NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2,
Winter 2006 © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 137
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nml.139
SPECIAL ISSUE INTRODUCTION
The Centrality of Values,
Passions, and Ethics in the
Nonprofit Sector
Joyce Rothschild, Carl Milofsky
N
ONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS are grounded in their members’
values and passions and sustained by the bonds of trust that
develop within and between them. They are the organiza-
tional expression of their members’ ethical stance toward the
world:
nonprofit organizations, by way of their very existence and
practices,
convey a public statement of what their members see as a better,
more caring, or more just world. This is why they come into
being
in the first place. Business firms, by way of contrast, are fueled
by a
profit motive. If market opportunities take them away from their
original products or services and toward some new product line,
this
is accepted and even considered a sign of good management so
long

as returns on equity improve and profit accumulation grows.
Public
agencies are guided by statutory dictate: laws that are passed
and
signed by representatives of the electorate. Nonprofit
organizations
have neither of these limitations or anchors. They are born of
human
needs perceived but not served by existing markets or
government
statute. To understand the nonprofit sector, we must understand
the
substantive values and ethics that people hold—that is, the
qualities
of life they want to realize that are not being achieved through
profit-
seeking or governmental organizations.
Once we remind ourselves of the substantive values that give
rise
to nonprofit efforts, we can begin to grasp the more involving,
dis-
cursive, and democratic form of organization that the nonprofit
sec-
tor invites. Indeed, part of what people may want to accomplish
in
nonprofit organizations may have as much to do with
constructing
an authentically democratic form of organization in which
ordinary
people get to practice democracy and voice as it does with the
desire
to achieve specific goals (Rothschild and Whitt, 1986). As such,
the
processes of the organization may prove to be as important to
the participants as the goals, and this may be an equally

important
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
1 3 8 R O T H S C H I L D , M I L O F S K Y
way in which nonprofit organizations distinguish themselves
from
for-profit or state agencies.
In a world of resource scarcity, however, and as they age, non-
profit organizations have been noted to become more
bureaucratic
and to adopt practices and goals indistinguishable from those in
their
environment (Wood, 1992). They may come to sell products and
services in a market, just as for-profit enterprises do. They have
been
known to accept grants that are attractive and available but do
not
fit their mission. They are subject to the pressures of
organizational
isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1988) and follow the
fashions
of their institutional fields rather than the logical dictates of
their
mission and core values. They are often scrutinized by the
public
and regulated by government or institutional associations, and
as a
result, they may adapt to fit conventionally accepted images of
proper management style and organizational form. In all of
these
ways, hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of organization from

the
government and for-profit sectors may end up being imported to
the nonprofit sector, all in the name of “maturity,”
“appropriateness,”
“growth,” and even “accountability.”
This special issue of Nonprofit Management and Leadership
asks
under what conditions nonprofit organizations can manage to
stick
to, and deepen, the specific values, passions, and ethics from
which
they sprang, not how they can “mature” into full-blown
bureaucratic
organizations with extensive rules, procedures, and professional
staffs. We ask how the egalitarian ethos and the commitment of
vol-
unteers who animate the beginnings of so many of these
organiza-
tions can be sustained. In our view, this question ought to be
among
the central issues of scholarship related to nonprofit
management
and theory, and through this special issue of NML we hope to
stim-
ulate further research and dialogue on it. This special issue
grew out
of an effort by members of the Community and Grassroots
Organi-
zations Section of the Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action to present research that
helps
to frame and understand this area of discussion.
Research on for-profit businesses does not fail to study the rela-
tive success of such organizations in terms of market position,

return
on equity, profit margins, or growth of earnings. Recent
discussions of
business organizations may add to the analysis newer metrics
having
to do with corporate social responsibility, but most business
analysts
would consider the latter irrelevant if it diminished profit
growth.
Government agencies are held accountable to their purposes, as
set
forth in statutes, and employees are expected to administer or
imple-
ment the law whether or not they personally believe in it. This
pre-
sents a formidable impediment to employee voice, much less
worker
empowerment and self-management, in the public sector (Behn,
2005). Indeed, business enterprises that depend on their
employees
for creative ideas and inventions have been much quicker to
grasp the
motivational advantages of a less hierarchical and more
democratic
To understand the
nonprofit sector,
we must
understand the
substantive
values and ethics
that people hold.

T H E C E N T R A L I T Y O F VA L U E S , PA S S I O N S ,
A N D E T H I C S 1 3 9
workplace and thus engaged workforce, and they have gone
much fur-
ther down this road than has the public sector (Rothschild,
2000). The
nonprofit sector, however, stands alone in appealing only to
those who
believe in the qualitative purposes of the organization. Why else
vol-
unteer or seek employment with a nonprofit organization? The
other
sectors of society generally pay more and rely not at all on
volunteers
to get their work tasks done. It would be most unusual if
employers
in the for-profit or public sectors even asked individuals during
the
hiring process whether they believed in the profit motive or in
the statute that defined the public agency. Only in the nonprofit
orga-
nization is commitment to a substantive value a determinant of
employment or volunteer service (Oster, 1995).
Despite the substantive values that form the premise of the non-
profit sector and motivate the beginnings of these organizations,
the
values and ethics of participants are understudied and often
over-
looked in the research on nonprofit organizations. This may be
partly
due to the relative methodological difficulty of getting a handle

on
values, passions, and ethics. Surely the metrics of performance
used
in the for-profit world and even in the public sector are easier to
mea-
sure. This, however, is not the whole story, because as a field
we
could do a better job of assessing the extent to which nonprofit
orga-
nizations accomplish their original missions. Students of for-
profit
enterprise do not generally forget to look at profits and losses,
just
as students of public sector organizations do not forget the
statute-
based purposes of those organizations, but we believe that too
often
practitioners and students of nonprofits get sidetracked by a
lens bor-
rowed from the for-profit (dominant) sector. In this way,
nonprofit
practitioners may come to think that they need to emulate the
for-
mal and hierarchical organizational structures that, as Weber
warned
over a hundred years ago, can only eliminate substantive values
from
the effective equation. Concerns with efficiency can come to
crowd
out devotion to substantive purpose, bringing in place of those
qual-
itative purposes “accountability” data that can be used to justify
and
protect the organization but add little to its actual services and
for-
mal rules and procedures that only discourage formerly devoted

volunteers and staff from participating.
We frequently hear lip-service paid to the importance of the
qual-
itative mission or purpose in a nonprofit organization. However,
because many nonprofit scholars are most interested in what
David
Horton Smith (1997a, 1997b) calls “large, paid-staff
nonprofits,” the
realistic target of work in the field often has shifted to how
nonprofit
organizations can generate enough resources to survive and how
they
can adopt top-down managerial styles that make drift from the
founding mission (Sills, 1957; Jeavons, 1994) the norm rather
than
the exception. Within this context, we ask in this special
volume of
NML what it means to wed values and structure.
We begin this special issue with a fascinating account of
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) written by Thomasina Borkman.
The nonprofit
sector stands
alone in
appealing only to
those who believe
in the qualitative
purposes of the
organization.
Borkman shows how the founding conception, specific history,

and
leadership of AA combined to develop an organization where
empathic and egalitarian values are not just spoken, but are key
to
the very method by which the organization helps people. As she
shows, the shared experience of equals is the essence of the
method
and purpose of AA, without which it would be unable to stir
personal
transformation. As AA wedded its original values and purposes
to its
organizational structure, it ended up establishing a
decentralized,
experience-based, egalitarian method and template emulated by
hun-
dreds of other self-help organizations.
In the next article in this issue, Elizabeth Hoffmann analyzes
worker cooperatives, pointing out that they are hybrid
organizations.
Like nonprofit organizations, they are set up to serve social
needs and
substantive values. Like businesses, they seek to produce a
livelihood
for their worker-owner members, but unlike conventional
businesses,
they are not profit maximizing. They have social purposes and
egal-
itarian values as well. Hoffmann shows in her analysis of
workers in
cooperative enterprises in comparison to workers in
conventional
capitalist-owned enterprises that the cooperative organizations
engender considerably more loyalty. This may be “ironic,” as
she puts
it, because while greater loyalty leads people to work harder for

