Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:08:21.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talking Across Boundaries: A Case Study of Distributed Governance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Carrie M. Duncan and
Megan A. Schoor
Carrie M. Duncan*
Affiliation:
Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs, Center for the Study of Organizational Change, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Megan A. Schoor*
Affiliation:
Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs, Center for the Study of Organizational Change, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
*
e-mail: mindy.duncan.mo@googlemail.com
e-mail: megan.schoor@gmail.com
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explore the relation between organizational culture and governance in distributed nonprofit organizations. The transmission of culture across geographic distances facilitates governance in nonprofit distributed organizations, allowing distributed members to span the boundary of the organization to accomplish organizational objectives. We suggest that boundary-spanning is a key aspect of governance in distributed nonprofit organizations. While much of the governance literature focuses on the boundary-spanning activities of nonprofit boards, we describe boundary-spanning as an activity engaged in by distributed organizational members of nonprofit organizations. Distributed workers negotiate multiple relationships at the edge of their organization, what we call talking across boundaries. We present an in-depth case study that illustrates successful governance in a distributed nonprofit organization. We identify the elements of organizational culture that contribute to governance processes and facilitate the achievement of organizational objectives.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous explorons la relation entre la culture organisationnelle et la gouvernance au sein des organisations sans but lucratif délocalisées. La transmission de la culture à travers les distances géographiques facilite la gouvernance des organisations sans but lucratif délocalisées, permettant aux membres délocalisés de pratiquer l'échange d'informations au sein de l'organisation afin d'accomplir les objectifs organisationnels. Nous postulons que le transfert de connaissances est un aspect de la gouvernance au sein des organisations sans but lucratif délocalisées. Si la plupart des publications sur la gouvernance s'attachent aux activités de transfert de connaissances par les conseils d'administration des organisations sans but lucratif, nous décrivons cet échange comme une activité exercée par les membres organisationnels délocalisés des organisations sans but lucratif. Les travailleurs délocalisés négocient des relations multiples aux frontières de l'organisation, ce que nous désignons comme un dialogue au-delà des limites. Une étude de cas approfondie est présentée, qui illustre une gouvernance réussie au sein d'une organisation sans but lucratif délocalisée. Nous identifions les éléments de la culture organisationnelle contribuant aux processus de gouvernance et qui facilitent la réalisation des objectifs organisationnels.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Wir untersuchen die Beziehung zwischen der Organisationskultur und der Organisationsführung in dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen. Die Übermittlung der Kultur über geografische Distanzen erleichtert die Führung in dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen und ermöglicht Mitgliedern an verschiedenen Standorten, die Grenzen der Organisation zu überspannen, um die Ziele der Organisation zu erreichen. Wir behaupten, dass das Überspannen der Grenzen ein wichtiger Aspekt der Führung in dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen ist. Während sich ein Großteil der Literatur zum Thema Führung auf die grenzüberspannenden Aktivitäten von Vorständen in Nonprofit-Organisationen konzentriert, beschreiben wir das Überspannen von Grenzen als eine Aktivität der dezentralisierten Mitglieder von Nonprofit-Organisationen. Mitarbeiter an unterschiedlichen Standorten verhandeln viele Beziehungen am Rande ihrer Organisation, was wir als grenzübergreifende Gespräche bezeichnen. Wir präsentieren eine ausführliche Fallstudie, die die erfolgreiche Führung in einer dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisation veranschaulicht, und bestimmen die Elemente der Organisationskultur, die zu Führungsprozessen beitragen und die Erreichung der Organisationsziele ermöglichen.

Resumen

Resumen

Exploramos la relación entre la cultura organizativa y la gobernanza en organizaciones distribuidas sin ánimo de lucro. La transmisión de la cultura a través de distancias geográficas facilita la gobernanza en organizaciones distribuidas sin ánimo de lucro, permitiendo a los miembros distribuidos ampliar los límites de la organización para lograr objetivos organizativos. Sugerimos que la expansión de límites es un aspecto clave de la gobernanza en organizaciones distribuidas sin ánimo de lucro. Aunque una gran parte del material publicado sobre la gobernanza se centra en actividades de expansión de límites de consejos sin ánimo de lucro, describimos la expansión de límites como una actividad en la que se implican miembros organizativos distribuidos de organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro. Los trabajadores distribuidos negocian múltiples relaciones al borde de su organización, que denominamos hablar a través de los límites. Presentamos un estudio de caso en profundidad que ilustra una gobernanza satisfactoria en una organización distribuida sin ánimo de lucro. Identificamos los elementos de la cultura organizativa que contribuyen a los procesos de gobernanza y facilitan el logro de los objetivos organizativos.

