amateur sport organizations of structural taxonomy a · of amateur sport organizations lisa m....

Journal of Sport Management 1989, 3, 129-150

A Structural Taxonomy of Amateur Sport Organizations

Lisa M. Kikulis, Trevor Slack, Bob Hini ngs University of Alberta

Alan Zimrnermann Sport Canada

The theoretical rationale underlying this study was that a variety of structural design types exist in amateur sport organizations and that their structural characteristics may be effectively measured, scaled, and compared. Character- istics were defined along three dimensions of organizational structure: specialization, standardiuation, and centralization. The approach used to iden@ the structural design types was the creation of an organizational taxonomy. Based on the measurement of 15 structural scales for 59 provincial sport organizations, Ward's hierarchical fusion algorithm clustering technique was used to partition these data into homogeneous subsets. Analysis revealed 8 structural design types. The results, while providing support for the idea that there is a trend toward a more professional and bureaucratic form for amateur sport organizations, also suggest that it is important to consider the potential variety in the structural design of these organizations.

The significant change that has occurred in the structural complexity of amateur sport organizations in Canada over the past two decades has been well documented in the sport literature (cf. Beamish, 1985; Frisby , 1982; Kidd, 1980; Macintosh, 1988; Macintosh, Bedecki, & Franks, 1987; Slack, 1985). These and other authors have suggested that the nature of this change has been to a more professional and bureaucratic organizational form. That is to say, the structural arrangements of amateur sport organizations have become increasingly characterized by such attributes as more professional staff, more formalized operating procedures, and a hierarchical system of authority.

In studies on sport organizations, the processes of bureaucratization and professionalization have generally been described as occurring together. The

Lisa M. Kikulis and Trevor Slack are with the Department of Physical Education and Sport Studies at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. T6G 2H9. Bob Hinings is with the Department of Organizational Analysis at the University of Alberta. Alan Zbnermam is with Sport Canada, Ministry of State for Fimess and Amateur Sport, Ottawa.

different structural designs they exhibit. Recently, work by organizational theorists (cf. Greenwood & Hinings, 1988;

Miller & Friesen, 1982, 1984; Mintzberg, 1979) has emphasized the patterning or coherence of structural elements of organizations. The work of these researchers reports that aspects of structure form integrated wholes, whose numbers are limited and whose parts constitute and are constitutive of the entire structural design type. Miller (1987) emphasizes the importance of understanding the interdependence of structure because it "influences the flow of information and the context and nature of human interactions. It channels collaboration, allocates power and responsibility, and prescribes levels of formality and complexity" (p. 7).

A systematic analysis of the patterning of the structural variables (cf. Carper & Snizek, 1980; Haas, Mall, & Johnson, 1966) that characterize amateur sport organizations would recognize similarities and differences in the structural designs exhibited by this group of organizations. Thus, as Sokal (1966), suggests about classification in general, these similarities and differences, once discovered, could be used as a basis for explanation or prediction about many areas.

McKelvey (1978, 1982) advocates developing taxonomies to discover and understand organizational phenomena such as structural design. Essentially, a structural taxonomy of amateur sport organizations would not only result in homogeneous classes of organizations but would also promote

the development of theories and methods for separating organizations into different kinds, including the understanding of the causes of the stability of organizational forms over time, as well as the mechanisms by which they evolve as the result of environmental forces. (McKelvey, 1982, p. 13)

Taxonomy of Sport Organizations 131

There are several ways a taxonomic approach would contribute to an understanding of the structural nature of amateur sport organizations. First, it would bring parsimony and order to a large number of variables (Hambrick, 1984). Researchers such as Frisby (1982), Slack (1985), and Slack and Hinings (1987) have all identified the relevance of many structural variables for understanding amateur sport organizations, yet there has been little attempt so far to understand the patterning of these variables. A structural taxonomy ofamateur sport organizations groups together those with similar structural characteristics. Without such a system for classification, researchers must deal with the many aspects of organizational structure as individual variables. Consequently they are left with a large and potentially unmanageable number of combinations. A taxonomy can, by identifying the interrelationships of structure, help bring some order to these variables by placing them in categories that are easier to comprehend.

Second, a structural taxonomy would aid in the discovery of the set of con- ditions under which a certain hypothesis may be validated (Haas et al., 1966). For example, Chelladurai, Szyszlo, and Haggerty (1987) assessed the importance of different dimensions of effectiveness for Olympic and non-Olympic national sport organizations. They found the basic difference between these two types of organizations was in the resources they used to effectively produce their output. Specifically, mass sport used financial and human resources while the elite sports depended most on financial resources. Frisby (1986) found that national sport organizations characterized by bureaucratic features were strongly associated with improved goal attainment and resource acquisition. The underlying premise of these studies is that if amateur sport organizations have different structures, they will exhibit differences in other areas. A taxonomy that produces organizational design types would allow for the more precise refining of hypotheses about the exact nature of the relationships found in these studies.

