Board participation in Corporate Governance, Monitoring and Evaluation in

Zimbabwe Civil Society:

A case of Harare Youth Organizations





Travor Murai

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Board participation in Corporate Governance, Monitoring and Evaluation in
Zimbabwe Civil Society:

A case of Harare Youth Organizations

Travor Murai

Submitted in part of the requirements of the Master of Science in
Development Studies Dissertation
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
National University of Science and Technology Zimbabwe (NUST)

Supervisor: Dr. Z. L. Dube
February 2013
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i

Copyright Waiver

I hereby cede to the National University of Science and Technology library all the intellectual property
rights attaching to this dissertation/work. As the owner of the copyright over this work, the University
may store, publish or otherwise distribute the entire volume of this work or parts thereof as its discretion
will dictate.

I further certify that where applicable all copyright permission and or other authorization to use
privileged information has been obtained and attached hereto. Therefore University should not suffer
any prejudice owing to the contents of this work.


Name: Travor Murai

Signature
Date: February 06, 2013











ii



I understand that the National University of Science and Technology and the Graduate School of
Business enforce a code of conduct against plagiarism and copyright infringement. Further to that, I
understand that there are severe legal and academic penalties for the breach of that code. In keeping with
the said code of conduct against plagiarism and copyright infringement, I make the following
declarations:

1. That I have read the Universitys code of conduct against plagiarism contained in the Universitys
yearbook
2. That I have not committed the offence of plagiarism and copyright infringement in my work.
3. That I have not colluded or otherwise co-operated with anyone in doing my work here presented.
4. That I have not colluded or otherwise co-operated with anyone to help them present my work as their
own.
5. That the work I am presenting is original and that it is free from fabrication, falsification,
collaboration and collusion.
Name: Travor Murai

Signature

Date: February 06, 2013


iii


This study aims to investigate Board participation in the Zimbabwe Civil Society Organizations
(ZCSOs) through two processes that provide for such participation, Corporate Governance (CG) and
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) in averting a scenario where corporate and programmatic
misdemeanors of few stakeholders extirpate the well being of individual organizations and viability of
civil society. This follows a period of political and socio-economic upheavals in the country around the
turn of the century that compromised full board participation in Corporate Governance and Monitoring
and Evaluation (CGM&E) in ZCSOs. The upheavals also compelled many including in ZCSOs to irk out
livelihood and excel in unmerited fortune and fame, perceived or real, outside the precincts of CGM&E
by looting, hoarding, kickbacks, cheating, gaming, suborning, forging, lying, fraud, stealing, fawning,
libeling and the like habits which may have had acquired the status of instinct to some. Buffeted by
stakeholder calls for maximization of benefits to all, civil society practitioners have searched for new
ways to meet expectations of its different stakeholders. Board participation in guaranteeing full
stakeholder participation in CGM&E as an approach is sure of an interested reception in civil society
as it proffers an alternative way to meet different and often conflicting stakeholder expectations beyond
lip service. The study is premised on the view that it is the duty of the board to ensure that CGM&E
systems that allow for all stakeholder participation in aspects of the organization related to CGM&E
are in place. The prediction being that the existence and active use of such systems by all stakeholders
guard against CG failures and project/programmes failures in delivering on impact in ZCSOs.
Guaranteeing that functioning CGM&E systems are in place and in active use in an organization is
ultimately a responsibility of the board although other stakeholders have penultimate roles. The study
aims to restore faith in donors and other stakeholders and also contain and push back the negative
CGM&E challenges emerging in ZCSOs. It provides a coherent framework that will guide development
of sound CG and participatory project/programme M&E systems in these organizations and beyond.
The framework is informed by the implications derived from theories relevant to CGM&E namely the
agency theory; stewardship theory; managerial hegemony theory; globalization theory; democratic
model; human rights approach model; ubuntu model; Sustainable Development (SD) model ; resource
dependency theory; modernization theory and the dependencias and post modernist thinking.
Key Words: Corporate Governance, Monitoring and Evaluation, Civil Society.

iv


It is very difficult to pin point any individuals to credit them for this academic trajectory that has
culminated in this dissertation. My supervisor, Dr. L. Z. Dube remain the most recent and immediate
contributor to this success story through his patience, guidance and direction. Other individuals include
Director of Habakkuk Trust O.D. Nkomo, also former English teacher at Mzilikazi High School and a
former advisor to the Scripture Union at the same school who sow the seeds in me to remain focused on
my studies to this day. Thabani Nyoni, now Director of Bulawayo Agenda has always been a childhood
comrade and academic mentor from the days he took us for O-level crash programmes at Njube
Secondary School to this period as a Lecturer for this Masters Degree.
There are many activists and leaders in Civil Society that have helped by allowing me to have
discussions with them over the years or by giving me academic material and they include L. Mazingi, A.
Chitanana, S. Moyo, P. Ruhanya, P. Zamchiya, F. Nyamande, P. Chimedza, L. Manshungu, T.
Masiyambiri, D. Tigere, W. Zindove, D. Madzonga, R. Mahiya, G. Ruswa, M. Nyamanhindi, T.
Muswelanto, A. Zaya, M. Kuchera, A. Ndawana, I. Zimunya, M. Mlilo, J. Wilford, S. Gwenzi, A.
Chamunogwa, I. B. Ncube, I. Kasiyano, G. Hlatwayo, S. Weza, Matilda Moyo, M. Kachambwa, W.
Katema, T. Chabvuta, S. Mahowa and M. Lewanika. I also benefited from discussions with class mates
who are members of Development Practitioners Group. In addition online discussions with UZ
Department of Statistics former classmates of the 2012 course in Data Management and Analysis using
Epi-Info and SPSS were very helpful in perfecting Chapter 3. The foundations for this study were laid
through the tutorship by my lecturers Dr. Ncube, Dr. Maunganidze, Dr. Mhlophe, Dr. Luthe, Mr.
Thulani Dube, Mr. Thompson Dube, Mr. T. Nyoni, Mr. M.J.M. Nyoni and Mr. Nyakudyara.
The commitment to a dissertation at times distract people from their family commitments and I would
not have made it without the solid support from all my family members who had to step in to cover gaps
that I would have left void due to my obsession with this work. They include all my siblings, my mother
Sibongile Dungeni, my inlaws and my immediate family, wife Mercyline Chapeyama, son and daughter
Trevor Murai Junior and Tyra Tsungai Murai respectively. I record my thanks to all others not
mentioned by name as they assisted in many ways including through being interviews and questionnaire
respondents for this study. More importantly all praises to the Almighty God for this success story.

v



AIDS Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome
BC Board Chair
CI Casual Inference
CiZC Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition
CG Corporate Governance
CGM&E Corporate Governance, Monitoring and Evaluation
CMV Common Method variance
CS Civil Society
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FSN Female Students Network
GNC Global North Countries
GNU Government of National Unity
HIV Human Immuno-deficiency Virus
HRBA Human Rights Based approach

vi

LGBTIs Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual, Trans-gender and Inter-sex people
MA Masters of Arts Degree
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MPhil Masters of Philosophy Degree
MSc Master of Science Degree
NANGO National Association of Non Governmental Organizations
NAYO National Association of Youth Organization
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NFPs Not For Profit organization
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
SD Sustainable Development
SCMZ Students Christian Movement of Zimbabwe
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science/ Statistical Product and Service Solutions
SST Student Solidarity Trust
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
YAT Youth Agenda Trust
YETT Youth Empowerment and Transformation Trust
ZCSOs Zimbabwe Civil Society Organization
ZiDERA Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act
ZINASU Zimbabwe National Students Union
ZYC Zimbabwe Youth Council

vii


Copyright Waiver i
Statement of Original authorship ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgments iv
List of abbreviations v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables ix
List of figures xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Literature Review 5
1.5 Research Justification 6
1.6 Problem Statement 7
1.7 Statement on Methodology 8
1.8 Statement on Treatment of Data 9
1.9 Limitations and Assumptions of the Study 9
1.10 Layout and Summary of Other Chapters 10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Conceptualization of Key Terms 11
2.2.1 Board of Trustees/Directors 11
2.2.2 Corporate Governance 12
2.2.3 Participation 12
2.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 13
2.2.5 Civil Society Organizations 13
2.3 State of Youth Organizations in Zimbabwe Civil Society 15
2.4 Board Governance 16
2.4.1 Board Composition and Size 16
2.4.2 Board Roles and Responsibilities 18
2.4.3 Board Performance and Effectiveness 19
2.4.4 Board Involvement in Strategy Development and Planning 21
2.4.5 Board Involvement in Resource Mobilization 21
2.4.6 Board Sources of Authority and Terms of Reference 22
2.4.7 Relationship of Board and Management Team 22
2.4.8 Board Committees 23
2.4.9 Board Meetings and their Procedures 23
2.5 Boards Relations with the Head of Secretariat 23
2.6 Theoretical Framework 24
2.6.1 Agency Theory 24

viii

2.6.2 Stewardship Theory 25
2.6.3 Resource Dependency Theory 26
2.6.4 Democratic Model 27
2.6.5 Stakeholder Theory 28
2.6.6 Management Hegemony Theory 29
2.7 Chapter Summary and Conclusions 30
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 Introduction 32
3.2 Research Design 33
3.3 Sampling-Selection of Respondents 33
3.4 Research Methods 36
3.5 Data Collection Tools 36
3.6 Designing Data Collection Tools 37
3.7 Pretesting Data Collection Tools 40
3.8 Administration and Response Rate 40
3.9 Chapter Summary and Conclusions 43
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS 44
4.1 Introduction 44
4.2 Significance of Statistical Analytical Tools Used 44
4.3 Tables, Figures, Illustrations and their Interpretations 44
4.4Tying Individual Results into a Unified Whole 55
4.5 Direction of the Study shown by Results 56
4.6 Salient Points and Chapter Summary 58
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 60
5.1Introduction 60
5.2 Relevance of Results to Existing Body of Knowledge 60
5.3 Revamping Existing Theoretical Landscape 60
5.3.1 Human Rights Based Approach 61
5.3.2 Ubuntu Theory 62
5.3.3 Sustainable Development Model 63
5.3.4 Globalization Theory 64
5.3.5 Post Modernists and Dependencias 65
5.3.6 Modernization Theory 67
5.4 Conclusions in Point Form 67
5.5 Explanation of Conclusions 68
5.6 Achievement of Study Objectives 71
5.7 Limitations of the Study 72
5.8 Recommendations 73
5.9 Suggestions for Future Research 74
5.10 Comprehensive Summary and Conclusion 74
REFERENCES 76
APPENDIX A xiii


ix


Table 1: Umbrella Organizations and selected members from each 35
Table 2: Variables and data sources 40
Table 3: Interview Formats Used 43
Table 4: Various ways used for collecting the data for the Questionnaire 43
Table Q1: Frequency Table showing Sex of Respondents 44
Table Q4: Contracts/Policies of Engagement with the Organization 46
Table Q21: Ranking of items in order of importance to the board 50
Table Q2: Level of Education of Respondents xiii
Table Q3: Categories of Stakeholders xiii
Table Q5: Focus Areas of Youth Organizations xv
Table Q6: Showing respondents coming from Interest and Service Based Organizations xv
Table Q7: Showing Respondents from Organizations with Elected Executives and those without xv
Table Q8: Registration of Youth Organizations xv
Table Q9: Governance Documents xvi
Table Q10: Categories or Groups of Stakeholders xvi
Table Q11: Grants Administered xvi
Table Q12: Number of Full Time Staff Members xvii
Table Q13: Number of Rooms Occupied as Office Space xvii
Table Q14: Number of members or beneficiaries xvii
Table Q15: Average Annual Budget for the last two years xviii
Table Q16: Number of Programmatic Departments xviii
Table Q17: Value of Assets of Organizations xviii
Table Q19: Ability to recall and match names of board members and their positions xix
Table Q20: Participation of Board as Pre-requisite for viability xx
Table Q22A: Personnel and Human Resources Policy xx
Table Q22B: Accounting and Reporting Policy xx
Table Q22C: Travel and Perdiums Policy xxi
Table Q22D: Staff Development Policy xxi
Table Q22E: Organizational Use Policy xxi
Table Q22F: Assets Acquisition Policy xxi
Table Q22G: Compliance and Audit Policy xxii
Table Q22H: Monitoring and Evaluation Policy xxii
Table Q22I: Gender Policy xxii
Table Q22J: HIV and AIDS policy xxii
Table Q22K: Membership / Beneficiaries Protocol xxiii
Table Q22L: Networking Policy xxiii
Table Q22M: Strategic Planning Policy xxiii
Table Q22N: Internet Use Policy xxiii
Table Q22O: Training Policy xxiv
Table Q22P: Conflicts of Interest and Code of Ethics Policies xxiv

x

Table Q22Q: Security of electronic Data Policy xxiv
Table Q22R: Fraud or financial improprieties reporting Policy xxv
Table Q22S: Employment Policy xxv
Table Q23: Awareness of corporate failures xxv
Table Q24: Number Youth Organizations besieged with CG failures in the Past xxv
Table Q25A: Incorrect Board Appointments xxvi
Table Q25B: Board lack of legitimacy xxvi
Table Q25C: Absence of Board Policy xxvi
Table Q25D: Lack of understanding of Board roles xxvii
Table Q25E: Insufficient board audit role xxvii
Table Q25F: Too few or too many board members xxvii
Table Q25G: Poor attendance in board meetings xxvii
Table Q25H: Poor academic qualifications xxviii
Table Q25I: Board lack of skills and experience xxviii
Table Q25J: Lack of Board Performance Review xxviii
Table Q25K: Weak Board Chairperson xxix
Table Q25L: Lack of professional diversity xxix
Table Q25M: Over bearing commitments elsewhere xxix
Table Q25N: Lack of Representation in the board xxx
Table Q25O: Board disharmony (factions, fights) xxx
Table Q25P: External political Board manipulation xxx
Table Q25Q: Management Board manipulation xxx
Table Q25R: Board detachment on corporate issues xxxi
Table Q25S: Board failure to resolve broad conflicts xxxi
Table Q25T: Boards & stakeholders poor relations xxxi
Table Q25U: Absence of strategy and plan xxxi
Table Q25V: Board Poor resource mobilization xxxii
Table Q25W: Mishandling management remuneration xxxii
Table Q25X: Biased management recruitment xxxii
Table Q25Y: Failure to review CGME systems xxxiii
Table Q25Z: Poor risk management xxxiii
Table Q26A-K: Board Members Highest Academic Qualifications xxxiii
Table Q26: Board Members Highest Academic Qualifications xxxiii
Table Q26A: Below High School Certificate xxxiv
Table Q26B: High School Certificate xxxiv
Table Q26C: Undergraduate Diploma/Certificate xxxiv
Table Q26D: Undergraduate degree xxxiv
Table 26QE: Postgraduate Diploma xxxv
Table Q26F: MA/MSc/MPhil xxxv
Table Q26G: PhD/DPhil xxxv
Table Q26H: Professorship xxxv
Table 26QI: Qualification Unknown xxxvi
Table Q27: Sectors represented by board members xxxvi
Table Q27A: Civil Service xxxvi
Table Q27B: Civil Society xxxvii
Table Q27C: Private Sector xxxvii

xi

Table Q27D: Academia xxxvii
Table Q27E: Political parties xxxvii
Table Q27F: International NGOs xxxviii
Table Q27G: Donor Organizations xxxviii
Table Q27H: Churches xxxviii
Table Q27I: Self projects/businesses xxxviii
Table Q27J: Consultancy xxxviii
Table Q27K: Media xxxix
Table Q27L: Other Sectors xxxix
Table Q28: Professional background of board members xxxix
Table Q28A: Accountants xxxix
Table Q28B: Lawyers xI
Table Q28C: Social Science Practitioners xI
Table Q28D: Medical Practitioners xI
Table Q28E: Hard Sciences xI
Table Q28F: Media Practitioners xIi
Tables Q29A-M: Improving performance and effectiveness of Boards xIi
Table Q29A: Improving Effectiveness and performance through compulsory education xIi
Table Q29B: Improving Effectiveness and performance through sponsored education xIi
Table Q29C: Improving Effectiveness and performance through tailor made training xIii
Table Q29D: Improving management reporting and relations with the board xIii
Table Q29E: Relieving under-qualified management and staff and recruiting qualified persons xIii
Table Q29F: Progressively transforming Boards to attain diverse professional backgrounds xIiii
Table Q29G: Review board policies CGME systems through organizational development process xIiii
Table Q29H: Improving board procedures and attendance in meetings xIiii
Table Q29I: Improving Boards interest in CGME issues xIiv
Table Q29J: Attain board independence from management xIiv
Table Q29K: Attain board independence from civil society politics xIiv
Table Q29L: Enforce adherence to CGME systems xIv
Table Q29M: take measures to attain harmony and cooperation among board members xIv
Table Q30: Actors ideal to facilitate training workshops and short courses in CGME xIv
Table Q32A: Absence of a national corporate governance code xIvi
Table Q32B: Failure to incorporate CG into tertiary education curriculum xIvi
Table Q32C: Entrenched Corruption in All Sectors xIvi
Table Q32D: Failure to mainstream CG into national development agenda xIvii
Table Q33: Suggestions for developing capacities of employees in CGM&E xIvii
Table Q34: Number of scholarships required xIvii





xii


Figure 1: Level of Education of Respondents 45
Figure Q1: Sex of Respondents xiii
Figure Q3: Response Rate Pattern to Questionnaire xiv
Figure Q4: Contracts/Policies of Engagement with the Organization xiv
Figure Q18: Awareness of Existence of Board xix
















1


1.1 Introduction
Chapter one details what is it that this study investigates and why. It gives a brief background shedding
light on the national, socio-political context highlighting the link that Corporate Governance,
Monitoring and Evaluation (CGM&E) issues have to that period and how the board out of all other
groups of stakeholders emerge central to CGM&E systems. It then gives an introduction to the whole
study with research objectives included following thereafter. A brief literature review is outlined. The
chapter then outlines research justification and various components of the research problem including
the research questions and hypotheses. The chapter then gives statements on methodology and on
treatment of data. Lastly the chapter gives an outline of how the study proceeds and chapter one
summary. The introduction provides a detailed snippet into the entire study. Major themes are also
introduced in this section and major findings and recommendations highlighted. In addition, theories
that guided the discussion in this study are outlined.
As background the study sheds light on the context of national, socio-political and economic
developments leading to the formation of Zimbabwe Civil Society Organizations (ZCSOs) under
investigation in this study with types of CGM&E systems that warrant reforms, the very reforms
whose ingenious development framework is provided for in this study. Zimbabwes socio-economic
and political standing deflated after four major developments from the 1990s to the turn of the century
(Chikuhwa 2006; Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2006; Sibanda 2010). The first was the adoption of Economic
Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP). The second was the intervention in the civil war in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The third was the unbudgeted pecuniary compensations for
war veterans. The last was the fast track land reform programme that expropriated formerly white
owned farming land.
The socio-economic and political nadir (human rights morass, prodigious hyper-inflation, popular
urban insurrection against the government and capital firms, militarization of the state, closing of
democratic space, political and election disputes) emanating from the consequences of the above
mentioned four inauspicious historical developments attracted international condemnation, particularly

2

from Global North Countries (GNC), including economic sanctions (Chingono 2010; Prinslow 2010).
Indeed there is a miscellany of other factors such as droughts that contributed to the socio-economic
and political down turn in the country (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2006). One of the consequence of the
Zimbabwe Economic and Democracy Recovery Act (ZiDERA) of 2001 and other such sanctions
imposed by European Union is that the country stopped receiving direct budgetary support (Prinslow
2010). The reasons for the imposition of the sanctions and the impact they have had on Zimbabwe
were beyond the purview of this study for obvious reasons, space and time. The GNC preferred during
the conflict/crisis days to redirect aid from national budgetary support through government and
channel it through the Not For Profit sector (NFPs) (Ndlovu-Gatsheni 2006). This is how a certain
category of NFPs; the human rights, democracy and governance ZCSOs were created.
The argument made in this study is that redirection of aid away from budgetary support around the turn
of the century, leading to the mushrooming of NFPs around that time was done perfunctorily without
due regard to internal CGM&E capacities in these organizations; the prognosis being that the state is
bad while Civil Society (CS) outside it is good, although without sound scholarly justification (Moyo
1993); in anticipation of accelerated impact to redress the effects of the then governance crisis
obtaining in the country at that period. Therefore this study posited that there is a category of NFPs in
Zimbabwe, largely referred to as Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) which are an outcome of
withdrawal of national budgetary support and channeling of the same support through the NFPs and
also importantly an outcome of the shrinkage in democratic, human rights and governance space in
Zimbabwe around the turn of the century and thus corporate failures in ZCSOs are a good measure of
the faults of a hasty diversion from budgetary support to supporting NFPs. The CSOs created in this
manner are therefore found almost all of them focusing on democracy, human rights and governance
issues. Lee (2011) echoes this perspective and further stated that in terms of financing and to a lesser
extent agenda setting, ZCSOs are a creature of the international donor community which provides most
of the necessary material resources. It has been stated that CSOs were seemingly created to contribute
towards democratization. However Lee (2011) observes that the effectiveness of the broader struggle
for democratization should also be conceived internally by dint of effectiveness of CG systems.
CGM&E systems are in custody of and largely a function of the boards of these organizations. It is
against this backdrop, that the purpose of this study is to investigate board participation in CGM&E,
revealing gaps and proffering frameworks for development of ingenious CGM&E.
As much as it is contended here that the definition of CSOs or CS is contested and include all
organizations in the NFPs; the term ZCSOs was used in this study contextually to delineate those

3

organizations that flooded the NFPs around the turn of the century. Lee (2011) contended in line with
the above contextualization that ZCSOs are a recent phenomenon in the countrys political
development with most being born during the decade-long crisis from the late 1990s onward.
The study is premised on the view that in the first decade of the century there was not much
stakeholder concern on the accountability, participation, transparency and effectiveness aspects of
these organizations as expressed through sound CGM&E mainly due to the overbearing economic and
political challenges in the country. After the first decade of the century with its accompanying global
crunch resulting in dwindling support for NFPs; combined with the political and economic recovery of
Zimbabwe post February 2009
1
resulting in strides towards GNC reengaging Zimbabwe for budgetary
support; accountability, transparency, effectiveness and participation as represented through sound
CGM&E became a matter of survival for the CSOs formed post year 2000. Tricker (2012) has
highlighted this by contending that the global financial crisis in 2007 added further strands to CG
policy and practice. On the part of donors, as a result of limited resources at their disposal to support
ZSCOs, in choosing which organizations to keep supporting and which ones to drop, there was
seemingly a need to ensure that the little remaining support to ZCSOs achieved what it was intended;
meaning to say achieved not only the outputs and outcomes but also the impact.
There are several theories on which the notion that board participation in CGM&E ensures viability of
CSOs is premised on. The theories that are used to support a prominent role of the board in CGM&E
include the agency theory, stewardship theory, resource dependency theory, democratic model,
stakeholder theory, managerial hegemony theory, human rights approach, ubuntu (meaning
humaneness) model, SD model, globalization theory and modernization theory. Academic papers are
inevitable without the other side, view or criticism. There is literary criticism that may impugn the
foregoing with regards to the functions of CSOs, embedded in the dependencias (dependency theorists
and world systems theorists) school of thought and post modernisms critical discourse analysis. The
critique of CGM&E issues is based on that they could be dismissed as diversionary and of less
importance because CSOs are never meant to improve the plight of beneficiaries. Nevertheless, even
with such criticism from the dependencias school of thought and post modernist, the study stoutly
maintains that adherence to sound CGM&E is a matter of survival for ZCSOs and thus reforms have to
be instituted. Stakeholders who intend to preposterously bespatter CGM&E systems or have in place
easily assailable CGM&E systems on the premise of dependencias and post modernist school of
thought stand to have their organizations eventually collapse.

1
February 13, 2009 marks the inauguration of the Government of National Unity (GNU) and hence signifies a post socio-political and economic conflict
period. Nevertheless this does not imply a smooth flow of national processes after the GNU.

