1
Towards an understanding and measurement of autonomy in nonprofit
ventures
Fredrik O. Andersson
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Jurgen Willems
University of Hamburg
Paper presented at the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Third Sector Research (ISTR),
University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany, July 22 - 25, 2014
Social entrepreneurship continues to attract attention among nonprofit practitioners and scholars.
This interest is not surprising since social entrepreneurship has been described as a powerful way
to improve organizational sustainability and generate substantial social impact and change
(Austin, Wei-Skillern, and Stevenson, 2006; Boschee, 2006; Martin and Osberg, 2007).
Although our overall understanding of how social entrepreneurship manifests itself within
nonprofit and civil society organizations is growing (Morris, Webb, and Franklin, 2011), several
conceptual, theoretical and methodological challenges remain (Short, Moss, and Lumpkin,
2009). Specifically, little is known about the antecedents and conditions under which these
socially entrepreneurial behaviors emerge (Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, and Amezcua, 2013).
The purpose of this research is to explore autonomy as one potential antecedent of social
entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations. Autonomy is an organization-level concept that
expresses the extent to which an organization is free from internal (i.e. internal autonomy) and
external (i.e. external autonomy) limitations to identify, develop and pursue strategic, tactical and
operational opportunities. Internal limitations are related to internal structural features of and/or
(lack of) available resources for an organization, while external limitations primarily relate to
characteristics and constraints emanating from the environment in which an organization
2
operates (e.g. external stakeholders, applicable laws, etc…). We provide a more in-depth
discussion of the two forms of autonomy in the literature review section.
To date, few studies have investigated how autonomy contributes to the social
entrepreneurial process within civil society organizations (for an exception see Pearce, Fritz, and
Davis, 2010). The dearth of discussion focusing on the role and impact of autonomy in social
entrepreneurship is somewhat surprising given that autonomy as a construct is far from new in
management research (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Kanter, 1983) or in entrepreneurship
research (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Generally speaking, autonomy is deemed important for
entrepreneurship because without autonomy organizations will be restricted in their ability to
leverage their internal capabilities to the fullest and restrain its opportunities for fostering
entrepreneurial behavior throughout the agency. Thus, autonomy is “[…] required for
entrepreneurial initiatives to emerge and thrive, and constitutes a basic feature of
entrepreneurially oriented organizations” (Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider, 2009 p. 49).
Including autonomy as a central feature when trying to understand social entrepreneurship in
nonprofit organizations is important for several reasons. First, much of the current social
entrepreneurship literature tends to emphasize behaviors and impact of single and individual
social entrepreneurs (Short, Moss, and Lumpkin, 2009). In contrast, the autonomy construct
directs attention to the organizational level and key organizational functions such as governance
and stakeholder relations. For example, since the board of directors and other stakeholders, who
possesses formal power and exercise oversight and control, are key players in establishing the
internal infrastructure and ground rules of a nonprofit agency these actors and their behavior are
also likely to impact the level of internal and external autonomy of the organizations.
Furthermore, while a governance lens can be applied to explore how nonprofits set up structures
3
for cultivating autonomy, for example by breaking down internal hierarchies, the autonomy that
ultimately matters for socially entrepreneurial behaviors must go beyond just structure as
organizations “[…] must actually grant autonomy and encourage organizational players to
exercise it” (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996 p. 142). Hence, studying autonomy requires researchers to
explicitly emphasize inter-and intra-organizational relations as well as organizational features
typically downplayed or omitted in individually oriented studies of social entrepreneurship.
Second, the autonomy dimension brings to light the many demanding choices nonprofits must
make in their efforts to be more entrepreneurial. As Cornforth (2004) has pointed out, the
strategic management and governance of a nonprofit organization is a matter of dealing with the
tension between controlling and managing paradoxes. Managing these paradoxes requires the
ability to balance simultaneously the constraining and liberating elements of autonomy, which is
indeed a formidable challenge (Gebert, Boerner, and Lanwehr, 2003; Taylor and Lansley, 2000).
Yet, it is important to point out that autonomy is not a given nor a permanent feature, and
nonprofit boards and leaders seeking change and transformation via social entrepreneurship must
realize that autonomy, in the words of Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider (2009 p. 63), “is a
scarce capability that is granted to organizational members, and cannot be assumed but must be
perpetually negotiated.” Third, besides providing insights into how autonomy can contribute to
fostering social entrepreneurship in nonprofits, the inclusion of this dimension into existing
models also helps internal and external nonprofit stakeholders to build awareness of what
prevents nonprofits from behaving entrepreneurially. As Morris, van Vuuren, Cornwall and
Scheepers (2009 p. 432) observe, many organizations “[…] naturally drift in the direction of
control, structure, and bureaucracy” and thus become resistant engaging in entrepreneurial
behavior as they mature. Moreover, to clarify the roots of such resistance important clues can be
4
found in the delicate internal architecture agencies construct for balancing autonomy as they
evolve. Also, scholars have long recognized that nonprofits tend to rely on a variety of resource
providers to support their mission-related work and this “resource imperative results in the
adaptation of organizations to requirements of important resource providers” (Froelich 1999 p.
247). In other words, another preventive source of nonprofit entrepreneurial activity could be the
lack of external autonomy from external resource providers and other influential external
stakeholders.
Based on the notion that our understanding of social entrepreneurship in nonprofit
organizations is incomplete without a better understanding of autonomy, the goal of this paper is
to utilize the autonomy concept to explore more concrete antecedents of social entrepreneurship
in nonprofit organizations. Specifically we aim to identify distinct factors to help explain social
entrepreneurial behavior within and by nonprofit organizations.
