外文翻譯--非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理邁向一種新的方法（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文5050字，2700英文單詞，15500英文字符</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Anheier H K. Managing non-profit organisations: towards a new approach[J]. Lse Research Online Documents on Economics, 2000, volume 28(1):541-562(22).</

2、p><p>　　Managing non-profit organisations: Towards a new approach</p><p>　　Helmut K. Anheier</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This paper puts forth the thesis

3、 that the management of non-profit organisations is often ill understood because we proceed from the wrong assumptions about how these organisations operate. Based on this premise, this paper develops a model of the non-

4、profit form as a conglomerate of multiple organisations with multiple bottom lines that demand a variety of different management approaches and styles: a holistic conception that emphasises the diversity of orientations

5、 within and outside the orga</p><p>　　1 .Introduction</p><p>　　The topic of this paper is as difficult as it is challenging. It is difficult because the paper can but scratch the surface of some

6、 of the major issues involved, and can, therefore, only superficially deal with some of their implications for our understanding of non-profit management theory and practice. It is challenging because the paper speaks ag

7、ainst much of the conventional wisdom of standard management books on non-profit organisations; and accepting the major thrust of the argument presen</p><p>　　Several caveats are called for at the very begin

8、ning. First, several authors have written on the need to revisit the focus of non-profit management, and the major thrust of the argument developed in this paper owes much to their insights about the role of non-profit o

9、rganisations in the United States and Europe (see, for example, Handy, 1988; Billis, 1989; and Hudson, 1999). Likewise, organisational theory and normative management approaches inform much of what this paper proposes (P

10、owell and Di</p><p>　　Trying to answer this seemingly simple question leads to other, equally challenging ones: is nonprofit management a variation of business management? Is it closer to public management a

11、nd administration? Or do we in fact find that the management of non-profit organisation is distinct from both, requiring models that fit neither the corporation nor the public agency?</p><p>　　Of course, the

12、se questions assume some agreement of what non-profit organisations are, and how to define them. Like all organisations, non-profit organisations vary much in terms of mission, size, mode of operation and impact, particu

13、larly in a cross-national sense. Some are closer to the model of a government agency; others may indeed resemble the business firm; and yet others may be little more than an informal network. These variations notwithstan

14、ding, however, there is an emerging consensus </p><p>　　?Organised, i.e. possessing some institutional reality, which separates the organisation from informal entities such as families, gatherings or moveme

15、nts;</p><p>　　?Private, i.e., institutionally separate from government, which sets the entity apart from the public sector;</p><p>　　?Non-profit-distributing, i.e., not returning any profits g

16、enerated to owners or equivalents, which distinguishes non-profits from businesses;</p><p>　　?Self-governing, i.e., equipped to control their own activities which identifies those that are de jure units of

17、other organisations; and</p><p>　　?Voluntary, i.e., being non-compulsory in nature and with some degree of voluntary input in either the agency’s activities or management.</p><p>　　With this de

18、finition at hand, we can then ask if the non-profit form is intrinsically associated with distinctive features that lead to characteristic behaviours and outcomes. In fact, many writers have made such claims: Kramer (198

19、1) sees the essence of voluntary agencies in their dual functions as value-guardians and service-providers; Hudson (1999) and Paton (1996) identify the value- orientation of non-profit organisations as their essential fe

20、ature; Tonkiss and Passey (1999) suggests that t</p><p>　　The problem is that each of these suggestions is valid, at least to some extent and for some non-profit organisations, but not others. Some non-profi

21、t organisations reveal Kramer’s functions, while others do not. Some are value-led or value-based, while others operate without any explicit value system or ideology. Others are at most marginally based on notions of vol

22、untarism, and may involve no volunteers at all. And even larger non-profit organisations are not essentially ambiguous in nature, a</p><p>　　The management of non-profit organisations is often ill understood

23、 because we do not understand these organisations well, and it is frequently ill conceived because we operate from the wrong assumptions about how non-profit organisations function.</p><p>　　In addressing th

24、is premise, one also in Europe. Why and how did this happen? And why do non-profit organisations and non-profit management often remain not well understood?</p><p>　　While a full answer to these questions is