4

No doubt therefore CGM&E need to be reconfigured, however not in the recently witnessed
destructive modus operandi, which if not halted will leave many individuals and organizations with
sullied reputations compromising the prospects to ever recover. Donor flight/fatigue, destructive
scheming and smear campaigns of individuals and organizations could not be the solution. The
findings point out that there a general feeling among different groups of stakeholders that the boards of
ZCSOs have not performed satisfactory in ensuring that CGM&E systems are in place and are being
effectively used and in ensuring that these systems guarantee stakeholder participation in the
formulation and application of the same systems. The study, drawing from literature review and its
findings on views from various directly and indirectly affected stakeholders in CS, proffered
constructive and win-win recommendations to CGM&E challenges. The recommendations include
setting up or strengthening of existing CGM&E systems in ZCSOs; separate and joint training
workshops/sessions for different groups of stakeholders (donor organizations, boards, staff and
constituencies) in CGM&E; team building exercises between and among different groups of
stakeholders and training in organizational development and strategic planning processes.
The findings point out towards consensus that the above can be carried out by donors or umbrella
CSOs such as National Association of Non-Governmental Organizations (NANGO), Crisis in
Zimbabwe Coalition (CiZC), Zimbabwe Youth Council (ZYC), Youth Empowerment and
Transformation Trust (YETT), National Association of Youth Organizations (NAYO) and Human
Rights NGO Forum
2
among others. The recommendations of this study include that donor
organizations and the above mentioned organizations should fundraise or provide for and mainstream
CGM&E issues in their programming. Another recommendation is that donors based abroad should at
least have a resident CGM&E officer reporting directly to the donor organization whose duty will be to
train, monitor, evaluate and advise stakeholders in CGM&E as a complimentary strategy to such
processes as pre-award assessments, compliance visits, reporting and field visits by staff in donor
organizations.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1) To explore and reveal benefits that are brought about by boards role in ensuring all stakeholder
full participation in CGM&E;
2) To investigate and reveal current challenges/gaps and their attached impacts faced by ZCSOs in
CGM&E so as to inform possible capacity development programming in the same;

2
Although this is the full name of the organization, NGO is an abbreviation for Non-Governmental Organization.

5

3) To enhance understanding of different roles that the board has to play in ZCSOs in the context
of CGM&E;
4) To provide a practical, adaptable, replicable, generic and non-rigid framework to guide
development and formulation functional CGM&E systems in ZCSOs.
1.4 Literature Review
The literature on CGM&E and on CSOs has developed over the years largely separately from each
other (Cornforth 2001 citing Middleton 1987; Herman and Van Til 1989; Hung 1998). The study was
deliberately premised on recent literature mainly from post year 2000; mainly secondary sources of
data were used. Literature from beyond year 2000 was mainly used to the extent that it was cited by
scholars writing in the post 2000 era. There was heavy reliance on e-journals and e-books and other
material obtained from the internet. A few hard copies of books were used the limiting factor being
access issues to libraries.
There literature review was based on scholars that were central to the class notes, class discussions and
assignments that form the basis of this dissertation in Masters of Development Studies. From all the
courses of the masters programme, relevant literature to this study was available. The human rights
approach that was extensively used in this study in all chapters is informed by the OHCHR
3
(2006)
report Frequently asked questions on a human rights based approach to development cooperation,
from which class notes on the course Human Rights Based Programming were compiled. The Sphere
Project (2004) document, from the course international development issues and trends is extensively
used. The same course also contributed scholars to the three broad theories, modernization,
depedencias and globalization. On participation of stakeholders in the project life cycle, literature was
drawn from the course development planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. The study also drew
literature from the course development theory, policy and practice on Chapter two, theoretical
framework on modernization theory, dependency theory and globalization theory. The course
management of development institutions contributed literature on agency theory, stewardship theory
and democratic model theory on stakeholder participation in CG. Issues of SD and use of indigenous
knowledge that feature in chapter two on benefits of participation and throughout the study were drawn
from two courses environment and natural resources development and development and
governance'.
Another document that was extensively used is the King Report iii (2009) on conceptualization of
stakeholders, participation and discussion about the different roles of the board. The theory of ubuntu

3
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner on Human rights

6

is also borrowed from the same document. The dissertation is broadly steeped in sociology literature,
including sociology and development, social theory, sociology and gender and on CS, public policy
and democratization literature. This is literature that was compiled over the years in undergraduate
studies in sociology and also in a post graduate diploma in governance, democratization and public
policy.
1.5 Research Justification
Board participation in CGM&E and in ensuring participation of other stakeholders in the same in NFPs
is under researched and under theorized in comparison to business corporations (Cornforth 2001). This
study provides valuable information about stakeholder perceptions on board participation and reveals
gaps in ZCSOs in CGM&E that can be used for stakeholder capacity development processes such as
trainings, re-orientation, strategic planning, team building and for organizational internal systems
strengthening processes such as organizational development; formulation of CGM&E systems. The
study was designed to reveal both stakeholder knowledge status/gaps and their attitudes towards
participation in CGM&E.
The study highlighted best practices in board participation in CGM&E to guide the above mentioned
capacity development and organizational development processes. The study was also meant to serve as
a spring board for development of a governance code that covers both the private/commercial and NFP
sector compatible to Zimbabwe context in the same mode as the South African King Report iii (2009);
the United Nations CG code or the British Combined Code. In pursuit of deeper understanding of
board participation in CGM&E, the study serves as a plank board for further academic analysis mainly
because issues in CGM&E are evolving, dynamic and subject to change. Further the research provides
for a holistic view of participation of stakeholders in organizations by linking two concepts, CG and
M&E. The study acknowledges that all stakeholders participate in both processes; however it is argued
that the boards of trustees as governing bodies play a more pronounced role in formulation and seeking
compliance to CGM&E systems whereas the membership/beneficiaries play a more prominent
participatory role in project/programme implementation and application of CGM&E systems.
Participation of the board as a category of stakeholders in M&E is mainly in making sure M&E
systems are in place and in M&E of performance of management, other stakeholder relationships and
compliance of other stakeholders to set M&E standards. On the other hand participation of
membership/beneficiaries; management; staff members; elected executives and donors as part of
different categories of stakeholders in CG mainly relates to contribution to formulation, application
and compliance.

7

1.6 Problem Statement
According to Simon (n.d) the problem statement or research problem is the heart of a dissertation, is
like the snapshot, foundation or blueprint of the study as it explains why the study is being done, the
overriding problem, where the problem is found and what needs to be done to solve the problem. In
this regard this section of the study briefly provides evidence that there are problems of corporate
failures related to board participation or lack thereof caused by the socio-economic and political
context around the turn of the century. These corporate failures now justify further investigation and
resolution as they now threaten the viability of civil society organizations through the selected
methodology of cross-sectional study outlined in detail in Chapter Three. Included also here are the
research questions and the hypotheses to be tested.
Post February 2009, ZCSOs are operating in a climate of ever-increasing public and all stakeholder
scrutiny due to a medley of factors which include the opening up of democratic space which allowed
for increased stakeholder participation in CGM&E, economic stabilization and recovery which allowed
stakeholders to spare time for CGM&E off their hitherto undivided focus on survival matters issues
and shrinking of the donor base which enjoined donors to use existence of functioning CGM&E
systems as a criteria to relieve themselves of support to those organizations without such systems. All
scandals (corporate, sexual, religious or political) by their very nature provoke interest and augur
commensurate comeuppance in a normal socio-economic and political environment. In politically
chaotic environments, corporate scandals can be easily politicized and culprits are buoyed up on the
ticket of political expedience. During the crisis days before February 2009, when donor funds were
available in abundance, the very few apoplectic calls for certain stakeholder(s) compliance to sound
CGM&E in face of corporate malfeasance could easily be palled down through bribes or other such
processes bordering on financial impropriety, how much they get depending on their bargaining power
and level of threat they impose. Adequate board participation in CGM&E was complicated and
compromised by the political and economic environment where there was excessive political
surveillance and persecution of stakeholders in ZCSOs such that many preferred to keep a low profile
as regards to full participation in their organizations and also by the challenges in financial
transactions, including access to cash, multi-exchange rates as these organizations received most of
their funds in the United States dollar, bank limits on local currency cash withdrawals and foreign
currency cash withdrawals and purchase of organizational equipment being done in neighboring
countries.

8

Research Question: What has been the nature and gaps in board participation in CGM&E systems in
youth CSOs in Zimbabwe?
Sub Research Questions
1) What gaps in board participation in CGM&E exists in youth CSOs?
2) How can functional boards role in CGM&E contribute to the growth of youth CSOs?
3) Are board members in youth CSOs having the necessary skills, qualifications, experience and
motivation to together with other stakeholders develop and ensure application CGM&E
systems by other stakeholders?
4) How can board members and other stakeholders in youth CSOs be equipped with skills to
improve CGM&E?
5) How can formulation and application of CGM&E systems be protected against manipulation
due to personal differences between stakeholders?
Hypotheses
1. There exist gaps in board participation in CGM&E due to lack of interest by stakeholders in
CGM&E;
2. Participation in CGM&E by board members is pivotal to the size and growth of organizations;
3. Boards need a balance in skills, experience, qualifications and professional backgrounds of members
for its effective performance;
4. Training of stakeholders in CGM&E improves collective formulation and application of CGM&E
systems;
5. A national environment supportive and conducive for corporate governance is key to effective and
improved board performance in corporate governance.
1.7 Statement on Methodology
This section of the outline and explain why the cross-sectional study, focus group and document
analysis of historical data research designs were deemed appropriate. Cross sectional design can be
viewed as a physical cross section of the population of interest or snapshot of something at a particular
point in time (Howard 2008). Further the cross-sectional study is suited to this study as it allows for
collection of data on: many variables, from a large group of subjects, gathers information on peoples
attitudes and behaviors, answers the questions of how much, how many, who, and what happened
(ibid). The design was chosen for its advantage over longitudinal or case study designs as it collects
data on all relevant variables at one time, thus being consistent with time framework given for the
completion of this study and also less costly. The research methodology design was based on when and
how to collect data, construction of measures, identifying a sample or representatives of the youth

9

organizations for the purposes of this research from the entire population of civil society organizations
in Harare; where in this case a combination of sampling techniques were used. Under non-probability
sampling two methods, voluntary sample and convenience sample were used to select the
organizations to be studied. Probability sampling technique known as multi-stage sampling was used to
select the different respondents from each of the organizations selected using the non-probability
sampling methods. Stakeholders were divided into groups or a stratum using the stratified sampling
technique then random sampling was used to pick the respondents. The research methodology was also
informed by the choice of strategy for contacting respondents leading to selection of relevant research
methods whereby by both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. In addition the
methodology was based on relevant data collection methods to be used whereby a technique known as
triangulation was used. The data collection methods used included questionnaires, interviews,
participatory observation and document analysis. The stratum concerned and the sensitive of the
information to be collected among other factors determined the method to be used. Lastly the
methodology was informed by the selection of analytical tools (tables, frequencies and other
illustrations) that could be constructed from the data management and analytical tool, Statistical
Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) selected for this study and the manner of presentation of the
findings.
1.8 Statement on Treatment of Data Analysis
Data management and analysis was done using SPSS. It was used for data capture, management and
analysis and for formulating tables and figures which were all followed by interpretations or
explanation of their meanings. Data from focus group discussions and document analysis was used to
supplement results obtained from SPSS bringing the qualitative and historical tincture.
1.9 Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
The scope of the research was not wide enough to capture a wider section of youth CSOs in Harare
mainly because of prohibitive costs and time and as such the research findings may not be fully
representative. The very definition of CS was relative and had to be used contextually to refer to a
small segment of organizations in the broader civil society. The time frame allocated for the study was
too short considering the scope and dynamics of the assignment; intermittent power cuts in the country
and challenges with access and internet speeds. Key informants who included board members and
directors of organizations had busy schedules and could not afford enough time for exhaustive
discussions.


10

1.10 Layout and Summary of Other Chapters
This section of the dissertation gives a summary of subsequent chapters. Mtigwe (n.d) postgraduate
handbook guides the layout and gives a skeleton framework for contents on all the six chapters of this
study. Chapter two provides literature review where key terms used in this dissertation are
conceptualized. This is followed by a discussion on board governance as it relates to CGM&E. A
theoretical grounding of the discussion is provided thereafter. There was a deliberate attempt to link
the discussion in the literature review to research questions and research objectives. Chapter three is on
research methodology based the following phases. The first phase was selection of organizations and
respondents in those organizations where appropriate sampling methods were used to achieve this. The
second phase was selection of the research method where both qualitative and quantitative approaches
were used. The last phase was on data collection tools where a technique known as triangulation was
employed. Chapter four is on data analysis and draws from the raw materials of statistics, facts and
figures collected in chapter three from which conclusions were made. Chapter five presents the
findings. Chapter six is on conclusion and recommendations.
















11


2.1 Introduction
Commentaries on literature review by Feak and Swales (2009); Mtigwe (n.d) guided the layout of this
section of the study. It has been a three step process: finding the relevant literature, reading and then
writing up the review. The literature review focused on recent publications because of their likelihood
for relevance. The review was also made as long as possible to persuade readers to grasp the central
issues; while at the same time confining it in line with research questions and research objectives.
While the main focus of a research papers is to support an argument, the focus of this literature review
has been to summarize and synthesize the arguments and ideas. Nevertheless in many instances the
review had arguments derived from the ideas of other scholars. The review also revealed gaps in the
existing body of knowledge on board participation in CGM&E as it relates to participation of other
stakeholders in the same.
2.2 Conceptualization of Key Terms
The terms conceptualized in this section include board of trustees/directors, corporate governance,
participation, monitoring, evaluation and civil society organizations.
2.2.1 Board of Trustees/Directors/Governors
In CS circles the boards are commonly referred to as boards of trustees, directors or governors. Levrau
(2004) citing Bainbridge (2002), states that the board could be considered as a multi-member
governing body standing at the apex of the organization. This is to say boards are the primary group of
selected or elected individuals with legal, fiduciary and ethical responsibility of policing and being
custodians of CGM&E systems that govern organizations (Kummer 2008). Other structures affiliated
to organizations that may have the word board in their names, however without the legal responsibility
of governing are not the subject of this study as far as boards are concerned. Boards direct resources
and exercises power in a manner that not only reflects organizational values and mission, but that
protects and promotes the interests of stakeholders (ibid). For distinctive characteristics about boards
refer to section 2.4 below.


12

2.2.2 Corporate Governance
An analysis of different conceptualizations of the term CG by Zimbabwe CS umbrella organizations
NANGO (2006) and NAYO (2012); the King Report iii (2009) and scholars Shleifer and Vishny
(1997); Tricker (2012); Williamson (1985) reveal that CG is about the following:
1) Governance guidelines- include systems of governance, structures, by-laws, policies, direction,
regulations and conformance to ethics, standards and codes of best practices, codes of conduct;
compliance with relevant laws and regulations; socially defined constraints; it relates to public policy;
legal regulatory framework; fairness and transparency, sustainability;
2) Stakeholder dynamics and accountability processes- including constitution of the organization,
board accountability and responsibility to stakeholders, relationships among legitimate stakeholders
who may include shareholders or donors, managers, employees, creditors, customers, members,
beneficiaries and other stakeholders;
3) Authority and Power- including how organizations and stakeholders are directed, controlled and
held to account; perform; how authority in firms is exercised and the way power is exercised over
corporate entities.
Shleifer and Vishny (1997) sums the import of the above three areas in the following by stating that
CG deals with ways (governance guidelines, stakeholder dynamics and accountability, authority and
power) in which suppliers of finance (donors, shareholders) to corporations (for the purposes of this
study NFPs) assure themselves of getting a return (profit, outputs, outcomes, impact) on investment
(capital or grants). Two questions are raised in explaining the meaning of CG. How do suppliers of
finance get managers to return some of the profits to them and how do they make sure that managers
do not steal the capital they supply or invest in bad projects? Secondly how do suppliers of finance
control managers? (ibid). In the context of NFPs, the responsibility for sound CG is commonly in the
hands of a board of directors/trustees/governors (Kummer 2008). Sound CG is a qualification of CG
done beyond reproach.
2.2.3 Participation
Participation as used in this study relates to the involvement of the board in CGM&E aspects of the
organization. The subject of participation as it relates to different phases of the project life cycle in
view of different roles that different categories of stakeholders play is beyond the focus of this study.
Suffice to say is that participation at that level has proved to be a key aspect as it has been emphasised

13

by the Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA), which provides for participation as one of the key
focus area and also the Sphere Project emphasises on participation as it relates to project life cycle.
2.2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation
In literature, scholars (Horstman 2002; UNDP
4
2009) mainly conceptualize M&E as it relates to the
different phases of the project life cycle, whereas the concern here is to the extent that it relates to
board participation in organizations. The UNDP (2009) defines monitoring as the ongoing process by
which stakeholders obtain regular feedback on the progress being made towards achieving their goals
and objectives. Horstman (2002) citing UNAIDS
5
(2000) defines evaluation as a collection of activities
designed to determine the value or worth of a specific programme or project, that is, it links a
particular output or outcome directly to a particular intervention. UNDP (2009) defines evaluation as a
rigorous and independent assessment of either completed or ongoing activities to determine the extent
to which they are achieving stated objectives and contributing to decision making. UNDP (2009) has
noted that both evaluation and monitoring, may apply to many things, including an activity, project,
programme, strategy, policy, topic, theme, sector or organization and in this context M&E is used as it
applies to monitoring and evaluation of policies and relationships between and among groups of
stakeholders by the boards of CSOs.
2.2.5 Civil Society Organizations
There are complementary perspectives on the conceptualization of CS in literature review. The first
perspective view CS as actors or organizations in governance that are outside the domain of the
family, state and the market, that is, those entities that are not managed or organized by the family,
state or the market. The other perspective is a reaction to the first perspective in that it holds that CS is
not outside of the state. The literature reviewed nevertheless shows that the two perspectives do not
differ in identifying the actual actors or organizations that constitute CS (as discussed below) serve for
the inclusion of opposition political parties and the media as part of CS. According to PEN
6
(2007) CS
is non-partisan and not-for-profit and therefore political parties and profit making media houses do not
fit into the definition of CS. The differentiation or clarification of relationship of CS and the opposition
political parties and the media is helpful considering that ZSCOs and independent media are believed
to be an extension of opposition political parties (Lee 2011). Another contentious area in CS is on
whether the CSOs exist to complement the government of the day and the market (PEN 2007).
According to Murai (2009) CSOs neither exist to complement nor suffocate the government of the day

4
UNDP- United Nations Development Programme
5
UNAIDS- Joint United nations Programme on Human Immunno-Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immuno-Deficiency syndrome
(AIDS)
6
PEN- Poverty Eradication Network

14

or the market, but have four key roles which include watchdog/oversight role in ensuring good
governance (that is, public participation, equality and equity, accountability, transparency, rule of law,
non-corruption, efficiency, accountability and equality); advocacy role (that is, campaigning, lobbying,
mobilization, education, research, volunteering and networking) on issues such as human rights and
democracy; transient service provision role in cases of emergencies, conflicts and political
victimization and capacity development as it relates to mainly citizenship.
The meaning of CS in this study as mentioned in chapter one is contextually and refers to those
organizations that emerged around the turn of the century in the NFPs focusing mainly on governance,
democracy and human rights issues. Nevertheless scholars, Narayan et al. (2000); White (1994:379)
cited in Murai (2009) have shown that CS refers to the intermediate associational realm between state
and family populated by organizations that are separate from the state, enjoy autonomy in relation to
the state and are formed voluntarily by members of the society to protect or advance their interests or
values. It is worth noting that the above scholars acknowledge that the organizations in CS are affected
by the state, market and the family. A reactionary but complementary perspective by scholars who
include Moyo (1993); Potter et al. (1997) cited in Murai 2009; Shivji (2007) recognize and
acknowledge that social science literature largely describes CS as something 'outside' the state;
painting a picture of a false bipolarity or dichotomy between state and CS; but however point that the
state and CS should be treated as intertwining parts of the same social reality basing the view on the
premise that both the state and CS belong to one public realm. This ideological presentation of CS also
dominates self-perception in the CS world itself; yet it is based on utterly false historical and
intellectual premises and posits serious political implications (ibid, 2002). The two views are
complementary in that the first view is theoretical or normative, that is, it speaks to what ought to be
the meaning of CS while the second view draws from practical realities. The complementarity is also
observed by the London School of Economics Centre for CS (2004) cited in Alqadhafi (2007) who
illustrate that in theory, CS institutional forms are distinct from those of state, family and market,
though in practice, the boundaries between state, CS, family and market are often complex, blurred and
negotiated.
However both perspectives state that organizations within the precincts of CS include networks,
associations, groups, organizations that are social constructions of the citizens, serving the interest of
the citizens who have common goals, interests and values outside the domain of the state, market and
the family. Shivji (2007) has pointed out that very often, the term CSO is used interchangeably with
the term NGOs. Murai (2009) makes an argument that conceptualizing CS in this normative manner
eclipses power dynamics amongst individual citizen or stakeholder interests represented in these

15

networks or organizations and between different organizations or linkages (coalitions and unions).
Further such an analysis negates the efficacy of citizens in interacting directly with the state, through
processes of fulfilling citizenship (ibid). Shivji (2007, p.28) in furthering the argument constructs a
Marxist critique of CS:
First, the so-called civil society, in the sense of the public sphere of production, is not a harmo-
nious whole; rather a terrain of contradictory relations between classes the two poles being
the producer class and the appropriator class. Second, the separation between state and civil
society, between economics and politics, is ideological. It is how the bourgeois society appears
and presents itself. In reality, those who command and control the sphere of production also
wield political power that is the state.

2.3 State of Youth Organizations in Zimbabwe Civil Society
For the purposes of this study youth CSOs are defined and delineated using age group of their targeted
constituencies, that is, their membership or beneficiaries. As much as different institutions are not
agreed on the age group of youths, for the purposes of this study a flexible age group of between 15
years and 35 years was used.
Lee (2011) is of the view that by the standards of most other African countries except South Africa,
Zimbabwes CS is robust. Perceived association with opposition parties has caused CS, in the last
decade and a half, to attract undue attention from the state which has made inroads into stringent laws
regulating their operations
7
(ibid). Youth organizations have been also in this bracket where they have
been viewed as extensions of opposition political parties. There are a number of youth organizations in
Zimbabwe most of them affiliated to umbrella organizations such the Zimbabwe Youth Council
8

(ZYC), CiZC Youth Committee, YETT and NAYO. These organizations are spread across the country,
with high concentration in towns and cities.
The focus areas of the organizations vary, with some focusing on religion and students (Student
Christian Movement of Zimbabwe- SCMZ and National Movement for Catholic Students); some
focusing on broader youth issues (Youth Agenda Trust- YAT, Youth Forum, Youth Initiative for
Democracy in Zimbabwe, National Youth Development Trust, Voting Zimbabwe, Build A Better
Youth-BABY among others). In addition there are some organizations focusing on broader student

7
This is in light of the 2004 NGO Bill and the 2013 wide ranging Zimbabwe Youth Council regulations gazetted in SI 4/2013
dated January 18
th
, their effectiveness being immediate. These were made by the Ministry of Youth Development,
Indigenization and Empowerment in terms of section 26 of the Zimbabwe Youth Council Act.
8
The independence of the ZYC from the ruling party has been contested on the basis that the council has been found
participating in such activities as the 21
st
February celebrations of the Presidents birthday an event viewed as partisan
and that its board is mainly dominated by individuals drawn outside and beyond the youth organizations being discussed
in this study.