Finally, a structural taxonomy would serve as a basis for understanding an organization's ability or inability to change (cf. Haas et al., 1966; Hambrick, 1984; Slack & Hinings, 1987). The fact that structural variables demonstrate interdependence implies that organizational change involves a transformation of the whole organization (Miller & Friesen, 1984). Based on a longitudinal analysis of transition, Miller and Friesen (1982) argue in favor of using coherent structural designs to study organizational change. They theorize that the interdependence among structural and process variables requires holistic change where all variables move together.

If Miller and Friesen are correct in suggesting that organizations strive for internal consistency, as we believe they are, then identifying stable and common structural designs in amateur sport organizations would enhance our understanding of the changes that these organizations have experienced. For example, Cunning- ham, Slack, and Hinings (1987) have stated that some amateur sport organizations have undergone a change from "kitchen table" organizations to corporate professional organizations. The former are characterized by low levels of specialization, low levels of standardization, and a simple, centralized authority structure, while the latter are characterized by higher levels of both specialization and standardization, and a decentralized professionally controlled authority structure. The creation of a taxonomy that identifies different structural designs or patterns among amateur sport organizations at different times would allow for a more complete understanding of this type of change.

e nature of the structural variables that consti was the identification of configurations, or the

(1987) that reveals the need to incorporate diversity and to develop a taxonomy of amateur sport organizations. In order to develop such a taxonomy, Slack and Hinings (1987) suggested a conceptual framework based on the structural dimensions of specialization, standardization, and centralization.

These three dimensions of structure are those that have been theoretically and empirically established in the organizational literature (cf. Miller & Droge, 1986; Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968; Pugh et al., 1969). It has been shown that these three dimensions create different organizational patterns and designs (cf. Hall, 1977; Mintzberg, 1979; Pugh et al., 1969). They have also been applied to the study of amateur sport organizations (cf. Frisby, 1986; Slack & Hinings, 1987) and thus provide a starting point for the identification and description of the structural designs of these organizations.

Specialization refers to the extent and pattern of differentiated tasks, units, and roles allocated to different organizational segments (Pugh et al., 1968). Amateur sport organizations specialize horizontally and vertically. Horizontally they differentiate in terms of administrative and technical roles and in terms of professional and volunteer roles. Vertical differentiation, or the depth of the authority structure, is a means of coordinating horizontal complexity. Measures of these aspects of specialization were obtained by counting the number of roles or activities in the organization. More specifically, specialization was examined by looking at the administrative, technical, volunteer, and professional roles and activities that characterize these organizations. Coaches, for example, specialize


according to the gender and age of the athletes and/or the discipline of the sport (e.g., downhill or slalom). Similarly, volunteers specialize according to administrative or technical positions (e.g., president, vice-president marketing, vice- president coaching, vice-president officials).

The specialization of professional roles occurs in amateur sport organizations with the increased number of paid staff positions such as executive director, technical director, and head coach. Specialization of administrative and technical activity is reflected in the number and type of meetings (e.g., board, committee, and planning) and programs (e.g., competitions, camps, and training centers). In addition, vertical specialization may be assessed by counting the number of levels represented in an organizational chart. Essentially, specialization of amateur sport organizations is reflected in the degree of internal variation of roles and activities.

Standardization, which reduces variability and promotes coordination, refers to the extent to which rules, policies, and procedures, often in written form, purport to cover the operations and circumstances that apply to organizations (Pugh et al., 1968). Amateur sport organizations can control and coordinate the complexity introduced by specialized functions and roles by using a variety of standardized systems. The degree of standardization was assessed in this study using simple rating scales for athlete development, athlete assessment, coaching development, officials development, and human resources. The standardization of systems for athlete development was determined by the extent to which there were clearly defined and written procedures, policies, and guidelines for the operation of training camps, talent identification systems, planned competition schedules, and other related activities.

Athlete assessment systems were similarly standardized by the establishment of procedures such as regular physiological and psychological monitoring, the maintenance of performance files, and athlete agreements. Coaching development and officials development were standardized in terms of the extent to which there were certification programs, clinics, workshops, and other sources for training and evaluation. The standardization of the system of human resources occurred through the development of such things as job descriptions, work plans, policies and procedures, and terms of reference for committees. In effect, the operation- alization of standardization concerned the regulation and documentation of work processes at all levels of the organization.

Finally, centralization, which represents the level and involvement of hierarchical positions in decision making (cf. Pugh et al., 1968), is related to both standardization and specialization. Central to the functioning of amateur sport organizations are several specific decision areas such as selection and evaluation of athletes, coaches, officials, training programs, administrative systems, and so on. These decision areas were considered to be common to most amateur sport organizations and representative of policy decisions about the allocation of human, material, and/or financial resources. The degree of centralizationldecentralization of decision making was measured in three ways.

