THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOARD PERFORMANCE, BOARD STRUCTURE AND BOARD
PROCESSES IN NONPROFIT VOLUNTARY SPORT ORGANISATIONS
Russell Hoye, Griffith University Chris
Auld, University of Hong Kong
Introduction
Much of the literature in the area of nonprofit board performance, board structures and board processes has been
of a prescriptive nature based on practitioner experience (Young, 1993; Axelrod, 1994; Carver, 1997; Houle, 1997;
Solz, 1997; Block, 1998). Only a small number of empirical studies have investigated board structures and board
processes in the nonprofit context (Middleton, 1987; Harris, 1989; Widmer, 1993; Stone, 1996; Inglis, Alexander &
Weaver, 1999). These studies have found that board structures and board processes are influenced by a variety of
contextual factors such as the scale of the organisation, organisational culture and the need to consider members as
part of the governance construct.
Similarly only limited elements of the governance construct have been studied in nonprofit voluntary sport
organisations. Research that has been conducted has focussed on two themes; first, board and staff relations
(Thibault, Slack & Minings, 1991; Auld, 1997a, 1997b; Auld & Godbey, 1998), and second, decision making
structures (Kikulis, Slack, Hinings & Zimmermann, 1989; Kikulis, Slack & Minings, 1992; Amis & Slack, 1996) but
has not explored the governance construct explicitly. However, two recent studies have addressed the issue more
directly. Inglis (1997) examined the governance of nonprofit voluntary sport organisations at the provincial level and
discovered the role of the board is very similar to that of other nonprofit organisations such as charitable institutions
and community organisations. The performance of national level boards was investigated by Papadimitriou (1999),
who found that motivated, competent and influential individuals were a prerequisite for good organisational
performance, and that the boards of national sport organisations operate under ineffective decision making authority
structures. These studies, however, did not specifically address the relationship between board performance, board
structures and board processes. The governance of Australia's nonprofit sporting organisations has been identified
(Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport, 1997) as an important issue worthy of research that examines the
governance models, processes and relationships that occur within these organisations.
This paper presents the results of selected components of a study into the performance of the boards of State
Sporting Organisations (SSOs), in Victoria, Australia. The study examined the board structures, processes and
relationships that occur with these organisations. The paper focuses on the relationship between board performance,
board structures and board processes.
Method
The research design for the study employed triangulation through a variety of data collection instruments, data
sources, and data types in order to provide stronger substantiation of the research findings and to aid in the analysis
of data. Data collection instruments used in the study included self-administered questionnaires and both structured
and semi-structured interviews. Data sources included a variety of archival records, and executives, board chairs and
board members from each of the organisations. The research design also utilised both quantitative and qualitative
methods by conducting statistical analysis of questionnaire data and qualitative analysis of transcripts of semistructured interviews. The data were used to generate case studies of four effective and three ineffective boards. In
the paper, these case studies are compared and contrasted to explore the various elements of board structures and
board processes and their relationship with board performance.
A self-administered questionnaire with the list of 45 SSOs with paid executives was distributed to a panel of 10
experts. The panel members had extensive experience and contact with the SSOs in the course of their roles working
for funding agencies, major event organisers, lobby groups, professional associations or elite athlete support
agencies. Each panel member was asked to independently identify 5 SSOs they believed to be the most effective in
governing their organisation and 5 SSOs they believed to be the least effective in governing their organisation. The
four SSOs cited most frequently in each of the most effective and least effective governance categories were selected
for development as the case studies. One of the least effective SSOs did not have a paid executive employed during
the period of the study, and as board executive relations was an important aspect of the study, it was deleted as a
case.
Data regarding board performance was collected via a self-administered questionnaire of all executives, board
chairs and board members of the seven case study organisations. The 11 item Self Assessment for Nonprofit
Governing Boards scale developed by Slesinger (1991) was used to assess board performance. Respondents were
asked to indicate on a 5 point Likert scale (1 = very poor to 5 = very good) their assessment about how well their
board is performing for each item. Support for the use of the scale was provided by Herman and Renz (1997), who
found the 11 items constituted a single factor with a Cronbach alpha of .89. Wording of specific items was adjusted
for the context of sporting organisations where appropriate.