16

issues and they include Zimbabwe National Students Union- ZINASU, Zimbabwe Congress of
Students Union- ZICOSU, Students Solidarity Trust- SST and Democratic Students League.
2.4 Board Governance
Corporate governance cannot be fully explored without dissecting and interrogating the dynamics
surrounding the governing body, which in this case is the board of trustees or of directors, which is so
called because of its fiduciary role and that it is charged with giving the organization direction,
guidance and formulating strategy and policy making, hence the following topics of the literature
review focus on the different aspects of the board. Literature review on this part of the study focuses
on board governance tenets which include board composition and remuneration, board roles and
responsibilities, board performance and effectiveness, board involvement in strategy development and
planning, board involvement in resource mobilization and board sources of authority and terms. The
King Report iii (2009) justifies the link of the board and CG by stating that the board should act as the
focal point for and be the custodian of CG. This is to say that the board as a category of stakeholders
has a more prominent role in corporate governance than other categories or groups of stakeholders,
who play more pronounced roles in participatory M&E. Boards participation in M&E is mainly with
regards to M&E of stakeholder/s relationships, including its own relationship with management and
also monitoring and evaluating performance of the management (ibid). Other stakeholders therefore
play a crucial role in participatory M&E in all phases of the project cycle with their participation in CG
circumscribed to their contributions in formulation (though approval rests with the board) and
application of the CG systems. The benefits of good board governance are that organizations: have
greater resilience in times of crisis, have greater legitimacy in the eyes of donors and partners, have
greater potential to positive impact the lives of stakeholders and are able to use the board as a source of
innovative thinking and conduit for new ideas (Kummer 2008). Common challenges in board
governance include striking a balance between micro-management and detachment on organizational
issues, finding and retaining accessible and at the same time reputable board members, internal
legitimacy of boards and balancing good CG tenets with need for top down approaches that promote
legal and financial accountability (ibid).
2.4.1 Board Composition and Size
For most of the ZCSOs board composition is provided for in constitutions, Notarial deeds of trusts or
whatever documents that provides for the establishment of the organizations. Reviewed literature put
forward some considerations in board composition. Considerations are that contemporary boards often
include outsiders, who have primary affiliation with another organization; are appointed often
because of their outstanding professional achievements; serve in the board on part time basis and have

17

limited direct exposure to the organizations affairs (Forbes and Millken 1999; Levrau 2004). There
are benefits sifted from literature from having boards composed of outsiders. The outsiders are
likely to be reputable individuals in reputable organizations (most in donor/international organizations)
and thus the organization may benefit from their reputations and wide networks for fundraising
purposes. ZCSOs have a tendency of enlisting such reputable individuals (NAYO 2012). The major
drawback with having such individuals exposed by literature review is on the availability of these
individuals for board meetings, serving in board committees, participation in strategic planning
meetings and performing other board responsibilities as they are likely to be having a busy schedule
and also compounded by that they are likely to serve in many other boards (NANGO 2006; NAYO
2012). The other drawback could be that of dominance by such reputable individuals in board
processes (NAYO 2012). The second consideration picked from literature reviewed is that members of
the board should be composed of individuals willing to serve voluntarily (ibid).
The third consideration on board composition according to scholars Bradshaw et al. (1992), Fletcher
(1997) cited in Brown (2002) is that NFPs board member composition considers issues of diversity and
participation of traditionally underrepresented groups, board member attitudes toward diversity and
board member recruitment strategies. Brown (2002) indicates that research suggest that increased
heterogeneity of board members facilitates representation and sensitivity to stakeholders. In addition,
research on top management decision-making teams suggests that heterogeneous work groups are
more productive and innovative (Bantel and Jackson1989; Michel and Hambrick 1992 cited in Brown
2002). Siciliano (1996) cited in Brown (2002), confirmed, when investigating NFP boards that
increased categorical composition related to higher levels of social performance and fund raising
success. This is confirmed by NAYO (2012) which presents that diversity brings about balance of
skills and experience. Fletcher (1997) cited in Brown (2002) found that those affiliates that had
addressed the cognitive beliefs of board members and made them aware of the benefits of diversity
were more successful in recruiting diverse board members. Awareness strategies would include
workshops that explain the benefits and challenges of increased diversity, as well as specific practices
to include underrepresented individuals.
The fourth consideration in reviewed literature relates to gender sensitivity. Research by Fletcher
(1997) cited in Brown (2002) predict that increased gender diversity related to higher levels of social
performance, but lower levels of fund raising success. Social performance was conceptualized as
attitudes of community members toward the organization (ibid). On the fifth consideration of board
size, literature reviewed indicates that boards average thirteen members (Monks and Minow 1995 cited
in Forbes and Millken 1999 cited in Forbes and Millken 1999). A more relevant view to ZCSOs is

18

proffered by NAYO (2012), the organization state that board size is determined by the needs of the
organization.
On the consideration on whether members should be appointed or elected, reviewed literature suggest
that it depends on the nature of the organization, on whether it is a membership organization or service
based organization. NAYO (2012) points out that in both scenarios members can be either elected or
recruited. Brown (2002) states that effective recruitment strategies help nonprofit boards identify and
secure qualified board members. Joyaux (1991) cited in Brown (2002) suggests that a nominating
committee may be instrumental in leading the recruitment process and clearly explaining board
member responsibilities, orienting new board members and assigning responsibilities are some of the
responsibilities of the nominating committee. Brown (2002) reports that selecting a potential new
board member is a process that addresses specific organizational and board composition needs and
fortunately there are several practical booklets available that address the responsibilities and
characteristics of nominating committees and recruitment strategies (for example, Hirzy 1994, Hohn
1996, Nelson 1995 cited in Brown 2002), but relatively little empirical research has addressed the
relationship of recruitment strategies to board composition or inclusiveness.
2.4.2 Board Roles and Responsibilities
This topic of the literature review is hinged on the argument revealed in literature that understanding of
the role of the board and roles of individual board members provides for smooth running of the
organization in the context of stakeholder participation in CGM&E. The central theme of this section is
that the board is a governing body and thus its major role is to govern. The King Report iii (2009),
recommend that every board should have a charter setting out its responsibilities. As much as there
could not be a one size fit all charter setting out board responsibilities, annals of literature indicated
three major functions of the board; that is the control task, the service task and the strategic role task as
explained in detail in section 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 below. Clarke and Kletter (2010) citing Bosch (1995)
captures the foregoing by stating that he boards responsibilities include ensuring that the organisation
has clearly established goals; objectives and strategies for achieving them; that they are appropriate in
the circumstances; and that they are understood by management. It is also the duty of board to establish
performance indicators for the management and to monitor actual results against them (ibid).
NAYO (2012) comments that all roles of all board members and terms of reference of board
committees and head of secretariat in board processes should be clearly defined, should not overlap
and should not give undue power to one individual or group. As much as the individual roles of all
board members matter, the role of the Board Chairperson (BC) is outstanding as the leader of the

19

board; hence there is considerable coverage on the chairperson in literature. The King Report iii (2009)
mentions that the board should elect a chairperson who can provide the direction necessary for an
effective board. The chairperson should be appointed by the board every year after carefully
monitoring his/her independence and factors that may impair his/her independence and that any factor
affecting the independence of the chairperson should be weighed against the positive factor of
continuity of the chairperson (ibid). In addition the King Report iii (2009) states that the chairperson
should be independent and free of conflicts of interest at appointment.
2.4.3 Board Performance and Effectiveness
According to Levrau (2004) there exists in literature multiple approaches to determine the concept of
board effectiveness and these include board task (both control and service tasks) performance, board
strategic role and board cohesiveness. Forbes and Millken (1999) argue that because boards are not
involved in the actual implementation of projects and programmes, the "output" that boards produce is
entirely cognitive in nature and in addition, because boards are episodic and interdependent, they are
particularly vulnerable to process losses, that is, the interaction difficulties that prevent groups from
achieving their full potential.
Board task performance is defined as the board's ability to perform its control and service/maintenance
tasks effectively. Specific board activities that are critical to the fulfillment of the control task include
legal duty to provide oversight regarding hiring, compensation, and replacement of the firm's most
senior managers, as well as the approval of major initiatives proposed by management (Levrau 2004).
Specific activities that correspond to the fulfillment of the service task include providing expert and
detailed insight during major events, such as acquisition of assets or restructuring, as well as more
informal and ongoing activities, such as generating and analyzing strategic alternatives during board
meetings; co-opting external influencers; establishing contacts, raising funds for the organization and
enhancing the organizations reputation (Forbes and Millken 1999). Strictly confidential and highly
interpretive nature of board activity causes difficulties for researchers to measure the task performance
of boards in ways that are both reliable and comprehensive (ibid). Board performance on the service
dimension may be assessed by asking other stakeholders to rate the value of the advice and analysis the
board contributes to strategic decisions. In this study board performance and effectiveness is assessed
by asking the board itself and other stakeholders.
The second criterion of assessing boards effectiveness and performance is board's ability to continue
working together, as evidenced by the cohesiveness of the board. Board cohesiveness refers to the
degree to which board members are attracted to each other and are motivated to stay on the board

20

(Summers et al. 1988 cited in Forbes and Millken 1999). Boards meet only episodically and are
composed of persons for whom directorship is a part-time responsibility; derivatively the relationship
of management to the board can be characterized as one of partial inclusion (Weick 1979 cited in
Forbes and Millken 1999). Cohesiveness captures the affective dimension of members' inclusion on the
board and reflects the ability of the board to continue working together (ibid). In studies of
workgroups, researchers have found that when group members are more attracted to one another, they
realize higher levels of member satisfaction, higher levels of commitment to the group and they are
also less likely to engage in excessive turnover (Katz and Kahn 1978, Summers et al. 1988, O'Reilly et
al. 1989, Zaccaro and Dobbins 1989 cited in Forbes and Millken 1999. On boards with very low levels
of cohesiveness, members may choose not to stand for reelection or in extreme cases; they may resign
from the boards although a certain amount of turnover is normal and even healthy. High levels of
turnover are likely to result in loss of critical institutional memory as it relates to boards and this might
expose the board to management manipulation.
However Pettigrew (1992: 171) cited in Forbes and Millken (1999) observed that in many studies of
boards, great inferential leaps are made from input variables such as board composition to output
variables such as board performance with no direct evidence on the processes and mechanisms which
presumably link the inputs to the outputs. Further recent literature reviews have concluded that board
research has failed to establish any clear consensus as to which demographic characteristics lead to
which outcomes, even in the well-researched areas (Coles et al. 2001 Dalton et al. 1998 cited in
Levrau 2004). This conclusion suggests that the influence of board demography on organizational
performance may not be simple and direct, as many past studies presume, but, rather, complex and
indirect (Levrau 2004). Therefore the effectiveness of boards is likely to depend heavily on social-
psychological processes, particularly those pertaining to group participation and interaction, the
exchange of information, and critical discussion (Butler 1981; Jackson 1992; Milliken and Vollrath
1991 cited in Forbes and Millken 1999).
Against this backdrop Clarke and Klettner (2010) state that in the first place factors necessary for
effective board performance include a board room culture of mutual respect, honesty and openness that
encourages constructive debate rather than an adversarial atmosphere in the board room or an
unmotivated board with the tendency to group think. In the second place there is need for diversity of
experience, styles, thought and as far as possible, age, gender and nationality rather than skill deficits
or lack of genuine independence on the board. In the third place there is need for a good relationship
with the head of secretariat. In the fourth place, there is need for a common purpose and strategic
clarity rather than conflict of interests or factional interests on the board, perhaps due to dominant

21

members. In the fifth place there is need for an experienced chairperson who can manage the board
agenda, encourage debate and work in harmony with the head of secretariat rather than a chairperson
who is too weak, too autocratic or to close to the head of secretariat. In the sixth place, there is need for
an efficient board structure and processes including committees, board papers and information flow.
2.4.4 Board Involvement in Strategy Development and Planning/Strategic Role
The central theme of this topic from reviewed literature is that boards involvement in strategy
development and planning is critical as the board is responsible for playing oversight, monitoring and
evaluation roles over the outputs of strategy development and planning process which include strategy,
plans, policies, guidelines, procedures among other things. This topic feeds into the broader discussion
of board participation in CGM&E in three ways. First the board of trustees are key stakeholders of
CSOs, secondly board members are tasked with the oversight role of the same policies, procedures,
plans and strategy developed in a strategy development and planning process and thirdly it provides
the opportunity for board members to input independent expert advice given that they come from
diverse backgrounds and that their primary affiliations are with other organizations.
The King Report iii (2009) states that the board should appreciate that strategy, risk, performance and
sustainability are inseparable and therefore should play a prominent role in the strategy development
process and not be mere recipient of strategy as proposed by managerial hegemony theory, discussed
in detail in section 2.6.6 below. In addition the board should approve thoroughly risky examined,
organizationally aligned long-term and short term strategies for the organization and monitor their
implementation by management (ibid). Levrau (2004) however exposes another school of thought
which views the board as a rubber stamp or a tool of management with little or no impact on strategy.
Such a view might be reflective of the reality on the ground.
2.4.5 Board Involvement in Resource Mobilization
Resource mobilization is the process of securing money and support for the organization so that it
carries out its aims. The concept of resource mobilization should be understood in the broadest sense to
include all forms of resources. Resources include financial resources like funds from donors; resources
owned by target communities like labor, ideas, knowledge of tradition and successful practice;
physical resources such as equipment, furniture and reading materials and human resources like staff
and volunteers (Scott Dupree and Winder et al. 2000). There is a clear emphasis in literature on the
importance of intangible resources that are very relevant to CG. Scholars, Hillman and Keim (2001)
citing Amit and Schoemaker (1993) state that the resource-based view of organizations contends that
an organizations ability to be viable depends on the unique interplay of human, organizational, and

22

physical resources over time and in particular intangible, difficult-to-replicate resources which include
socially complex and causally ambiguous resources such as reputation, corporate culture, long-term
relationships with stakeholders and knowledge of assets.
2.4.6 Board Sources of Authority and Terms of Reference
There is not much literature on board sources of authority and their terms of reference. This however is
found on individual ZCSOs trust deeds and other such documents that created these institutions such
as constitutions. SST (2012), states that its board of trustees comes into existence from the trust deed
and so does its authority and power to govern the organization and responsibility for the well-being of
the organization. From the same deed of trustees, the board is vested with powers and authority to
execute on behalf of the organization the following functions: cause operation of banking accounts,
facilitate that proper books of accounts are kept; ensure recovery and collection of loans, facilitate
employment of management, facilitate spending of money on behalf of the organization, frame rules
and policies, invest as appropriate, facilitate purchase of assets of the organization, sign and execute
transfers of immovable property and revoke or amend policies and procedures among other things.
2.4.7 Relationship of Board and Management Team
The King Report iii (2009) states that the board may delegate authority to management but, in doing
so, the boards do not abdicate their duties and responsibilities. In delegating authority, the board should
establish benchmarks and performance indicators to hold management accountable for decisions and
actions delegated to them (ibid). NAYO (2012) states that board and management relationship goes
through the head of secretariat if there is direct communication to other secretariat members and such
communication channels should be clearly spelt out. However board committees generally have a
direct relationship with the staff relevant to that committees matters, however this should be done in
full knowledge of the head of secretariat who can be part of the committees as well.
The King Report iii (2009) also states that the board should appoint the head of secretariat and provide
input on senior management appointments, such as the finance and administration manager and
programmes manager or senior programmes officer. The board should also ensure that a succession
plan is in place for the head of secretariat, and other members of management (ibid).Contracts should
not commit organizations to pay on termination arising from the management failure; balloon
payments on termination do not generally meet the requirements of a balanced and fair remuneration
policy and for bonuses, there should be a contractual link between variable pay and performance (ibid).


23

2.4.8 Board Committees
NAYO (2012) observes that committees should have annual clear terms of reference, written scope of
authority and timelines depending on needs. The King Report iii (2009) makes the following
observations on board committees: the board should delegate certain functions to well-structured
committees but without abdicating its own responsibilities; smaller organizations need not establish
formal committees to perform these functions, but should ensure that these functions are appropriately
addressed by the board; external parties, such as paid advisers, may be present at committee meetings
by invitation but will have no vote on the committee; the respective committees chairpersons should
give at least an oral summary of their committees deliberations at the board meeting following the
committee meeting; the minutes of committee meeting proceedings should be included in the board
pack for the boards information as soon as they have been approved; the board committees should
guard against using legal, however this should not prevent the board from resorting to litigation or
other dispute resolution mechanisms where appropriate to protect the companys legal interests.
2.4.9 Board Meetings and their Procedures
According to Forbes and Millken (1999) citing Monks and Minow (1995) full board meetings are held,
on average, only seven times per year while board committee meetings provide some additional
opportunities for intra-board interaction, but, in general, board members still spend less than two
weeks per year working on the boards they serve. However the King Report iii (2009) state that board
should meet as often as is required to fulfill its duties, preferably at least four times per year. In board
meetings the organizations reputation and its linkage with stakeholder relationships should be a
regular board agenda item because the board is the ultimate custodian of the corporate reputation and
stakeholder relationships (ibid).
2.5 Boards Relations with the Head of Secretariat
In ZCSOs the head of secretariat is commonly referred to as the Programmes Coordinator or simple
coordinator with a handful of organizations using the title of Director or Chief executive officer.
Council on Foundations (2010) states that an effective board and head of secretariat relationship is
built on clear well-defined roles and responsibilities. The King Report iii (2009) put it that the
collective responsibilities of management vest in the head of secretariat and as such he/she bears
ultimate responsibility for all management functions. The board creates vision, direction, policies
(CGM&E systems) and delegates to management via the head of secretariat, who will in turn delegate
to those reporting to him and just as the board should not micro-manage the day-to-day operations and
staff activities the head of secretariat should not have too much influence on the boards decisions and
policies (Council on Foundations 2010). The head of secretariat as a hired employee plays a critical

24

role in the operations and success of the programmes through implementing the CGM&E systems
according to the boards directive. The role and functions of the head of secretariat should be
formalized and the board should evaluate the performance of the head of secretariat against criteria
developed from these (ibid). From the foregoing discussion, simple put, the board governs and the
head of secretariat manages, now with titles such as Director or Chief Executive Officer in some of the
organizations the impression created is inimical to the roles of head of secretariat as discussed here.
The head of secretariat normally has a performance based renewable annual contract outlining: duties,
powers and responsibilities delegated by the board, relationship to board, obligation of confidentiality,
duration of service, remuneration (based on periodic appraisal) and benefits, annual and sick leave
provisions, termination of service and benefits thereto (NAYO 2012). The board is responsible for
ensuring that the head of secretariat has the required qualities, qualifications and experience (ibid). The
head of secretariat must be able to make meaningful contributions to the boards deliberations and sits
as an ex-officio member with no voting rights and for the purposes of candour and participation the
head of secretariat may be routinely asked not to attend certain sections of board meetings (Council on
Foundations 2010).
2.6 Theoretical Framework
This study draws from multiple theoretical perspectives. Analysis of data is inevitable backed by
theoretical foundations. The theories obtained from reviewed literature on the subject of CG include
the agency theory, stewardship theory, resource dependency theory, democratic model, stakeholder
theory and the managerial hegemony theory. Of importance on these theories are the implications they
have on boards participation with regards to CGM&E policies and practice which can guide a
framework for developing CGM&E systems for CSOs. The weakness of the implications proposed
here, although based on subjective interpretations of the theories, is that they are inherently normative,
in other words they answer what ought to be the best CGM&E scenario and not what is obtaining.
These implications are not cast in stone, CSOs may choose which ones to adopt or apply or comply
with in practice and in developing CGM&E systems.
2.6.1 Agency Theory
According to scholars Levrau (2004), Okpara (n.d) agency theory is based on the assumption that the
principals (although there exist potential ambiguity on whether principals are the donors, boards or
membership) in this case boards of an organization and the management will have different interests
whereby managers may pursue opportunistic behaviors which may be in conflict with the goals of the
board and hence destroy stakeholders benefits. It is the dominant theory underlying the control task

25

of the board discussed in Section 2.4.3 above. While free markets are seen as the best restraint on
managerial discretion agency theory sees CGM&E arrangements as another means to ensure that
management acts in the best interests of the organization (Cornforth 2001).
The implication in this perspective is that the board is central to CGM&E arrangements, and its main
function is to be the ultimate custodians of these arrangements. Therefore CGM&E systems must
provide for a board policy guaranteeing the independence of the board from management and
affirming its control task. In addition, given that organizations are operating in a cynical age where
human beings are not free from avarice, partialities and want and thus conflict of interests among and
between groups of stakeholders are inevitable, cynicism becomes sanity for the board and it has to
ensure that CGM&E measures are imposed on management for the purpose of conflict resolution and
transformation for example on such issues as loans given to management, staff members and other
stakeholders; use of organizational asserts; shirking of duties by management and severance packages
for management and other staff members leaving the organization. Another implication to the boards
of ZCSOs is that failures by the management can be traced back to failures by the board in monitoring
and evaluating the management. This implies that boards should be independent; be punctilious in its
attention to systems; be fastidious, incisive and diverse in expertise and erudition; be decisive and
willing to take timely even if unpopular decisions if they are necessary in restraining management and
should adopt an uncompromising disapprobation of corporate transgressions in the interests of
furthering corporate objectives of the organization. Thus boards should serve without any view for
profit or praise from the organizations stakeholders. This is the theory that locates the role of the
board mainly in CG. The theory assumes that boards will have the power to effectively supervise
management (Cornforth 2001).
2.6.2 Stewardship Theory
Al-Wasmi (2009) asserts that stewardship theory is idealistic since its foundation depends on
physiological and sociological needs of institutions. The theory starts from the opposite assumptions to
the agency theory by assuming that managers want to do a good job and will act as effective stewards
of an organizations resources, preferring the organizations interests over their own (Chambers and
Cornforth 2010). Hence, the main function of the board is not to ensure managerial compliance, but to
improve organizational performance (ibid). The theory postulates that management is motivated by a
desire to achieve and gain intrinsic satisfaction by performing challenging tasks and thus managers
need authority and desire recognition from peers and the board (Okpara n.d). The theory provides for
amity between judicious boards and management, conflicting interests are subjected to unerring rules
of reason for resolution and views managers as having benign intentions in contributing to the

26

achievement of the organizations corporate objectives. However, the theory does not account for
management frailties and execrable tendencies including self aggrandizement, pilfering and financial
impropriety hence the need for board oversight.
The implication of this theory is that boards should ensure that CGM&E systems provide for
allowance of mangers to do good job for the organization. This may imply that CGM&E systems
should not be too rigid to hamper furtherance of the organizations corporate objectives. The systems
for instance may allow for room for taking home organizational property such as laptops, vehicles and
files as long as there is reasonable justification in line with furthering corporate objectives for doing so.
For instance these organizational assets can be taken outside the organization by staff members who
intend to work from home overnight or during weekends and holidays. However proper records have
to be kept on who has taken what and for what purpose. Further this may imply that CGM&E systems
may allow for work premises to be open beyond office working hours for those stakeholders who
intend to use the premises in furtherance of organizational objectives. These are but examples of
possible implications of the theory.
2.6.3 Resource Dependency Theory
According to Cornforth (2001) citing Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) resources dependency theory views
organizations as interdependent to their environments, dependent for their survival on other
organizations and actors for resources and as a result, they need to find ways of managing this
dependency and ensuring they get resources and information they need. From this perspective the
board is seen as one means of reducing uncertainty by creating influential links between organizations
as boards are members of other organizations creating a web of linkages to competitors and other
stakeholders Okpara (n.d). The linkages with the external environment help access important resources
and buffers against adverse external changes (Riana 2008 cited in Okpara n.d)). The services role of
the board discussed in Section 2.4.3 primarily stems from this theory (Levrau 2004).
The implications of this theory in participation of board in CGM&E include issues of safeguarding a
reputable organizational brand name that will make networking easier. The board should therefore
ensure that all stakeholder (staff, membership/beneficiaries) involvement in the organization is based
on projecting the organization in good light to protect the organizations brand name and reputation, a
resource that the organization uses for strategic networking. This may imply that boards should ensure
CGM&E policies guard against unauthorized communications (at the same time without being
reticent) which are bound to prove to be obstreperous to organizations interests and thus CGM&E
policies should provide for clearly spelt out spokespersons for the organization on programmatic issues

