Funding a Non-profit Community Book Festival in a Major United States City - Report Example

How to Fund a Non-profit Community Book Festival in a Major United s Introduction The foundation or a nonprofit organization host literary events with the goal to raise funds to support libraries, literacy programs or targeted goals specifically aimed for their affiliations or their own. What they offer at the community book festival is extensive publicity to the community in the state and other areas in vicinity. They realize their commitment to the following: providing a positive literacy experience for all ages and family demographics in the targeted state and beyond; encompassing the community's diverse cultures through partnerships and collaborations; incorporating entertainment; and yielding a favorable and positive impact for the community. The festival also aims to showcase writers and their works to fulfill part of their organizational mission. To achieve so, it is essential for managers to investigate into and conceptualize the determinants for nonprofits improved performance which are their strategy styles and organizational structure (e.g. boards, constitutions and volunteers) in their respective prevailing environment (e.g. economical recent recession, public confidence, state/ county laws). Strategy in nonprofits Based upon perceptions of the environment (e.g., economy recent conditions, state legislation and public confidence) and organizational attributes (e.g., values and capabilities), managers of nonprofit organizations strategize to improve the performance of their organization by interpreting and framing the environment, developing and implementing programs and services, and creating processes and structures to monitor and control resources for successful deliverance of organizational goals. Improved performance is associated with organizations that systematically adhere to such takings (Ketchen et al., 1997; Miles, Snow, Mathews, Miles, & Coleman, 1997). This means organizational structure has been linked to performance improvements (Harris & Ruefli, 2000; Kushner & Poole, 1996). Conceptual understanding of strategy in nonprofit organizations is becoming more sophisticated to better reflect the unique character of nonprofit organizations (e.g., Backman, Grossman, & Rangan, 2000). To illustrate so, nonprofits need to consider these factors: multiple stakeholders in resource development, the potential for collaborations, and the mixed influences of market forces that can lead to challenges in the process to develop and define product and service strategies. Strategy encompasses interpreting environmental conditions and designing systems to foster success. According to Miles and Snow (1978), the effectiveness of organizational adaptation hinges on the dominant coalition's perceptions of environmental conditions and the decisions it makes concerning how well the organization will cope with these conditions. Based on this definition, successful strategy is of tantamount contingency on appropriate interpretation of environmental conditions and organizational response to those conditions. Furthermore, the lack of uniformed consideration of strategic factors has lead to confusion and contradictory results associated with strategy and its impact on performance (Stone et al., 1999). Miles and Snow (1978) broke down the process of understanding strategy into how organizations interpret and respond to three problems: entrepreneurial, engineering, and administrative. The entrepreneurial problem addresses how the organization defines its "product or service and target market" (Miles & Snow, 1978, p. 21). For nonprofit organizations, this could include how broadly they conceptualize their community responsibility, which influences what services they provide; who they partner with; and who they serve. The engineering problem is developing an operational solution to delivering the services of the organization. This includes selection of a service delivery method (i.e., technology; Hasenfeld, 1983) and alignment of information and communication linkages necessary for effective operation (books transportation). For nonprofits, that includes consideration of how volunteers are used in providing services. The administrative problem considers structures and processes to direct and monitor operations. The primary objective is to reduce uncertainty about organizational operations. However, the ideal organization has systems that ensure efficiency and reduce uncertainty while simultaneously allowing appropriate innovation. For nonprofit organizations, governance structures will often serve to monitor and ensure organizational consistency while watching environmental factors to consider strategic innovation opportunities and resource availability. To identify the type for the non-profit organization responsible for the book festival, Miles and Snow (1978) developed a typology of four different strategic perspectives, which are idealized forms, grounded in different approaches of management. The four strategic styles are defender, prospector, analyzer, and reactor. Defenders are organizations that have a set service area (i.e., niche), do not look for new opportunities, and seldom make major changes in customers. Prospectors "are organizations which almost continually search for market opportunities, and they regularly experiment with potential responses to emerging environmental trends" (Miles & Snow, 1978, p. 29). Analyzer organizations are defenders during more stable environments but in turbulent (economic) environments analyze their competitors and then rapidly adopt the most hopeful of the new ideas. Reactors "lack a consistent strategy-structure relationship" (Miles & Snow, 1978, p. 29). Instead, these organizations adjust according to environmental pressures. The distinctions between categories make the Miles and Snow typology suitable for analysis of organizations for the community book festival. Organizational Structure and Strategic Styles According to Miles and Snow (1978) the implementation of a strategy is shown in the structures and processes of the organization, and as Van de Ven and Ferry (1980) stated, "The structure and functioning of organizations are the result of strategic choices made either implicitly or explicitly by coalitions of people both within and outside the organization" (p. 90). Organizational structure has been defined as "the overall organizational pattern" (McPhee & Poole, 2001, p. 505), and three areas are