要約

要約

我们探讨了分布式非营利组织的组织文化和治理之间的关系。跨地理位置传播文化有助于非营利分布式组织的治理,使得分布式成员跨越组织边界以实现组织目标。我们建议,边界跨越是分布式非营利组织治理的关键因素。尽管许多治理文献专注于非营利委员会的边界跨越活动,但是我们将边界跨越描述为非营利组织的分布式组织成员参与的活动。分布式员工在组织边缘协调多种关系,我们称之为跨边界交谈。我们介绍了一个深入的案例研究,其中展示分布式非营利组织的成功治理。我们确定了对治理流程做出贡献的组织文化并促进组织目标的实现。

摘要

摘要

本論文では、組織文化と分散型の非営利団体におけるガバナンスの関係を調査する。地理的な間隔を超えた文化発信では、分散したメンバーが組織の目標を達成するために、組織の境界を越えて非営利団体のガバナンスを促進している。境界間は、分散型の非営利団体のガバナンスにとって重要な側面があるといえる。ガバナンスの資料の大半が非営利団体の役員による境界を越えた活動に焦点を当てているが、本論文では分散型の非営利団体の会員が実施する活動の境界間について述べる。分散型の活動家は、境界を越えての対話という組織において複数の関係を構築する。非営利団体における成功した分散型のガバナンスの綿密な事例について述べる。ガバナンスのプロセスに貢献して組織の目的の到達を容易にするような組織文化の要素を識別する。

ملخص

ملخص

نحن نقوم بدراسة العلاقة بين الثقافة التنظيمية و الحكم في المنظمات الغير ربحية الموزعة. نقل الثقافة عبر مسافات جغرافية يسهل الحكم في المنظمات الغير هادفة للربح الموزعة ، مما يسمح للأعضاء الموزعة أن توسع حدود المنظمة لتحقيق الأهداف التنظيمية . نحن نقترح أن إمتداد الحدود هو أحد الجوانب الرئيسية للحكم في المنظمات الغير ربحية الموزعة. في حين أن الكثير من أدبيات الحكم يركز على إمتداد - حدود أنشطة اللجان الغير ربحية ، نحن نصف إمتداد- الحدود كالإشتراك في نشاط يقوم به أعضاء المنظمة الموزعين من منظمات غير ربحية . العمال الموزعة تقوم بالتفاوض على علاقات متعددة على حافة منظمتهم ، ما نسميه يتحدث عبر الحدود . نقدم دراسة حالة متعمقة التي توضح الحكم الناجح في منظمة غير ربحية موزعة. نحن نحدد عناصر الثقافة التنظيمية التي تسهم في عمليات الحكم وتقوم بتسهيل تحقيق الأهداف التنظيمية .