The first measure related to the level in the hierarchy where final decisions were made. The second measure assessed participation in decision making as revealed by the number of hierarchical levels that participated in decision making. Essentially, the level of decision making and participation referred to what Hage and Aiken (1967) label "degree of hierarchy of authority." In other words, if

particularly significant for amateur sport organizations, was the extent involvement (cf. Beamish, 1985; Macintosh et al., 1987; Slack, 1 whether or not volunteers we they participated in the decision in assessing decision making in am

Specialization, standardization, rise to a number of similariti the conceptual framework out1 designs. The establishment of who are interested in the study of amateur sport organizations because, as p ouslv noted, while the processes of professionalization and bureaucratization

k d by co&nt analysis of documents produced b i the PSOs. The major documentary source of data was an organizational profile produced by each PSO in order to obtain funding from the provincial government. This document contained data on programs, membership, resources, professional and volunteer personnel, and several other aspects of organization. Also used in the documentary analysis were such things as meeting minutes, yearly plans, and constitution and by-laws. All documents were analyzed using a standard schedule that operationalized the conceptual elements as previously outlined. Once the documentary analysis for an organization was completed, a structured interview was carried out with a key member (a professional or a volunteer) from each organization. The key informants were selected as a result of their centrality and length of involvement in the organization. The purpose of the interview was to verify the data gathered from the documentary analysis and to obtain any missing information.

Scale Construction

In this study, the framework developed by Slack and Hinings (1987) was operationalized by generating a list of constructs we considered to reflect specialization, standardization, and centralization. In assessing these constructs we considered their theoretical basis to be of primary interest. Fourteen of the constructs were multi-item, and scales were developed for each of these. Detailed descriptions of the items that made up the scales are available from us. Reliability coefficients, which are estimates of the degree to which the scales are free from error and thus yield consistent results (Bohrnstedt, 1970; Kerlinger, 1986), were computed. Scales that exhibited a minimum standardized Cronbach's alpha score of .60 were considered adequate measures of the construct under investigation (Nunnally,


1978). The reliability scores for 13 of the 14 scales ranged from .6019 to .8730. Table 1 lists the constructs assessed by each scale, the reliability coefficients (alpha) where appropriate, the coefficient of determination, and the number of items in the scale. These results indicate acceptable evidence of the internal consistency of the scales and provide support for the inclusion of multiple dimensions in the generation of taxonomies (cf. Carper & Snizek, 1980; Hambrick, 1984; McKelvey, 1975).

The administrative-specialization-of-voluntes scale did not demonstrate a satisfactory level of reliability, reflecting a lack of homogeneity in the items. That is to say, the administrative positions of volunteers were not necessarily correlated. For example, whether an organization had a secretary had no impli- cation for the existence of other roles in the organization. In light of this finding and the perceived importance of volunteer administrators in amateur sport, the items for this scale were viewed as a collection of volunteer administrative roles and thus remained in the analysis as a summed scale. Hage and Aiken (1967) support such an approach by suggesting that by not giving unequal weight to the different hierarchical levels on which such organizational members operate, organizational life is more accurately represented.

In addition to these scales, vertical differentiation was a single-item variable representing the sum total of vertical levels in the hierarchy, thus a reliability coefficient was not reported. "The reliability coefficient is also a coefficient of

Table 1

Structural Scales, Alpha, and Coefficient of Determination

Scales Alpha Coef. det. Items

Specialization Meetings Program specialization Specialization of coaches Specialization of professionals Specialization of volunteers/technical Specialization of volunteers/administration Vertical differentiation

Standardization Standardization of athlete development Standardization of athlete assessment Coaching standardization Human resource standardization Official standardization

Centralization Centralization of decision making Volunteer participation Levels of involvement in decision making

Q-factor analysis, identify groups that are not mutually exclusive. By contrast, the objective of cluster analysis is to produce exclusive homogeneous groups. Thus, cluster analysis provided greater discrimination among groups.

Essentially, the researcher decides the number of clusters used to explain the data. The aim is to select a cluster solution that represents the most theoretically meaningful assessment of the data. Although the solution is somewhat subjective, the rule of thumb suggested by Hambrick (1984) and used in this study was to select the cluster solution by looking "for a pronounced increase in the tightness (or decrease in the squared error) of clusters as the algorithm moves from one cluster solution to the next" @. 37). The analysis revealed an eight-cluster solution. The mean scores of the 14 structural scales and the one individual variable for each of the eight clusters represent their structural characteristics. These scores along with the standard deviations, sample means, and sample standard deviations are presented in Table 2. The structural profiles were used as the basis for describing the eight different structural designs.

Miller and Friesen (1984) and Pinder and Moore (1979) stated that one pitfall of much of the work on taxonomies is that clusters are defined exclusively on measures of central tendency rather than measures of variation. They claim that incorporating ranges or standard deviations in describing taxonomic group- ings may help to discriminate central from peripheral attributes for each structural design. In light of this criticism, the approach for describing the structural taxonomy in this study was to develop upper and lower boundaries for each scale.