25、 beyond the scope of this paper, there are four issues that appear most important for our concerns. They range from the obvious to the subtle, and from the simple to the complex.</p><p>　　2The issues</p&

26、gt;<p>　　2.1The liability of newness</p><p>　　Let us first look at the obvious answer, entitled “l(fā)iability of newness”, to express the tendency of new models and techniques to encounter initial diffi

27、culties and problems that are largely associated with inexperience and unfamiliarity (Freeman, Carrol and Hannan, 1983).</p><p>　　The non-profit sector in industrial countries has become a major economic for

28、ce. In the 22 countries studied by the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-profit Sector Project, which includes the US, the UK, France, Germany and Japan, the non-profit sector employed on average five per cent of total emplo

29、yment (Salamon et al, 1999). In addition to paid employment, moreover, non-profit organisations in the 22 countries have the equivalent of 10.4 million full time employees as volunteers. Adding these to </p><p

30、>　　Against this background, we could assume that non-profit organisations are discovering management because they are no longer the trivial and inconsequential organisations Perrow (1986) wrote about in the 1980s. The

31、y are now large and important enough to matter economically and politically, both as organisations and as a sector. And we could conclude that non-profit management is ill understood because it is still fairly new. Over

32、time, one would hope, our knowledge will increase and management p</p><p>　　2.2The copy-cat principle</p><p>　　The second answer to our question is subtler. In contrast to the liability of newn

33、ess argument, which stresses current inexperience and the long learning curve that lies ahead of non-profit organisations, the “copy-cat” thesis emphasises the way in which management has been “discovered” by non-profit

34、organisations. We should keep in mind that the non-profit sector has experienced decades of growth in relatively stable political environments, at least in EU countries and the United States.Importa</p><p>　

35、　Yet things are changing, and they are changing rapidly. Many non-profit organisations are facing greater uncertainty, particularly in the financial field, as government budgets are being cut back and as non-profit organ

36、isations are being asked to shoulder more responsibilities (Deakin, 1995). The reasons for greater emphasis on management may then be found in the more precarious revenue situation facing many non-profit organisations, e

37、specially those that, in the past, relied on dependable gover</p><p>　　Organisations in distress look for outside models they perceive as successful and promising (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). It is a copycat

38、 behaviour quite common in the business world and in government. In the cultural and political climate of 1990s, “successful” models are more likely assumed to be found in the more self-confident world of business than a

39、mong governments that have grown insecure about their role in society. Non-profit organisations, therefore, look more to for- profit corporatio</p><p>　　This focus on business management is different from w

40、hat happened in the past, when the public agency was often seen as the organisational model closest to the non-profit form. A typical consequence of such past behaviour was the “state orientation” of non-profit organisat

41、ions, particularly in continental Europe. It led to the “quango-isation” of the sector by turning non-profits into quasi-public institutions, albeit without the legitimacy, democratic control and authority enjoyed by sta

42、te agen</p><p>　　Given that the source of uncertainty for non-profits is initially and primarily seen in the area of financial resources, it is, therefore, not surprising to see that management of non-profit

43、 organisations frequently means financial management. In the past, the financial models came from government accounting, and indeed many non-profit organisations in Europe still follow “camaralist" accounting princ

44、iples. Today, by contrast, financial models are imported or copied from the business world (see</p><p>　　The emphasis of non-profit management as primarily financial management has profound implications for

45、non-profit organisations. Financial management views organisations quite abstractly and as insular entities that can be measured in terms of inputs, outputs, costs and revenue, assets and liabilities. We rationalise the

46、operations of organisations using the frame of reference of corporate accounting, yet we do so with one major handicap: non-profits cannot fully copy business practices. In for-p</p><p>　　Of course, it is ce

47、rtainly important to contain costs. Nonetheless we have to ask “cost control for what, and for whom?” In the business firm, it is not difficult to answer these questions: there, we economise on costs because we want to m

48、aximise returns to owners; for non-profit organisations, the matter is more complicated and involves aspects of equity, service to the public good, value considerations, compassion, among others.</p><p>　　Fi

