2013). The Attorney
General has also responded to these and other regulatory concerns with changes in
nonprofit law that will modernize nonprofit organizations (see Nonprofit
Revitalization Act [NRA] at http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneidermansnonprofit-revitali-zation-act-signed-law). This new law, which became effective
July 1, 2014, will, among other things, increase the fiduciary role of nonprofit boards
of directors (e.g., legal authority and oversight), formalize the leadership role of the
board chair (e.g., the CEO cannot also be the board chair1), and make it easier for

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Harrison and Murray

boards to meet and govern virtually through modern information and communications technology (ICT; Schneiderman, 2013).
While the intent of New Yorks NRA is to improve accountability and effectiveness
through reforms that respond to specific nonprofit and public policy and administration problems, some are concerned about the capacity of nonprofits and their volunteer
boards of directors to implement these reforms. A review of the nonprofit governance
literature suggests that the validity of the assumption that accountability and effectiveness will be improved with increases in information and oversight of charitable actions
has yet to be proven (see Barber, 2012; Cornforth, 2012; Miller, 2002; Phillips, 2012).
Finally, as the empirical evidence presented in this section suggests (e.g., Salterio &
Legresley, 2010), when examining the effect of nonprofit governance reforms, particular attention should be paid to the influence of organization size and other contingency variables.

Underlying Theory and Conceptual Framework for the

Study
Three theoretical approaches informed the design of this longitudinal research study
into the effect of board performance self-assessment on nonprofit governance effectiveness. They are as follows:

Theory of Organizational Change

One of the theories behind this study of governance effectiveness is that dealing with
the process of organizational change (see Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999, for a review of
the literature on organizational change theories). The process theory of change comes
from Scheins (1987) adaptation of Kurt Lewins description of organizational change
as being a three-step process: unfreezing the status quo, choosing a new approach, and
refreezing it into a new status quo. This theory posits that change will not begin to
occur until those responsible recognize the need for it. These assumptions underlie the
development of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ) and
the Board Effectiveness Survey Application (BESA) described below. By using a tool
to surface what board members and those associated with them confidentially report
as their perceptions of issues that challenge the governance process, the stage is set for
board learning and planned change (Schein, 1996). However, organization theory
reminds us that there is no one best way to change an organization (Morgan, 2007);
change in boards of directors is contingent upon a number of factors internal and external to the organization (Cornforth, 2012; Ostrower, 2007; Ostrower & Stone, 2010).

Socio-Technical Theory
This theory posits that change derived from the application of technology to organizational problems will not be successful unless it takes into account the social needs of
those affected (i.e., end-users). In the board performance self-assessment context, this

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

includes the people involved in the governance process and those who coordinate the
task of board performance self-assessment. Perception that the process of online selfassessment of board performance is effective is therefore dependent upon end-user
attitudes that the practice of board performance self-assessment is useful (Davis,
1989) and the assessment tool offers users certain benefits such as taking less time to
complete, providing an opportunity for the gathering and surfacing of opinions, providing sufficient information to make governance process improvement decisions,
and so forth (Schilling, Oeser, & Schaub, 2007). It is hypothesized that those who
have positive perceptions of the usefulness of the online board performance assessment process will be more likely to (a) use the application, (b) derive satisfaction
from use, (c) perceive use results in benefits (i.e., change governance behavior and
practices), and (d) tell others about the value of it in the nonprofit organizational
governance context.

Social-Cognitive Theory of Self-Regulation

This theory posits that change is more likely to occur if the individuals and groups
involved are motivated (i.e., monitor their behavior, its determinants, and its effects;
Bandura, 1991, p. 248). It suggests that feelings of self-efficacy and capability drive
motivation. In this study, the Board Check-Up BESA is hypothesized to enhance a
boards capability to assess performance and decide change. However, Banduras theory provides insight into the antecedents of change. Specifically, motivation to adopt
new online tools and governance practices is affected by a number of factors. These
factors include experience with board performance assessment and ICT tools to facilitate board work, involvement of the board in the self-assessment process, as well as
factors related to the ease of use of the self-assessment tool, self-assessment coordinator job stress, and crises and challenges in the environment (e.g., financial; competition for resources; demand for services, shortage of personnel and volunteers) (see
Harrison, 2005; Harrison & Murray, 2007; Harrison, Murray, & MacGregor, 2004, for
an empirical test of some of these motivational factors as predictors of adoption and
use of an online application to manage volunteers).

Measures
The measures to assess board performance come from the grounded theory work of
Murray (2009) who developed them from statements provided by individuals who
serve on, interact with, or act as consultants to, boards (e.g., executive directors,
other top managers, staff, key volunteers, and external stakeholders) over a 30-year
period. Measures are organized in two dimensions: those related to issues that challenge the governance process (i.e., what boards do) and measures related to issues
that influence the effectiveness of the governance process (i.e., how boards govern).
These two dimensions produce the following nine sets of criteria from which issues
that challenge the governance process can be surfaced and board performance can be
assessed.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Harrison and Murray

Issues Related to Boards Governing Roles and Responsibilities

1. The clarity of the boards role vis--vis management and other stakeholders in
the organizations environment;
2. How well it carries out its duty to establish broad guiding strategic plans for the
organization and general policies within which it should operate;
3. How clear and effective it is in carrying out its fiduciary role in assessing the
performance of the organization and those to whom it delegates authority (e.g.,
the CEO) as well as its assessment of risks facing the organization;
4. How well it contributes to ensuring that the organization has the financial
resources it needs to operate and achieve its mission.