the
co-op than they would for a conventional firm that they did not
own,
it may also lead them to express more grievance about or
criticism
of the co-op. Hoffmann’s work reminds us that the greater
commit-
ment and loyalty that can be generated in nonprofit
organizations
should not be expected to produce more quietude or conformity.
The next article, Hillel Schmid’s review of the leadership
research, indicates that there are many valid styles of leadership
and
explores how those different styles may fit with different
structures
and contexts so that values and mission can best be
implemented in
the nonprofit sector. Organizational age, distinctive
technologies, and
external constituencies create different leadership demands.
Some-
times leaders must be charismatic and visionary in order to
create a
following for a certain project. But at other times, routinized
leader-
ship that emphasizes accountability is needed for the requisite
tasks
to be carried out. Schmid reminds us that values and passions
may
find appropriate expression in bureaucracies too.
Rachel Christensen and Alnoor Ebrahim ground their examina-
tion of accountability processes in their concrete observations
of how
these processes unfolded in a refugee resettlement organization

they
studied. In the context of the resource dependency that most
non-
profits experience and the sometimes counterproductive ways
that some nonprofits have been known to adapt to donor
demands,
Christensen and Ebrahim emphasize the other side of the coin:
how
donors can be reminded of the organization’s original purposes
and
their accountability processes shaped to help serve those
purposes.
In their vivid account of “spoon counting” in this resettlement
agency, the authors shed needed light on the sorts of
accountability
The greater
commitment and
loyalty that can
be generated
in nonprofit
organizations
should not be
expected to
produce more
quietude or
conformity.

measures that can burden the local organization with tedium in
con-
trast to the sorts of accountability processes that can aid
organiza-
tional learning and thus help the local organization to improve
the
value, reach, and ethics of the service it provides.
In the final article, Max Stephenson and Marcy Schnitzer exam-
ine humanitarian relief efforts: large international efforts that of
necessity require the coordination of many relief organizations.
In
the confusing, sometimes competitive, emergency situations in
which
humanitarian relief organizations must do their work,
Stephenson
and Schnitzer show why the traditional top-down, hierarchical
model
of giving orders in a relief theater does not work. They suggest,
in its
place, a network model of semiautonomous organizations. In a
net-
worked context, preexisting organizational relationships of trust
become the key to effective coordination and quick action. It is
trust
in the ethics and competence of other organizations that makes
large
relief efforts possible.
In a classic piece, David Horton Smith (1997a, 1997b) argued
that the “dark matter of the nonprofit universe” was being
ignored.
By “dark matter” he was referring to small nonprofit
organizations
where many participants are volunteers and activities often are

not
funded by government or foundations. People participate and
these
entities survive only because they take on challenges that
people
believe in and that their members believe are not or cannot be
met
by for-profit or governmental institutions.
Surely, bureaucratic templates and power-centralizing processes
have been known to pressure, displace, or gut original purposes
and
democratic processes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1988; Leach,
2006;
Milofsky, 1988; Rothschild and Whitt, 1986; Stinchcombe and
Smith,
1975; Taylor, 1979; Sills, 1957). This was the main point of
Michels’s
famous “iron law of oligarchy” (1949). But if large associations
evolve
toward becoming more impersonal, unethical, and guided solely
by
economistic value, does this mean that they started as
something
different—as the opposite? On this question we do not have as
much
research as we would like. We do not wish to romanticize small
orga-
nizations since small organizations may face problems of
incompe-
tence and fraud (Cnaan, 1996), cliques that gain control and do
not
accept newcomers or people who are different (Wuthnow,
1994),
deceptiveness about mission (Milofsky, 1997), and insufficient
scope

to accomplish great purposes. At the same time, we know that
large,
bureaucratic, and centralized structures have been the undoing
of
many values-based undertakings.
Although the articles in this issue address various aspects of
behavior in nonprofit organizations, taken together we believe
they
suggest the utility of bringing our focus in the field of
nonprofits back
to the shared values, ethics, and passions that give rise to these
orga-
nizations in the first place. Clearly, these organizations must
invent
or grapple with ways to accomplish their substantive purposes,
while
still developing the directly democratic forms of management
that are
A N D E T H I C S 1 4 1
Large,
bureaucratic, and
centralized
structures have
been the undoing
of many
values-based
undertakings.

often a coequal part of their original purpose. The staff and
volunteers
who start and join these organizations have a distinct vision of a
just
world, of some aspect of an ethical world, and a desire to play a
per-
sonal and significant role in bringing that valued vision into
being.
This means that to be true to their purpose and potential, non-
profit organizations must attend to both: their substance and
their
form, as their substantial purposes cannot be achieved outside
of a
consistent managerial form. As human values and public ethics
can
come to be considered and known only through a dialogic and
democratic forum, we believe that organizations that are values
dri-
ven raise questions and opportunities for the study of
participatory
methods of managing organizations. For this reason, we hope
that
this special issue of NML will encourage others who are
interested in
the nonprofit sector to focus on which management methods and
organizational structures can best achieve substantive human
values
and fidelity to the images of justice that people hold dearly.
JOYCE ROTHSCHILD is professor of sociology, School of
Public and Inter-
national Affairs, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
CARL MILOFSKY is professor of sociology, Department of
Sociology and
Anthropology, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
References
Behn, R. “The New Public Management Paradigm and the
Search for
Democratic Accountability.” International Public Management
Journal, 2005, 1 (2), 131–164.
Cnaan, R. A. “Confronting Crisis: When Should the Board Step
In?”
In M. M. Wood (ed.), Nonprofit Boards and Leadership: Cases
on
Governance, Change, and Board-Staff Dynamics. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1996.
DiMaggio, P., and Powell, W. “The Iron Cage Revisited.” In C.
Milofsky
(ed.), Community Organizations: Studies in Resource
Mobilization and
Exchange. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Jeavons, T. When the Bottom Line Is Faithfulness: Management
of
Christian Service Organizations. Bloomington: Indiana
University
Press, 1994.
Leach, D. “The Way Is the Goal: Ideology and the Practice of
Collec-
tivist Democracy in German New Social Movements.”

Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 2006.
Michels, R. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the
Oligarchical
Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Free Press, 1949.
(Originally published in 1911.)
Milofsky, C. “Structure and Process in Community Self-Help
Orga-
nizations.” In C. Milofsky (ed.), Community Organizations:
Studies
in Resource Mobilization and Exchange. New York: Oxford
Univer-
sity Press, 1988.
Milofsky, C. “Organization from Community. A Case Study of
Con-
gregational Renewal.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly,
1997, 26 (suppl.), S139–S160.
Oster, S. M. Strategic Management for Nonprofit Organizations:
Theory
and Cases. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Rothschild, J. “Creating a Just and Democratic Workplace:
More
Engagement, Less Hierarchy.” Contemporary Sociology, 2000,
29 (1),

195–213.
Rothschild, J., and Whitt, J. A. The Cooperative Workplace:
Poten-
tials and Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy and
Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Sills, D. The Volunteers: Means and Ends in a National
Organization.
New York: Free Press, 1957.
Smith, D. H. “The Rest of the Nonprofit Sector: Grassroots
Associa-
tions as the Dark Matter Ignored in the Prevailing ‘Flat Earth’
Maps
of the Sector.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
1997a, 26,
114–131.
Smith, D. H. “Grassroots Associations Are Important: Some
Theory
and a Review of the Impact Literature.” Nonprofit and
Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 1997b, 26, 269–306.
Stinchcombe, A. L., and Smith, T. W. “The Homogenization of
the
Administrative Structure of American Industries, 1940–1970.”
Unpublished manuscript, National Opinion Research Center,
1975.
Taylor, R.C.R. “Free Medicine.” In J. Case and R. Taylor (eds.),
Co-ops,
Communes, and Collectives. New York: Pantheon Books, 1979.

