talking across boundaries: a case study of distributed governance
TRANSCRIPT
ORI GIN AL PA PER
Talking Across Boundaries: A Case Studyof Distributed Governance
Carrie M. Duncan • Megan A. Schoor
� International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014
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 rela-
tionships 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 dis-
tributed nonprofit organization. We identify the elements of organizational culture
that contribute to governance processes and facilitate the achievement of organi-
zational objectives.
Resume Nous explorons la relation entre la culture organisationnelle et la
gouvernance au sein des organisations sans but lucratif delocalisees. La transmis-
sion de la culture a travers les distances geographiques facilite la gouvernance des
organisations sans but lucratif delocalisees, permettant aux membres delocalises de
pratiquer l’echange 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 delocalisees. Si
la plupart des publications sur la gouvernance s’attachent aux activites de transfert
C. M. Duncan (&) � M. A. Schoor
Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs, Center for the Study of Organizational Change,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Schoor
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Voluntas
DOI 10.1007/s11266-014-9453-2
de connaissances par les conseils d’administration des organisations sans but lucr-
atif, nous decrivons cet echange comme une activite exercee par les membres
organisationnels delocalises des organisations sans but lucratif. Les travailleurs
delocalises negocient des relations multiples aux frontieres de l’organisation, ce que
nous designons comme un dialogue au-dela des limites. Une etude de cas appro-
fondie est presentee, qui illustre une gouvernance reussie au sein d’une organisation
sans but lucratif delocalisee. Nous identifions les elements de la culture organisa-
tionnelle contribuant aux processus de gouvernance et qui facilitent la realisation
des objectifs organisationnels.
Zusammenfassung Wir untersuchen die Beziehung zwischen der Organisation-
skultur und der Organisationsfuhrung in dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen.
Die Ubermittlung der Kultur uber geografische Distanzen erleichtert die Fuhrung in
dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen und ermoglicht Mitgliedern an verschi-
edenen Standorten, die Grenzen der Organisation zu uberspannen, um die Ziele der
Organisation zu erreichen. Wir behaupten, dass das Uberspannen der Grenzen ein
wichtiger Aspekt der Fuhrung in dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Organisationen ist.
Wahrend sich ein Großteil der Literatur zum Thema Fuhrung auf die grenzuber-
spannenden Aktivitaten von Vorstanden in Nonprofit-Organisationen konzentriert,
beschreiben wir das Uberspannen von Grenzen als eine Aktivitat der dezentrali-
sierten Mitglieder von Nonprofit-Organisationen. Mitarbeiter an unterschiedlichen
Standorten verhandeln viele Beziehungen am Rande ihrer Organisation, was wir als
grenzubergreifende Gesprache bezeichnen. Wir prasentieren eine ausfuhrliche
Fallstudie, die die erfolgreiche Fuhrung in einer dezentralisierten Nonprofit-Orga-
nisation veranschaulicht, und bestimmen die Elemente der Organisationskultur, die
zu Fuhrungsprozessen beitragen und die Erreichung der Organisationsziele
ermoglichen.
Resumen Exploramos la relacion entre la cultura organizativa y la gobernanza en
organizaciones distribuidas sin animo de lucro. La transmision de la cultura a traves
de distancias geograficas facilita la gobernanza en organizaciones distribuidas sin
animo de lucro, permitiendo a los miembros distribuidos ampliar los lımites de la
organizacion para lograr objetivos organizativos. Sugerimos que la expansion de
lımites es un aspecto clave de la gobernanza en organizaciones distribuidas sin
animo de lucro. Aunque una gran parte del material publicado sobre la gobernanza
se centra en actividades de expansion de lımites de consejos sin animo de lucro,
describimos la expansion de lımites como una actividad en la que se implican
miembros organizativos distribuidos de organizaciones sin animo de lucro. Los
trabajadores distribuidos negocian multiples relaciones al borde de su organizacion,
que denominamos hablar a traves de los lımites. Presentamos un estudio de caso en
profundidad que ilustra una gobernanza satisfactoria en una organizacion distribuida
sin animo de lucro. Identificamos los elementos de la cultura organizativa que
contribuyen a los procesos de gobernanza y facilitan el logro de los objetivos
organizativos.
Voluntas
123
Keywords Nonprofit � Governance � Culture � Distributed organization �Boundary-spanning
Introduction
The pressures of networked environments require dynamic nonprofit governance
structures that allow work across boundaries while maintaining organizational
identity and member commitment. Distributed organizations are features of today’s
global, technologically advanced environment. Technological advances mean that
today’s organizations are less constrained by geography (Anheier and Ben-Ner
1997). The nonprofit world is no exception, and examining how distributed
nonprofit organizations operate effectively provides insight into new and emerging
forms of governance. This paper explores successful governance in a distributed
organization, what we call distributed governance.
Distributed organizations work across temporal, geographic, political, and
cultural boundaries (Orlikowski 2002). As an organizational form, distributed
organizations are distinct from decentralized organizations. Decentralized organi-
zations flatten power hierarchies but often lose capacity for creativity and adaptation
due to unclear roles and responsibilities (Stacey 1992). Distributed organizations
operate as self-organizing systems where creativity and spontaneity are contained
by clear hierarchical structures (Stacey 1992).
As an aspect of distributed governance, boundary-spanning, or interacting with
individuals and groups outside of the organization is crucial to organizational
success (Callister and Wall 2001; Williams 2002). This is especially true for
nonprofit organizations because of their relational and democratic approaches to
networking and collaboration (DiMaggio and Anheier 1990; Kezar 2011). The
governance literature traditionally attributes boundary-spanning to boards of
directors (Ostrower and Stone 2010; Saidel and Harlan 1998), particularly their
management of relationships within the nonprofit’s network (Kelleher and Yackee
2008; Saidel and Harlan 1998; Stone and Sandfort 2009). We extend this definition
by articulating boundary-spanning as a skill required of all actors within distributed
organizations, particularly those who are dispersed (Cornforth 2012).
We present an in-depth case study1 that illustrates successful distributed
governance in one nonprofit organization. Broadly, our research questions are: What
is the relationship between organizational culture and governance in distributed
organizations? What does governance look like in a distributed organization? How
can the answers to these questions inform our understanding of governance in
distributed nonprofit organizations? We find that organizational culture shapes the
emergence of distributed governance, a process driven by the interactions of
distributed members with individuals and organizations at the boundary. We use the
term ‘‘talking across boundaries’’ to describe distributed governance as the
negotiation of relationships with internal and external stakeholders by workers
1 We use this case study to generalize to nonprofit governance theory rather than to other nonprofit
organizations.
Voluntas
123
who span the boundary of the organization (Williams 2002). Our discussion of
nonprofit governance examines how geographically distributed workers influence
and enact governance within their work sites and shifts away from the traditional
focus on nonprofit boards. The insights generated from our case study have
implications for understanding how organizational culture facilitates the emergence
of effective distributed governance.
