Being Nonprofit-Like in a Market Economy

Abstract

Nonprofit organizations experience a tension between pursuing their social missions and meeting the demands of a market economy. This mission-market tension is an everyday, practical concern for nonprofit practitioners. Yet, scholars know very little about how nonprofit practitioners define and manage this tension. Drawing on contradiction-centered perspectives of organizing, data from an ethnographic study of a single U.S. nonprofit organization demonstrate that the mission-market tension was defined and managed by organizational members as both a contradictory and interconnected phenomenon. This framing was enabled by specific communication practices that supported a productive and generative relationship between these seemingly incompatible goals. Findings suggest that the mission-market tension is an inherent condition of nonprofit organizing and highlight the central role of communication in successfully managing mission and market concerns.

Keywords

nonprofit business-like marketization organizational tensions organizational communication

Many nonprofit organizations face a distinctive challenge: maintaining an unprofitable social mission alongside the constant and often stringent imperatives of operating within a market economy (Weisbrod, 1998). Nonprofit organizations—particularly those facing resource shortages and competitive pressures—experience this dilemma because of their unique function and role in society. Positioned between the market and the state, nonprofit organizations are “dedicated to mobilizing private initiative for the common good” (Salamon, 2003, pp. 1-2) while functioning as financially independent entities within a market economy (Frumkin, 2002). To deal with this unique dynamic, nonprofit organizations are increasingly expected to become more business-like (see Bush, 1992; Dart, 2004; Dees & Anderson, 2003; Van Til, 2000).

However, because the term business refers to a commercial entity seeking to earn profit for owners and investors, and the term nonprofit is defined as an organization dedicated to the common good that cannot distribute profit to stakeholders, the increasingly normalized framing of business as an integral feature of nonprofit organizing, particularly in the United States, creates a practical tension between pursuing a social mission and meeting the demands of a market economy to which practitioners must continually attend (Sanders, 2012). This mission-market tension (Young, 2005) creates distinct organizational dynamics in nonprofit work that warrant more careful exploration.

Currently, most theoretical perspectives of nonprofit organizing are centered on economic explanations that primarily focus on what a nonprofit organization is not, rather than what it is (Koschmann, 2012; Lohmann, 1989; Valentinov & Iliopoulos, 2013). Therefore, attempts to understand the mission-market tension tend to emphasize conflict and the need for resolution (e.g., Brainard & Siplon, 2004; Ruud, 2000). As a result, we lack a conceptual framework for talking about the mission-market tension that can recognize how to live with it and how to engage it as normal and productive. To help develop such a perspective in nonprofit research, this study draws on a contradiction-centered perspective of organizing that views tension and contradiction as a natural and normal feature of organizational life (Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004).

In addition, even though the notion of being business-like in the nonprofit sector draws on a conceptual contradiction and practical tension, it is often used in popular and scholarly discourse as if its meaning and influence were clearly defined and understood across a very broad and diverse sector. Yet, from a communication perspective that views everyday discourse as the process of creating meaning rather than simply expressing it (Kuhn, 2008), the notion of being business-like in the nonprofit sector can be understood as a communicative construction whose meaning is not fixed but is negotiated and transformed in practice. As a result, the mission-market tension is not simply an economic challenge to resolve situations of resource scarcity but a challenge that results from different logics rooted in discourse. Uncovering such meanings at a local level can open new possibilities for defining nonprofit work in its own terms and aid in determining how specific understandings of the mission-market tension may enable or constrain the successful pursuit of a social mission (e.g., Jager & Beyes, 2010).

Using data from an 8-month ethnographic study of a single U.S. nonprofit organization, this article examines how nonprofit practitioners understand and define the relationship between mission and market concerns and identifies specific communication practices used to manage the mission-market tension. Findings offer two theoretical contributions to nonprofit scholarship. First, these findings offer an explanation of the mission-market tension that avoids economic assumptions that favor business logic and focus on the resolution of these competing concerns. Instead, this study offers a productive way of conceptualizing the mission-market tension as nonprofit-like—recognizing and engaging mission and market concerns as contradictory and interdependent. Second, these findings highlight the central role of everyday communication practices as a constitutive force in defining the mission-market tension in ways that enhance cooperation and productivity in nonprofit work instead of creating dysfunction.

Business-Like Concerns in Nonprofit Work

Because nonprofit organizations exist within market economies, they must work as independent entities to secure the resources necessary to fulfill their missions. As Weisbrod (1998) explained, “such collective goods—socially valuable but privately unprofitable—must be financed” (p. 19). Within societies where images of “successful” organization are based on enterprise and corporate practice (e.g., du Gay, 2000), nonprofit organizations are increasingly expected to function in a similar manner to secure funding and manage resources. As Dees and Anderson (2003) pointed out, nonprofits “are turning to business methods and structures in [their] efforts to find more cost-effective and sustainable ways to address social problems and deliver socially important goods” (p. 16).