Issues That Affect the Boards Capability to Carry Out Governance

Roles and Responsibilities
1. Aspects of the formal board structure such as its size, bylaws, committee structure, and so forth (details appear in a later section);
2. The effectiveness of board meetings;
3. Various aspects of the makeup of the boards membership and how well board
members are oriented and trained;
4. The role played by informal, shared attitudes and beliefs about how the board
should behave, commonly known as the boards culture;
5. The influence of two key people who provide formal and informal leadership
to the boardthe board chair and the organizations top paid manager or CEO,
if there is one.
The measures used to assess the effectiveness of the BESA in facilitating board
decision making about the governance process are based on the work of McCartt and
Rohrbaugh (1995) who studied the decision-making effectiveness of task-based
groups from a competing values approach (CVA). The CVA approach consists of
effectiveness criteria derived from four perspectives on how group decisions are made
in organizations. From this perspective, the more the decision-making process in a
group involves the following, the more effective it will be:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Adequate information (empirical perspective),

Clear thinking about this information (rational perspective),
Flexibility and creativity in the process (political perspective), and
Sufficient participation (consensual perspective) (Schilling et al., 2007,
p. 228).

Figure 1 recognizes that perceptions of board performance in the two dimensions

(at Time 1) influence the effectiveness of board decision making and change decisions
at a later time (Time 2), and that the effect of online board performance self-assessment on changes in governance behavior and practices and board impact on

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Perception of Board

Issues Related to the Governance Process:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Effectiveness:

Clarity of the boards role.

Planning and policy development
Organizational Performance Assessment
Resource Development (Fundraising)

(Time 1)

Issues Related to Factors that Influence the

Governance Process:
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Effects of Board Self-Assessment

Formal Structure
Board Meetings
Board Composition and Development
Culture
Board Leadership (CEO and Chair)

Perception of Online
Board
Performance
Assessment Process
Effectiveness
(Time 2)

(Time 1)

Changes in Governance
Practices
Changes in Perceptions of the
Boards Impact on the
Effectiveness of the
Organization
(Time 2)

Contingency Factors (Time 1 and 2)

Individual Characteristics of respondents (age, gender, experience, time, role, PU of BESA, Coordination time, job
stress)
Board Characteristics (model,, size, recruitment type, # meetings, experience with performance assessment, board
support, BESA coordination, BESA meeting type, facilitator, additional information reviewed, roles of participants,)
Organization Characteristics (size (budget and FTE), age, purpose, activity, mission, financial situation, affiliation (e.g.
branch, chapter, standalone)
Technology Characteristics (BESA Ease of Use and Satisfaction with BESA, Use of B ESA Procedure, BESA Future
Intention, BESA Social Network Effect, Level of Board Use of Technology)
Environment Characteristics (Experiencing major cr ises)

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the underlying theory for the study.

Note. BESA = Board Effectiveness Survey Application; FTE = Number of Full Time Equivalent workers;
PU = Perceived Usefulness of Board Performance Assessment.

organizational effectiveness may, in turn, be affected by contingency factors present at

the level of the individual, board, organization, technology, and environment.

Research Methodology
A quantitative survey research design was used to measure perceived board performance and explore a number of hypotheses regarding why some boards make changes
in governance practices and improve their effectiveness through the practice of online
self-assessment of board performance as a result. This section begins with a description of the survey instruments followed by a description of the sampling method, sample size, and overview of the datasets and techniques used to analyze study data.

Instrumentation
Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (BPSAQ). The BPSAQ was used to
collect initial and follow-up assessments of board performance. This survey instrument is free and accessible online at www.boardcheckup.com to nonprofit organizations that register their board and consent to participate in the research. It asks
respondents to indicate perceptions of the extent to which a range of governance issues

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

Harrison and Murray

exist in the organizations board using a 4-point Likert-type scale, where 1 is agree
strongly that the issue is a problem in the organization, 2 is agree somewhat, 3 is disagree somewhat, and 4 is disagree strongly (plus options for dont know and does not
apply). The more the respondent agrees with an item, the more the item is seen as an
issue facing the board. A diagnostic instrument that measures the extent to which performance issues are perceived to exist at Time 1 is important in that it establishes a
baseline measure of governance behavior against which the efficacy of the online tool
and reporting system on subsequent board performance improvement decisions can be
measured at Time 2 (Reagan-Cirincione & Rohrbaugh, 1992).
The instrument also includes a global measure of perceived overall effectiveness of
the board and six items relating to the perceived effectiveness of the organization (e.g.,
mission, finances, efficiency, learning, morale, and reputation). Additional items relate
to characteristics of responding organizations (e.g., size, mission, type, level of independence) and the individuals who serve on them (e.g., demographics, role, time in
position, time on board, and years of experience). Contextual variables external to the
board are also included (e.g., financial situation, crises).
It was decided to use an online survey for several reasons.
1. As noted earlier in the article, while boards may recognize the need to assess
performance, there may be a gap in their capability to carry out the technical
aspects of board performance assessments (Holland, 1991). As well, many do
not have the financial resources to acquire this expertise. One objective of this
research, then, was to use our research expertise and knowledge about the governance process and ICT to fill this gap in board capacity.
2. For research purposed, we wanted to reach a large number of boards to test a
number of theories. An online instrument would not only increase the size and
diversity of the sample obtained, it would allow for tests of information system
hypotheses.
3. It was felt that an online instrument designed for busy leadership volunteers
would be more attractive to them over a mailed or hand-distributed pencil and
paper version.
4. Finally, it was our desire to provide a confidential public service benefit in the
form of a trusted university-sponsored applied research project that was useful,
accessible, easy to use, and free to as large a public as possible.
Impact of the Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire (IBPSAQ). The IBPSAQ
was taken at a second point in time immediately prior to follow-up retakes of the original BPSAQ. It asked respondents to describe in their own words changes in governance practices in the nine dimensions of board performance made since the previous
self-assessment. They were also asked about the procedure the board used to process
assessment results and the effectiveness of the boards decision making using a modified form of John Rohrbaughs Group Decision-Making Effectiveness questionnaire.
They were further asked for their perception of the impact of the board on the performance of the organization in a number of areas. These included mission achievement,