In the subsequent section we discuss the key distinctions between internal and external
autonomy, and also their particular relevance for social entrepreneurship in nonprofit
organizations. From this literature review, we propose a set of detailed autonomy measures that
we translate into survey items for an exploratory study. First we test the content validity of the
respective internal and external autonomy items with a rater analysis. Second we do a
preliminary factor and discriminant analysis of the items based on an online survey among
nonprofit managers (n = 212). This allows us to distill potential antecedents in the broader area
of autonomy to explain social entrepreneurship. From our findings we derive and discuss
avenues for future research.
5
Autonomy and social entrepreneurship: Two dimensions
Scholars have long suggested that as organizations grow and mature, autonomy becomes a vital
ingredient for those who seek to maintain an emphasis on flexibility, adaptability, creativity and
innovation (Burns and Stalker, 1961). Furthermore, the presence of autonomous agents within
established organizations have been considered essential for organizations to overcome inertia
and resistance to change (Schön, 1963). Hence, it is no surprise that entrepreneurship researchers
have a great deal of interest in the autonomy construct. Acknowledging the importance of
independent and resourceful agents, entrepreneurship scholars have posited that in order for
entrepreneurial actions and initiatives to develop and flourish within an existing organization it
must grant organizational members freedom to not only come up with but ultimately enact
creative and/or novel ideas (e.g. Burgelman, 1983; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; Kanter, 1983). In
an influential article, Lumpkin and Dess (1996) explicitly refer to this critical dimension as
autonomy and argue it is required for entrepreneurship to thrive in an organization. Thus,
autonomy depicts a key component in fostering an entrepreneurial organizational culture and as
an enabler of entrepreneurial organizational behavior (Kanter, 1983; Lumpkin, Cogliser and
Schneider, 2009)
However, despite its intuitive appeal many find the autonomy concept hard to pin down. So
even though the autonomy element has long been considered an important element for
understanding the entrepreneurial behavior of organizations, the absence of a robust measure
have made many scholars in both business and nonprofit studies hesitant to include autonomy in
their research (Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider, 2009). In addition to just trying to capture the
degree of autonomy one must also take into consideration that there can be different types of
autonomy (Janz, Colquitt, and Noe, 1997). In this paper we concentrate on two types of
6
autonomy, internal and external (Nordqvist, Habbershon and Melin, 2008). The internal element
is related “to empowering individuals and teams within an organization, providing them with
sufficient freedom to be creative” and the external element reflects “[…] autonomy towards
external stakeholders and monitors.” (p. 112) Both forms of autonomy are characterized by an
independence/dependence tension and the challenge of loosening control without losing control.
We argue it is essential to capture and comprehend how nonprofits deal with these
independence/dependence tensions if we are to understand how and why social entrepreneurship
manifests itself within nonprofit organizations.
Internal autonomy
More than fifty years ago, Schon (1963) noted that organizations often “waste” existing
innovative resources by setting up internal barriers and administrative buffers preventing new
ideas and innovations from being promoted and realized within organization. Twenty years later
Burgelman (1983 p. 241) attempted to understand the forces that unleash entrepreneurial
activities within organizations and concluded: “the motor of corporate entrepreneurship resides
in the autonomous strategic initiatives of individuals at the operational levels in the
organization.” Thus, entrepreneurial initiatives are believed to be strongly influenced by the
independence, freedom and flexibility given to individuals and/or teams within organizations
(Galbraith, 1982; Kanter, 1988). Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider (2009 p. 47) summarize the
relation between entrepreneurial behavior and autonomy in the following way:
In organizations with strong entrepreneurial cultures, practices aimed at fostering
autonomy, […], are designed to create environments where autonomous behavior
stimulates entrepreneurial outcomes. Autonomy may be even more important in
7
settings where strategic renewal occurs only because key individuals champion
entrepreneurial initiatives that transform an organization’s strategic posture
Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider (2009) also differentiate structural from strategic internal
autonomy, or the autonomy of means from the autonomy of goals. Viewed from a top-
management perspective, enabling an individual or a team to solve a particular problem or
achieving a certain objective by letting the individual/team determined the necessary means to do
so would represent a structural autonomy approach. Enabling individuals and/or teams to also
define the problem or objective to be pursued constitutes a strategic autonomy approach.
Previous research clearly indicates that structural autonomy represents an important step for
organizations that want to craft a more entrepreneurial posture (Galbraith, 1982; Kanter, 1988).
However, as Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider (2009) argue, if we are primarily interested in
capturing and understanding variance in entrepreneurial behavior within and/or between
organizations, our focus should be on strategic autonomy.
Thus, high levels of formalization, controlling policies and hierarchical organizing tend to
hide creativity, talent and innovative capacity in organizations (Robinson, 2001), which indicates
that internal strategic autonomy may indeed represent a critical element to free these capacities in
entrepreneurial organizations. Still, it is vital to recognize that autonomy does not mean anarchy
or no strings attached, nor is it useful to think of autonomy in terms of good or bad or for that
matter as an absolute concept. Just as other types of organizations, nonprofits must find a way to
balance constraining and liberating elements simultaneously both internally and externally as
they seek to fulfill their missions and visions (Kanter, 1988; Taylor and Lansley, 2000). For
example, Kanter (1988) argues that entrepreneurial efforts in organizations typically fail because
they are overly constrained or because they are undermanaged. This implies that the internal
8
autonomy and social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations are likely to be closely related
to the governance and strategic management functions of nonprofit agencies. Drawing on
Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider’s (2009) work, we propose that internal autonomy refers to the
ability of a nonprofit organization’s internal actors (e.g. board members, managers, and/or
operational staff) to work independently, make decisions, and take actions aimed at bringing
forth an idea or vision and carrying it through to completion.
