Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning and Organizational Sustainability: A Preliminary Comparative Study in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States

Joseph C. Santora, J. Sarros, Gil Bozer, M. Esposito, A. Bassi
{"title":"Nonprofit Executive Succession Planning and Organizational Sustainability: A Preliminary Comparative Study in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States","authors":"Joseph C. Santora, J. Sarros, Gil Bozer, M. Esposito, A. Bassi","doi":"10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.OC.00006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionExecutive succession planning represents significant challenges for most nonprofits (e.g. Bear & Fitzgibbon, 2004; Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010; Coltoff, 2010; Dym, Egmont, & Watkins, 2011). As a body of research, executive succession has been seriously neglected for many reasons: time and finance constraints, lack of administration and coordination abilities, and interests on the part of executive directors (EDs) and boards of directors (Santora, Sarros, & Esposito, 2010). Accordingly, Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32) recommend that \"succession planning should shift from being a taboo topic to a fact of life that makes things easier for an outgoing executive, a board, and an organization\". Failing to plan for a successor can create organizational chaos. As Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32/33) contend, \"those who don't plan [for succession] put their organizations at considerable risk for turbulent transitions. Boards should expect that the executives will eventually move on, and be prepared to manage those turnovers successfully.\"The aim of this paper is to compare the findings of recent nonprofit succession research (Bassi, 2013; Bozer & Kuna, 2013; Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa, 2013; Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2011; Santora et al., 2013) on six countries (Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States) to determine the degree to which they have planned for executive succession and whether internal or external candidates have been selected as executive directors (often also referred to as chief executive officers (CEOs)/presidents). The countries involved in this study were chosen based on their representation of cultural values that were different from each other on some attributes, such as power distance and similar to each other on others, such as individual collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al., 2004). Generally, Western democracies (the United States and Australia) and Israel form a discrete group with similar culture orientations, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy form another less heterogeneous grouping. Specifically, Australia, Israel, and the United States are low power distance societies, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy are high power distance societies (House, et al., 2004). According to House et al., (2004, p. 166), \"in high power distance societies, power holders are granted greater status, privileges, and material rewards than those without power\". Power distance relates to decision-making styles of bosses, the ability to influence, the opportunity to have independent thought and express opinions, deference to authority, and the use of artifacts such as titles, ranks, and status. Accordingly, succession practices in the Western-based countries should theoretically be more transparent and externally focused than those in the European/South American group.This article provides a major contribution to the extant nonprofit literature in the field by building on an important organizational issue: succession planning, organizational sustainability, and its attendant issues. It also fills a major gap in the nonprofit literature by comparing executive succession issues in multiple countries, thereby alleviating the largely American focus. Bassi (2013) and Santora and Sarros (2013) have sought to address the imbalance between research based in the United States and that of other countries by challenging researchers to conduct comparative analyses on nonprofits delivering services to constituents in countries other than the United States to determine the degree of similarities and/or differences on executive succession issues. This article also provides a theoretical contribution, as it broadens our understanding of the myriad ways nonprofits encounter similar challenges in succession planning and insider-outsider appointments, regardless of geographic location in the world.First, we provide a brief overview of succession planning in nonprofit organizations, followed by a discussion of insider-outsider selection issue. …","PeriodicalId":90357,"journal":{"name":"The journal of applied management and entrepreneurship","volume":"5 1","pages":"66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of applied management and entrepreneurship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3709.2015.OC.00006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

