{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0163265306122449, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.411764705882353, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Convergence in Ideas, Divergence in Actions

The debate on the convergence of nonprofit organizations assumes that ideas and actions are consistent in organizations, that ideas are implemented in action, and, as a consequence, that organizations are becoming more organized and alike all over the world. The validity of this assumption is challenged with the support of neo-institutional theory and illustrations from three case studies of organizational development. Applying the neo-institutional concept of organizational hypocrisy, it is argued that ideas and actions can be deliberately inconsistent, as shown by the case studies, in which a convergence of ideas in one direction enabled a divergence of action in other directions. Thus, the one-dimensional debate on whether convergence is good or bad for nonprofit organizations needs to be complemented with research incorporating the ways that ideas and actions could be related and put to use in nonprofit organizations.