External autonomy
In addition to internal autonomy one must also consider the autonomy of the nonprofit
organization vis-à-vis its environment and external stakeholders. In order to acquire and maintain
adequate resources, nonprofits must continuously interact with individuals and groups that
control important resources. Consequently, nonprofits are, as stated by Froleich (1999 p. 247),
“not totally autonomous entities pursuing desired ends at their own discretion. Rather,
organizations are constrained by the environment as a consequence of their resource needs.” In
other words, the degree of external autonomy is related to the degree and type of dependence
experienced by the nonprofit, which in turn is related to the importance and concentration of
resources provided by external stakeholders (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Indeed, nonprofit
scholars have a long tradition of investigating how inter-organizational collaborations and other
central-local relationships between a nonprofit and its stakeholders can affect autonomy and the
ability to maneuver and experiment within such structures (e.g. Taylor and Lansley, 2000;
Tsasis, 2009). For example, several studies have examined nonprofit-government interactions
and indicated participating in government-funded programs can lead to less overall
organizational autonomy and also restrain the room for innovation and experimentation (Jung
9
and Moon, 2007; Nikolic and Koontz, 2007). Thus, external actors can and often will have direct
or indirect impact on the external autonomy of a nonprofit organization that in turn affects the
entrepreneurial behavior of that organization.
Again, the degree of external autonomy is neither given nor constant but linked to the ability
and approaches a nonprofit takes to manage these resource dependencies. For example, an
agency may select to simply comply with any demands emerging from key stakeholders or
resource providers, which will result in less external autonomy compared to an organization
taking steps to avoid, modify or control the locus of their dependence (Oliver, 1991). For
example, one way to obtain greater external autonomy is to seek greater levels of economic self-
sufficiency by using earned income strategies. Thus, we propose that external autonomy refers to
the freedom a nonprofit organization has to make independent decisions and carry out its
operations free of constraints imposed by external stakeholders (e.g. individual donors,
institutional donors, regulatory bodies, community partners, or advocates).
Measuring internal and external autonomy
In the social entrepreneurship literature, the need for autonomy is sometimes emphasized as one
element driving individual social entrepreneurs to break away from societal norms and
frameworks to seek different ways to address and/or solve social problems (Light, 2009).
However, autonomy seldom plays a pivotal role when social entrepreneurship is discussed from
a nonprofit organizational perspective. Although researchers have begun to conceptualize and
measure key components of social entrepreneurship behavior in nonprofit organizations, few
studies include measures of autonomy (Morris, Webb and Franklin, 2011). Moreover, the
empirical findings from the few studies on social entrepreneurship that included an autonomy
10
construct are mixed. Voss, Voss and Moorman (2005) explored entrepreneurship in nonprofit
theatres and detected a weak relation between employee autonomy and stakeholder support,
defined as different types of revenue. However, we chose not to interpret autonomy as a social
entrepreneurial characteristic but rather as a contextual enabling that is felt by managers, as
creativity and artistic freedom are essential norms of many nonprofit organizations. Another
autonomy measure can be found in the work by Pearce, Fritz and Davis (2010 p. 227) were
autonomy is defined as “the ability to take independent action that affects strategy." Without
specifying in any great detail how this measure was developed they found a significant relation
between autonomy and performance, measured as member attendance and congregational giving,
in a large sample of religious organizations. This construct has several positive features but was
developed with congregations as the main unit of analysis, which might have limited
applicability to other types of nonprofit organizations.
In summary, even though autonomy has long been considered an important element for
understanding entrepreneurial behavior of organizations the absence of a robust measure have
made many scholars in both business and nonprofit studies hesitant to include autonomy in their
research (Lumpkin, Cogliser and Schneider, 2009). Thus, there is a need to develop and test
constructs and measures of internal and external autonomy and explore how these constructs
relate to socially entrepreneurial activity in nonprofit organizations.
Methodology
Our analysis contains multiple parts. First, we introduce a definition for each of the two
autonomy constructs. Based on the above discussion we define internal autonomy as the ability
of a nonprofit organization’s internal actors (e.g. board members, managers, and/or operational
11
staff) to work independently, make decisions, and take actions aimed at bringing forth an idea or
vision and carrying it through to completion, and we define external autonomy as the freedom
that a nonprofit organization has to make independent decisions and carry out its operations free
of constraints imposed by external stakeholders (e.g. individual donors, institutional donors,
regulatory bodies, community partners, or advocates).
Second, from the existing literature and inspired by existing scales we have derived a set of
items for measuring internal and external autonomy (Dess, Lumpkin and Covin, 1997; Lumpkin,
Cogliser and Schneider, 2009; McGrath, 2001; Oliver 1991). A first list of 40 items was
composed: 22 items measuring internal autonomy and 18 measuring external autonomy. Due to
the results of the next step (rater analysis), small changes were made and two items were added.
The final list of 42 items, and the classification between internal and external autonomy can be
found in Table 1.
Third, we performed a rater analysis to examine the extent that items measure what is stated
in the respective definitions of internal and external autonomy (content validity). Three raters
were given the initial definitions of internal and external autonomy and the initial items,
randomly listed. Furthermore, they were asked to (1) classify the items as indicators of either
internal or external autonomy, and (2) provide comments on the wording, readability, and
straightforwardness of the various items. To assess rater consistency, we calculated the Fleiss’
Kappa index (Fleiss, 1971), which is a number between 0 and 1, with 0 indication no agreement
and 1 indicating full agreement. High agreement suggests a similar interpretation of the items
and the definitions, which indicated high content validity (Boyer and Verma, 2000).