typically the focus of investigations to understand the implications of strategy on structure. First is the configuration of existing patterns that includes the division of labor (i.e., horizontal differentiation) and chain of command (i.e., vertical hierarchy). Second is the use of rules and procedures and the degree to which they are formalized or codified in writing (i.e., formalization). Third is the placement of decision-making authority. This is reflected in the degree of centralization or diffusion. Centralized decision making is restricted to top-level decision making, whereas decentralization decision making is disbursed to others (geographically or hierarchically) in the organization (Mintzberg, 1979). Since consistent structural configurations exist in similarly oriented organizations (Meyer et al., 1993) and that the design of an organization is influenced by managerial decisions (Perlmutter & Gummer, 1994), the structural features exhibited should be reflective of its strategic purposes. The challenge is to consider which features in nonprofit organizations will be reflective of the strategic orientations suggested by Miles and Snow (1978). In one of the few studies that analyzed elements of structure for nonprofits, Kushner and Poole (1996) found that the inclusion of volunteers in the nonprofit organization and the sharing of decision-making power with those volunteers are the unique elements. Kushner and Poole (1996) examined "the distribution of influence, which organizations can keep clustered or distribute widely" (p. 121), and argued that, because many nonprofits are small and cannot subdivide into separate units, which is the traditional view of decentralizing, nonprofits can distribute influence among volunteers. Specifically, they looked at the existence of committees and the composition of those committees to reflect the tendency to centralize decision making (fewer committees) or decentralize decision making by developing more committees and including more types of people on those committees (e.g., board members, staff members, and other volunteers). The inclusion of volunteers potentially opens the decision making of the organization beyond centralized decision makers. They found that various configurations were deemed effective, but structural dysfunctions (i.e., areas of nonalignment) were associated with failure. Boards and board committees engage volunteers in strategic purposes, and broader, more inclusive structures decentralize decision making. The dominant coalition should align board structures that reinforce the market perspective of the organization, because boards are recognized as instrumental mechanisms to improve organizational performance (Herman & Renz, 1999). A source suggests that boards are crucial resource streams either politically (i.e., network connections) or intellectually (i.e., informed decision making) and that this can lead to improved performance (Hillman & Dalziel, 2003). Consequently, effective alignment of structures at the board level should reinforce the strategic purposes of the organization. In particular, when considering market opportunities, the board is potentially an effective mechanism to interpret and frame the environment. A specific example is research conducted by Siciliano (1997) who found that organizations that relegated planning to a board committee were inclined to perform better. Furthermore, Carver (1997) suggested that boards should act as the "market" to determine services by setting mission and policies, because nonprofits operate in a "muted market" (p. 5). There is no automatic consumer judgment because of price supports and limited competition. Consequently, boards perform a critical function to monitor environmental trends like economy that might affect organizational performance (Duca, 1996). The board and its committees are one mechanism to be sensitive and aware of constituent interest and environmental opportunities. A misinterpretation of the environment could result in errant policies and programs for the festival. Consequently, boards must have mechanisms in place to insure understanding of critical environmental trends (Alkhafaji, 1989; Duca, 1996;Wood, 1996). This would include funding resource dependencies, multiplicity of constituent interests, and inter-organizational alliances (Stone & Bryson, 2000). The spread of environmental awareness is guided by the strategic purpose of the organization (i.e., innovation to fund festival, growth of organization, depth of service for funders), and consequently, the structures in place should reflect those purposes. Using the Miles and Snow (1978) typology as guide, defender organizations are focused on a more refined service niche. They tend to be more internally focused on organizational issues of efficiency and less concerned with environmental pressures perceived to be beyond the focus of the organization. Prospectors, however, look for new opportunities with an eye on the external environment for potential market opportunities (e.g. venue for festival). These two types provide contrasting strategic orientations that should be reflected in a broader pattern of structure for the prospectors, because innovating and looking for new service opportunities require attention to more environmental factors (e.g., current and potential customers). Additionally, more centralization should be possible in defender organizations because of the focus on efficiency and tighter control of existing processes. Consequently, two key features were explored: the existence of board-level committees and their composition. Together, committee existence and committee membership form organizational patterns that can be compared and analyzed among a large number of organizations. Obviously, such an analysis has limitations. Other aspects of the organization could potentially perform these market-determining roles, whether volunteers or staff, and differing organizational attributes (e.g., age, stage of development, or industry) might, as well, influence the existence of these structural features. The board consequently is a viable mechanism to compare structural features as they relate to market strategies identified by the organization. Conclusion This study supports and extends previous literature on the strategy structure relationship. It demonstrated that strategically different nonprofit organizations (prospectors and defenders) exhibited predictable structural patterns. Organizations classified as prospectors