Literature Review
In this section, we ground our notion of distributed governance in the information
technology (IT) literature’s discussion of distributed organizing and distributed
culture. We then discuss the unique aspects of the nonprofit sector and nonprofit
organizational culture. Boundary-spanning is introduced as the central feature of
distributed governance. Finally, we use Provan and Kenis’ (2008) model of shared
governance to conceptualize the notion of distributed governance.
Distributed Organizing
The concept of ‘‘distributed organizing’’ originates in the information technology (IT)
literature and refers to technological and information pathways that connect various
organizational sites. Complex software and hardware accomplishes this task, along
with a different way of conceptualizing organizational process and structure. The
organization is ‘‘location independent’’ (Nilles 1997, p. 8), a network of distributed,
yet related objects (de Jong 1990; Nilles 1997). Organizational structure emerges
from the relationships between those objects; organizational action is achieved by
communication between the organization’s distributed parts (Nilles 1997). Mark and
Poltrock (2003) describe distributed organizing as ‘‘fluid’’ (p. 285), and de Jong
(1990) considers distributed organizations as ‘‘continually changing entit[ies] of
uncertain scope’’ (p. 1). Consistent with the view of organizations as open systems
(Beer 1980; Bertalanffy 1968; Boulding 1956; Czander 1993; Katz and Kahn 1966;
Levinson 1972; Weick 1969), the image of organizations in the IT literature is one of
‘‘open, distributed, and parallel systems’’ (de Jong 1990, p. 1).
Distributed organizing is relational, systemic, and fluid. Organizational structures
take on a postmodern form (Bergquist 1993) and boundaries are sites for dynamic
interaction with the environment (Stacey 1992). As boundary-spanners, distributed
workers play a key role in negotiating organizational boundaries. Our case
demonstrates that distributed organizing is a dynamic interplay between distributed
work sites, workers, and leadership. Successful distributed organizations deploy
effective communication technology, dynamic governance mechanisms, and well-
defined objectives (Bergum 1996; Nilles 1997).
Distributed Organizational Culture
Culture is the substance from which distributed governance emerges and the surface
upon which it rests. Oliver and Kandadi (2006) found that in distributed
Voluntas
123
organizations, empowerment of workers, promoting autonomy and learning, and
developing trust were important elements of distributed culture. In a way, it is a
toolkit that members use to express their values (Chen et al. 2013). Organizational
culture addresses two problems that organizations face: internal integration and
external adaptation (Schein 1990). Organizational culture as a means of external
adaptation is the key to distributed governance, because it is a resource that
empowers workers at the boundary to interact and respond to partner organizations
during collaboration and service delivery (Stacey 1992). This echoes DiMaggio and
Anheier’s (1990) emphasis on the ecological study of nonprofits and ‘‘nonprofit-
ness.’’ Nonprofit organizations and their distinctive cultures are defined in part by
the context in which they operate (DiMaggio and Anheier 1990).
We develop our model of distributed culture using Schein’s (1990) three-level
model of culture: artifacts, values, and basic assumptions. Schein (1990) defines
culture as
A pattern of shared artifacts, values, and basic assumptions that the group
learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal
integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think,
and feel in relation to those problems (p. 89).
Artifacts are the visible and surface features of culture (Schein 1990). Artifacts
that are important in distributed organizations are meetings, software, and
performance-based contracting (Bergum 1996; Orlikowski 2002). Meetings are a
place where distributed members form social networks (Bergum 1996), allowing for
continuity in the culture even though distributed workers continually adapt to
shifting internal and external needs (Orlikowski 2002). Software and contracts
contribute to what Orlikowski (2002) calls ‘‘alignment of effort,’’ which is
analogous to the national model and performance objectives in our case study.
Values are promoted through artifacts like mission statements, policies and
procedures, and outcomes (Chen et al. 2013).
Values are the beliefs that organizational members espouse2 (Schein 1990).
Values may reflect the initial standards, purposes, and the founding leader’s vision
for the organization. Organizations that articulate and encourage expression of core
values often foster a creative learning environment (Chen et al. 2013). This begins
with initial training when socialization to organizational values induces organiza-
tional identification (Orlikowski 2002). Strong shared values enable members to
engage in cooperative activity and orient their day-to-day work toward the
collective identity. Organizational culture that does not emphasize cooperation often
fails to facilitate effective communication and collaboration (Mark and Poltrock
2003; Srivastava and Banaji 2011). Collaboration is facilitated by trust which is a
dominant feature of nonprofit organizational culture and the sector as a whole
(Anheier 2005).
2 Espoused values are the values that members say they believe in. Espoused values sometimes differ
from ‘‘values in action.’’ That is what people say is sometimes different that what they do. This idea
comes from Edgar Schein’s work on organizational culture and Chris Argyris’ work on organizational
learning.
Voluntas
123
We expand on current discussions of nonprofit culture by discussing the basic
assumption level of organizational culture. Basic assumptions are the taken-for-
granted aspects of organizational culture (Schein 1990) that are shaped by shared
values and manifested in member interactions and organizational artifacts. We
emphasize the concept of the ‘‘psychological contract’’ and how it is a resource that
distributed workers use to guide their work. Basic assumptions are foundational in
organizational culture and to a large degree are embedded by the leader of the
organization (Schein 1990). They are also taken for granted and often generate
automatic behavior.
From a distributed perspective, leadership practice emerges from the interaction
between executive leadership and organizational members (Kets de Vries 2006;
Spillane 2005). Anheier and Ben-Ner (1997) describe the important influence of the
values of nonprofit entrepreneurs in the organizations they lead. Decisions made by
these entrepreneurs embed values in the institutional structures and create a
framework for future innovation (DiMaggio and Anheier 1990; Schein 1990).
Worker characteristics are also important features of distributed culture, including
intrinsic motivation (Oliver and Kandadi 2006) and the ability to work indepen-
dently (Bergum 1996). Worker characteristics are an important element of dynamics
between leaders and followers and workers’ capacity to enact distributed
governance (Czander 1993; Kets de Vries 2006).
Nonprofit Organizational Culture
The nonprofit sector (and the organizations by which it is composed) operates under
a distinct agenda unlike that of the for-profit sector (Anheier 2005; Anheier and
Kendall 2002; DiMaggio and Anheier 1990). The role of social service nonprofits
has expanded, from being the ‘‘poor cousin’’ or complement to government to
becoming a ‘‘central instrument…of development and welfare state change’’
(Anheier 2009, p. 1085–1086). Nonprofit organizations are motivated to provide a
range of services, and their pluralistic, diverse principles are set (or at least
influenced) by organizational donors that fuel their work. For a nonprofit to thrive
and sustain, it must (1) fulfill the mission that funders, board of directors, staff, and
the surrounding community value and (2) focus on their ability to survive or
minimize deficits rather than maximize profit like for-profit organizations (Frumkin
and Andre-Clark 2000).