Data regarding board structures and board processes were collected via structured interviews with the
executives of each case study organisation. The information collected was checked for accuracy with documents
collected from the organisations such as constitutions, board documents, and annual reports. The structural
characteristics of the board included the size of the board, board turnover, horizontal differentiation, vertical
differentiation and the degree of formalisation of the board. Board processes were defined as formal processes used
by the board in the performance of their work. The operational variables used for board processes was based on the
list of 25 widely accepted board processes used by Herman and Renz (2000) and modified for sport organisations.
These processes included such items as the use of a board manual for the management of board work, the use of
competitive hiring processes for the executive, board evaluation processes and whether the board profile is used in
the recruitment of new board members.
Qualitative data were also collected via semi-structured interviews with executives, board chairs and board
members. The focus of the interviews was to gather data on board performance, board structural elements, board
processes, the relationship between the executive and the board as well as specific questions relating to
characteristics of the board for the respective organisation.
Results
The total population of board members and executives (64 individuals) of the seven case study organisations
was used for the self administered questionnaire. The overall return rate was 53/64 (82.8%) which included 7/7
executives (100%), 7/7 board chairs (100%) and 39/50 board members (78.0%).
A non-parametric analysis of variance using a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test for differences in the mean
board performance scores for effectively and ineffectively governed organisations. The results revealed a significant
(H = 26.7693, p = 0.0000) difference in mean scores for board performance between the effectively and
ineffectively governed organisations (mean = 3.97, mean = 3.06 respectively). These results indicate support for the
selection by the panel of experts for each of the organisations as either an effective or ineffective governing
organisation.
The mean scores for each item of the Self Assessment for Nonprofit Governing Boards scale for the effectively
and ineffectively governed organisations were also calculated. An analysis of variance (Kruskal-Wallis test) revealed
that there were significant differences (p<0.0045) between the performance scores for effective and ineffective
organisations for nine of the eleven items in the board performance scale.
Differences in board structures between effectively and ineffectively governed organisations were found in the
areas of board turnover, the use of portfolios for individual board members, and the use of standing sub committees.
In general, ineffective boards were more likely to experience a higher turnover of board members and had higher
levels of horizontal differentiation. There were no observable differences between effective and ineffective
organisations in the degree of vertical differentiation or the degree of formalisation of the board.
A board process index score was calculated by totalling the number of processes used by each organisation and
dividing by the total number of processes. The mean index scores indicate that the effectively governed
organisations use 48.9% of the recommended board processes, compared with only 30.4% used by the ineffectively
governed organisations.
Discussion
The results suggest that the difference in performance of effective and ineffective boards occurs across a wide
range of board responsibilities. That is, effective boards seem to be better at making the relationship work between
the executive and the board, financial management, the conduct of meetings, setting and reviewing the mission,
strategic planning, monitoring program performance, risk management, selecting board members, and marketing and
public relations.
The results also suggest that certain elements of board structure and processes are related to effective board
performance. These include member representation systems, the use of recommended board processes such as board
member recruitment and selection processes, the use of external independent board members, and the evaluation of
board performance. The paper concludes with recommended strategies to improve the structure of boards and their
use of various processes in the carrying out of their work as well as ideas for future research efforts.
References
Amis, J., & Slack, T. (1996). The Size-Structure Relationship in Voluntary Sport Organizations. Journal of Sport
Management, 10, 76-86. Auld, C. (1997a). Professionalisation of Australian Sport: The Effects on
Organisational Decision Making,
European Journal for Sport Management, 4(2), 17-39. Auld, C. (1997b). Professionalisation of Australian
Sport: The Effects on Organisational Decision Making, Full
Report, Australian Sports Commission. Auld, C., & Godbey, G. (1998). Influence in Canadian National Sport
Organizations: Perceptions of Professionals
and Volunteers. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 20-38. Axelrod, N.R. (1994) Board Leadership and Board
Development. In Herman, R.D. & Associates (Eds) (1994) The
Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management. SF: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Block, S.R.
