Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
This article advances the moral philosophical concept of supererogation as a sociological process through which organizational action outstrips externally imposed evaluative demands. It illuminates this process by following 200 nonprofits in the San Francisco Bay Area from 2002 to 2016, when they became subject to myriad accountability obligations. Interviews, surveys, and content analyses show that nonprofits chafed against compulsory reporting and evaluative standards, regarding them as ill-suited to their work and goals. Contrary to current perspectives in organizational theory, however, nonprofits neither minimized external scrutiny nor conformed to external criteria. Instead, they disclosed more information than required. Despite nonprofits’ misgivings about oversight obligations, they nevertheless identified with the broader ideal of accountability these demands represented. Navigating this tension, nonprofits repurposed newly salient evaluative practices as tools through which unique goals and values could be given facticity. Through supererogation, nonprofits surpassed mere compliance and pursued accountability in organizationally distinctive ways.
American Journal of Sociology – University of Chicago Press
Published: Jan 1, 2023
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.