Organizational Supererogation and the Transformation of Nonprofit Accountability

Abstract

This article advances the moral philosophical concept of supererogation as a sociological process through which organizational action outstrips externally imposed evaluative demands. It illuminates this process by following 200 nonprofits in the San Francisco Bay Area from 2002 to 2016, when they became subject to myriad accountability obligations. Interviews, surveys, and content analyses show that nonprofits chafed against compulsory reporting and evaluative standards, regarding them as ill-suited to their work and goals. Contrary to current perspectives in organizational theory, however, nonprofits neither minimized external scrutiny nor conformed to external criteria. Instead, they disclosed more information than required. Despite nonprofits’ misgivings about oversight obligations, they nevertheless identified with the broader ideal of accountability these demands represented. Navigating this tension, nonprofits repurposed newly salient evaluative practices as tools through which unique goals and values could be given facticity. Through supererogation, nonprofits surpassed mere compliance and pursued accountability in organizationally distinctive ways.