Table 2 P E

Profile Means and Standard Deviations of Eight Structural Designs of Provincial Sport Organizations (N = 59) Y

% V) Cd

Structural designs 5 N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sample Scales 5 15 6 2 3 13 7 8 59

P d

Specialization o 3 Professional differentiation M 5.20~ 2.40~ 2.83H 1.00~ 1.33M 0.85~ 0.57~ 0.63~ 1.78

SD 2.39 1.99 3.13 1.41 1.53 1.07 0.79 0.74 2.12 Volunteers-technical M 2.60~ 2.73M 2.33L 2.00~ 5.33H 3 X H 2.2gL 1.50~ 2.81

SD 1.34 1.75 1.21 1.41 0.58 1.95 1.11 0.74 1.71 Coaching M 12.00~ f1.13~ 14.67~ 25.00~ 18.33~ 9.3gM 4.57L 6.25L 10.58

SD 4.95 5.96 15.85 33.94 12.58 3.97 6.45 3.77 9.28 Meetings M 49.00H 28.53H 36.33H 32.50~ 24.33M 14.69~ 7.71L 16.13~ 23.78

SO 32.71 11.38 19.63 30.41 11.02 6.82 3.77 6.90 17.68 Programs M 203.20~ 50.93~ 49.33M 610.50~ 27.00~ 21.00~ 76.2gM 20.25~ 73.68

SO 132.77 44.29 24.19 193.04 18.08 13.20 66.58 15.22 124.99 Volunteers-administration M 5.00~ 7.13~ 6.33M 5.50~ 5.00~ 6.08~ 51.43~ 5.13~ 6.00

SD 1.23 1.30 1.63 0.71 0.00 0.95 1.62 0.99 1.40 Vertical differentiation M 3.80~ 3.13~ 3.33H 2.50~ 4.00~ 1.92~ 2.71M 3.13~ 2.92

SD 0.45 0.74 0.52 0.71 0.00 0.49 0.49 0.35 0.82

Standardization Athlete development M 17.80~ 13.87~ 14.50~ 11.50~ 13.33~ 11.39~ 10.71L 10.50~ 12.78

SD 2.95 3.14 4.93 3.54 3.06 3.80 4.39 2.39 3.97 C

(cont.) W 4

N

Athlete assessment M 15.40~ 11.93H 8.17~

Human resource ,I 8 .40~ 12.97~ 1 6.33H

Coaching M 85.00H 25.00~ 15.00~ SO 46.74 18.98 10.64

Officiating M 105.60~ 15 .13~ 21.33M SO 47.79 9.57 11.55

Centralization Decision making M 32.20~ 29.80~ 22.67L

Volunteer participation M 11.60~ 14.33~ 5.67L

Levels of involvement


The boundaries were established based on plus or minus .25 of a standard deviation from the sample mean of each scale. In establishing an upper and lower cutoff mean as a basis for determining what each cluster's mean, on each scale, should be for the cluster to be described as high, moderate, or low, we provided a range of variation between clusters.

A quarter of a standard deviation is a relatively tight boundary, resulting in a lower percentage of moderate scores and thus more pronounced profiles for each cluster. The profiles indicate that relationships among the variables differ from one cluster to another (see Table 2). Our aim was to describe such profiles to uncover the patterns of association among the structural variables and thus produce structural designs through the development of a taxonomy. We do not lay claim to a definitive set of structural designs for amateur sport organizations. "Taxonomies are merely tools for providing us with insights into organizations" (Miller & Friesen, 1984, p. 91). Table 2 illustrates eight structural designs that were empirically derived; the sports in each taxonomic group are listed in the following text.

The question arises as to what can be made of these eight structural designs. It would be especially useful if an underlying logic could be extracted. Miller and Friesen's (1984) review of taxonomic research reveals that previous studies on taxonomies emphasize the methods of classification rather than discussing and interpreting the empirical results (cf. Carper & Snizek, 1980; Haas et al., 1966; Hambrick, 1984). With this in mind, the eight structural designs warrant a more in-depth analysis. Consequently, the remainder of this paper will discuss the structural designs that were identified through the use of the taxonomic approach.

Discussion The data provided support for the classification of amateur sport organizations based on the identification of similarities and differences in structure. The eight structural designs are presented by discussing the attributes that seem to most strongly convey the predominant formal structural dimensions for each cluster of organizations. Although it is not possible to develop a completely linear progres- sion, the structural designs are discussed in order from most to least complex. Of course, in terms of organizations in general, these provincial sport organizations are not very highly professionalized or bureaucratized. Thus the descriptions are in terms of their relation to each other.

Cluster 1-Professional Bureaucratic Structure

This cluster contained five organizations: figure skating, ice hockey, soccer, swimming, and volleyball. As well as being major game sports (e.g., Olympic and Commonwealth), these are some of the most popular activities, from a participation perspective, in Canada. The structure of these organizations is characterized by the highest levels of professional and activity specialization; the latter is probably a reflection of the popularity of these sports. Volunteer specialization, both technical and administrative, is not as high, suggesting that the operation of programs is in the hands of professionals assisted by volunteers. The high number of meetings and full range of highly standardized systems suggest that these mechanisms are used as methods of coordination and control for the large number of programs and professional roles. It is this type of organization that

most clearly resembles what researchers suggest has become the predominant structural design type among amateur sport organizations. As this analysis reveals, however, very few amateur sport organizations actually show the joint structural characteristics of professionalization and bureaucratization.

