The Hybridization of Meaningful Nonprofit Work: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Marketization on Nonprofit Managers’ Sense of Meaningfulness in Work

Abstract

Nonprofit work is oftentimes viewed as inherently meaningful work, but the world of nonprofit work is changing by becoming increasingly marketized. These changes are impacting nonprofit workers’ conception and experience of meaningful work. Drawing from scholarship on neoliberal marketization, enterprise culture, and meaningful nonprofit work, this exploratory study examines how an increasingly marketized work environment is influencing nonprofit managers’ experience of meaningful work. Findings from interviews demonstrate that nonprofit managers conceive of and experience meaningful work in expected ways (e.g., through serving others). At the same time, findings indicate that their experience of meaningful work evokes elements of enterprise culture. These findings suggest that meaningful nonprofit work is becoming hybridized such that it evokes both prosocial and neoliberal market values. This in turn necessitates a reconsideration of the motivations of nonprofit workers as well as our understanding of the mechanisms by which the nonprofit sector is becoming marketized.

Keywords

marketization enterprise culture meaningful work hybridity

Introduction

Nonprofit work is oftentimes viewed as inherently meaningful work (see Dempsey & Sanders, 2010). More pointedly, nonprofits are considered spaces whereby individuals driven by prosocial behaviors (Bassous, 2015; Lee & Wilkins, 2011), a desire to serve others (Lapworth et al., 2018; Word & Carpenter, 2013), or a calling to be part of something larger than oneself (see Schabram & Maitlis, 2017) can realize their values through paid work. Indeed, nonprofits seem populated by workers who exemplify a commitment to service and assert solidarity with something greater than themselves (Light, 2002; see also Cunningham, 2010). At the same time, nonprofit organizations and nonprofit work are changing. Nonprofits are becoming increasingly marketized by adopting, in some measure, the logic and values associated with the neoliberal marketplace (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Sandberg et al., 2020). While some have questioned the extent to which marketization has led nonprofits to become more “market-like” in their manner (e.g., Sanders, 2015; Suykens et al., 2020), research indicates that nonprofits are evolving their structure, goals, and rhetoric under market influences (see Maier et al., 2016).

Initially focused on understanding the effects of marketization at organizational and sectoral levels, scholars are turning their attention to nonprofit workers’ subjective experience relative to marketization. This research tells a mixed story. On one hand, a marketized nonprofit field emphasizes professionalized workers and practices (Bromley & Orchard, 2016; King, 2017), which in turn engenders efficiencies in resource development and service delivery, thereby increasing client and employee satisfaction (see Maier et al., 2016). On the other hand, a marketized work environment that emphasizes productivity, performance, commitment to work (Fleming, 2014), and an imperative to grow (Sandberg et al., 2020) sometimes at the expense of interpersonal relationships (Venter et al., 2019) adversely affects nonprofit workers’ work–life balance (Baines & Cunningham, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2017) while also generating intraorganizational discord over personal and organizational values (Baines & Cunningham, 2011; Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011; Ruud, 2000). Some nonprofit workers can navigate these changes effectively (Sanders, 2015) while others are perplexed by the evolving nature of their workplaces (Sandberg et al., 2020) and resist changes wrought by marketization (Baines & Cunningham, 2011; Larsson, 2013).

This scholarship details myriad ways marketization is transforming nonprofit work as well as some positive and negative consequences of these changes for nonprofit workers. Less well understood is marketization’s impact on nonprofit workers’ conceptions of a meaningful nonprofit work experience (cf. King, 2017; Robichau & Sandberg, 2021). Scholars who decry the marketization of the nonprofit sector worry that neoliberal predilections for competition, efficiency, performance, and productivity crowd out values associated with nonprofit work, such as altruism and service to others (see Sandel, 2013) and thus risk the functioning of civil society (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). Perhaps the nonprofit worker is also at risk. Research indicates that individuals who engage in work considered “extraordinarily meaningful,” such as service work, experience cognitive dissonance when confronted with shifting organizational cultures that threaten their perceptions of meaningful work and then engage in dysfunctional practices to maintain their sense of meaning in work (Florian et al., 2019). How might workers who seek out and are motivated by the values that define the nonprofit sector cope when confronted with a workplace that emulates the values of the marketplace? Do they engage in dysfunctional practices to maintain their sense of meaningful work? Perhaps their conceptions of meaningful work become marketized too.

This article addresses these issues by exploring how a group of nonprofit managers conceptualize meaningful nonprofit work in relation to enterprise culture—the discourses and workplace practices associated with the neoliberal marketplace (du Gay, 1996). Specifically, the study poses the questions: How do nonprofit workers conceptualize meaningful work? Do neoliberal ideas inform those conceptualizations, and if so, in what ways and how? The article unfolds as follows. We first discuss the literature and theory pertaining to meaningful nonprofit work, enterprise culture, and the marketization of nonprofit work. Next, we outline our methods and data. The article then presents findings from interviews with 28 nonprofit managers representing an array of nonprofit subfields. The findings demonstrate that nonprofit managers conceive of and experience meaningful work in accordance with prosocial values as well as a calling to something greater. At the same time, the findings indicate that their experience of meaningful work evokes some of the values and logics of the neoliberal marketplace. This suggests that a hybridized form of meaningful nonprofit work is emerging, one that evokes both prosocial and neoliberal market values. While there is potential for a hybridized form of meaningful work to benefit both nonprofit organizations and workers, it also raises worrisome questions about the future of the nonprofit workforce as well as the continued marketization of the nonprofit sector. We conclude the article by considering the practical and theoretical implications of a hybridized form of meaningful nonprofit work.

Review of Literature and Theory

Meaningful Nonprofit Work

A substantial body of work in nonprofit studies has explored why some individuals find nonprofit work meaningful. Studies initially explained the motivations behind volunteering and labor donation to nonprofits (see Musick & Wilson, 2008), but the literature evolved as the sector expanded and became more professionalized, shifting focus to explore why individuals seek nonprofit employment over alternatives (Hwang & Powell, 2009; Park & Word, 2012). This scholarship indicates workers select nonprofit employment based on a perceived match between organizational mission and values with personal values, motivations, and propensity to volunteer (Lapworth et al., 2018; Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Park et al., 2018). Indeed, individuals who are driven by values and motives associated with prosocial behaviors, a desire to serve others, or a calling to contribute to something greater are drawn to nonprofit work and find it meaningful (Bassous, 2015; Dempsey & Sanders, 2010; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Robichau & Sandberg, 2021). Callings in work describe how individuals pursue what they consider to be their purpose in life by using their abilities to contribute to a greater good (Thompson & Christensen, 2018). For nonprofit workers, callings manifest in pursuit of work they deem morally, socially, and personally significant (Schabram & Maitlis, 2017) or sometimes as a “moral imperative to serve” (Bassous, 2015, p. 366). Nonprofit work is also associated with prosocial behaviors such as altruism and voluntarism which, like callings, are rooted in a desire to serve by putting others’ needs before oneself (Bassous, 2015). Work perceived as altruistic, such as nonprofit work, is considered meaningful (Allan et al., 2018).

Prosocial behaviors relative to nonprofit work have also been discussed under the guise of Public Service Motivation (PSM; Esteve et al., 2016; Perry et al., 2010). PSM-related values such as a sense of civic duty and self-sacrifice to serve others help nonprofit workers identify with a cause (Lapworth et al., 2018) and align them with an organization’s mission and values (Lee & Wilkins, 2011; Word & Carpenter, 2013). Nonprofit workers tend to situate “themselves within the bigger story of humanity” and connect their work with broader impacts on individuals and society-at-large (Lapworth et al., 2018, p. 1674).