Nonprofit organizations are typically viewed as value-driven organizations, and
nonprofit identity is rooted in meeting community needs (DiMaggio and Anheier
1990; Kezar 2011; Knutsen 2013). Nonprofit organizational forms often arise from
religious and social values (Anheier 2005). Nonprofit organizations cultivate a
culture of trust (Young 1994) as they shape and reinforce tacit convictions and
values among employees (Anheier and Kendall 2002). Couched within a nonprofit’s
mission is a level of moral accountability that is honored by employees at all levels
(Anheier 2009). The ability of nonprofit leaders to interpret and enthusiastically
promote the mission (particularly amidst stakeholder and environmental pressures)
is thought to improve accountability within the organization (Young 2002).
Furthermore, nonprofit organizations that utilize the ‘‘front-line’’ perspectives of
Voluntas
123
professional workers in their decision-making processes are better able to capture
the social values of service, quality, and integrity reflected in the organization’s
mission (Young 2002).
From a sociological perspective, the extent of ‘‘trust’’ can range along a wide
continuum. Anheier and Kendall (2002) succinctly discuss Putnam’s (2000) notion
of ‘‘thick’’ and ‘‘thin’’ trust, both of which are enacted in the overarching culture of
the nonprofit sector. Thick trust is that which is deeply embedded in the personal
relations of the employees and their extended organizational network. Thin trust, on
the other hand, is reflected in less dense relations with daily professional and civic
contacts. Both thick and thin trust are visible in the culture of the distributed
nonprofit organization we studied. Workers developed a deep, unspoken psycho-
logical contract with the ED, which enabled them to respond to environmental
pressures in ways consistent with organizational goals and the needs of partners.
Blurring sector boundaries can challenge the distinct identity, values, and culture of
nonprofit organizations (Knutsen 2013). It is at the boundary that the internal and
external needs and goals of the organization must be balanced.
Boundary-spanning
As a theoretical framework, boundary-spanning focuses on the role of the spanner in
facilitating organizational communication both with people inside and outside the
organization (Callister and Wall 2001). Boundary spanners can manage conflict
between organizations (Callister and Wall 2001), but successful boundary
management is increasingly difficult due to political processes and wicked problems
that complicate spanners’ ability to respond (Kettl 2006). This suggests that actors
in this role might require new skills or strategies to effectively identify and manage
boundaries. We suggest that organizational culture plays a role in the development
of boundary-spanning capacities.
Cultural artifacts (e.g., the organization’s mission, resources, and structures of
responsibility and accountability) help define boundaries (Kettl 2006; Kreiner et al.
2006). Boundaries demarcate ‘‘inside’’ and ‘‘outside’’; however, this demarcation is
permeable enough for information and resources to flow in and out of the
organization (Czander 1993; Kreiner et al. 2006). Boundary-spanning is a way for
organizations to acquire essential resources (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). For
example, governance boards often utilize personal and professional contacts to gain
resources for their organizations (Miller-Millesen 2003). Acting as sector ‘‘span-
ners’’ (Harlan and Saidel 1994), nonprofit boards are positioned between the
organizations that they govern and external institutions and actors (Stone and
Ostrower 2007). Typical boundary-spanning behaviors of nonprofit board members
include facilitating contracting arrangements, advocacy, and protecting their
organizational autonomy through the monitoring and safeguarding of organizational
values (Saidel 1991; Harlan and Saidel 1994).
Board members, however, are not the only actors that develop relationships
across boundaries (Cornforth 2014). Social service organizations are increasingly
adopting network structures that involve multiple actors delivering services to target
populations across geographic distances (Raab and Kenis 2009). It stands to reason
Voluntas
123
that boundary-spanning is accomplished by organizational members at all levels of
the organization, especially by those located in geographically dispersed locations.
Culture plays an important role in enabling distributed workers’ boundary-
spanning behaviors. Workers must feel empowered to make decisions ‘‘on the fly,’’
while still remaining accountable to their leaders. Culture should promote a strong
sense of shared values, interests, and goals to achieve coherence in decision-making
across sites. Distributed members can easily respond to environmental pressures in
the moment when they have internalized the values and goals of the organization.
Enacting those values then becomes less of a decision-making process and more of
an automatic behavior rooted in the basic assumption level of culture. Thus, culture
primes organizational members to span the boundary of the organization and
consistently enact organizational values.
A Model for Governance in Distributed Organizations
We define governance as the ‘‘systems and processes concerned with ensuring the
overall direction, control, and accountability of an organization’’ (Cornforth 2012,
p. 1121). This definition allows for thinking about nonprofit governance structures
in complex environments (Stacey 1996). It also moves away from conceptualizing
governance as strictly related to boards (Cornforth 2014; Renz and Andersson
2014).
While a variety of nonprofit governance structures exist (von Schnurbein 2009),
it is the concept of network governance that best allows for thinking about
nonprofits in their complex environments. Network-building is especially important
in the discussion of nonprofit governance, and it is an inherent part of nonprofit
organizational culture (Kezar 2011). The cultural values of transparency and
accountability guide nonprofit networking behavior (McCambridge 2004). We draw
on Provan and Kenis’ (2008) concept of shared governance in networks as a
heuristic for understanding governance in distributed organizations. While Provan
and Kenis (2008) apply this concept to inter-organizational relationships, we apply
it to intra-organizational relationships and the process of boundary-spanning.
Shared governance is a highly adaptable form shaped by all participants. As our
case study demonstrates, applying this concept to organizations implies a model of
governance that is highly participative, distributed, and dynamic rather than
hierarchical and linear. This approach moves away from the traditional focus on
boards to engage the voices of all organization members (Paquet 1996). Important
characteristics of shared governance are trust and goal consensus (Provan and Kenis
2008). In our case study, distributed workers were able to consistently enact the
nonprofit mission, activate goal consensus when confronted by the need for
boundary management. Trust and shared goals were especially important in this
distributed nonprofit organization. Workers exhibited high levels of trust in the
leader, who relied on worker input to make decisions and act. These important
elements of culture facilitated the governance function (Renz and Andersson 2014)
at the boundary of the organization. Workers’ actions at the boundary played a key
role in steering the organization, demonstrating what we call distributed
governance.
Voluntas
123
Methodology
This paper was inspired by an organizational study of a nonprofit college access
provider. The study began in 2011 and was commissioned by the organization as a
part of a strategic planning effort. We present this organization as a ‘‘successful
distributed nonprofit,’’ because internal and external stakeholders agreed that it
effectively delivers services and carries out its mission (Herman and Renz 2000,
2004).3
Organization Setting
The organization that we studied was housed at an educational institution. The
organization did not have a traditional governing board but worked closely with
members of the educational institution to develop its programs.4 The organization’s
purpose was to facilitate low income and high-risk high school students’ access to
college. The executive director (ED) served as both a leader and manager. She was
the ‘‘linking pin’’ of the organization. Her duties consisted of partnership
development, fund development, and the selection, training, placement, and
supervision of distributed workers.