Wood, M. M. “Is Governing Board Behavior Cyclical?”
Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 1992, 3 (2), 139–162.
Wuthnow, R. Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and
America’s New
Quest for Community. New York: Free Press, 1994.
A N D E T H I C S 1 4 3
For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.
Document 1 of 1
Factors influencing ethical climate in a nonprofit organisation:
An empirical investigation
Author: David Cruise Malloy; Agarwal, James
ProQuest document link
Abstract: Drawing from Victor and Cullen's theoretical
framework a recent study by Agarwal and Malloy
examined ethical work climate dimensions in the context of a
nonprofit organisation. This paper reviews the
framework and extends the study further by investigating
several factors that influence the perception of ethical
work climate in a nonprofit organisation. The multiple analysis
of variance (MANOVA) procedure is employed to
test nine hypotheses. Results demonstrate somewhat unique
findings regarding factors that influence ethical

climate perception in a nonprofit context. Specifically, the
findings of this study point to the level of education,
decision style and the influence that superiors and volunteers
have upon ethical perception. Results also
demonstrate that factors that have been employed traditionally
by for-profit management, such as length of
service, codes of ethics, size of the organisation and peer
pressure, do not effectively influence ethical
perception in the nonprofit context. Finally implications of this
study are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Links: Linking Service
Subject: Nonprofit organizations; Studies; Variance analysis;
Organizational behavior; Business ethics;
Location: United Kingdom, UK
Classification: 9540: Non-profit institutions; 9130:
Experimental/theoretical; 9175: Western Europe; 2410:
Social responsibility; 2500: Organizational behavior
Publication title: International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing
Volume: 8
Issue: 3
Pages: 224-250
Publication year: 2003
Publication date: Aug 2003
Publisher: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc.
Place of publication: London
Country of publication: United States
Publication subject: Social Services And Welfare, Business And
Economics--Marketing And Purchasing
ISSN: 14654520
Source type: Scholarly Journals
Language of publication: English
Document type: Feature
Document feature: tables charts references
ProQuest document ID: 236418848

http://search.proquest.com/docview/236418848?accountid=1487
2
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com/waldenu?url_ver=Z39.88-
2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&
sid=ProQ:ProQ:abiglobal&atitle=Factors%20influencing%20eth
ical%20climate%20in%20a%20nonprofit%20organisation:%20A
n%20empirical%20investigation&title=International%20Journal
%20of%20Nonprofit%20and%20Voluntary%20Sector%20Marke
ting&issn=14654520&date=2003-08-
01&volume=8&issue=3&spage=224&au=David%20Cruise%20
Malloy;Agarwal,%20James&isbn=&jtitle=International%20Jour
nal%20of%20Nonprofit%20and%20Voluntary%20Sector%20Ma
rketing&btitle=&rft_id=info:eric/&rft_id=info:doi/
Document URL:
2
Copyright: Copyright Henry Stewart Conferences and
Publications Ltd. Aug 2003
Last updated: 2014-02-08
Database: ProQuest Central
_____________________________________________________
__________
Contact ProQuest
- Terms
and Conditions
2
http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupport
http://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionsFactors
influencing ethical climate in a nonprofit organisation: An
empirical investigation

Public Integrity, Summer 2007, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 245–263.
© 2007 ASPA. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1099-9922/2007 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PIN1099-9922090304
An Analysis of
Codes of Ethics
of Nonprofit,
Tax-Exempt
Membership
Associations
Does Principal Constituency
Make a Difference?
GARY M. GROBMAN
Abstract
This article considers and explores the connection between the
nature of the principal
constituencies of nonprofit, tax-exempt, national and
international trade and profes-
sional associations and the contents of the formal ethics codes
promulgated by those
associations. An empirical study analyzes differences in ethics
code content based
upon whether the association constituencies are principally
nonprofit, for-profit, or
government. It includes a content analysis of 150 association
ethics codes and tests
whether the constituencies of such associations influence code
content.

The nonprofit sector has recently been under scrutiny for proven
and alleged ethical
lapses, contributing to a more cynical attitude by the public
with respect to the mo-
tives of those who lead nonprofit organizations. The alleged
deceptive fund-raising
practices of the American Red Cross in the early months
following the September
11, 2001, terrorist attacks focused the public’s attention on the
fund-raising practices
of one of the most trusted national charities. An about-face on
the policy occurred,
contributing to the firing of the organization’s CEO (Wilhelm
and Williams 2001);
more recently, scandal affected several local chapters of the
organization (Atkisson
2002; WNDU 2005). In the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
hundreds of new charities
246 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SUMMER 2007
Gary M. Grobman
blossomed overnight, many of them illegitimate, prompting the
Federal Trade Com-
mission to issue warnings to unwary donors (Federal Trade
Commission 2006).
The 1980s and 1990s witnessed even more embarrassing
scandals that rocked the
voluntary sector and increased public cynicism concerning the
destination of its
charitable largesse. Among others, the scandals involved the
United Way of America,
televangelists Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, the national

Episcopal Church,
Covenant House, the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People
(NAACP), and the Foundation for New Era Philanthropy (Coble
1999). These
episodes have focused attention on increasing the accountability
of America’s tax-
exempt charities, although Americans continue to have a basic
trust in the nonprofit
sector generally (Independent Sector 2002).
Creating an ethics code is one strategy among a menu of options
that organizations
use to demonstrate a commitment to and involvement in
promoting an ethical work-
ing environment. Other strategies include forming an ethics
committee, establishing
an ethics helpline to resolve ethical dilemmas, offering training
to employees, and
conducting ethics audits (Weber 1996).
The purpose of this article is to explore the role of ethics codes
in organizational
life and to begin the discussion of what provisions are
appropriate or the norm for
professional and trade associations. Among the topics addressed
are the functions of
a code, typical content of a code, and some history about the
organizations that have
codes. This paper provides an empirical study identifying
patterns in the content of
ethics codes of a sample of nonprofit, tax-exempt trade and
professional associations
within a small, distinct geographic area.
Literature Review

A number of writers have defined the component elements that
constitute a code
of ethics. Among them are “systematic efforts to define
acceptable conduct” (Plant
2001, 309), “a collection of aspirations, regulations, and/or
guidelines that represent
the values of the group or profession to which it applies”
(Pritchard 1998, 527), and
“a published statement of the set of values and moral
aspirations of a given profes-
sion, developed in an effort to prevent corrupt behavior as well
as communicate
professional behavioral standards to the public at large” (Bruce
1998).
Codes of ethics are viewed as a means for expressing one’s
professional identity
(Weaver 1993) and as “a mark of a profession” (Pritchard 1998,
530). Weaver (1993)
suggests two divergent explanations for the adoption of ethics
codes in organiza-
tions. The first is to promote ethical action. The second is for
instrumental reasons
related to profit maximization, such as to avoid irreparable
harm to the organization
that may result from unethical behavior. Another instrumental
reason is to give the
impression that the organization can police itself and thus avoid
costly regulation.
A code can also serve as a vehicle to address social issues, such
as discrimination
or social welfare, or to clarify relationships among members of
an organization.
A code serves as “an important focus for group loyalty and

