CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Nonprofit Sector and VolunteeringLeadership and Management in OrganizationsEducational Leadership and Practices

Perceptions of board chair leadership effectiveness in nonprofit and voluntary sector organizations

Harrison, Yvonne, Murray, Vic, Cornforth, Chris·2013·VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations
DOI 10.1007/s11266-012-9274-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract This article reports on the results of a multi-year, multi-phase international quantitative research investigation into perceptions of board chair leadership impact in nonprofit and voluntary organizations in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Specifically, this research tests four hypotheses and a hypothesized model derived from theoretical perspectives on chair leadership effectiveness that emerged when the results of a prior grounded theory research investigation were reviewed ex post facto through the lens of leadership literature (see Harrison and Murray, NPML, accepted). The purpose of this phase of the research is to determine: (a) whether there is empirical support for the theoretical perspectives advanced; and (b) which perspective offers the best explanation for why some board chairs are perceived as having more impact in the role than others. The results suggest chair leadership effectiveness is best understood as a multi-dimensional theoretical construct explained by more than one leadership theory. The article concludes with a discussion of the findings and directions for further research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11266-012-9274-0

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ahmed et al. [107], Harrison et al. [108], Hur et al. [109], Potter et al. [110], and Schlechter and Strauss [111] have both leadership and team subcategories.

    “Meanwhile, Ahmed et al. [107], Harrison et al. [108], Hur et al. [109], Potter et al. [110], and Schlechter and Strauss [111] concur with leadership and team.”

    From Emotional intelligence, leadership, and work teams: A hybrid literature review. (2023) · cites this paper as [108]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Harrison, Y., Murray, V., & Cornforth, C.
Affiliations
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
  • York University (CA)
  • The Open University (GB)
Corresponding author
Harrison, Yvonne
ORCID
Cornforth, Chris
Venue
VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2013-09
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
688-712
ISSN
  • 0957-8765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7888
DOI
10.1007/s11266-012-9274-0
OpenAlex
W2152596324
Cited by
36
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 4505 d)
Locations
  • VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Online (The Open University) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Leadership and Practices
Keywords
leadership effectiveness, nonprofit organizations, board governance, leadership theory, stakeholder perspectives, nonprofit management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review