In addition, Van Til (2000) argued that those working in the nonprofit sector “have all become, at least in part, businesspersons. It is just that many of us pursue our business in the organizational milieu of the [nonprofit] sector” (p. 112). This implicit imperative for nonprofit organizations to become more business-like is also demonstrated in criticism leveled at the supposed inability of nonprofit organizations to function in a disciplined, successful manner. Herzlinger (1996), for instance, claimed that nonprofit organizations are prone to disorder because they lack the accountability mechanisms of business, including self-interest stemming from ownership, efficiency that comes with competition, and profit motive. Although Herzlinger recognized that profit is not the best measure for organizations dedicated to the common good, she nonetheless argued that “alternative measures of performance are hard to find” (p. 99).

Despite being framed as a natural and productive development in nonprofit work by many scholars and practitioners, the business-like imperative raises concerns about its effects on the pursuit of a social mission. Bush (1992) offered one of the earliest cautions, stating that, “while nonprofits can learn much from the private sector, there are inherent dangers in following blindly the growing belief that nonprofits must be more business-like in every sense of the word” (p. 392). Given the differing value orientations of for-profit and nonprofit organizations (e.g., Brainard & Siplon, 2004), important concerns arise about the ability of nonprofit organizations to adopt competitive, self-interested, and profit-motivated practices in the pursuit of social goals. Indeed, many scholars have argued that these developments are leading to a marketization of the nonprofit sector that threatens its unique role in addressing social problems and maintaining civil society (e.g., Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004).

Like much of the theoretical analyses cited above, empirical research on the business-like imperative in nonprofit work highlights conflict, dysfunction, and mission drift. For example, Ruud’s (2000) study of a metropolitan symphony orchestra illustrated how administrators espoused a business ideology that perceived the symphony as operating like any other business and, consequently, promoted making decisions based on economic factors, being market-driven, and viewing music as a product. Musicians, however, privileged the artistic mission as a dominant logic for organizing. Ruud’s analysis highlighted significant conflict between these two groups, which led to lockouts, strikes, and delayed performances. Oakes, Townley, and Cooper (1998) found that the introduction of business-planning processes in Canadian museums and cultural centers moved these organizations away from a primary focus on their mission-based work of documenting historical events and culture toward a strategic implementation of organizational resources directed at consumer markets, revenue streams, and business planning. Additional studies have highlighted similar themes, including rising commercialization (Toepler, 2006), conflict over competing organizational identities (Glynn, 2000; Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997), and intraorganizational conflict (Kreutzer & Jager, 2011).

Understanding the Mission-Market Tension as Being Nonprofit-Like

The growing requirement for nonprofit organizations to become more business-like potentially brings with it assumptions and practices that could work against the very reason nonprofit organizations exist. Although the potential for this conflict is certainly real and warrants the careful consideration it has received, debates about being business-like in the nonprofit sector frequently assume some unidirectional negative influence of business ideology and practice on nonprofit organizing. As a result, many analyses tend toward possibilities for overcoming business-like concerns and resolving nonprofit marketization (e.g., Eikenberry, 2009). However, we cannot assume such a unidirectional influence, nor that business can only be understood within the constructs of profit motive, self-interest, and competition. Doing so leads to an either/or framing that always defines—and therefore marginalizes—one concern in light of the other.

Yet, the nature of the nonprofit sector itself suggests that the tension between mission and market concerns cannot be resolved because both must exist. As many scholars have argued (e.g., Evers, 1995; Frumkin, 2002; Knutsen, 2012), the nonprofit sector exists as a contested space between the market and the state and must act like but also be distinct from each. Brainard and Siplon (2004) acknowledged this contradictory nature, explaining that “nonprofit organizations must constantly struggle with the extent to which they are to emphasize their role as efficient and competitive economic actors or their role as institutions important to democracy” (p. 436). This tension is also identified in the theoretical framework of dual identity organizations, which suggests that some organizations must simultaneously be two types of organization, such as when managing an altruistic identity and economic rationale (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Kreutzer and Jager (2011) have argued that this perspective is especially helpful for understanding the nonprofit sector because of the competing identities that nonprofit organizations must adopt within an ambiguous environment.

Building on such perspectives, Sanders (2012) has argued that the tension between mission and market concerns is an inherent feature of all nonprofit organizations that cannot be resolved without compromising the purpose of the nonprofit sector or violating the responsibility to be financially solvent. Therefore, following Young (2005), I frame these concerns as a mission-market tension that nonprofit practitioners experience as a practical, everyday concern. Doing so recognizes that mission and market imperatives are necessary and useful, that this tension is not a new phenomenon for nonprofit organizations, and that trying to resolve it on a practical level will lead to dysfunction. As such, it is important to explore productive explanations and understandings of this tension that will help us understand what it means to be nonprofit-like in a market economy (Light, 2001).

