Table 3 Results of Fisher’s exact tests

H1: proportion of creative NGOs is higher among foresight-oriented NGOs (p₁) compared to NGOs that do not apply foresight (p₂). p₁ > p₂

p₁ = 58.1% (n = 31) p₂ = 30.0% (n = 30) p= 0.025*

Binary variable based on self-assessment of the organizational level of innovativeness and of how inspirational an NGO is to other NGOs in its field was used to operationalize the level of creativity. NGO was deemed as creative only when a respondent agreed that NGO is either innovative or inspirational to other NGOs and at the same time did not deny that NGO is either innovative or inspirational to other NGOs.

H1a: same as above but based on FOR-processes instead of FOR

p₁ = 64.3% (n = 28) p₂ = 27.3% (n = 33) p= 0.004*

H1b: same as above but based on FOR-topics instead of FOR

p₁ = 54.8% (n = 31) p₂ = 33.3% (n = 30) p = 0.076

H2: proportion of growing NGOs is higher among foresight-oriented NGOs (p₁) compared to NGOs that do not apply foresight (p₂). p₁ > p₂

p₁ = 41.9% (n = 31) p₂ = 20.0% (n = 30) p = 0.057

Binary variable was used to measure the growth. It was based on answers to the question of whether the NGO in the past 5 years: (i) has become more important in the sector of NGO’s interest (self-assessment), (ii) has improved its image (self-assessment), (iii) has increased the financial turnover, and (iv) has increased the number of employees. NGO was deemed as growing only when the answer was positive at least in one case and at the same time was not negative in any of the cases.

H2a: same as above but based on FOR-processes instead of FOR

p₁ = 46.4% (n = 28) p₂ = 18.2% (n = 33) p= 0.018*

H2b: same as above but based on FOR-topics instead of FOR

p₁ = 41.9% (n = 31) p₂ = 20.0% (n = 30) p = 0.057

H3: proportion of stable NGOs among foresight-oriented NGOs (p₁) is different than among NGOs that do not apply foresight (p₂). p₁ ≠ p₂

p₁ = 16.1% (n = 31) p₂ = 30.0% (n = 30) p = 0.235

Binary variable was used to measure the level of stability. It was based on answers to the question of whether the NGO, in the past 5 years, faced a crisis in terms of the following: (i) human resources (“the organization suffered from the lack of competent employees”), (ii) financial resources (“the source of funding for the following 6 months was very unsure”), and (iii) failure to meet planned objectives (…“due to unexpected events”). When the answer in all three cases was negative, NGO was deemed to be stable.

H3a: same as above but based on FOR-processes instead of FOR

p₁ = 21.4% (n = 28) p₂ = 24.2% (n = 33) p = 1.000

H3b: same as above but based on FOR-topics instead of FOR

p₁ = 19.4% (n = 31) p₂ = 26.7% (n = 30) p = 0.554