Project summary
A central group responsible for the effective governance of non-profit sport organizations (NPSOs) and systems is the board of directors (Board). This group has the formal power and authority within an organization for which a central activity is to make decisions. Despite the need for decisions to be made, knowledge on this central process undertaken by NPSO Boards remains scant.
The purpose of this research project was to explore Board decision making in non-profit sport organizations operating in a multi-level governance system. Four research objectives were addressed: (1) how NPSO Boards made decisions, (2) the types and impacts of internal factors on NPSO Boards’ decision making, (3) the types and impacts of external factors on NPSO Boards’ decision making, and (4) the similarities and differences in NPSO Boards’ decision making within and between levels of a federated sport model.
Research methods
A multiple case study methodology was used, focused on six Boards in NPSOs (two national, four provincial/territorial). Data were collected via a multi-method, in situ, and longitudinal approach and included observations, interviews, and documents. Observations were conducted during six virtual Board meetings in each included case whereby the researcher (microphone and video turned off) used a structured observation sheet (i.e., analyze decisions according to numerical and non-numerical facets) and field notes (e.g., noting subjective and objectives facets) to gather data. All observations – 36 in total – were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, representing more than 60 hours in the field. Following the completion of the observations, interviews were conducted with the Board Chair, one individual Board member, and the Chief Executive Officer from each case. All 18 interviews were conducted by phone, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim with an average length of 48 minutes. Finally, a total of 978 documents were collected from publicly available information on the NPSO Boards’ websites (e.g., strategic plans, by-laws, newsletters) and confidential sources provided by participants (e.g., emails, Board meeting agendas, Board meeting minutes). Data were analyzed thematically (Braun & Clarke, 2022) in NVivo12 and statistically (i.e., descriptive, one-way ANOVA, independent sample t-tests) via SPSS (George & Mallery, 2019).
Research results
Results demonstrated NPSO Boards made decisions, on average, over the course of two meetings (over 590 hours or approximately 24 days), involved five individual members, some informal interactions (e.g., phone calls, emails), two to three delays (e.g., waiting for information to arise), and more than 40 information sources originating internally (e.g., Board members’ expertise and opinions, organizational policies) and externally (e.g., other NPSOs, sport governing bodies, media).
NPSO Board decision making was impacted by five internal factors: Board composition, Board size, Chair-Chief Executive Officer relationship, Board meeting practices and environment, and technology. The first four internal factors were found to positively impact NPSO Board decision making, such as having individual members with expertise, skills, and experiences promoted fewer delays and a shorter process (i.e., Board composition), while technology was found to have both a positive (e.g., promotes the ability to meet formally on a more frequent and convenient basis) and negative impact (e.g., greater amount of delays).
From an external standpoint, two factors were found to impact NPSO Board decision making: the sport system structure and market conditions. First, the sport system structure negatively impacted decision making as delays were encountered from NPSO Boards’ waiting for information to become available from sport governing bodies or other stakeholders. Pressures from external stakeholders imposed on NPSO Boards to make certain decisions further negatively impacted their decision making. In turn, market conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic led to a situation with high risk and uncertainty for NPSO Boards to navigate, thereby negatively impacting decision making (e.g., making unplanned decisions, managing an influx of information).
Regarding the comparison of the included cases, results demonstrated provincial/territorial NPSO Board decision making differed in terms of delays, process to acquire information, and types of information sources used. In comparison, no statistical differences were found between the national NPSO Boards. Overall, however, more statistical differences are observed between provincial/territorial and national NPSO Boards regarding duration, interactions, delays, and information sources used.
As a general conclusion from the results, NPSO Board decision making in a federated sport model is a complex endeavor in which internal and external factors have a positive or negative impact on facets like length, delays (e.g., types and length), formal interactions and number of actors involved, process to acquire information, and types of information sources used.
It is important, however, to note these results are limited to the context of Boards operating in NPSOs within a multi-level governance system as found in the Canadian sport system. Further, the research project’s results are limited by a small sample size.
Policy and program implications
The research project’s results are relevant to achieving the Canadian Sport Policy goals and, more precisely, those concerned with the effective governance and processes of organizations and the broader system. For instance, Board members of NPSOs in Canada – that is, sport administrators – should understand the ability for virtual meetings to be convenient and cost-friendly so decisions can be made. However, challenges to engage individual members and delays (e.g., mute, screen sharing) demonstrate the need for NPSOs to educate their Boards about the functions and procedures for virtual platforms like Zoom. Finally, NPSO Boards should formalize their decision making by way of purposefully developed documents (e.g., Board papers) and an action registry in an effort to be more transparent and accountable.
In relation to implications for governments and sport governing bodies, these institutions should understand and reflect on the pressures they impose on NPSOs within their jurisdiction and how this can negatively impact Board decision making, such as creating a greater number of delays.
Next steps
Next steps related to this research project’s results include the need to investigate predictive relationships between structural (internal and external), process, and contextual factors on constructs of decision making (e.g., length, types and number of information sources) in NPSO Boards along with outcomes (e.g., effectiveness). In addition, the results’ transferability in other types of sport organization Boards (e.g., public, for-profit) requires attention in future research considering inherent contextual differences (e.g., capacity, structure, mission, values). This research would be timely to address current governance issues identified in the Canadian sport system considering a more effective Board requires information and engagement-based decision making to govern its organization and broader system.
Knowledge translation
Beyond published conference abstracts/proceedings and presentations along with submitted journal articles, the research project has attempted to share information gained with participants. At this time, virtual presentations have been delivered to three NPSO Boards from this research project’s sample whereby the researcher provided a brief synopsis of the results, outlined practical recommendations, and offered participants’ an opportunity to provide feedback. The information delivered during these virtual presentations is, however, proprietary and cannot be shared in the interest of participants’ anonymity.
Sport Canada should disseminate this report to the following sport organizations, government bodies, and governments:
- National NPSO Boards;
- Provincial/Territorial NPSO Boards;
- National sport governing bodies (e.g., Canadian Olympic Committee, Canadian Paralympic Committee, Own the Podium, Sport Canada, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport);
- Provincial/Territorial sport governing bodies;
- Federal government (Minister of Sport, Canadian Heritage); and
- Provincial/Territorial governments (Sport or recreation related ministers/cabinets).