Decision making in these organizations is centralized at the volunteer board level. Typically, professionalized organizations have a decentralized decision

of command in the actual process of decision makin remaining at least symbolically with the board, volunteers

inactive in the actual process of decision making. These organizations appear to exhibit coherence in terms of the structural

representation of professional and bureaucratic characteristics, reporting high levels of specialization and standardization along with professional control of the decision making process. These results suggest that, within the sector of amateur sport organizations, these five organizations most closely resemble the institu- tionally approved design type.

Cluster 2-Nascent Professional Bureaucratic Structure

This cluster has the largest number of organizations, 15. Included are Alpine skiing, badminton, baton twirling, baseball, bobsleigh, boxing, soaring, speed skating, squash, synchronized swimming, team handball, tennis, track and field, weightlifting, and wrestling. The major differences from the professional bureaucratic structured organizations are in the lower levels of program specialization and the higher levels of volunteer administrative specialization. In fact, the extent to which administrative roles for volunteers are specialized is higher in this group of organizations than in any other. Overall, specialization in these organizations is higher in administrative roles and activities than in those concerned with the technical areas.

Standardization in these organizations is moderate or high in all systems. The high scores on human resources, athlete development, and athlete assess-


ment, and the medium scores on coaching and officiating, suggest there are systems in place to control the selection of athletes and role responsibilities of organizational members. Consequently, the structuring of administrative systems is emphasized over technical systems. Like those in the first cluster, the decision making structure in these organizations is centralized. Unlike those organizations, however, volunteer specialization and participation in decision making is high, suggesting that policies are controlled and finalized by volunteers rather than delegated to professional levels.

These organizations display professional structuring in the sense that they have paid staff responsible for coordination of programs and specialized technical systems. Nevertheless, with a centralized decision making structure and high levels of volunteer participation in decision making, the volunteer board retains control over most professional activities. It may in fact be that these organizations are on their way to becoming professional bureaucratic structures, but our data show that much of the administration of these organizations is in the hands of volunteers assisted by professionals. That is, there are characteristics of professional bureaucratic structuring but the professionals in these organizations are not au- tonomous.

Cluster 3-Administrative Structure

The six organizations included in (this cluster are basketball, bicycling, equestrian, football, men's golf, and shooting. Structurally these organizations show high scores on coaching, meetings, and professional specialization. They are also highly vertically differentiated. Standardization in these organizations is high in the systems of human resources and athlete development. A decentralized decision making process is characterized by low volunteer involvement and low levels of hierarchical involvement. Essentially, these structural attributes represent a group of organizations that are becoming professionalized and bureaucratized, at least in an administrative capacity. Professionalization and bureaucratization for these organizations, however, is probably limited to the hiring of staff such as executives and technical directors who are responsible for the day-to-day administration and operation of these organizations.

Organizations in this structural design exhibit relatively high structuring of coordinating and integrating mechanisms (i.e., standardization of human resource systems and specialization of meetings). The complexity and potential uncertainty of organizations that show high levels of vertical differentiation, professional roles, and relatively large numbers of activity programs are managed through the creation of policies and procedures, job descriptions, and meetings to coordinate the administration of programs and activities. The low level of volunteer involvement and decentralized decision making suggests that decisions about these programs and activities are made by professional staff.

Given the nature of these six provincial sport organizations-that is, football, basketball, and golf are popular participant sports; equestrian, shooting, and bicycling are multidisciplinary-the high level of administrative structuring exhibited is necessary to coordinate the many leagues, clubs, and disciplines inherent in the nature of these sports. The organizations in this cluster are less complex than the previous two clusters because, despite the fact that they have some highly developed systems, these are mainly in the administration area. Generally, tech-

and masters in bowling; twilight (over 55), coed, and slowpitch in softball. Each separate subunit is essentially responsible for managing and organizing its own activity. There is no interdependence among them except for the sharing of fa- cilities.

The independent nature of each unit in the organizations in this cluster is evidenced by the diversified programs for all age groups, the large number of competitions, and the highly structured athlete and coaching development systems. These organizations manage this diversity through different types of meetings (e.g., planning, provincial, and national). The emphasis here is on the product of the organization, the activity program, which is offered in a number of different forms. The complexity introduced by product diversification and geographical dispersion, that is, the many programs, competitions, zones, clubs, and so on, is of a different nature than the specialization evidenced in the three previously described structural designs. In particular, these organizations lack professional and volunteer specialization but require a degree of technical specialization to control the complex program structure. Hence, these organizations have high levels of coaching specialization and standardization.

The divisionalized umbrella, then, poses quite different ramifications for the forces of bureaucratization and professionalization. Our data show that in these organizations, professionalization refers to more complex task-specific coaching functions. The lack of bureaucratic coordination and control mechanisms (e.g., professional and volunteer staff) and a relatively underdeveloped human resource system also support the notion that the delivery of programs is at the subunit and


not at the provincial organization level. The system of decision making, although relatively highly centralized, is contained in a framework that has few hierarchical levels. Directly below the provincial organization in the hierarchy are the subunits, and it appears that decisions are made mainly at this level. This suggests that the provincial body may function as an umbrella organization providing support services and long-term coordination for the various divisions below it.