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

10

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

efficiency of management, leader capacity, program quality, growth in knowledge and

innovation, productivity, accountability, sustainability, financial health, strategic
direction, and connectedness). A number of other variables that might modify the relationship between self-assessment of board performance and changes in governance
practices were also measured in the IBPSAQ. These items include characteristics of
the information system (ease of use, usefulness, satisfaction), board governance model
used, use of ICT to facilitate board work as well as those related to the process of
coordinating the performance assessment (use of a consultant, board support, coordinator job stress).

Sampling Method and Size

Participating nonprofit boards self-selected into the research study by registering and
consenting to participate in the University at Albany, State University of New York
sponsored research study through the www.boardcheckup.com website. The intent
was to obtain a widely diverse sample of nonprofit organizations in terms of their size,
type, geographical location, and so forth. News of the availability of the study was
disseminated through various networks of the two authors in the United States, Canada,
and Australia. As a result, there is a preponderance of organizations from the areas of
Albany, New York; Seattle, Washington; and Victoria, British Columbia, where the
researchers are located. It is fully understood that this sampling method has significant
limitations. It is not random and is biased toward organizations that self-selected into
the project. Such organizations might well be more predisposed than others to be critical of themselves and willing to make changes in their governance practices. As a
result, great care must be taken before attempting to generalize from the results of this
study beyond the present sample of organizations.
The data reported in this article come from two sources:
1. A total of 1,446 individuals from the 122 organizations that self-selected into
the board performance self-assessment research study: 526 came from 60 nonprofit boards in Canada, 486 from 43 boards in the United States, 146 from 15
boards in Australia, and 32 from 6 boards in other countries. As well, 256
respondents came from boards where the country of origin was not specified.
Data were collected between July 2010 and October 2013. Of the 1,446 individual self-assessments, 1,151 were from the initial self-assessment; 224 provided data from a second administration of the BPSAQ about a year after the
first (Retake 1), and a further 39 reported on the results of a third administration (Retake 2). The average response rate for the first assessment was 81 %
and 83 % for the second and third assessments, respectively.
2. Forty-two of the 122 boards that assessed their performance using the BPSAQ
between July 2010 and October 2013 responded to the follow-up impact questionnaire (IBPSAQ) between September 2012 and October 2013. The majority
of boards in the IBPSAQ sample were from Canada (25), followed by the
United States (12), Australia (3), and other countries (2).2

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

11

Harrison and Murray

Research Findings
Results are presented under the headings of the three research questions listed in the
Introduction to this paper.

Research Question 1: What Issues Are Most Commonly Seen as

Challenges to the Effectiveness of Nonprofit Boards of Directors and
How Do They Change Over Time?
Table 1 shows, in rank order, the 10 statements respondents agreed with the most in
three assessments of board performance (initial self-assessment and two follow-up
retakes). The lower the score, the more the respondents agreed the item was an issue
in their board.
Over half of the issues identified as problems by boards in the initial self-assessment were clustered around three elements of board effectiveness. One has to do with
board governance roles and responsibilities in two areasthat of ensuring the organization has adequate resources (fundraising) and the other has to do with strategic planningbeing aware of external challenges and considering ways to address them. The
other issues have to do with one of the major influences on board effectiveness in
carrying out its governance roles and responsibilitiesthat of the composition and
development of the board itselfthat is, finding, orienting, and providing ongoing
development for board members. The remaining frequently perceived issue was
related to an aspect of board culturelack of board engagement in assessments of its
own performance.
Changes in perception of board effectiveness over time. Among those boards that selfselected into the research study, we found perceptions were fairly normal in terms
of self-assessed levels of governance effectiveness (e.g., ranged from the very challenged to moderate and very highly effective board). The distributions of board
effectiveness scores in the follow-up assessments were skewed to the positive. These
findings suggest that perceptions of board effectiveness become more favorable following repeat assessments. With the exception of the problem of finding high-quality new board members, all issues in the top 10 were perceived as less problematic
for boards as measured by the ranking of mean scores upon repeat assessment.
Table 1 above shows that only 4 of the top 10 issues remained in that list by the third
assessment. Five issues that were seen as less problematic by the third assessment
were:
The board does not regularly and systematically assess its own performance
and change itself if it thinks it can improve (Board Culture). Rank change from
4 to 23 by the third assessment.
Some committees have members who contribute very little or do not have
enough experience to be of much help (Board Structures and Processes). Rank
change from 9 to 18 by the third assessment.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

12

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Table 1. Issues Perceived to Be Most Problematic for Participating Boards.