Fourth, we developed an online survey in which the autonomy items were asked, using a 7-
point likert scale: Strongly Disagree (-3), Disagree (-2), Somewhat Disagree (-1), Neither Agree
12
nor Disagree (0), Somewhat Agree (1), Agree (2), Strongly Agree (3). Items were randomly
shuffled for each respondent. Furthermore, the questionnaire included a construct measuring the
perception of the social entrepreneurial status of the organization. A definition of social
entrepreneurship, based on Helm and Andersson (2010), was given, and subsequently
respondents were asked: “Based on the above definition, please fill out the following three
statements:” followed by three 7-point Likert scale items (same scale as autonomy items). Our
definition of social entrepreneurship and the items are shown in the Appendix. The internal
consistency of the three items was high (Cronbach’s alpha is 0.822). The mean of the averaged
construct score is 2.10 on scale from – 3 till 3 (s.e. is 0.061), while skewness is -1.701 (s.e. is
0.167), showing a tendency to score on the positive side of the scale. Given (1) the highly
perceptual nature of this measurement potentially influenced by various individual and social
constructionist elements (Willems et al. 2014), (2) the presumable social desirability in such a
self-evaluation by managers (Green and Griesinger, 1996) and (3) the potentially substantial
common method bias resulting from probing in the same short questionnaire for both autonomy
and social entrepreneurship, we only use this measurement to clarify preliminarily the potential
(and mainly constructionist) relatedness of autonomy factors with social entrepreneurship.
Regardless these limitations for thorough interpretations it does however provide basis and a first
insight for developing more concrete avenues for further research.
We applied a convenience snowball sampling procedure and utilized several channels to
reach a variety of nonprofit managers. In total, 212 questionnaires were completed (from which
167 came from nonprofit mangers in developing countries including Bangladesh, India, Nepal or
Sri Lanka, 32 from Malawi, South Africa or Uganda, and 13 from elsewhere). Of all
respondents, 139 (65.6%) indicated they were one of the founders of the organization.
13
Subsequently, we performed an exploratory factor analysis on the 42 autonomy items (with vari-
max rotation) in order to discover independent autonomy factors. As our aim is exploratory, i.e.
discovering various and more concrete antecedents within internal and external autonomy, we
focused on extracting a variety of factors, rather than on proposing a few but robust factors (e.g.
for immediate further confirmatory analysis or hypotheses testing). Nevertheless, once the
various factors are documented, we verify internal consistency (based on cronbach’s alpha
values). This allows for the postulation of further steps, not only about methodological
improvements, but we can also investigate the relatedness of each of these factors with social
entrepreneurship. Hence, for the factors meeting the internal consistency criterion, we explore
their relatedness with the perception based measurement of social entrepreneurship. For this we
apply a partial least square structural equation model (SEM, with SmartPLS). The advantage of
such variance based structural equation analysis is that it enables the evaluation of the factors
regarding their explanatory value (in contrast to more traditional covariance based SEM analyses
that focus on validation a set of relations between various latent variables) (Ringle, et al., 2005;
Hair et al., 2012).
Results
For the rater analysis, two items could not be classified by one of the three raters. As a result
they were not included in the agreement test. All remaining items except one were classified the
same by the three raters. Consequently, the Fleiss’ Kappa value is both high and significant when
we tested the agreement among the raters (0.964; p < 0.001), and it is 0.973 (p < 0.001) when
comparing the raters’ classifications and the original classification. In general, we conclude high
content validity from this test. Furthermore, some minor changes on the wording of the items
14
were also performed based on the comments from the raters. The items not coded or for which
disagreement existed where changed and two new items were added to perform the next step of
our analysis (factor analysis).
For the factor analysis we use the eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalue of factor equal or lager
than 1) to decide on the number of factors. We acknowledge that this is an arbitrary cut-off point.
Yet, given the exploratory aim of our study, using this criterion resulted in a number of factors
that covers a substantial part of the variance observed in the items. As we have no prior
knowledge from earlier studies, at this stage we therefore consider it valuable to get a holistic
insight into the various potential autonomy antecedents. From the analysis, 10 factors emerged,
accounting for 61.0% of the observed variance. The factors are documented in Table 1 (along
with explained variances, factor loadings and Cronbach’s alpha values). We used 0.400 as the
cut-off to consider loadings relevant. With the same cut-off value, items with too low loadings
where excluded, and also items with too strong cross loadings (These 6 items are listed at the end
of Table 1).
Except for one factor (Factor 4), all factors can be classified as an antecedent within either
the internal or the external dimension. The first factor (explaining 23.4% of the total variance,
with Cronbach’s alpha 0.85), focuses on the existence of various internal procedures within the
organization. This factor contains 9 items from which 7 items are coded as internal autonomy
(Cronbach’s alpha value for only the internal autonomy items is 0.83). Therefore this factor can
predominantly be considered as an internal autonomy antecedent, although internal procedures
might be related to external elements such as external laws and regulations urging such internal
procedures (given the two external items loading on the same factor). The second factor
(explaining 8.5% of the total variance, with Cronbach’s alpha 0.84) is entirely composed of
15
external autonomy items and deals with the extent to which an organization adjusts its strategy
and practices based on preferences of funders and donors. In contrast, the third factor (explaining
7.0% of the total variance, with Cronbach’s alpha 0.72) entirely consists of internal autonomy
items, and focusses on the extent that employees within an organization are empowered to act
independently. The fourth factor (explaining 4.3% of the total variance, with Cronbach’s alpha
0.71) is a miscellaneous factor with two internal and two external items. However, the factor
deals with the extent that bottom-up and beneficiary-driven initiatives are encouraged in the
organization. This opens an interesting perspective that, at least in the context from which we
collected data, where beneficiaries are not necessarily seen as ‘being outside’ the organizations.