shared values,”
The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Dr.
Jeremy Plant of Penn
State University, who served as chair of the doctoral
dissertation “An Analysis of Ethics
Codes of Nonprofit, Tax-Exempt Membership Associations:
Does Principal Constituency
Make a Difference?” upon which this paper is based.
Codes of Ethics of Nonprofit, Tax-Exempt Membership
Associations
P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SUMMER 2007 • 247
Pritchard observes (1998, 530). She adds that, historically,
professional associations
typically had a monolithic base of membership, drawing their
members from a pool
with the same social and cultural background. Today’s
professional association is
likely to be much more diverse, and its members not as likely to
share a common
moral philosophy. Thus the code is a strategy that serves the
purpose of laying out
the common values to which the group aspires.
Codes of ethics are a method of control over the behavior of
subordinates,
particularly when highly detailed. As Frankel (1989) points out,
codes may offer
organizational guidance to individuals facing novel situations,
provide a basis for
public expectations, strengthen an organization’s sense of

common purpose, deter
unethical behavior, and offer support to those who feel they are
under pressure to
act unethically.
Another function of a code of ethics is to provide guidance to
organization
members in resolving dilemmas when they must choose among
competing values
(Plant 2001). A code of ethics is viewed as a tangible method
for organizations to es-
tablish a need to encourage or compel ethical
behavior and demonstrate a commitment to
that end (Wood 2000), and a way to transmit
ethical values to an organization’s members
(Wotruba, Chonko, and Loe 2001). Also, a
code is a statement to external stakeholders,
serving as a “warranty to customers and cli-
ents of how a business will conduct itself in regard to basic
moral principles like
honesty and fairness” (Pritchard 1998, 530). Some observers
view organizational
ethics codes as simply a mechanism to fend off litigation
(Dobson 2005). One
distinguishing feature of a profession is simply having a code of
ethics (Adams,
Tashchian, and Stone 2001). Developing an ethical code often
brings to the fore
controversial issues of what is morally right and wrong
professional behavior.
Codes of Ethics Typologies
The literature of public administration is rich with efforts to
find some order and
structure in the content of ethics codes. This article seeks to

build on previous ef-
forts to find common themes among highly individualized and
diverse documents.
Pritchard (1998) writes that codes typically include an
introductory set of general,
aspirational principles that are indistinguishable from those
adopted by other pro-
fessional groups. Hemphill (1992) suggests that associations
should include three
types of provisions in their codes: economic provisions,
environmental provisions,
and socio-political provisions. Economic provisions relate to
relationships between
producer and consumer. Environmental provisions emerged in
the 1990s, and in-
clude provisions relating to environmental issues, health and
safety, and product
liability. The socio-political code includes principles addressing
political partici-
pation, bribery, philanthropy, the local community, and
affirmative action issues
(Hemphill 1992).
Jamal and Bowie’s (1995) three-part typology of association
ethics code contents
includes constructs related to avoiding moral hazards,
maintaining personal courtesy,
and serving the public interest. Moral hazards develop as a
result of information
dissymmetries that are commonly described by principal-agent
theory (Waterman
Developing an ethical code often
brings to the fore controversial issues
of what is morally right and wrong
professional behavior.

Gary M. Grobman
and Meier 1998). In many cases, a client observing a
professional is not able to de-
termine whether he or she is behaving appropriately. Among the
moral hazards that
occur are those emanating from conflicts of interest, defined by
Tom L. Beauchamp
as “a conflict between a person’s private or institutional gain
and that same person’s
official duties in a position of trust” (Jamal and Bowie 1995).
Other hazards are mak-
ing political contributions for the purpose of influencing the
awarding of business, or
accepting referral contingent fees, because the person receiving
such a fee will feel
an obligation to the professional providing the fee at the
expense of the client (Jamal
and Bowie 1995). Maintaining professional courtesy
encompasses avoiding false,
misleading, or deceptive advertising or advertising that is
undignified (e.g., jingles,
showmanship, or exaggeration) or coercive, harassing, or
overreaching (Jamal and
Bowie 1995). Putting the public interest first means that a
professional will consider
the effect of putting the safety of the public paramount over the
economic interests
of the client.
A typology of ethical constructs (adapted from O’Boyle and

Dawson 1992 and
Tucker, Stathakakopolous, and Patti 1999) includes seven
distinct descriptions of a
particular ethical statement:
1. Integrity provisions: General provisions that encompass
morality, honesty,
sincerity, candor, responsibility, and trust.
2. Equality: Treating everyone the same (in the public
administration context,
“treating like cases alike”) and not showing favoritism.
3. Economic Efficiency: “Producing the right kind and right
amount of goods
and services the consumer wants at the lowest possible costs
and within the
legal mores of the community.”
4. Equivalence: Fairness in the exchange between the buyer and
the seller,
imposing equal burdens on them.
5. Distributive: The behavior of a superior in distributing the
benefits of col-
lective activities to all in the group who generated those
benefits.
6. Contributive: Everyone in a group who receives collective
benefits has the
duty to contribute to producing those benefits.
7. Environmental: Political and environmental externalities,
such as pollution,
health and safety, and product liability. Also includes anti-
discrimination

provisions.
Weaver’s (1993) typology consists of organizational provisions
(compliance and
sanctions provisions, responsibilities to stakeholders, the
character of organizational
communication including record-keeping), employee issues
(substance abuse
policies, workplace safety and quality, conflicts of interest,
nepotism, moonlight-
ing, contacts with the media and government officials, use of
company property,
confidentiality, bribes, and kickbacks), legal matters (e.g.,
compliance with anti-
trust laws, nondiscrimination, compliance with OSHA laws), the
organization’s
status in society (e.g., maintaining the reputation of the
organization’s name and
providing for honest advertising), and responsibility to society
(e.g., engaging in
community and charitable activities, protecting the
environment, conserving en-
ergy, and protecting the safety of the public). Gaumnitz and
Lere (2002) provide a
nine-part typology of ethics code provisions consisting of
confidentiality, honesty
and integrity, responsibilities of employers/clients, obligations
to the profession,
independence and/or objectivity, legal and technical
compliance, discreditable or
Associations

harmful acts, social values, and ethical conflict resolution.
These typologies are
diverse, but not necessarily contradictory. One factor that
makes ethical issues
hard to group coherently is their complexity; any action by an
individual can be
explained by multiple motivations.
Methodology
According to C.S. Benson, codes of ethics vary based in part on
whether the or-
ganization is nonprofit, for-profit, or government (in Plant
2001). The principal
research question to be answered in this study is the following:
Do the codes of
ethics of U.S.-based national and international membership
associations exempt
under IRS Section 501(c) differ from each
other based upon whether their memberships
consist of principally nonprofit, for-profit, or
government organizations or those employed
by these sectors? Content analysis was em-
ployed to answer this question. The technique
of content analysis refers to the absence or
presence in a text (in this case a code) of a
word or set of words or of synonyms for that
word (in cases where the intent is to convey a particular
meaning) that relate to a
particular construct. The intent was to eliminate overlap among
the constructs in
this study.1
The population for the analysis consisted of tax-exempt national

and international
trade and professional associations based in the vicinity of the
nation’s capital.2 The
intent was to capture virtually all of the major trade and
professional associations in
the United States, while at the same time controlling for the
effects of geography.
To select this population, a search was performed of the
Associations Unlimited
database for national and international associations based in
Washington, D.C.,
Virginia, and Maryland. Each of these organizations was
compared against the most
current Internal Revenue Service Master List.
Once the population was chosen, the next step was to
discriminate among groups
that had predominantly for-profit, nonprofit, and government
memberships. The
principal way this was accomplished was by utilizing the
Standardized Industrial
Code (SIC) in the Associations Unlimited database.3
A review was then made of the names and descriptions of all of
these organiza-
tions. Those that did not have a clear government, for-profit, or
nonprofit character,
or had SIC codes that did not reflect their character, were
eliminated. Virtually every
organization had at least one SIC code designating it as a
nonprofit organization,
since in order to qualify as a member of the selected population,
the organization
had to be a nonprofit association.
Of the 969 organizations available in the study population, 670

