Modernisation and governance in UK national governing bodies of sport: how modernisation influences the way board members perceive and enact their roles

Abstract

Modernisation has been a key objective of many national governments for at least the last two decades. A significant element of the modernisation agenda has been the focus on improving the governance of public sector and, more recently, voluntary sector organisations. In the UK voluntary sport sector, this has involved policy statements, governance monitoring systems linked to public funding and a number of 'good governance' guides, aimed primarily at the boards of national governing bodies of sport (NGBs). Previous research has critically analysed modernisation and explored its effects, most often at a macro level. Very little research, to date, however, has looked at the influence of modernisation on the boards of NGBs. This article seeks to do just that, drawing on the first national survey of board-level governance in the UK and an in-depth, longitudinal case study of one UK-based NGB. It empirically examines which board roles NGBs consider most important and statistically compares large and small NGBs. It then draws on direct observation of board and committee meetings, in-depth interviews and analysis of key organisational documents to examine how modernisation influences the way board members perceive and enact their roles. In so doing, this article draws together the political science research on modernisation and the sport governance research on board roles and seeks to promote closer integration between these complementary streams of research.

Professionalization and its consequences: how active advocacy may undermine democracy

“…Houlihan & Green, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016). Even more pertinent for the present study is the observation that within modernization frameworks, and often under the auspice of 'codes of good governance', merit and skillnot representationare the main criteria invoked in processes of board recruitment and composition (Houlihan & Green, 2009;Sam, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016). Tacon and Walters (2016) NSO board study is a particularly detailed illustration of how tensions related to ownership, authority, control, and accountability arise from the modernization agenda.…”

“…Because processes of professionalization are underpinned by values of efficiency and effectiveness, they carry a potential trade-off with values, processes, and structures of representation and [internal] democracy, elements that are held high in many sport systems (e.g. Houlihan & Green, 2009;Kikulis & Slack, 1995;Kikulis, Slack, & Hinings, 1992;Sam, 2009;Stenling & Fahlén, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016;Thibault, Slack, & Hinings, 1991). This trade-off bears consideration since regardless of the past decades' professionalization of sport, representation and democracy continue to be important for the internal and external legitimacy of many sport systems, not least those with federative structures.…”

“…Whether described as a transition from a kitchen tableto an executive boardroom institutional archetype (e.g. Kikulis, 2000;Kikulis & Slack, 1995;Thibault et al, 1991), as 'modernization' (Adams, 2011;Dowling, Denison, & Washington, 2015;Green & Houlihan, 2006;Grix, 2009;Houlihan & Green, 2009;Lusted & O'Gorman, 2010;Sam, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016;Walters & Tacon, 2018), or as a contextual imperative to professionalize sport organizations and their boards (e.g. Ferkins & Shilbury, 2015a, 2015bFerkins, Shilbury, & McDonald, 2005Shilbury & Ferkins, 2011), emerging tensions appear to be most pronounced in processes of decision making, and particularly in the relative authority between paid staff and elected officials.…”

“…Although not always acknowledged, Slack and colleagues' insights on how professionalization involves an efficiency-democracy trade-off in (what is now called) governance, are echoed in more recent work that takes an interest in the impact of attempts to 'modernize' sport clubs (Adams, 2011;Lusted & O'Gorman, 2010) and NSO level (Dowling et al, 2015;Green & Houlihan, 2006;Grix, 2009;Houlihan & Green, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016;Walters & Tacon, 2018). While diverse in terms of the organization in focus and national contexts (i.e.…”

“…Even more pertinent for the present study is the observation that within modernization frameworks, and often under the auspice of 'codes of good governance', merit and skillnot representationare the main criteria invoked in processes of board recruitment and composition (Houlihan & Green, 2009;Sam, 2009;Tacon & Walters, 2016). Tacon and Walters (2016) NSO board study is a particularly detailed illustration of how tensions related to ownership, authority, control, and accountability arise from the modernization agenda. The study, like Slack and colleagues' work, shows the importance of changes in board level decision making because these express and shape shifts between efficiency and representation/democracy, two conflicting values with very different organizational implications (Sam, 2009).…”