Although the organization functions independently, it maintains a close working
relationship with its larger, national organization. The national model is a near-peer
model that recruits college graduates and trains them to work in high schools to
carry out its mission of ‘‘helping kids go to college.’’ The model aims to help first-
generation students attend college. Although the model is not technological in the
traditional sense, it was a vehicle for the technical knowledge of the workers.
Workers co-opted the model as a framework for delivering their services and
enacting the shared goal of helping kids go to college.
The organization recruited college seniors to become workers. Workers were
recruited in the last year of undergraduate study and were often first-generation
college students themselves. They signed a 2-year contract to work in a high school,
often moving to the community where their school was located. Participating
schools were located in both rural and urban areas.
Workers began their duties in August when school started and completed their
work with students when the school year ended. Throughout the school year,
workers had to account for school holidays, snow days, and teacher workdays when
planning work and the achievement of deliverables. Workers gathered at the home
office in the summer for an intensive 6-week training session. They had contact with
the nonprofit organization during trainings, performance evaluations, and the ED’s
site visits to the participating schools. They were accountable to the ED as their
direct supervisor. Workers also worked with a ‘‘site supervisor,’’ employed by the
school (usually administrative or counseling staff). The site supervisor acted as a
3 The data from this case study have been de-identified to protect the confidentiality of the organizational
members. All members are referred to as ‘‘she’’ regardless of their actual gender.4 The lack of a traditional governing board makes this a good case for examining alternative governance
structures.
Voluntas
123
liaison between the worker and the school, and the worker’s accountability to that
site supervisor was informal and emerged out of desire to collaborate and achieve
success.
Workers were responsible for reaching the entire senior class of their high school
each academic year; some had more than a hundred student contacts each day. Their
work was guided by carefully constructed ‘‘deliverables’’ measuring the number of
students reached for the month, quarter, and school year. Workers focused on
helping students sign up for the FASFA, preparing for the ACT exam, college
applications, and the financial aid process. Deadlines were predetermined by federal
and state agencies and the students’ choice of colleges. Therefore, while workers
were autonomous and completed their work in whatever way they chose, the
deliverables were completed according to inflexible deadlines. Their overarching
task was to work collaboratively with schools to create a ‘‘college-going culture.’’
Analysis
This is a retrospective analysis of the data gathered during the study’s first year,
though follow-up has continued for over 2 years. This analysis was conducted by the
co-authors, who were members of the four-person team that conducted the original
organizational study. Data include a review of organizational documents, over
70 hours of participant-observation, and more than 50 interviews conducted with
internal and external organization stakeholders. The question that the study sought
to answer was ‘‘What is it like to work here?’’ When the organizational study was
complete, findings were presented to organizational members for confirmation or
rejection.
Interviews and field notes from the study were transcribed and compiled
producing 175 pages (6,336 single spaced lines) of text. We completed four phases
of analysis: open coding, focused coding, theme development, and theme testing.
We used a grounded theory approach to code the narrative data (Charmaz 2006).
The coding process immersed us in the text and aided in generating new insights and
understandings of our research experiences. It also required reflection on, and
testing of, our preconceived notions about member experiences (Charmaz 2006),
which was important, because we wanted to move beyond the original study’s
findings. Although we had generated the idea for this paper, we remained open to
emergent ideas throughout all phases of coding.
Open Coding
Open coding consisted of carefully reading each line of text and generating open
codes ‘‘incident by incident’’ (Charmaz 2006, p. 53). This approach worked best for
our data because of the large amount of text generated from observations, field
notes, and document reviews (Charmaz 2006). Many of our open codes were in vivo
(the participants’ own words). Working from in vivo codes allowed us to ‘‘unpack’’
and interpret the meanings that catch phrases held for organizational members.
Open coding was conducted by each co-author separately, and then the two sets of
open codes were merged before we embarked on the next phase of coding.
Voluntas
123
Disagreements about codes were resolved through discussion, drawing on the
original text, until an agreement was reached about each code.
Focused Coding
The second major coding phase generated ‘‘keywords’’ for the open codes, a process
analogous to Charmaz’s (2006) description of focused coding. We did a second
reading of the text, comparing and contrasting open codes, and beginning to develop
interpretations. Keywords and phrases were generated based on patterns that
emerged across the open codes. Salient ideas from open codes were used to create
the keywords and to condense the data into themes. We then grouped and sorted
open codes using keywords.
Theme Development
The third coding stage involved the development of themes that emerged when
we ‘‘compared data to data’’ (Charmaz 2006, p. 60). As themes developed
through synthesizing open and focused codes, sub-themes emerged. This process
is analogous to axial coding which specifies the thematic ‘‘properties and
dimensions’’ (Charmaz 2006, p. 60) of the themes. Analytic memos were
important to theme development and allowed us to develop interpretations of
focused codes. Through constant comparison (Glaser 1965), we triangulated
themes across interviewees, identified negative cases, and noted contradictions
and tensions.
Testing Themes Against the Literature
In the final phase, we ‘‘tested’’ themes against the distributed organizing literature.
This involved deductively examining the themes and identifying how they fit with
the literature. We organized our analysis by examining how themes fit with the
literature (or not) and the extent to which we could saturate them with the data. The
themes and sub-themes from our analysis are presented in the next section.
Findings
In this section we discuss three major themes that emerged from our analysis:
Culture as a medium for distributed governance, a shifting workplace, and
distributed workers as boundary-spanners. Each major theme has several sub-
themes.
Culture as a Medium for Distributed Governance
We use the phrase ‘‘culture as a medium of distributed governance’’ to describe how
culture facilitated the emergence of distributed governance. Important cultural
Voluntas
123
elements included charismatic leadership, shared values, a unifying language, and
basic assumptions. These aspects of culture are consistent with the literature on
distributed organizing and organizational culture.
Charismatic Leadership
The ED in our case exhibited strong relational skills that reflect Anheier’s (2005)
definition of ‘‘charismatic leadership,’’ Charismatic leadership instills in workers
a sense of pride, commitment, and willingness to follow the objectives and
decision-making processes of the nonprofit organization. She was appointed as
the new ED just prior to the commencement of our study. Interviewees reported
that the leadership change was a critical moment in the organization’s evolution.
By most accounts, her leadership transformed the organization, bringing ‘‘quality
to the organization’’ and making it a successful ‘‘national model’’ (Internal
Stakeholder 6).
The transition to ED had an ‘‘immediate impact’’ on the program in terms of
improving the quality and delivery of services. (Internal Stakeholder Focus
Group)
The ED’s ability to develop relationships ensured that existing school partner-
ships could be maintained and new ones developed. Her relational skills were
important at the boundary of the organization.