This literature reveals that some individuals view nonprofits as inviting spaces where they can express their values through meeting the mission of the organization (Cunningham, 2010; Light, 2002). At the same time, this scholarship neglects workers’ experience of work once engaged in it (Park et al., 2018). But research in this area is progressing. Studies are uncovering that while nonprofit workers find their work meaningful, it can also be a “double-edged sword” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009) where some engage in dysfunctional practices (Florian et al., 2019)—personal relationships, time, and pay (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Florian et al., 2019; Oelberger, 2019) and creating conflict (Florian et al., 2019)—to sustain their sense of “deeply meaningful work” (Oelberger, 2019). This literature on “the dark side of meaningful work” (Oelberger, 2019) reveals a complicated experience of work. On one hand, nonprofit workers find their work to be challenging, aggravating, and, at times, discouraging (Walk et al., 2013). On the other hand, they find it “extraordinarily meaningful” and work hard—sometimes to their detriment—to maintain a meaningful experience of work (Florian et al., 2019; see also Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Oelberger, 2019). This dynamic may indicate an ordinary cognitive process—a meaningfulness-making process (Robichau & Sandberg, 2021; Vuori et al., 2012)—use to sustain meaningfulness in work. We will return to and elaborate on this concept after our findings.

Neoliberal Marketization and Enterprise Culture

Scholars have grown concerned with the marketization of nonprofit work—the increasing adoption of the logics and values associated with the neoliberal marketplace by nonprofits for valuation and decision-making (Baines, 2010; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Robichau & Wang, 2018; Sandberg et al., 2020). Neoliberal marketization emphasizes the creation of market-like spaces, the promotion of a market ethic, the insertion of competition as a basis for social relations, and the ascension of the enterprise form as a model for organizational and individual action (Dardot & Laval, 2013). At an organizational level, the logic and values of the neoliberal marketplace manifest in a milieu du Gay (1996) deems “enterprise culture” in which everything, including organizational processes, decision-making, and culture as well as worker behavior, become measured by their worth as an enterprise and ability to compete. Enterprise culture is promoted through both discursive and behavioral dimensions (see Sandberg et al., 2020). The discursive dimensions manifest through workplace narratives that advocate free-market principles and a “business-like” ethos. The behavioral aspects manifest in part through the adoption of market-oriented workplace practices associated with movements such as New Public Management, which emphasize productivity and efficiency (Kaboolian, 1998), and ideologies such as managerialism, which are devoted to the ascension of “business-like” practices (see Hvenmark, 2016). While the various approaches and nomenclatures associated with neoliberal marketization and enterprise culture can cause consternation (see Maier et al., 2016), Beck (2014) has helpfully categorized the primary practices associated with enterprise culture under the terms flexibilization, performance regimes, and extrinsic reward systems.

Flexibilization involves the increasing use of contract, temporary, part-time, and other contingent forms of labor. Frontline staff are directly impacted by flexibilization. Mid-level managers and executives are affected by the organizational churn caused by contracting, outsourcing, and/or down- or right-sizing as well as the institution of tools that streamline hiring and firing such as the expansion of at-will employment. Performance regimes deploy data-driven measurement and audit technologies aimed at “objectively” assessing productivity (e.g., benchmarking, cost-benefit analyses, 360-degree employee evaluations) primarily through quantitative data. These performance systems help organizations efficiently deploy human, financial, and other resources. In the context of public and nonprofit service, the use of performance regimes is accompanied by a promise that it will enhance organizational effectiveness, restore the public’s trust, and enable greater accountability (Moynihan, 2008). Extrinsic reward systems (e.g., pay-for-performance and other financial incentives) rest on the premise that workers are motivated by pecuniary and other extrinsic rewards. Higher individual productivity and organizational results are theorized to follow from the use of performance and merit-based rewards. Altogether flexibilization, performance regimes, and extrinsic reward systems create a “loose/tight balance” that allows organizations to employ a “controlled de-control” management style that controls workers while also extending personal responsibility to them (du Gay, 1996, p. 61) to perform efficiently in pursuit of organizational goals.

Whatever the promise for delivering positive outcomes, enterprise culture sometimes produces adverse consequences for workers. For example, Fleming (2014) contends that enterprise culture demands a total commitment of workers to work. He terms the contemporary organization a “biocracy” which depends on the blurring of work and nonwork lives to render the whole individual an exploitable organizational resource. The worker in an organization-cum-enterprise is expected to turn oneself into an enterprise also—to become an entrepreneurial subject (Dardot & Laval, 2013)—cultivate one’s self to make it fully available to organizational demands. This requires an ethos of personal responsibility, self-regulation, and drive (du Gay, 1996) “to make adequate provision for the preservation, reproduction and reconstruction of one’s own human capital” (Gordon, 1991, in du Gay, 1996, p. 181). Interpersonal relationships are viewed similarly. The “enterprising relationships” that populate marketized workplaces involve a “contract-like way of representing relationships between institutions, between individuals and institutions and between individuals with one another” which defines relationships relative to goal achievement (du Gay, 1996, p. 180).

The Marketization of Nonprofit Work

Although some urge caution in proclaiming the damage wrought by neoliberal marketization on nonprofits (e.g., Sanders, 2015; Suykens et al., 2020), a growing body of research points to its creeping influence in many aspects of nonprofit work (see Sandberg et al., 2020 for an overview). Nonprofit scholars are exploring the implications of this phenomenon for workers. What they are finding is a paradox. On one hand, research demonstrates that marketized nonprofits are more likely to be professionalized (Bromley & Orchard, 2016; King, 2017; Kruetzer & Jäger, 2011) and thus more operationally efficient as well as successful in resource raising, leading to greater client and employee satisfaction (see Maier et al., 2016). At the same time, marketized nonprofits generate confusion for workers about their roles in organizations and communities (King, 2017; Venter et al., 2019). Are they professional managers delivering a service to customers or mission-driven community change agents? This adjustment around role expectations extends to larger social change efforts with workers scaling back advocacy efforts so they can prioritize organizational management and service delivery (Baines, 2010; Cunningham et al., 2017). Similarly, the adoption of marketized modes of work creates confusion and conflict around organizational values and priorities (Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011; Ruud, 2000; Venter et al., 2019), likely the result of the “nonprofit double-bind” (Venter et al., 2019) workers navigate between mission-related and market values (Kellner et al., 2017; Sanders, 2015). All of which adversely affect workers’ stress levels and work–life balance (Baines, 2010; Cunningham et al., 2017; Venter et al., 2019).

What remains opaque in this scholarship is the effect marketization and enterprise culture have on workers’ conceptions of meaningful nonprofit work and on their experience of work—issues that are foundational to our understanding of nonprofit work. These are the issues the present study addresses.

Method and Data

This study is exploratory thus a qualitative approach is ideal, for it offers a rich description of workers’ understanding of meaningful nonprofit work and enterprise culture. A qualitative approach also enables us to illuminate practitioners’ experiences by amplifying their voices through the research process (see Ospina et al., 2018).

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between April 2015 and September 2016 with nonprofit managers.¹ Interviews ranged between 27 and 108 min and averaged 60 min. All interviews were conducted in-person save for one conducted via telephone. To develop our sample, we initially identified a small number of personal contacts working in nonprofits and conducted interviews with them. Upon conclusion of each interview, we asked interviewees to identify colleagues they recommended to be interviewed. This snowball sampling technique connected us to information-rich participants who were difficult to access (i.e., there is no centralized database of nonprofit workers and professional association membership lists are cost-prohibitive to acquire) and enabled the collection of data in an open, trusting atmosphere that is beneficial for discussing personal topics (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Englert et al., 2020). We sought participants from a range of professional backgrounds, organizational types, gender identity, race and ethnicity, and experience level (see Table 1). We used this technique with all interviewees, drawing a sample of 28 participants across 6 regions of the United States. While the average participant was Caucasian, female-identified, and more than 40 years old, there are variations among participants and their organizations along with age, gender, racial and ethnic identity, and organizational revenue and service areas.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics.