had valid e-mail
addresses, and each of them was contacted to ask whether it
had a code of ethics.
The request was to either send the code or indicate where it
could be found on the
organization’s Web site. Because the number of government
associations in the
population was relatively small, sixty-seven follow-up letters
were sent to govern-
ment associations that either did not respond to the initial e-
mail, or did not have
e-mail addresses, or whose e-mail message requesting a code of
ethics bounced back.
One factor that makes ethical issues
hard to group coherently is their
complexity; any action by an individual
can be explained by multiple
motivations.
Gary M. Grobman
Calls were made to all government nonrespondents. Web sites
of all nonrespondents
were visited to determine whether an ethics code was available.
The study involves hypothesis testing on what independent
variables (nominal
variables relating to the governmental, nonprofit, or for-profit
character of the as-
sociation) influence the dependent variables (generic ethics
code provisions). The

dependent variables were selected based on a review of the
literature with emphasis
on the content of codes (Jamal and Bowie 1995; Josephson
Institute, 2001; O’Boyle
and Dawson 1992; Plant 2001; Tucker, Stathakakopolous, and
Patti 1999; Weaver
1993).
In addition, a review was made of nearly 100 codes taken from
a convenience
sample posted on the Internet. Most of these codes were from
organizations that
did not meet the criteria for selection in the
sample that became part of the Master Study
database described below, but which provided
a rich menu of generic ethic provisions in
actual use by organizations. Hundreds of ge-
neric provisions could have been selected as
dependent variables. Based on the literature
and actual codes, a selection was made that
maximized the potential of answering the
research question and identifying generic
provisions that would successfully delineate
government association codes from for-profit
association codes, government association
codes from nonprofit association codes, and nonprofit
association codes from for-
profit association codes (see Table 1).
Thirty-four hypotheses were tested in the study. Each took the
form:
H
x

: The content of a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c) membership
associa-
tion’s ethics code relating to (insert each dependent variable) is
influ-
enced by whether the association’s constituency is primarily
one that is
for-profit, nonprofit, or governmental.
The final step before analysis was to create a database that
included the name
of the organization, its SIC codes, its IRS exempt-status
category, number of staff,
its assets and annual budget (from data provided by the IRS
Master List of exempt
organizations, the National Trade and Professional Associations
of the United States,
and the Associations Unlimited on-line database), the character
of the organization
(for-profit, nonprofit, governmental), and a content analysis of
the code (i.e., whether
the code has one or more generic provisions that relate to each
of the thirty-four
dependent variables described by the hypotheses).
Descriptive statistics were generated with respect to the samples
of government,
nonprofit, and for-profit character national 501(c) tax-exempt
associations, both in
the aggregate and divided into the three types. Among these
statistics are the mean
budget, mean number of staff, and mean age in months. T-tests
were performed to
determine whether there were statistically significant
differences among the three
types of associations with respect to these independent ratio

variables.
Chi-square statistics were generated to test whether there were
statistically signifi-
Do the codes of ethics of U.S.-
based national and international
membership associations . . . differ
from each other based upon whether
their memberships consist of
principally nonprofit, for-profit, or
government organizations or those
employed by these sectors?
Associations
TABLE 1
Study Dependent Variables
1. Making public interest paramount over individual interests or
organizational interests
(public interest).
2. Putting client’s interests first rather than profit motive,
avoiding conflicts of interest, ac-
cepting improper gifts that could influence decision-making,
improper outside employment
(client interest).
3. Respect for and complying with the law (respect for law).
4. Respect for confidentiality between principal and agent, and

between agent and agent’s
organization (confidentiality).
5. Promoting fairness (fairness).
6. Antidiscrimination with respect to race, color, creed, national
origin, sex, and sexual
orientation (antidiscrimination).
7. Corruption, such as bribes, kickbacks, self-dealing, stealing,
fraud (corruption).
8. Truthfulness, honesty, candor, trust, good faith, integrity
(integrity).
9. Requiring proficiency in providing the services required and
referral or not accepting
agent role in the absence of having appropriate skills to do the
job (proficiency).
10. Responsibility, taking responsibility for own errors, giving
credit to others when it is
due, not taking credit for another’s work (credit to others).
11. Code enforcement, procedures for reporting violations,
process for public to lodge com-
plaints, sanctions for violators (enforcement).
12. Promoting the association and the profession, participating
in the organization and its
committees; maintaining the dignity of the profession;
encouraging others, such as students,
to consider joining the profession and/or association (support
for association).
13. Upgrading professional competence, professional
development and continuing education
(upgrading knowledge).
14. Sexual misconduct, including dual personal relationships,
sexual harassment, sexual
relationships between agent and principals (sexual misconduct).
15. Equality, impartiality in decision-making, nonpartisanship,

treating “like cases alike”
(equality).
16. Advertising of services (advertising).
17. Quality of services provided (quality).
18. Rebates and kickbacks for referrals (rebates and referrals).
19. Environmental, externality issues such as polluting the
environment, participating in
community life, philanthropy (environmental).
20. Use of illegal drugs and/or alcohol (substance abuse).
21. Personal life integrity, leading exemplary personal life,
correcting abuses discovered
(personal life).
22. Treatment of business competitors (competition).
23. Being considerate to others, including courtesy, promptness,
friendliness, kindness,
compassion, benevolence (courtesy).
24. Public accountability, information disclosure, openness,
involving the public in the
process (accountability).
25. Misrepresentation of professional/academic credentials
(credentials).
26. Professionalism (professionalism).
27. Objectivity (objectivity).
28. Exposing violations of ethics or laws of others (exposing
others).
29. Avoiding conflicts of interest, as contrasted to making the
interest of the principal para-
mount over personal interests (conflicts of interest).
30. Receiving improper gifts (improper gifts).
31. Respect for client’s dignity, self-determination (respect for
dignity).
32. Respect for pluralism and diversity (pluralism).
33. Treatment of employees (treatment of staff).
34. Lobbying to change laws to support profession/industry
(lobbying).

Gary M. Grobman
cant differences among the three types relating to the presence
of the various types of
code provisions. After testing to see that the descriptive data
were not significantly
different for government associations from outside the selected
Washington/Vir-
ginia/Maryland area, an additional twelve national government
association codes
were added to the study. Analyses were performed using the
original government
association codes, and these new codes added.
Findings
A total of 341 of the 664 associations contacted directly (see
note 2) responded (51.4
percent).4 A total of 46 of the 66 government associations
responded (69.7 percent).
A total of 101 of the 164 nonprofit associations responded (61.6
percent). A total of
194 of the 434 for-profit associations responded (44.7 percent).
Many of those that
did not respond had Web sites. The fact that the site did not
include a code did not
validate that the association lacked a code. However, if a code
was found, it was
included in the study as a “response.”
Data were available for all the associations with respect to
budget size, number

of staff, and the date the association was formed. The latter was
recoded as “months
old.” The mean budget for 901 reporting associations was $3.82
million. The mean
number of staff was 26. The mean number of months was 576.5.
The responding associations were larger and older. The mean
budget of
333 associations was $4.2 million. The mean number of staff
was 31, and the
mean age was 607 months. The government associations had a
mean budget of
$2.98 million, a mean staff of 22.97, and were an average of
525 months old.
The nonprofit associations had a mean budget of $3.98 million,
a mean staff of
27.16, and were an average of 569 months old. The for-profit
associations had
a mean budget of $3.84 million, a mean staff of 25.69, and were
an average of
587 months old.
A statistical analysis was performed (using chi-squares) to
determine whether
the codes differed by type of organization with respect to each
of the thirty-four
independent variables chosen. The results included additional
government associa-
tion codes. The findings were the same for every variable when
these additional
codes were excluded, although the validity of the statistical
analysis was increased
by having more cases to examine.
An additional analysis was performed to compare the codes of
government and