People warm up to her. She is constantly visiting the schools and opened the
channels of communication with leadership… (Internal Stakeholder 6)
She is a ‘‘mover and shaker’’ in getting the organization firm footing,
particularly regarding acquiring funding to expand the program. (Site
Supervisor 3)
The relationship between the ED and distributed workers was significant in
maintaining the organizational culture across distributed sites. A national evaluator
told us that ‘‘the attachment to the ED’’ in this organization is unique among the
various other programs implementing the model (Researcher 3 Field Notes, School
Site 2). Workers described her as being ‘‘like a mom’’ (Worker 1) and as a great
advocate and protector (Worker Focus Group 1).
As we discuss further below, the dynamics between the ED and the distributed
workers played an important role in the ‘‘psychological contract.’’5 Workers were
somewhat dependent on the ED for reassurance and guidance, which promoted the
enactment of her values. This aspect of the culture was important for ensuring the
development of shared values, movement toward shared goals, and ultimately
distributed governance.
5 Levinson et al. (1962) developed the notion of ‘psychological contract’ to describe the conscious and
unconscious expectations between workers and leaders, which has important consequences for the
employee performance.
Voluntas
123
Developing Shared Values
Values are reinforced through learning experiences and socialization of new
members (Orlikowski 2002). While the influence of values varies by organization,
their significant presence within the nonprofit alludes to a more ‘‘complex means-
goal relationship between operational and ultimate objectives’’ (Anheier 2005,
p. 141). In our case, workers were socialized to organizational values during the
‘‘intensive and extensive’’ (Researcher 2 Field Notes, ED Interview) training
process that centered on the ED.
From the moment that training began, the ED provided them with helpful
information and documentation that spelled out what their deliverables were
for each year. As a result, she knew (and knows) the expectations of her job.
(Researcher 1 Field Notes, Worker 7 Interview)
Internal stakeholders identified worker training as a ‘‘nationally recognized’’
strength of the organization (Internal Stakeholder 2). Site supervisors also noted that
workers were so well trained that ‘‘there is little supervision required’’ (Site
Supervisor 4). The automatic way that workers carried out the mission of the
organization is evidence of internalized and taken for granted (basic assumptions)
organizational values.
Bi-monthly meetings provided an opportunity for ongoing socialization and
culture maintenance, and were an important space for play, creativity, and
‘‘brainstorming.’’ They also played a role in facilitating innovation among the
distributed workers.
We have training every month. The ED incorporates us in the training
schedule. It feels like professional development. Everything is wonderful.
Brainstorming happens at training. (Researcher 1 Field Notes, Worker 1
Interview)
Training encouraged the distributed workers to create a social network and work
together to develop shared definitions of the organization’s goals. Workers valued
‘‘passion and a sense of ownership’’ (Worker Focus Group 3). They also valued trust
and relationships with each other (Worker 4), the ED, and ‘‘[their] kids’’ (Worker
Focus Group 1). We view training as the original site for developing shared values
in this organization. Relationships between workers, and between the workers and
ED, served as a unifying force that bonded them together even when they were
distributed.
We all have the same goals and same mission for our students. We are a
family. Workers plus ED. It’s all of us. We do a lot of great brainstorm-
ing…and sharing ideas. (Worker 1)
Everyone in the worker position has the same goal, and it gets stressful
sometimes, so knowing that everyone has the same goal is important. (Worker
2)
Shared values emerged in a unifying language that workers used to articulate
their shared sense of mission and to guide their work.
Voluntas
123
Unifying Language
During our time in the field, we noticed a particular language that all of the workers
used. Terms including ‘‘deliverables,’’ ‘‘college-going culture,’’ and ‘‘best fit’’ were
verbal artifacts used regularly by workers, the ED, and stakeholders to express the
shared purpose and long-term goals of the organization. The frequent use of these
phrases at multiple organizational levels demonstrates how cultural artifacts create a
sense of unity that facilitates the enactment of distributed governance across
temporal and geographic boundaries.
Deliverables Without a physical organization, performance objectives, detailed
evaluation matrices, and service delivery plans became the structures that defined
and ‘‘held’’6 distributed workers’ roles. Performance objectives formed the basis of
training and workers’ weekly and monthly evaluations. The ‘‘deliverables’’ initially
appeared daunting, but workers reported that they came easily in the course of doing
work.
When we got our deliverables we thought it was impossible. Now we see it’s
so easy. We know we’re on top of it. (Worker Focus Group 3)
Workers reported that goals were ‘‘fluid’’ (Worker Focus Group 3) and that they
could accomplish deliverables in a way that best suited their school. This is
consistent with the theme of the shifting workplace discussed in the next section.
The nature of the deliverables and how they were accomplished was part of the
conversation between the ED, the workers, and school staff at the organization
boundary.
Workers are required to talk with their site supervisor and other appropriate
school personnel regarding FAFSA completion for their school. Workers are
then charged with creating a desired outcomes plan… Workers also must list
strategies and activities they use to accomplish their goals. There’s also a post-
8-week assessment [by the ED] of their completion plan regarding how it
helped, how many goals were met, and [to] discuss any changes to make the
following year. (Researcher 1 Field Notes, Document Review)
College-going culture The organization’s primary task7 was to create a ‘‘college-
going culture’’ in high schools. A college-going culture implied that the school
provided an environment that facilitated students’ access to information about
college and support in transitioning to college after high school. This phrase was
heard in regional, statewide, and national discussions about college access and
within the partner schools. School administrators reported that a college-going
culture was ‘‘blossoming’’ (Admin 4) because of the workers’ presence. This was
especially true when workers not only had their own space but also related to the
visible college materials throughout the schools.
6 We use the term ‘held’ to describe how the cultural artifacts described here are also a psychological
structure or container that allows the workers to place themselves ‘inside’ the organization. The notion of
containment and holding originates with the work of Wilfred Bion and Donald Winnicott respectively.7 The term ‘‘primary task’’ refers to the overarching goal or task of the organization in its environment.
Voluntas
123
We are assured that we are pushing for college. We have a bulletin board of
acceptance letters. The PR piece is in place that was missed before. College-
going culture is successful. We are miles ahead of where we were two years
ago. (Admin 4)
Best-fit ‘‘Best-fit’’ represented both the students’ fit to their prospective college
and the workers’ fit to their school environment.
ED puts us in our best-fit school…ED puts us in a school that we will fit in
with the culture of that school. (Worker 1)
I like one-on-one time. I have a good relationship with students. I don’t know
how ED makes us fit—personality plus culture of school. (Worker 6)
Administrators and workers agreed that the worker-school fit was the key to
helping students identify their best-fit institution.
She mentioned that she felt confident that the next worker would be a good fit
based on what she knew about the training and ED’s ability to match workers
with schools. (Research 3 Field Notes, Site Supervisor 5 Interview)
The challenge of best-fit for workers was dealing with the students’ and families’
unrealistic goals and expectations of college.