tended to emphasize innovative programs and encouraged staff experimentation. Those organizations also had broader committee structures and on average tended to include more than two constituent groups per committee (e.g., board members, staff members, and community representatives). Defender organizations used fewer prospecting strategies, emphasized efficiency, and focused on maintaining well-defined services. On average, defenders had fewer committees and fewer members per committee. These categorical groupings were not without some contradictions. Prospectors seek expansive and inclusive boards that consistently involve non board members into board-level committees. Some organizations actively seek to structure their governance committees to facilitate strategic philosophies of the organization. Executives worked to link strategy to board processes and structures. Those that had achieved some alignment seemed more pleased with their governing boards than those who recognized lagging structural patterns. Each organization must adapt their structures to their unique circumstance but should consider how governance structures are enabling and/or preventing implementation of the desired strategy. Mission statements remain constant in all discussions of nonprofit strategy. However, its use is quite different for those organizations that express prospector philosophies and those that are more defender oriented. Whether the mission is a basis for multiple opportunities, or a box to define limitations of the organization's service area, the latter is the answer for social needs to continue. They use it as a device to ensure consistency and stability of services. Different perceptions of organizational mission statements indicate that mission statements are not deterministic but are instead interpreted through a frame of understanding that includes strategic orientation. The influence of strategic orientation on interpreting mission may offer some explanation regarding conflicting views of organizational purposes. If two people of differing strategic orientations may look at the same mission statement as providing very different directions for the organization. Recognizing this can help managers in considering how they use the mission statement to secure the base or expand into new areas. Realizing that language about the mission frames many discussions about the future direction of an organization, managers and board members should take the time to understand their strategic orientation overall and within the various components of the organization and how that orientation can provide guidance and sense of direction to the mix of daily activities. Prospector organizations often perceived collaboration as the desired mechanism to expand and innovate services. They sought these connections to remain sensitive to changes in the environment and realized their limitations to be purely entrepreneurial in providing services. In addition, other individuals within the organization may provide different insights into how strategy is enacted either through or despite the formal structures in place. Additional leadership voices could validate or contradict proclamations by senior executives and might, as well, inform contradictions in structural pattern and performance. Despite these limitations, understanding how executives described their strategic orientation was useful. Identifying structural differences between defenders and prospectors offered insight into how structures reflected organizational strategy and suggest the importance of actively attending to governance patterns that reinforce the strategic direction of the organization. With the oneness in streamline alignment of the strategy and structure of the organization and the right action taken in face of the specific environment rightly detected, the funding of the community book festival will emerge a huge success with all its endowment. Reference: Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill. Ketchen, D. J., Combs, J. G., Russell, C. J., Shook, C., Dean, M. A., Runge, J., et al. (1997). Organizational configurations and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 223-240. Harris, I. C., & Ruefli, T.W. (2000). The strategy/structure debate: An examination of the performance implications. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 587-603. Backman, E. V., Grossman, A., & Rangan, V. K., (2000). Introduction: Supplemental issue new directions in nonprofit strategy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 2-8. Stone, M. M., Bigelow, B.,&Crittenden,W. (1999). Research on strategicmanagement in nonprofit organizations. Administration & Society, 31, 378-423. Hasenfeld, Y. (1983). Human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Van de Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York: Wiley Interscience. McPhee, R. D.,&Poole, M. S. (2001). Organizational structures and configurations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503-543). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mintzberg, H. T. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R., (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1175-1195. Perlmutter, F. D.,&Gummer, B. (1994).Managing organizational transformation. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (pp. 227-246). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kushner, R. J., & Poole, P. P. (1996). Exploring structure-effectiveness relationships in nonprofit arts organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 119-136. Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Thesis on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107-125. Hillman, A. J., & Dalziel, T. (2003). Boards of directors and firm performance: Integrating agency and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Review, 28, 371-382. Siciliano, J. I. (1997). The relationship between formal planning and performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 387-404. Carver, J. (1997). Boards that make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Duca, D. J. (1996). Nonprofit boards: Roles, responsibilities, and performance. New York: John Wiley. Alkhafaji, A. F. (1989). A stakeholder approach to corporate governance. New York: Quorum. Stone, M. M.,&Bryson, J. M. (2000). Strategic management in the nonprofit sector. In J. Rabin, G. J. Miller,&W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Handbook of strategic management (pp. 749-762).New York: Marcel Dekker. Read More