Individual demographics	No. of participants	Organizational demographics	No. of participants
Age		Primary area of activity
<30	3	Arts, culture, & humanities	1
30–39	9	Education	3
40–49	5	Environment & animals	1
50–59	6	Health	3
60+	4	Human Services	12
		International	1
		Public, societal benefit	4
		Religion related	3
Race and ethnicity		Organizational revenue
Black or African American	2	<US$1 million	3
Caucasian	22	US$1–10 million	8
Hispanic/Latinx	2	US$10–20 million	10
Multiracial	1	>US$20 million	4
Gender identity		Region
Female	16	Arizona	10
Male	12	California	1
		Georgia	3
		New York	1
		Oregon	12
		Texas	1

Note. N = 28. One respondent chose not to identify age and ethnicity. Organizational revenue figures are drawn from Form 990s FY2016. We were unable to locate Form 990s for three organizations. The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) codes were used to identify the field of activity.

Table 2.

Enterprise Culture Exemplars.

Finding	Participant quotations
Perceptions of enterprise culture
Discursive elements− Presence of and discomfort with “business-like” ethos or rhetoric	Then there’s this whole social enterprise section . . . Lots of people in development aren’t entrepreneurs. Having to think entrepreneurially, act entrepreneurially, manage those pieces . . . it’s hard. (Executive Director, Nonprofit Professional Association, April 11, 2016)[Our supervisor] guides our discussion sometimes to . . . let’s think back on why we are doing [our work] and what are our important goals rather than, “Here’s a contract. Let’s go for this and this is what we want to do.” (Director of Support Services, Housing and Homelessness Nonprofit, August 8, 2016)We’re trying to break that consumer or customer mold. It’s difficult when new people join the organization because they’re coming from a more business-minded organization . . . a nonprofit that ran exactly like a for-profit organization. (Founder, Faith-based Organization, July 19, 2016)
Behavioral elements− Flexibilization: contracting− Flexibilization: flexible work arrangements	You might be dealing with more of a high maintenance contractor or someone that isn’t meeting deadlines. Then it’s frustrating [to everyone.] Then as we pay the invoice, it’s like “Why am I paying for this?” It’s the same as a business. You don’t want to be afraid to negotiate. (Media Director, Children’s Disability Nonprofit, May 5, 2016)You figure out how to be really flexible. You place a lot of 10- and 20-year experienced people into part-time jobs because they want flex time. So, their salary is still a really good salary, but they need the flex time in order to stay. (Executive Director, Nonprofit Professional Association, April 11, 2016)It’s also a question of—when you say money—are you looking at the money associated with benefits or well-being? That opens up the door because some people want to work in nonprofit because maybe they get two or three weeks more in vacation a year or maybe they get a flexible schedule. (Clinical Director, Behavioral Health Clinic, September 29, 2016)
Behavioral elements− Performance regimes	I enjoy the data side of it. I look at it as . . . it’s always money. We always need money to come from somewhere, and the only way to get it is to show progress of some kind. (Social Worker, Child Welfare Nonprofit, June 10, 2016)I want our board to be more engaged in performance management, and I don’t think they really know how to do that. (Advocacy Manager, Environmental Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)Earlier this afternoon I had a discussion with one of the program managers about productivity. That’s data driven . . . looking at how productive her team is. I can also see that the data is not working in her favor at all. (Clinical Director, Behavioral Health Clinic, September 29, 2016)
Behavioral elements− Extrinsic rewards	[Pay] only matters in the sense that, to be able to pay for my time in order that our needs are met, as a family, but [pay matters] very little. (Founder, Faith-based Organization, July 19, 2016)When I compare my compensation with somebody working for the government . . . 90% of the time I want to quit and go to a government job. But at the same time I say, “Well, if I quit because of the compensation then I’m abandoning my community who still needs me.” (Program Manager, Culturally Specific Nonprofit, April 18, 2016)I think being comfortable at home and not having a ton of debt [matters]. If you have a job where you are not able to save or do anything, then you’re not going to want to stay there. You’re going to continue to look for something, from my experience. But you realize that when you go into nonprofit work, you’re not going to get rich doing this, unless you’re like CEO of Goodwill. (Advocacy Manager, Environmental Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)

Note. CEO = chief executive officer.

Table 3.

Conception of Meaningful Nonprofit Work Exemplars.

Finding	Participant quotations
Conceptions of meaningful nonprofit work
Service to others	Seeing those achievements and knowing that you’ve . . . the big thing is knowing you made a huge difference in that kid’s life. (Adoptions Director, Child Welfare Nonprofit, May 23, 2016)It’s almost like extra satisfaction. It’s not just helping the child, but you help the family be successful. You help them maneuver the system. You help them engage in services that are appropriate for their family. You listen to them rant and vent once in a while. We’re the sounding board. We’re the safe person. (Training Supervisor, Children’s Services Nonprofit, June 23, 2016)
A calling	I feel like there’s meaning in everything that we’re doing because the level I’m operating at affects the systems we’re in. All the employment decisions I make, I have to make them consistently . . . [because] I have this commitment to equity. I am able to interject, “Did we talk about equity? How does this impact different communities?” (HR Director, Housing and Homelessness Nonprofit, August 31, 2015)
Relational aspects	The network of politicians, the network of philanthropists in the community . . . all those who make really, really big investments for our community, for our youth, our homeless population, for our disenfranchised . . . to be able to meet those influential people [is meaningful]. (Fundraiser, Nonprofit Serving Women and Girls, June 17, 2016)There is this piece where I can talk to somebody, and I know who to connect them with. . . . I just know it’s going to be a good connection. They are going to find something to talk about. There is going to be something there, and I am really happy about it. That is joyful. That is a really wonderful feeling . . . a truly warm and happy feeling. (Executive Director, Nonprofit Professional Association, April 11, 2016)
Elements of enterprise culture	Somebody always wants to ask me about some aspect of [mountain] climbing that I may be working on and I feel like, “No, I’m not working right now.” I don’t feel like sometimes I can separate myself from my job. I’ll just get into a conversation with some climber and I realize, “Oh my God, I’ve got in-depth knowledge that they may be interested in and I don’t really like talking about it now!” I feel like I get pulled into that. I’m off work, but I’m not. (Advocacy Manager, Environmental Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)In my last job it was really challenging because the culture was different. There was constant staff turnover and there was just this general mistrust in any sort of hierarchical structure. They’re all young feminists and they learned those beautiful frameworks and “anti” models in school and didn’t know how to behave in an organizational environment that had some verticalness, that had a head . . . an organizational leader. So, I found it very challenging to be my authentic self in that environment, because it didn’t matter. (Executive Director, Homeless Youth Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)

Note. HR = Human Resources.

Table 4.

Experience of Meaningful Nonprofit Work Exemplars.