Four-point scale where 1 is strongly
agree with the statement and 4 is
strongly disagree

Initial Self Assessment

The board has problems engaging

in actual fundraising activities
(Board Responsibility for Resource
Development).
Finding high-quality new board
members is a problem for
us (Board Composition and
Development).
There is not enough ongoing
development and training for
regular board members (Board
Composition and Development).
The board does not regularly and
systematically assess its own
performance and change itself if
it thinks it can improve (Board
Culture).
The board has not approved an
overall strategy for fundraising
(Board Responsibility for Resource
Development).
The board rarely holds creative
thinking sessions aimed at trying
to find new ways the organization
could develop (Board Responsibility
for Planning).
The board seems confused about
its role in fundraising for the
organization (Board Responsibility
for Resource Development).
The board does not do a very
good job of orienting and training
new board members (Board
Composition and Development).
Some committees have members
who contribute very little or do
not have enough experience to be
of much help (Board Structures and
Processes).
The board never seems to have time
to explore external challenges and
opportunities that the organization
might face (Board Planning).

Retake 1

Retake 2

Rank

M (n)

SD

Rank

M (n)

SD

Rank

M (n)

SD

2.44 (973)

1.01

2.71 (203)

1.01

3.00 (32)

0.98

2.54 (1,059)

1.03

2.96 (211)

0.95

2.83 (36)

1.00

2.56 (1,085)

0.94

2.92 (210)

0.92

2.92 (36)

1.14

2.58 (1,061)

0.99

16

3.26 (206)

0.85

23

3.38 (34)

0.98

2.58 (992)

1.04

2.89 (205)

1.05

14

3.23 (31)

0.88

2.67 (1,121)

1.01

2.79 (213)

0.96

2.89 (37)

1.10

2.69 (1,016)

1.04

2.99 (2.09) 0.99

17

3.31 (36)

0.92

2.71 (1,095)

0.98

13

3.18 (212)

0.89

13

3.17 (35)

0.95

2.73 (947)

1.01

14

3.21 (190)

0.88

18

3.31 (32)

0.99

2.79 (1,128)

0.95

10

3.05 (216)

0.85

11

3.17 (36)

0.94

10

The board seems confused about its role in fundraising for the organization
(Board Responsibility for Resource Development). Rank change from 7 to 17
by the third assessment.
The board has not approved an overall strategy for fundraising (Board
Responsibility for Resource Development). Rank change from 4 to 23 by the
third assessment.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

13

Harrison and Murray

Table 2. Perceptions of Board Effectiveness.
Initial Self-Assessment
Scale 1-4 (most to least problematic)
The role of the board in fundraising
The composition and development of the
board
The boards role in planning
The informal culture of the board
The boards authority and responsibilities
The boards role in performance assessment
The boards structures and operating
procedures
Board meetings
Leadership on the board

Rank

M (n)

SD

Retake 1
Rank

M (n)

Retake 2
SD Rank

M (n)

SD

1
2

2.58 (1,051) 0.91

2.75 (1,162) 0.75

1
2

2.86 (215) 0.91

3.13 (223) 0.65

2
1

3.20 (37) 0.82

3.08 (36) 0.81

3
4
5
6
7

2.96 (1,085)
3.05 (1,148)
3.14 (1,167)
3.15 (1,161)
3.17 (1,163)

0.69
0.64
0.67
0.69
0.60

3
4
5
6
7

3.19 (223)
3.29 (223)
3.35 (223)
3.45 (223)
3.46 (223)

0.59
0.59
0.58
0.56
0.48

3
4
5
8
6

3.33 (37)
3.35 (37)
3.42 (37)
3.69 (37)
3.51 (37)

8
9

3.31 (1,154) 0.56

3.52 (1,149) 0.53

8
9

3.50 (222) 0.51

3.60 (218) 0.48

7
9

3.55 (37) 0.58

3.76 (37) 0.40

0.63
0.56
0.88
0.40
0.53

Note. BPSAQ = Board Performance Self-Assessment Questionnaire.

The board never seems to have time to explore external challenges and opportunities that the organization might face (Board Responsibility for Planning).
Rank change from 5 to 14 by the third assessment.
A broader view of respondent perceptions in Table 2 shows that, while individual
items may have shifted, the overall rank order of issues within the nine dimensions of
board effectiveness assessed in Figure 1 does not shift much. Changes in the rank
order from Time 1 to Time 2 suggest boards are making progress in addressing specific
board performance challenges in some dimensions. For example, issues related to the
boards role in performance assessment and carrying out its basic fiduciary responsibilities were ranked lower than board composition and development, which was
ranked the most problematic in the second retake survey. This suggests that the tool
may have been influential in helping boards identify and deal with some (but not all)
issues that challenge governance effectiveness at different points in time.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine the effect of repeated assessments
on perceptions of board effectiveness in the nine dimensions assessed. The findings
show significant positive perceptual differences between the first and third assessment
lending empirical support for the assertion that board performance evaluation improves
board effectiveness: Composition and Development, F(2, 1417) = 30.352, p = .000;
Structures and Process, F(2, 1420) = 29.039, p = .000; Performance Assessment,
F(2, 1418) = 28.727, p = .000; Board Culture, F(2, 1400) = 16.624, p = .000;
Fundraising, F(2, 1299) = 15.337, p = .000; Planning, F(2, 1423) = 14.727, p = .000;
Basic Role and Responsibilities, F(2, 1424) = 11.858, p = .000; Meetings, F(2, 1410)
= 11.303, p = .000; and Leadership, F(2, 1401) = 5.325, p = .005.
Upon further analysis, using a computed measure of overall board effectiveness
(based on the sum of scores in all dimensions of board effectiveness assessed), it was
found that, in each country, the mean scores upon repeat assessment were significantly
higher (better) than the initial scores: Canada, F(2, 521) = 16.10, p = .000; the United