Cluster 5-Technical Structare

This cluster consists of three organizations: gymnastics, sailing, and water polo. These organizations are characterized by high levels of volunteer specialization in the technical areas of the sport and a high number of coaching roles. In terms of standardization there is some degree of structuring, particularly within the human resource system. The relatively low levels of professional differentiation, the low level of programming, and the low specialization of volunteers in administrative roles tends to suggest that this high score for human resource standardization comes about as a result of a focus on the technical areas of this system. There is also some degree of structuring in the systems of athlete development, athlete assessment, and coaching, all central to the technical side of the organization. Decision making is centralized and shows high scores both for the number of levels involved and for the degree of volunteer involvement.

What this patterning of structural characteristics suggests is a set of organizations that are starting to structure their activities and that have begun to focus primarily on technical programs. Thus we have labeled this structural design a technical structure. The focus of these organizations is on coaches and other technical experts who operate programs. Since there are relatively few programs, and the people who operate them are by virtue of their training and experience seen as experts, there is little reason, at least at this stage of the organizations' development, for highly structured systems of technical coordination and control. In these organizations, the nature of their work is task specific and specialized, thus there is a need for coordination that is achieved through bureaucratic means of an authority structure and administrative coordination.

Where complex problem solving is capable of standardization, hierarchical authority patterns may be more effective and therefore more prevalent (Hey- debrand, 1973). The high number of hierarchical levels and the high volunteer participation in the decision making process are also indicative of a system in which a large number of people are involved. These are the individuals who run the organization's programs and hence, in this way, the decision process serves as a coordinating and control system.

Cluster 6-Volunteer Structure

The 13 organizations in this cluster are diving, handball, judo, lacrosse, luge, netball, racquetball, ringette, rhythmic gymnastics, rugby, sport parachuting, table tennis, and women's field hockey. The structural emphasis in these organizations is on the specialization of volunteer roles. Specifically, there is high structuring of volunteer technical roles and medium structuring of volunteer administrative roles and coaches. The low level of professional structuring suggests that the coaches in these organizations are also volunteers, since most sport organizations do not hire professional coaches until they have filled other more

tioning. As a result of its emphasis on volunteer specialists and few other forms of structuring, we have labeled this structural design a volunteer structure.

Cluster 7-Implicit Structure

Grouped in this cluster are seven PSOs; Little League baseball, ladies'lawn bowling, men's lawn bowling, men's curling, ladies' curling, ladies' golf, and modem pentathlon. In regard to specialization, there is some structuring of both volunteer administrative roles and programs. The specialization of professionals, volunteers, coaches, and types of meetings is low. In terms of standardization, only coaching support systems show a moderate level of structuring. The organizations in this cluster appear to have only structured those aspects that are basic to amateur sport organizations. That is, there is some program specialization and a modest attempt to structure the development of coaches.

Decision making in these organizations is decentralized, involves few hierarchical levels and minimal volunteer participation. Additionally, vertical differentiation is low for these organizations. The absence of vertical authority levels in combination with low professional specialization suggests that decisions are in the hands of individual volunteers. More specifically, decisions may be made by one individual not necessarily at the top of the hierarchy. Knowledge and control of tasks may be located anywhere in the organization. Essentially, every member is assumed to be pursuing the organization's main goals, thus there can be extensive decentralization to the level of the single individual, resulting in a flat structure that resembles what Pugh et al. (1969) have labeled "implicitly structured" organizations.

In this structural design, the internal formal structure is loose and free flowing. Organizations avoid specifying individual tasks and do not depend on a hierarchy as a structure of defined functions and authority. Specifically, there are few formal policies and procedures outlining systems and operations. Rules and regulations are seldom written down, leaving members to find their own way through the system and figure out what to do. A loose structure provides a flexible orientation toward environmental demands and is beneficial when an organization's future state is not predictable or when the organization is relatively small (Mintz- berg, 1979, 1983). The lack of a coherent structure makes it less likely that these


organizations operate as integrated systems, thus environmental demands have less repercussions on their internal structure.

ihe minimal levels of structuring and complexity enable these organizations to adapt and adjust to changing demands. This is a particularly relevant consideration for six of these seven organizations which are best described as in a state of flux. Over the past few years there has been a disturbance to their previously stable environment, requiring some to change their internal structure and organizational orientation. In effect, a policy announced by the provincial government department, which supplies funds to these organizations, requires duplicate and gender-separate sports to move toward amalgamation. This direc- tive requires that ladies' and men's curling, lawn bowling, and golf amalgamate into associations representative of both sexes. In the case of Little League baseball and baseball, the change is to be into a representative unified association for all active participants.

The structural flexibiity inherent in these implicitly structured organizations enables them to deal more easily with these pressures. These organizations appear to have permeable, flexible boundaries and a more open and diffuse structure that is responsive and adaptable to pressures in the external environment. In contrast, rules, procedures, job descriptions, specialized roles, and centralized decision making would restrid the ability of these organizations to adapt to the required changes. Such complex structures have an integrated coherent make-up, therefore changes would tend to have strong repercussions. For modem pentathlon, the only organization in this cluster not affected by this policy, an implicitly structured design is reflective of its size and relative obscurity as a sport in the province.