49、nancial management is first and foremost formal management, not management of purpose and mission, i.e., those very aspects that are the raison d’être of non-profit organisations. The copying of business models and

50、practices into the world of non-profit management has – for better or worse – made inroads via the financial route primarily, and less so on other, equally legitimate avenues.</p><p>　　There is nonetheless a

51、 more fundamental issue involved: the applicability of the business management model in the first place. This is the issue to which we now turn.</p><p>　　2.3What’s the bottom line?</p><p>　　Ind

52、eed, after this more subtle reason for the frequent misunderstanding of non-profit management, allow me to make one simple point: with a certain irony one could question the concern much of current non-profit management

53、attributes to financial matters. Assuming that the raison d’être of non-profit organisations is not money, why focus on it so much? Money – or financial resources more generally – are a means and not the end for non

54、-profits; and, as suggested above, by adopting management mode</p><p>　　bottom line, we may loose sight of what non-profit organisations are truly all about. And whatever that may be, it is not money. But wh

55、at is it? Or with Dennis Young’s (1983) memorable title, we could ask: “If not for profit, for what?” What, ultimately, is the bottom line?</p><p>　　Significantly, conventional management approaches seem to

56、operate from the assumption that non-profit organisations have no bottom line. Indeed, Peter Drucker once suggested that because of a missing bottom line, non-profit organisations would be in greater need for management

57、than for- profit organisations, where performance is often easier to measure and monitor (Drucker, 1990). Yet Drucker misses a fundamental point: the management challenge is not that non-profit organisations have no bott

58、om</p><p>　　In the for-profit world, we have market prices for goods and services linking sellers and buyers, wages linking employers and employees (collective bargaining), profits linking shareholders and m

59、anagement, and taxes linking the firm with the general public represented by government. Of course, there are many imperfections in the way such prices are established and brought to market. What is important to see is t

60、hat at least in principle, all these prices can coalesce into one monetary bottom lin</p><p>　　?The dual management structure of many non-profit organisations, where operating procedures are the province of

61、executive officers, and the overall governance vested in the hands of Boards; often the Board emphasises the mission of the organisation – and not the financial bottom line alone, as in the case of a shareholder board; b

62、y contrast, management focuses on operational aspects and financial matters in running the organisation;</p><p>　　?The complex motivational structure of staff, volunteers and stakeholders, and the interplay

63、between altruistic and egotistical goals;</p><p>　　?The complex organisational environment in which non-profit organisations operate and the accordingly often different expectations and motivations held by c

64、ore constituencies (e.g., the culture of local volunteer organisations versus the demands of the national unit managed by professional staff);</p><p>　　非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理：邁向一種新的方法</p><p>　　作者：Helmut K. A

65、nheier</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　本文提出的論點(diǎn)是：非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的管理通常被人們所誤解，因?yàn)槲覀儗?duì)這些機(jī)構(gòu)的運(yùn)行方式有著錯(cuò)誤的假設(shè)。在這個(gè)前提下，本文研究和總結(jié)了有著不同底線的非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的運(yùn)行模式，這些機(jī)構(gòu)要求有不同的管理方法和類型：強(qiáng)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)多元化的理念；包含經(jīng)濟(jì)要素和價(jià)值、政策重要性的規(guī)范維度；將該機(jī)構(gòu)看作為經(jīng)常遇到各種問(wèn)題和

66、機(jī)遇的進(jìn)化系統(tǒng)的戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展維度；處理機(jī)構(gòu)日常功能的運(yùn)行維度。在第三部分，本文描述了一種分析法的基本概念，這種分析法試圖解決非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)面臨的管理挑戰(zhàn)。</p><p><b>　　1、簡(jiǎn)介</b></p><p>　　本論文的主題研究是困難且有挑戰(zhàn)的。因?yàn)楸疚闹荒軐?duì)幾個(gè)主要問(wèn)題進(jìn)行簡(jiǎn)單的分析，因此只能幫助我們淺薄地理解非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)管理的理念和實(shí)踐，所以本文的論述是困難的。另