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

14

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

States, F(2, 480) = 5.11, p = .006; Australia, F(1, 144) = 4.26, p = .041; and those
where a country of origin was not specified, F(2, 241) = 3.96, p = .020.

Research Question 2: To What Extent Does Online Self-Assessment of

Board Performance Result in Changes in Board Behavior and Nonprofit
Governance Practices?
Of the 122 nonprofit organizations that assessed their performance through the online
application, about one third responded to an email request to complete the IBPSAQ (n
= 42) after it was programmed into the BESA in September 2012.3 Of those, about two
thirds (n = 26 or 62%) reported changes in governance in the nine dimensions assessed
by the BPSAQ. The remainder responded that they had not made any changes in the
way the board or organization performs. In one board, five respondents described
changes in the performance of the organization and board but said that they were not
made as a result of using the self-assessment tool. Three boards provided other explanations for lack of change. One said that nothing was needed because of prior board
self-assessment activities (We have been doing our own survey for the past 4 years.
As well this year we did yours), while another said that market challenges have
preoccupied the board. The third reported lack of need to change performance. As the
respondent said: except for our fundraising systems we are in pretty good shape.
Changes in governance practices were reported in an open-end format with respondents describing them in their own words. A content analysis of these reported changes
for recurring themes and patterns was then performed. It showed they could be divided
into two categories: specific changes completed and less specific, that is, those which
were not described clearly enough to ascertain whether they had been completed, were
in process, or still under consideration only. The percentage of boards that reported
implementing specific changes is reported in Table 3 below.
As can be seen in Table 3, the most frequently reported change boards made following self-assessment was the way the board defines its role and responsibilities followed by the way board meetings are planned and conducted.
Respondents were also asked whether there were changes they thought the board
should make but did not. Eighteen responses were received. As can be seen in Table 4,
changes in various aspects of the boards informal culture; leadership behaviors of the
board, chair, and CEO; the boards role in fundraising, and the structure and composition of the board were the ones most commonly mentioned.

Research Question 3: What Factors Are Associated With Perceptions of

Nonprofit Board Effectiveness?
At the individual respondent level, the relationship between characteristics of respondents and perceptions of board effectiveness were examined. These included their age,
years of board experience, their role on the board, clarity of role expectations, and
perceptions of the value of their contributions to the board. Characteristics of their

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

15

Harrison and Murray

Table 3. Changes in Board Governance Following Online Board Performance SelfAssessment.
Dimension
1. The way the board defines its
role and responsibilities
2. The way board meetings
are planned and conducted
(e.g., rules of order minutes,
record, etc.)

3. The way board members are

recruited, selected, trained,
and developed
4. The way the board is
structured and the formal
processes and procedures
it follows (e.g., bylaws,
committees, systems,
governance model, etc.)
5. T
 he way the board
approaches strategic planning
for the organization
6. T
 he leadership provided by
the CEO, chair, and board

7. The way the board assesses

performance (e.g., of the
organization, CEO, board)
8. The boards role in
fundraising or resource
development

Most frequent changes

Number
of boards

Percentage of boards
implementing change

70

95

Board and member roles and

responsibilities defined and/or
clarified
Improved board meeting agendas
(consent agendas introduced)
More attention paid to board meeting
planning
Changes made to discussing
governance issues in board meetings
Introduction of general orientation for
new board members

5
4
6

71

Updated the constitution and bylaws

Introduced improved governance
information and systems
Board policies (Finance, Fundraising,
Conflict of Interest) and procedures

6
5

82

Initiated strategic planning processes

(e.g., reviewed, initiated, aligned with
performance measurement)
Chair focused more on big picture
issues
CEO began to take a more active
leadership role with the board
Board shifted to big picture
governance leadership and decision
making
Annual board and CEO performance
assessments introduced

76

55 (chair)

83 (CEO)

75 (board)

67

71

Effort made to better define funding

needs and boards role in fundraising

organizations were also examined, such as organizational age, size of budget, and
number of full-time equivalent workers. Finally, using our computed overall measure
of board effectiveness4 the analysis revealed the following variables to be statistically
significant:
Positive correlations between respondent characteristics and perception of board effectiveness. The following variables were positively correlated with a tendency to perceive
the board as doing an overall effective job of governing:
The greater the value of what respondents believed they themselves contributed
to the board, r(1304) = .425, p < .001

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

16

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Table 4. Types of Changes Respondents Wanted Their Boards to Make That They Did Not
Make.
Dimension: Issue type
Board Culture
Board Leadership