We discuss is the next section an important further avenue regarding the perceived boundaries of
a nonprofit organization when focusing on social entrepreneurship. The fifth factor (explaining
4.0% of the total variance, with Cronbach’s alpha 0.71), entirely consists of internal autonomy
items, and focusses on the extent to which relationships within the organization are informal and
have an ad-hoc approach. The remaining five factors discovered have either a low Cronbach’s
alpha value or only consist of one dominant item. Therefore, at this stage of our exploratory
analysis they add little value in terms of any further analysis. However, given that they emerged
from the exploratory analysis, they indicate the likeliness that other relevant factors, and thus
other potential antecedent might exist. In order to explore them, additional items in a subsequent
study could be useful. From the content of these items it appears as if they each focus on specific
elements such as the level of equal status among people in an organization, (need for)
communication with external stakeholder, relationships with other organizations in the sector,
and freedom to allocate financial recourses. Depending on the particular context, they might
deserver more attention for more in-depth insights.
16
We have analyzed the first five factors in relation to the perceptual measure of social
entrepreneurship by use of a partial least square path analysis. Each factor was modeled as an
independent variable to explain the perception based measurement of social entrepreneurship.
Comparing the average variances explained (AVE) of each construct’s items to each construct’s
squared correlations with the other constructs in the model – which can serve as a discriminant
evaluation of the factors and the measurement (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) – indicates that
constructs can be considered sufficiently different to be used in a single analysis. However, only
the fourth, and mixed factor regarding bottom-up beneficiary involvement appears to
significantly relate to the perception based measurement of social entrepreneurship (path
coefficient is 0.259; with R² of the social entrepreneurship measurement being rather limited to
0.154).
Discussion and further research
From our results we can derive some important further steps, both methodological and
theoretical. First, based on the factor analysis, and combining our findings with the rater analysis,
we were able to document several potential autonomy antecedents of social entrepreneurship,
and that these antecedents were situated either in the internal or in the external autonomy
dimension. This supports the theoretical value of differentiating between the two types of
autonomy. Also for further analysis, this opens opportunities to take a more focused but also
more robust approach to deepen insights into the two dimensions. For example, future studies
can focus on a set of particular antecedents in either the internal or the external dimension, but
with a more robust measurement and validation of antecedents and indicators of social
entrepreneurship. Preliminary, three potential internal antecedents were identified, respectively
17
dealing with degree to which (1) internal procedures have to be followed, (2) employees are
empowered to decide independently and (3) informal relationships are relevant within the
organizations. An additional external potential antecedent focusses on the extent to which
organizational decisions are dependent on preferences of funders and donors. However, none of
these factors seems to relate significantly to the preliminary measurement of social
entrepreneurship that we used. Of course, such finding urges a re-evaluation and or a more
elaborated version of this measurement.
Second, as one of the factors includes both internal and external items, and came up as the
only significant factor to the perception based measurement of social entrepreneurship, we need
a more clear-cut definition of the boundary between internal and external autonomy. The factor
at stake regards the extent that bottom-up initiatives, from beneficiaries, are encouraged within
an organization. As beneficiaries could from a traditional point of view be seen as external
stakeholders (Van Puyvelde et al., 2012) in the context of social entrepreneurship and/or grass
root initiatives, we might have to reconsider such classification. More concretely, involving
stakeholders that are at the core of an organization’s mission could be considered as a necessary
condition for good nonprofit governance (Willems et al. 2012), which in turn enables a more
entrepreneurial environment. In addition, this opens further avenues regarding the need for a
further exploration of nonprofit governance practices, such as intensively involving beneficiaries
and other stakeholders in the decision process, as potential antecedents of social
entrepreneurship. For example, one way to gain more insight into the role of beneficiary input is
to pay attention to membership organizations where the members are extensively involved in the
governance processes of the organization. Such focus can be applied to build a better
understanding of how autonomy is managed through beneficiary involvement and whether this
18
results in more favorable social entrepreneurial behaviors by members. Consequently, the impact
of power and power distribution in an organization might also deserve attention to fully
understand who is really in charge and who has the ability to influence the internal as well as
external side of autonomy. In this context, it might be relevant to elaborate in further studies on
potentially more complex theorizations where an optimal level of autonomy has to be managed,
between too much and too little autonomy in order to obtain the desired entrepreneurial behavior
of stakeholders to increase organizational performance (Rainey and Steinbauer, 1999).
Third, as the factor analysis shows, most likely more antecedents might be relevant. In
particular from a methodological point of view this urges the development of more robust
measurements to get additional insights in very concrete and manageable antecedents. One
element long considered an important element for independent action is organizational slack.
Including capacity, access to capital or lack of it – focused on with the slack concept – could be
used as very concrete measures of autonomy, to investigate impact on social entrepreneurship.
For example, to what extent are endowments and other forms of financial capacity related to
social entrepreneurship. Also, to what extent are nonprofits with different revenue models (e.g.
donative, commercial or mixed) more or less likely to engage in socially entrepreneurial efforts?
A second feature with the potential to impact the likelihood of socially entrepreneurial
organizational activity is life-stage. For example, as organizations age and in many cases get
bigger, they often become more bureaucratic and prone to inertia. At the same time, mature
organizations often have more resources and capacity as well as legitimacy. In contrast, new
organizations may be more nimble and willing to test new ideas but often lack the financial
muscles to put such ideas into practice. Finally, it seems feasible to think that not all nonprofits
have the same incentives or interest in socially entrepreneurship. Depending on the mission and
19
vision of the organization, some may not want to grow or test new ideas whereas others will
frequently develop new programs and test new things as part of their overarching mission (e.g.
arts organizations).
Conclusions and limitations
We made a literature based distinction between internal and external autonomy as areas of
potential antecedents for social entrepreneurship. Items derived from this literature were tested
for face validity with a rater analysis, and subsequently their factor structure was explored based
on survey responses form an online questionnaire. Several factors could be distinguished, and
could be classified as either an internal or an external antecedent. However, one particular factor
includes both internal and external items, which urges further research steps and theorization on
where the boundaries of organizations should be drawn for the particular context of social
entrepreneurship. Our preliminary interpretation focuses on the dynamic and early stage
character of social entrepreneurship, suggesting the relevance of bottom-up beneficiary
empowerment and stakeholder involvement in governance processes. We have provided several
options for further and more detailed research on how internal and external antecedents can be
further elaborated or in practice be quantified for further empirical validation.
As a way of further validation we aimed at investigating the relatedness of the factors found
with a perception based measurement of social entrepreneurship. However, we acknowledge the
substantial limitations that this might have caused with respect to common method bias, social
desirability and atomistic fallacy (Willems et al., 2014). Consequently, only limited
interpretations could be given to the single confirmed relationship between ‘bottom-up
beneficiary empowerment’ and perceived social entrepreneurship. Given this important
20
limitation, we suggest for further research a more objective and detailed, and potentially also an
external evaluation of social entrepreneurship.
References
Austin, J., Wei-Skillern, J., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship:
Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
Boschee, J. (2006). Migrating from innovation to entrepreneurship: How nonprofits are moving
toward sustainability and self-sufficiency. Minneapolis: Encore! Press.
Boyer, K. K., & Verma, R. 2000. Multiple raters in survey-based operations management
research: A review and tutorial. Production and Operations Management, 9(2): 128-140.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified
major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 223-244.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of cooperatives and mutual associations: a paradox
perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75(1), 11-32.
Dess, G. G., Lumpkin, G. T., & Covin, J. G. (1997). Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm
performance: tests of contingency and configuration models. Strategic management journal,
18(9), 677-695.
Fleiss J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological
Bulletin, 76(5): 378-383.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50.
21
Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 28(3), 246-268.
Galbraith, J. R. (1983). Designing the innovating organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10(3),
5-25.
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Lanwehr, R. (2003). The risks of autonomy: Empirical evidence for
the necessity of a balance management in promoting organizational innovativeness.
Creativity and innovation management, 12(1), 41-49.
Green, J. C., & Griesinger, D. W. (1996). Board performance and organizational effectiveness in
nonprofit social services organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6(4): 381-
402.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M. & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial
least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414-433.
Helm, S., & Andersson, F.O. (2010). Beyond Taxonomy: An Empirical Validation of Social
Entrepreneurship in the Nonprofit Sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(3),
259-276.
Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The
role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables.
Personnel psychology, 50(4), 877-904.
22
Jung, K., & Moon, M. J. (2007). The double‐edged sword of public‐resource dependence: The
impact of public resources on autonomy and legitimacy in Korean cultural nonprofit
organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 35(2), 205-226.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship in the American
corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Light, P. C. (2009). The search for social entrepreneurship. Washington DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance. Academy of management Review, 21(1), 135-172.
Lumpkin, G. T., Cogliser, C. C., & Schneider, D. R. (2009). Understanding and measuring
autonomy: An entrepreneurial orientation perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(1), 47-69.
Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial
processes in social contexts: how are they different, if at all?. Small Business Economics,
40(3), 761-783.
Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition.” Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.
McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118-131.
Morris, M. H., van Vuuren, J., Cornwall, J. R., & Scheepers, R. (2009). Properties of balance: A
pendulum effect in corporate entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 52(5), 429-440.
23
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., & Franklin, R. J. (2011). Understanding the manifestation of
entrepreneurial orientation in the nonprofit context. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 35(5), 947-971.
Nikolic, S. J., & Koontz, T. M. (2008). Nonprofit organizations in environmental management:
A comparative analysis of government impacts. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18(3), 441-463.
Nordqvist, M., Habbershon, T G., & Melin, L. (2008). Transgenerational entrepreneurship:
Exploring entrepreneurial orientation in family firms. In Entrepreneurship, sustainable
growth and performance: Frontiers in European entrepreneurship research, ed. H.
Landstrom, H. Crijns, E. Laveren and D. Smallbone, 93–116. London: Edward Elgar.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16(1), 145-179
Pearce, I. I., John, A., Fritz, D. A., & Davis, P. S. (2010). Entrepreneurial orientation and the
performance of religious congregations as predicted by rational choice theory.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 219-248.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. Harper Row.
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of
effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 9(1): 1-32.
24
Renz, D.O. & Andersson F.O. (2013). Nonprofit Governance: A Review of the Field. In
Nonprofit Governance Research: Innovative perspectives and approaches, Christopher
Cornforth & William Brown (Eds.) London: Routledge.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S. & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). Hamburg: www.smartpls.de
Robinson, M. (2001). The ten commandments of intrapreneurs. New Zealand Management,
48(11), 95–97.
Schön, D. A. (1963). Champions for radical new inventions. Harvard Business Review, 41(2),
77-86.
Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past
contributions and future opportunities. Strategic entrepreneurship journal, 3(2), 161-194.
Tsasis, P. (2009). The social processes of interorganizational collaboration and conflict in
nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit management and leadership, 20(1), 5-21.
Taylor, M., & Lansley, J. (2000). Relating the Central and the Local. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 10(4), 421-433.
Van Puyvelde, S., Caers, R., Du Bois, C. , & Jegers, M. (2012). The governance of nonprofit
organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3): 431-451.
Voss, Z. G., Voss, G. B., & Moorman, C. (2005). An empirical examination of the complex
relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support. European
Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1132-1150.
Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit
performance and effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and
25
Nonprofit Organizations, Published online before print: DOI: 10.1007/s11266-014-9446-
1
Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Weijters, B., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans,
R. (2012). Nonprofit Governance Quality: Concept and Measurement. Journal of Social
Service Research. 38(4): 561-579
26
Appendix: perceptual measurement of social entrepreneurship.
This question was asked to measure individual perception of Social Entrepreneurship (based on
work of Helm and Andersson, 2010).
Please read the following definition of Social Entrepreneurship carefully:
Social entrepreneurship is a catalytic behavior of nonprofit organizations that engenders value
and change in the sector, community, or industry, through the combination of innovation, risk
taking, and proactiveness.
In this definition:
(1) Innovation refers to: the creation and use of new programs, services, processes, policies in an
existing or new focus area of the organization.
(2) Risk-taking refers to: the willingness to engage in behavior that will alter the organizations
internal or external operating norms.
(3) Proactiveness refers to: the implementation of a program, service, policy, or process before
other organizations in the sector or community in response to new emerging opportunities.
Based on the above definition, please fill out the following three statements
<SCALE: Strongly Disagree (-3), Disagree (-2), Somewhat Disagree (-1), Neither Agree nor
Disagree (0), Somewhat Agree (1), Agree (2), Strongly Agree (3)>:
My organization can be considered a socially entrepreneurial organization
Donors and funders consider us a socially entrepreneurial organization
Similar service providers consider us a socially entrepreneurial organization
27
Table 1: Factor structure, factor loadings, internal consistency, explained variance and item descriptive of the autonomy scale.
Factor number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cronbach's alpha
0.849 0.842 0.716 0.713 0.709
0.591 0.33
0.3
Explained variance (in %)
23.36 8.517 7.022 4.301 3.896 3.232 2.967 2.663 2.53 2.491
Cumulative explained variance (in
%) 23.36 31.88 38.9 43.2 47.09 50.33 53.29 55.96 58.5 60.98
Items Mean
(St.Dev.)
Range
[min:max]
Factor 1
14 Our internal organizational
processes follow strict standards Internal .745 .149 .020 -.011 -.032 .099 -.027 .210 -.117 .088
2.00
(1.00) [-3:3]
20
In my organization, employees are
encouraged to follow standard
operating procedures as a basis for
their decision making.
Internal .702 .163 .006 .177 -.038 .180 .158 -.002 .006 -.004 1.85
(1.12) [-3:3]
4 Our organization has a strict chain
of command Internal .647 .303 -.019 -.056 .063 -.098 .126 -.030 -.013 .182
1.29
(1.55) [-3:3]
17
Anyone pursuing new opportunities
for this organization is expected to
obtain approval from the board
before making decisions.
Internal .634 .202 .073 .039 -.146 -.048 .136 .052 -.076 .129 1.87
(1.29) [-3:3]
19
When conducting a project,
employees in my organization have
to justify their actions at every stage
of development.
Internal .618 .208 .093 .149 -.025 .022 .176 .252 .130 -.167 1.67
(1.41) [-3:3]
8
In my organization, people are
expected to use existing strategies
as a basis for decision making.
Internal .574 .208 .032 .053 .156 .037 .140 .167 .149 -.279 1.59
(1.34) [-3:3]
28 The way our organization operates
is strongly regulated by state laws External .562 .186 .068 .240 .093 .007 -.278 .061 .368 .056
1.86
(1.32) [-3:3]
13
In my organization, we follow
documented procedures for our day-
to-day activities
Internal .558 .258 .225 .140 -.177 -.052 -.104 -.198 .128 .240 2.06
(1.08) [-2:3]
28
35
My organization adapts strategies to
comply with the expectations of
other organizations in the field
External .490 .333 .088 -.080 .383 .070 .080 .284 -.055 -.125 1.18
(1.64) [-3:3]
Factor 2
31
Our organization continually adjusts
its strategy based upon feedback
from important funders.
External .219 .758 .052 .075 .137 .005 .161 .092 -.011 .119 1.33
(1.59) [-3:3]
32
We seek to involve funders in our
decision-making processes to obtain
their support
External .135 .742 .101 -.043 .109 .169 -.079 -.034 -.075 .009 1.26
(1.61) [-3:3]
34
My organization makes strategic
decisions to comply with the
preferences of our funders
External .247 .729 .087 .091 .083 -.071 .123 -.044 -.013 -.092 1.28
(1.64) [-3:3]
29 Funders and donors have an impact
on how we deliver our services External .200 .674 -.049 .079 -.025 .008 .034 .149 .275 -.076
1.61
(1.49) [-3:3]
23
Our organization collaborates with
funders to shape our organizational
processes
External .208 .670 .292 .027 -.071 .042 -.055 .026 .139 .074 1.59
(1.38) [-3:3]
24
Our organization regularly makes
changes in operations based upon
feedback from donors.