Finding	Participant quotations
Experience of meaningful nonprofit work
Relationships with clients or beneficiaries	What’s different about [our organization] is that the staff has long-term relationships with clients. There are issues that come up all the time . . . we have drug use on site and all of that. We have relationships with the residents, and we’re able to work things out. It’s not an organization that goes from crisis point to crisis point. (Executive Director, Homeless Youth Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)We’re a nonprofit organization, but four or five years ago we decided to open up and operate our own in-house pharmacy. That is beneficial because then our clients can actually use our pharmacy. They don’t have the same rate of co-pay, so it’s helping the population that we serve. Then . . . the pharmacy, the separate LLC [Limited Liability Corporation] within our umbrella, it can also serve other entities and act as a business. It’s growing revenue for us while also helping the population that we serve. (Clinical Director, Behavioral Health Clinic, September 29, 2016)
Relationships with supervisors and other leaders	To have that kind of [close] relationship, whether you’re talking to somebody above or below you in their job, it’s critically important. (Therapist, Disability Services Nonprofit, June 14, 2016)
Relationships with community partners	When [other grantwriters] apply for 150 grants . . . they don’t really need it and they’re taking [some grants] away from somebody else who does really need it. When I write grants, I really try to write for only what I need. So that there’s enough money for the other people to do what they need to do. But that’s not necessarily the attitude in a lot of grantwriting. (Executive Director, Children’s Services Nonprofit, August 23, 2016)Most of the time they are not community-based organizations [we work with]. They are government agencies, so their policies and procedures are completely different from ours. All those contracts with funding we’re getting comes with strings attached to them. You have to follow certain guidelines to operate. So, sometimes it changes the nature of our work. It makes it hard for us to do what we want to do. (Executive Director, Refugee Resettlement Nonprofit, April 28, 2016)
Relationship with self/Self-optimization	I think if you’re being micro-managed . . . that’s a problem, but then if you’re not getting enough feedback, [that’s also a problem.] There’s a balance. . . . I just need to have feedback, but it’s like, “How can you filter some of that [feedback] from our board? How can we keep them engaged but not direct me completely?” (Advocacy Manager, Environmental Nonprofit, August 11, 2016)

Study participants were all mid- and executive-level nonprofit managers. Management-level workers were targeted for participation because they are attuned to the relationship between work environment and organizational goals, performance metrics and evaluation, and external environmental pressures and because they are more likely to be “attached to nonprofit work as they have had . . . time to internalize the values of nonprofit work . . . [and] may see the ‘bigger picture’ and develop meaningfulness [in it]” (Johnson & Ng, 2016, p. 297). We asked participants to elaborate on the meaningful aspects of their work and how work shapes their sense of well-being and relationships with others. We also inquired about aspects of work that detract from their experiences of meaningfulness and how they cope with them. We also posed questions to participants on the three salient workplace practices associated with enterprise culture (i.e., flexibilization, performance regimes, and extrinsic reward systems).

Data Analysis and Rigor

The authors and another member of the research team conducted the interviews that were recorded, deidentified, and then transcribed verbatim using an online service. The research team reviewed the transcripts for accuracy then uploaded them into Dedoose, a cloud-based qualitative data analysis software. A codebook (see Note 1) was developed based on a synthesis of the literature on enterprise culture and meaningful work. Following from Yin (2011), we interwove a deductive and inductive approach to data analysis and interpretation. Deductive codes were developed as a set of initial categories to help define the relevant data to be collected, and we allowed for inductive patterns to emerge through an emergent indicator code simultaneously.

We adopted multiple strategies to ensure the rigor and quality of the findings. First, to enhance the validity of the analytic and interpretive process, we used a double-blind coding and reconciliation process between the two authors, a third colleague, and three trained graduate assistants using a decision tree and codebook. Analysis commenced on 806 pages of coded data. The research team then identified patterns and themes in and across the data through, review, discussion, and consensus (Tracy, 2010). Data fragments were converted to data matrices in Excel allowing them to be filtered by content, theme, subcodes, individual, or organizational characteristics. Data matrices add rigor to the analytic process by visually representing data across categories and codes (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Statements that proved contrary to prevailing themes and patterns were interrogated through further discussion and, in some instances, recoded and analyzed. Second, we incorporated quotes from as many different participants as possible to give readers the ability to extrapolate findings to other contexts (Creswell & Poth, 2018) within article-length confines. Third, to ensure the credibility of findings the team reviewed the findings using crystallization, the practice of viewing patterns and themes in qualitative data as a prism where multiple angles and explanations exist simultaneously but, when combined, increase understanding of complex issues (Tracy, 2010).

Limitations

This study is subject to some limitations. First, we interviewed a single representative of each organization. This limits our understanding of how enterprise culture might manifest differently in organizations and whether the experience of one individual reflects a broader pattern in an organization. This limitation holds true regarding our sample. Interviewing solely managers limits our ability to extrapolate findings to all nonprofit workers. Indeed, we anticipate the experience of frontline workers would be markedly different from managers. In addition, although we consider the findings pertinent to understanding how nonprofit workers experience the effects of marketization, we also understand our small sample size limits that understanding. That is particularly true regarding the low representation of people of color in the sample. Given the exploratory nature of our research design, the findings are interpreted cautiously and may not be generalizable to all nonprofit managers; instead, the goal of this study is to offer an opportunity to learn about the intersections of neoliberal marketization and meaningful nonprofit work (Stake, 2005, p. 451). The diversity of the sample along with organization size, subsector, geography, and gender leads us to believe that we can learn something more general about the shared experience of meaningful nonprofit work under marketized conditions. Subsequent research could assess how well these findings are substantiated within certain organizational settings (e.g., arts and culture nonprofits), among certain managers (e.g., managers who are people of color), and among workers in different levels of the organization (e.g., frontline workers).

Findings

This study explores how enterprise culture influenced the conceptions and experiences of meaningful nonprofit work for a group of nonprofit managers. The findings mirror research that suggests the influence of marketization is uneven and paradoxical. The sections below present conceptions and experiences of meaningful nonprofit work that are neither fully “nonprofit-like” nor purely marketized. They are both. We begin, however, with participants’ perceptions of enterprise culture in their organizations. These data suggest some inconsistencies in the discourse of enterprise culture as it relates to nonprofit work that seem to influence our findings that suggest the emergence of a hybridized form of meaningful nonprofit work.

Perceptions of Enterprise Culture

The discursive elements of enterprise culture were present in participants’ discussions of their work and workplaces and how these had evolved over time. The discursive elements, such as the advocation of a “business-like” ethos, were present in how interviewees described the nature of their organizations. Many interviewees used the term “a business” to describe their organization, eschewing other nomenclatures such as nonprofit, grassroot, or community-based organization. If the term “a business” was not used, interviewees used the competitive and performance-minded language of enterprise culture to explicate their understanding of their organization. It was commonplace to hear interviewees detailing organizations that were “goal driven,” “growth oriented,” and “managing to impact.” These sentiments also manifested in the rhetoric used to describe how organizations operated. Interviewees described work environments that placed rhetorical value on the accomplishment of organizational goals while downplaying the importance of relationships. For example, interviewees described work environments in which clients were “empowered to do their own thing” rather than depend upon the organization or people in it. Interviewees seemed to understand themselves and their colleagues similarly relative to the organization’s purpose, with interviewees discussing the importance of keeping “talent” and minimizing turnover to maintain a “good, strong business.”

At the same time, some interviewees expressed discomfort with the idea of working in a nonprofit-as-business. For example, one interviewee was dismayed by a changing workforce that viewed nonprofit work as a stepping-stone toward a more lucrative career:

Some people recognize they’re the commodity and that upon credentialing, they have an enhanced status. That’s when we lose folks. . . . They can go work for [a private entity] and make more money. (Clinical Director, Behavioral Health Clinic, September 29, 2016)

Another interviewee summed up her discomfort this way:

I try to remind myself this is a business; . . . any organization is a business and will put themselves first. (Project Manager, Capacity-building Nonprofit, August 26, 2016)

That the interviewee had to remind herself she worked in “a business” seems to reflect a dynamic in which the organizational context is still shifting toward something more market-like.