It’s the kids have all these goals. You want to be a doctor and you failed
science? Kids have unrealistic goals. [That’s] the challenge of matching kids
to a best-fit institution. (Worker Focus Group 2)
Basic Assumptions
Moving beyond artifacts and espoused values, basic assumptions are workers’ deep
motivations and out of awareness shared assumptions about the nature of work
(Schein 1990). Following Schein’s (1990) approach, we used ‘‘surprises’’ in the
field to identify three basic assumptions in the organizational culture.
Accomplishing work through personal relationships The organization and the
schools emphasized ‘‘teaching’’ (Internal Stakeholder 2) workers the boundaries of
their work and their relationships with students.
The worker brings any personal issues that the kids bring up to the site
supervisor. For example, things related to parental conflict (potential abuse),
mental health issues. (Site Supervisor 6)
There existed the notion that workers’ relationships with students could be easily
‘‘cut off’’ whenever students’ personal issues arose, an expectation that proved to be
unrealistic.
Our counselors were talking about how they don’t have time to do actual
counseling. So students don’t get sent to them, they go to me to talk about it.
(Worker Focus Group 1)
For many students, the worker was not only a source of information but also a
source of support.
Voluntas
123
Having the support here is so important because I don’t have it at home. My
parents said that I need to get out of the house…My dad wanted me to go to
the Air Force, that’s not what I want. I am trying to make my dad happy and
do what I want to do too. (Student 8)
Although the workers’ job descriptions and deliverables guided their actions,
they often went ‘‘above and beyond’’ to help students. Thus, for many workers (and
students), the boundary was permeable.
Active engagement with school environment ‘‘Active engagement’’ refers to
workers’ intrinsic motivation and proactive attitude toward their environment.
If I run into a problem, I try to change [the situation]. Being vocal in the
school can help. Things next year will change [because she speaks up].
(Worker Focus Group 1)
Workers proactively shouldered the responsibility of changing their school’s
college-going culture. Many workers felt personally responsible for maintaining
their school’s college focus.
I’m in a new partner school where the college-going rate is way below the
average. We have to get out there and market ourselves and our product,
which is college. Breaking the molds of these students’ minds. You’ve really
got to go in and change the culture, which is a real barrier. (Worker Focus
Group 3)
Developing a college-going culture went beyond creating visible college
artifacts. Interacting with school staff was fundamental to changing the mindset
about college and at-risk students.
At the school there are banners, ACT preparations, a whole college prep room
with computers. But you have to create the culture with the staff. If the
teachers don’t believe they can go to college, who will help them? (Worker
Focus Group 1)
Shaping school culture involved transmitting organizational values, goals, and
objectives across organizational boundaries. Workers practiced active engagement
in a manner that best addressed the unique (and often shifting) needs of students and
school personnel.
Unspoken psychological contract The term ‘‘psychological contract’’ describes
the unspoken elements of the ED-worker relationship. Workers shared a tacit
sense of trust in each other and the ED, a characteristic of the normative social
infrastructure of nonprofit organizations (Anheier and Kendall 2002). The
psychological contract that existed in the worker-ED relationship acted as a
guide for workers on whom to trust (or not) and in which situations (Anheier and
Kendall 2002). While workers autonomously fulfilled the deliverables, the ED
empowered them to maintain their role in the school. The ED trusted workers to
engage in boundary-spanning activities. Workers trusted in the ED’s network-level
competencies to protect and provide resources for them to carry out the primary
task.
Voluntas
123
They rely on each and their allies in the schools for emotional support and rely
on ED to protect the integrity of the program and preserve their role in the
schools. They call ED their ‘‘knight in shining armor.’’ (Researcher 3 Field
Notes, Worker Focus Group 1)
Theme Summary
The dimensions of culture that emerged in our analysis were important for
facilitating the day-to-day work of distributed workers and the emergence of
distributed governance. The ED’s charismatic leadership, combined with the shared
values and a unifying language, supported workers seeking to promote a college-
going culture in their respective schools. Training was an important mechanism for
socialization, developing intra-organizational relationships, and promoting shared
values. The deep values and basic assumptions of this organization’s culture imbued
a high level of trust among the organizational members. Workers felt connected to
and protected by the ED, a relationship that empowered the workers to fulfill their
deliverables based on school and student needs. Values pushed workers to actively
engage in relationship development at the boundary, which formed the basis of
distributed governance. Talking across the boundary with site supervisors and the
ED was an important part of workers’ role in the distributed site. This ‘‘talk’’ is the
enactment of distributed governance.
A Shifting Workplace
‘‘A shifting workplace’’ describes work settings with frequent and unpredictable
changes in rules, structures, or staffing. Two aspects of shifting workplaces emerged
in our observations and interviews: ‘‘a different organization for each worker’’ and
‘‘work as wearing multiple hats.’’
A Different Organization for Each Worker
Each worker experienced a different organization based on the school context.
School districts were constantly transitioning, as evidenced by high levels of staff
turnover.
Both of my schools are taking budget cuts, and they really need me. They are
losing staff. (Worker Focus Group 2)
Nearly half of the teachers were fired from the school and then had to reapply
for their jobs. (Worker 2)
Financial and staffing strains within schools affected the development and
implementation of school policies and procedures. At times, the rules changed
without the workers’ knowledge.
The schools seem to be in flux with no clear knowledge about what the rules
are, what they will be, or even who will be working there next year.
(Researcher 3 Field Notes, Worker Focus Group 1)
Voluntas
123
Workers were placed in complex and shifting environments that were different
for each of them. A strong sense of shared values and a unifying language helped
workers work in a way that was consistent with each other and the organizational
values and goals. The ED instilled these values in workers during training and
facilitated ongoing conversations among workers to reinforce those values. The ED
also fostered communication among workers throughout the year through periodic
trainings and meetings, enabling workers to respond creatively to their environ-
ments while maintaining fidelity to organizational goals and deliverables.
Work as Wearing Multiple Hats
Workers experienced constant variation in their day-to-day work, what they
described as ‘‘wearing multiple hats.’’
You wear so many hats. Counselor, mentor, planning, budgeting, [you] never
know what you will face. Each student is different. They don’t have the parent
figure, so you have to guide them as a parent would. (Worker Focus Group 1)
Workers often felt obligated to take on additional tasks, which is inherent in their
function as ‘‘gap fillers,’’ as we discuss later.
Workers are taking on other jobs. Registrar, ACT registration, everything,
printing grades. Never have time to breathe. (Worker Focus Group 1)
Theme Summary
The shifting workplace was an unexpected challenge that struck workers when they
left training and were immersed in their respective schools. Schools varied so much
that workers found training only got them so far. When they arrived at their
respective schools, ‘‘reality set in’’ (Worker 4). The school environment structured
how each worker carried out their work, requiring flexibility in the development,
implementation, and evaluation of performance objectives. Work as multiple hats
represents the responsiveness of distributed workers to the needs of their particular
environment. Distributed governance is also, in part, the responsiveness of the
leadership to the needs of each particular environment as articulated by the workers.
