Mission statements and performance in non-profit organisations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore the relationship between mission statements and organisational performance in non-profit organisations. It also examines the role of organisational commitment in moderating that relationship. Design/methodology/approach – Invitations were sent to a network of non-profit organisations inviting them to complete an online survey. Usable responses were obtained from 117 respondents from 30 countries. Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses. Findings – The findings suggest that mission statements have a significant positive relationship with organisational performance. Also, organisational commitment, particularly affective commitment, moderates the relationship between mission statements and organisational performance. Research limitations/implications – The results confirm that the relationship between mission statements and organisational performance is complex. The study of intervening variables is a worthwhile program of research. Practical implications – The findings suggest that non-profit organisations can improve performance by communicating their mission and building emotional commitment to their cause. Originality/value – This is one of the first studies to examine the role of organisational commitment in influencing the relationship between mission statements and performance. This study contributes to our understanding of the impact of mission statements on performance in non-profit organisations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it