Cluster 8-Simple Structure

This cluster consists of eight organizations: broomball, cricket, fencing, karate, men's field hockey, orienteering, rowing, and water skiing. Structurally, these organizations are low in all areas of standardization and specialization except vertical differentiation. Decision making is somewhat centralized with high volunteer participation and moderate involvement of the different hierarchical levels within the organization.

These organizations have few formal policies and systems in place to guide, support, and outline procedures of operation. There is only a slight division of labor and very little involvement by professionals or even specialist volunteers. In many ways the organizations in this cluster, characterized by their lack of structure, are similar to those in the implicitly structured cluster. By contrast, however, these organizations do not offer an extensive array of programs and there is little structuring of any of their activities. This tends to suggest that the few programs these organizations have are developed by volunteers in a relatively informal manner. The only controlliig system is the process of decision making, which involves high volunteer participation but with decisions being made below the board level probably by a committee, by loose amalgams of interested volunteers, or by individual volunteers. The overall operation of these organizations is highly simplistic and informal. Consequently, in the institutional sphere of amateur sport organizations we have chosen Mintzberg's (1979) terminology, "simple structure," to describe this structural design.

146 Kikulis, Slack, Hinings, and Zimmemann

Conclusions

McKelvey (1975) has argued that one of the most fundamental elements in the development of a scientific body of knowledge about organizations is the creation of a classification scheme or taxonomy. In our structural taxonomy of amateur sport organizations we have identified, systematically, the structural patterns of these organizations as demonstrated by the integration of specific dimensions of organizational structure. The core of this perspective is based on three well developed organizational phenomena: specialization, standardization, and centralization. These concepts help to clarify the claim of many sport researchers that amateur sport organizations are becoming increasingly bureaucratized and professionalized (cf. Beamish, 1985; Frisby, 1986; Kidd, 1980; Slack, 1985). They also provide a basis for critically evaluating this widespread claim.

The eight structural designs indicate that organizations are composed of a series of coherent systems and processes. Different patterns are to be found, with more complex structuring being possible in one or two areas while the others are less structured. For example, the more complex amateur sport organizations, which demonstrated less variation among specialization and standardization of all systems, do not necessarily demonstrate professionalization and bureaucratization in the same way. Some of these organizations display a degree of professionalization in terms of paid staff while others display professionalized characteristics in terms of diversification of roles, certification, and training. In effect then, professionalization varies in terms of the structural design.

The same may be said for bureaucratization. Some structures show bureaucratic characteristics related to standardized rules, procedures, and a hierarchy of authority, while others display a hierarchy of authority in the absence of standardized systems. Conversely, still other organizations display standardized systems without an administrative hierarchy. In addition, bureaucratization and professionalization differentially influence the various administrative and technical systems in amateur sport organizations. Consequently, we see organizations that are professionalized administratively or technically and are not necessarily bureaucratic, or that show bureaucratic features in the absence of professionalization. The present research indicates that important relationships among the variables composing structure indeed exist and importantly influence the feasibility of establishing consistent structural designs that are associated with amateur sport organizations.

In a somewhat similar vein, the research provides empirical support for the position that not only is there variation in the organizational form of amateur sport organizations, but this variation cannot be solely explained within a framework of professionalization and bureaucratization. Of the 59 organizations in this study, only 20 could be identified as having any substantive degree of professional or bureaucratic structuring. The remaining 39 organizations exhibit a range of structural designs, a number of which show little or no structuring along professional or bureaucratic lines. Even within the 20 organizations that exhibit professional and bureaucratic characteristics, there is variation. In five of these organizations (professional bureaucratic structure), the volunteer board appears to delegate the decision making and control of most of the activities within the organization to the professional staff.


By contrast, in the other 15 (nascent professional bureaucratic structure) that may be on their way to becoming professional bureaucratic structures, the control and decision making was in the hands of volunteers. Although interdependent, bureaucratization and professionalization are separable processes. The emerging pattern of a professional bureaucracy for amateur sport organizations reveals their complementarity. Comparatively, however, the level of bureaucratization and professionalization from a structural perspective indicates, more often than not, that these processes are separable and their impact on amateur sport organizations is not as universal as the sport literature implies.

The benefits of a framework that considers the multidimensionality of organizational structure yield several implications for examining amateur sport organizations. Past research on the structure of these organizations has emphasized the process of convergence. That is to say, researchers have suggested there has been a move to a more professional bureaucratic form (cf. Kidd, 1980; Macintosh et al., 1987; Slack, 1985). Consequently, it has been difficult to capture the unique and varied nature of amateur sport organizations. By contrast this study, while not disputing the fact that there have been pressures to move in this direction, has in part been able to establish some of the variation and qualities of this sector of organizations.