As workers negotiated their roles through conversations with site supervisors and
other school personnel, they also negotiated their role and needs with the ED.
Workers were spanning both the internal and external boundary to carry out the
mission of the organization in a way that met their needs and the needs of school
partners and the organization. Their decisions and actions across boundaries
exemplify what we call distributed governance. Workers’ movements across
boundaries effectively steered the work of the organization as a whole.
Distributed Workers Spanning the Boundary
‘‘Spanning the boundary’’ describes workers’ simultaneous management of the
shifting workplace and their organizational role. The challenge of boundary-
Voluntas
123
spanning was described by the ED as a ‘‘balancing act,’’ as if ‘‘walking on a
tightrope’’ (Researcher 1 Fieldnotes, ED Interview). Workers considered themselves
‘‘in the school, but not part of the school’’ (Worker Focus Group 1). They were the
‘‘connection between the organization and the students who most need the help’’
(External Stakeholder 6). The dimensions of boundary-spanning that emerged in our
analysis were ‘‘workers as gap fillers,’’ ‘‘fuzzy boundaries,’’ and ‘‘workers as
organization shapers.’’
Distributed Workers as Gap Fillers
School staff described workers as filling a gap that budget shortfalls and staffing
constraints left behind.
[She] goes above and beyond. She has made herself a part of the school…The
program has had a wonderful impact and really taken a weight off counselors.
(Admin 4)
This administrator voices the important role of workers in reducing the burden on
school counselors as they were integrated into the school. Other administrators
echoed this sentiment.
What was good about having the worker is that she can focus solely on the
kids…and fill a gap when the counselors are not available. (Admin 3)
Workers possessed knowledge and expertise that the schools lacked because of
the rapid staff turnover.
We are all new here. There are a lot of things we don’t know about local
resources and Missouri colleges. We depend on the worker. The students see
her daily and she works with them on every aspect of college…She even
works with parents. Worker does all field trips, there is no way we could have
done that without her. (Site Supervisor 7)
The notion that workers serve as gap fillers firmly placed them at the boundary
between the organization and the school. As workers spanned the boundary, they
became integrated into the school. Boundary negotiation manifested through active
conversations that simultaneously shaped the school environment and the activities
of their own organization. These conversations are key aspects of distributed
governance, because they influence the organization’s overall direction and
activities.
Fuzzy Boundaries
We use the phrase ‘‘fuzzy boundaries’’ to describe the dynamic interactions around
worker roles. Fuzzy organizational boundaries can make drawing ‘‘meaningful
boundaries’’ difficult for nonprofit organizations, as they are not isolated from their
external environment but simultaneously rely upon it for valuable tools and
resources (Anheier 2005, p. 142). In this organization, fuzzy boundaries were one
dimension of workers’ boundary-spanning behavior between the school and their
Voluntas
123
role as a college access provider. Fuzzy boundaries comprised school pressures on
workers to ‘‘fill the gap,’’ and the initiative of workers to engage in extra tasks to
bolster their primary role. Sometimes the site supervisor or administrator pushed
additional tasks on workers. Workers also pushed at the boundary to ‘‘blend in’’
(Worker Focus Group 3) and ‘‘integrate’’ (Worker Focus Group 2) into the school
environment by taking on tasks outside of the deliverables.
Boundary management was a dynamic exchange between workers, the school,
and the ED. ‘‘The placing and maintaining of individual boundaries is an individual
preference’’ (Kreiner et al. 2006, p. 1323). Workers shaped their activities within the
school and thus their own organization. As workers experience the shifting
workplace, they negotiated boundaries with the school staff through dialogue.
Workers responded to school pressures by ‘‘learning to say no’’ (Worker 2) and
pressed the school to create a space for their work by ‘‘advocating for themselves’’
(Worker Focus Group 1). Talking across these boundaries required ‘‘reflection and
communication’’ (Worker Focus Group 2).
Distributed Workers as Organization Shapers
We use the phrase ‘‘workers as organization shapers’’ to capture the role of
distributed workers in shaping their own organization. They viewed themselves as
being an ‘‘important influence on the development of the organization’’ (Worker 6).
We have passion and a sense of ownership…We get to shape the program. We
make things happen. (Worker Focus Group 3)
The ED helped manage worker boundaries by participating in the conversations
at the fuzzy boundary. In addition, she ensured that organizational structures were
responsive to these conversations.
There is honest feedback from workers and she implements their suggestions.
She and the workers identify programmatic gaps and develop solutions e.g.,
ACT prep. (Researcher 1 Field Notes, ED Interview 2)
Theme Summary
Distributed workers left training with a clear job description and timelines of
deliverables. While their role in the technical sense was well defined, the boundaries
between the worker and school constantly shifted due to rapid changes in school
structures and rules. Fuzzy boundaries challenged distributed workers to define the
extent that they should act beyond their job description without moving beyond their
prescribed role. Managing fuzzy boundaries involved multiple conversations
between workers, school staff, and the ED. These conversations comprise
distributed governance. Conversations shaped the workers’ role boundaries and
their activities in the schools. In essence, the negotiation of worker boundaries is
also the negotiation of organizational boundaries, which is a part of steering the
organization.
Voluntas
123
Discussion
Organizational Culture and Distributed Governance
What is the relationship between organizational culture and governance in
distributed organizations? We found that organizational artifacts, values, and basic
assumptions were important to the emergence of distributed governance. When
governance is defined as the steering of an organization, and the governance
function is distributed to members at the boundary, culture becomes an important
resource that enables and empowers members to negotiate boundaries and act in
ways that shape the overall organization. In this case, shared values maintained
coherence in organizational action across workers in a constantly shifting
workplace. Verbal artifacts symbolized the primary task of the distributed workers
by connecting them to each other, their schools, and the larger college access
environment. Workers shared an idealized representation of ED, which encouraged
them to adhere to her articulated values and goals. The ED fostered organizational
values that encouraged active engagement in the work environment and empowered
workers to act at the boundary. Finally, the emphasis on relationships was an
important motivation for workers to engage in conversations that shaped the overall
work of the organization.
Governance in Distributed Organizations
What does governance look like in a distributed organization? Distributed
governance emerges in the context of ‘‘a shifting workplace.’’ In this sense, the
environment plays an important role in shaping governance structures. The unique
school environments that distributed workers experienced actively shaped their
daily tasks, and yet the workers themselves remained focused on the shared goals
and values of their organization. When workers are ‘‘gap fillers’’ at the boundary
between two organizations, they experience the boundary as a dynamic, fuzzy
region where conversations shape the organizations. In an environment with fuzzy
boundaries, workers constantly evaluate the extent that they should act beyond
their job description without moving outside of their defined role. Workers enact
the governance function at the boundary through relationship building.
