Part Three
Chapter 8 Discussion
8.2 To Whom do they think they are Accountable?
not considered important by respondents when previous research identified them as key allies.
Such counterintuitive differences invite explanation as follows.
8.2.1 Pipers not Paid
Perhaps the most surprising finding of this research was the lack of importance respondents placed on being accountable to funders. Instead of prioritising accountability to their funders, respondents felt themselves most accountable to their organisation’s mission. The mission is why their organisations, and their jobs, exist.
This translated into serving clients – positive outcomes for clients being the basis of the organisations’ missions. Tandon (1995) found a similar focus on organisation missions in his work with non-government organisations (NGOs). Ebrahim (2003) concluded that the client focus, as embodied in a mission statement, encourages an internal, ethical (soft) dimension to accountability.
For nonprofit organisations, mission statements play an important role in providing a focal point around which to develop internal accountability since it is the mission that provides ‘a verbal link between the presumably deeply held principles and the conduct of those representing the nonprofit’ … In this sense, missions add an ethical or value-based dimension to accountability since they emphasise the internal motivations of actors rather than the external pressures exerted by principals (Ebrahim, 2003: 199).
For management and board members, the focus on achieving the organisation’s mission – making a positive difference for the organisation’s clients – translates into a soft accountability relationship towards staff. Board members and management feel obligated to staff to ensure they are happy and supported. Happy staff perform and so work hard to deliver the organisation’s mission. Happy members also promote a positive image for the organisation. Unhappy members provide a potential source of disquiet that could damage an organisation’s reputation. A number of respondents specifically mentioned the potential negative power of a disaffected membership as the reason why they prioritised accountability to this stakeholder. The focus on mission, staff and members all points to the importance
respondents placed on the reputation of their organisation. Being seen to make a positive difference to clients matters to the respondents. Happy staff ensure this happens and happy members are crucial to maintaining a positive reputation.
But why the focus on reputation? Kearns (1996) and Young (2002) provide an explanation. They independently argue that voluntary organisations are ultimately accountable for ‘doing good’. In serving clients, the organisations are being seen to make a positive contribution to society. This then entitles them to support – importantly, funding – to ensure they keep up the good work. A current stream of voluntary sector research considers the importance of organisations being trusted.
The findings are the same and a number of researchers have drawn similar conclusions: organisations that are trusted or held in high regard are those that receive funding (refer Herzlinger, 1996; Tonkiss and Passey, 1999; Carson, 2002;
Sargeant and Lee, 2002; Bekkers, 2003).
Perceptions of accountability were not, therefore, driven directly by resource concerns. Being seen to be ‘doing good’ ultimately ensures funding. Perceived accountability relationships then align to the aim of being seen to do good: to clients for providing a good service; to staff so that they provide a good service; and to members so they reinforce the reputation.
This alignment of accountability relationships around a common purpose of delivering positive outcomes for clients is somewhat counterintuitive. Rochester (1995) clearly identifies what should be fundamental tensions within voluntary organisations. Management and staff are said to be caught between the authority vested in elected officers (such as boards) and bureaucracies within management hierarchies, and between the demands of current members and potential needs of future ones. Such tensions were not documented in this research. The drive to serve clients seemed to ensure all respondents’ efforts were pointed in a similar direction.
Stakeholder theory has not been useful in explaining the staff of voluntary organisations’ perceptions of accountability. Perceived accountability to clients runs counter to its predictions. At face value, clients have little or no power over the organisations, they have no urgent demands, and some would argue that they have no
legitimate claim over the organisation as they are receiving charity. They often have no choice in who provides the service, and no leverage because they receive the service for free.
Stakeholder theory was developed in a business context where rowdy shareholders are assumed to exercise their ability to sack the board. They are assumed to be powerful stakeholders23. The relationship between stakeholders and power in the present context is, however, more nuanced. Clients do not have direct power over the voluntary organisation. But through serving them, the organisation is able to generate a positive reputation, demonstrate its worth and so attract resources. As mentioned in the previous section, the main shortcoming of stakeholder theory in this context is its assumptions of hard accountability, in particular direct action and sanctions.
8.2.2 An Unexpected Focus on Internal Stakeholders
All the stakeholders considered important in the previous research were external to organisation. They were not within the organisational or constitutional boundaries of the organisation. Respondents in the present research, however, reported staff, members and the board as important. The focus on organisation mission and the associated importance of staff, members and the board in contributing to this explains why these internal accountabilities were perceived to be important.
