A Framework for the Analysis of Strategy in Nonprofit Sport Organizations

Abstract

In order to anticipate changes and challenges in their environments, sport organizations must formulate strategies. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework for the study of strategy formulation in nonprofit sport organizations. Based predominantly on MacMillan's (1983) work on the nonprofit sector, and using Canadian national sport organizations as an illustration, this study identified several strategic imperatives to uncover the types of strategies that could be undertaken by nonprofit sport organizations. The imperatives were grouped into two dimensions; program attractiveness and competitive position. Under program attractiveness, the following imperatives were considered: “fundability,” size of client base, volunteer appeal, and support group appeal. The dimension of competitive position included the imperatives of equipment costs and affiliation fees. The two dimensions were juxtaposed on a matrix to produce four strategic types: enhancers, innovators, refiners, and explorers. The characteristics of these types and their implications for nonprofit sport organizations are discussed.

Determinants of service innovation: a typology of sports federations

“…In line with Frambach and Schillewaert (2002), Newell and Swan (1995) and Thibault, Slack and Hinings (1993), the competitive environment these sports federations perceive might stimulate service innovation implementation. We assume a highly perceived regional competitive environment, together with high staff involvement and positive attitudes regarding change and newness favour service innovation in sports federations.…”

“…Thibault, Slack, and Hinings (1993) suggested that sports federations innovate in response to the competitive position of their sport in order to increase their program attractiveness to (new) members. Competitive and environmental pressures perceived by sports federations might stimulate change (Caza, 2000).…”

“…Size categories were defined following both Flemish and Walloon regional sports systems (i.e., small, medium and large size). At the environmental level, the competition between sports federations at regional (i.e., attraction of members and grants, competition with commercial sports providers), at national (i.e., sport rivalry between regional sports federations) and at international levels (i.e., high level sport competition) was analysed (Caza, 2000;Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002;Newell and Swan, 1995;Thibault, Slack, and Hinings, 1993).…”

“…Sport federations in cluster 3 show very high scores for attitudes regarding staff involvement and perceptions of a regional competitive environment, but low scores for economic health perceptions. They are named competitive sports federations in reference to research (Caza, 2000;Newell and Swan, 1995;Thibault, Slack, and Hinings, 1993) which identified the competitive pressure non-profit organisations face to attract financial resources and members. Table 4 shows the total average number of general and sport service innovations implemented by regional sports federations in Belgium and the results of the ANOVA comparing the average number of service innovations for each cluster.…”

“…They compete for financial support, sports results, and membership participation (Newell and Swan, 1995). Sports federations innovate to attract and retain members (Newell and Swan, 1995;Thibault, Slack, and Hinings, 1993) and might develop an attitude favouring innovation to cope with their competitive environment. This type of sports federations would be more innovative.…”