27

and on policy issues whereby management maybe empowered to speak on programmatic aspects while
the board or upon delegation by the board, the head of secretariat speaks on policy issues. This also
implies that the board should guarantee that CGM&E guidelines provide for stakeholder caucus or
consultation in formulating critical organizational positions on certain issues to be presented in
networking meetings beforehand. In Zimbabwe within the context of the work that youth organizations
involve themselves there have been contentious issues where stakeholder consensus on the position of
individual organizations may need to be achieved. These issues have included organizational
participation in the constitution making process; organizational position on acceptance of Lesbians,
Gays, Bisexual, Transgender and Inter-sex (LGBTI) people and organizational positions on voting for
particular individuals in CS collective platforms such as the CiZC management committee and the
NANGO management committee.
In addition in the face of the Zimbabwe politics that have predisposed splits in certain organizations
where they emerge factions of the same organization, and general factional politics in broader CS; the
theory implies that the board should ensure a clear organizational position on these matters and on
matters of exhibiting individual stakeholder political affiliation in the course of duty. Further the
theory implies that board should make sure that CGM&E systems govern the invitations and selection
process of representatives (including junior staff and membership) of the organization as resource
persons or participants, in other organizations processes for instance in the YETT winter school for as
long as they are invited to represent the organization.
2.6.4 Democratic Model
Cornforth (2001) state that a democratic perspective on governance suggests that the job of the board is
to represent the interest of one or more constituencies or groups the organization serves. The role of the
board is to resolve or choose between the interests of different groups and set overall policy of the
organization, which can be implemented by staff; central to this view is that any member can put
himself or herself forward for election as a board member and expertise is not a central requirement, as
it is in the stewardship model (ibid). As much as the theory does not directly allow for expertise, yet
being a board member may prove to be a highly cerebral exercise, it however prevents a scenario
where boards are appointed on the basis of mere personal allegiance and closeness to management or
incumbent board members resulting in conscription of board members who will compromise on
CGM&E systems in the event that their appointers withal obdurateness is to be checked, bound by the
laws of reciprocity. This model is certain to enjoy significant support from the majority of youth
organizations, despite the dangers of its proneness to usher in CG failures due to the likelihood of lack
of competence in boards it creates. This theory also provides for a framework where organizations,

28

particularly membership based organizations derive their mandate. Board members in this perspective
are not simple a cabal of self appointed members, but are elected on the basis that they are able to
represent the interests of various stakeholders and thus the entire organization is legitimately under the
suzerainty of the board.
The theory implies that board should make sure that CGM&E guidelines provide for set down
procedures on election or recruitment as a member into the board and resignation or termination of
board membership. These guidelines should provide for election/selection, as the case maybe, of board
members. The implication on practice is that board should make a standard norm to actively avail itself
and participate in strategic planning processes and other processes that bring to fruition or to operation
CGM&E systems such as annual general meetings, elections, workshops and other such meetings. This
will ensure that democracy prevails to an extent that strangers with strong purses will not have room to
influence the voting stakeholders. In addition another implication of the theory is that organizations
without proper elected executive and or board have no legitimacy or mandate when it comes to
representation of issues in national decision making bodies/platforms, thus such organizations deserve
a voice and not a vote as they have no constituencies to represent or account to.
2.6.5 Stakeholder Theory
Schneider (2002) express that the stakeholder theory conceptualizes the organization as a series of
groups with different respective relationships to it. Donaldson and Preston (1995) state that the
theorys fundamental basis is normative and involves acceptance of the following ideas: stakeholders
have legitimate interest; the interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value, that is, each category of
stakeholders merits consideration for its own sake and not merely because of its ability to further the
interests of other categories. The implication to ZCSOs is that by incorporating different stakeholders
on board, it is expected that organizations will be more likely to respond to broader social interests
than the narrow interests of one group (Cornforth 2001). In the context of ZCSOs this means that
individual members of organizations, individual staff members, individual board members and
individual elected executives should be viewed as stakeholders as much as the entire boards,
membership, staff members and national executives should be viewed as groups of stakeholder and
have their interests simultaneously managed (Donaldson and Preston 1995). This helps in planning and
meeting the needs of stakeholders from an individual level to a group level. For an entire group of
stakeholders to be dissatisfied and thus affect the organizations achievement of corporate objectives it
starts with individuals in that group of stakeholders who become the nuclei of discontent. Also this
means that responsibility towards the organization in furtherance of its corporate objectives should

29

cascade down from groups to individual stakeholders in those groups. Nevertheless, the theory does
not imply that all stakeholders should be equally involved in all processes and decisions (ibid).
The implication of the theory is that it spells out the need for redress frameworks including incognito
reporting of corporate scandals to the board or a board committee. It also provides for the principle of
ethics including recusal of individuals and stakeholders where corporate interests clash with personal
interests and the boards should ensure that the CGM&E guidelines provide for this principle. Another
implication is that boards should ensure that the guidelines also provide for proper communication
channels and dispute resolution mechanisms. This may imply that the boards should ensure that there
are policies in place that deal with governing of various needs and expectations of each group of
stakeholders including donors, boards, national executives, management, junior staff members and
general membership or beneficiaries. The policies should curtail corporate misdemeanors across
various categories of stakeholders including within and among board members as such practices done
by a stakeholder/s if unchecked are enfeebling and thus discourage hard work and degrade stakeholder
relations and programme delivery. These policies may include those dealing with staff members
including human resources policies and accounting policies, to those dealing with membership for
example membership/beneficiary support protocols and those governing the all stakeholders including
policies on use of organizational assets or individually owned assets for organizational purposes,
gender policies and HIV and AIDS policies among others.
2.6.6 Managerial Hegemony Theory
The managerial hegemony theory, unlike the agency theory that assumes that the boards have the
power to supervise management, suggests that it is managers who have the expertise, time and
resources to really control what happens in the organizations (Cornforth 2001). Boards thus play a
passive role in CGM&E systems (Okpara n.d citing Mace 1971, Vance 1983, Lorsch and Maclver
1989). The thesis being that although the board may legally own and control organizations, they no
longer effectively control them; control having been effectively ceded to a new professional
managerial class (Cornforth 2001 citing Berle and Means 1932). In addition during normal times
power usually remains with the head of secretariat (Mace 1971 cited in Cornforth 2001). In some
instances it has also been observed that the head of secretariat may dominate board processes in
particular if the board is powerless where board is unclear about its role and responsibilities and there
is a lack of commitment (ibid). This could stretch to the level of head of secretariat imposing
acquaintances into the board in a bid to consolidate power, and in most cases no one seizes and
fortifies hold on power with the intentions of relinquishing it.

30

The implication of the theory is that board should ensure that its CG systems and procedures legislate
against the head of secretariat deliberately withholding, misrepresenting information or giving inchoate
presentments to the entire board or selectively updating certain members of the board outside the set
down procedure so as to cause the board or its members to second-guess certain decisions or be wholly
surprised or propagate mistrust, despondence and speculation among board members. In addition the
board should ensure that its CG systems provide for setting up of a management team whereby
decision making on critical areas of the organization is spread to more than one individual; despite that
the head of secretariat will be ultimately liable for whatever decision that would have been made by
the entire management committee. Even where a management team is in existence the board has to
ensure that CGM&E systems provide for fair and just distribution of benefits to stakeholders reflecting
and being guarded by corporate objectives and not being unduly influenced by management. Therefore
issues of transparency and accountability should be reflected by the systems. This will avert a situation
where the head of secretariat or the entire management impose peremptory decrees on staff members
and other stakeholders in the name of the board, but without the boards imprimatur. Further another
implication is that the board has to ensure that CGM&E systems and procedures provide for regular
updating of the board by the head of secretariat in-between board meetings. Managerial hegemony
theory also implies that board should make sure that CGM&E policies make it mandatory for members
of management to recuse themselves in making decisions where there is possible clash of
organizational corporate interests and personal interests. In the same light the CGM&E guidelines
should guard against managerial superciliousness, bias, detachment or inattention to organizational
issues and processes, inordinate delays, dalliance, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, capriciousness
and arbitrariness. The theory also implies that the board should ensure managerial adherence,
adoption, application or compliance to CGM&E guidelines and other board directives. It also implies
that the board should make comprehensive description of the head of secretariats job outlining
responsibilities and clearly spelling out what information is expected by the board and when it must be
communicated.
2.7 Chapter Summary and Conclusions
Chapter two dealt with detailing the state-of-the art in the subject areas of CGM&E in as far as
participation of board members as a category of stakeholders within the framework of CSOs is
concerned. This was an expedition towards contributing to the subject area and body knowledge as CG
in particular has largely been fully explored in relation to the private sector; while in literature CG and
M&E are concepts that have not been broadly conceptually linked as they relate to board participation
in the NFP sector in the Zimbabwean context. The entire literature review on the chapter was guided

31

by the research questions and the research objectives. The chapter conceptualized terms that are
widely used in this study giving a broader understanding and highlighting contestations around the
terms. The terms included boards, participation, CGM&E as a role of the board and CS. As the study is
on youth organizations, the chapter interrogated the state of the Zimbabwe youth CSOs in the context
of board participation in CGM&E. A discussion of board governance focused on the board roles,
effectiveness, size, sources of power/authority, meetings, involvement in strategic planning and
resource mobilization and on board relations with head of secretariat. The chapter demonstrated the
theoretical modeling guided by literature review and drew critical implications which of course are not
value neutral but serve as a non-rigid guide to development of a CGM&E framework for CSOs. The
encumbrances of being a board member have been discussed. The discussion in Chapter two was
helpful in selecting the organizations and the actual respondents for the research; particularly the
theories (stakeholder theory, managerial hegemony theory) showed the importance of including
membership and management as respondents in this research. Questionnaire answer options were
picked from various suggestions on theoretical implications.





















32


3.1 Introduction
This chapter outlines and explains why the use of three research designs, that is, cross-sectional study,
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and document analysis design was deemed appropriate. In this
chapter the sampling plan used is explained. Also explained in this chapter is how the questionnaire
was designed, administered and the response achieved response rate is discussed. Also the research
questions raised in chapter one are tied to the hypotheses from the same chapter. Lastly the chapter
summarizes the key points and gives an indication of what is to follow in Chapter four. Cross sectional
design was the main tool used and can be viewed as a physical cross section of the population of
interest or snapshot of something at a particular point in time (Howard 2008). Further the cross-
sectional study is suited to this study as it allows for collection of data on many variables, from a large
group of subjects, gathers information on peoples attitudes and behaviors, answers the questions of
how much, how many, who, and what happened (ibid). The design was chosen for its advantage over
longitudinal or case study designs as it collects data on all relevant variables at one time, thus being
consistent with time framework given for the completion of this study and also is less costly. For the
cross-sectional design data was collected using a questionnaire which was filled out through
interviews, research and self administered questionnaires. As Patton (2001) citing Cronbach (1982)
state that designing a study is as much an art as science and thus there could be no single ideal standard
as any given design inevitably reflects some imperfect interplay of resources, capabilities, purpose,
possibilities, creativity and personal judgment of people involved; the cross sectional design had to be
augmented with other designs. FGDs were meant to augment the weaknesses of cross-sectional studies
by allowing for peer to peer verification of information to be collected and detailed probing. The
document analysis of historical data was employed to collect more accurate data, validate information
collected through the questionnaire and the FGDs and provide a historical tincture to the data collected.
The research methodology design was informed by the time frame for data collection and how to
collect data, construction of measures, identifying a sample or representatives of the youth
organizations for the purposes of this study from the entire population of youth CSOs in Harare; where
in this case a combination of sampling techniques were used. Under non-probability sampling two
methods, voluntary sample and convenience sample were used to select the organizations to be studied.
Probability sampling technique known as multi-stage sampling was used to select the different

33

respondents from each of the organizations selected using the non-probability sampling methods.
Stakeholders were divided into groups or a stratum using the stratified sampling technique then
random sampling was used to pick the respondents. The research methodology was also informed by
the choice of strategy for contacting respondents leading to selection of relevant research methods
whereby by both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used. In addition the methodology was
based on relevant data collection methods to be used whereby a technique known as triangulation was
used. The data collection methods used included research administered and self questionnaires,
interviews, FGDs and document analysis. Lastly the methodology was informed by the selection of
analytical tools (tables, frequencies and other illustrations) that could be constructed from the
Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) and the manner of presentation of the findings.
3.2 Research Designs
The validity of survey study designs (longitudinal, cross sectional, case studies and so on) are subject
to limitations brought about by two dominant concerns: firstly common method variance- CMV (that
is, systematic method error due to use of a single rater or single source) and secondly causal inference-
CI (that is, the ability to infer causation from observed empirical relations), with the cross sectional
design, the dominant design used in this study even especially more prone to CMV and CI issues
(Rindfleisch et al. 2007). In light of the foregoing this study had to cover up the drawbacks of the
cross-sectional design questionnaire and interviews by employing the FGDs and document analysis of
historical data as it is observed by scholars that in order to reduce the threat of CMV bias and enhance
CI, survey researchers recommend three different data collection strategies: firstly employing multiple
respondents (achieved in this study by having four groups of stakeholders as respondents), secondly
obtaining multiple types of data (achieved in this study through employing quantitative and qualitative
data) and thirdly gathering data over multiple time periods- achieved in this study through document
analysis of historical data (Jap and Anderson 2004; Ostroff et al. 2002; Podsakoff and Organ 1986;
Podsakoff et al. 2003; Van Bruggen et al. 2002 cited Reindfleisch et al. 2007). Reindfleisch et al.
(2007) citing Podsakoff et al. (2003) state that all three strategies are capable of creating separation
between the collection of independent and dependent variables, which in theory should reduce the
hazard of CMV and increase CI as a result.
3.3 Sampling-Selection of Respondents
The population (set of all possible measurements) for this study consisted of all youth CSOs in Harare.
As Ader et al. (2008) observe that it is the norm that researchers seldom survey the entire population
due to prohibitive costs and time constraints; this study employed sampling technique for selection of
observations or a portion of the population to represent the whole population. Due care was taken to

34

make sure that the selection of the elements of the population was unbiased so as to yield useful
knowledge about the CGM&E gaps. The sampling frame, which according to ILO
9
(2009) is a listing
of all elements of a finite population, consisted of youth organizations under five youth umbrella
organizations YETT, ZYC, NAYO, CiZC youth committee and NANGO youth committee. This was
meant to achieve representativeness as these umbrella organizations claim the widest membership or
affiliation of the CSOs under study and particularly youth organizations.
Discussions on how each of the above organization draw their mandate and legitimacy to qualify to be
umbrella organizations were beyond the purview of this study, suffice to mention is that each of the
above organizations have significant following in the form of partners, affiliates or members. The
study used a non-probability sampling; because of its two potential advantages, convenience and cost;
to select the actual organizations from the five youth umbrella organizations (Doherty 1994). The two
main non-probability sampling methods that were used were voluntary sample and convenience
sample. Letters were sent out to youth organizations under the five umbrella organizations to enlist
their participation in the study. This was followed by either sending through email the questionnaire or
office visit to administer the filling out of the same questionnaire or for an interview. A balance was
struck between convenience sample and voluntary sample where preference was given to other factors
such as focus area (gender, students, rural youths, urban youths, female headed, religion) of the
organization.
Depending on the size of the sample, a general rule is to interview between 5-10% of the sample
(Fisher & Foreit 2002). Therefore two organizations were selected using the combination of both
voluntary sample and convenience sample to represent membership in each of the umbrella
organizations making a total of ten organizations. The interviewed sample under most umbrella
organizations represented more than the ten percent general rule. For NAYO which has sixteen
members it represented 12.5%; CiZC with approximately 21 members (as per list availed in January
2013) it represented 9.5%. The percentage is actually more if it was to be calculated using only Harare
based members of these umbrella organizations given that this study focuses on Harare organizations.
It is worth noting that some organizations may belong to more than one umbrella organization. The
Figure below shows the organizations and their respective umbrella organizations.



9
International Labor Organization

35

Table 1: Umbrella organizations and selected members from each
ZYC NAYO YETT NANGO Youth
Committee
CiZC Youth
Committee
Youth Alliance
for Democracy
Youth in Business
Forum
Youth
Agenda
Trust (YAT)
Students Solidarity
Trust (SST)
Students Christian
Movement of
Zimbabwe (SCMZ)
Female Students
Network (FSN)
Zimbabwe Junior
Achievement
Youth
Forum
Zimbabwe National
Students Union
(ZINASU)
Achieve Your Goal
Trust (AYGT)

Probability sampling methods were used to identify actual respondents (also being cognizant that
contacted respondents should be between 5-10% of the sample) in the above mentioned individual
organizations from list of groups of stakeholders. The multistage sampling technique (whereby a
sample is selected using a combination of different methods) was used due to the nature and
geographical spread of the different respondents in the organizations. At first level or stage one,
stratified sampling was used to choose different stratums from the population of each organization, that
is, different categories/groups of stakeholders were put in different stratums. Four stratums of
stakeholders in each organization were developed, that is, board, management, junior staff and
membership/beneficiaries
10
. The stratified sampling was chosen because it provides for dividing of
population into groups of stakeholders based on some characteristics (Neyman 1934). At second stage
different sampling methods were used to select subset of elements from each chosen stratum. Of the
seven out of ten organizations a total survey was used in choosing respondents of the questionnaire at
management level of category of stakeholders; as management consisted of either one or two
individuals. Random sampling was used to select respondents for the questionnaire at
membership/beneficiaries level of categories of stakeholders. This was done through choosing
randomly from a list of members or beneficiaries (in the few organizations where a list existed and in
those without an existing list a haphazard list had to be developed) provided by respective
organizations. The total number of members/beneficiaries in the list was divided by 5 (being the
number of respondents to represent that sector) then after randomly choosing the first element the
following elements were to occur by adding to the first element and to subsequent outcomes the figure
gotten from dividing the total list by 5. This meant that all elements had equal chances to be selected.



10
The term a beneficiary is disenfranchising in a human rights framework as is discussed in Chapter 5 Section 5.3.1.

36

3.4 Research Methods
On the research methods the choice to use a qualitative approach or a quantitative approach reflected
the research questions to be answered. As Patton (2001) noted some questions lend themselves to
numerical answers; some to qualitative. Therefore in this research both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used as different research questions elicited both qualitative and quantitative data. To
know what gaps in CGM&E exists in ZSCOs; the choice was to use a quantitative enquiry where an
interval measurement scale was used. Participants were made to select from a list of CGM&E
indicators present or absent in their organizations so as to compute mathematical meaning. To know
about attitudes for instance what the absence or presence of board participation CGM&E systems mean
to respondents, how it affects them, how they think about it, and what they intend to do about it; the
choice was to use a qualitative enquiry through further probing in the FGDs. A comprehensive and
multifaceted understanding of challenges faced by stakeholders in implementing sound CGM&E
required both quantitative and qualitative data as much as it was difficult to investigate what happens
in board rooms and board meetings; and to achieve this each questionnaire had an option for
qualitative response. The value of mixing quantitative and qualitative methods is reflected in the
results where statistics alone in some of the cases do not tell the whole story notwithstanding that
statistical packages render quantitative data easy to analyze than qualitative data. This explains why in
this study the questionnaire questions had to always prioritize quantitative options to answers than
qualitative ones. Data management and analysis tools such as ANOVA for managing and analyzing
data collected using FGDs and other qualitative methods were not readily available for the purposes of
this study and thus the presentation of results in chapter four heavily relies on data analyzed using
SPSS.
3.5 Data Collection Tools
The triangulation method was used for collecting data whereby a combination of different tools were
used. The triangulation method allows for a balanced collection of data as weaknesses of a particular
tool are covered up by another tool. The different data gathering tools that were used in this study
include the questionnaire, interviews and document analysis. The administration of these tools and
response rate is discussed below in section 3.8.
Data were collected using the triangulation technique where respondents were asked to provide five
pieces of organizational data using two data collection tools, the interviews and the questionnaire and
then rate their level of satisfaction and opinions. Additional information on the questions below was
collected using document analysis and FGDs. The questions were excerpted from the study objectives
and grouped into five groups:

37

General information about the organization and respondents role and attitude towards
CGM&E.
What gaps in board participation exist in CGM&E?
Board members skills, qualifications, experience and motivation to develop and ensure
application of CGM&E systems?
How can performance and effectiveness of boards in ZSCOs as relating to participation in
CGM&E be improved?
What are the other external challenges in implementing effective CGM&E besides those
internal to the organizations and what are the recommendations for addressing the challenges?
3.6 Designing Data Collection Tools
This section explains the design of the questionnaire, interview and FGD schedules and document
analysis of historical data. For document analysis, the historical documents that were gathered included
governance documents (policies and constitutions); registration documents; information brochures and
strategic planning reports. With regards to the questionnaire Koponen et al. (2012) observe that the
questionnaire design has an impact on participation rate and validity of the obtained data. Against this
backdrop the questionnaire and interview and FGDs schedule outlined the purpose of the study in the
introduction and assured respondents of confidentiality and anonymous submission of the returns
where possible in the case of the former and the respondents were given the impression that it was easy
and less time-consuming to take part in the survey. Tolonen (2005) cited in Koponen et al. (2012) state
that, to improve reliability and accuracy of the data collected ample time for planning and preparing
the questionnaire should be allocated. Several days were spent in reiterative process of planning and
formulating the questionnaire. More days were set aside for data collection.
Scholars Fisher and Foreit (2002); Koponen et al. (2012) citing Rea et al. (2005), Tanur (2004),
Biemer et al. (1991) observe that the order of the questionnaire may confuse the respondent, bias the
responses, have an effect on response rate and on the willingness to answer all questions. Against this
backdrop the questionnaire was designed to start with easy questions for the respondent to get
accustomed. It therefore started with demographic questions, Questions 1 about sex of the respondent
and 2 about their education and more difficult questions were place at the end of the questionnaire, for
example Questions 25 about board associated triggers of corporate failures, 29 about improvement of
board performance and effectiveness. It is ideal to group all questions by topic and to use the jump rule
to avoid answering of irrelevant questions (Koponen et al. 2012). In this regard the questionnaire
grouped the questions into the following six topics: about the respondent; about the youth organization;
about gaps in board participation; about board members qualifications and experience; about

38

improving performance and effectiveness of boards and lastly about CG in the country as it affects
CSOs. In addition the jump rule was used, Question 23 about if respondents were aware of corporate
failures attributable to board participation or lack thereof, whereby if the answer was a No
respondents were required to skip Question 24 about the number of such organizations and 25 about
the triggers of such corporate failures. It is noted that embarrassing or painful questions should be
avoided (ibid), Question 23 which read (w)ithin youth organizations in Harare, are you aware of any
corporate failures or scandals directly attributable to lack of participation of boards in corporate
governance, monitoring and evaluation? avoided asking directly if corporate failures had happened in
the respondents particular organization and asked in more general terms in the broader Harare youth
CSOs. It is still mostly likely that since the other questions are about youth CSOs this question will
also be answered in that context. Biemer et al. (1991) cited in Koponen et al. (2012) further notes that
the order of the response alternatives can greatly influence the results. In this regard consistence of
responses alternatives was maintained, for instance questions with nominal scale response options of
Yes and No were ordered such that option A. in all the questions always represented Yes and
option B. always represented No. Further in all the questions response options covered a range of
options from negative to neutral and positive responses.
In addition as suggested by Koponen et al. (2012) proper wording and simple language was used, for
the interviews, other questionnaire administration methods and for FGDs. Development discourse
jargon was avoided, slang, words which may be considered insulting and everyday abbreviations such
as CSO, NGOs were avoided to make the data collection straight forward and unambiguous.
Instructions on how to answer each question were provided italicized and font reduced to indicate that
they were not part of the question but instructions. The instructions included the likes of circle one;
tick; and Circle the letter and corresponding measure of impact and were meant to afford
uniformity in answering of the questions for easy analysis. To elicit consistent responses for each
question, interview respondents were asked the questions in the same way following the same layout
(Fisher & Foreit 2002). Related questions were asked to check if the respondents were consistently
telling the truth (ibid). There was a deliberate attempt to eliminate recall bias in responses. Koponen et
al. (2012) citing de Bruin (1996), Tanur (2004) state that when formulating a questionnaire, it is
prudent to bear in mind that people tend to forget events and thus questions requiring a longer recall
period should be avoided and recall of events should be assisted by adding aids. With this in mind
Questions 14 about number of members or beneficiaries involved with the organization; 15 about
average annual budgets and 27 about sectors represented in respondents board all had a short span
specified recalling period and a range. In determining the length of the questionnaire a balance was

39

struck to have a questionnaire short enough to increase the response rate and long enough to cover all
study objectives and indicators where as a result 34 questions with 150 variables made up the
questionnaire. Another factor in determining the length of the questionnaire was the ideal time for
filling out the questionnaire which is 15 to 30 minutes (Rea et al. 1997 cited in Koponen et al. 2012).
Nevertheless in many cases the questionnaires for this study were completed within 10 minutes.
For the layout of the questionnaire, as suggested by Koponen et al. (2012) due care was taken to use
appropriate font size, where in this case font size 12, Times New Roman was used with double line
spacing. Attention was also paid to number of questions in each page avoiding one question to overlap
from one page to the other as this may interfere with concentration. For online questionnaires,
measures were taken to make it easy to download and compatible with computers still using earlier
versions of Microsoft word.
Each question was developed with a clear understanding of which analytical tool (for example,
frequency table, bar charts and cross tabulations) will be used. To further polish and perfect the
interview and FGD schedule and the questionnaire, the tools were pilot tested as explained in section
3.7 below. Fisher and Foreit (2002), state that all questions necessary to provide sufficient information
should be included on the variables to be studied. Further the questions were designed such that the
data necessary to test the hypotheses of this study would be obtained from the questionnaire. The entire
questionnaire development, interview and FGD schedule development and gathering of documents for
analyis was informed and guided by the study objectives, questions and hypothesis. It has been noted
that it is often helpful to prepare a list of key study variables with an indication of where the data for
each variable will be obtained (ibid). The hypotheses to be tested are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: There exist gaps in board participation in CGM&E due to lack of interest by
stakeholders in CGM&E;
Hypothesis 2: Participation in CGM&E by board members is pivotal to the size and growth of
organizations;
Hypothesis 3: Boards need a balance in skills, experience, qualifications and professional backgrounds
of members for its effective performance;
Hypothesis 4: Training of stakeholders in CGM&E improves collective formulation and application
of CGM&E systems;
Hypothesis 5: A national environment supportive and conducive for corporate governance is key to
effective and improved board performance in corporate governance.