Resource
Development
Board Structure
Board Composition

Type of change desired

Number of respondents

More board participation/openness/

collaboration/team work/collegiality
More leadership development for the
chair and CEO
Better communication from board
leadership
Greater commitment from the CEO to
support the board
Less personal agenda advancement and
micromanagement on the part of CEO
and chair
Greater board role in fundraising
More board giving
More emphasis on Fund development
strategies
Enhanced committee structures
membership and purpose
Better planning for board recruitment

6
4

2
1

The greater the clarity with which respondents felt their roles were communicated to them, r(1304) = .347, p < .001
The older the age of the respondent, r(1304) = .228, p < .001
The greater the number of years the respondent had observed the board, r(1304)
= .138, p < .001
The greater the total number of years the respondent had experience on all
boards, r(1304) = .097, p = .001
The greater age of the organization of which the respondent was a part, r(978)
= .094, p < .01
The larger the size of the budget of the organization of which the respondent
was a part, r(978) = .184, p < .001
The larger the organizations size in terms of numbers of full-time equivalent
employees, r(978) = .174, p < .001.
Negative correlates of perception of board effectiveness. The following variables were
correlated with a tendency to perceive the board as doing an overall effective job of
governing:
The fewer the hours respondents devoted to board work per week, r(1304) =
.066, p < .001
The further away respondents roles were from those of the chair and CEO,
r(1396) = .125, p < .001

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

17

Harrison and Murray

Of course, it is understood that the above results represent correlations only; therefore, no causal connections can be inferred from them. Nevertheless, it is interesting
to speculate on possible reasons for the linking of these variables. For example, with
regard to the finding that the fewer the hours devoted to board work, the more favorably board performance is viewed, it is quite possible that for various reasons, the
board may be perceived as being so effective that it does not require much time or
effort. Alternatively, it is not hard to believe that some of those who serve on or interact with boards that place high value on time would be likely to see their boards as
effective because they believe that the time they contribute to them is efficient.
The finding that perceptions of board performance varied by respondent role perspective lends support to Miles Law, which suggests, where you stand depends on
where you sit (Miles, 1978, p. 399). This leads to the question of why one role will
lead to a different perception of board effectiveness than another. The finding may be
explained by closeness to the officer position. More specifically, the closer people
are to officer positions, the more likely their perceptions will be shaped by awareness
of backstage governance situations and challenges.
The findings also suggest that perceptions of board effectiveness may be more
favorable when individuals are clear about their own role in the organization and
believe their contributions to the board are of value. In such situations, they are less
likely to experience confusion about the governance process. These findings support
governance theorist Jan Kooiman (2003) who has suggested perceptions . . . may play
a role in the less formal and personalized aspects of governance (p. 12). He also suggests that governance ineffectiveness can result from the tensions that can arise within
and between roles when the people who occupy them have differing perceptions of
what is involved or are unclear about what is expected of them. It is also likely that
those who have served on boards for an extended period of time (more years) may be
more positive about board effectiveness because they have learned how to maximize
the value of their role contributions.
Finally, the findings above further suggest that perceptions of board effectiveness
may be more likely to be favorable in older and larger nonprofit organizations. Again,
this is consistent with Kooimans (2003) theory of governance effectiveness and role
clarity, as older and larger organizations are more likely to have more clearly articulated governing roles and have dedicated support for recruiting the best possible individuals to fill them.
To explore in greater depth which of the variables above are significant predictors
of perceptions of board effectiveness, a series of stepwise linear regression analyses
were conducted. The results are depicted in Tables 5 through 7.
In the initial assessment of perceived board performance, seven of the significant
correlates of board effectiveness discussed were also significant predictors. That is,
controlling for the other variables, each variable resulted in a significant change in
perception of board effectiveness. While the number of respondents who participated
in the second and third assessments was significantly smaller, and the results are limited by the sample, they are nonetheless worth mentioning. By the second assessment,
the regression analysis suggests that only three of the variables were predictors and by

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

18

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

SE B

SE B

Model 2

SE B

Model 3

SE B

Model 4

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Perceived value of role 25.5 1.66 .43*** 19.96 1.69 .34*** 20.26 1.66 .34*** 20.14 1.66
contributions
Clarity of role
15.33 1.59 .28*** 14.59 1.57 .26*** 14.15 1.56
expectations
Organizational size
6.25 1.07 .16*** 5.83 1.07
budget
Age
3.06 0.877
Role
Hours/week
Years board experience
R2
.19***
.252***
.276*
.285*
F for change in R2
236.63
175.57
132.11
103.20

Variables

Model 1

.09**

.289***
84.31

2.93 0.876 .089** 3.03

2.62 1.02 .06* 3.67
2.92

5.78

.15***

.14*** 6.06 1.07

.25*** 13.10

.25*** 14.10 1.59

SE B
.34*** 18.95

.34*** 19.87 1.65

Model 5

.143

5.67

.24*** 13.70

.33*** 19.67

0.874 .092
2.76
1.04
.096** 3.45
.95 .086* 3.08
.236
.296*
72.43

1.07

1.67

1.77

SE B

Model 6

Table 5. Summary of Stepwise Regression for Variables Predicting Initial Self-Assessment of Board Performance (n = 1,054).

