This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 08 December 2014, At: 05:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Managing LeisurePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmle20

Amateur structures and their effect onperformance: the case of Greek voluntarysports clubsDimitra Papadimitriou aa Department of Business Administration , University of PatrasPublished online: 02 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Dimitra Papadimitriou (2002) Amateur structures and their effect on performance: thecase of Greek voluntary sports clubs, Managing Leisure, 7:4, 205-219, DOI: 10.1080/1360671021000056570

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1360671021000056570

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Amateur structures and their effect onperformance: the case of Greek voluntary

sports clubsDimitra Papadimitriou

University of Patras, Department of Business Administration.Correspondence to: Kafhreos 34, Kato Syxaina, Patras 264 43, Greece

This study applies an organizational perspective to the measurement of the structure and context ofvoluntary local sports clubs in Greece. Local sport clubs have rarely been an area of inquiry in termsof their organizational structure and context. This research firstly focuses on collecting andanalysing data referring to measurements of contextual (e.g., organizational size, age and resourcedependence) and structural (e.g., formalization, specialization, centralization) variables. Secondly,it examines whether the local sports clubs’ contextual and structural development has an effect ontheir performance. The theoretical background underlying this research endeavour is drawn fromthe classical Weberian theory of bureaucracy as presented by Frisby’s conceptual framework inorder to be applicable in voluntary leisure service organizations. Forty-one local sport clubscomposed the sample of this study. A member of their board of directors was interviewed following aspecifically designed, highly structured pre-existing schedule. The results support a trend towardsa loosely structured, less bureaucratic organizational operation for the local sport clubs, which isaccompanied with external resource dependence and moderate performance.

INTRODUCTION

In Greece, like in many other Europeancountries, the organization and developmentof amateur sport at the local and nationallevel is undertaken by an expanding networkof voluntary organizations. The role of theGreek national sports organizations is con-fined to the promotion of the sport within thecountry and the attainment of excellenceinternationally. Therefore, as is the case inother countries such as Canada, Germanyand England, in the Greek sports deliverysystem the core agency responsible for thedevelopment of the individual sport isthe local sports club. For the majorityof sport this is a non-profit organization ofvarying size and age. Therefore, the broadspectrum of organizational types range frominformal groups of friends forming organiza-tions with only occasional activity to large

local organizations with extensive member-ships and a variety of sports programmes.Regardless of size, in Greece the majority ofthese organizations depend on public fund-ing in order to secure their required re-sources and deliver programmes in relationto more than one sport. However, resourcesfrom the national sports federations and theprivate sector are likely to strengthenthe annual budget of this type of voluntaryagencies.

The local sports clubs constitute the ‘cell’of the Greek sport delivery system andpursue mainly sports-related goals, includingthe promotion of different sports (thoughemphasis is on Olympic sports), the identi-fication and training of talented athletes andthe organization of competitions or othersports-related events. The local sports clubis perceived as a non-profit multi-sport

Managing Leisure 7, 205–219 (2002)

Managing Leisure ISSN 1360-6719 print/ISSN 1466-450X online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/1360671021000056570

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

organization, which provides sports pro-grammes and services to promising and eliteathletes. The 2004 Olympic games to be heldin Greece, the country that gave birth to thishistorical event, create immense opportun-ities (i.e., new or renovated facilities in afew Greek cities, many promotional events,volunteer development programmes andhigh sport exposure) for the clubs to growand prosper.

Whereas a few research attempts appear inthe sports-related literature to study volun-tary national and provincial sports organiza-tions as formal organizations (Kikulis et al.,1989; Papadimitriou, 1994; Slack and Hinings,1994; Theodoraki, 1996; Thibault et al., 1991),the local sports clubs have rarely been anarea of inquiry in terms of their organiza-tional structure, context or performance. Thevoluntary nature of their operation is gen-erally perceived to be characterized by in-formal relationships, loose structuring andvoluntary membership, all factors whichemphasize the voluntary notion at the ex-pense of the concepts of organization andmanagement. However, as Handy (1990)stresses:

. . . it would be naive to think that anyorganization, even a family, can work wellwithout some way of dividing up the work tobe done, without some understanding ofaccountability to whom for what, and with-out some agreement on the general shape ofthe organization. (p. 103)

In the same line of theorization, Frisby(1985), McPherson (1975), Slack (1985) andTheodoraki and Henry (1993) support theapplication of Weberian theory of bureau-cracy to voluntary sports service organiza-tions on the basis that they tend to exhibitseveral characteristics of typical bureau-cratic structures and processes. Numerouschallenges currently faced by the voluntaryGreek sport clubs justify the need for morerationality in their internal function. Thesechallenges emerge not only from their chang-

ing external environment but also from thenewly passed sport legislation (2725/99,Greek Government, 1999). Examples in-clude:

● The pressing need for employing highlyspecialized technical staff and coachesfor the successful implementation of thevarious sports programmes.