40

The table below was created to ensure that each variable had adequate questions to provide
information.

Table 2: Variables and data sources

Variable Source of Data Hypothesis
to be tested
Demography of respondents Questions 1; 2
Respondents Position in the organization Questions 3; 4
Status of the Organization Questions 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10
Size of the Organization Questions 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17 2
Attitude of respondents to Board Participation Questions 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 29; 30;
31; 32
1; 4; 5
Gaps in Board Governance Questions 23; 24; 25 1
Board members qualifications Questions 26; 27; 28 3
National outlook of corporate governance Questions 32, 33, 34 5

3.7 Pretesting Data Collection Tools
The pretest applied to the FGDs and two tools of data collection interviews and questionnaire and had
ten respondents each. An attempt was made to make sure that it included the same types of respondents
who were to be included in the study sample drawn from different categories of stakeholders. After the
pretest several revisions were made. Demographic questions were moved to the beginning of the
questionnaire. Several option answers were revised to make them easy to analyze. Some questions
were split into two or more. Layout of the questionnaire was also revised such that questions did not
overlap to the next page as it strains concentration of respondents and also analysis. It could have been
helpful to conduct a second pretest to be sure the revisions were satisfactory, however it could not be
done due to time limits and also because the revisions were not too many. Pretest respondents were
debriefed and asked about the questions that appeared to be difficult and others which were likely to be
misunderstood. For self administered questionnaires pretest was done using hand deliveries and
emailing of questionnaires.
3.8 Administration and Response Rate
Koponen et al. (2012) observe that the questionnaire administration mode has an effect on survey
budget and also effect on participation rate, item non-response and validity of the answers. Thus due
diligence was exercised in FGDs and questionnaire administration to keep the budget on the lower
side, improve participation rate and response rate while at the same time without compromising the
validity of the answers. Two types of questionnaire administration were used, researcher administered
and self administered. The researcher administered questionnaires and interviews were used because of
the anticipated high response rate, fewer misunderstood questions and inappropriate responses, greater

41

researcher control of the environment that the interviews or questionnaires are administered in and
collection of additional information (ibid). The self administered questionnaire was used mainly to
collect information on board members who had very busy day schedules and preferred to attend to the
questionnaire at home in the evening or in the middle of their trips/flights or during
meetings/workshop breaks. The self administered was used with respondents from SST where this
researcher is employed to allow for anonymity and removal of interviewer bias on respondents.
Document analysis was used mainly on documents such as notorial deeds of trusts, constitutions and
information brochures.
The FGDs, interviews and questionnaires consisted of a number of questions that the respondents had
to answer with most questions being a mixture of open-ended and closed-ended questions. Open ended
answer options were placed at the end of all options and asked respondents to formulate their own
answers, whereas closed-ended answer options allowed respondents to pick answers from a given
number of options. Deliberate effort was made to make answer options for closed-ended questions
exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Four types of response scales were developed for closed-ended
questions and they are: dichotomous, for example gender, where the respondent had two options male
or female; nominal, where the respondent has more than two unordered options; ordinal, where the
respondent had more than two ordered options and lastly bounded, where the respondent was presented
with a continuous scale. A respondents answer to an open ended question (particularly from
interviews) was coded into a response scale afterwards.
The interviews and questionnaires were administered through work place visits where respondents
were interviewed in person at their workplaces often in their board rooms or outside their offices in the
open. The visits allowed the researcher to enjoin the respondents to cooperate, some because of
professional respect derived from professional relationships that the researcher has had with the
respondents.
To increase response rate preliminary notification was made and for the self administered
questionnaires, they were kept shorter for instance than the researcher administered and targeted
mainly membership/beneficiaries and board members who in most cases had busy schedules. The
researcher administered questionnaire targeted management and employees in the youth organizations.
Another technique, foot-in-the-door, where by the researcher start with a small inconsequential
request, was used to increase response rate. For example the researcher would start by inviting a
respondent (particularly membership/beneficiaries) for ordinary lunch then introduce the study during
the lunch. In addition the following techniques were used to increase response rates personalization of

42

the requests; guaranteeing anonymity; making follow-up requests; stating affiliation with National
University of Science and Technology where the researcher was a student or with YETT where the
researcher was an alumni and with CiZC where the researchers organization was a member of the
Youth Committee.
Response rate was general on the high side for all categories of stakeholders. A total of 45 out of 60
questionnaires had data completed on them through interviews, self administered questionnaires sent
by email and researcher supervised self administration of questionnaires. This represents a response
rate of 75%. Out of thirty, twenty six questionnaires were responded to from office visits to the ten
selected organizations where in the majority of cases, respondents were asked to complete the
questionnaire there and then through researcher supervised self administration or through face to face
interviews. As a result, of the above twenty six, twenty one questions were responded to through
researcher supervised self administration while five questionnaires had data corded on them from the
interviews. Therefore only four of the potential thirty questionnaires circulated through office visits
were not successfully completed representing a sub response rate of 86.7%. Those that did not respond
it was mainly because they were not in office and follow up visits yielded no positive results.
Seven out of fifteen questionnaires were responded to which had been circulated using the email, all to
board members of the ten targeted organizations all whom it was not possible to secure an appointment
within the set time framework for data collection. This means that the sub response rate for the emailed
questionnaire was very low at 46.7% with 8 questionnaires not responded to on time. Contact email
addresses were availed mostly by the management in those organizations, however for those
organizations with known board members in the CS circles; the email addresses were readily available.
The low response rate here was due to mainly the crowded schedules for board members and also the
short time framework which saw some of the returns being received well after the deadline and thus
after data analysis had been completed.
In total seventeen interviews were held, that is, five respondents from each of the groups of
stakeholders serve for boards where only two respondents could avail themselves. The respondents for
the interviews were chosen through convenience sample, however making sure that there is no one
organization with more than one respondent for each group of stakeholders. The interview questions
were drawn from the questionnaire. The first preferred interview format was the physical one on one
interview with the assistance of a Dictaphone for recording and later transcription. The second
preferred interview format was the online video interview using the less costly skype. The third
preferred was through the telephone (mobile phone) in the evening when charges were generally on the

43

lower side due to promotions by Econet and Telone mobile services providers. The telephone
interviews were done with the researcher noting down all the responses on a piece of paper. Below is
the table that shows the resultant interview formats used.
Table 3: Interview Formats Used
Face to Face Skype Telephone
Boards 0 0 2
Management 2 0 3
Staff members below
management
1 0 4
Membership/Beneficiaries 2 0 3

A total of seventeen interviews were held as shown in the table above. Transcribed information from
Dictaphone and information from pieces of paper collected through the telephone were corded into the
questionnaire format for the respective respondents to standardize responses for ease of analysis. The
table below shows the tool used to gather the information for the questionnaire and the resultant
response rate from that particular tool.
Table 4: Various ways used for collecting the data for the Questionnaire
Researcher assisted self
administration of questionnaire
Email
Questionnaire
Self Administration
Interviews
Face to
Face
Interviews
Telephone
Response Rate 21 7 5 12

3.9 Chapter Summary and Conclusions
Chapter three demonstrated how the study was conducted. It gave a brief description of the sampling
methods used, thus how respondents were selected including organizations and stakeholders in those
organizations in revealing participation of board in CGM&E enabling a two pronged approach where
qualitative and quantitative research designs are outlined. The chapter also reflected on the
administration of the various data collection tools employed in the study and the response rate that was
achieved. It further tied the research questions raised in chapter one to the hypotheses raised in the
same chapter. The data collected using methodology discussed in Chapter three was then analyzed in
Chapter four.





44


4.1 Introduction
In this chapter tables, figures and other illustrations developed using SPSS are either set out on this
chapter or reference is made to them as they appear in Appendix A followed by interpretations. An
explanation of the SPSS statistical package used in this study for data management and analysis is
given. The chapter then ties individual results into a unified whole that shows the total direction
indicated from the results. Lastly the chapter summarizes the salient points that have come out of the
results and gives a snippet of what is to come in chapter five.
4.2 Significance of Statistical Analytical Tool Used
Data were analyzed using a tool widely known as Statistical Package for the Social Science which now
stands for Statistical Product and Service Solutions- SPSS by developing graphical frequency
tabulations and bar graphs (Aruga 2008). SPSS performs highly complex data manipulation and
analysis with simple instructions (ibid). For this study version 16 of SPSS for Windows was used.
Measures of central tendencies which include the mean, mode and median were also used for data
analysis. Frequency tabulations and bar graphs groups respondents according to similarity of their
preferences/opinions in response to questions and thus help to show how for instance the majority of
respondents think. Nominal data was analyzed using frequency tabulations while ordinal data is
analyzed using measures of central tendency. An effort was made to synchronize analysis by the SPSS
with analysis from the FGDs and document analysis of historical data so as to produce unified concrete
analysis.
4.3 Tables, Figures, Illustrations and their Interpretations
Table Q1: Frequency Table showing Sex of Respondents


45

Table Q1 above and Figure Q1 in Appendix A. show that 51.1% of respondents from all categories of
stakeholders are males and 48.9% are females. As much as this shows male domination in all
categories of stakeholders from the organizations that participated in this study, the picture is not fully
constructed without shading light on sex disaggregation according to positions of influence and
dynamics of participation across stakeholders. From the FGDs it is observed that females are
significantly under-represented in boards of trustees, management, junior staff members and at elected
executives or as beneficiaries in the case of the service based organization. Females are fairly
represented as ordinary members. The FGD with management revealed that females in that category
are mostly occupying the post of Finance Manager, with only one headed by a female. There was also
generally low participation of females in all FGDs.
Figure 1: Level of Education of Respondents

Figure Q2 above shows that the majority of stakeholders in all categories have undergraduate degrees
as their highest level of qualification at 57.1%, certificate/tertiary diploma qualification coming second
at 28.6%, secondary (high school) qualification at 7.1%, post graduate qualification at 4.8% while only
1 person out of the 45 who respondent had a masters qualification. For the actual number of persons
refer to Table Q2 in the Appendix A. From further probing in the FGDs it was revealed that the
majority of the respondents had not yet obtained a qualification at undergraduate level as shown above,
but were however studying towards such a qualification through distance learning with most left with
between one semester to one academic year to finish. In addition it was revealed from the FGDs that
these stakeholders had been expelled from universities and colleges in Zimbabwe at the height of
political and socio-economic upheavals around the turn of the century. From surveyed adverts

46

soliciting for people to occupy management positions issued by these organizations it was shown that 3
of the 10 organizations under study had prescribed for persons with masters qualifications.
Table Q4: Contracts/Policies of Engagement with the Organization

The majority of stakeholders had contracts at 75%. It is of interest to show which category of
stakeholders dominates the other 25% portion. From document analysis of personnel files, in those
organizations where the researcher was allowed access, it was observed that it was largely the
membership/beneficiary groups of stakeholder without contracts. The implications of the indication
that there is no binding contract to govern the relationship between this category of stakeholders and
the organizations are that accountability and transparency on both sides suffers. During a focus group
discussion with beneficiaries this was revealed by a member who claimed that his organization was
neglecting him because there are workshops where he was not invited, regardless of the possibility that
he may not have been among the targeted participants. Document analysis also revealed that with one
of the organizations, which offer a service to its beneficiaries there were individuals who had been on
the programme exceeding the time frame expected of them to benefit. Further document analysis
further revealed that from this service based organization some individuals were gainfully employed
and had means to cater for the need which this organization was providing for.
The focus area for the majority of youth organizations under study is human rights, good governance
and democracy at 47.5%; followed by those whose focus on students (mainly at tertiary education
institutions) at 28.8%; followed by those focusing on religion 10.2%; gender and female youths rights
at 6.8%; marginalized youths at 5.1% and health at 1.7% (refer to Table Q5 Appendix A). As a
multiple response question was used to gather this data it is prudent to mention that some of these
organizations focus on more than one focus area. This is also consistent with findings from document
analysis where read together; the mission statements, visions and objectives of these organizations as
outlined in their information brochures show that there is no organization whose focus is exclusively
on one of the options above. This shows that the problems faced by youths of Zimbabwe are
intertwined, as much as most of them seem to emanate from issues to do with human rights, good
governance and democracy. This may imply that programmes aimed at resolving these problems
should be multi-pronged and mainstream typically youth challenges as observed from above.

47

The foregoing also explains why most of the youth organizations are interest based. The root causes of
challenge that youths in Zimbabwe face cannot be resolved through addressing only the symptoms,
that is, through hand outs from service based organizations, notwithstanding that such services are
required for the situation not to deteriorate further. 69% of the organizations are interest based and
31% are service based. See Table Q6 in Appendix A. These figures are however affected by the
differences in response rate on either side. The same is true with findings on whether organizations had
an elected executive or not whereby it is observed that 74.4% of the organizations had elected
executives while 25.6% had no elected executives (Table Q7 in Appendix A). This was revealed from
FGDs where only one organization out of ten was a service based organization. From document
analysis it was revealed that this only service based organization is found in most of its programmes
however pushing interest issues with only one programme which is entirely service-like in its design.
This organization perceive itself as a service based on the virtue of having that service-like programme
as its flagship or main programme although further document analysis reveal that this has been shifting
over the years, particularly through observing the progressively dwindling number of beneficiaries
whereas interest based programming has been on the rise.
It is rational that service based organizations are not usually found having elected executives while
interest based organizations have elected executives and thus have a constituency and can rightly claim
to be representing its members. Table Q10 in Appendix A shows categories of stakeholders that apply
to youth organizations under study. There was an assumption that each stakeholder is found in only
one category. However from the FGDs it was revealed that there are two organizations where members
of the management are also board members in addition to the ex-officio member who is the director or
coordinator of the organization. Therefore there is no clear separation of power and roles between
boards and management in such scenarios. Further from the FGDs there emerged a phenomenon
termed the the founder member syndrome whereby founder members who in most cases are in
management, boards and some former employees of the organisation have a tendency to hold other
stakeholders at ransom by making unreasonable demands or having wild expectations. These situations
create many centers of power within respective groups of stakeholders and within organizations.
Connected to this there emerged from the FGDs challenges associated with having too many or too
few signatories to bank accounts. Service based organization pushing interest based programming
suffer in terms of downward accountability, particularly if this is linked to the observation made above
that most of the organizations do not have contracts governing their relations with their
beneficiaries/members. These are the factors showing CGM&E failures in these organizations.

48

In terms of registration, the data collected indicate that most of the organizations under study were
registered with the ZYC at 50% and with High Court of Zimbabwe through notorial deeds of trust at
43.5% while the remainder were not registered or claimed to be registered with Private Voluntary
Organizations Act. This was a multiple response question meaning that some of the organizations were
registered with more than one authority. See Table Q8 in Appendix A. However the FGDs and
document analysis showed that there was no youth organization among the targeted ones registered
with Private Voluntary Organizations Act. Nevertheless all the data collected using various ways are
consistent in showing all but one of the organizations are registered. The only organization not
registered with any of the above named authorities is said to be still operating legally as it is an
association of registered networks not necessarily required at law to register with any authority. The
legal validity of this claim was beyond the focus of this study. The findings from collected data are
encouraging considering that all these organizations have the foundations to bolster CGM&E as they
are all operating legally. This is a good starting point for developing CGM&E systems.
The foregoing issues of registration for legal operation and the issue of whether an organization is
interest or service based and on whether it has members or beneficiaries have a bearing on the types of
governance and thus also governance documents for the particular organizations. As is the norm that
organizations may have one or more governance document, however service based organizations
seldom have a constitution. From the collected data analysis it is observed that the youth organizations
have the following governance documents: constitution at 25.4%; Notarial Deeds of Trust 24.6%;
policies and procedures 26.1%; are governed by applicable national laws at 23.1% and none of the
above at 0.7%. Refer to Table Q9 in Appendix A. These percentiles are more an indication of
respondents who are aware of the existence of the specific governance documents than they are an
indication of absence or presence of one particular governance documents or the other. This was
revealed through document analysis whereby it was observed that all organizations under study had
notarial deeds of trust; the same deeds also acknowledged that applicable national laws of the country
are to be used in cases where such deeds fall short. From the FDGs respondents also indicated that
issues such as labor disputes are largely admissible in national court of laws in line with the applicable
national laws.
Various variables used to shed light on the size of youth organizations indicate that the organizations
are relatively small. For example close to half (46.5%) of the organizations had only two running
grants as shown by Table X in Appendix A and a significant 27.9% had only one grant. No
organization had more than four grants. Close to half of these organizations (45%) had running grants
totaling between US$50 000 and US$100 each year for the last two years and 12.5% had grants of

49

between US$20 000 and US$50 000. See Table Q11 in Appendix A. Another variable showing that
these organizations are relatively small is the number of full time employees at both management level
and junior staff members categories of stakeholders. The majority of the organizations (60%) had three
or four employees. Refer to Table Q12 in Appendix A. In addition, the office space occupied also
shows that these organizations are relatively small with 39.5% occupying only one room as office
space as shown in Table Q13 in Appendix A. In addition from FGDs and document analysis it is
revealed that none of the organizations own the premises used as offices. Table Q14 in Appendix A
also shows that even in terms of size of membership or beneficiaries slightly above a quarter of the
respondents (26.5%) said that their organizations had between 151-200 members/beneficiaries; with
23.5% of the respondents professing that they were not privy to information about the numbers of
beneficiaries or members. This may imply that these organizations do not have data bases of their
membership/beneficiaries and if they do, they dont share such data bases with stakeholders.
The majority of the respondents (65.1%) said that their organizations had two programmatic
departments; 16.3% said that their organizations had three departments; 11.6% said that their
organizations had only one programmatic department and 7% said that they had four such departments
further shading light on that these organizations are relatively small (See Table Q16 in Appendix A).
That these organizations are relatively small is further observed from the value of their respective
assets, close to three quarters of stakeholders (70.7%) said that their organizations have assets of
between US$5 000 and US$25 000 and close to a quarter (20%) said the value of their assets was
below US$5000 (See Table 17 in Appendix A). However document analysis and FGDs revealed that
these organizations have not always been smaller in size in view of all the variables above.
Organizations that used to occupy full houses in the avenues and in low density suburbs are now either
sharing offices or have moved into smaller offices in town. Some of the organizations had up to seven
running grants prior to the inclusive government. The staff compliment has also dwindled over the
years, where it has not; this has presented challenges to the salary bill. In most cases FGDs revealed
that salaries have been revised downwards. The general sentiment from the FGDs is that funding and
donor base has been dwindling since the coming in of the inclusive government. In addition it emerged
from the FGDs that due to limited funding, competition for donors/funding has heightened and in some
cases it has led to youth organizations fundraising collectively as consortiums to improve their chances
of getting funding. However in some cases, results from the FGDs indicate that the competition has led
some stakeholders in CSOs to attempt to outmaneuver other organizations riding on the back of
consortiums/coalitions and this if unchecked stakeholders said may lead to self destruction of these
institutions.