.14

.24***

.33***

0.88 .08**
1.07 .09**
.95
.09**
.11
.06*
.299*

62.99

1.07

1.56

1.64

SE B

Model 7

19

Harrison and Murray

Table 6. Summary of Stepwise Regression for Variables Predicting First Retake Assessment
of Board Effectiveness (n = 140).
Model 1
Variables
Retake 1
Perceived
value of role
contributions
Clarity of role
expectations
Age
R2
F for change in R2

Model 2

SE B

27.76

4.24

Model 3

SE B

SE B

.484*** 19.09

4.50

.33*** 20.04 4.45

.35***

19.59

4.44

.34*** 17.93 4.43

.31***

.234
42.84***

.322
17.97***

7.48 3.32 .16*

.348

5.48*

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 7. Summary of Stepwise Regression for Variables Predicting Second Retake

Assessment of Board Effectiveness (n = 33).
Model 1
Variables

Retake 2
Perceived value of
role contributions
R2
F for change in R2

41.189

SE B
8.37
.423
24.174***

.65***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the third, only one of the three was. The two variables that were the strongest predictors in each of the models above were respondent role clarity and perception of the
value of the respondents role contributions. These findings lend further support for
Kooimans (2003) theory of the importance of role clarity in explaining perceptions of
governance effectiveness. Simply put, when respondents are clear about their own
roles, they are more likely to contribute to the governance process and see the board as
a whole as being effective.
Taken together, these findings, along with those reported on the changes boards
made in governance practices, support the conclusion that online self-assessment of
board performance is an effective means of supporting changes in the governance
process (i.e., facilitating reflection and board conversation in the performance context,
making board performance improvement decisions, and implementing them in ways
that improve role clarity and the effectiveness of the governance process).

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

20

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Conclusion
In this article, preliminary results were presented from a longitudinal study exploring
the effect of online self-assessment on nonprofit board performance. Given the nature
of the self-selected sample, the results of this research do not permit generalizations to
be made about the way all those involved with boards perceive them. It is also important to note that the findings represent only Stage 1 of the change process in boards of
directors of nonprofit organizations. It does this by providing a theory-based tool that
helps boards change by raising awareness of the need to change. In this regard, board
performance self-assessment challenges the status quo by surfacing information to
help boards consider what governance practices might be in need of change. This is a
necessary, but by no means sufficient, condition to bring about improvements in governance and (potentially) organizational effectiveness. What motivates boards to make
changes in governance practices is the subject of further research related to this project. Some of the very interesting findings that deserve further exploration as our
research advances are as follows:
Of the boards that did not make changes, respondents identified reasons such as
lack of need for change or a need to address other, higher, priority issues. Quite
possibly, there are other reasons for this kind of inaction, which can be studied
by other methods.
Of the boards that did make changes, some respondents identified additional
changes they wished their boards had made. The question remains, why were
these wished for changes not made. For example, it may be that it is easier to
change certain aspects of board meetings or the boards structures and procedures than it is to change elements of a boards informal culture or the leadership behavior of its chair or CEO.
In addition to helping boards change governance practices and behavior, over
time, the practice of online performance self-assessment appears to have had a
positive impact on perceptions of board effectiveness. However, it is valuable
to explore in more depth the reasons for perceived board effectiveness. For
example, the initial findings reported here regarding the closeness of board
members to board leaders and the time individuals spend on board work need
to be analyzed further in conjunction with additional variables.
The next phase of this research will address these and other questions relating to
the various theories that underlie the change process. This research will fill a gap in
the literature as well as add to the very limited longitudinal data on changes in board
governance behavior and practices through online self-assessment of board
performance.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

21

Harrison and Murray

Funding

The author(s) declared receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: The Institute for Nonprofit Studies, Mount Royal University
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, The University of Albany, SUNY through the Faculty Research
Award Programs (FRAP A and B), New York, USA, and Rockefeller College of Public Affairs
and Policy, University at Albany, New York, USA.

Notes
1. The law was amended to delay the implementation of this provision until January 1, 2016.
2. Due to the limited size of the sample of organizations, analysis of data at the organization
level was not possible. This meant that hypothesized relationships between variables and
the adoption and use of the online application to make changes in governance practices
could not be tested. This will be the subject of future analysis as the sample of organizations increases.
3. We invited all registered users to take the Impact of the Board Performance Self-Assessment
Questionnaire (IBPSAQ) after it was designed and pre-tested in September 2012. No
further email requests were made once it was programmed into the Board Effectiveness
Survey Application (BESA) to precede each retake assessment of board performance. Our
sample size, therefore, is dependent on (a) board decision making to conduct follow-up
performance assessments and (b) the frequency of those decisions. Future research will
report on natural patterns in board performance assessment behavior.
4. It is fully understood that perceptions of effectiveness and actual effectiveness (as measured by independent objective observers, for example) are not the same. Care must be
taken in interpreting the results.