Contradiction-Centered Perspectives of Organizing

Organizational scholars have become increasingly interested in the “dilemmatic character of organizing” (Trethewey & Ashcraft, 2004, p. 81). Citing the growing research on concepts such as irony, contradiction, paradox, and tension (e.g., Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Tracy, 2004), Trethewey and Ashcraft (2004) have argued for an approach to organizational scholarship that recognizes these phenomena as an inherent part of organizational life. From this perspective, contradiction is a normal outcome of the conditions that underlie communication and practice that seeks to coordinate the actions and co-orient the meanings of actors situated in complex conditions. Importantly, this perspective does not seek the resolution of contradiction but instead is concerned with how organizational members experience and cope with it through everyday communication practices.

This theoretical approach is based on a view of communication as a social process that creates meaning rather than simply expressing it (Kuhn, 2008). Grounded in the field of communication studies, this perspective views communication as a central organizing process that produces organizational life (Ashcraft, Kuhn, & Cooren, 2009). Meanings within organizations, therefore, are constituted through everyday communication, which in turn influences individual action and informs collective practice (Koschmann, 2012). As a result, a communication perspective enables scholars to understand how organizational realities are created, challenge and critique meanings that often go unquestioned, and identify productive practices that can enable a more positive and successful future for groups and organizations (Alvesson & Deetz, 2000). Recognizing communication as a productive and constitutive force, a contradiction-centered perspective of organizing focuses on how organizational members talk about and engage tensions in everyday work.

Research from this perspective highlights the consequences of such talk on organizational outcomes. For example, Tracy (2004) explained that people “can react to contradiction in various ways, and that their framing techniques of workplace tensions can have various personal and organizational effects” (p. 120). Tracy’s empirical work on how prison guards framed the inherent tensions of their work (e.g., as tension, paradox, or double-bind) illustrated how such communication practices significantly influenced individual well-being and organizational outcomes. Similarly, Koschmann and Laster (2011) illustrated how communication practices enabled members of a neighborhood association to productively engage the tensions and disagreements regarding religious expression, diversity, and neighborhood quality. As these studies illustrate, tension and contradiction in and of themselves are not inherently negative in their consequences. Rather, it is how they are communicatively framed in everyday conversations and interactions that give practices meaning and in turn create effective or dysfunctional organizational environments.

Therefore, because of the overreliance on economic models of nonprofit organizing and the contradictory, tension-filled space in which the nonprofit sector exists in society, a contradiction-centered approach that focuses on the communication practices of organizational members offers a more productive way to examine the mission-market tension. In addition, it also provides a framework for what it means to be nonprofit-like in a market economy, allowing for explanations of how nonprofit organizations simultaneously manage—of necessity—competing, contradictory concerns. To more fully understand the mission-market tension as a nonprofit-like phenomenon, this study is guided by the following research questions:

Research Question 1: How do nonprofit practitioners understand and define the relationship between mission and market concerns?

Research Question 2: What communication practices do nonprofit practitioners use to manage the mission-market tension?

Research Methods

To examine how the mission-market tension is experienced and defined by nonprofit practitioners, a rich, in-depth knowledge about the meanings of local, situated practices of everyday life within a nonprofit organization is needed. Therefore, I conducted an ethnographic study at the National Sports Center for the Disabled (NSCD)¹ to explore this phenomenon. The mission of the NSCD is to “impact lives daily” through outdoor therapeutic recreational experiences, including skiing, snowboarding, rafting, hiking, camping, rock-climbing, and soccer for people with any disability. The NSCD has two offices in Denver and Winter Park, Colorado. The Denver office primarily serves as the business development and marketing arm of the NSCD. The Winter Park office is primarily responsible for all outdoor recreation programming, lesson reservations, and volunteer coordination. At the time of this study, the NSCD had a full-time staff of approximately 24 people, with an additional 15 to 45 seasonal staff members hired during the summer and winter seasons. Full-time staff members also coordinated and managed the efforts of several hundred volunteers.

The NSCD is a particularly useful site for understanding the mission-market tension because of its large annual operating budget of approximately US$5 million (generated from a combination of fees, donations, grants, and sponsorships) and the approximately 15,000 lessons and excursions it provides each year. Given the relatively small number of full-time staff compared with the size of the NSCD’s operations, no individual staff member is exempt from administrative work and financial imperatives or fully removed from the organizational mission of impacting lives daily. In addition, over the course of this study, it was apparent that the NSCD’s operations were not marked by noticeable conflict and organizational dysfunction resulting from the mission-market tension. Rather, the NSCD displayed a cooperation and understanding among its different departments that had led to a long period of successful growth.

Data Collection

The data collection for this study was based on an interpretive paradigm that claims that “true knowledge is gained through prolonged immersion and extensive dialogue practiced [by researchers] in actual social settings,” and that “intimate familiarity with the performance and significance of social practices . . . is a requirement for [their] adequate explanation” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 11). Data were collected through participant observation and in-depth interviewing.

Participant observation

“The validity of participant observation derives from the researchers’ having been there” and enabling readers to understand what it is like to be in the places or groups being studied (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 135, italics in original). Over the course of 8 months at the NSCD, I logged 138 hr of observation across approximately 30 different events. Observations and fieldnote writing followed common methodological practices (e.g., Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995). I positioned myself as a participant-as-observer, which Lindlof and Taylor (2002) described as a researcher who enters the field “with an openly acknowledged investigative purpose” and is “able to study a scene from the vantage point of one or more positions within its membership” (p. 147).

