Abstract
Demands for Broadened Accountability (BA) of nonprofit organizations require that boards achieve a high level of engagement to address important issues properly (Morrison & Salipante, 2007). This paper presents the theoretical basis for boards falling short of such engagement and specifies fundamental obstacles leaders face in achieving BA. One set of especially salient obstacles is conceptualized as false governance dilemmas. Two are considered in this paper: legitimacy vs. efficiency (Di Maggio & Powell, 1983; Deephouse, 1996; Morrison & Salipante, 2006) and conflict/monitoring vs. cooperation/collaboration. Two broadly defined relational practices – integrative bargaining (Walton & McKersie, 1965) and maintenance of high-trust/high-distrust relationships (Lewicki, MacAllister, & Bies, 1998) – are presented as mechanisms for establishing robust board engagement, transcending false governance dilemmas and achieving BA. The authors suggest that a nonprofit paradox perspective (Cornforth, 2004) enables the gradual development of such practices, engagement and accountability.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