67、外，因?yàn)楸疚牡挠^點(diǎn)與關(guān)于非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)管理模式的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)不一致，且本文推崇的主要論點(diǎn)會(huì)使我們重新對(duì)非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)和它們的管理的看法進(jìn)行評(píng)估，因此也是有挑戰(zhàn)性的。</p><p>　　一開(kāi)始我們需要作出幾個(gè)說(shuō)明。首先，有幾個(gè)作者已經(jīng)表明重新評(píng)估非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)管理核心的必要性，本文的主要論點(diǎn)是以這些作者對(duì)美國(guó)和歐洲非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)角色的獨(dú)特見(jiàn)解（例如：Handy，1988;Billis，1989;andHudson，1999)

68、為基礎(chǔ)的。同樣地，他們的理念和規(guī)范管理方法也對(duì)本文的提議有很大的幫助(Powell和DiMaggio，1991;Gomez和Zimmermann，1993;Kanter和Summers，1987和Perrow,1986)。但是，本文是從這樣一種假設(shè)開(kāi)始著手分析的，即：當(dāng)前的管理和組織理論并不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題。非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是否與廠商和公共機(jī)構(gòu)完全不同，是否需要有獨(dú)立的管理模式和方法？試圖回答這個(gè)貌似簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題會(huì)帶來(lái)另外一些同樣有挑戰(zhàn)性的問(wèn)

69、題：非營(yíng)利的管理方式是否不同于商業(yè)管理方法？它的管理方法是否更接近于公共管理方法？或者，事實(shí)上我們是否發(fā)現(xiàn)非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的管理方式與兩種管理方式都有所區(qū)別？是否需要一種與公司和公共機(jī)構(gòu)的管理方式都不同的一種模式？</p><p>　　當(dāng)然，這些問(wèn)題的回答就涉及下述問(wèn)題：非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是什么？如何對(duì)它們進(jìn)行定義？與所有的機(jī)構(gòu)一樣，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)在任務(wù)、規(guī)模、運(yùn)行方式和影響等方面有所不同。一些可能更接近于政府機(jī)構(gòu)的模式；一些

70、可能確實(shí)更像一個(gè)廠商；還有一些可能僅僅是一個(gè)非正式的溝通網(wǎng)絡(luò)。雖然存在著這些不同，但是這一領(lǐng)域的研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)有著下列關(guān)鍵的特點(diǎn)(Salamon和Anheier，1997):</p><p>　　?組織性的，例如存在一些制度實(shí)體，就使這些機(jī)構(gòu)與一些非正式實(shí)體區(qū)別開(kāi)來(lái)，例如：家族、聚會(huì)或一些運(yùn)動(dòng)；</p><p>　　?私有的，與政府制度的區(qū)別，使這些組織與政府部門區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)；<

71、/p><p>　　非營(yíng)利性，不給所有人或股東產(chǎn)生任何利益回報(bào)，使非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)與商業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)；</p><p>　　?自治的模式，能夠掌控組織自己的活動(dòng)，與其它組織按照法律進(jìn)行活動(dòng)安排不同；</p><p>　　?自愿性的，本質(zhì)上是屬于非義務(wù)性的，在機(jī)構(gòu)的活動(dòng)或管理上是自愿性投入。</p><p>　　由于上述定義，我們就可以質(zhì)疑是否非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)是

72、一種有著特殊行為和結(jié)果的特殊形式。事實(shí)上，許多作者提出了他們的主張：Kramer(1981)認(rèn)為自愿機(jī)構(gòu)作為利益守護(hù)者和服務(wù)提供者的雙重職能；Hudson(1999)和Paton(1996)將價(jià)值取向看作為非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的本質(zhì)特點(diǎn)；Tonkiss和Passey(1999)認(rèn)為信任和志愿主義是非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的核心。Billis(1989)認(rèn)為大部分非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的本質(zhì)是比較模糊的；Lohmann(1989)認(rèn)為人們的觀點(diǎn)是理解這種機(jī)構(gòu)的關(guān)鍵。<