This study has demonstrated the applicability of a multidimensional approach based on objective indices of formal organizational structure and the utility of cluster analysis to develop structural designs of amateur sport organizations. In effect, empirical evidence was provided for the theoretical argument that there appears to be an interrelationship among dimensions of organizational structure. More important than this is the variety of relationships among the eight structural designs. Hence the usefulness of this particular methodological and conceptual approach in classifying, describing, and comparing the structure of amateur sport organizations was demonstrated. We would argue, therefore, that structural taxonomies such as this, and others that could be developed for specific institutional spheres within our field, are important considerations in furthering our understanding of the structure and processes of amateur sport organizations.

The present study has presented a structural taxonomy that we believe brings parsimony to the structural elements of amateur sport organizations. The theoretical rationale that underlies our research is that organizations are complex en- tities whose structural elements tend to combine into designs or configurations.

These designslconfigurations are composed of tightly interdependent and rnutu- ally supportive elements such that the importance of each element can best be understood by making reference to the whole configuration. (Miller & Friesen, 1984, p. 1)

Structural elements all tend to cohere together, giving rise to a number of common yet different structural designs. It is the set of structural designs that collectively describe these organizations. What is more important, however, is that a relatively small number of designs represent a large number of organizations. It is this finding that gives the taxonomy its theoretical and practical utility. By studying the nature of the most common designs, we can contribute to the existing descriptive and prescriptive knowledge concerning organizations.

r d designs for the understanding of the changing nature of amateur sport organizations in Canada, The nature and rate of such transformations, however, ;$ay be observed and confirmed empirically in a variety of sport organizations. Obviously, this idea can be proposed only in the form of hypotheses that need to be tested. The identification of a structurdl taxonomy such as the one outlined, leading to an understanding of design configurations of organizations, will provide us with a starting point for the analysis of change.

References

Bearnish, R. (1985). Sport executives and voluntary associations: A review of the literature and introduction to some of the theoretical issues. Sociology of Sport Journal, 2, 218-232.

Bohmstedt, G.W. (1970). Reliability and validity assessment in attitude measurement. In G.F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement @p. 80-99). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Carper, W.B., & Snizek, W.E. (1980). The nature and types of organizational taxonomies: An overview. Academy of Management Review, 5 , 65-75.

Chelladurai, P., Szyszlo, M., & Haggerty, T.R. (1987). Systems-based dimensions of effectiveness: The case of national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12, 11 1-1 19.

Christensen, H.B. (1977). Statistics step by step. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Cunningham, D., Slack, T., & Hinings, B. (1987). Changing design mh-s in amateur

sport organizations. In T. Slack & C.R. H i n g s (Eds.), m e organization and administration of sport @p. 59-81). London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.

Frisby, W. (1982). Weber's theory of bureaucracy and the study of voluntary sport organizations. In A. Dunleavy, A. Miracle, & R. Rees (Eds.), Studies in the sociology of sport (pp. 53-71). Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.


Frisby, W. (1985). A conceptual framework for measuring the organizational structure and context of voluntary leisure service organizations. Society and Leisure, 8, 605-613.

Frisby, W. (1986). The organizational structure and effectiveness of voluntary organizations: The case of Canadian national sport governing bodies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 4, 61-74.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C.R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change. Organization Studies, 9, 293-316.

Haas, J.E., Hall, R.H., &Johnson, N.J. (1966). Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of organizations. In R.V. Bowers (Ed.), Studies on behavior in organizations @p. 157-180). Athens: University of Georgia.

Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1967). Relationship of centralization to other structural properties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 72-92.

Hall, R.H. (1977). Organizatiom: Structure andprocess. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Hambrick, D.C. (1984). Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Management, 10, 27-41.

Heydebrand, W.V. (1973). Autonomy, complexity, and non-bureaucratic coordination in professional organizations. In W.V. Heydebrand (Ed.), Comparative organizatiom: The results of empirical research @p. 158-189). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Jackson, B.B. (1983). Multivariate data analysis. Homewood, E Richard D. Irwin. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston. Kidd, B. (1980). m e Canadian state and sport: The dilemma of intervention. Paper pre-

sented at the second annual conference of the National Association for Physical Edu- cation, Brainerd, MN.

Macintosh, D. (1988). The federal government and voluntary sport associations. In J. Harvey & H. Cantelon (Eds.), Not just a game @p. 121-139). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Macintosh, D., Bedecki, T., & Franks, C.E.S. (1987). Sport and politics in Canada: Federal government involvement since 1961. Kingston, Ontario: McGill-Queen's University Press.

McKelvey, B. (1975). Guidelines for the empirical classification of organizations. Admini- strative Science Quarterly, 20, 509-525.

McKelvey, B. (1978). Organizational systematics: Taxonomic lessons from biology. Management Science, 24, 1428-1440.

McKelvey, B. (1982). Organizational systematics. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Miller, D. (1987). Strategy making and structure: Analysis and implications for performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 7-32.

Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539-560.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1977). Strategy-making in context: Ten empirical archetypes. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 253-280.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1982). Structural change and ped6rmance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25,867-892.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute and the Alberta Department of Recreation and Parks for providing funds for the research on which this paper was based.

amateur sport organizations of structural taxonomy a · of amateur sport organizations lisa m....

Documents