Social inequality on governance boards. Do democratic election procedures in voluntary member-organizations result in unrepresentative boards of directors?

• In Event: Governance

Abstract

Voluntary member-organizations are a large and important part of the non-profit sector in Northern Europe (Torpe & Ferrer-Fons, 2007). Members have an exclusive right to elect representatives on governance boards through democratic procedures (Heitmann & Selle, 1993). Many organizations have formal or informal norms of representativity regarding geography, organizational divisions, or gender. In general people with high education, income, and employment rank are more likely to volunteer (Musick, 2008). When recruiting board members, additional factors may be sought after, such as professional competence, experience from management and administration, social network, or reputable careers from politics or business (Abzug & Galaskiewicz, 2001; Gulbrandsen, 2020; Moore et al., 2002). Some types of organizations may perceive a need for board members with an elite background because they have large administrations, professional services, formal demands on reporting and accounting, and rely on trust among external stakeholders and funders (Cornforth, 2003; Van Puyvelde et al., 2016). This paper empirically assesses such inequalities by comparing demographic data for board members with organization members across organization categories.

Previous research has largely dealt with nonprofit organizations where the external stakeholders play a key role, as funders, donors, and service recipients. The social composition of boards tends to be seen in relation to external constituencies or target groups, addressing lack of diversity, and inclusion of vulnerable or under-represented groups (Brown, 2002; Fredette et al., 2016; Fredette & Sessler Bernstein, 2019; LeRoux & Medina, 2023; Steane & Christie, 2001; Weisinger et al., 2016). Other research is concerned with the consequences of board composition for reaching the organization’s goals (Cornforth, 2003; Cornforth & Brown, 2013; Gazley et al., 2010; Renz & Andersson, 2013). In contrast, this paper focuses to what extent internal democratic election procedures in member-organizations result in boards with an elite social profile compared with the ordinary members.

Data on board members are from the national register for voluntary and nonprofit organizations, with demographic data from Statistic Norway’s registers attached to each individual. This is a comprehensive dataset with all board members in registered organizations, more than 290,000 individuals. The organization member data are from a population survey conducted by Statistics Norway about volunteering and membership in different types of voluntary organizations (58% response, net 3,388 respondents), with demographic register-data (Fladmoe et al., 2018).

Compared to the members, the boards in general have a higher percentage of men, middle-aged, professionally educated, and non-immigrants. Chairs are even more different from members on many variables. The analysis focuses on differences in representativity between organization types, i.e. culture, sports, recreation, welfare, advocacy, religion, economy, employment, etc. An interesting observation is that some organization types have an under-representation of board members with long education, contrary to expectations from resource theory.

The findings indicate that organizations need to weigh advantages of elite board members and chairs against consequences for their democratic functioning and for their potential as inclusive intermediary social structures in society. We need more research to understand the mechanisms underlying these patterns.

References

Abzug, R., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 51-73.
Brown, W. A. (2002). Inclusive Governance Practices in Nonprofit Organizations and Implications for Practice. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(4), 369-385. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.12404
Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and non-public organisations : what do boards do? Routledge.
Cornforth, C., & Brown, W. A. (Eds.). (2013). Nonprofit Governance. Innovative Perspectives and Approaches. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203767115.
Fladmoe, A., Sivesind, K. H., & Arnesen, D. (2018). Oppdaterte tall om frivillig innsats i Norge, 1998–2017 [Rapport 2018-02]. Senter for forskning på sivilsamfunn og frivillig sektor. http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2557786
Fredette, C., Bradshaw, P., & Krause, H. (2016). From Diversity to Inclusion. A Multimethod Study of Diverse Governing Groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl), 28S-51S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015599456
Fredette, C., & Sessler Bernstein, R. (2019). Ethno-racial Diversity on Nonprofit Boards: A Critical Mass Perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(5), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019839778
Gazley, B., Chang, W. K., & Bingham, L. B. (2010). Board Diversity, Stakeholder Representation, and Collaborative Performance in Community Mediation Centers. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 610-620. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02182.x
Gulbrandsen, T. (2020). Business Elite as Elected Representatives in Voluntary Organizations in Norway. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 130-141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i3.2994
Heitmann, J., & Selle, P. (1993). Styret i frivillige organisasjonar. In T. Grønlie & T. Reve (Eds.), Styrets rolle (pp. 215-238). Tano Aschehoug. https://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-nb_digibok_2008061604109
LeRoux, K., & Medina, A. (2023). Bending the arc of nonprofit leadership toward justice: Impacts of racial representation and organizational publicness on diversifying executive leadership. Public Administration Review, 83(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13534
Moore, G., Sobieraj, S., Whitt, J. A., Mayorova, O., & Beaulieu, D. (2002). Elite Interlocks in Three U.S. Sectors: Nonprofit, Corporate, and Government. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 726-744. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00111
Musick, M. A. W. J. (2008). Volunteers: a social profile. Indiana University Press.
Renz, D. O., & Andersson, F. O. (2013). Nonprofit Governance. A review of the field. In C. Cornforth & W. A. Brown (Eds.), Nonprofit Governance. Innovative Perspectives and Approaches. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203767115
Steane, P., & Christie, M. (2001). Nonprofit Boards in Australia: A Distinctive Governance Approach. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 9(1), 48-58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8683.00225
Torpe, L., & Ferrer-Fons, M. (2007). The Internal Structure of Associations. In W. Maloney & S. Roßteutscher (Eds.), Social Capital and Associations in European Democracies. A comparative analysis (pp. 114-135). Routledge.
Van Puyvelde, S., Cornforth, C., Dansac, C., Chao, G., Hough, A., & Smith, D. H. (2016). Governance, Boards, and Internal Structures of Associations. In The Palgrave Handbook of Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Nonprofit Associations (pp. 894-914). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-26317-9_35
Weisinger, J. Y., Borges-Méndez, R., & Milofsky, C. (2016). Diversity in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl), 3S-27S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015613568

Authors

• Karl Henrik Sivesind, Institute for Social Research

• Mads Thau, Institute for Social Research

• Daniel Arnesen, Institute for Social Research