73、;/p><p>　　問(wèn)題是上面的每一種觀點(diǎn)都是有效的，至少在一定程度上對(duì)一些非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是有效的，但并不是全部。有一些非營(yíng)利組織確實(shí)具有Kramer所述的兩種職能，但是也有一些不是。有一些機(jī)構(gòu)確實(shí)是以價(jià)值為引導(dǎo)或以價(jià)值為基礎(chǔ)，但是還有一些組織運(yùn)行時(shí)完全沒(méi)有任何明確的價(jià)值體系或意識(shí)。一些機(jī)構(gòu)非常少量地依賴于志愿主義，甚至完全沒(méi)有任何志愿者。一些大的非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)并不像Billis(1989)所認(rèn)為的那樣模糊；還有一些機(jī)構(gòu)并

74、不太符合Lohmann(1989)的觀點(diǎn)。似乎我們的觀點(diǎn)必須再深入一點(diǎn)。在本文中，我們的觀點(diǎn)有這樣一個(gè)最基本的前提，即:</p><p>　　非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理模式通常被人們所誤解，因?yàn)槿藗兺耆焕斫膺@些機(jī)構(gòu)；而且它的性質(zhì)經(jīng)常被人們所錯(cuò)誤的想象，因?yàn)槲覀儗?duì)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的功能有錯(cuò)誤的假設(shè)。</p><p>　　在論述這一前提時(shí)，我們必須意識(shí)到，在過(guò)去，“管理”在非營(yíng)利性的領(lǐng)域里通常被認(rèn)為是一

75、個(gè)“不好的詞”，“管理”的行為與人們認(rèn)為的該部門的本質(zhì)：志愿主義、慈善事業(yè)、同情和關(guān)注公益事業(yè)，是相違背的。更有甚者，一些分析師認(rèn)為非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是不重要、不合理的(Perrow，1986,pp.172-173)。但是，近年來(lái)我們見(jiàn)證了幾乎相反的一種發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。非營(yíng)利性已經(jīng)變成了一種主要的經(jīng)濟(jì)動(dòng)力(Salamon等人1999),非政府機(jī)構(gòu)己經(jīng)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橹匾恼涡袆?dòng)者(Meyer等人1997;和Lewis,1999)。在這個(gè)過(guò)程中，許多非營(yíng)利性

76、組織開(kāi)始包含語(yǔ)言、管理實(shí)踐、甚至商業(yè)文化，這種情況在美國(guó)特別顯著，也逐漸發(fā)展到歐洲。為何會(huì)出現(xiàn)這種情況？是如何發(fā)生的？為何非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)和非營(yíng)利性管理仍然沒(méi)有得到充分的理解？</p><p>　　盡管本文并不能全部回答這些問(wèn)題，我們認(rèn)為有四個(gè)問(wèn)題對(duì)我們的關(guān)注點(diǎn)特別重要。這四個(gè)問(wèn)題有明顯的，有微妙的，有簡(jiǎn)單的，有復(fù)雜的。</p><p><b>　　2問(wèn)題</b><

77、/p><p><b>　　2.1新事物的缺陷</b></p><p>　　首先，讓我們著眼于比較明顯的問(wèn)題，即：新事物的缺陷，本文所指的是新 的模型和技術(shù)由于缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)和不熟悉等原因，如何面對(duì)初始的困難和問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　工業(yè)國(guó)家的非營(yíng)利性部門已經(jīng)成為主要的經(jīng)濟(jì)動(dòng)力。根據(jù)Johns Hopkins對(duì) 22個(gè)國(guó)家的非營(yíng)利性部門項(xiàng)目的研究，包括

78、：美國(guó)、英國(guó)、法國(guó)、德國(guó)和日本,非營(yíng)利性部門平均雇傭了全國(guó)5%的員工(Salamcm等人1999)。另外，除了有償工作之外，22個(gè)國(guó)家的非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)總共擁有相當(dāng)于1040萬(wàn)個(gè)全職員工的志愿者。如果加上這些，那么這22個(gè)國(guó)家的非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)雇傭的員工比率可以達(dá)到7.1%。另外，許多的非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是以歷史悠久的施惠、志愿、慈善或社交為原則為基礎(chǔ)的。事實(shí)上，在大部分國(guó)家，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是至少三十年的產(chǎn)物，隨著社會(huì)福利法、人口與文化轉(zhuǎn)移、社會(huì)的繁榮