IntroductionExecutive succession planning represents significant challenges for most nonprofits (e.g. Bear & Fitzgibbon, 2004; Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010; Coltoff, 2010; Dym, Egmont, & Watkins, 2011). As a body of research, executive succession has been seriously neglected for many reasons: time and finance constraints, lack of administration and coordination abilities, and interests on the part of executive directors (EDs) and boards of directors (Santora, Sarros, & Esposito, 2010). Accordingly, Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32) recommend that "succession planning should shift from being a taboo topic to a fact of life that makes things easier for an outgoing executive, a board, and an organization". Failing to plan for a successor can create organizational chaos. As Peters and Wolfred (2001, p. 32/33) contend, "those who don't plan [for succession] put their organizations at considerable risk for turbulent transitions. Boards should expect that the executives will eventually move on, and be prepared to manage those turnovers successfully."The aim of this paper is to compare the findings of recent nonprofit succession research (Bassi, 2013; Bozer & Kuna, 2013; Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa, 2013; Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2011; Santora et al., 2013) on six countries (Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy, Russia, and the United States) to determine the degree to which they have planned for executive succession and whether internal or external candidates have been selected as executive directors (often also referred to as chief executive officers (CEOs)/presidents). The countries involved in this study were chosen based on their representation of cultural values that were different from each other on some attributes, such as power distance and similar to each other on others, such as individual collectivism (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; House et al., 2004). Generally, Western democracies (the United States and Australia) and Israel form a discrete group with similar culture orientations, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy form another less heterogeneous grouping. Specifically, Australia, Israel, and the United States are low power distance societies, while Russia, Brazil, and Italy are high power distance societies (House, et al., 2004). According to House et al., (2004, p. 166), "in high power distance societies, power holders are granted greater status, privileges, and material rewards than those without power". Power distance relates to decision-making styles of bosses, the ability to influence, the opportunity to have independent thought and express opinions, deference to authority, and the use of artifacts such as titles, ranks, and status. Accordingly, succession practices in the Western-based countries should theoretically be more transparent and externally focused than those in the European/South American group.This article provides a major contribution to the extant nonprofit literature in the field by building on an important organizational issue: succession planning, organizational sustainability, and its attendant issues. It also fills a major gap in the nonprofit literature by comparing executive succession issues in multiple countries, thereby alleviating the largely American focus. Bassi (2013) and Santora and Sarros (2013) have sought to address the imbalance between research based in the United States and that of other countries by challenging researchers to conduct comparative analyses on nonprofits delivering services to constituents in countries other than the United States to determine the degree of similarities and/or differences on executive succession issues. This article also provides a theoretical contribution, as it broadens our understanding of the myriad ways nonprofits encounter similar challenges in succession planning and insider-outsider appointments, regardless of geographic location in the world.First, we provide a brief overview of succession planning in nonprofit organizations, followed by a discussion of insider-outsider selection issue. …
非营利组织高管继任计划与组织可持续性:澳大利亚、巴西、以色列、意大利、俄罗斯和美国的初步比较研究
对大多数非营利组织来说,高管继任计划是一项重大挑战(例如Bear & Fitzgibbon, 2004;Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010;Coltoff, 2010;Dym, Egmont, & Watkins, 2011)。作为一项研究,由于时间和资金的限制、管理和协调能力的缺乏以及执行董事和董事会的利益等原因,高管继任问题一直被严重忽视(Santora, Sarros, & Esposito, 2010)。因此,Peters和Wolfred (2001, p. 32)建议“继任计划应该从一个禁忌话题转变为一个生活事实,使即将离职的高管、董事会和组织的事情变得更容易”。没有为继任者制定计划可能会造成组织混乱。正如彼得斯和沃尔弗雷德(2001,第32/33页)所主张的,“那些不计划(继任)的人将他们的组织置于动荡过渡的相当大的风险之中。董事会应该预料到高管们最终会离职,并准备好成功地管理这些人事变动。“本文的目的是比较最近的非营利性继任研究的结果(Bassi, 2013;Bozer & Kuna, 2013;Comini, Paolino, & Feitosa, 2013;Santora, Sarros, & Cooper, 2011;Santora et al., 2013)对六个国家(澳大利亚、巴西、以色列、意大利、俄罗斯和美国)进行了研究,以确定他们对高管继任的计划程度,以及是否选择了内部或外部候选人担任执行董事(通常也称为首席执行官(ceo)/总裁)。参与本研究的国家是根据其文化价值观的表现来选择的,这些文化价值观在某些属性上彼此不同,如权力距离,而在其他属性上彼此相似,如个人集体主义(Hofstede, 1980, 2001;House et al., 2004)。一般来说,西方民主国家(美国和澳大利亚)和以色列形成了一个具有相似文化取向的独立群体,而俄罗斯、巴西和意大利形成了另一个不那么异质的群体。具体来说,澳大利亚、以色列和美国属于低权力距离社会,而俄罗斯、巴西和意大利属于高权力距离社会(House等,2004)。根据House等人(2004年,第166页)的说法,“在高权力距离社会中,拥有权力的人比没有权力的人获得更高的地位、特权和物质奖励”。权力距离与老板的决策风格、影响能力、独立思考和表达意见的机会、对权威的尊重以及头衔、级别和地位等“神器”的使用有关。因此,从理论上讲,西方国家的继任做法应该比欧洲/南美集团的做法更透明,更注重外部。本文通过建立一个重要的组织问题:继任计划、组织可持续性及其相关问题,为该领域现有的非营利文献做出了重大贡献。它还通过比较多个国家的高管继任问题,填补了非营利文献中的一个主要空白,从而减轻了主要关注美国的问题。Bassi(2013)和Santora and Sarros(2013)试图解决基于美国和其他国家的研究之间的不平衡,他们要求研究人员对向美国以外的国家的选民提供服务的非营利组织进行比较分析,以确定在高管继任问题上的相似和/或差异程度。这篇文章还提供了一个理论贡献,因为它拓宽了我们对非营利组织在继任计划和内部-外部任命方面遇到类似挑战的无数方式的理解,而这与世界上的地理位置无关。首先,我们简要概述了非营利组织的继任计划,然后讨论了内部-外部选择问题。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信