50

When it comes to board issues, all respondents/stakeholders were aware of the existence of a board in
their respective organizations. In addition a significant number of respondents (31.1%) could recall and
match names and positions of more than four board members; while 15.6% could do so for four
members; 20% could do so for three members; 2.2% could do so for two members and 11.1% could do
so for one member. See Table Q19 in Appendix A. From the same table we observe that 20% of the
respondents said that they can neither remember nor match any of the names of board members and
their positions. Given that all respondents knew about the existence of the board and that the majority
knew some names of board members and their positions; Table Q20 in Appendix A shows some
consistence in indicating that 93.3% of the respondents said that boards participation in CGM&E is a
pre-requisite for viability of their respective organizations.
Table Q21: Ranking of items in order of importance to the board

From the measures of central tendency (mean, mode, median) above it is observed that the majority of
respondents think that their boards consider CGM&E issues to be of most importance (mean at 1.5;
mode at 1 and median at 1) followed by reputation of organizations and individual stakeholders (mean
at 2.42; mode at 2 and median at 2) followed by merit of proposals and programme implemented
(mean at 2.43 and both mode and median at 3) followed by relations with individuals in donor
organizations (mean at 3.8 and both median and mode at 4) and lastly in ranking was belonging to
particular official and unofficial networks and cabals (mean at 4.59; both median and mode at 5). This
does not necessarily reflect how the boards themselves will rank the foregoing issues, it is however a
wish list from different stakeholders in terms of how boards should prioritize the above alternatives in
the interest of viability of the organizations.
Tables Q22A to Q22S in Appendix A are an indication of how respondents/stakeholders think their
boards regard different policies mentioned in each table. These policies are not exhaustive but are
meant to give a picture of general direction of how boards regard different policies. From a scale of no
regard, little regard, some regard, and much regard it is observed that the popular sentiments from
stakeholders is that board members have none or little regard for most of the policies. The policies
which the simple majority of respondents feel little regarded by board members include travel and

51

perdiums policies (46.2% of the respondents); staff development policies (46.7%); organizational
assets use policies (43.2%); assets acquisition policies (48.7%); compliance and audit policies (45.5%);
monitoring and evaluation policies (40.6%); gender policies (34.4%); membership/beneficiaries
protocol (47.2%); internet use policies (36%) and employment policies (47.6%). Out of 19 policies we
observe that stakeholders feel that 11 of those policies are little regarded by board members. In
generalizing it can therefore be inferred that 52.6% of policies in youth organizations are little regarded
by board members showing a significant gap in CGM&E. In addition there are policies on which the
simple majority of respondents felt that boards of their organizations have total disregard for and or are
absent in their organizations and they include HIV and AIDS (50% of the respondents); networking
policies (35.7%); internet use policy (36%); training policies (38.5%) and security of electronic data
policies (40%). Out of 19 policies majority of stakeholders felt that 5 policies were disregarded by
board members. From this it can further be generalized that 26.3 of policies in youth organizations are
disregarded by board members. This means that more three quarters (78.9%) of policies in youth
organizations are either little regarded or totally disregarded by board members in youth organizations
indicating significant gaps in CGM&E; notwithstanding that this figure may have been pulled down by
bias from board members whom the majority of them responded by stating that they have high regard
for almost all policies.
In addition it is revealed by the respondents that they feel that the board members have some to high
regard on a few policies. The majority of stakeholders felt that board members have some regard for
the following policies personnel and human resources policies (48.8% of respondents); accounting and
reporting policies (45.2%); strategic planning policies (47.6%). Some regard is not enough when it
comes to CGM&E issues; thus still it represents gaps in the same given that in 3 out of 19 policy areas
stakeholders felt that boards had some regard representing 15.8% of policies in an organization. If this
figure is added to 78.9% figure showing policies that are either disregarded or little regarded, it means
that 94.7% of policies in youth organizations are not properly regarded by board members and this
spells out a major gap in CGM&E issues. It is observed that stakeholders feel that board members have
much regard or adequate regard for the following policies: conflict of interests and code of ethics
policies (40% of respondents) and fraud or financial improprieties reporting policies (45%). All this
shows clear gaps in CGM&E in youth organizations.
Having observed that stakeholders feel their board members have inadequate regard for policies in
their organizations; the next step is to see if there have been any corporate failures in these
organizations. The majority of respondents (70.5%) from the ten organizations under study said that
they were privy to instances of corporate failures. See Table Q23 in Appendix A. Of those who were

52

aware of such corporate failures, the majority (48.6) said that between 4 and 6 organizations had been
affected by CG failures in the past; followed by 25.7% of respondents who said the number of such
organizations actually was as high as between 7 and 9 organizations while 22.9% of respondents were
of the view that its only between 1 and 3 organizations that had been affected. Refer to table Q24 in
Appendix A.
Having shown that a significant number of all respondents were aware of one or more organizations
that had been affected by CG failures in the past; these stakeholders identified the following board
associated triggers as responsible for the failures. Each factor/trigger was subjected to a scale of no
impact, little impact, moderate impact, high impact and very high impact. Tables Q25a to Q25Z in
Appendix A. show the ratings by respondents on each of the board associated trigger based on the scale
described above. It is worth noting that the factors outlined in the above mentioned Tables are drawn
from board governance as described in Chapter 2, Section 2.4. It is observed that the majority of the
triggers were said to be having very high impact in contributing to CG failures. The triggers where the
majority of respondents said contribute very high impact include board lack of legitimacy (44.1% of
respondents); absence of board policy (57.1%); lack of understanding of board roles (50%);
insufficient board audit role (52.9%); poor attendance in board meetings (45.7%); board lack of skills
and experience (34.3%)
11
; lack of board performance review (44.4%); weak board chairperson
(32.4%); lack of professional diversity (63.6%); overbearing commitments elsewhere (60%); lack of
representation in the board (36.4%); board disharmony including internal factions and fights (85.7%);
external board manipulation (60%); manipulation of board by management (57.1%); board detachment
on corporate issues (70.6%); board failure to resolve organizational conflicts (69.4%); board and
stakeholder poor relations (44.1%); absence of strategy and plan (48.5%); mishandling of management
remuneration (48.5%); biased management recruitment (57.6%); failure to review CGM&E systems
(71.4%) and poor risk management at 55.9%. There were no instances where the majority of
stakeholders said that any of the triggers raised were of no impact or little impact further revealing the
extent of CGM&E gaps in youth organizations with regards to board participation.
Respondents said that the majority of board members in their organizations had under graduate
qualification as their highest qualification (recording a mean of 3.37; median of 3 and mode of 3 in
organizations with between 5 and 7 board members). See Tables Q26A-K in Appendix A. The majority
of respondents also said that their board members are largely drawn from CS sector recording a mean
of 3.11 than from the private sector, academia, consultancy, churches and other sectors. See Tables

11
Board lack of skills had a recorded a tie for high impact and very high impact at 34.3%

53

Q27A-N in Appendix A. Accountants and lawyers (key major professional qualifications required for a
diverse board) are under-represented in boards of youth organizations according to the respondents.
They said that instead most of their board members have social science background (recording a mean
of 4.33, median of 4 and mode of 3 given that most organizations have between 5 and 7 board
members). See Tables Q28A-D in Appendix A. Issues of diversity in professional backgrounds have
been said to be key to CGM&E as discussed in Chapter 2.
Having observed that there are clear gaps in CGM&E, respondents suggested the following items be
implemented so as to improve performance and effectiveness of boards. The respondents rated the
items based on scale of whether the item had to be implemented in the short term, medium term or
long term. Of the 13 items, the respondents felt that 8 of them had to be implemented in the short term.
These items include improving management reporting and relations with the board (82.9% of the
respondent); establishing, strengthening, reviewing or updating board policies and other CGM&E
policies through a comprehensive organizational development process (70.5%); improving regularity,
procedures, and attendance in board meetings including board committee meetings and board
attendance in organizational planning, policy and strategy development meetings (79.5%); improving
boards interest and will in CGM&E (72.7%); establishing and attaining boards independence from
management (86%); establishing and attaining boards independence from civil society politics
(74.4%); enforcing management and other stakeholder adherence to CGM&E systems (81.8%) and
taking measures to attain harmony and constructive cooperation among board members (71.4%). See
Tables Q29A-M in Appendix A. From the foregoing manipulation of boards by management is the
major impediment to full participation of boards in CGM&E. Other issues that need to be implemented
in the medium term, a simple majority of respondents said they include improving effectiveness and
performance of management and staff in corporate governance and project life cycle through tertiary
education sponsored by the organization as resources permit (47.7% of the respondents); improving
effectiveness and performance of management, staff, boards and other key stakeholders in corporate
governance and project life cycle through tailor-made training workshops or short courses facilitated
by actors in the civil society (50%) and relieving management and staff members of their duties
without requisite expertise in corporate governance and project life cycle and recruiting appropriately
qualified personnel (43.9%). The majority of stakeholders were of the opinion that the following
should be implemented in the long term: improving effectiveness and performance of management and
staff in corporate governance and in project life cycle through self sponsored compulsory tertiary
education (58.1%) and progressively transforming the board to attain a fair balance of skills, in all

54

relevant professional backgrounds (e.g., accounting, legal) and interest areas (e.g., representation of
constituencies) (50%).
One way to make sure that the items suggested above are implemented as suggested by the respondents
is by way of identifying actors which stakeholders in youth organization are comfortable with to
facilitate training workshops and short courses of stakeholders in youth CSOs in CG, project life cycle
including in M&E. In this regard the majority of respondents said they are more comfortable with
youth umbrella organizations (51.1% of the respondents) than with donors (2.2%), tertiary education
institutions (15.6%) or their respective organizations (24.4%). See table Q30 in Appendix A. Of the
main youth umbrella organizations respondents in FGDs selected YETT as the most ideal.
It is observed that the CG environment prevailing in the country is not supportive of CG at the level of
CSOs. Various factors at national level that affect CG at organizational level were put on a scale to
establish the extent of their impact. The scale consisted of options that included no impact, little
impact, moderate impact and high impact. The majority of the respondents said that the following
factors had had a high impact in contributing or affecting CGM&E in CSOs: absence of a national
corporate governance cord for both Non-Profit Sector and Profit Sector in the mould of South African
King Report (76.9 % of the respondents); failure to incorporate CG into tertiary education curriculum
across all faculties or degree/diploma/certificate programmes in universities and colleges (70.7%);
entrenched corruption in all sectors of the country including in Government public institutions (e.g.,
police and parastatals); private sector and in CS (95%); failure to treat CG as an integral component of
national development agenda by development practitioners and the international community as
represented by its development agencies, donors, embassies and United Nations agencies (77.5%). See
Table Q32 A-D in Appendix A.
To improve CGM&E environment at national level, there is need to develop capacities of individual
employees across all sectors. From Table Q33 in Appendix A, the majority of respondents (50%) feel
that this can be achieved through provision of scholarships by the international community to
employees in public, private sectors and in CS that major on CGM&E component; with 25% of the
respondents saying that such scholarships should be provided by respective sectors (public sector,
private sector, CS) in CGM&E; whereas 20% said that the capacities of individual employees can be
improved by introduction of tailor made trainings by each firm across all sectors. 4.5% of the
respondents felt that individual employees across all sectors without adequate CGM&E skills should
be progressively removed and replaced with those with required training across all sectors (public
sector, private sector and CS).

55

If CG scholarships are provided, either by the international community or by actors in public or private
sectors and by CS or jointly by all actors 34.1% of the respondents think 10 000 to 20 000 scholarships
will suffice considering the number of civil servants, employees in the private and public sectors and in
CS and the number of provinces in the country. 27.3% of the respondents thought that 5 000 to 10 000
scholarships will suffice; while 13.6% thought that 5 000 scholarships and below will do and another
13.6% said 40 000 to 80 000 scholarships will suffice and lastly 11.4 of the respondents said that 20
000 to 40 000 scholarships will do. The foregoing shows that the popular sentiment is that 10 000 to 20
000 scholarships will suffice to improve at national level and across all sectors CGM&E skills of
individual employees.
4.4 Tying Individual Results into a Unified Whole
The results show that youth CSOs are dominated by males, more so at decision making platforms such
as management and board of trustees. The majority of stakeholders across board are studying towards
their undergraduate degrees. The majority of stakeholders in board of trustees, management and staff
members below management have contracts, whereas the majority of stakeholders in
membership/beneficiaries category of stakeholders do not have contracts.
The major focus area of most of the youth organization is on human rights, good governance and
democracy, nevertheless in most cases an individual organization focuses on more than one area. Most
of the youth organizations are interest based, have elected structures and broad based membership.
Service based organizations are also found pushing interest issues. Most of these organizations are
legally registered and are governed by documents which include notarial deeds of trust, constitution,
policies and applicable national laws. It has been established that the youth organizations are relatively
small in size with small office space, small staff compliment and small grants and so on. All
stakeholders in youth organizations were aware of the existence of board of trustees and were of the
opinion that participation of board in CGM&E was important for viability of their youth organizations.
Respondents were of the opinion that the most important issues which boards should prioritize include
CGME in the first place; reputation of organizations and individual organizations in the second place.
In the third place was merit of proposals and programme implemented; in the fourth place were
relations with individuals in donor organizations and lastly was belonging to particular official and
unofficial networks and cabals. It was established that majority of respondents felt that board members
had total disregard to little regard for most policies in youth organizations. It was established that there
has been corporate failures in a significant number of youth organizations attributable to
ineffectiveness and poor performance by boards of trustees. In the majority of cases these board

56

members had undergraduate qualifications; are mostly from CSOs and are mainly of social science
background.
To improve the effectiveness and performance of board members in CGM&E it was suggested that
boards should improve their governance roles in general as they apply to diverse issues and delineate
their implementation to short term, medium term and long term. To improve the governance role it was
suggested that youth umbrella organizations and in particular YETT should play a leading role in
facilitating training in CGM&E not only for board members but for all stakeholders. As organizations
do not exist in a vacuum, external factors contributing to CGM&E failures were identified and they
include corruption, absence of national corporate governance code, tertiary learning curriculum leaving
out CG issues and failure to mainstream CG into national development agenda. To improve the
CGM&E environment at a national level it was suggested that there is need to develop capacities of
individual employees in all sectors through provision of between 10 000 and 20 000 scholarships to be
sponsored mainly by the international community.
4.5 Direction of the study shown by Results
Females general occupy positions of less influence in as far as decision making is concerned in youth
CSOs. It is observed through the lack of participation of females in platforms even in FGD discussions
that such representation should go beyond achieving parity in terms of numbers. In section 2.4.1
above, it was revealed that scholars are in consensus that the issue of diversity and representation of
traditionally under-represented groups in boards adds to productiveness of boards (Bradshaw et al.
1992, Fletcher 1997 cited in Brown 2002; Clarke and Klettner 2010) and that increased gender
diversity is related to higher levels of social performance, but lower levels of fund raising success
(Fletcher 1997 cited in Brown 2002). The literature review in section 2.4.5 above do not prove or
disprove that gender diversity is related to lower levels of fundraising success; however posit that fund
raising success as part of resource mobilization depends on unique interplay of human, organizational,
and physical resources over time and in particular intangible, difficult-to-replicate resources which
include socially complex and causally ambiguous resources such as reputation, corporate culture, long-
term relationships with stakeholders and knowledge of assets. In addition corporate governance
theories discussed in section 2.6 above also do not reveal that female stakeholders contribute to lower
levels of fund raising success. It could be inferred therefore that lower female representation in boards
and management is a reflection of general lower representation of females in platforms of decision
making in the wider society and derivatively if females are to be fairly represented in categories of
stakeholders wielding greater decision making power in organizations, CGM&E may improve. This
implies that female stakeholders need specialized capacity development to be able to be effectively and

57

actively represented in all categories of stakeholders. It is in the light of the foregoing that the
theoretical landscape is revamped as discussed in section 5.3 below where additional theories are
suggested to provide for a framework conducive for full female participation. Relevant additional
theories to the foregoing are the human rights based approach with its emphasis in focusing on the
rights of the most vulnerable who in the case of CSOs include female stakeholders. Further this theory
recognizes womens rights as human rights (OHCHR 2004). Another additional theory is the ubuntu
concept which emphasizes humanness, mutual respect for all and that females are also human beings.
See section 5.3.2 for detailed discussion.
In the face of firstly the jaundiced view that some stakeholders (particularly in consortiums and
management in individual organizations as shown by the results above that they are the major culprits
in impeding full board participation) un-meritoriously luxuriate in benefits gained from the
organizations with nonchalant abandon; secondly increased competition for funding between
organizations and the shrinkage in funding base; the whole gamut of stakeholders of these
organizations are now keen on accountability and transparency as expressed through sound CGM&E
as they call for equitably maximization of benefits obtained from the organizations across board. This
is revealed by the results that showed that the majority of stakeholders feel that most board members
should prioritize CGM&E issues for the sake of viability of these organizations against a popular
sentiment that most boards have little to total disregard for CGM&E and policies creating fertile
grounds for unscrupulous stakeholders to engaged in corporate malfeasance unrestrained leading to
many instances of organizations exposed to corporate failures as shown by the results. The foregoing is
in kilter with the literature review as discussed in section 2.6. above: under stakeholder theory- that
different categories of stakeholders have legitimate expectations and interests towards self benefits;
under managerial hegemony theory- that boards are passive and have ceded policing and custody of
CGM&E systems to management and under agency theory- that management given room, will pursue
opportunistic behaviors (corporate scandals, corruption and other corporate misdemeanors) in conflict
with collective interests of stakeholders and likely to devour benefits meant for all.
This is against the backdrop that corporate misdemeanors or corruption grown so high (to the extent
whereby the results show that between four and six organizations have overtly experienced corporate
failures) and so quick (given that these organizations are relatively young) by the force of luxury so
lately and hastily introduced to mostly persons of desperate fortunes forced into activism by account of
their poverty are difficult to uproot and that some stakeholders were already inured to lifestyles of
extravagant opulence which in most cases were a product of payoffs from corporate transgressions and

58

thus are predisposed to be reluctant to achieve fairness and justices in benefits accruing to all
stakeholders, a function which the board as the custodian and policing body of CGM&E systems has to
fulfill. The results show that achieving fairness and justice in benefits accruing to stakeholders could
be achieved if the boards improve their effectiveness and performance with regards to CGM&E and if
other development actors help in creating an enabling environment where a national CG cord is
introduced, tertiary education curriculum reformed to make CG central; corruption checked and CG
issues mainstreamed into the national development agenda. Stakeholders are bound to be supportive
of such initiatives as shown in the results that they are increasingly becoming keen on CGM&E issues
as expressed through demands for transparency and accountability.
Whether the keenness on transparency and accountability is altruistic and genuine or an outcome of
terrible effects of lust, intemperance, malice or envy was beyond the horizon of this study because of
the copious nature of such a discourse. The era of obsequiousness, sycophancy and subservience is
over and the sobering reality is that the slogan in the sector is now, nothing about us without us is for
us, as results have shown that stakeholders get involved in these organizations primarily to escape from
the terrible effects of challenges faced by youth organizations. Systems to guard against corporate
misdemeanors and to ensure meaningful all stakeholder participation are a responsibility of the board
and poor board participation in making sure that such systems exists, are functional and adhered to, is
inclined to encourage incessant corporate transgressions and therefore also internal fights, high
turnover of key stakeholders, financial impropriety, kick backs, corruption and so on. To aid a
development of a framework compatible to the foregoing discussion several theories which are not
traditionally associated with CG are suggested. The theories in addition to those discussed in the first
paragraph under this current topic include sustainable development model, globalization theory, post
modernists and dependencias school of thought and modernization theory discussed in section 5.3
below.
4.6 Salient Points and Chapter Summary
The salient points are as follows. CSOs consist of stakeholders all with varying expectations and
interest towards benefits from the organizations to accrue to them by virtue of their involvement in
these organizations. The interaction, conduct, duties, responsibilities and benefits to these stakeholders
are governed by regulations, policies, laws referred to as CGM&E systems for the purposes of this
study. The policing body of these CGM&E systems is the board of these respective organizations. This
chapter has been investigating if the boards have acquitted themselves satisfactorily to the demands of
being the policing body and custodians of the CGM&E systems. The results show that the boards have

59

not been doing so. In the first place this is revealed by the indications that there is no gender balance in
youth CSOs. In the second place organizations have failed to support their employees most of whom
were expelled or suspended from tertiary education institutions due to their activism to complete their
studies in time. In the third place there have not been contacts or policies governing the relationship
between the organizations and ordinary members and beneficiaries. In the fourth place benefits from
these organizations have not been fairly and justly distributed across all stakeholders more so because
of manipulation of boards by management and largely because of absence of benchmarks in terms of
CGM&E systems. In the fifth place youth organizations due to these CGM&E challenges have been
relatively getting smaller in size, notwithstanding that there could be other factors not directly
attributable to the boards lack of participation. In the sixth place board performance and effectiveness
has been generally on the lower side with regards to implementing policies. In the seventh place these
boards are not balanced when it comes to skills, experience and professional backgrounds. Now
therefore, to address all these CGM&E shortfalls at board level results indicate that this should be
holistic and comprehensive exercise that has to involve all stakeholders through capacity development
initiatives, team building exercises, organizational development processes and strategic planning
initiatives among other things. Results also indicate that youth umbrella organizations could be tasked
with leading capacity development initiatives. The last salient point is that as observed that CGM&E
challenges go not only beyond boards but also beyond individual organizations and across sectors;
results indicate that a comprehensive ten year plan of provision of 20 000 scholarships have to be put
in place supported by the international community in preparation of a new Zimbabwe that shall emerge
when the country fully recovers from the yester year political and socio-economic upheavals.
The chapter answered the question what did the study find out by presenting tables, figures and other
illustrations followed by interpretations on numerous variables to do with investigating board
participation in CGM&E. It explained the SPSS statistical package which was used for management
and analysis of data obtained through the questionnaire. The chapter then tied individual results into a
unified whole that shows the total direction that the results have led to. Now that the results have
demonstrated that that the current framework of board participation presents challenges; which need to
be solved using a theoretical framework beyond the traditional theories of board governance, the
following Chapter Five extends the theories suggesting new ones to be considered in the discourse of
CGM&E.


60


5.1 Introduction
The chapter demonstrates that the results obtained from the previous chapter add to the existing body
knowledge on CGM&E as it relates to the participation of boards. This existing body of knowledge
was explored in the second chapter of this study through literature review. The chapter highlights
points of departures and similarities from the observations highlighted in the literature review. The
chapter then proffers revamping of the theoretical landscape relating to the field of CGM&E by
suggesting additional theories already in existence in development discourse. The chapter then
summarizes and links its contents to other chapters in this study. The chapter summarizes the
conclusions in point form and proffers a detailed explanation of each conclusion. Further the chapter
revisits the study objectives and demonstrates how the study has fared in achieving these objectives.
The chapter then highlights the limitations of the study, makes recommendations on different actions
that could be undertaken to solve challenges related to board participation in CG. In addition this
section of the study also makes suggestions for future research on the subject.

5.2 Relevance of Results to Existing Body of Knowledge
The results are very relevant to the existing body of knowledge in not only adding knowledge about
CG in NFPs and board participation in CGME in Zimbabwe more importantly in proffering results
from which many interpretations in the form of articles can be written by this author and many others.
Not much scholarly work had been compiled relating to CGM&E in Zimbabwe CSOs later on youth
CSOs. The results add to the body of knowledge revelations about sex disaggregation in youth
organizations; focus areas of different youth organizations; the size of these youth organizations;
important demographic data including level of education; gaps in board participation; suggested ways
for enhancing effectiveness and performance of board members in CGM&E. These revelations are
relevant to the body knowledge in evaluating the existing theories of CGM&E in guiding or
influencing practice or organizational culture whereby if they are proved not to be sufficient more
theories could be developed, existing ones revised or the whole theoretical landscape altered. It is in
this light that a framework for revamping existing theoretical landscape on CGM&E is outlined below.
5.3 Revamping Existing Theoretical Landscape
In Chapter two, theoretical framework from reviewed literature was discussed highlighting the
different implications they have on the boards as they participate in CGM&E. Observing the copious

61

nature of challenges faced by different categories and individual stakeholders in the CSOs as observed
from the results discussed in the previous chapter; six more theories drawn from the development
discourse are suggested to compliment what the existing ones have achieved in relation to implications
on theory, practice and behaviors and attitudes of different stakeholders in organizations. These
theories include the following: human rights based approach, ubuntu theory, sustainable development
model, globalization theory, post modernists and dependencias and the modernization theory. With
regards to the added theories, of importance are their theoretical implications on stakeholders behavior
and attitudes, organizational culture and scholarly theory and practice in CGM&E, as was the case
with traditional theories discussed in Chapter two. The six theories help to ground issues of CG in
social sciences and development discourse particularly as they relate to management of development
institutions; hitherto largely located in subjects such as business administration, accounts, finance and
law studies. As Cornforth (2001) notes, taken individually these different theories are rather one
dimensional, illuminating particular aspects of board participation; however taken together these
multiple theoretical perspectives are helpful in highlighting some of the important ambiguities,
tensions and paradoxes that board members participating in CGM&E face.
5.3.1 Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)
King Report iii (2009) observes that internationally, there is an increasing expectation that organization
will pursue their aims within the limits of the social, political and environmental responsibilities
outlined in international conventions on human rights. Organizations should also ensure that their
constitutional responsibility to respect and contribute to the realization of human rights extends to
operations beyond borders of their respective countries (ibid). A HRBA is a conceptual framework that
integrates the norms, principles, standards and goals of the international human rights system into the
plans and processes for the process of human development that is normatively based on international
human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights and it
seeks to analyze inequalities which lie at the heart of development problems and redress discriminatory
practices and unjust distributions of power that impede development progress (OHCHR 2004). The
approach is contextual to ZCSOs as it provides for stakeholders to be viewed as rights holders. The
implications to the board is that it should ensure in crafting of CGM&E policies that participation of
stakeholders in ZCSOs is not based on a charity model labeling stakeholders in a disenfranchising way
as beneficiaries and not rights holders. The import labeling stakeholders as beneficiaries is that it
assumes that it is a privilege and not a right for them to draw benefits from the organization. This may
take away the ability of such perceived stakeholders to channel their views, opinions or reservations on
CGM&E through formal organizational channels as they are not expected to make demands or claims

62

but to be recipients. The HRBA theory provides for governance rights of stakeholders however labeled
or perceived. A perception of these beneficiaries as rights holders provides for their participation to
claim their right and helps to promote sustainability of organizations through facilitating their
participation in CGM&E.
Another implication is that the board can employ a HRBA to focus on the rights of the most vulnerable
(children, female youths, people living with HIV and AIDS, LGBTIs); root causes; inalienability and
interdependence of human rights; empowerment; participation, women rights as human rights,
accountability; non-discrimination; equality; exploitation and duty bearers; concepts which are central
to stakeholder participation in CGM&E. In addition, another implication particularly in the context of
youth organizations that are mostly male dominated the board has to ensure that work environment is
gender sensitive; female stakeholders and in particular female employees and female beneficiaries of
programmes, workshops and training camps are protected against possible sexual abuse or harassment.
This also implies that before commencement of employment or a programme/project/activity CG
policies should make it a thumb rule that participants are made aware of their rights the same way
police officers are suppose to inform accused persons of their rights while making an arrest. These
rights should always be clearly stated in stakeholder contracts, agreements or protocols governing their
engagement with the organization. These stakeholder contracts must be disclosed, explained and
whenever possible signed by stakeholders. Further the board should ensure that its CG policies
legislate against leg for job policies or carpet interviews and nepotism in employment of junior staff
by management meaning that the board should ensure that proper employment procedures including
holding of interviews are followed. For the project life cycle to come into fruition, it depends on a
habit of constructive all stakeholder participation, which cannot survive in organizations without
respect for human rights as a foundational philosophy.
5.3.2 Ubuntu Theory
According to the King Report iii (2009, p.23)
in the African context these moral duties (of stakeholders) find expression in the concept of
Ubuntu which is captured in the expression uMuntu ngumuntu ngabantu, I am because you
are; you are because we are. Simply put, Ubuntu means humaneness and the philosophy of
Ubuntu includes mutual support and respect, interdependence, unity, collective work and
responsibility and it involves a common purpose in all human endeavor and is based on service
to humanity (servant leadership).