79、和國(guó)家角色轉(zhuǎn)變等因素而逐漸展開(kāi)的(Ben-Ner和Gui，1993)。Salamon等人（1999)發(fā)現(xiàn)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)20世紀(jì)80年代和90年代期間的就業(yè)增長(zhǎng)作出了巨大的貢獻(xiàn)。</p><p>　　在這個(gè)背景下，我們可以假設(shè)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)屬于發(fā)現(xiàn)管理，因?yàn)樗麄儾辉偈荘errow(1986)在20世紀(jì)80年代所寫的不重要和不合適的機(jī)構(gòu)了?，F(xiàn)在，這些機(jī)構(gòu)足夠大且重要能夠影響經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治，不管是作為一種機(jī)構(gòu)或者是一種部門。

80、因此，我們可以總結(jié)出：非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)被誤解是因?yàn)樗匀皇且粋€(gè)比較新的組織。隨著時(shí)間的發(fā)展，我們可以期望，我們的對(duì)它的了解會(huì)逐漸增多，管理方法也會(huì)獲得相應(yīng)的提高。</p><p><b>　　2.2模仿原則</b></p><p>　　我們的問(wèn)題的第二個(gè)回答是微妙的。與第一條的“新事物的缺陷”的論點(diǎn)形成對(duì)比的是，“新事物的缺陷”強(qiáng)調(diào)的是當(dāng)前非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)缺乏經(jīng)驗(yàn)；而“模仿”

81、原則強(qiáng)調(diào)的是非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)“發(fā)現(xiàn)”的管理方式。我們需要牢記非營(yíng)利性部門在相對(duì)穩(wěn)定的政治環(huán)境下經(jīng)歷了數(shù)十年的發(fā)展，至少在歐盟國(guó)家和美國(guó)。重要的是，非營(yíng)利性部門不太受到商業(yè)周期和市場(chǎng)盛衰的限制。事實(shí)上，很少有哪個(gè)行業(yè)可以有這么長(zhǎng)期的歷程，不管是政治上還是經(jīng)濟(jì)上都沒(méi)有大的動(dòng)蕩和起伏。</p><p>　　但是凡事都會(huì)發(fā)生變化，格局變化的很快。許多非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)正在面臨更多的不確定性、特別是在經(jīng)濟(jì)領(lǐng)域，因?yàn)檎A(yù)算在縮減，且

82、非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)正被要求承擔(dān)更多的責(zé)任(Deakin，1995)。因此，在愈發(fā)危險(xiǎn)的效益環(huán)境下，許多非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)更加強(qiáng)調(diào)管理，特別是那些在過(guò)去很大程度上依賴于政府支持的機(jī)構(gòu)。因此，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)必須處理一些它們并不適應(yīng)的情況：不確定性。</p><p>　　在困境中的非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)正在尋求外界的一些它們認(rèn)力是成功和有希望的模式(DiMaggio和Powell,1983)。這是一種商業(yè)界和政府比較普遍的模仿行為。在20世紀(jì)

83、90年代的文化和政治環(huán)境中，“成功”的模式更在商業(yè)界中比較多。因此，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)開(kāi)始向營(yíng)利的公司和商業(yè)企業(yè)尋求管理工具和模式，希望找到能夠解決它們所面臨的經(jīng)濟(jì)挑戰(zhàn)的解決方法。</p><p>　　這種對(duì)于商業(yè)管理的關(guān)注與過(guò)去是不同的，之前公共機(jī)構(gòu)通常被認(rèn)為是最接近非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的組織模式。這種過(guò)去行為的典型后果是非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的“國(guó)家方針取向”，特別是在歐洲大陸。它使非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樗綘I(yíng)公用事業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)，盡管它們并沒(méi)有享