Interviewees’ perceptions of the behavioral dimensions of enterprise culture (i.e., flexibilization, performance regimes, and extrinsic reward systems) did not always manifest strongly or in expected ways. For example, interviewees confirmed the ubiquitous presence of contracting, one form of contingent labor that defines flexibilization. Nearly all interviewees indicated their organizations engaged in contracting to perform services whether they were contracted with (by government agencies to perform work) or whether they contracted work out to consultants to assist with, for example, strategic planning. In short, interviewees seemed to accept contracting as a vehicle for managing workflow. What emerged as more salient to interviewees, however, when queried about flexibilization were flexible work schedules and autonomy in work. Many interviewees detailed that their work had changed over time such that the organization provided more “freedom,” “flexibility,” and ability to be “creative” with their time, namely, “flex time” or “comp time” and irregular work hours thus “empower[ing]” them to do their work. This is an area where frontline staffers would likely have divergent views.

The discussion of extrinsic reward systems—namely, pecuniary rewards—elicited uneven views. In a marketized work environment, extrinsic rewards are typically financial. However, here no one discussed any robust compensation packages they were receiving; quite the opposite. They talked about low pay. For most interviewees, this was of little consequence as long as they could pay their bills. Rather, the rewards they sought involved seeing the impact of their work, receiving praise for their efforts, and being thanked. At the same time, a handful of interviewees seemed more attuned to market-like thinking by indicating a growing desire to be rewarded financially for their work, as this quotation illustrates:

I’ve come to understand my value . . . That’s one of the coaching things I do now [with my employees]. They’re like, “This is nonprofit. So, it’s all about the love for the work.” I’m like, “You are also a skilled professional doing work that other people cannot do and there is a value for that. You need to be compensated . . .” (Program Director, Nonprofit Funding Agency, June 16, 2016)

Some interviewees who supervised others also spoke at length about desiring to pay their subordinates what they “deserved” for their work. The viewpoint in which one equated their “value” to the organization with financial returns surfaced relative to a perception that organizational leaders were taking advantage of their commitment to work—an issue addressed in more detail subsequently.

Performance regimes were the feature most eagerly discussed by interviewees as well as considered most consistently with the enterprise culture literature. The use of quantitative data for strategic organizational decision-making abounded. Interviewees across subsectors discussed the use of “metrics” and “numbers” to guide decision-making and demonstrate “results” to stakeholders. The use of strategic planning, program evaluation, data dashboards, and cost–benefit analyses was discussed frequently relative to performance management. Furthermore, while there were some skeptics among interviewees, the vast majority described their organization’s “data-driven culture” positively reflecting a market-like ethos, as this quotation demonstrates:

[Using data] makes me feel we’re rooting our efforts in the wisdom, knowledge and activities from partners rather than us taking off and just doing. This is what we think we should do but it’s based on information coming from our partners. From a co-development perspective it’s critical. (Program Director, Nonprofit Funding Agency, April 15, 2016)

The described data-driven organizational culture included an emphasis on employee performance management too. All interviewees discussed systems to assess their performance regularly. These included so-called annual 360 performance reviews in which workers received feedback from their supervisors and peers along with ongoing, one-on-one check-ins with supervisors.

Conceptions of Meaningful Nonprofit Work

Research participants explicated conceptions of meaningful work that evoked the prosocial values associated with nonprofit workers. Interviewees described meaningful work as serving others, being a part of something bigger than themselves, and connecting with others. Moreover, they all viewed nonprofits as spaces in which their personal values aligned with an organizational mission they believed in and with an organizational culture that affirmed their prosocial aspirations. This interviewee (a refugee himself) captured these sentiments in his conception of meaningful work:

What I find meaningful about my work is the ability to help the [refugees] that come here. . . . They witnessed lots of atrocities where they came from, so they cannot function like someone who did not experience those issues. . . . They have all those barriers . . . language barriers and all those. You are there to help them understand the system. This is very meaningful. (Executive Director, Refugee Resettlement Nonprofit, April 28, 2016)

His work aligned not only with a value for service but also with his personal experience as a refugee learning to navigate “the system.”

Others described their work as a calling. Indeed, some interviewees confessed moving from for-profit to nonprofit work because while they were “working hard,” they were not “utilizing [their] hard work and value towards something bigger.” These sentiments seemed particularly true for those working in culturally specific organizations with social justice-related missions. For example,

I realized that being in an organization that values racial equity was crucial [to meaningful work], that not only spoke about it but focused on it and was intentional about it. (Program Director, Nonprofit Funding Agency, April 15, 2016)

For these interviewees, who predominantly identified as people of color, working toward social justice aligned with a sense of being authentic to oneself as a person of color having experienced injustice firsthand. Much the same can be said for those who worked in faith-based nonprofits who identified as people of faith and could speak to the power of faith, as this quote illustrates:

I’m not exaggerating. I’m excited to wake up every morning. I love what I do. . . . I do what I do because of my faith. I believe I’m called to it and so . . . I’m not ever questioning [it]. I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing. (Founder, Faith-based Organization, July 19, 2016)

In all their descriptions of meaningful work, interviewees emphasized the importance of their relationships with clients or beneficiaries, organizational leaders, community partners, and donors. In short, they described meaningful work as something inherently relational in that it involved working with, helping, and connecting with others through work. This quotation illustrates this point:

[Meaningful work is about] the connection. It’s being able to bring some expertise or information I have to the community. It’s reciprocal in that they provide information. There’s a connection. Then they also get connected to other [community] members. It creates this wonderful web or network for folks. That’s really important . . . (Program Manager, Culturally Specific Nonprofit, April 18, 2016)

At the same time, descriptions of meaningful work evoked characteristics of enterprise culture. This quotation represents the paradoxical nature of meaningful work described by participants:

We have been working this year on . . . having a visual on the wall for every staff [member] to say, “That is what we are working towards and that is how we are getting there.” Whether it is employment . . . or what the retention rate in the people we house is going to be, having that regular feedback each day, that you walk in each day and say, “Oh, that is how we are doing.” (HR Director, Housing and Homelessness Nonprofit, August 31, 2016)

While service to others is a motivating factor so too is making progress toward mission-related goals. Such sentiments regarding goal-related progress were expressed frequently as helping clients make progress toward predetermined organizational or programmatic goals. Indeed, clients were sometimes described as organizational goals. For example, one executive director relayed the importance of “getting the [required] number of kids” into their programs as a meaningful personal and organizational goal.

Overall, interviewees conveyed a sense that what is meaningful to them is the process of making progress, that striving for growth and working toward a goal also constitutes meaningful work. Furthermore, it is something to be measured, with metrics and charts of organizational progress acting as signifiers of meaningful work. Meaningful nonprofit work thus becomes something to be achieved. In this way, conceptions of meaningful work rooted in prosocial behaviors and service to others neatly aligned with the discursive aspects of enterprise culture as well as its behavioral manifestations in the form of performance regimes and extrinsic reward structures (if viewed as external validation rather than pecuniary rewards) to form a more hybridized conception of meaningful work. This juxtaposition of prosocial and neoliberal market values becomes more apparent in participants’ discussions of their experience of meaningful work.

The Experience of Meaningful Nonprofit Work

Research participants viewed their experience of work through a prism of the professional relationships that dominated their day-to-day work lives. These included relationships with clients and beneficiaries, supervisors and other organizational leaders, colleagues, and community partners, all of whom proved vital to the experience of meaningful work. Yet, like their conceptions of meaningful work, perceptions of these relationships seemed influenced by enterprise culture in that they evoked aspects of “enterprising relationships.” To some extent, this can be seen in the previously discussed relationships with clients or beneficiaries. Interviewees sometimes described them not as individuals but rather as proxies for organizational outcomes. We might attribute this perception to the relational distance that likely exists between many managers and clients, with frontline staff having closer contact. But this “contract-like” view of relationships can be seen in other relationships including the previously described relationship between the managers and their organizations. Nonprofits were viewed as “a business” to which managers brought their “talent.” In return, they were provided with opportunities to engage in meaningful work matching their values.