● The increased resource opportunities inthe clubs’ external environment and therequirement for specialized ways ofbenefiting from these opportunities.

● The various certification programmesintroduced by the national sports gover-ning bodies.

● The increasing complexity in bureau-cratic sport systems developed by thestate agency for sport (the GeneralSecretariat for Sports) in order to rewardperformance and excellence in sport.

● The accelerated pressure for creatingorganizational structures and systems,which support the high performancesector of the sport concerned.

This research focuses on collecting andanalysing data from voluntary local sportsclubs which refer to the measurements ofcontextual (e.g., organizational size, age andresource dependence), structural (e.g., for-malization, specialization and centralization)and performance variables. This enables asystematic conceptualization of the internalstructure of these organizations. Further-more, the study attempts to explore potentialrelationships among measures of organiza-tional structure, context and performance inlocal sports clubs.

RELEVANT EMPIRICAL RESEARCH INSPORT

The contemporary relevant literature isshort of systematic efforts which analyse thestructures of the voluntary sports clubs. Theonly studies reported have been conductedin larger sports organizations such as provin-cial voluntary sports organizations (Kikulis

206 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

et al., 1989; Thibault et al., 1991) and nationalsports governing bodies (Slack, 1985; Theo-doraki, 1996). Specifically, some research inthis tradition has been conducted in Cana-dian sports organizations and constitutesvaluable reference for this study. In the Greekcontext, there are no research works ori-ented to the Weberian theory of bureaucracyin relation to local or national sports orga-nizations.

However, a few organization theory schol-ars have long ago addressed issues relatingto structure in a range of organizationaltypes. The early empirical works of Hage andAiken (1967), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967),and Pugh et al. (1968) in a variety of pro-fit and non-profit organizations, have estab-lished a sound theoretical basis in regards toorganizational structure. These scholars ex-amined the interrelationship of structuraland contextual organizational variables andthe effect of the introduction of professionalson the organizational structures. Accordingto their evidence, as organizations grow insize and develop resource dependencies onother agencies they tend to develop a type ofinternal structure characterized by divisionof labour, separation of roles and functionsand formulation of rules and regulations.Such structural arrangements exert signifi-cant influence on the behaviour and perform-ance of an organization, because dimensionssuch as authority control mechanisms, in-tegration and communication are inherentlyinterrelated to the capacity of achievinggoals and of satisfying interests in any organi-zational context.

Works in sports organizations have veri-fied some of the hypotheses set by the abovecontingency-oriented theorists. One exampleis Slack’s research (1985), which employed acase study methodology to trace how aCanadian voluntary sports organization wastransformed from a loose organizationalstructure to a rational bureaucracy. Thelatter is a type of structure which is charac-terized by division of labour, increased

professionalization and agreed rules andregulations. Slack pointed to the growth ofthe size of the specific sports organization toexplain the factors that influence this trans-formation, without denying the instrumentalrole of charismatic leadership. Furthermore,the qualitative results of Pitters’ study (1990)from a small local sports club vividly high-lighted how structures are used to empowerindividuals who control organizational re-sources.

In the same line of theorization, the work ofThibault et al. (1991) in provincial sportsorganizations in Canada showed that theintroduction of professionals is associatedwith significant changes in the structuralvariables of specialization and formalization.However, these changes are manifested morein the technical than the administrativesystems of the organizations. This may becharacteristic of the sports organizationssince technical-oriented professionals areusually more qualified and competent. Simi-larly, Slack and Hinings (1994) have exploredhow institutional pressures tied to financialdependence have caused isomorphic organi-zational changes towards more professionalbureaucratic operations in national sportsorganizations in Canada.

Kikulis et al. (1989) and Theodoraki (1996)developed structural taxonomies of amateurCanadian and British sports organizationsrespectively, based on measures related tothree structural variables: specialization,standardization and centralization. Theirfindings pointed out the increasingly bureau-cratized and professionalized nature ofoperation of the two sets of national sportsorganizations. However, they showed thatnot all organizations transfer uniformly tothis type of structure, especially as far as itconcerns changes in relation to their deci-sion-making systems.

Finally, Frisby (1985) proposed theoreticaland operational definitions of the most com-monly used contextual and structural vari-ables in voluntary leisure service

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 207

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

organizations. In the contextual variables,Frisby included organizational size, age, de-pendence on other organizations and thelevel of technological expertise, whereasformalization, specialization and centraliza-tion compose the structural variables sug-gested in this conceptual framework. In lightof the assertions that voluntary sports orga-nizations, especially local ones, hardly ap-proach the degree of bureaucratizationusually met in profit-making sports organiza-tions or large national sports agencies, it isimportant to employ simple criteria for dis-tinguishing a formally organised from aninformal sports organization.