There is an assumption in much voluntary sector research that the organisations are
‘black boxes’. So accountability within voluntary organisations has been given minimal research attention, apart from a ground-breaking study on internal controls (Macdonald, 1999), some consideration of accounting practices and the potential for introducing ‘triple bottom line’ or ‘social accounting’ mechanisms (Macdonald, 1999; Brown and Moore, 2001; Gallagher and Radcliffe, 2002; Duncan and Stocks, 2003; Keating and Frumkin, 2003) and a fixation on the relative accountabilities of
23 Whether private sector shareholders actually do, and are able, to exercise their power is, however, widely questioned (see (Owen et al., 2001)
board members and management (Alexander et al., 1993; Golensky, 1993;
Bradshaw, 2002; Hallock, 2002; Moore, 2002). Indeed, other researchers have noted the lack of research on what happens within a voluntary organisation, particularly in regard to staff, as the vast amount of management and organisation theory that deals with employee performance may not be relevant to voluntary sector organisations.
The motivation of voluntary sector employees may differ from their private and public sector counterparts whose activities have provided the basis for this theory (Vigoda, 2001; Keating and Frumkin, 2003).
The research here challenges the implicit assumption that what happens within voluntary organisations is not important. Above all, it shows that internal stakeholders are perceived to be of key importance in achieving the organisation’s mission, and ultimately ensuring organisational survival.
8.2.3 Peer Organisations and Volunteers were not Considered Important by Respondents
Previous research highlighted the importance placed on the organisations’ volunteers (Clary et al., 1992; Leat, 1996). Leat (1996) argues that volunteers are within the
‘inner core’ of the voluntary organisations’ accountability relationships. They are central and considered important to the functioning of the organisation. The importance of accounting to peer organisations (the voluntary organisations they work alongside) was also noted as important (Kumar, 1997; Markham et al., 1999;
Ospina et al., 2002). In Kumar’s (1997) research, for example, the voluntary sector managers studied considered accountability to peer organisations as one of their top five accountability relationships. She identified ‘network’ accountability, the web of accountabilities to peer organisations managers perceived as important, as a key feature of voluntary sector accountability.
Neither of these stakeholders were considered important by respondents in the current research. While respondents acknowledged the importance of volunteers as the backbone of the voluntary sector, they were not considered vital to the organisations that employed professionals to deliver their services. It was considered difficult to make volunteers accountable for their actions.
Respondents noted a trend towards the decreasing importance of volunteers, because of the perceived need to provide high quality, and therefore professional, services.
Volunteers were generally unqualified to work with clients. This trend is noted internationally (Davis Smith, 1995; Lewis, 1996; Taylor, 1996a; Russell and Scott, 1997; Berman, 1999; Locke et al., 2001) and in New Zealand (Suggate, 1995;
Community and Voluntary Sector Working Party, 2001). It is linked to the increasing amount of contractual work voluntary organisations are undertaking (Taylor, 1996a; Locke et al., 2001).
An increase in government contracting can also be seen as the reason why peer organisations are not considered important. Chetkovich and Frumkin (2003) identified increasing competition amongst voluntary organisations. Recent research has shown that competition over tenders for government contracts has reduced collegiality among organisations (Miller, 1998; Backman and Smith, 2000; Mulroy, 2003). For example, in Miller’s (1998: 411) words:
[as a result of government funding] agencies failed to build up a very extensive system of either local or national networks and therefore had an undeveloped sense of belonging to a sector with some collective as well as individual purposes. Rather, they appear to have functioned more as individual private organisations….As one respondent stated, “a level of fear, insecurity and competition is now very ascendant…very destructive”…Others acknowledged there had been a divisive consequence of funding of a variety of groups each claiming their uniqueness and that growing economic inequality has been neglected. One Ontario funder felt that the sector was unprepared and lacked the capacity or know how to collaborate.
Evidence points to this occurring in New Zealand. Respondents considered that it was important to promote their ‘brand’ and raise their organisation’s profile above others. Several respondents, when discussing their organisation’s strategic plans, were keen to point out that such information was to be treated as commercially sensitive. The Report of the Community and Voluntary Sector Working Party (2001) noted that voluntary organisations eager to secure contracts would happily undercut rivals. Competition for skilled volunteers, funding from donors and for government
contracts, was a central part of respondents’ day-to-day reality. This reality is not conducive to inter-organisational collaboration.
8.2.4 Summary: To Whom do They Think They are Accountable?
So what does all this mean? Accountability to clients was given the highest priority.
In doing so, respondents are ensuring their organisation is seen as worthy of support.
Internal accountabilities are given second priority. These reinforce the focus on clients, with staff, management, board and members all focused on providing a quality service.
While these findings conform to the stereotype of voluntary organisations run by passionate types (Buckmaster, 1999), they also show that respondents feel responsible for achieving positive outcomes for clients (soft accountability), and are also externally monitored for doing so (hard accountability relationships with members and government funding agencies).