Keywords

NonprofitGovernanceCultureDistributed organizationBoundary-spanning

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , June 2015, pp. 731 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. New: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anheier, H. K. (2009). What kind of nonprofit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy reflections. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1082–1094. doi: 10.1177/0002764208327676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Ben-Ner, A. (1997). Shifting boundaries: Long-term changes in the size of the for-profit, nonprofit, cooperative and government sectors. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 68(3), 335–353. doi: 10.1111/1467-8292.00050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anheier, H. K., & Kendall, J. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 343–362. doi: 10.1080/0007131022000000545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bergquist, W. H. (1993). The postmodern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bergum, S. (1996). Telemanagement of distributed organizations: Background, communication patterns, management requirements and consequences. In SIGCPR ‘96 Proceedings of the 1996 ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS Conference on Computer Personnel Research (pp. 378–380). New York: ACM.10.1145/238857.372759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
Borys, B., & Jemison, D. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 234–249.10.2307/258418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of a science. Management Science, 2, 197–207. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callister, R., & Wall, J. (2001). Conflict across organizational boundaries: Managed care organizations versus health care providers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 754–763. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Chen, K. K., Lune, H., & Queen, E. L. I.I. (2013). How values shape and are shaped by nonprofit and voluntary organizations: The current state of the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 856–885. doi: 10.1177/0899764013480273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2012). Nonprofit governance research: Limitations of the focus on boards and suggestions for new directions. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1116–1135. doi: 10.1177/0899764011427959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornforth, C. (2014). Nonprofit governance research: The need for innovative perspectives and approaches. In Cornforth, Chris & Brown, William A (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Czander, W. M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organization. New York and London: Guilford press.Google Scholar
e Jong, P. (1990). Structure and action in distributed organizations. In COCS ‘90 Proceedings of the ACM SIGOIS and IEEE CS TC-OA Conference on Office Information Systems (pp. 1–10). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.001033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frumkin, P., & Andre-Clark, A. (2000). When missions, markets, and politics collide: Values and strategy in the nonprofit human services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 141–163. doi: 10.1177/089976400773746373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 436–445. doi: 10.2307/798843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harlan, S. L., & Saidel, J. R. (1994). Board members’ influence on the government-nonprofit relationship. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(2), 173–196. doi: 10.1002/nml.4130050206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2000). Board practices of especially effective and less effective local nonprofit organizations. The American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146–160. doi: 10.1177/02750740022064605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00416.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C., & Lynn, L. E. (2004). Governance and public management, an introduction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 3–11. doi: 10.1002/pam.10175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kelleher, C. A., & Yackee, S. W. (2008). A political consequence of contracting: Organized interests and state agency decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 579–602. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mun014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kets de Vries, M. F. (2006). The leader on the couch: A clinical approach to changing people and organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public Administration Review, 66, 10–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00662.x. Special issue (December).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kezar, A. (2011). Organizational culture and its impact on partnering between community agencies and postsecondary institutions to help low-income students attend college. Education and Urban Society, 43(2), 205–243. doi: 10.1177/0013124510380041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knutsen, W. L. (2013). Value as a self-sustaining mechanism: Why some nonprofit organizations are different from and similar to private and public organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(5), 985–1005. doi: 10.1177/0899764012457244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). On the edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface of individual and organizational identities. Human Relations, 59(10), 1315–1341. doi: 10.1177/0018726706071525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management, and mental health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674424746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233–261. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mark, G., and Poltrock, S. (2003). Shaping technology across social worlds: Groupware adoption in a distributed organization. In Proceedings of the 2003 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group work (pp. 284–293). New York: ACM.10.1145/958160.958205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCambridge, R. (2004). Underestimating the power of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 346–354. doi: 10.1177/0899764004263551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller-Millesen, J. (2003). Understanding the behavior of nonprofit boards of directors: A theory-based approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 521–547. doi: 10.1177/0899764003257463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilles, J. M. (1997). Telework: Enabling distributed organizations. Information Systems Management, 14(4), 7–14. doi: 10.1080/10580539708907069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, S., & Kandadi, K. R. (2006). How to develop knoledge culture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(4), 6–24. doi: 10.1108/13673270610679336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capacity in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrower, F., & Stone, M. M. (2010). Moving governance research forward: A contingency-based framework and data application. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(5), 901–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquet, G. (1996). States, communities, and markets: The distributed governance scenario. A contre-rapport in response to Richard N. Cooper’s “States, Citizens and Markets in the 21st Century”. Introductory Lecture at the 1996 Bell Canada Conference on The Nation-State.Google Scholar
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mum015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and renewal of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster doi: 10.1145/358916.361990.Google Scholar
Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading toward a society of networks: Empirical developments and theoretical challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198–210.10.1177/1056492609337493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renz, D. O., & Andersson, F. O. (2014). Nonprofit governance: A review of the field. In Cornforth, Chris & Brown, William A (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543–553. doi: 10.2307/976605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saidel, J. R., & Harlan, S. L. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 8(3), 243–260. doi: 10.1002/nml.8303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143–151. doi: 10.1080/00131720508984678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srivastava, S. B., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 207–233. doi: 10.1177/0003122411399390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable: Strategic boundaries between order and chaos in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36. p. 416. doi: 10.1177/0899764006296049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. M., & Sandfort, J. R. (2009). Building a policy fields framework to inform research on nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 1054–1075. doi: 10.1177/0899764008327198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Schnurbein, G. (2009). Patterns of governance structures in trade associations and unions. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(1), 97. doi: 10.1002/nml.243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D. R. (1994). Nonprofit organizations and business: The conflict and confluence of managerial culture. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 5, 81–94. doi: 10.1002/pf.41219940509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, D. R. (2002). The influence of business on nonprofit organizations and the complexity of nonprofit accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(1), 3–19. doi: 10.1177/0275074002032001001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar