Agency Problems between Managers and Employees in Nonprofit Organizations: A Discrete Choice Experiment

Most principal–agent literature of nonprofit organizations has focused on the relationship between board members and managers. However, in addition to the role as an agent of the board, the manager also performs a role as principal with respect to the nonprofit employees. By using a discrete choice experiment, we identify the objectives of managers and employees in nonprofit organizations and assess the presence of agency problems in this relationship. Our sample consists of 76 headmasters, 161 teachers, and 39 administrative employees in 74 secondary nonprofit schools in Belgium. We find that the six objectives set out in the experiment play an important role for both headmasters and subordinate staff. However, the results also indicate that some of these objectives are significantly more important for the headmasters. In sum, our results suggest that agency theory and stewardship theory are not necessarily in conflict with each other but can be combined into a more general governance framework for nonprofit organizations. Consequently, we argue that incentive structures that incorporate different types of objectives can facilitate the recruitment and retention of employees in nonprofit organizations.     

The importance of building alliances

This may come as a surprise to Gen-Xers, but on-the-job allies are a political necessity. Information and support from workplace alliances are vital to doing your job. Your peers, boss, subordinates, and even enemies, can and should be in your network of allies. How do you build alliances? It's accomplished by cultivating relationships based on mutual benefit and interest. Information and favors are traded on a quid pro quo basis. Your peers, subordinates, and boss have different needs but they share some goals with you. Goals are the common denominator. Consider the following ways to cultivate your network of allies: Be a reliable news source; offer feedback; be congenial; share expertise; consult; strive to be a role model; don't demand credit; don't wait for recognition; articulate your needs; share a hot idea; save face for someone; and connect people who can help each other.     

Managing the deliberately mute

The contrast in communication styles and values between Gen-Xers, now mostly in their mid to late twenties, and forty- and fifty-somethings is obvious. Gen-Xers are focused on the assignment and the deadline; their goal is to do good work in a timely manner. But they are highly skeptical that enthusiasm has any influence on the outcome. When we question them about their taciturn manner, they all give us the same two reasons: They really don't care one way or the other and they're convinced that what they say doesn't matter anyhow. This may frustrate a manager charged with getting the buy-in or enthusiastic participation from the troops, but it's a fact. There are, however, ways to get Xers to talk--provided you really want their ideas and opinions and you acknowledge that you hear what they say. Here are the best techniques from those who successfully manage large numbers of the young, including young physicians: (1) Focus on what matters; (2) don't ask if you're not going to act on the feedback; (3) personalize your request for information; and (4) always do a worst case scenario when you need the buy-in.     

Fired? Here's an exit strategy

Who gets fired in a boom job market? People are fired more often for things they failed to do than for mistakes they made. The new rules of engagement are: There is no probationary period; resistance to technology is a quick ticket out; a lack of emotional commitment to the role you're hired to play is usually fatal; personality defects that keep others from producing are not tolerated. The most common reason for being fired, however, is lack of fit. Whether you're laid off or fired, don't ask for explanations. The fact is, the people with the power to get rid of you don't want you to stay. What matters is maximizing what they'll do for you on departure. To get the most favorable terms with the least financial and ego damage, here's a game plan: (1) Get a favorable reference--in writing--from your boss; (2) gather work samples and good performance appraisals you've received; (3) negotiate for as much severance pay as possible; (4) negotiate for outplacement assistance; (5) gather contact names from co-workers; and (6) leave in style.     

Are you obsolete?

Are you vulnerable, regardless of length of service at your organization and your unique skill sets? There are ways to test vulnerability and assemble some hard evidence that your management role makes a difference. You need to conduct a self-test for obsolescence. Ask yourself the following questions: Are your skills state-of-the-art? As a manager, how do you compare with others doing the same, or similar, job at competing organizations? Is your role essential? Where does your job fall into the big picture? Can you be replaced easily? If a thorough examination of your skills and your role convinces you that your contribution returns more to the organization than your salary, can you prove it? Consider these strategies: (1) Put together a portfolio, (2) ensure your boss' support, (3) advertise your successes, and (4) cultivate recruiters. The best reason to analyze your value to the organization is that if you are laid off, getting another comparable job--or a better one--will be far less of a hassle.     

Calculating the density and distribution function for the singly and doubly noncentral F

Simple, closed form saddlepoint approximations for the distribution and density of the singly and doubly noncentral F distributions are presented. Their overwhelming accuracy is demonstrated numerically using a variety of parameter values. The approximations are shown to be uniform in the right tail and the associated limitating relative error is derived. Difficulties associated with some algorithms used for exact computation of the singly noncentral F are noted.     

Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults

This study examines the direct and indirect relationships among racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress in a sample of 555 African American young adults. A prospective study design was used to assess the influence of two dimensions of racial identity attitudes (i.e., centrality and public regard) on other study variables to investigate the relationship between racial identity attitudes and psychological distress. The results show some evidence of a direct relationship between racial centrality and psychological distress, as well as evidence of indirect relationships for both centrality and public regard through the impact of racial discrimination and perceived stress. In addition, racial centrality was both a risk factor for experiencing discrimination and a protective factor in buffering the negative impact of discrimination on psychological distress. Results are discussed within the context of identifying multiple pathways to psychological well-being for African American young adults within the context of racial discrimination.     

Daubert v. Merrell Dow pharmaceuticals: Toward a better relationship between law and science

[Scientists] are neither Gods nor charlatans; they are merely experts, like every other expert on the political stage. They have, of course, their special area of expertise, the physical world, but their knowledge is no more immaculate than that of economists, health policy makers, police officers, legal advocates, weather forecasters, travel agents, car mechanics, or plumbers. The expertise that we need to deal with them is the well‐developed expertise of everyday life; it is what we use when we deal with plumbers and the rest. Plumbers are not perfect-far from it‐but society is not beset with anti‐plumbers because being anti-plumbing is not a choice available to us.1     

Expressing Induced Emotions Through Free Dance Movement

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of two basic emotions, happiness and sadness, on dance movement. A total of 32 adult participants were induced to feel emotional states of either happiness or sadness and then danced intuitively to an emotionally ‘neutral’ piece of music, composed specifically for the experiment. Based on an Effort-Shape analysis of body movement, full body movement was captured and seven different movement cues were examined, in order to explore whether differences in corporeal articulations between the happy and sad condition existed. Results revealed that in the happy condition, participants moved faster, with more acceleration, and made more expanded and more impulsive movements than in the sad condition. Results are discussed with respect to possible consequences for future research on human movement.