Governance Of Sport Organizations Research Articles

Hierarchies of criteria in NSO board-nomination processes: insights from nomination committees’ work

ABSTRACT Research question: The purpose of this paper is to create knowledge on board-selection processes and their outcomes in terms of board composition. We address two research questions: (1) What evaluative criteria are at play in board-selection processes; and (2) what hierarchies of criteria are formed when evaluative criteria are ranked? The significance of the study lies in contemporary considerations of good governance, in sport members’ (un)equal access to positions of power, and in how issues of representation relate to the legitimacy of sport governance systems and to broader societal patterns of representation, influence, and democracy. Research methods: Nomination committees are increasingly used worldwide to further good governance in sport organizations. Our analysis builds on interviews with representatives of 61 out of 71 Swedish national sport organizations’ nomination committees. Results and Findings: Our study shows that trade-offs are made not between gender and merit, as previously suggested, but between and among a wide variety of representation criteria and a wide variety of efficiency criteria. We show how tensions between criteria result in trade-offs that imply a ranking of criteria into seven types of hierarchies, only one of which prioritizes a representation-based board composition. Implications: Because rankings of multiple evaluative criteria impact any single criterion of interest (e.g. gender), future studies should take into account the range of evaluative criteria at play. For sport management and policy practitioners alike, we provide a tool to understand and address (in)adequate representation but also an imperative to consider the meaning of adequate representation.

The influence of gendered emotional relations on gender equality in sport governance

The aim of this article is to investigate the influence of gendered emotional relations on gender equality in the governance of Australian sport organizations. Theoretically the study draws on the concept of a gender regime, a pattern of gender relations characterized by four interwoven dimensions of social life: production, power, emotions, and symbolism. This article reports on two case studies: sport boards C and E. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the two CEOs and nine directors of two Australian national sport organizations, sport C and sport E. Sport board C exhibited a gender regime of masculine hegemony in transition while sport board E had a regime of gender mainstreaming in progress. Supportive emotional relations between directors offered positive prospects for gender equality in the governance of sport organizations; however, they needed to operate in conjunction with other gender dimensions.

Good Boards Are Strategic: What Does That Mean for Sport Governance?

To learn more about the governance of sport organizations, this study explored what meaning board members of national sport organizations (NSOs) attach to the concept of “strategic capability”. In so doing, the inquiry also identified factors considered to constrain or enable board strategic function. This paper draws on a body of knowledge developed over 38 years on board strategic function, primarily from the commercial setting but also from the emerging body of work in the nonprofit and sport governance setting. Located within the interpretive research paradigm this study engaged a range of different qualitative methods including cognitive mapping and visual imagery. Working across two NSOs in New Zealand, four elements were generated that served as reference points in mapping out the meaning of a strategically able board. These were categorized as the need to have capable people, a frame of reference, facilitative board processes, and facilitative regional relationships.