(1998). Perfect Nonprofit Boards: Myths, Paradoxes and Paradigms. Needham Heights, Mass: Simon
Sz Schuster. Carver, J. (1997). Boards That Make A Difference: A New Design For Leadership In Non
Profit And Public
Organisations. 2nd Ed, USA, SF: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Harris, M. (1989). The Governing Body Role:
Problems and Perceptions in Implementation. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(4), 317-323. Herman, R.D. & Renz, D.O. (1997). Multiple
Constituencies and the Social Construction of Nonprofit
Organizational Effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), 185-206. Herman, R.D. &
Renz, D.O. (2000). Board Practices of Especially Effective and Less Effective Local Nonprofit
Organizations. American Review of Public Administration, 30(2), 146-160. Houle, C.O. (1997). Governing
Boards: Their Nature and Nurture. SF: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Inglis, S. (1997). Roles of the Board in Amateur
Sport Organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 11,160-176. Inglis, S., Alexander, T., & Weaver, L. (1999).
Roles and Responsibilities of Community Nonprofit Boards.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(2), 153-167. Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T. & Hinings, B. (1992).
Institutionally Specific Design Archetypes: A Framework for
Understanding Change in National Sport Organizations. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 27(4),
343-367. Kikulis, L.M., Slack, T., Hinings, B., & Zimmermann, A. (1989). A Structural Taxonomy of
Amateur Sport
Organizations. Journal of Sport Management, (3), 129-150. Middleton, M. (1987) Nonprofit Boards of
Directors: Beyond the Governance Function. In Powell, W.W. (Ed)
(1987) The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. USA, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Papadimitriou, D. (1999). Voluntary Boards of Directors in Greek Sport Governing Bodies. European Journal for
Sport Management, 6, 78-103. Slesinger, L.H. (1991). Self-Assessment for Nonprofit Governing Boards.
Washington, DC: National Centre for
Nonprofit Boards. Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport Working Party on Management Improvement,
(1997). Report to the
Standing Committee on Recreation and Span July 1997. Canberra. Stone, M.M., (1996). Competing Contexts:
The Evolution of a Nonprofit Organization's Governance System in
Multiple Environments. Administration and Society, 28(1), 61-90. Thibault, L., Slack, T. & Hinings, B. (1991).
Professionalism, Structures and Systems: The Impact of Professional
Staff on Voluntary Sport Organizations, International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 26(2), 83-97.
Widmer, C. (1993). Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and Role Overload on Boards of Directors of Nonprofit Human
Service Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 22, 339-356. Young, D.R. (1993). Emerging
Themes in Nonprofit Leadership and Management. In Young, D.R., Hollister, R.M.
& Hodgkinson, V.A. (1993). Governing, Leading and Managing Nonprofit Organizations: New Insights from
Research and Practice. USA, SF: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Russell Hoye, School of Leisure Studies, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Brisbane, Queensland 4111,
Australia. Phone: 617 3875 5871, E-mail: r.hoye@mailbox.gu.edu.au
ABSTRACTS
of Papers Presented at the Tenth
Canadian Congress on Leisure Research
May 22-25,2002
Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta
Abstracts compiled and edited by
Edgar L. Jackson
CCLR-10 Programme Committee
Karen Fox
Ed Jackson
Gordon Walker
Copyright © 2002 Canadian Association for
The Canadian Congress on Leisure Research
is held under the auspices of the Canadian Association
for Leisure Studies
Le congres canadien de la recherche en loisir
Se tient sous les auspices de L'association canadienne
d'etudes en loisir
BOARD OF DIRECTORS / CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION
1999 - 2002
President / President
Susan Markham-Starr
Acadia University
Past President / President-sortant
Edgar L. Jackson
University of Alberta
Treasurer / Tresorier
Robert Soubrier
Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres
Secretary / Secretaire
Linda Caldwell
Pennsylvania State University
Directors / Directeurs
Wendy Frisby, University of British Columbia
Tom Hinch, University of Alberta
Peggy Hutchison, Brock University
Jennifer Mactavish, University of Manitoba
Lisa Ostiguy, Concordia University
Stephane Perrault, Universite du Quebec d Trois-Rivieres
Jerry Singleton, Dalhousie University
Bryan Smale, University of Waterloo
Paul Wilkinson, York University