We found that distributed governance was comprised multiple conversations
across internal and external boundaries. The ED’s active involvement in these
conversations and responsiveness to the needs of workers and other organizations at
this intersection was important. However, the distributed workers were central to
steering this organization. Workers were active participants in shaping the
organization through their work and communication with the ED. During the
course of our study, both site supervisors and workers acknowledged that improved
communication helped them to better understand their roles amidst these fuzzy
boundaries. Identifying the extent of these boundaries improves the cohesiveness of
the organization, as the literature suggests (Borys and Jemison 1989).
Voluntas
123
Contribution to Understanding Nonprofit Governance
How does an understanding of organizational culture and distributed governance
inform our understanding of nonprofit organizations? We speak to the recent call for
research that addresses the fluid nature of governance and the multiple actors
involved in implementation at the organization level (Stone and Ostrower 2007).
Our findings indicate that the relationship between leaders and distributed workers
is important for ensuring success in a distributed environment. In addition, culture
influences the distributed workers’ deeply held values and motivations. We
conceptualize governance as negotiations between workers positioned at the
organizational boundary, organizational leaders, and external partners and stake-
holders. We use the concept of shared governance at the network level to develop
the idea of distributed governance in distributed nonprofit organizations.
If governance is defined as the ‘‘ensuring the overall direction, control, and
accountability of an organization’’ (Cornforth 2012, p. 1121), our findings suggest
that examining how culture influences boundary-spanning behaviors can improve
our understanding of governance. Traditional conceptualizations of governance
have focused on coordination and control (Lynn et al. 2000; Provan and Kenis
2008), and the exercise of authority (Hill and Lynn 2004). We suggest that
governance can be thought of as responsiveness rather than control. Thus, our
conceptualization of distributed governance moves beyond mechanisms of control
and accountability to considering governance as an interactive process between
distributed workers, their environment, and their leader.
Our findings reinforce the previous literature indicating that boundary-spanning
occurs beyond the executive board itself (Stone and Ostrower 2007; McCambridge
2004). This study provides a view of governance unlike those typically presented in
the nonprofit literature. As our case illustrates, distributed nonprofit governance is a
responsive governance structure that emerges in the communication of organiza-
tional leadership, distributed workers, and remote work sites (what we call ‘‘talking
across boundaries’’). Using Provan and Kenis’ (2008) model of shared governance,
we conceptualize distributed governance as comprising shared values, high
network-level competencies in leadership, and low network-level competencies in
distributed workers. Boundary-spanning activities were shaped by the quality of
workers’ shared goals, passion, and their attachment to the leader.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that nonprofits with geographically distributed workers could
benefit from a deeper examination of their organizational culture. Articulating
artifacts, values, and basic assumptions could provide a greater understanding of
how culture is shared across distributed sites and how unspoken dimensions of
culture shape the enactment of distributed governance at and across organizational
boundaries. This paper suggests several directions for future research. First,
examining other types of distributed organizations (e.g., virtual, membership,
international) would test the relation between culture and distributed governance
Voluntas
123
that we suggest. Studying variations in culture across these different kinds,
organizations would provide additional insight into the nuances of organizational
culture that shape governance mechanisms. Second, we find that specific aspects of
organizational culture (e.g., shared values) are required for the emergence of
distributed governance, as we understand it. Further exploration is needed to
determine to what extent this is true. The nature of boundary-spanning in distributed
organizations also warrants closer examination. Finally, further study is needed to
determine the extent to which organizations with a governing board are able to
develop and maintain distributed governance.
References
Anheier, H. K. (2005). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. New: Routledge.
Anheier, H. K. (2009). What kind of nonprofit sector, what kind of society? Comparative policy
reflections. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 1082–1094.
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.
Anheier, H. K., & Kendall, J. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three
approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 343–362.
Beer, M. (1980). Organization change and development: A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear
Publishing Company.
Bergquist, W. H. (1993). The postmodern organization: Mastering the art of irreversible change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York: George Braziller.
Borys, B., & Jemison, D. (1989). Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in
organizational combinations. Academy of Management Review, 14(2), 234–249.
Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of a science. Management Science, 2,
197–207.
Callister, R., & Wall, J. (2001). Conflict across organizational boundaries: Managed care organizations
versus health care providers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 754–763.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
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.
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.
Cornforth, C. (2014). Nonprofit governance research: The need for innovative perspectives and
approaches. In Chris Cornforth & William A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative
perspectives and approaches (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge.
Czander, W. M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organization. New York and London: Guilford
press.
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.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Anheier, H. K. (1990). The sociology of nonprofit organizations and sectors. Annual
Review of Sociology, 16, 137–159.
Voluntas
123
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.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4),
436–445.
Harlan, S. L., & Saidel, J. R. (1994). Board members’ influence on the government-nonprofit relationship.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 5(2), 173–196.
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.
Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (2004). Doing things right: Effectiveness in local nonprofit organizations, a
panel study. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 694.
Hill, C., & Lynn, L. E. (2004). Governance and public management, an introduction. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 23(1), 3–11.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.
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.
Kets de Vries, M. F. (2006). The leader on the couch: A clinical approach to changing people and
organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kettl, D. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public
Administration Review, 66, 10–19. Special issue (December).
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.
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.
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.
Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Levinson, H., Price, C. R., Munden, K. J., Mandl, H. J., & Solley, C. M. (1962). Men, management, and
mental health. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
McCambridge, R. (2004). Underestimating the power of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 346–354.
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.
Nilles, J. M. (1997). Telework: Enabling distributed organizations. Information Systems Management,
14(4), 7–14.
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.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capacity in distributed organizing.
Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.
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.
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.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence
perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management and
effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 229–252.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and renewal of American community. New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading toward a society of networks: Empirical developments and
theoretical challenges. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198–210.
Voluntas
123
Renz, D. O., & Andersson, F. O. (2014). Nonprofit governance: A review of the field. In Chris Cornforth
& William A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp.
1–14). New York: Routledge.
Saidel, J. R. (1991). Resource interdependence: The relationship between state agencies and nonprofit
organizations. Public Administration Review, 51(6), 543–553.
Saidel, J. R., & Harlan, S. L. (1998). Contracting and patterns of nonprofit governance. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 8(3), 243–260.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109–119.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69, 143–151.
Srivastava, S. B., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations.
American Sociological Review, 76(2), 207–233.
Stacey, R. (1992). Managing the unknowable: Strategic boundaries between order and chaos in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Stone, M. M., & Ostrower, F. (2007). Acting in the public interest? Another look at research on nonprofit
governance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 416.
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.
von Schnurbein, G. (2009). Patterns of governance structures in trade associations and unions. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 20(1), 97.
Weick, K. E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124.
Young, D. R. (1994). Nonprofit organizations and business: The conflict and confluence of managerial
culture. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 5, 81–94.
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.
Voluntas
123