Participant-observational data were gathered from several different scenes. The first scenes of observation were staff meetings and new employee orientation and training. These interactions allowed me to observe how staff members and leaders learned new skills, coordinated program schedules, brainstormed new ideas, evaluated outcomes, and, most importantly, how they described their work and the NSCD. The second scenes of observation involved fundraising events such as a black-tie dinner, a wine tasting, and a golf tournament. Attending these events allowed me to observe and document interaction between the supporters of the organization, NSCD staff, and participants. The third scenes of observation involved programming such as soccer and football camps, rock-climbing, biking, and skiing. These events enabled me to see how staff members interacted with participants and volunteers, and the actual talk and expression of working to “impact lives daily.” Overall, participant observation allowed me to see instances of business-like and mission-based work and document moments of mission-market tension and the talk, interaction, and sense-making that surrounded such events.

In-depth interviewing

Qualitative interviews enable the researcher “to understand the social actors’ experience and perspective” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 173). I conducted 20 formal in-depth interviews, beginning after several months of observations and with most being conducted as observations ended. This timing enabled my observations to guide my interview questions and allowed me to directly ask about the meaning of specific events and interactions that I had observed. By doing this, I was able to understand the mission-market tension at the NSCD more fully and, in the process, ensure that interview responses were most representative of how the NSCD engaged its work rather than an accommodation to my own research goals. These interviews were conducted as respondent interviews to understand staff members’ experiences at the NSCD, as well as informant interviews to understand participants’ interpretations of the experiences of their colleagues (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). This enabled me to see the sense-making processes of staff members as they worked out the mission-market tension in conversations about the nature of their work. These interviews included nearly all full-time NSCD employees from all areas of the organization (e.g., executive leadership, directors, office personnel, and program staff). Interviews typically lasted 20 to 90 min, were audio-recorded with the permission of the participants, and transcribed—generating 138 single-spaced pages of text. In addition, my role as a participant-observer afforded the opportunity to have a number of informal, spontaneous conversations that were documented through fieldnotes.

Data Analysis

Qualitative analysis is a simultaneous process of deduction and induction. Analysis occurs, at least implicitly, throughout the research process and always begins “by identifying some important issues that guide the collection of data” (Ezzy, 2002, p. 12). Formal data analysis for this study was first guided by existing theory on mission and market concerns in nonprofit work as well as contradiction-centered perspectives of organizing. Doing so ensured that the coding process oriented to mission and market concerns without being unduly influenced by what the researcher expects to see (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Specifically, I searched for conversations and interactions that identified how mission and market concerns were experienced, understood, and managed in everyday work and conversation. This coding identified the broad themes of contradiction and interconnection that I had been exploring throughout the data collection process. Subsequent iterations of data analysis used an inductive coding process that brought the research questions into focus and allowed for the exploration of themes within the initial codes. During this stage of analysis, I looked at the evidence of contradiction and interconnection to understand why such meanings existed and identify communication practices that kept mission and market concerns in productive tension. From this, I labeled and defined specific communication practices that help explain how the mission-market tension was successfully defined and managed by staff members at the NSCD.

Findings

The analysis below demonstrates that the mission-market tension was experienced and defined by staff members at the NSCD as a contradictory and interconnected phenomenon. These findings also highlight specific communication practices that allowed organizational members to embrace and respect the seeming contradiction while recognizing that they are also highly interconnected in fulfilling the NSCD’s mission.

Framing Mission and Market Concerns as Contradictory

For NSCD staff members, being business-like and pursuing a social mission in many instances contradicted each other. At times, mission and market concerns were experienced as contradictory for staff members when their related ideals were openly challenged and debated. The following interaction from a staff meeting, reconstructed from fieldnotes, illustrates this public contradiction:

“We need to re-evaluate some of our camps and set more ambitious internal goals that we can work toward,” the Vice President said. “If we have less than 30 kids attend the camp,” she continued, “then we really need to question why we are doing it. If we have 50, we are doing okay, but our target is 75 to 100.” The two program directors at the meeting nodded silently in agreement.

The silence was quickly broken with a comment from an intern: “I really have to disagree. I mean, if only 20 kids come, but we can give those 20 kids a good therapeutic recreational experience, then we should do it. Who cares about how many kids show up if we can make a difference for the kids who are there?” The intern reiterated this point several times, passionately making his point to the group.

The vice president patiently listened to him, and when he finished, acknowledged that she understood his position and that, ideally, he was right—numbers should not matter. However, she explained that there were other important considerations: cost-benefit analysis of hotel and airfare for two or three staff members to attend each camp, advertising costs, preparation time of staff members that could be used on other projects, and the fact that the Board of Trustees wanted attendance at the sport camps to match the high attendance levels of similar programs done by the Special Olympics.

