Institutionally Specific Design Archetypes: A Framework for Understanding Change in National Sport Organizations

Abstract

The literature that has focused on the change in amateur sport organizations in Canada, has suggested an evolutionary movement toward a more professional and bureaucratic design. While this view of change in Canadian national sport organizations provides strong descriptive support for understanding these organizations, it neglects the differences between them. The central premise of this paper is that changes in these organizations should not simply be explained as system-wide trends toward increased professionalization and bureaucratization. Rather the variety in organizational design may be understood by identifying common design archetypes that exist within this institutionally specific set of organizations. It will then be possible to more precisely identify the nature of the change process that is occurring.

Drivers of and Barriers to Professionalization in International Sport Federations

“…Examples at the internal level include for instance the hiring of paid managers and staff and their influence on the structure and dynamics of formerly voluntary organizations (Horch & Schütte, 2009), rationalisation processes (Chantelat, 2001;Slack & Hinings, 1987) and decision-making structures (Kikulis et al, 1992;Thibault et al, 1991). Based on extensive data collection from multiple NSOs, several scholars put forth typologies to describe and predict their structure-strategy patterns: Kikulis et al's (1992;1995) analyses of the impact of paid managers on decision-making structures resulted in the deduction of three design archetypes (kitchen-table, board room, executive office); and Thibault et al's (1991) investigation on NSOs' long-term strategic planning brought forward four strategic types (enhancers, innovators, refiners, explorers).…”

“…Though some studies applied a configurational approach to analyze NSOs' organizational performance (Bayle & Madella, 2002;Winand et al, 2013) and organizational change (Kikulis et al, 1992;Theodoraki & Henry, 1994), the predominant research focus is on internal actors, especially boards. Boards have received a particular attention as they are regarded as the driving force of NSOs' performance (Ferkins et al, 2005;Hoye & Auld, 2001;Inglis, 1997;Papadimitriou & Taylor, 2000;Shilbury, 2001).…”

For ‘Love’ and Money: A Sports Club’s Innovative Response to Multiple Logics

“…Scholars have investigated changes in amateur sport organizations at the national level (Amis, Slack, & Hinings, 2004;Girginov & Sandanski, 2008;Hinings, Thibault, Slack, & Kikulis, 1996;Kikulis, 2000;Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1992Stevens, 2006), and in professional sport franchises (Cousens, 1997;Cousens & Slack, 2005;O'Brien & Slack, 2004). A central theme guiding these investigations of organizational change is Hinings and Greenwood (1988) and Hinings's (1993, 1996) conception of archetypes (templates of organizing).…”

Living with imperfect comparisons: The challenges and limitations of comparative paralympic sport policy research

“…The continuous pursuit of international sporting success is an increasingly taken-forgranted behavior within many developed countries (Digel, 2002;De Bosscher et al, 2006, 2008Green & Houlihan, 2005;Houlihan & Green, 2008;Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1992;Slack & Hinings, 1994). Academics have labelled this phenomenon the "global sporting arms race" (De Bosscher et al, 2006), which has resulted in nation states investing substantial sums of funding for success at the Olympic and increasingly the Paralympic Games (Beacom & Brittain, 2016;De Bosscher et al, 2006, 2008Green & Houlihan, 2005;Green & Oakley, 2001;Grix & Carmichael, 2012).…”