84、受政府機(jī)構(gòu)擁有的合法性、民主控制和權(quán)威。盡管沒(méi)有驅(qū)使商業(yè)的利益動(dòng)機(jī)，我們現(xiàn)在是否能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的商業(yè)性？</p><p>　　因?yàn)榉菭I(yíng)利性企業(yè)的不確定性主要來(lái)自于財(cái)政資源領(lǐng)域，因此，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理一般指的是財(cái)務(wù)管理也就不足為奇了。過(guò)去，財(cái)務(wù)模型來(lái)自于政府會(huì)計(jì)，事實(shí)上，許多歐洲的非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)仍然沿用的是“卡馬拉”式的會(huì)計(jì)原則。如今，相比之下，財(cái)務(wù)模型來(lái)自或者參考于商業(yè)界(參考McKinney，1995)。

85、首先意味著改進(jìn)的財(cái)務(wù)問(wèn)責(zé)制度和匯報(bào)，活動(dòng)的稅收、效益問(wèn)題，并且隨著20世紀(jì)90年代非營(yíng)利性產(chǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展，籌款制度和其它稅收多樣化措施的改編。</p><p>　　非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理主要強(qiáng)調(diào)財(cái)務(wù)管理有著深遠(yuǎn)的意義。財(cái)務(wù)管理可以通過(guò)投入、產(chǎn)出、成本和稅收、資產(chǎn)與負(fù)債等形式來(lái)對(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行評(píng)估。我們使用企業(yè)會(huì)計(jì)的形式對(duì)機(jī)構(gòu)的運(yùn)行進(jìn)行合理的說(shuō)明，但是在操作過(guò)程中還有一個(gè)缺陷：非營(yíng)利性企業(yè)不能完全參考企業(yè)的操作方式。因?yàn)闋I(yíng)利性機(jī)

86、構(gòu)的會(huì)計(jì)不僅僅是成本本身，反之，它的目的是建立合理的內(nèi)外部?jī)r(jià)格體系。換句話說(shuō)，財(cái)務(wù)管理是成本和營(yíng)利最大化的管理。但是，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)是什么情況呢？因?yàn)樗鼈儾⒉灰髮⒔疱X利益最大化，且非營(yíng)利性服務(wù)的定價(jià)主要是反映在管理費(fèi)用和成本因素這兩個(gè)方面，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的財(cái)務(wù)管理通常僅僅是成本控制和成本縮減。</p><p>　　當(dāng)然，包含成本也是相當(dāng)重要的。但是，我們必須提出“為什么，為誰(shuí)控制成本？”在一家商業(yè)公司，回答這些問(wèn)題

87、并不困難：那里，我們縮減成本是因?yàn)槲覀兿胍獙⑺姓叩睦孀畲蠡?；而?duì)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)，這個(gè)問(wèn)題要復(fù)雜一點(diǎn)，而且涉及股權(quán)方面，對(duì)公共事業(yè)的服務(wù)，價(jià)值考量，同情等其它方面。</p><p>　　財(cái)務(wù)管理是首要的，而不是目的和任務(wù)管理。非營(yíng)利性管理模仿商業(yè)模式和實(shí)踐，無(wú)論好壞，使非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)走上了財(cái)務(wù)管理的路線。盡管如此，還涉及一個(gè)更加根本的問(wèn)題：首先是商業(yè)管理模式的適應(yīng)性，這才是我們現(xiàn)在面對(duì)的問(wèn)題。</p>

88、<p><b>　　2.3底線是什么？</b></p><p>　　事實(shí)上，在弄清楚對(duì)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)誤解的這個(gè)比較模糊的原因之后，請(qǐng)?jiān)试S我闡述一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的觀點(diǎn)：人們將當(dāng)前非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理說(shuō)成是財(cái)政管理是有一定諷刺意味的。假設(shè)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)存在的理由并不是金錢，為何對(duì)它有這么多的關(guān)注？金錢，或者說(shuō)財(cái)政資源更多的是非營(yíng)利的一種途徑而不是目的。而且，正如上文中所述，通過(guò)釆用注重貨幣底線的管