References
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and
practice in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25, 293-315.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248-287.
Barber, P. (2012). Regulation of US charitable solicitations since 1954. Voluntas, 23,
737-762.
Blackenburg, S. (2000, September). Knowledge, economic growth and the role of policy on the
role of public-private partnerships in the new knowledge-driven economy. (ESRC
Centre for Business Research, Working Paper No. 185, 1-93). Cambridge, England:
University of Cambridge.
Brock, K. L. (2002, August 27). Antagonists and allies: Voluntary organizations, business and
the process. Paper presented at the Institute of Public Administration of Canada Meetings,
Halifax, UK.
Candler, G., & Dumont, G. (2010). A nonprofit accountability framework. Canadian Public
Administration, 53, 259-279.
Carver, J. (2006). Boards that make a difference. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1996). Improving the performance of governing
boards. Phoenix, AZ: Onyx Press.
Chait, R. P., Ryan, W. P., & Taylor, B. E. (2005). Governance as leadership: Reframing the
work of nonprofit boards. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

22

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and
suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 1116-1135.
Davies, P. L. (2000). The board of directors: Composition, structure, duties, and powers, company law reform in OECD countries, a comparative outlook on current trends. Retrieved
from http://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/corporategovernanceprinciples/1857291.pdf
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
Dowdy, H. (1996). A manual for trustees: Role, responsibilities, relationships. Cary, North
Carolina: North Carolina Association of Community Colleges Trustees.
Gazley, B., & Browers, A. (2013). What do high-performing boards look like? Washington,
DC: ASAE Foundation.
Hall, L. M., & Kennedy, S. S. (2008). Public and nonprofit management and the new governance. American Review of Public Administration, 38, 307-321.
Hanlon, W. A. (2009). The perceptions and practices of Ontario college boards regarding
board self-evaluation (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/
bit-stream/1807/19148/1/Hanlon_William_A_200911_PhD_thesis.pdf.pdf
Harrison, Y. D. (2005). Motivated to adopt: Understanding the digital effectiveness divide in volunteerism. Retrieved from http://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8080/bitstream/handle/1828/757/
harrison_2005.pdf?sequence=1
Harrison, Y. D., & Murray, V. (2007). Bridging the effectiveness divide in ICT use: The case of
volunteer recruitment in Canada. Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
Harrison, Y. D., Murray, V., & MacGregor, J. (2004). The impact of information and communications technology on the management of volunteer programs: Beyond anecdotes.
Canadian Center for Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://library.imaginecanada.ca/files/
nonprofit-scan/kdc-cdc/harrison_report_eng.pdf
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts
between especially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 9, 23-38.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations. A panel study. Public Administration Review, 6, 694-702.
Holland, T. P. (1991). Self-assessment by nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 2, 25-36.
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London, England: SAGE.
Lorsch, J. W. (1995). Empowering the board. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 107-117.
McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness to change and the introduction
of GDSS: Explaining initial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organization
Science, 6, 569-584.
Miles, R. E. (1978). The origin and meaning of Miles law. Public Administration Review, 38,
399-403.
Miller, J. L. (2002). The board as a monitor of organizational activity: The applicability of
agency theory to nonprofit boards. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12, 429-450.
Morgan, G. (2007). Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Murray, V. (2004, November). Creating high value boards. Paper presentation to the 2004
Annual Conference of the Association for Researchers in Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action, Los Angeles, CA.
Murray, V. (2009). Managing the governance function: Developing effective boards of directors. In V. Murray (Ed.), The management of nonprofit organizations in Canada (Chapter
3) (pp. 55-118). Markham, Ontario, Canada: Butterworths.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016

23

Harrison and Murray

Nadler, D. (2004, May). Building better boards. Harvard Business Review, 82(5), 102-111.
Office of State Comptroller, Division of State Government Accountability. (2013). Dont
get burned: Tools and techniques to protect your organizations. Emerging Issues in the
Nonprofit Sector Program presentation, Milne Hall 200, University at Albany, SUNY.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. (2005). Guidelines on corporate
governance of state-owned enterprises. Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/daf/
ca/34803211.pdf
Ostrower, F. (2007). Nonprofit governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study. Center on
Nonprofits and Philanthropy, The Urban Institute Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/
UploadedPDF/411479_Nonprofit_Governance.pdf
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingencybased framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39,
901-924.
Phillips, S. D. (2012). Canadian leapfrog: From regulating charitable fundraising to co-regulating good governance. Voluntas, 23, 808-829.
Reagan-Cirincione, P., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1992). Task bias and the accuracy of judgment setting a baseline for expected group performance. Journal of Behavioral Decision-Making,
5, 233-252.
Rifkin, J. (2003). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the
post-market era. New York, NY: G. P. Putnams Sons.
Salterio, S., & Legresley, P. (2011). Developing a culture of reporting transparency and accountability: The lessons learned from the voluntary sector reporting awards for excellence in
financial reporting transparency. The Philanthropist 23(4), 555-573.
Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation: Its role in organizational development (Vol. 2, 2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewins change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes
toward a model of managed learning. Systems Practice, 9(1), 27-47.
Schilling, M. S., Oeser, N., & Schaub, C. (2007). How effective are decision analyses? Assessing
decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Analysis, 4, 227-242.
Schneiderman, E. (2013). Nonprofit Revitalization Act. Retrieved from http://open.nysenate.
gov/legislation/bill/A8072-2013
Schwartz, M. P. (2001). Assessing individual trustee performance, board leadership, board
basics. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Author Biographies
Yvonne D. Harrison is Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration and
Policy at the University at Albany, State University of New York. She was formerly Assistant
Professor in the Center for Nonprofit and Social Enterprise Management at Seattle University
in Seattle, WA, USA.
Vic Murray is currently Adjunct Professor in the School of Public Administration at the
University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. He was formerly the Director of the Nonprofit
Management and Leadership Program in the Schulich School of Business at York University in
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by guest on June 19, 2016