External .197 .641 .078 .064 .211 -.008 .232 .098 -.021 .134 1.22
(1.68) [-3:3]
36
My organization attempts to
actively manage the expectations of
funders to our advantage
External .243 .533 .014 .111 .163 -.216 .035 .252 -.094 -.001 1.42
(1.56) [-3:3]
Factor 3
7
In my organization we believe that
the best results occur when people
decide for themselves what new
opportunities to pursue.
Internal .156 .063 .772 .090 .077 .080 -.166 .056 -.029 -.104 1.87
(1.26) [-3:3]
9
In my organization, input from
employees determines the selection
of new projects.
Internal .098 .249 .575 .167 .077 .028 .279 -.161 .054 .113 1.71
(1.16) [-3:3]
29
10
My organization supports the efforts
of members and employees that
work independently
Internal .118 .045 .465 .112 .359 .054 .364 .002 -.314 .033 1.82
(1.19) [-3:3]
6 In my organization we highly value
members that work independently Internal .080 .030 .428 .339 .237 -.106 .335 .272 -.123 .069
1.74
(1.33) [-3:3]
21
In our organization we believe that
employees operating outside the
organizational chain of command
get the best results
Internal .053 .303 .410 .106 .350 -.065 .158 .111 -.199 .054 0.67
(1.75) [-3:3]
Factor 4
39
Our organization aims to be
responsive to the preferences of our
beneficiaries
External .081 .054 .009 .789 .066 -.023 .181 .008 -.111 -.038 2.22
(0.96) [-3:3]
5
In my organization, bottom-up
initiatives play a major role in
identifying new strategic
opportunities
Internal .169 .089 .242 .728 .033 .151 .012 -.075 .152 .052 2.13
(0.96) [-2:3]
11
People in my organization are
encouraged to develop innovative
programs.
Internal .051 .037 .058 .635 -.090 .291 -.038 .336 .117 .109 2.44
(0.75) [-2:3]
37
My organization consciously
chooses to comply with the needs
and wants of our beneficiaries
External .381 .104 .114 .401 -.025 .161 -.071 -.021 .209 -.053 2.28
(0.79) [-2:3]
Factor 5
2
In our organization, informal norms
are at the base of our way of
working
Internal -.063 .140 .077 .136 .780 .040 .048 -.007 .031 -.085 1.28
(1.58) [-3:3]
22 In our organization, operations
depend on informal relationships. Internal .038 .049 .017 .021 .719 .170 .116 .188 .061 .197
1.05
(1.67) [-3:3]
16
In my organization, we disregard
procedures if the task at hand seems
to require it.
Internal -.080 .194 .248 -.118 .648 -.005 -.004 -.059 .166 .100 0.72
(1.8) [-3:3]
Factor 6
18 In my organization, people are
treated the same, regardless of rank Internal .127 -.114 .054 .228 .274 .621 .067 .111 .044 .264
2.18
(1.13) [-3:3]
30
or status.
Factor 7
40
My organization spends much time
and effort communicating with
external stakeholders
External .120 .229 .074 .104 .146 -.022 .709 .063 .179 .158 1.42
(1.32) [-3:3]
25
We spend as much time as possible
with our external stakeholders,
listening to what they have to say
about the organization.
External .398 .126 .190 -.002 .040 .314 .530 .102 .067 -.044 1.7
(1.33) [-3:3]
Factor 8
38
We seek to persuade other
organizations to endorse our
programs and projects
External .205 .288 .034 .047 .229 .024 .056 .532 .066 .163 1.32
(1.43) [-3:3]
30
In our organization we feel the need
to maintain good relationships with
other similar service providers
External .259 .169 .092 .297 -.203 .323 .032 .516 -.006 -.051 2.22
(0.83) [-2:3]
Factor 9
41
My organization dismisses demands
from funders if it is not in the best
interest of our mission
External .061 .000 -.027 .148 .142 .181 .279 .114 .725 .083 1.77
(1.48) [-3:3]
Factor 10
42
Our organization has the freedom to
decide where to allocate its financial
resources
External .025 .185 .047 .051 .113 .189 .127 .189 .043 .750 1.68
(1.44) [-3:3]
26
My organizations can decide to
change its strategic direction
without interference from external
actors
External .367 -.292 .208 .177 .218 .114 .073 -.098 .014 .407 1.75
(1.32) [-3:3]
Double or low loading items
31
1
In my organization, people are
encouraged to experiment in order
to identify new service opportunities
Internal -.109 .115 .486 .456 .106 .068 -.032 .271 .184 .168 2 (0.95) [-2:3]
3
In my organization, we believe that
employees are most effective if they
set their own goals and performance
targets
Internal .061 .185 .535 .000 -.037 .505 .166 .024 .136 .019 1.79
(1.34) [-3:3]
12
In my organization, people are
encouraged to think “outside the
box” when making decisions.
Internal .041 -.006 .059 .466 .161 .640 -.015 .038 .087 .116 2.14
(0.97) [-2:3]
15
In my organization, people can
choose themselves what approach
they take to achieve what is
expected from them
Internal .073 -.033 .508 .027 .194 -.020 .158 .455 .149 .194 1.43
(1.44) [-3:3]
27 The way our organization operates
is strongly regulated by federal laws External .537 .119 .152 .069 .169 -.067 -.082 -.062 .481 -.065
1.58
(1.49) [-3:3]
33
My organization actively seeks to
control the demands of external
stakeholders to our advantage
External .305 .383 .170 -.012 .268 -.371 .111 .327 .067 .184 0.85
(1.73) [-3:3]