Within this larger dynamic between interviewees and their organizations, relationships with supervisors and organizational leaders seemed particularly important to participants and especially “contract-like” in their depictions. Interviewees did not believe that organizational leaders were responsible for providing a meaningful work experience, but most interviewees did expect leaders to help “clear paths” toward meaningful work. They expected leaders to inspire them to greater heights of meaningful work through the “energy they put out” and by effectively communicating a sense of the organizational mission. Leaders were expected to provide opportunities for growth, encourage workers to do better, allow room to demonstrate talent, and provide genuine, ongoing feedback on performance. In sum, interviewees expected leaders to embody enterprise culture by facilitating flexible work environments, helping manage performance, and rewarding good performance through external validation. One interviewee neatly summed up expectations of organization leaders relative to a meaningful work experience:

Guide me, support me, and give me freedom. (Program Director, Faith-based Nonprofit, May 26, 2016)

Leaders who met these expectations demonstrated to interviewees that they “cared” about them and their attainment of meaningful work; those who did not meet these expectations were viewed as “inauthentic” or uncaring. Some interviewees also described relationships with leaders that violated the terms of the “contract” between the manager and the organization. According to them, some leaders manipulated their dedication to and sense of meaningfulness in their work by, for example, expecting them to work long hours without reward. One interviewee described this scenario as a “forced donation,” which violated the sense of autonomy in work they expected with flexible work schedules. If they were to work longer hours, they would choose to do so because it enhanced their experience of meaningful work as well as served the organization’s mission. Many did so but resented it when it was expected of them.

Interviewees described relationships with colleagues and community partners (e.g., funders, contracting agencies, collaborators, and community members) comparably. These relationships were important to them personally and to the organization, but they were described as either facilitating their pursuit of meaningful work or inhibiting it. Interviewees wanted colleagues who were as hardworking as they were. They appreciated colleagues who held a “high work ethic” and discounted those who were “minimalist” in their approach to work as “annoying” and “lackadaisical.” Similarly, if a colleague or community partner was not “on the same page”—for example, regarding how a client’s interests would be served best—they were viewed not as a source of alternate ideas or as a collaborator but rather as a source of anxiety or frustration which in turn distracted from the accomplishment of meaningful work. These sentiments were pronounced when interviewees discussed relationships with donors and funders and with public agencies with whom they held contracts, as this quotation illustrates:

There’s so much we want to do and build, and the challenging part is the funding or other organizations we’re working with who may not be aligned with us in terms of our values . . . We’re continually having to make the case for it. Some folks [don’t understand] why this is important. (Program Manager, Culturally Specific Nonprofit, April 18, 2016)

Foundations chronically under-funded and under-resourced them; government contractors drowned them in “red tape” and “played politics”; and donors held them to unreasonable expectations to “create fast change” to solve intractable problems. These difficult relationships frustrated interviewees’ ability to meet personal and organizational goals and thus achieve a meaningful experience of work. In sum, colleagues and community partners were oftentimes viewed as hurdles to overcome rather than supporters in a shared mission.

The interviewees themselves were not immune from these expectations. Like their views of clients, colleagues, organizational leaders, and community partners, interviewees expected to work hard and to strive for more and better for themselves and their organizations. This ethos of personal responsibility for self-optimization was demonstrated most readily in discussions of performance management. Nearly all interviewees indicated they wanted—welcomed, even—the opportunity to review their work and receive feedback. They genuinely desired receiving feedback on how they could further the mission, as this quotation illustrates:

It’s nice to see . . . what somebody else’s perspective is on what you do. I’m about growth. I realize I’m not perfect, that I have a lot of growth areas. Anything that can help you to identify that and be more effective in your job is helpful. (Supervisor, Children’s Services Nonprofit, June 23, 2016)

Interviewees enjoyed having their work assessed and assessing their own contributions and failings. Performance management was discussed with an eye toward “continuous improvement” in terms of their own development and contributions to the organization. Interviewees desired continuous, ongoing feedback about their performance from their supervisors. Annual reviews were viewed as rote exercises that contributed little actionable feedback in a timely fashion. Moreover, no one wanted to hear, “you’re doing a good job, keep it up.” If the feedback was not delivered in an “authentic way”—that is, with both praise for work well done as well as suggestions for improvement—interviewees tended to reject the performance management process (and the supervisor) as frustrating their efforts to self-optimize.

The desire and effort to self-optimize may be leading to work–life imbalances. Some interviewees described being unable to “turn work off” which left them feeling at risk of burnout, as this quotation demonstrates:

It turns my insides off. . . . When those kinds of things happen to me, it was like the gears . . . are [grinding]. I could feel myself emotionally turning off, winding down, losing desire, and becoming a pessimist. (Program Director, Faith-based Nonprofit, May 26, 2016)

Interviewees rarely expected their organizations to address a perceived imbalance between their work and non-work lives, however. Rather, many saw it as their personal responsibility to “make it work.” For example,

[I tell myself,] “I’m going to do better this year. This year I’m going to be better prepared. . . . I’m going to figure out how to make it work.” (Therapist, Disability Services Nonprofit, June 14, 2016)

While some interviewees engaged in what might be considered healthy coping mechanisms for work-life imbalances (e.g., healthy eating, exercising), others doubled down on their commitment to work with positive self-talk about the meaningful work they were achieving. In either case, coping with work–life imbalances was done with an eye toward making life less stressful not so they could have a more enjoyable life but so they could then be more productive at work.

Discussion

These findings support research indicating that the marketization of nonprofit work is uneven but impactful. Interviewees perceived a growing presence of enterprise culture in their organizations but in some unexpected ways. The advocation of “business-like” rhetoric, elements of flexibilization, and the presence of performance regimes proved the most salient features of enterprise culture to participants, with flexibilization predominantly manifesting as flexible work arrangements. Extrinsic reward systems as understood in the literature on enterprise culture were negligible—absent in practice but desired in some cases. This milieu, while uneven, is having an effect. Although interviewees expressed conceptions and experiences of meaningful nonprofit work that align with nonprofit scholarship, their views also reflected the goal-driven nature of enterprise culture. Meaningful work steeped in prosocial values was also described as something to be counted, measured, and achieved using the tools of enterprise culture. Interviewees described the importance of organizational relationships with their experience of meaningful work but often in contractual terms. In some ways, they viewed themselves as quintessential entrepreneurial subjects self-optimizing to pursue meaningful work.

These findings can be viewed with both optimism and concern. On one hand, the findings confirm that viewing the market sphere as a “monolithic threat” to the nonprofit sector is unwarranted (Suykens et al., 2020). While neoliberal predilections for efficiency, productivity, and performance management, namely, enterprise culture were present in the conceptions and experiences of meaningful work described by participants, so too were the prosocial values that define meaningful nonprofit work. On the other hand, scholars concerned about the marketization of the nonprofit sector are right to be worried, for while participants invoked traditional notions of meaningful nonprofit work, they also evoked elements of enterprise culture as a part of their work experience. Participants expressed neither confusion about perceived role expectations nor conflict around personal or organizational priorities or values as with other studies examining the impact of marketization on nonprofit workers (e.g., Baines & Cunningham, 2011; Cunningham et al., 2017; Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011; Ruud, 2000). There was some discomfort around conceptualizing nonprofits as businesses, but for the most part, the presence of enterprise culture was unquestioned. Indeed, some elements of enterprise culture were deemed essential to one’s experience of meaningful work, with flexible work arrangements, performance management, and “enterprising relationships” playing vital roles. This may indicate that nonprofit managers are engaged in a balancing act between the “mission and the margin” (Kellner et al., 2017; see also Sanders, 2015). It could also indicate that nonprofit managers are, to some extent, acquiescing to the values of the neoliberal marketplace relative to their experience of meaningful work.

