Project Summary
Given the importance of board decisions on the development of sport programming in Canada, an investigation of the impact of conflict within these groups is essential for effective board functioning. Thus, the purpose of this project was to examine the nature, level, and impact of task, relationship, and process conflict in provincial sport organization (PSO) boards. In defining group conflict, three types of conflict were examined: Task conflict was viewed as disagreement among group members about the content of tasks; process conflict was defined as disagreement about how to accomplish tasks; and relationship conflict was described as disagreement that is personal in nature. For each conflict type, perceptions of conflict, the factors that influence perceptions of conflict and the outcomes of conflict were explored.
Research Methods
This study of sport organization boards was conducted in the fall and winter of 2007/2008. A survey was used to collect data regarding the individual (e.g., age) and group (e.g., routine or non-routine decision type) characteristics of members and their boards, as well as each board member’s perceptions of: intragroup conflict, board decision quality, satisfaction with their board and board commitment.
A sample of board members of PSOs within Ontario was surveyed. The study was limited to active board members and included individuals with central (e.g., president) or peripheral (e.g., treasurer) roles. This sample was chosen because of the influence of PSO board members whose decisions ultimately impact the delivery of sport within the province.
A total of 41 of the 86 registered PSOs in Ontario agreed to participate in the survey study. Two hundred (200) surveys were sent out. The survey was completed by 74 board members for a response rate of 37%.
Research Results
Decision Quality. When task, relationship, and process conflict increased, the quality of the board’s decisions decreased; decisions were less likely to be based on the best available information or the board’s current strategies. Further, relationship conflict was the strongest predictor of decreased decision quality (i.e., when conflicts were personal in nature, lower decision quality resulted).
Board Member Satisfaction: When each conflict type increased, board member satisfaction with their board decreased. Relationship and process conflict were the strongest negative predictors of board member satisfaction (i.e., when disagreements were personal in nature or about “how you do things” as a board, participants had negative feelings toward their board).
Board Member Commitment: When all three types of conflict increased, board member commitment decreased. Relationship conflict was the strongest predictor of decreased board commitment (i.e., when differences of opinion were personal, board member identification with their board decreased).
Further, task conflict and process conflict led to, or triggered, relationship conflict, which then had a negative impact on outcomes. Thus, task and process conflict were likely to result in dysfunctional relationship conflict. For instance, if boards were disagreeing about a task (e.g., where to hold their next championship) or how to complete a task (e.g., who will do what) this often lead to tension or friction among board members which resulted in negative impacts on both group and individual outcomes.
The results presented above provide insight into the nature of conflict in PSO boards, however there are a few limitations that should be noted. First, given the purpose and exploratory nature of the study the results were analyzed at the individual level, and thus conclusions regarding the nature of conflict within specific PSO boards cannot be made. Second, task, relationship, and process conflict were found to be highly related to one another. Although, multicollinearity statistics were used to demonstrate that three separate types of conflict were in fact represented in the data, the participants may have had trouble distinguishing between each conflict type. Therefore, it is important to gain a more comprehensive understanding of board member perceptions of conflict in this context. This could be accomplished through further research using qualitative methods (i.e., interviews and observations).
Policy Implications
The results demonstrate that conflict has a negative impact on decision quality, satisfaction, and commitment in this setting. It is recommended that policy makers create greater awareness of intragroup conflict in sport boards. Given the negative relationships seen here, strategies to educate board members on the nature and impact of conflict should be developed to improve PSO board capacity around identifying and managing conflict in a proactive and effective manner.
Next Steps
Preliminary results suggest that continued research is needed to understand the mechanisms that underlie the conflict process, for instance: how potential positive task conflicts lead to negative outcomes, what causes task and process conflict to lead to relationship conflict, and how conflict impacts board performance. Working with non-profit boards and policy makers to develop longitudinal examination of the conflict process may help identify some of the “triggers” to conflict and potentially improve the effectiveness of conflict management in this setting.
The results presented here have been accepted for publication in a top-tier sport management journal and have been presented at the 2008 North American and European sport management conferences. Since this survey study, a qualitative research project was completed that further explored the nature of conflict in PSO boards. These findings have been submitted to the 2009 North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM) student research paper competition and a working paper is currently in review for publication.
Further, the importance of connecting this research with the sport community is recognized. As such, a formal written report summarizing the results and subsequent implications for management has been submitted to each PSO involved in the study. Moreover, continued networking with Sport Canada and the non-profit sport community has been anticipated through attendance and participation at subsequent SCRI conferences.
Key Stakeholders and Benefits
- Provincial sport organisations
- The Sport Alliance of Ontario
- The Ontario Government (and other provincial governments)
- Sport Canada
- National sport organisations