As acknowledged in this scene, both sides of the argument could be considered valid and, ideally, the mission side of the argument should take precedence because the NSCD’s purpose is to impact lives. However, financial realities existed that made such expenses and effort an inefficient use of time and resources. In this case, the realities of the market took precedence.

This struggle occurred between other NSCD staff members as well. For example, when I asked the Director of Operations what it was like to manage business-like and mission goals, she explained that process with a characterization of her interactions with the CEO:

We fight like cats and dogs. He [the CEO] is the bean counter. He comes from the accounting world. That is his background. I come from the service world. And it is, I mean, we laugh about it all the time, but he and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Both of us have to migrate towards each other and understanding that it is, of course, this give and take.

The Director of Operations’ depiction of “fighting like cats and dogs” did not suggest destructive conflict but, instead, indicated that this conflict was good-natured and that she and the CEO were supportive of each other. Nonetheless, each worked hard to make sure that his or her side of the work was represented. The Director of Operations elaborated that although she did not always win, it was “good” to have those battles. When I asked the CEO about these battles and the value of such interactions, he said emphatically, “Absolutely.”

In other instances, mission and market concerns became contradictory for NSCD staff members when their accompanying goals worked in opposition. A clear illustration of this was apparent in the NSCD’s rock-climbing program, depicted in the following interaction, also reconstructed from fieldnotes:

A program director set up an elaborate five-to-one pulley rock climbing system so that a participant who was confined to a wheelchair after a stroke, could, in a special sleeve for his legs, pull himself up the rock face without having to pull his entire body weight. The equipment was elaborate. I asked the program director how many people in wheelchairs they took climbing with this system.

“You know,” he replied, “This participant is pretty much our only wheelchair climber.” Seeming to sense my surprise, he quickly added with a big smile, “Yep, thousands and thousands of dollars for one participant.”

Returning his smile, I responded that purchasing so much expensive equipment for one climber did not make much financial sense. “We lose money on everything we do,” he responded. Then he explained, “In past years, participants had to be ambulatory to rock climb, but I didn’t like the thought of turning people away just because they can’t walk. So, I researched what adaptive equipment paraplegic and quadriplegic climbers used, raised some money, and got permission to get the equipment. Now, we can accommodate just about anybody who wants to climb.”

The program director’s comment of “thousands and thousands of dollars for one participant” acknowledged that this was perhaps not the most efficient use of financial resources but nonetheless aligned with the goals of the program. This situation illustrated that there were moments for NSCD staff members when mission and market concerns were experienced as working against each other. In this case, the desire to accommodate people with all disabilities who wanted to climb took precedence over the need to use resources most efficiently for most people.

When I asked the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) about this perception that the NSCD lost money on everything it did, she said:

Our program loses money. You bet . . . If you take our program minus the expenses to run the program, whether it’s rock climbing, skiing, or fishing or whatever, you get a negative number . . . It’s negative and needs to be funded by donations. It’s as simple as that.

Her comment reflected the reality that the NSCD raised money primarily to spend it on programming and to run the organization, without receiving significant financial return. Thus, explicitly and implicitly, mission and market concerns were experienced and defined as contradictory by organizational members.

From these data, two communication practices emerge as central to NSCD staff members’ ability to productively manage this contradictory framing. The first practice was embracing the contradiction as normal. Staff members engaged the contradictory nature of mission and market concerns as a normal part of everyday nonprofit work. For example, the disagreement between the intern and the vice president illustrates a moment where the acceptance of the contradictory nature of mission and market concerns is explicitly expressed as a necessary and needed part of the decision-making process. In addition, by embracing this contradictory nature, staff members did not try to resolve it but instead worked within its constraints. Rather than trying to fix the contradiction, staff members—as the CFO’s comments illustrated—recognized and worked within those conditions to accomplish their goals.

The second communication practice was framing the tension as ongoing. Staff members also understood that this tension does not end and is never resolved but rather exists as a continual give-and-take where everyone wins and loses over time as competing needs are addressed. This is why “fighting like cats and dogs” was reported as a regular and necessary feature of discussions about priorities and goals. It was not talked about as a negative experience but something laughed about because it is a constant feature of their work. As a result, staff members could avoid the dysfunction that comes with insisting that one side always win. This was also evident with the program manager who was initially not given funds to buy the equipment he wanted but then worked over time to raise the funds to do so. His efforts illustrate the understanding that these issues play out over time and both sides will eventually be satisfied.

Framing Mission and Market Concerns as Interconnected

Despite understanding the contradictory relationship between mission and market concerns, members of the NSCD also had a keen understanding of their mutual interdependence and coproductive nature. For example, a program manager explained the relationship between business-related and program-related work at the NSCD as follows: “We operate separately, but we try to integrate . . . [The marketing staff] are doing fundraising events to raise money for our program.” This recognition of the importance of integrating overall efforts and simultaneously working in separate areas illustrates the opposed yet interdependent nature of the mission-market tension. This recognition perhaps was most clearly articulated by the Marketing Director, who explained that, “once you’ve been in a nonprofit a little while, you realize it is about the cause and about using the cause to raise the money to continue your programs.”