89、理模式和實(shí)踐，我們可能會(huì)忽略非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的真正意義。不管它們存在的模式是什么，都不可能是金錢。但是到底是為/什么呢？或者我們可以選用Dennis Young’s (1983)的經(jīng)典語(yǔ)錄，我們可以 問(wèn)：如果不是為了利益，那么是為了什么呢？最后，底線到底是什么？</p><p>　　值得注目的是，傳統(tǒng)管理方法似乎在運(yùn)作時(shí)是假設(shè)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)沒(méi)有底線的。事實(shí)上，PeterDrucker曾經(jīng)說(shuō)過(guò)，因?yàn)榈拙€的缺失，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)

90、構(gòu)比營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)更需要好的管理模式，因?yàn)闋I(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的運(yùn)行狀態(tài)更容易被評(píng)估和監(jiān)管(Drucker，1990)。但是，Drncker遺漏了一個(gè)根本：非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)并非沒(méi)有底線，問(wèn)題是它們有好幾條底線，有人會(huì)說(shuō)“有的時(shí)候底線太多?！狈菭I(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)有好幾條底線，因?yàn)樗鼈儧](méi)有價(jià)格機(jī)制能夠計(jì)算客戶、員工、志愿者和其它股東的利益，也不能夠匹配成本利潤(rùn)，供求適應(yīng)和判斷所取得的成就是否達(dá)到了期望的目標(biāo)。本文研究和總結(jié)了有著不同底線的非營(yíng)利機(jī)構(gòu)的運(yùn)行模式，這些機(jī)

91、構(gòu)要求有不同的管理方法和類型：強(qiáng)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)多元化的理念；包含經(jīng)濟(jì)要素和價(jià)值、政策重要性的規(guī)范維度；將該機(jī)構(gòu)看作為經(jīng)常遇到各種問(wèn)題和機(jī)遇的進(jìn)化系統(tǒng)的戰(zhàn)略發(fā)展維度；處理機(jī)構(gòu)日常功能的運(yùn)行維度。</p><p>　　在營(yíng)利性領(lǐng)域，我們有鏈接買家和賣家的商品和服務(wù)價(jià)格，鏈接雇主和員工的薪酬（勞資談判），鏈接股東和管理者的利益，鏈接公司與政府部門的稅收。當(dāng)然，這些價(jià)格被建立和引入市場(chǎng)的方式也存在著許多缺陷。重要的是我們能夠發(fā)現(xiàn)

92、所有的這些價(jià)格可以合并為一個(gè)經(jīng)濟(jì)底線。事實(shí)上，價(jià)格確實(shí)是交易成本經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、現(xiàn)有機(jī)構(gòu)經(jīng)濟(jì)解釋的基本介質(zhì)(Williamson,1975)。價(jià)格作為一種信息媒介，是根據(jù)管理成本或代理市場(chǎng)價(jià)格來(lái)設(shè)置的。而且，與政府機(jī)構(gòu)不同，非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)的管理者沒(méi)有設(shè)置機(jī)構(gòu)領(lǐng)域以外的相關(guān)條款和價(jià)格的法定職權(quán)。當(dāng)然，并不是每一個(gè)非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)都有兩條、三條或者更多的底線；具體的數(shù)量取決于該機(jī)構(gòu)設(shè)置的目的和結(jié)構(gòu)。但是，管理方法必須隨著非營(yíng)利性企業(yè)的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)來(lái)設(shè)置多條底

93、線，但是有可能很難辨別哪一個(gè)底線更重要。這些底線的表現(xiàn)形式為：</p><p>　　?許多非營(yíng)利性機(jī)構(gòu)擁有雙重管理結(jié)構(gòu)，通常，操作章程是行政主管的職權(quán)，而機(jī)構(gòu)的全面管理則在董事會(huì)的掌控之中。通常董事會(huì)，例如股東董事會(huì)強(qiáng)調(diào)的是機(jī)構(gòu)的任務(wù)，而不僅僅是財(cái)務(wù)管理的底線；而管理則注重的是機(jī)構(gòu)運(yùn)行過(guò)程中的運(yùn)行情況和資金問(wèn)題。</p><p>　　?員工、志愿者和股東們復(fù)雜的動(dòng)機(jī)結(jié)構(gòu)，以及無(wú)私的與自我的