How might we explain the apparent ease with which interviewees seemed to accept enterprise culture while sustaining their prosocial aspirations and service-related motivations? Some scholars suggest that nonprofit workers sometimes make conscious decisions to adopt market-like logics and values to cope with the contested logics of hybridized organizational environments (Skelcher & Smith, 2015; see also Hustinx & De Waele, 2015; Kellner et al., 2017) and with the difficulties posed by nonprofits’ inherent resource dependency in an increasingly marketized institutional landscape (Sandberg et al., 2020). While the data from this study are too limited to be conclusive, our findings suggest that perhaps there are some less calculated dimensions to consider as well insofar as they concern meaningful work. We offer some insights into our findings by drawing from the literature on meaningfulness in work.

This research suggests that the experience of meaningfulness in work is complex because workers engage in a dynamic meaningfulness-making process where interaction with one’s evolving work environment plays a substantial role. According to Vuori and colleagues (2012), meaningfulness in work is not something one feels by rote. Rather, workers are both sense makers and crafters of their work such that they construct meaningfulness in work. As sense makers, workers extract cues from their environment and interpret them so they understand “what should I do now?” (p. 234). Workers can interpret these cues positively (I am making an effective contribution, personally benefiting from the work, and feeling pleasure because of the work) or negatively (I am not making an effective contribution, nor benefiting from the work, nor feeling pleasure from it; p. 238). More positive interpretations of work cues lead to a greater experience of meaningfulness in work while predominantly negative interpretations lead to less meaningfulness in work or a meaningless experience of work. In either case, all workers seek to enhance their sense of meaningfulness and create positive order for themselves at work through job crafting: “the actions employees take to shape, mold, and redefine their jobs” physically, relationally, and cognitively to exert some control over their work and thus avoid alienation (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001, pp. 180, 181). Workers cognitively emphasize the positive qualities of their work and contributions; amplify the benefits they receive from working; and change elements of the work (Vuori et al., 2012) all in relation to their preferences, values, and motivations. When faced with shifting organizational cultures, this meaningfulness-making process can become dysfunctional, with workers seeking to sustain their sense of meaningfulness in work at a substantial cost to themselves and their relationships (Florian et al., 2019) potentially generating a “dark side” to meaningful work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Oelberger, 2019).

Our findings do not indicate that participants engaged in conflict (Florian et al., 2019) or sacrificed important personal aspects of their lives (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Oelberger, 2019; Venter et al., 2019) to sustain their sense of meaningful work under increasingly marketized conditions. Indeed, there seemed little cognitive dissonance around the marketization of their workplaces. Rather, our findings suggest that participants coped with an increasingly marketized work environment by engaging in normal sensemaking and job crafting processes to emphasize the positive aspects of their work to sustain a meaningful experience of work. They viewed flexible work arrangements positively as enabling them to work more efficiently. They viewed aspects of performance regimes positively too, as integral to understanding the impact of their efforts. Furthermore, they redefined the relationships that populated their work lives and categorized them into either positive relationships that helped provide a meaningful experience of work or as negative relationships that detracted from it. All of which they did relative to their prosocial values and desire to contribute to something greater than themselves. In short, participants seemed able to incorporate enterprise culture into their sense of meaningful work by viewing it as a contribution that increased their capabilities to serve others while enhancing their own sense of meaningfulness. Of course, the ability of participants to engage in these sensemaking and job crafting processes may be normal according to the literature on meaningfulness-making in work, but it may also be a function of their management-level position within the organization or of their identity. Frontline workers may have less autonomy and thus less ability to job craft, for example, leading to a less meaningful work experience. The experiences of people of color (whose perspectives are limited in this study) may also differ. The potential stratification and privileging of a meaningful work experience along worker classification and identity is a line of inquiry worth pursuing.

Enterprise culture was not always positive for the managers, however. The incorporation of the self-optimizing entrepreneurial subject into their experience of meaningful work generated dysfunctional outcomes including work–life imbalances and burnout. But any negative experiences resulting from the meaningfulness-making process were easily dismissed by participants as a personal failing—an insidious consequence of incorporating the entrepreneurial subject into workplace culture (see Dardot & Laval, 2013; du Gay, 1996). One becomes personally responsible for all things including feelings of personal failure. A dark side of meaningful work indeed.

It seems then that the cognitive processes managers are using to cope with ever-changing work environments to sustain meaningfulness in work are contributing to the marketization of the nonprofit sector. As detailed by Sandberg and colleagues (2020), the marketization of the nonprofit sector is best considered as a situated process by which the values and logics of the neoliberal marketplace interweave with local discourses to generate a multiplicity of market-based forms that are still recognizable as neoliberal. The values and motivations of individual nonprofit workers may also play an essential part in this process. Indeed, these findings indicate that neoliberal values and logics, nonprofit organizational discourses, and individual predilections and values are being interwoven to form a hybridized conception and experience of meaningful nonprofit work thus “blending the politics of [organizational] form and structure” with the “politics of [individual] identity” (Skelcher & Smith, 2015, p. 444).

The emergence of a hybridized conception and experience of meaningful nonprofit work holds practical and conceptual implications for the nonprofit sector. Paramount among these implications are presumptions of nonprofit workers. The literature on meaningful nonprofit work contends that certain individuals are drawn to nonprofit work, namely, prosocial values or a calling to something greater. The neoliberal market presupposes there is “something entrepreneurial” in all of us; it just needs to be cultivated and unleashed (Dardot & Laval, 2013). Perhaps the workers who populate increasingly marketized nonprofits can no longer be viewed solely as service-oriented, altruistic individuals who are drawn to something greater than themselves. Perhaps they should be viewed as competitive, self-optimizing entrepreneurs who seek a more nuanced experience of meaningful work—one that helps them realize their full potential—as well. In theory, there is a proverbial win-win in this juxtaposition of values and motivations. On one hand, nonprofits gain access to productive workers who, driven by values defined by service and altruism, are committed to their organization’s mission. At the same time, workers get to work in an environment that makes the most of their human capital, assists in their professional development, and enables a meaningful life via work. What complicates this model is the tension between the worker-as-entrepreneur who seeks to maximize their experience of meaningful work and the organization-as-enterprise which seeks to harness workers’ sense of meaningful work to maintain itself in an increasingly competitive field (see Dardot & Laval, 2013). The possibility of a win–lose scenario looms large in this relationship, with workers losing out to the priorities of the organization-as-enterprise. Nonprofit workers tend to find meaning in sacrificing their own needs to serve others. This predilection makes them vulnerable to exploitation by organizations that provide opportunities to engage in such self-sacrifice for a sense of meaningfulness in work.

A vital question here is whether organizations can get the balance right in terms of meeting organizational demands while cultivating individuals and their experience of meaningful work. Our findings indicate thus far this is a hit-or-miss proposition. When the balance worked, managers cultivated a meaningful experience of work that was in line with their preferences and values under marketized conditions. They felt cared for and, more importantly, that they were realizing their authentic selves through meaningful work. When the balance was off, managers worked harder to cultivate meaning in their work. Here managers felt manipulated, resentful, and at risk of burnout due in part to an “inauthentic” experience of meaningful work. Their experiences represent Fleming’s (2014) worst fears of “biocracy.” Getting the balance right may require that nonprofit leaders better manage the increasing hybridity of their organizations (see Hustinx & De Waele, 2015) by not only recognizing their workforce is now comprised of individuals motivated by a multiplicity of values and thus recruit and manage them accordingly (see Johnson & Ng, 2016) but also that there are benefits to setting “limits to enterprise” for nonprofit organizations (du Gay, 1996).