The studies cited above, while systematicand theoretically sound, are limited in theirability to enhance our understanding aboutthe structural arrangements of small localsports clubs. They focus on comparablylarge, usually national sports organizations,which are characterized by stable organiza-tional relations and increased availability ofstate or private resources. This has resultedin significant gaps in the depth of our under-standings of the extensive number of non-profit sports organizations that contributesignificantly to the sport system of manycountries. This void is problematic giventheir important role, their structural pecu-liarities and the fact that they are enforced toundergo adaptation processes as a result ofchanging service-related demands and cul-tures. There are a number of common issuesthat relate to these voluntary sports organi-zations in different countries, which necessi-tate systematic study of this theoreticalnature. For example, voluntary sports clubsin Finland and Germany face cultural chal-lenges, which ask for widening the sphere ofcompetitive sport services to include recrea-tional and leisure activities (see Koski andHeikkala, 1998; Horch, 1998). Similarly, Aus-tralian sports organizations experience in-creased difficulty in keeping abreast of rapidsport developments (i.e., professionaliza-tion, globalization, comercialization) and

cope with the tension between traditionalvoluntary practices and emerging profes-sional management (Colyer, 2000). In a smallcountry like Greece, in which performance-related sport maintains a prevalent place(excessive emphasis on winning medals andstaging major events), the increased pro-fessionalization and commercialization of thehigh performance delivery system imposesnew structural, monetary and human re-sources requirements. These requirementsraise important questions about the sportclubs’ strategic focus of activity and volun-tary structures if survival is desirable withinthe coordinates of the voluntary sector.

Given the considerable lack of empiricalresearch on the structural dimensions ofvoluntary sports clubs, our understanding islimited about their current structural ar-rangements and how these are linked tocontextual and performance indicators. AsSlack (1997) pinpoints ‘. . . there is a con-siderable scope for work of this nature onsports clubs’ (p. 62). This study employs theconceptual framework of Frisby (1985) inorder to determine the internal structure andcontext of local sports clubs in Greece.Specifically, the measures developed heredraw from the contingency theory, whichconstitutes one of the most widely usedtheoretical approaches for conceptualizingand operationalizing structures.

METHODSampleForty-one local voluntary sports clubs lo-cated in Patras, the third largest city inGreece, composed the sample of this study.Although there were many more local sportsclubs operating in this city, the selectedsports organizations were the only clubswhich met three selection criteria withmethodological importance for this study.The first was that they are recognized enti-ties by the respective national sports govern-ing bodies by which they are looselysupervised. The second was that the se-

208 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

lected organizations are incorporated in thenetwork of the recognized local sports clubs,which is regularly funded by the Greek Stateagency for sport (the GSS). The third wasthat the selected organizations hired at leastone professional technical staff member forthe delivery of their sports programmes. Theapplication of the above three criteria en-sured that the selected organizations havereached the stage to form a basic organiza-tional structure and this was seen asmethodologically essential for this study.

Instruments and data collection

A highly structured interview schedule wasdeveloped and piloted in order to collectdata on various structural, contextual andperformance measures. These measures arebased on the operational definitions pro-posed by Frisby (1985). Accordingly, threewidely cited variables were employed toestimate the structural arrangements of thelocal sports clubs. These were centralization,formalization and specialization. Centraliza-tion was defined as referring to the level atwhich important decision-making andproblem-solving authority was formally con-centrated within the organizational hier-archy. Ten items describing various areas ofdecision-making (e.g., finance, communica-tion, human resources, technical coordi-nation) composed the respective scale (seeTable 2 for a full list of items). Formalizationwas defined as the degree to which organiza-tional practices are made explicit and stan-dardized in written documents within thelocal sports clubs. The respective scale wasconsisted of nine items referring to theexistence of written manuals for athleticprogrammes, sport equipment management,decision-making systems, planning and com-munication procedures etc. Finally, the vari-able of specialization was defined as thedegree to which similar organizational activi-ties are grouped together to be performedpreferably by a specialist individual or agroup of employees. Eleven items composed

this scale which examined the level of exper-tise of the employees or volunteers carryingout organizational activities such as advertis-ing, public relations, sponsoring, commu-nication, technical coordination, finance, etc.The internal consistency of the three scaleswas estimated by computing Cronbach’salpha scores. These values are particularimportant to multiple-item measures be-cause they document their internal coher-ence (Bryson, 1989). The correspondingvalues ranged from 0.64 to 0.82, which wereconsidered as adequate reliability measuresfor the examined concepts (DeVellis, 1991).

