Unpacking Not-for-profit Performance

Abstract

Little is known about the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and performance within not-for-profit (NFP) organizations. Through the development of a conceptual framework for understanding how EO may function within an NFP context, we propose three separate interaction effect models to examine organizational performance outcomes as measured in terms of high growth. Four conceptualizations of high growth are offered. Based on a theoretical consideration of social capital and financial accounting theory, we propose that NFP executives who possess a combination of EO and two other key factors, a social mission orientation and financial sustainability orientation, will be a strong predictor of high-growth organizational performance. The model thus builds upon previous research that explores the relationship between entrepreneurial behavior, market orientation and performance by distinguishing between market and non-market stakeholders and the need to balance between both when pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities.

Key Words:

• Not for profit
• social entrepreneurship
• high growth

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to recognize the contributions of Chris Eckert, Deloitte, Saskatoon; Clint Gifford, Virtus Group, Saskatoon, Ian Wilkinson, Saskatchewan Abilities Council Saskatoon and Dr Robert Anderson, University of Regina.

Notes

1. The rationale for this paper is drawn from informal observations in the field that were part of our initial discovery phase that included the Saskatchewan Abilities Council and Habitat for Humanity Canada. Acting on the advice of Miles and Huberman (1994), these observations were the foundation used for consulting the literature in a purposive effort to explain patterns and interactions that were identified as important. Finding no suitable frameworks that generally and adequately explained our observations, the conceptual model of this paper was thus developed and will be forthrightly tested.

2. Some nations may have non-profit legal structures that may change these parameters somewhat, for example, the L3C in the USA and the Aboriginal incorporated association or council by the Commonwealth Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976.

3. Social capital can also be negative in certain circumstances (Granovetter 1985).