The theory provides for possibility of collective stakeholder goodwill towards the achievement of
organizational CG in ZSCOs. The implication that the theory has on participation in CGM&E is that
the board should provide for a culture beyond the policies and work environment where the ideals of

63

ubuntu and ethics are able to take root. The theory highlights that CGM&E failures cannot be
addressed through policies and procedures alone, regardless of how functional they are. In addition the
board should ensure that CGM&E systems should provide for team work, between and among
different groups of stakeholders. This will mean that CG policies provide for regular team building
exercises, intra and inter stakeholder group retreats, staff member orientation, team meetings and
strategic planning meetings as suggested in the results in Chapter 4. Further, another implication is that
the board has to ensure that CG systems legislate on behaviors and practices against the ideals of
ubuntu through constitutions, notarial deeds of trusts, codes of conducts and employment contracts.
This means that CGM&E systems should at all times assign a stakeholder/s to perform the duties of an
ethics officer whose recommendations maybe be used for rewards, sanctions and to inform further
policy decisions.
5.3.3 Sustainable Development (SD) Model
The definition of SD as a working concept builds on other definitions that suggest it is a process
whereby future generations receive as much capital per capita, or more than, the current generation has
available (Serageldin 1996 cited in Grootaert and Bastelaer 2001). Bansal and Howard (1997) cited in
Shongwe (2008) state that the UNDP usefully described sustainable development as a process for
realizing human development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent and secure manner. SD is
development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987 cited Hopwood et al. 2005). SD is an intra- and
inter-generational development process defined by sustained improvements in human health and well-
being, quality of life and ecosystem health (Warhurst 2002). The advantage of contextualizing board
participation in CGM&E in the context of sustainability is that the concept is a widely accepted
appealing to many and conveying a sense of continuity both at a level of corporate sustainability and
projects sustainability.
Further, another implication is that board should make sure that CGM&E policies provide for
sustainability, that is for instance, thrifty use of resources and allows for mainstreaming of local or
indigenous knowledge systems into programming and programmes not only to achieve outputs;
outcomes but also impact. Another implication is that the board should ensure that the organization has
a sustainable funding base; that the organizations brand name, reputation of individuals in that
organization are protected such that the organization is able to attract funding and qualified and skilled
future human resources as discussed in Chapter 2 section 2.4.5. The board should also put in place
mechanisms to ensure stakeholder equanimity and guard against mass resignations of board members
and other stakeholders during periods when organizations go through CG challenges. This therefore

64

means CGM&E should provide for a risk management function. To attract funding it also means that
the management should always ensure that it has competent management able to produce worthy ideas
for programme fundraising as donor money always follow ideas. In addition the board must be having
a succession plan for the head of secretariat and for members of the board as discussed in Chapter 2
section 2.5.
Another critical implication is that the board should conserve and protect organizational assets such as
cars and properties by ascertaining that assets are not subjected to abuse; CGM&E systems provide for
assets to be insured against accidents, fires and so on. CGM&E systems should also provide for staff
members medical aid. Further the board should make certain that the CG policies ensure that the
organization at all times is operating within the legal statutes; that it honors its tax obligations to
Zimbabwe Revenue Authority and obligations towards security and well being of its employees
including employee contributions to National Social Security Association. At programmatic level, the
SD will imply that the board has to guarantee that its CGM&E systems provide for regular strategic
planning; annual programme and budgetary focused planning and reporting; annual, bi-annual,
quarterly, monthly, and weekly work plans. Further for all this to happen the implication is that the
board should ensure that it has policies that provide for regular meetings of all stakeholders the board
included, regular meetings and proper functioning of its committees as broadly discussed in Chapter 2.
5.3.4 Globalization Theory
King Report iii (2009) observes that electronic communication has expedited the process of concluding
contracts and doing business generally. The world is flat and borderless as far as capital flows are
concerned and thus capital can easily flow with the click of a mouse to where there is good governance
(ibid). Further, the emergence and evolution of the internet, ecommerce, on-line trading and electronic
communication have also enabled organizations to conduct business electronically and perform
transactions instantly. However there are also draw backs that pose risks to the organization due to
globalization. The King Report iii (2009) notes that there is no doubt that the complexity of
information technology systems does create operational risks and when one outsources information
technology services, for instance, this has the potential to increase risk because confidential
information is taken outside the organization. The implication to the board is that consideration has to
be given to the integrity and availability of the functioning of the system; possession of the system;
authenticity of system information; and assurance that the system is usable and useful and concerns
include unauthorized use, access, disclosure, disruption or changes to the information system (ibid). In
the results as discussed in Chapter 4 it was revealed that the boards had total disregard for information
security and internet use policies or the policy was absent in most organizations.

65



5.3.5 Post Modernists and Dependencias
A central feature of post modernism is critical discourse analysis whereby a discourse emanates from a
particular social structure and contributes to the maintenance or disruption of a particular social
structure (Matthews and Solomon 2003). In this light Hilary (2010) views CSOs as an extension of
neo-liberalism, to be playing the role that the missionaries played in facilitating colonialism, in this
case CSOs being the new missionaries in facilitating neo-liberalism. In addition Shivji (2007) states
that the donors and donor countries use their donor funds to achieve mainly neo-liberal economic
interests of which in many instances these interests are intertwined with economic, political, social and
cultural ideologies. This is also is in the context of former US President Nixons much quoted
admission: Let us remember that the main purpose of aid is not to help other nations but to help
ourselves (Hilary 2010 p.80).
The dependencias (dependency theory and world systems theory) hold that with a history of
colonialism stretching from between a half century and a complete century; given the history of slave
trade where 40, 000, 000 souls are estimated to have perished; given also the reluctance and violent
resistance in handing over power by former imperialist countries where in most countries thousands of
lives were sacrificed in fighting colonialism; the perception of some stakeholders in CSOs in recipient
countries of which most are former colonies, is that donor money and the CSOs are instruments of neo-
colonialism where these organizations are viewed as the new missionaries (Collier 2007; Shivji 2007).
Borrowing from the dependencias theoretical framework, the major function of the CSOs could be to
maintain peace and order through advocating for respect of human rights including such rights as
property rights, to ensure the smooth extraction of the raw material and minerals from the donor
money recipient country to the mother nation, and to facilitate foreign imports into the periphery and
entrap the periphery countries in debt, thus the organizations are never meant to promote the economic
development of the periphery in the long run. To the dependencias, with the aid of a striking example
of development model case of South Korea, China and Taiwan where development was achieved
outside the dictates of human rights and democracy; the kind of human rights and democracy
championed by CSOs will inevitable result in neo-liberal exploitation; as has been with the case with
calls for similar neo-liberal packages that have included modernization packages, export promotion,
globalization, consumerism, structural adjustments packages promoting unfettered markets and highly

66

indebted poor country debt relief packages and make poverty history campaigns. The question is how
can you make poverty history without understanding the history of poverty? Players in the aid industry
including in CS can use this argument in negating adherence to sound CGM&E. They may justify
corruption, disregarding the impact in changing peoples lives that the donor money is suppose to
achieve, as reparations for economic exploitation of their nations by countries where the donor money
comes from.
The neo-liberal challenges of economic exploitation cannot be addressed at the level and domain of
CSOs in the context of increasing calls for adherence to sound CGM&E; however may be addressed
through other national policy initiatives which in Zimbabwe and elsewhere have included foreign
policies, policies around trade, indigenization, nationalization, foreign direct investment and so on. The
assertion by the dependencias and post modernist that CS exists and functions to create fertile grounds
for economic exploitation may not be farfetched nevertheless are too sweeping. A counter argument
will contend that indeed the organizations exist and function to achieve a democratic environment
characterized by good governance, respect for human rights and rule of law which indeed suits
international trade. In the same light the environment further suits achievement of individual and
community satisfaction, happiness and well being beyond suiting international trade. In addition,
Zimbabwe as a responsible member of the global village has to adhere to fair trade and development in
a democratic and peaceful environment for the reason that it enables responsible membership to the
global village and also allows for its citizens to enjoy benefits of citizenry. Stakeholders in CSOs
derive various benefits and hence the concept of stakeholderism which in essence maximizes benefits
to stakeholders derived from the organization and not exploitation by mother countries of donors.
The implications of the above theory to board participation in CGM&E include that boards should
have an inward introspection of its CGM&E systems in these organizations that purport to advance
democracy, governance and human rights; to make sure that these organizations are themselves
democratic and respect human rights and practice sound CG, thus practice what they preach. It holds
true that the smallest circle has many degrees as the largest circle and thus the fight for macro good
governance in the country by the CSOs should be preceded by micro good governance in the same
CSOs. In addition the board should make sure that CGM&E systems provide for recruitment of people
into management with the correct disposition and ideology that will eschew unsavory corporate
scandals and support the achievement of corporate objectives of the organization. Given that it is
difficult to access objectively ones ideology orientation, another implication is that board should
ensure that it establishes policies, procedures and systems that prevent looting inspired by
dependencias kind of thinking. In addition board should ensure that information about donor identities

67

should be classified appropriately such that access is restricted to stakeholders on need to know basis.
This also implies that board members should ensure that those who may have access to the information
on need to know basis and other staff members who may get access to the information while
performing their duties have a confidentiality close in their employment contracts.
5.3.6 Modernization Theory
The modernization theory assumes that that social change is unidirectional, that is humans move in one
direction linear natural advancement with no conflicts. The theory rejects religious dogma and
traditional or indigenous socio-political capital-which are in effect antithetical to development needs
and processes and embrace modernity (Rostow 1964; Hagan 1962 and Eisenstadt 1966 cited in De
Beer and Swanepoel 2000). The relevance of this theory to board participation in CGM&E is that it
provides for top-down oriented development whereby projects are imposed on stakeholders and their
participation is limited. Shivji (2003) in the context of this theory notes that CSOs are top-down
organizations led by the elite and most of them are urban based. The tenets of the modernization theory
attempt to impose socioeconomic and cultural systems of the Global North which may not be
necessarily compatible with ZCSOs context.
The implications of this theory to board participation in CGM&E evaluation is that board should
ensure that its CG policies and systems allow for bottom-up participation and downwards
accountability; that stakeholders participate in CG and in all phases of the project cycle; from problem
identification phase to design phase, to appraisal phase, to negotiation phase, to implementation phase
and ultimately in monitoring and evaluation phases.
5.4 Conclusions in Point Form
Zimbabwe youth organizations are dominated by males more so in positions of management
and board of trustees hence the need to align CGM&E systems to be gender sensitive.
The majority of stakeholders in Zimbabwe youth CSOs, particularly employees have taken
longer than necessary studying towards their first undergraduate degrees most of them through
distance learning and therefore are in need of organizational support through staff development
and other such facilities so as to quickly complete their studies and derivatively also improve
their appreciation of CGM&E issues.
The focus areas for most Zimbabwe youth CSOs are to do with the popular challenges that
ordinary youths face such as poverty; unemployment; HIV and AIDS and other reproductive
health challenges; unaffordable tertiary education all intertwined to the countrys poor record in

68

human rights, good governance and democracy; these very challenges predisposing youth
organizations to CGM&E challenges due to inherent competition for organizational benefits.
There are few stakeholders, employees included, studying towards post graduate qualifications
hence the need again for youth organizations and other actors to support this endeavor through
staff development and other such facilities in the hope that this will enable them to enhance
their appreciation of CGM&E issues.
Individuals in all categories or groups of stakeholders serve for membership/beneficiaries have
some form of contracts governing their engagements with their respective organizations.
All groups of stakeholders in the youth organizations are aware of the role of boards in being
the custodians and policing body of CGM&E systems.
Between 4-6 in every 10 or up to 60% of CSOs have experienced corporate failures due to
failures in CGM&E systems.
Boards of youth CSOs have not performed satisfactorily in ensuring that CGM&E systems are
in place and being actively and effectively used.
Boards of youth CSOs are not balanced when it comes to skills, experience and professional
backgrounds and qualifications.
To improve performance and effectiveness of boards in being the custodians and policing body
of CGM&E there is need for reconfiguring of the existing CGM&E systems; capacity
development of all stakeholders to align them to CGM&E systems and changing of the way the
boards have been participating in CGM&E.
Stakeholders in youth organizations are more comfortable having umbrella organizations with a
youth component such as YETT, NAYO, CiZC, ZYC and NANGO facilitate capacity
development in CGM&E issues through customized training workshops, team building
exercises.
To improve the CGM&E environment at a national level it was suggested that there is need to
develop capacities of individual employees in all sectors through provision of between 10 000
and 20 000 scholarships over the next ten years to be sponsored mainly by the international
community.

5.5 Explanation of Conclusions

The results highlighted that there is generally male domination in youth organizations more so in
positions of decisions making. This point towards failure by boards of youth organizations to enforce
issues of gender equity in employment at management level (at which the recruitment is directly the

69

responsibility of the board) and in playing an oversight role to make sure management consider gender
equity in employment of junior staff members.
Given that the majority of employees are studying towards their undergraduate degrees through
distance learning (after being expelled from local universities for activism) it means that these
employees have to balance between work commitments and studies. This situation may result in either
work or studies being compromised and may explain why most of the employees are taking longer
than expected to complete their studies with some having spent up to ten years studying a three year
degree. The predicament of these employees cum students is made worse by that they are
accumulating more family related responsibilities with passage of time. This therefore means that the
board in participating in CGM&E has to be alive to the predicament of these employees cum students
and where possible support policies of staff development whereby the organizations co-sponsor their
education. This is possible where staff development component becomes an integral item in all budgets
sent to donors.
The results from assessing focus areas of both membership and service based organizations point out
that board of trustees of youth organizations in executing the CGM&E functions, not withstanding that
individual organizations have particular focus areas; have to mainstream cross cutting issues affecting
mostly the youths such as the consequences of the countrys poor human rights, good governance and
democracy record; health (HIV and AIDS, reproductive health); unemployment; poverty; gender
issues; marginalization and unaffordable tertiary education. These are problems affecting youths across
board, not only those youths who are members of CSOs. The primary reason why the few youths
found as stakeholders (membership/employees/management/board members) in various youth
organizations join these organizations could be that they want to help solve these major problems
affecting the youths for personal reasons of getting employment, education, positions of influence in
national processes, food on the table or any other such benefits and also to help other youths and the
general populace to attain the same. This point towards that the benefits accrued from the organizations
should cascade down to all stakeholders, failure to which these organizations will self destruct due to
internal fights bound to expose CGM&E failures to the world and more importantly to donors who
may respond by cutting funding until measures are put in place to reform these organizations.
As much as a study is needed to ascertain that undergraduate qualification is adequate to make
stakeholders competent in CGM&E evaluation, it can be inferred from the results of the study and the
nature of the demands of management that occupants of such positions may need a post graduate
qualification. Notwithstanding that there could be exceptional individuals without adequate

70

qualifications but who through experience, self tutoring or intelligence are more competent than some
of those holding higher qualifications. Nevertheless, when occupants of positions of management hold
higher qualifications like post graduate degrees they are not only likely to be more competent in
CGM&E issues but also are likely to draw respect from their subordinates. This is particularly true in a
country like Zimbabwe where education is held in high regard and where there is surplus or over
supply of highly qualified individuals and low demand for such people through for instance positions
in management. The excuse of not having adequate qualifications due to political victimization by dint
of suspension and expulsion from colleges and universities is increasingly becoming rudimentary. It is
often the case that even capable individuals without adequate academic qualifications occupying
positions of management are subjects of ridicule even beyond their respective organizations. The
foregoing presents a challenge to both boards and to the individuals in question in as far as CGM&E
issues are concerned. On the part of the board there is need to make sure that requisite expertise is
urgently made available at management level while at the same time this has proved to be a longer
process. It has been proven to be a longer process due to the need to balance other factors which
include continuity and stability of the organization. There is however a possibility that the desire to
maintain stability or for continuity could be costly to the organizations as further delay in having
requisite expertise may lead to corporate failures in organizations. On the part of the individuals, they
may be reluctant to recruit junior staff more qualified than them. This therefore means that the
individual management members in question may have to compromise CGM&E systems which spell
out that employment should be on merit.
The implications of the indication that there is no binding contract to govern the relationship between
membership/beneficiaries category of stakeholders and the organizations are that accountability and
transparency on both sides suffers. Boundaries of expectations of one party on the other are not defined
and this may lead to requests that cannot be honored. Some of these expectations are not even
communicated between parties, nevertheless remain expectations of which if not satisfied may impact
negatively on CGM&E. Some of these expectations are derived from the realm of friendship and
comradeship, two concepts governed by laws of friendship/comradeship which encompass favors,
reciprocity and sacrifice among other things. Such expectations derived from friendship/comradeship
may have no room when transferred to the realm of corporate governance where transactions have to
be done according to the book. Against this backdrop it is therefore prudent that engagements with
beneficiaries or members be governed by a beneficiaries protocol or a membership policy which are
widely circulated to all members or beneficiaries whereupon reference can be made to them in face of
conflict of interest.

71

The significance of having all stakeholders being privy to the role of boards in being the custodians
and policing body of CGM&E systems is that there is less likely to be resistance of board led
initiatives towards reconfiguring CGM&E systems. This is encouraging considering that such board
initiatives are due in up to 60% of the organizations that have experienced corporate failures. The
initiatives give the boards a chance to perform satisfactory in ensuring CGM&E systems are
reconfigured, put in place and are being actively and effectively used. Boards are not balanced when it
comes to skills, experience and professional backgrounds and qualifications, with the majority of
members in those boards being CS practitioners, having a social science background whereby in most
cases there are no accountants or lawyers. There is also need for capacity development of all
stakeholders for them to be receptive to changes in CGM&E systems and to changes in the way the
boards have been participating in CGM&E. It is important that stakeholders in youth organizations
choose on their own the manner through which they propose to have capacity development initiatives
in CGM&E issues. YETT have emerged the favorite organization to facilitate such training because it
has had very healthy relations with most of the youth organizations serve for instances where a few
organizations expressed reservations with having YETT, perceived by many as an umbrella
organization and a funding organization, compete with them for funding from other donors.
The suggestions to have up to 20 000 scholarships over the next ten years to be sponsored by the
international community comes against a background that CGM&E challenges are cross cutting in all
sectors and the Zimbabwe government is struggling with funding economic recovery and governance
issues and thus a comprehensive plan has to be put in place. This will be in preparation of a new
Zimbabwe free of vices such as corruption which may derail development. This is possible given that
similar initiatives were put in place in preparation of an independent Zimbabwe during the struggle for
independence and also given that there are already ongoing scholarships facilitated by various
institutions such foundations and embassies such as the American and the Royal Netherlands.
5.6 Achievements of Study Objectives
This study has managed to expand body of knowledge on CGM&E in the NFPs more importantly in
Zimbabwes context revealing the benefit of having viable organizations that are brought about by
boards role in ensuring all stakeholder full participation in CGM&E. The study has revealed various
gaps such as boards having total disregard to little regard for CGME systems as expressed through
organizational policies and the attached impact of corporate failures that such gaps have. It has
provided an expanded practical, adaptable, replicable generic and non-rigid framework that will guide
development of sound CGM&E systems in youth organizations and beyond. The framework is
informed by the implications derived from theories relevant to CGM&E namely the agency theory;

72

stewardship theory; managerial hegemony theory; globalization theory; democratic model; HRBA
model; ubuntu model; SD model ; resource dependency theory; modernization theory and the
dependencias and post modernist thinking. The study has also managed to enhance appreciation and
understanding of different roles that the board has to play including being the custodian and policing
body of CGM&E systems and monitoring of inter and intra relations between different groups or
categories of stakeholders. The study has made strides towards restoring faith in donors and other
stakeholders and also in containing and pushing back the negative CGM&E challenges emerging in
ZCSOs.
5.7 Limitations of the Study
The study faced numerous challenges consistent with cross sectional studies in general as much as
there was an attempt to cover up such draw backs using document analysis and FGDs. Howard (2008)
identifies the following disadvantages of cross-sectional studies; the design cannot measure change in
variables over time; secondly it is inappropriate for demonstrating causal relationships; thirdly
researchers have little to no control over the environment and fourthly weak implementation can ruin a
good design and produce poor data. In light of the disadvantages raised above, in the first place the
design does not for instance indicate if there are any changes in variables such as level of education for
different categories of stakeholders. In the second place the design is ineffective in demonstrating for
instance the causal relationship in levels of education directly contributes and levels of corporate
failures. In the third place, this researcher had little control on the environment, including the
geometric (whether indoors or open space) and anthropic space (for instance transient factors such as
moods) in which respondents were contacted. These factors could influence how the respondent
responds to the data gathering tool. In the fourth place as much as due diligence was exercised in the
administration of the data collection tools it could have been possible that some of the respondents
expected incentives for completing the questionnaire, also given that some of them could only avail
themselves at lunch time.
Other considerations contributing to limitations of the study include that as much as a large number of
variables would have been ideal as they can help with identifying strong direct or inverse relationships;
such data is not cheap as more data means higher costs for collecting, coding and compiling and
chances of error increase as more data is coded, transcribed or computerized while at the same time
lengthy questionnaires may discourage participation (ibid). In addition social science research deals
with constructs that are subjective in nature as was the case also with this study, for example board
performance and effectiveness, board participation or triggers of corporate failures and thus the
question of objectivity always creeps in.

