NPO service continuity in the face of crisis: Role of appropriateness

• In Event: Surviving crisis

Abstract

How do obligations shape Nonprofit organizations’ response during a crisis? Using the logic of appropriateness (Marsh, 1991), this paper explores the mechanism that shaped the responses of Indian NPOs during the pandemic. The Indian government announced a lockdown on March 25, 2020, leading to the closure of all economic activities except a few essential ones. It had a severe effect on the marginalized, and NPOs played a crucial role in dealing with communities. Research on resilience in NPOs (Willems et al, 2022; Ma & Beaton, 2023) during the pandemic lists the coping mechanisms deployed by NPOs. However, what shapes these responses?
The logic of consequence and appropriateness differentiate between habitual and deliberate organizational actions (Schulz, 2014). The first one is analysis-based actions focusing on the outcome, while the second one is mostly a norm-based action driven by obligation and roles. Organizations frame a situation to define its role and decide appropriate action. Existing work mainly focuses on NPO responses from the lens of leadership (McMullin & Raggo, 2020), resilience (Searing et al., 2021), organizational learning (Grothe-Hammer & Berthod, 2017) etc. The responses are assessed from outcome-driven actions. Such an approach has limitations in examining service continuity as an organizational response because it defies the rational mindset.
Through a qualitative approach, data is collected from four NPOs. Thirty interviews, fieldwork, and organizational documents constitute the data repository. The organizational responses are scrutinized using the DAIC (Disruption-Ambiguity-Innovation-Challenge) framework (Shi et al., 2020). It helped to identify the situation as defined by NPOs, their obligations, and subsequent actions.
The findings reveal that the NPOs experience disruptions to regular activities. The ambiguities experienced by NPOs are related to future courses of action, pending projects, unspent budgets, employment assurance for staff, etc. The innovations by NPOs are related to the adoption of technologies to communicate smoothly, modifying project plans, efforts towards maintaining contact with communities, and improvising to better employee engagement and productivity.
The NPOs responded based on their framing of disruptions and self-identity. The disruption is framed as a livelihood crisis, limitations in Government support, and uncertainty among employees about careers and health. The NPOs assumed distinct identities corresponding to disruption and devised responses. To respond to livelihood crises, NPOs acted as "protectors" of the community by reaching out to them as "mission-driven" organizations to become more inclusive. For the limitations in Government support, NPOs acted as "facilitator" by extending support to the government and as “collaborator” by joining hands with other NPOs. To address uncertainty among employees, NPOs assumed the role of “adopter” and devised multiple strategies to engage employees productively and to safeguard their interests.
The paper contributes to crisis response by unfolding the mechanisms shaping these responses. It offers insights into the role of self-identity in shaping crisis responses. While NPOs' response is studied well, it is unclear what explains the difference in responses. The logic of appropriateness for specific NPOs helps explains the difference.

References

Grothe-Hammer, M., & Berthod, O. (2017). The programming of decisions for disaster and emergency response: A Luhmannian approach. Current Sociology, 65(5), 735-755.
Ma, Y., & Beaton, E. E. (2023). Programming change among nonprofit human service organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 1-20.
March, J. G. (1991). How decisions happen in organizations. Human-computer interaction, 6(2), 95-117.
McMullin, C., & Raggo, P. (2020). Leadership and governance in times of crisis: A balancing act for nonprofit boards. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(6), 1182-1190.
Schulz, M. (2014). Logic of consequences and logic of appropriateness. Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management, 1-6.
Searing, E. A., Wiley, K. K., & Young, S. L. (2021). Resiliency tactics during financial crisis: The nonprofit resiliency framework. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(2), 179.
Shi, Y., Jang, H. S., Keyes, L., & Dicke, L. (2020). Nonprofit service continuity and responses in the pandemic: Disruptions, ambiguity, innovation, and challenges. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 874-879.
Willems, E. L., Van Puyvelde, S., Jegers, M., & Raeymaeckers, P. (2022). Responding to COVID‐19: International nonprofits' stakeholder channels, resource pressures and governance responses. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 30(3), 270-280.

Authors

• Sushanta Kumar Sarma, Institute of Rural Management Anand

• Madhavi Mehta, Institute of Rural Management Anand