Other staff members of the NSCD also saw significant interconnection between market-related and mission-based activities. As a program manager explained,

[If] one piece crumbles, I think it would be detrimental to everyone as a whole. Let’s just say that the development side of things decided not to bring that hard work ethic here each day, then my programs suffer because I’m not getting the funding, and vice versa. If I let go of what I’m doing and the programs and camps just don’t look good and we’re not getting good feedback from the community, well then, the fundraising development team has to listen to the funders saying, “Hey, it’s just not that important.” I think we are all tied into it together from top to bottom. There’s not one division that doesn’t affect the other. We all understand that.

The Volunteer Coordinator offered a similar sentiment, describing the interconnection of these work activities as a puzzle:

Everyone kind of fits together in the puzzle. It’s pretty interesting. I’ve got to do my job so everybody else can do their job too. There’s a lot of back and forth. If I can’t provide on my end, then it makes it difficult for everyone else to do the fundraising or teach the lessons. It’s all closely tied in.

As is apparent in these quotes, this “puzzle” is seen as valuable. In addition, when NSCD staff members explained the interconnection of their work to the work of their colleagues whose focus was different than their own, the praise and recognition they gave their coworkers highlighted the coproductive nature of mission and market activities.

This mutual implication, however, was not only manifested in an abstract notion of the organization’s work but also in its specific outcomes for participants. The Volunteer Coordinator explained that the connection between her office work and specific programs was so significant that she felt guilty if she was not able to get enough volunteers for the day. As she explained, “I feel like a jerk when I can’t get enough volunteers so we only get to set two ropes instead of three. So everybody doesn’t get to climb that extra route. I feel like a jerk.” Although she implied that she did not want to let her colleagues down, her focus was primarily on the participants. As she said,

There’s nothing worse than seeing a kid who has driven up from Denver who is so excited about going skiing and saying, “Oh, I’m sorry, you can’t go skiing today even though you made a reservation. Somebody called in sick and we’re shorthanded.” There’s nothing more terrifying than having to say that—looking into somebody’s eyes and having to say that. Take something like that away, for lack of a better way to describe it. It’s such a big gift for everyone involved that none of us wants to be that person.

The Volunteer Coordinator’s comments, along with the others described above, demonstrated an understanding of the importance that each organizational member played in fulfilling the NSCD’s mission, regardless of the specific function that a particular role might perform. Her comment was telling because although her work was primarily done in an office and behind the scenes, it was represented in her explanation as equally valuable in fulfilling the NSCD’s mission. As a result, business-like tasks of paperwork and making phone calls in the volunteer office, and the mission of offering programs, were represented as equally valuable and necessary in providing therapeutic recreational experiences for participants.

This flexible and inclusive configuration of the mission-market tension led staff members doing business-like work to understand their roles as directly implicated in performing the NSCD’s mission. For example, the CFO explained that by keeping “resources from being squandered away in stupid ways, like late fees because we don’t pay our bills on time and paying sales tax when we are tax exempt,” she was able to direct more money to programming. As she succinctly summarized: “If I can help this organization run lean and mean that saves money, and I’m impacting lives daily.” An event coordinator explained that he did not see his work as simply raising money. He said that when “I tell people what I do it’s not, ‘Hey, I raise money.’ It’s, ‘I work for this organization and we offer all these different things.’ So I do feel part of it.” The Marketing Director also summarized this point clearly, stating, “I know that those kids are up there skiing because we raised the money.” She added, “We all have the same goal. I’m just lucky because I really love what we do. I love where our money goes.”

As the data above indicate, being business-like at the NSCD did not inherently undermine its social mission but, rather, potentially enabled it. To productively manage this interconnected framing, staff members used two distinct communication practices that helped them embrace the interconnectedness of these seemingly contradictory concerns. The first practice was promoting a circular framing of business and mission functions. Staff members recognized and actively promoted the mutual interdependence of the distinct roles of various organizational units. For example, the volunteer coordinator described the collective efforts of the staff as a puzzle where every piece mattered and affected the other; the program manager recognized that programming relied on the efforts of fundraising; and the marketing director pointed out that the NSCD’s work was about the money and the cause. As a result, staff members had a clear understanding of their role and its connection to the organization’s success.