Conclusion

Contemporary nonprofit scholarship takes for granted the notion that nonprofit work is inherently meaningful work and normalizes the idea that nonprofits are ideal organizational spaces whereby workers can find their callings and enact their prosocial motivations. The findings from this study both confirm and challenge these notions. On one hand, the findings indicate that prosocial values and callings still inspire nonprofit managers to engage in nonprofit work. The findings indicate in many ways that nonprofit work is indeed meaningful work. At the same time, the findings also confirm that the world of nonprofit work is changing, that it is becoming increasingly marketized and taking on elements of enterprise culture. This phenomenon is influencing managers’ conceptions and experience of meaningful nonprofit work such that it would be unwise to assume that nonprofit managers are driven solely by prosocial values and a calling to something greater, nowadays. They also find value in enterprise culture and view it positively as contributing to their experience of meaningful work. A hybridized conception and experience of meaningful nonprofit work, one that interweaves both neoliberal market and prosocial values, is the emergent result. This holds both practical and theoretical implications for the nonprofit sector, particularly regarding how we conceptualize the motivations of nonprofit workers and thus how workers are effectively recruited, managed, and retained. It also behooves critical nonprofit scholars to delve more deeply into the mechanisms by which neoliberal values and logic take hold at localized levels to understand the role that individual values and predilections play in the marketization of the nonprofit sector.

Footnotes

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.

ORCID iDs

Billie Sandberg

Robbie Waters Robichau

Notes

Author Biographies

Billie Sandberg is an associate professor of public administration at Portland State University. Her research applies critical social theory to issues of public governance and can be viewed in Administrative Theory & Praxis, Administration & Society, and VOLUNTAS. She is the co-editor of Reframing Nonprofit Organizations: Democracy, Inclusion, and Social Change.

Robbie Waters Robichau is an assistant professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. Her research examines nonprofit management, accountability, capacity, and meaningfulness in work. Her research appears in Nonprofit Management & Leadership, American Review of Public Administration, VOLUNTAS, and Policy Studies Journal.

References

Allan

B. A.

Duffy

R. D.

Collisson

(2018). Helping others increases meaningful work: Evidence from three experiments. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(2), 155–165.

Baines

(2010). Neoliberal restructuring, activism/participation, and social unionism in the nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(1), 10–28.

Baines

Cunningham

(2011). “White knuckle care work”: Violence, gender and new public management in the voluntary sector. Work, Employment and Society, 25(4), 760–776.

Bassous

(2015). What are the factors that affect worker motivation in faith-based nonprofit organizations? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), 355–381.

Beck

(2014). The brave new world of work. Policy Press.

Bromley

Orchard

C. D.

(2016). Managed morality: The rise of professional codes of conduct in the U.S. nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(2), 351–374.

Bunderson

J. S.

Thompson

J. A

. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 32–57.

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.

Cunningham

(2010). Drawing from a bottomless well? Exploring the resilience of value-based psychological contracts in voluntary organisations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 699–719.

10.

Cunningham

Baines

Shields

(2017). “You’ve just cursed us”: Precarity, austerity and worker’s participation in the non-profit social services. Industrial Relations, 72(2), 370–393.

11.

Dardot

Laval

(2013). The new way of the world: On neo-liberal society ( Elliott

, Trans.). Verso.

12.

Dempsey

S. E.

Sanders

M. L.

(2010). Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship. Organization, 17(4), 437–459.

13.

du Gay

. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. SAGE.

14.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. D.

(2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

15.

Englert

Thaler

Helmig

(2020). Fit themes in volunteering: How do volunteers perceive person–environment fit? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 336–356.

16.

Esteve

Urbig

Van Witteloostuijn

Boyne

(2016). Prosocial behavior and public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 177–187.

17.

Fleming

(2014). Resisting work: The corporatization of life and its discontents. Temple University Press.

18.

Florian

Costas

Kärreman

(2019). Struggling with meaningfulness when context shifts: Volunteer work in a German refugee shelter. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 589–616.

19.

Hustinx

De Waele

(2015). Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial nonprofit in Belgium. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 1666–1689.

20.

Hvenmark

(2016). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2833–2859.

21.

Hwang

Powell

W. W.

(2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.

22.

Johnson

J. M.

E. S.

(2016). Money talks or Millennials walk: The effect of compensation on nonprofit Millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(3), 283–305.

23.

Kaboolian

(1998). The new public management: Challenging the boundaries of the management vs. administration debate. Public Administration Review, 58(3), 189–193.

24.

Kellner

Townsend

Wilkinson

(2017). “The mission or the margin?”A high-performance work system in a non-profit organisation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(14), 1938–1959.

25.

King

(2017). Becoming business-like: Governing the nonprofit professional. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 241–260.

26.

Kreutzer

Jäger

(2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 634–661.

27.

Lapworth

James

Wylie

(2018). Examining public service motivation in the voluntary sector: Implications for public management. Public Management Review, 20(11), 1663–1682.

28.

Larsson

O. S.

(2013). Convergence in ideas, divergence in actions: Organizational hypocrisy in nonprofit organizations. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35(2), 271–289.

29.

Lee

Wilkins

V. M.

(2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 45–56.

30.

Light

P. C.

(2002). The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3), 6–16.

31.

Maier

Meyer

Steinbereithner

(2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.

32.

Moynihan

D. P.

(2008). The dynamics of performance measurement: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.

33.

Musick

M. A.

Wilson

(2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Indiana University Press.

34.

Oelberger

C. R.

(2019). The dark side of deeply meaningful work: Work-relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 558–588.

35.

Ospina

S. M.

Esteve

Lee

. (2018). Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593–605.

36.

Park

Kim

Park

Lim

D. H.

(2018). Work engagement in nonprofit organizations: A conceptual model. Human Resource Development Review, 17(1), 5–33.

37.

Park

S. M.

Word

(2012). Driven to service: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management, 41(4), 705–734.

38.

Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

Wise

L. R.

(2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681–690.

39.

Robichau

R. W.

Sandberg

(2021). Creating meaningfulness in public service work: A qualitative comparative analysis of public and nonprofit managers’ experiences of work. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211050363

40.

Robichau

R. W.

Wang

(2018). Marketization strategies and the influence of business on the management of child welfare agencies. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 42(2), 146–165.

41.

Ruud

(2000). The symphony: Organizational discourse and the symbolic tensions between artistic and business ideologies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(2), 117–143.

42.

Sandberg

Elliott

Petchel

(2020). Investigating the marketization of the nonprofit sector: A comparative case study of two nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 39(3), 494–510.

43.

Sandel

M. J.

(2013). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

44.

Sanders

M. L.

(2015). Being nonprofit-like in a market economy: Understanding the mission-market tension in nonprofit organizing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 205–222.

45.

Schabram

Maitlis

(2017). Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 584–609.

46.

Skelcher

Smith

S. R.

(2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433–448.

47.

Stake

R. E.

(2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). SAGE.

48.

Suykens

De Rynck

Verschuere

(2020). Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 909–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020908344

49.

Thompson

J. A.

Christensen

R. K.

(2018). Bridging the public service motivation and calling literatures. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 444–456.

50.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.

51.

Venter

Currie

McCracken

(2019). “You can’t win”: The non-profit double-bind and experiences of organisational contradictions in the non-profit and voluntary sector. Work, Employment and Society, 33(2), 244–261.

52.

Vuori

San

Kira

(2012). Meaningfulness-making at work. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 7(2), 231–248.

53.

Walk

Handy

Schinnenburg

(2013). Expectations and experiences of young employees: The case of German nonprofits. Administration in Social Work, 37(2), 133–146.

54.

Word

Carpenter

(2013). The new public service? Applying the public service motivation model to nonprofit employees. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 315–336.

55.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

(2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.

56.

Yin

R. K.

(2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press.