73

5.8 Recommendations

Tertiary education institutions have to incorporate CGM&E issues into their curriculum or have
the issues as an element mainstreamed into other subjects for example, NUST can achieve this
through having a topic in CGM&E as they relate to development institutions in its Masters in
Development Studies modules in Development planning, monitoring and evaluation or in
Management of Development institutions and programmes.
Development practitioners and actors in the CS are encouraged to hinge CGM&E discourse
also on development theories that include HRBA, SD, modernization theory, dependencias
school of thought and globalization theory among others.
International community, through facilitation by embassies and United Nations agencies and
other development agencies, has to provide between 10 000 and 20 000 scholarships with a
strong component in CGM&E given that corporate challenges such as corruption are
widespread across all sectors and thereby hindering national development.
Youth Umbrella organizations should fundraise for CGM&E capacity development
programmes and or mainstream CGM&E issues in their programming; for example an
organization like YETT may have a session on CGM&E in its annual Winter School
programme.
Individual youth organizations are also encouraged to strengthen their CGM&E systems
through fundraising for organizational development exercises (bolstering of policies, reforming
organizational culture and so on); team building exercises for example retreats and for strategic
planning processes.
Boards of youth CSOs are encouraged to achieve fair balance of skills, experience, professional
qualifications, diversity in backgrounds, representation of stakeholders and gender.
Boards of ZCSOs have to guarantee effective participation of all stakeholders and adherence to
CGM&E systems to ensure transparency; downward, vertical and horizontal accountability;
equity; efficiency; adherence to regulations, policies and code of conduct so as to reduce
likelihood that stakeholders will resort to informal ways of registering their grievances on
shortcomings in CGM&E like for example through anonymous mudslinging emails.
Stakeholders who are into the practice of writing anonymous mudslinging emails as a way to
register their grievances on shortcomings in CGM&E issues are advised to desist from such
practices and demand space to channel their grievances through the formal processes such as
the boards of trustees, meetings or through elections where applicable.

74

Donors based abroad are advised to have resident CGM&E personnel in Zimbabwe as a way to
get independent, reliable and consistent feedback on CGM&E issues in those organizations
they are funding as a way to complement other tools in use to ensure that organizations comply
with agreed standards.
5.9 Suggestions for Future Research
Feasibility of introducing a CG code in Zimbabwe.
Gaps in tertiary education curriculum in covering CGM&E issues.
Lessons of CG for NFPs drawn from the private sector (financial institutions or companies).
Participation of stakeholders in Project life cycle.
Membership or junior staff oriented participation in CGM&E.
Challenges faced by students expelled in Zimbabwe universities during the period of socio-
economic and political upheavals, some who are now found as key stakeholders in youth
organizations, in resuming or completing their studies.
Barriers to full participation by females in different groups of stakeholders particularly in board
of trustees and management.
5.10 Chapter Summary and Conclusion
This chapter tied the results obtained from Chapter Four to the literature review discussed in Chapter
Two and proffered six more theories in addition to the existing ones towards the subject of CGM&E as
it relates to the participation of boards, individual stakeholders and different categories of stakeholders
of CSOs. The chapter then summarized in point form the conclusions and gave a detailed explanation
for each conclusion. It was demonstrated that the objectives of the study have been achieved.
Recommendations and suggestions for future studies were also proffered.
This study investigated board participation in the ZCSOs through two processes that provide for such
participation, CG and M&E of relations between and among groups of stakeholders in averting
corporate failures. This followed a period of political and socio-economic upheavals in the country
around the turn of the century that compromised full board participation in CGM&E in ZCSOs. The
study was premised on the view that it is the duty of the board to ensure that CGM&E systems that
allow for all stakeholder participation in aspects of the organization related to CGM&E are in place.
The prediction being that the existence and active use of such systems by all stakeholders guard against
CG failures and project/programmes failures in delivering on impact in ZCSOs. The study has
provided a coherent framework that will guide development of sound CGM&E systems in youth
organizations and beyond. The framework is informed by the implications derived from findings of the
study juxtaposed to theories relevant to CGM&E namely the agency theory; stewardship theory;

75

managerial hegemony theory; globalization theory; democratic model; human rights approach model;
ubuntu model; Sustainable Development (SD) model ; resource dependency theory; modernization
theory and the dependencias and post modernist.



















76


Al-Wasmi, M. E. (2011) Corporate governance practice in the GCC: Kuwait as a case study. Thesis submitted
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Law, Brunel University. (Online) Available from:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/6324/1/FulltextThesis.pdf (Accessed February 6, 2013).

Aruga, K. (2008) Introduction to SPSS (ppt). Short Courses, (Online) Available from:
https://sakai.uri.edu/access/content/group/.../SPSSintro.pptx (Accessed July 13, 2012)

Bradshaw, P., Hayday, B., Armstrong, R., Levesque, J. and Rykert, L. (1998) Nonprofit Governance Models:
Problems and Prospects. Paper originally presented at the ARNOVA Conference Seattle, Washington. (Online)
Available from: http://www.aota.org/Archive/ProceduralAdHoc/Handouts/Model.aspx?FT=.pdf (Accessed
December 3, 2012).

Brown, W. A. (2002) The prevalence of inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and
implications for practice. Arizona State University, (Online) Available from:
https://npcsrv1.asu.edu/zpmi1/lodestar.asu.edu/portal/research/past-research-initiatives/nonprofit-research-
abridged/files%20and%20images/inclusivegovernance.pdf (Accessed December 01, 2012).

Cardiff Council. (2007) Using EpiData and Epi-Info for windows: Training for Comminicable diseas control in
local authorities, Strategic planning and environment, (Online) Available from:
http://www.inclentrust.org/uploadedbyfck/file/3%20Research%20Tools_Instruments_Softwares/Stat%20Sofwar
es/Using%20EPI%20Data%20and%20EPI%20info%20for%20windows.pdf (Accessed July 18, 2012).

Chambers, N. and Cornforth, (2010) The role of corporate governance and boards in organizational
performance, in Walshe, K. and Harvey, G. (eds) (2010) Connecting knowledge and performance in public
services: from knowing to doing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Chikukwa, J. W. (2006) Zimbabwe at crossroads. Author House, Indiana.
Chingono, H. (2010) Economic sanctions: A panacea to democracy and good governance in Zimbabwe?
Alternatives- Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9. No. 1, (Online) Available from:
http://www.alternativesjournal.net/volume9/number1/chingono.pdf (Accessed November 20, 2012).
Christian, R. (2011) Lecture Notes: Corporate Governance. (Online) Available from:
http://www.econmx.com/notes/Brown_ECON1790_lectures.pdf (Accessed September 11, 2012).
Clarke, T. and Klettner, A (2010) Board effectiveness and performance: The state of play on board evaluation in
corporate Australia and abroad. Study commissioned by the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors
and prepare by the Centre for corporate governance. (Online) Available from:
http://www.ccg.uts.edu.au/pdfs/BoardEffectiveness.pdf (Accessed February 6, 2013).
Collier, P. (2007) The bottom billion. Oxford University Press, New York.

Cornforth, C. (2001) Power relations between boards and senior managers in the governance of public and
non-profit organizations. Public interest and non-profit management research unit, (Online) Available from:
http://www7.open.ac.uk/oubs/research/pdf/WP01_2.pdf (Accessed, December 11, 2012).


77

Council on Foundations. (2010) Should CEOs be on the Board: And should they have voting rights? (Online)
Available from: http://www.cof.org/files/Documents/Governing_Boards/Board%20Briefs/CEOsOnBoards.pdf
(Accessed February 6, 2013).

De Beer, F. and Swanepoel, H. (2000) Introduction to development studies, (2
nd
ed). Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Doherty, M. (1994) Probability versus Non-Probability Sampling in Sample Surveys. The New Zealand
Statistical Review, March 1994 issues, pp 21-28. (Online), Available from:
http://www.nss.gov.au/nss/home.nsf/75427d7291fa0145ca2571340022a2ad/768dd0fbbf616c71ca2571ab002470
cd/$FILE/Probability%20versus%20Non%20Probability%20Sampling.pdf (Accessed July 23, 2012).
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and
implications. Academy of management review. (Online) Available from:
http://jhochstoeger.com/deniz/Diss/02%20journals/Academy%20of%20Management%20review/A2010-1-
2410481.stakeholdertheoryofthecorporation,concepts,....pdf (Accessed February 8, 2013).
Feak, C. B. & Swales, J. (2009) Telling a research story: writing a literature review. University of Michigan
Press.

Fisher, A. & Foreit, J. (2002) Designing HIV/AIDS Intervention Studies: An Operations Research
Handbook., Washington DC; Population Council.

Forbes, D. P. and Milliken F. J. (1999) Cognition and corporate governance: understanding boards of
directors as strategic decision making groups, New York University, (Online) Available from:
http://amr.aom.org/content/24/3/489.full.pdf+html (Accessed November 28, 2012).

Goodpaster, K. E. (1994) Business Ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quartely, (Online)
Available from:http://www53.homepage.villanova.edu/james.borden/vsb1001/Goodpaster.pdf (Accessed
December 01, 2012).

Grootaert, C. and Bastelaer, T. (2001) Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and
recommendations from the social capital initiative. The World bank. (Online) Available from:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-
Series/SCI-WPS-24.pdf (Accessed November 4, 2012).

Hillman, A. J. and Keim, G. D. (2001) Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: Whats
the bottom line. John Wiley and Sons, (Online) Available from:
http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/dunn/rprnts.shareholdervaluesocialissues.pdf (Accessed December 01, 2012).

Hilary, J. (2010) Africa: Dead Aid and the return of neoliberalism. (Online) Available from:
http://rac.sagepub.com/content/52/2/79.full.pdf+html (Accessed November 21, 2012).

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., OBrien, G. (2005) Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches.
Sustainable Development. 13 (38-52), Sustainable Cities Research Institute, University of Northumbria,
Newcastle. (Online) Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sd.244/pdf (Accessed
November 3, 2012).

Horstman, R. G. (2002) Monitoring and Evaluation of Sexual and Reproductive Health Interventions: A Manual
for the EC/UNFPA Initiative for Reproductive Health in Asia, London School of Hygiene and Tropical
Medicine, London, (Online) Available from http://www.docstoc.com/pdf/Monitoring-and-Evaluation-of-
Sexual-and-Reproductive-Health.pdf (Accessed May 17, 2012).


78

Howard, E. (2008) Cross-Sectional Studies. (ppt) (Online) Available from:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wM-
BsaS5sBwJ:www.fivehokies.com/Evaluation/Evaluation%2520and%2520Analysis%2520Designs/Cross%2520
Sectional%2520Studies/Cross-
Sectional%2520Studies%2520%28Emily%2520Howard%29.ppt+&hl=en&gl=zw&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShoh
djIGM3LVxejNNtIumjc0LTU0Dzcs5SCPVI75pqkJ0zP26qtxrGqRAu-
2FSzCT3p8BZm9N3g9kRrGY1y4DCtMdpK9EZpThFUffkW6evVvf8rdVEocpHve93WhOz6MRKSZa5g&sig
=AHIEtbSDxuGpz364Gm7AyJ7CHMaAAUPwoA (Accessed January 27, 2012).

ILO. (2009) ILO school-to-work transition survey: A methodological guide. Module 3, Sampling Methodology,
(Online) Available from:
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_140859.pdf
(Accessed July 11, 2012).

King Report iii. (2009) King code of governance for South Africa 2009. (Online) Available from:
http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/king3.pdf (Accessed September 3, 2012).

Koponen, P., Maki-Opasi, J., Tolonen, H. (2012) Questionnaire design and administration. National Institute
for Health and Welfare (THL), Helsinki, Finland, (Online) Available from:
http://www.ehes.info/manuals/EHES_manual/PartA/Chapter8.pdf (Accessed December 14, 2013).

Kummer, E. (2008) NGO governance module. An organizational development package series of publications, 1
st

ed., Pact Inc. Washington DC.

Lee, R. (2011) Civil Societys present and future role in Zimbabwe, Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa,
(Online) Available from: http://www.osisa.org/openspace/zimbabwe/civil-societys-present-and-future-role-
zimbabwe (Accessed December 04, 2012).

Levrau, A. (2004) Corporate governance and board effectiveness: Beyond formalism. Paper first presented at
the EABIS PhD workshop, Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School, September 29, 2004. (Online) Available
from: http://public.vlerick.com/Publications/9cad361f-6aa9-e011-8a89-005056a635ed.pdf (Accessed February
6, 2013).
Moyo, J. N. (1993) Civil society in Zimbabwe, Zambezia, Department of Political Studies, University of
Zimbabwe, (Online) Available from:
http://archive.lib.msu.edu/DMC/African%20Journals/pdfs/Journal%20of%20the%20University%20of%20Zimb
abwe/vol20n1/juz020001002.pdf (Accessed December 04, 2012).
Mtigwe, B. (n.d) Postgraduate research handbook. National University of Science and Technology, Graduate
School of Business, Bulawayo
Murai T. (2009) Democratization process in Zimbabwe: Post global political Agreement role of civil society
organizations, A research presented to the Institute of Social Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
a post graduate diploma in Governance, Democratization and Public Policy, ISS, The Hague.

NAYO. (2012) Introduction to corporate governance. NAYO technical arm, National Association of Youth
Organizations, Harare.

NANGO. (2006) Zimbabwe NGO Corporate Governance Manual, National Association of Non Governmental
Organizations-NANGO, Harare.



79

Narayan, D., Patel, R., Schaff, K., Rademacher, A. and Koch-Schulte, S. (2000) Voices of the poor: Can anyone
hear us. Oxford University Press, New York, (Online) Available from:
http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/voices/vol1.pdf (Accessed December 06, 2012).

Neyman, J (1934) On the two different aspects of the representative method: the method of stratified sampling
and the method of purposive selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 97, pp 558-625, (Online)
Available from:
http://stevereads.com/papers_to_read/on_the_two_different_aspects_of_the_representative_method.pdf
(Accessed July 7, 2012).
Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. (2006) The nativist revolution and development conundrums in Zimbabwe. Occasional
Paper Series, Vol 1, No. 4, African Centre for the Constructive Resolutions of Disputes (ACCORD), Durban,
(Online) Available from: www.hawk.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/100054/.../op_2006_4.pdf(Accessed
December 3, 2012)

OHCHR. (2006) Frequently asked questions on a human rights based approach to development cooperation.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), New York, (Online) Available
from: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQen.pdf (Date accessed, December 04, 2012).

Okpara, J. O. (n.d) Perspective on corporate governance challenges in a Su-Saharan African economy. College
of business, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. (Online) Available from:
http://www.wbiconpro.com/11.John.pdf (Accessed February 8, 2013).

Patton, M. Q. (2001) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (Online) Available from:
http://evaluation.msf.at/fileadmin/evaluation/files/documents/resources_MSF/MSF_Qualitative_Methods.pdf
(Accessed December 6, 2012).
PEN, (2007) Enhancing the competence and sustainability of high quality CSOs in Kenya: Report of an
exploratory study commissioned by Aga Khan Development Network (AKDN), Poverty Eradication Network
(PEN), (Online) Available from: http://www.akdn.org/publications/civil_society_kenya_competence.pdf
(Accessed December 7, 2012).
Prinslow, K. E. (2010) Economic sanctions and Zimbabwe. Strategy Research Project, Submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the master of Strategic Studies Degree, US Army War College, (Online)
Available from: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522103.pdf (Accessed, December 03, 2012).
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S. and Moorman, C. (2007) Cross-sectional versus longitudinal survey
research: Concepts, findings, and guidelines. Institute for the study of business markets, The Pennsylvania State
University. (Online) Available from: http://isbm.smeal.psu.edu/library/working-paper-articles/2007-working-
papers/02-2007%20Cross%20Sectional%20Versus%20Longitudinal%20Survey%20Research.pdf (Accessed
December 13, 2012).
Schneider M. (2002) A stakeholder model of organizational leadership. Organization Science, 13 (2), 209-220;
(Online) Available from: http://orgsci.highwire.org/content/13/2/209.short (Accessed December 01, 2012).

Scott Dupree, A. and Winder, D. et al. (2000) Foundation Building Sourcebook, New York, (Online) Available
from: http://www.synergos.org/knowledge/00/sourcebook.pdf (Accessed, December 11, 2012).
Shleifer A. and Vishny R. W. (1997) A Survey of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance, Vol LII,
No.2, Prepared for the Nobel symposium on Law and Finance, Stockholm, August 1995.

Shongwe, A. (2008) The key that Eskom plays towards corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability
in South Africa. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Business Administration. Graduate school of business Faculty of management studies. University of KwaZulu
Natal. (Online) Available from:

80

http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10413/5596/Shongwe_Adam_2008.pdf?sequence=1
(Accessed November 3, 2012).

Shivji, I. G (2003) Reflections on NGOs in Tanzania: What we are, what we are not and what we ought to be?
Keynote Address to the Gender Festival organized by the Tanzania Gender Network, (Online) Available from:
http://www.hakielimu.org/files/publications/document51reflections_ngo_tz_en.pdf (Accessed May 7, 2012).

Shivji, I. G. (2007) Silences in NGO discourse: The role and future of NGOs in Africa. Fahamu Networks for
social justice, Pambazuka, Nairobi (Online) Available from: http://www.codesria.org/IMG/pdf/2-_Shivji.pdf
(Accessed May 7, 2012).

Sibanda, N. (2010) Where Zimbabwe got it wrong-lessons for South Africa: A comparative analysis of the
politics of land reform in Zimbabwe and South Africa, Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for degree of Master of Arts, Stellenbosch University, (Online) Available from:
http://www.oozebap.org/biblio/pdf/2011/shivji_forweb.pdf (Accessed November 01, 2012).

Simon, M. K. (n.d) Creating the problem statement. (Online) Available from: http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/Creating-the-Problem-Statement.pdf (Accessed September 29, 2012).

Sphere Project. (2004) The Sphere project: Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in humanitarian
response (Online) Available from: http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/95530/The-Sphere-Project-Handbook-
20111.pdf (Accessed May 21, 2012).

SST. (2012) SST governance and accountability-operational guidelines. Students Solidarity Trust-SST, Harare.

Tricker B. (2012) Corporate Governance: Principles, Policies and Practices, 2
nd
ed, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, (Online) Available from:
http://books.google.co.zw/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MamU3RJ1fqcC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Sound+Corporate+G
overnance+in+not+for+profit+organizations&ots=UomSNDUg--&sig=jW6Iksbc4Lkd5Kv_cp-
lWcFlA9g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sound%20Corporate%20Governance%20in%20not%20for%20profit%
20organizations&f=false (Accessed November 27, 2012).

UNAIDS. (2000) National AIDS programmes: A guide to monitoring and evaluation.
UNDP. (2009) Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluating for development results. United Nations
Development Programme, New York, (Online) Available from: http://www.undp.org/eo/handbook , (Accessed
May 17, 2012).
Warhurst, A. (2002) Sustainability indicators and sustainability performance management. Mining and energy
research network, Warwick business school, University of Warwick. (Online) Available from:
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G01026.pdf (Accessed November 5, 2012).


81


xiii

Appendix A
Figure Q1: Bar Graph Showing Sex of Respondents


Table Q2: Level of Education of Respondents

Table Q3: Categories of Stakeholders



xiv

Figure Q3: Response Rate Pattern to Questionnaire

Figure Q4: Contracts/Policies of Engagement with the Organization


xv

Table Q5: Focus Areas of Youth Organizations

Table Q6: Showing respondents coming from Interest and Service Based Organizations


Table Q7: Showing Respondents from Organizations with Elected Executives and those without

Table Q8: Registration of Youth Organizations



xvi

Table Q9: Governance Documents

Table Q10: Categories or Groups of Stakeholders

Table Q11: Grants Administered


xvii

Table Q12: Number of Full Time Staff Members

Table Q13: Number of Rooms Occupied As Office Space

Table Q14: Number of members or beneficiaries




xviii

Table Q15: Average Annual Budget for the last two years

Table Q16: Number of Programmatic Departments

Table Q17: Value of Assets of Organizations


xix

Figure Q18: Awareness of Existence of Board

Table Q19: Ability to recall and match names of board members and their positions


xx

Table Q20: Participation of Board as Pre-requisite for viability

Table Q22A: Personnel and Human Resources Policy

Table Q22B: Accounting and Reporting Policy


xxi

Table Q22C: Travel and Perdiums Policy

Table Q22D: Staff Development Policy

Table Q22E: Organizational Use Policy

Table Q22F: Assets Acquisition Policy


xxii

Table Q22G: Compliance and Audit Policy

Table Q22H: Monitoring and Evaluation Policy

Table Q22I: Gender Policy

Table Q22J: HIV and AIDS policy


xxiii

Table Q22K: Membership / Beneficiaries Protocol

Table Q22L: Networking Policy

Table Q22M: Strategic Planning Policy

Table Q22N: Internet Use Policy



xxiv

Table Q22O: Training Policy

Table Q22P: Conflicts of Interest and Code of Ethics Policies

Table Q22Q: Security of electronic Data Policy



xxv

Table Q22R: Fraud or financial improprieties reporting Policy

Table Q22S: Employment Policy





Table Q23: Awareness of corporate failures

Table Q24: Number Youth Organizations besieged with CG failures in the Past


xxvi

Table Q25A: Incorrect Board Appointments

Table Q25B: Board lack of legitimacy


Table Q25C: Absence of Board Policy







xxvii

Table Q25D: Lack of understanding of Board roles

Table Q25E: Insufficient board audit role

Table Q25F: Too few or too many board members

Table Q25G: Poor attendance in board meetings


xxviii

Table Q25H: Poor academic qualifications

Table Q25I: Board lack of skills and experience

Table Q25J: Lack of Board Performance Review









xxix

Table Q25K: Weak Board Chairperson

Table Q25L: Lack of professional diversity

Table Q25M: Over bearing commitments elsewhere







xxx

Table Q25N: Lack of Representation in the board

Table Q25O: Board disharmony (factions, fights)

Table Q25P: External political Board manipulation

Table Q25Q: Management Board manipulation



xxxi

Table Q25R: Board detachment on corporate issues

Table Q25S: Board failure to resolve broad conflicts

Table Q25T: Boards & stakeholders poor relations

Table Q25U: Absence of strategy and plan



xxxii

Table Q25V: Board Poor resource mobilization

Table Q25W: Mishandling management remuneration

Table Q25X: Biased management recruitment







xxxiii

Table Q25Y: Failure to review CGME systems

Table Q25Z: Poor risk management



Table Q26: Board Members Highest Academic Qualifications


xxxiv

Table Q26A: Below High School Certificate


Table Q26B: High School Certificate

Table Q26C: Undergraduate Diploma/Certificate

Table Q26D: Undergraduate degree






xxxv

Table 26QE: Postgraduate Diploma

Table Q26F: MA/MSc/MPhil

Table Q26G: PhD/DPhil



Table Q26H: Professorship





xxxvi

Table 26QI: Qualification Unknown


Table Q27: Sectors represented by board members

Table Q27A: Civil Service


xxxvii

Table Q27B: Civil Society

Table Q27C: Private Sector

Table Q27D: Academia

Table Q27E: Political parties






xxxviii

Table Q27F: International NGOs

Table Q27G: Donor Organizations

Table Q27H: Churches

Table Q27I: Self projects/businesses

Table Q27J: Consultancy


xxxix

Table Q27K: Media

Table Q27L: Other Sectors

Table Q28: Professional background of board members

Table Q28A: Accountants




xl

Table Q28B: Lawyers

Table Q28C: Social Science Practitioners

Table Q28D: Medical Practitioners

Table Q28E: Hard Sciences





xli

Table Q28F: Media Practitioners


Table Q29A: Improving Effectiveness and performance of management and staff through compulsory education

Table Q29B: Improving Effectiveness and performance of management and staff through org. sponsored education


xlii

Table Q29C: Improving Effectiveness and performance of key stakeholders through tailor made training

Table Q29D: Improving management reporting and relations with the board

Table Q29E: Relieving under-qualified management and staff and recruiting qualified persons



xliii

Table Q29F: Progressively transforming Boards to attain diverse professional backgrounds


Table Q29G: Review board policies CGME systems through organizational development process

Table Q29H: Improving board procedures and attendance in meetings


xliv

Table Q29I: Improving Boards interest in CGME issues

Table Q29J: Attain board independence from management

Table Q29K: Attain board independence from civil society politics






xlv

Table Q29L: Enforce adherence to CGME systems

Table Q29M: take measures to attain harmony and cooperation among board members

Table Q30: Actors ideal to facilitate training workshops and short courses in CGME




xlvi

Table Q32A: Absence of a national corporate governance code

Table Q32B: Failure to incorporate CG into tertiary education curriculum

Table Q32C: Entrenched Corruption in All Sectors




xlvii

Table Q32D: Failure to mainstream CG into national development agenda


Table Q33: Suggestions for developing capacities of employees in CGME


Table Q34: Number of scholarships required