nonprofit associations, government and for-profit associations,
and nonprofit and
for-profit associations, using the same methodology used to
compare all three. The
justification was to determine whether there were statistically
significant differ-
ences between two types of associations (government and
nonprofit, government
and for-profit, and nonprofit and for-profit) when the original
analysis demonstrated
that there were no differences among the three, or vice versa
(see Table 2, Table 3,
and Table 4).
The chi-square analysis of the thirty-four independent variables
shows some
interesting results. As pointed out by Gaumnitz and Lere
(2002), research involv-
ing content analysis of codes is still in the exploratory level.
While they looked for
common themes among the codes of business organizations, and
found some, the
comparison of associations across constituency types is a new
direction. Among
the findings were the following:
Associations
TABLE 2
Comparison of Government Codes to Nonprofit Codes

Government Nonprofit
n = 25 n = 51
Name of variable
(% with code
provision)
(% with code
provision) χ2 p-value
Public interest 24 16 0.772 0.380
Client interest 8 47 11.372 0.001*
Respect for law 48 47 0.006 0.938
Confidentiality 72 71 0.016 0.899
Fairness 52 24 6.160 0.013*
Antidiscrimination 40 45 0.177 0.674
Corruption 24 18 0.427 0.513
Integrity 52 69 1.993 0.158
Proficiency 28 49 3.041 0.081
Credit to others 12 29 2.814 0.093
Enforcement 20 29 0.776 0.381
Support for association 44 36 0.450 0.502
Upgrading knowledge 44 36 0.450 0.502

Sexual misconduct 0 24 6.985 0.008*
Equality 52 20 8.341 0.004*
Advertising 8 20 1.700 0.192
Quality 28 20 0.680 0.409
Rebates and referral 12 41 6.610 0.010*
Environmental 8 16 0.867 0.352
Substance abuse 0 8 2.070 0.150
Personal life 24 12 1.889 0.169
Competition 4 22 3.894 0.048*
Courtesy 36 14 5.008 0.025*
Accountability 24 29 0.246 0.620
Credentials 24 28 0.103 0.748
Professionalism 20 16 0.220 0.639
Objectivity 40 21 2.850 0.091
Exposing others 32 39 0.375 0.540
Conflicts of interest 56 57 0.005 0.943
Improper gifts 32 12 4.571 0.033*
Respect for dignity 12 35 4.552 0.033*

Pluralism 8 24 2.692 0.101
Treatment of staff 8 8 0.001 0.981
Lobbying 4 10 0.777 0.378
*significant at the 0.05 level.
Gary M. Grobman
TABLE 3
Comparison of Government Codes to For-Profit Codes
Name of variable
Government
n = 25
(% with code
provision)
For-profit
n = 74
(% with code

Respect for law 48 54 0.275 0.600
Confidentiality 72 30 13.866 < 0.001*
Fairness 52 42 0.773 0.379
Antidiscrimination 40 15 7.064 0.008*
Corruption 24 10 3.464 0.063
Integrity 52 70 2.766 0.096
Proficiency 28 24 0.134 0.715
Credit to others 12 5 1.237 0.266
Enforcement 20 23 0.096 0.757
Sexual misconduct 0 0 N/A N/A
Equality 52 8 23.213 < 0.001*
Advertising 8 28 4.351 0.037*
Quality 28 22 0.426 0.514
Rebates and referral 12 15 0.126 0.722

Personal life 24 4 8.996 0.003*
Competition 4 26 5.446 0.020*
Courtesy 36 8 11.308 0.001*
Credentials 24 7 5.626 0.018*
Objectivity 40 10 12.255 < 0.001*
Exposing others 32 15 3.538 0.060
Conflicts of interest 56 18 13.916 < 0.001*
Improper gifts 32 5 12.408 < 0.001*
Respect for dignity 12 1 5.465 0.019*
Pluralism 8 3 1.352 0.245
Lobbying 4 8 0.480 0.488
Associations

TABLE 4
Comparison of Nonprofit Codes to For-Profit Codes
Name of variable
Nonprofit
n = 51
(% with
code
provision)
For-profit
n = 74
(% with
code
Respect for law 47 54 0.591 0.442
Confidentiality 71 30 20.266 < 0.001*
Fairness 24 42 4.511 0.034*
Antidiscrimination 45 15 13.937 < 0.001*
Corruption 18 10 1.813 0.178
Integrity 69 70 0.039 0.844

Proficiency 49 24 8.159 0.004*
Credit to others 29 5 13.499 < 0.001*
Enforcement 29 23 0.657 0.418
Sexual misconduct 24 0 19.261 < 0.001*
Equality 20 8 3.577 0.059
Advertising 20 28 1.245 0.264
Quality 20 22 0.074 0.785
Rebates and referral 41 15 10.974 0.001*
Personal life 12 4 2.687 0.101
Competition 22 26 0.279 0.597
Courtesy 14 8 1.022 0.312
Credentials 28 7 10.031 0.002*

Objectivity 22 10 3.592 0.058
Exposing others 39 15 9.600 0.002*
Conflicts of interest 57 18 20.896 < 0 .001*
Improper gifts 12 5 1.659 0.198
Respect for dignity 35 1 26.987 < 0.001*
Pluralism 24 3 13.167 < 0.001*
Lobbying 10 8 0.108 0.742
Gary M. Grobman
1. Working in the public interest: This provision was found in
24 percent
of government codes, compared to 16 percent of nonprofit codes
and 18
percent of for-profit codes. One might reasonably have expected
that gov-
ernment associations would find this an attractive provision to
include in
their codes because it is one of the principal differences that
distinguishes
government organizations from business organizations.
However, the

results did not confirm this.
2. Respect for law: This provision was found in 48 percent of
government
codes, compared to 47 percent for nonprofit codes and 54
percent for for-
profit codes. Again, there might have been a expectation that
this generic
provision would be attractive for government associations, and
this was not
the case.
3. Fairness: Only about half of the government associations
mentioned this
in their codes. One might have expected this provision to be
more salient
in government-related codes than in the other two sectors
because govern-
ment is charged with making decisions that have broad
implications for the
common good.
4. Antidiscrimination: One would have expected this to be a
cornerstone of a
government association ethics code, but only ten of the twenty-
five govern-
ment codes included such a provision.
5. Corruption: Provisions relating to corruption and bribes
appeared in only
six of twenty-five government codes (the resignation of a sitting
member
of Congress in December 2005 after the admission that he
routinely ac-
cepted bribes has focused national attention on this type of
ethical lapse).