The second communication practice was connecting individual positions to the organizational mission. The findings above illustrate that staff members’ identity was not solely connected to their specific position in the organization but rather grounded in their role in the overall accomplishment of the NSCD’s mission. This is evident in the marketing director’s comment that she loves where the money goes, as well as the event coordinator’s understanding that he is part of the mission because his work is more than just raising money, but rather, being part of an organization that does great things. Even the CFO, whose work was perhaps the most disconnected from mission-based events, still understood that her work impacted lives daily.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide a useful account of how the mission-market tension underlies the pursuit of social goals within a market economy and offer two important theoretical contributions to that end. First, findings illustrate that the mission-market tension is a generative phenomenon in which contradictory elements are understood as interdependent. Participants clearly articulated that both sides of the mission-market tension needed to remain in play for their organization to be successful, despite the difficult decisions and trade-offs necessary when trying to satisfy both. This mutual interdependence occurred as NSCD staff members disconnected profit motive and self-interest from the meaning of business and replaced them with “people” and the “impact” on their lives. This deletion (or, perhaps, sublimation) of profit motive, although not surprising, was significant because it allowed notions of doing good and fulfilling a social mission to become the driving, unifying motives behind the NSCD’s business-like efforts. Therefore, as nonprofit research anticipates and orients itself to the interdependence of mission and market concerns, resulting studies are more likely to shed light on the ways nonprofit organizations frame the mission-market tension and manage the dilemmas that arise from it.

This enabling quality of the mission-market tension offers empirical support to theoretical claims that nonprofit work may be considered an inherently contradictory endeavor (e.g., Albert & Whetten, 1985; Jager & Beyes, 2010; Sanders, 2012; Young, 2005) and stands in contrast to previous empirical research that has identified binds and dysfunction as the result of using business discourse and practice in the nonprofit sector (see Oakes et al., 1998; Ruud, 2000). Therefore, rather than seeking to overcome or resolve the mission-market tension, the findings from this study encourage researchers to embrace and recognize it as an essential feature of nonprofit organizing. As a result, scholars can move their attention beyond the “clash of ideas or principles or actions” and the “discomfort that may arise as a result” (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, pp. 353-354) and take up an approach that focuses on the mission-market tension as a key feature of what it means to be nonprofit-like.

Second, findings demonstrate the central role that communication plays in how the mission-market tension is understood and engaged within a nonprofit organization, as well as how such understandings and action influence everyday work. Through the everyday communication practices of embracing the contradiction as normal, framing the tension as ongoing, promoting a circular framing of business and mission functions, and connecting individual positions to the organizational mission, NSCD staff members explicitly framed the mission-market tension as inherent and productive and did not try to resolve it or frame one concern as more important than the other. Recognizing communication as a constitutive and productive force that creates and maintains meanings within organizations (Kuhn, 2008), being business-like in the nonprofit sector, therefore, may be best understood as a communicative practice. In other words, the difference between productivity and dysfunction rests on the ways in which staff members and organizational leaders talk about and frame mission and market concerns. Indeed, what set the NSCD apart in this study was the ability to engage in an unusually explicit and articulate level of communication about the interconnection of various work roles to the overall mission while recognizing the inherent tensions of satisfying competing concerns. Such a keen awareness suggests that the meaning of the mission-market tension is connected to how organizational members talk about it.

Therefore, when theorizing or empirically examining business-like concerns in the nonprofit sector, we cannot assume that the meanings of business, or even mission, are fixed across organizations and explicitly understood by practitioners. Instead, from a communication perspective, scholars can theorize the meaning of the mission-market tension as continuously constructed and framed in each nonprofit organization. This recognition is especially important because the mission-market tension mixes two conceptually antithetical discourses. Therefore, while researchers can theorize and identify what business could or should be in the nonprofit context (e.g., Brainard & Siplon, 2004; Dart, 2004), its meaning cannot be assumed to be wholly positive or negative. Rather, it is necessary to find out how organizational members understand mission and market concerns and communicatively define their relationship.

These theoretical contributions also lead to important practical implications. First, nonprofit leaders should actively and explicitly frame the interdependence of mission and market concerns in their everyday communication to help organizational members better understand and engage their work without creating unnecessary conflicts. Second, the interdependence of mission and market concerns and the communication practices that support this coproductive relationship should be taught to organizational members as a key feature of being nonprofit-like and successfully pursuing a social mission.

Conclusion

The tension between pursuing a social mission and meeting the demands of a market economy is an everyday, practical concern for nonprofit practitioners that influences organizational effectiveness and success. This study has sought to understand how this tension is understood and engaged in everyday nonprofit work. Findings demonstrate that the mission-market tension was considered an inherent part of the nonprofit endeavor and productively framed as a contradictory and interconnected phenomenon through everyday communication practices. These findings recognize the central role of communication in understanding what it means to be nonprofit-like and open new possibilities for defining nonprofit work in its own terms.

This study, however, is not without limitations. First, as an ethnographic study, these findings cannot be generalized. While this limitation is not a critique of ethnographic research itself, it is nonetheless important to recognize the need to understand being nonprofit-like more broadly, particularly across such a broad and diverse sector. Second, because of limitations of time and access, board members, donors, and volunteers were not observed or interviewed for this study. These perspectives are equally valuable and would add important understanding to the findings and highlight the role of external influences and relationships on understanding and engaging the mission-market tension.

Future research should address these limitations by exploring the mission-market tension across a number of organizations and from the perspective of additional stakeholder groups. Doing so would aid in identifying more compatible constructions of mission and market concerns as well as offer a more robust understanding of what it means to be nonprofit-like in a market economy. In addition, future research should also explore the role of organizational leadership in facilitating successful communication about the tension between mission and market concerns. Finally, research that engages the mission-market tension in other contexts where a social mission is a central feature in measuring organizational success, such as corporate social responsibility, social enterprise, and social entrepreneurship, should explore how such work recognizes and embraces the mutual implication of these contradictory concerns and the need for both sides to exist and have voice in organizational decision-making processes. Indeed, the knowledge from this study offers a perspective of being nonprofit-like that for-profit organizations and social enterprises should carefully consider.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Brudney and the three anonymous reviewers for their dedicated and timely assistance in improving this manuscript. Their thoughtful and insightful feedback greatly enhanced the quality of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Matthew L. Sanders (PhD 2008, University of Colorado at Boulder) is an assistant professor of communication studies at Utah State University. His research focuses on qualitative and critical analyses of nonprofit marketization.

References

Albert

Whetten

D. A.

(1985). Organizational identity. In Cummings

L. L.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 263-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alvesson

Deetz

S. A.

(2000). Doing critical management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ashcraft

K. L.

Kuhn

T. K.

Cooren

(2009). Constitutional amendments: “Materializing” organizational communication. In Walsh

J. P.

Brief

A. P.

(Eds.), The academy of management annals (Vol. 3, pp. 1-64). London, England: Routledge.

Brainard

L. A.

Siplon

P. D.

(2004). Toward nonprofit organization reform in the voluntary spirit: Lessons from the internet. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 435-457.

Bush

(1992). Survival of the nonprofit spirit in a for-profit world. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21, 391-410.

Dart

(2004). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 290-310.

Dees

J. G.

Anderson

B. B.

(2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40, 16-27.

du Gay

. (2000). Markets and meanings: Reimagining organizational life. In Schultz

Hatch

M. J.

Larsen

M. H.

(Eds.), The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 66-75). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Eikenberry

A. M.

(2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for nonprofit and voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 582-596.

10.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. D.

(2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64, 132-140.

11.

Emerson

R. M.

Fretz

R. I.

Shaw

L. L.

(1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

12.

Evers

(1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas, 6, 159-182.

13.

Ezzy

(2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Frumkin

(2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

15.

Glynn

M. A.

(2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11, 285-298.

16.

Golden-Biddle

Rao

(1997). Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 8, 593-611.

17.

Herzlinger

R. E.

(1996). Can public trust in nonprofits and governments be restored? Harvard Business Review, 74, 97-107.

18.

Jager

Beyes

(2010). Strategizing in NPOs: A case study on the practice of organizational change between social mission and economic rationale. Voluntas, 21, 82-100.

19.

Knutsen

W. L.

(2012). 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. Advance online publication.

20.

Koschmann

M. A.

(2012). Developing a communicative theory of the nonprofit. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 139-146.

21.

Koschmann

M. A.

Laster

M. N.

(2011). Communicative tensions of community organizing: The case of a local neighborhood association. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 28-51.

22.

Kreutzer

Jager

(2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 634-661.

23.

Kuhn

(2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29, 1227-1254.

24.

Light

P. C.

(2001). “Nonprofit-like”: Tongue twister or aspiration. Nonprofit Quarterly, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/policysocial-context/123-qnonprofit-likeq-tongue-twister-or-aspiration.html

25.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Lohmann

R. A.

(1989). And lettuce is nonanimal: Toward a positive economics of voluntary action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18, 367-383.

27.

Oakes

L. S.

Townley

Cooper

D. J.

(1998). Business planning as pedagogy: Language and control in a changing institutional field. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 257-292.

28.

Ruud

(2000). The symphony: Organizational discourse and the symbolic tensions between artistic and business ideologies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28, 117-143.

29.

Salamon

L. M.

(2003). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

30.

Sanders

M. L.

(2012). Theorizing nonprofit organizations and contradictory enterprises: Understanding the inherent tensions of nonprofit marketization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 179-185.

31.

Stohl

Cheney

(2001). Participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 349-407.

32.

Toepler

(2006). Caveat venditor? Museum merchandising, nonprofit commercialization, and the case of the metropolitan museum in New York. Voluntas, 17, 99-113.

33.

Tracy

S. J.

(2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 119-146.

34.

Trethewey

Ashcraft

K. L.

(2004). Practicing disorganization: The development of applied perspectives on living with tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 81-88.

35.

Valentinov

Iliopoulos

(2013). Economic theories of nonprofits and agricultural cooperatives compared: New perspectives for nonprofit scholars. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 109-126. doi:10.1177/0899764012436399.

36.

Van Til

. (2000). Growing civil society: From nonprofit sector to third space. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

37.

Weisbrod

B. A.

(1998). The nonprofit mission and its financing: Growing links between nonprofits and the rest of the economy. In Weisbrod

B. A.

(Ed.), To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Young

D. R.

(2005). Mission-market tension in managing nonprofit organizations (Working Paper 06-26). Atlanta: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.