6. Integrity: Only thirteen of twenty-five government codes
mentioned
integrity provisions, including truthfulness. A democracy relies
to a great
extent on political leaders’ not lying, and it is difficult to
fathom the lack of
consistency with respect to having such provisions in codes that
apply to
government officials.
7. Proficiency: More than half of the nonprofit codes mentioned
proficiency/
competence, compared to only 28 percent of government codes.
One might
have expected this topic to be of at least equal salience in
government-re-
lated association codes.
8. Enforcement: Only thirty-seven of 150 codes mentioned
enforcement of
the code, supporting the view that codes tend to be aspirational
rather
than regulatory. If a major purpose of having a code is to
influence be-
havior, then a strong case can be made for having tangible
sanctions for
violations.
9. Upgrading Knowledge: A slightly higher, but not statistically
significant,
percentage of for-profit codes (49 percent) mentioned
continuing educa-
tion (or, at least, keeping up with the latest technical
developments in the
field), which was a higher percentage than either government

(44 percent)
or nonprofit (36 percent).
10. Sexual Misconduct: Not a single government or for-profit
code mentioned
sexual misconduct, surprising considering the legal and social
implications
of ethical lapses in this area and the attention such lapses
received during
the Clinton years. Almost a quarter of the nonprofit codes
mentioned this
topic. Considering the shockwave created by the Monica
Lewinsky scan-
Associations
dal, one would have expected more attention to this type of
ethical lapse.
11. Quality: If there is a “quality revolution” in the government,
nonprofit, and
for-profit sectors, it was not evident from the codes of ethics.
Only thirty-
three of 150 codes mentioned quality of services.
12. Improper Gifts: Only eight of the twenty-five government
codes had a pro-
vision relating to improper gifts, a surprisingly small number
considering
the potential for abuse in this area.

13. Client Dignity/Pluralism: Nonprofit association codes were
much more
likely to have provisions relating to client dignity (35 percent)
and plural-
ism (24 percent) than their government (12 percent and 8
percent, respec-
tively) and for-profit counterparts (1 percent and 3 percent,
respectively).
At a minimum, such provisions should be appropriate for
government
associations, particularly at a time of rapidly changing
demographics in
which minorities are increasing coming in contact with
governments (and
governments are increasingly hiring minorities).
In summary, this study found some especially interesting
results, most notably
that no government code had a direct reference to sexual
misconduct. For those
who are involved with the task of creating new ethics codes or
modifying existing
ones, the data should be of value in the consideration of what
content to include or
modify in their documents.
Conclusion
To paraphrase the political scientist Wallace Sayre, government,
business, and
nonprofit organizations are the same in all but the most
important respects. This
study focuses on one such important respect, ethical
considerations, and illustrates
that the context of the role of a professional or trade association
clearly affects the

content of its code. The study of nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)
membership associa-
tions is a ripe area for research. Whereas all are technically
within the same sector
(i.e., the nonprofit sector), the culture and behavior of these
organizations may in
fact differ considerably, reflecting the culture and behavior of
the principal sector
or professional background and education represented by most
of their member-
ships. The purpose of this study was to examine one narrow
aspect of organizational
culture—the organization’s code of ethics—and determine
whether the principal
constituency is a predictor of the content of its code. The
analysis validates that this
is indeed the case. While the intention was not to provide a
normative discussion
of code provisions, this paper may make a contribution in
suggesting what are the
appropriate contents of an ethics code, depending upon the
principal constituency
of the organization.
NOTES
1. The content analysis consists of reviewing each ethics code
provision, and making
a judgment about which of the thirty-four constructs that
comprise the dependent variables
created for this study (see below) makes the best fit. In the
event that there was only a
minimal relationship to any of the constructs, no attempt was
made to “force” individual
code provisions into a construct. If a provision was able to fit
into two or more constructs,

a judgment was made as to which had the best fit. In answering
the research question, three
existing databases were employed—the Internal Revenue
Service’s Master List of Exempt
Gary M. Grobman
Organizations, a printed directory titled National Trade and
Professional Associations of
the United States, and the on-line Associations Unlimited
database (GaleNet 2002).
2. More than 8,000 national trade and professional associations
representing pro-
cessors, manufacturers, and service industries are listed in the
latest edition of National
Trade and Professional Associations of the United States
(Columbia Books 2006). Most
of these are tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Based on
IRS statistics, the number of these associations increased at the
rate of about 2 percent
each year during the 1990s (Internal Revenue Service 2006).
The number of organiza-
tions exempt under Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code during fiscal year
2005 was 86,485 (IRS 2006).
3. For sampling purposes, a “for-profit” association
constituency means that the
organization has a Standardized Industrial Code (SIC) of 0110–
7900 and does not fit

better in the two other categories of organizations. A
“nonprofit” association constituency
means that the organization has an SIC of 8000 (Health
Services), 8200 (Educational
Services), 8300 (Social Services), or 8400 (Museums,
Botanical, and Zoological Gardens)
and does not fit better in the two other categories of
organizations. A “governmental”
association constituency means that the organization has an SIC
of 9100 (Executive,
Legislative, and General), 9200 (Justice, Public Order, and
Safety), 9400 (Administration
of Human Resources), 9500 (Environmental Quality and
Housing), 9600 (Administration
of Economic Programs), or 9700 (National Security and
International Affairs) and does
not fit better in the two other categories of organizations. The
intent was to characterize
these organizations by whether their membership consists of
people who work primarily
in the public, nonprofit, or private sector.
4. Of ninety-one government associations, twenty-five had
codes, thirty-three had
no codes, twenty did not respond, and thirteen were not
contacted directly (either because
they did not have valid e-mail addresses or did not answer the
telephone or return mes-
sages left on an answering machine). Of 318 nonprofit
associations, fifty-one had codes,
fifty had no code, sixty-three did not respond, and 154 were not
contacted directly. Of
572 for-profit associations, seventy-six had codes, 118 had no
code, 240 did not respond,
and 138 were not contacted directly. In total, of the 664
contacted directly or indirectly,

150 had codes (see Appendix), 201 had no codes, and 323 did
not respond.
REFERENCES
Adams, Jane S., Armen Tashchian, and Ted H. Stone. 2001.
“Codes of Ethics as Sig-
nals for Ethical Behavior.” Journal of Business Ethics 29, no.
3:199–211.
Atkisson, Sharyl. 2002. “Disaster Strikes in Red Cross
Backyard: Charity Fails to
Get a Grip on Criminal Scandals at Local Chapters.” CBS
Evening News, July
29, 2002. Available at
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/eveningnews/
main516700.shtml.
Bruce, Willa Marie. 1998. “Codes of Ethics.” In The
International Encyclopedia of
Public Policy and Administration, edited by Jay M. Shafritz, pp.
410–413. Boulder,
Colo.: Westview Press.
Coble, Ron. 1999. “The Nonprofit Sector and State
Governments: Public Policy Issues
Facing Nonprofits in North Carolina and Other States.”
Nonprofit Management and
Leadership 9, no. 3:293–313.
Columbia Books. 2006. National Trade and Professional
Associations. Available at
www.columbiabooks.com/ntpa.cfm.
Dobson, John. 2005. “Monkey Business: A Neo-Darwinist
Approach to Ethics Codes.”

Financial Analysts Journal 61, no. 3:59–64.
Federal Trade Commission. 2006. “Hurricane Recovery: Charity
Fraud.” Available at
www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/events/katrina/radio_psa.html.
Frankel, Mark S. 1989. “Professional Codes: Why, How, and
with What Impact?”
Journal of Business Ethics 8, no. 2:109–115.
GaleNet. 2002. “About Associations Unlimited.” Available at
www.galenet.com/serv-
Associations
let/AU/About.htm?u=n&u=i&u=r&u=s&s=1&n=10&1
=h&locID=dauphin.
Gaumnitz, Bruce R., and John C. Lere. 2002. “Content of Codes
of Ethics of Profes-
sional Business Organizations in the United States.” Journal of
Business Ethics 35,
no. 1:35–49.
Hemphill, Thomas A. 1992. “Self-Regulating Industry
Behavior: Antitrust Limita-
tions and Trade Association Codes of Conduct.” Journal of
Business Ethics 11, no.
12:915–920.
Independent Sector. 2002. Keeping the Trust: Confidence in

Charitable Organizations
in an Age of Scrutiny. Washington, D.C.
Internal Revenue Service. 2006. IRS Data Book (Publication
55B). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Treasury Department.
Jamal, Karim, and Norman E. Bowie. 1995. “Theoretical
Considerations for a Mean-
ingful Code of Professional Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics
14, no. 9:703–714.
Josephson Institute. 2001. “The Six Pillars of Character.” In
Making Ethics Decisions.
Available at www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-
intro+toc.htm.
O’Boyle, Edward J., and Lyndon E. Dawson, Jr. 1992. “The
American Marketing As-
sociation Code of Ethics: Instructions for Marketers.” Journal of
Business Ethics
11, no. 12:921–932.
Plant, Jeremy F. 2001. “Codes of Ethics.” In Handbook of
Administrative Ethics, 2nd
ed., edited by Terry L. Cooper, pp. 309–333. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Pritchard, Jane. 1998. “Codes of Ethics.” In The Encyclopedia
of Applied Ethics,
edited by Dan Callahan, Peter Singer, and Ruth Chadwick, p.
530. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Tucker, Lewis R., Vlasis Stathakakopolous, and Charles H.
Patti. 1999. “A Multidi-

mensional Assessment of Ethical Codes: The Professional
Business Association
Perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics 19, no. 3:287–300.
Waterman, Richard, and Kenneth Meier. 1998. “Principal-Agent
Models: An Expan-
sion.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8,
no. 2:173–202.
Weaver, Gary. 1993. “Corporate Codes of Ethics: Purpose,
Process and Content Is-
sues.” Business and Society 32, no. 1:44–58.
Weber, James. 1996. “Not-for-Profit.” Pennsylvania CPA
Journal 67, no. 4:17–18.
Wilhelm, Ian, and Grant Williams. 2001. “American Red Cross
Names Interim Chief
and Vows Additional Changes.” Chronicle of Philanthropy 14,
no. 3:10.
WNDU. 2005. “Red Cross Scandal Produces Indictments.”
December 27. Available at
www.wndu.com/news/122005/news_46870.php.
Wood, Greg. 2000. “A Cross Cultural Comparison of the
Contents of Codes of Ethics:
USA, Canada and Australia.” Journal of Business Ethics 25, no.
4:287–298.
Wotruba, Thomas R., Lawrence B. Chonko, and Terry W. Loe.
2001. “The Impact of
Ethics Code Familiarity on Manager Behavior.” Journal of
Business Ethics 33, no.
1:59–69.

Gary M. Grobman
Appendix
Association Name Type
Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools 2
Air Conditioning Contractors of America 3
Air Line Pilots Association 3
Air Traffic Control Association 3
American Academy of Physician Assistants 2
American Academy of Podiatric Sports Medicine 2
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation
& Dance 2
American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy 2
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers 2
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences 2
American Association of Pastoral Counselors 2
American Association of Police Polygraphers 1

American Association of Tissue Banks 2
American Boat Builders & Repairers Association 3
American Bus Association 3
American College of Radiology 2
American Correctional Association 1
American Correctional Health Services Association 1
American Council on Education 2
American Dance Therapy Association 2
American Family Therapy Association 2
American Financial Services Association 3
American Folklore Society 2
American Institute of Chemists 2
American Institute of Floral Designers 3
American Institute of Parliamentarians 1
American International Freight Association 3
American Jail Association 1
American Land Title Association 3
American Medical Women’s Association 2

American Medical Writers Association 3
American Moving and Storage Association 3
American Music Therapy Association 2
American Occupational Therapy Association 2
American Osteopathic Academy of Addiction Medicine 2
American Physiological Society 2
American Podiatric Medical Association 2
American Psychological Association 2
American Resorts & Residential Development 3
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science 2
Associations
American Society for Horticultural Science 2
American Society for Nutritional Sciences 2
American Society for Public Administration 1
American Society of Addiction Medicine 2

American Society of Appraisers 3
American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors 1
American Society of Interior Designers 3
American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers 1
American Society of Pension Actuaries 3
American Society of Travel Agents 3
American Speech-Language Hearing Foundation 2
American Textile Manufacturers Institute 3
American Traffic Safety Services Association 3
American Wind Energy Association 3
Architectural Woodwork Institute 3
Aseptic Packaging Council 3
Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association 3
Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare 2
Association for Healthcare Philanthropy 2
Association of American Medical Colleges 2
Association of Consulting Foresters of America 3
Association of Government Accountants 1

Association of International Photography Art Dealers 3
Association of Machinery and Equipment Appraisers 3
Association of OCC and ENV Clinics 2
Association of Specialists in Cleaning and Restoration 3
Building Owners & Managers Institute International 3
Club Managers Association of America 3
Construction Management Association of America Foundation 3
Direct Selling Association 3
Distance Education & Training Council 2
Distributive Education Clubs of America 2
Electronic Retailing Association 3
Endocrine Society 2
Equipment Leasing Association 3
Government Finance Officers Association of the United States
and Canada 1
Health Insurance Association of America 3
High Technology Crime Investigation Association 1
Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association 3

International Association of Assessing Officers 1
International Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated 1
International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence
Analysts 1
Gary M. Grobman
International City County Management Association 1
International Claim Association 3
International Franchise Association 3
International Institute of Municipal Clerks 1
International Society of Fire Service Instructors 1
International Window Cleaning Association 3
International Wood Products Association 3
Irrigation Association 3
Lamaze International 2
Management Association for Private Photogrammetric
Surveyors 3

Manufactured Housing Institute 3
Modular Building Institute 3
Mortgage Bankers Association of America 3
NAFSA Association of International Educators 2
National Air Duct Cleaners Association 3
National Air Filtration Association 3
National Art Education Association 2
National Asphalt Pavement Association 3
National Association for College Admission Counseling 2
National Association for Court Management 1
National Association for Drama Therapy 2
National Association for Practical Nurse Education & Service 2
National Association of Broadcasters 3
National Association of Chain Drug Stores 3
National Association of Charterboat Operators 3
National Association of Chemical Distributors 3
National Association of Credit Management 3
National Association of Development Companies 3

National Association of Energy Service Companies 3
National Association of Home Builders of the United States 3
National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors 3
National Association of School Psychologists 2
National Association of Schools of Art and Design 2
National Association of Schools of Theater 2
National Association of Social Workers 2
National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property 1
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 2
National Association of Surety Bond Producers 3
National Auto Auction Association 3
National Black Police Association Incorporated 1
National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association 3
National Catalog Managers Association 3
Associations

National Communications Association 3
National Forum for Black Public Administrators 1
National Grain and Feed Association 3
National Industrial Transportation League 3
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing 1
National Investor Relations Institute 3
National Paint & Coatings Association 3
National Rehabilitation Association 2
National School Boards Association 1
National Sheriffs Association 1
National Society for Histotechnology 2
National Spa and Pool Institute Middle Atlantic Chapter 3
National Stone and Gravel Association 3
NCSL–Legislative Information and Communications Staff 1
North American Deer Farmers Association 3
Outdoor Advertising Association of America 3
Outdoor Power Equipment Aftermarket Association 3
Painting & Decorating Contractors of America 3

Self Storage Association 3
Society for In Vitro Biology 2
Society for Nutrition Education 2
Society of Neurosurgical Anesthesia & Critical Care 2
Society of Toxicology 2
Solar Energy Industries Association 3
Towing and Recovery Association of America 3
Truckload Carriers Association 3
Yacht Brokers Association of America 3
(1 = Government, 2 = Nonprofit, 3 = For-Profit)
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gary M. Grobman is an adjunct professor of nonprofit
management at Gratz College,
Melrose Park, Pennsylvania. He is the author of the textbook,
Introduction to the Non-
profit Sector: A Practical Approach for the 21st Century, 2nd
ed. (2007), and several
other nonprofit management books.

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx

Similar to NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx (9)

More from henrymartin15260

More from henrymartin15260 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 17, no. 2, Winter 2006.docx