To determine the organizational context oflocal sports clubs, the following variableswere employed: organizational size, resourcedependence on other organizations and age.Four measures were considered referring tothe size of the LSCs including the number ofactive athletes registered, the numberof volunteers involved, and the number oftechnical and scientific staff employed. Thedegree of external dependence was esti-mated by the amount of public resourcesrequired by the clubs to operate, while theage of LSCs was accounted by the number ofyears operating as recognized organiza-tions.

Organizational performance was assessedby the employment of two indicativemeasures: number of athletic programs (i.e.,instructional, mini, competitive, etc), orga-nized and number of sports for which ser-vices are offered by the club. The numbers ofsport programs and sports represent in-dicators of the extension of club activityand of the variety of choice offered to thelocal sport market. Although there are a fewsingle-sport clubs in Greece, the majority ofthem tend to adopt a multi-sport strategy toenhance their competitive position in thelocal market and secure additional resourcesthrough public subsidies. Whereas data werecollected referring to the best high perform-ance results of each local club’s team orathlete, due to their complexity these were

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 209

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

not incorporated in this analysis. A keyinformant, usually the most active member ofthe local club’s board, was contacted toprovide data by following the schedule whichwas administered personally by the re-searcher at the respective location of thesport club. The length of the 41 interviewsranged from one to one and a half hours.

Following a methodology similar to that ofThibault et al. (1991), the responses to thequestions included in the highly structuredinterview schedule, were transformed tonumerical, easy to handle data by using asimple three point rating scale (where 1 islow; 2 is moderate; 3 is high and 0 for none).Specifically, the data related to the threestructural variables were quantified as fol-lows. In terms of specialization, a local clubwhich has employed a specialized member ofstaff (even at a part time basis) to handle thepublic relations of the organization wouldobtain a high score on the extent to which itspublic relations were specialized. On thecontrary, a local club, which has not clearlyallocated the responsibility of attractingsponsorships among its voluntary boardmembers or the technical staff, would scorelow on the specialization of its sponsorshipactivity. The members of a club which re-ceived a low score in this variable offeredlittle experience in the sponsorship activity,in which they were only occasionally in-volved. Accounting the number of commit-tees supporting the operation of the localclub also assessed specialization (where 1–2is low; 3–4 is medium; 5 and over is high).

Following the same process, low scores informalization were given to local clubs,which had established limited or no writtendocumentation about various administrativeaspects of their operation. For example, alocal club which had established criteria forcoaching recruiting and selection but notfor salaries, benefits and responsibilitieswould obtain a moderate score on the formal-ization of its technical human resources.

Centralization was assessed in terms of the

concentration of decision-making authoritywithin the structure of the sports organiza-tion. In cases where single executive boardmembers made important decisions, thelocal club received a high centralizationscore. A moderate score was assigned toLSCs with an active board of directors interms of decision-making, while the involve-ment of the paid staff in areas of decision-making was marked as low centralizedlevel.

Concerning the statistical analysis of thedata, the contextual variables measured inthis study are presented in Table 1. Thepercentages provide a description of thelocal clubs in the sample. Means and stand-ard deviations were computed for each itemof the three structural scales. These resultsare presented in Table 2. Finally, in order toidentify interrelations among the contextual,structural and performance variables, Pear-son bivariate correlation coefficients werecomputed based on the Z-scores of thevariables. The respective results are pre-sented in Table 3.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 illustrates that the local sports clubs(LSCs) examined vary considerably in termsof their age and consequently their level ofdevelopment. Nearly half of the LSCs havebeen in operation for up to 15 years, whilethe remaining 50% provide sports services,as recognized organizations, for many moreyears. This may indicate that they have hadadequate time available to develop an effec-tive internal structure of operation.

According to the by-laws of LSCs, they arecharacterized as independent non-profit enti-ties pursuing sport-related objectives, yet allthe sampled organizations operate with de-pendence on a strong financial affiliation withthe state supervisory agency for sport. AsTable 1 shows, 80% of the LSCs receiveannually up to five million Greek drachmas(15,000 euros), an amount that has often

210 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

proved vital for the continuity of sportsprogrammes offered. Given the infrastruc-ture diversity required for providing servicesfor more than one sport, the lack of LSCs’success has often less to do with structuralbarriers, than with significant lack of re-sources needed to secure the survival of the

clubs. As the data indicates, most LSCsoperate with a very limited budget whichimplies major restrictions in the variety andquality of sports programs offered to thelocal community. This is particularly en-hanced by the fact that most of these re-sources (as indicated in Table 1) are public

Table 1 Contextual and performance data of local sports clubs (1999–2000)

Contextual Variables Per cent Cum. Per cent

Organizational Age� 5 years 12.2 12.26–15 36.6 48.816 and over 51.2 100.0

Total Organizational Resources� 5 million drachmas (15,000 euros) 65.9 65.95.1–15 19.5 85.415.1–50 7.3 92.750.1 and over 7.3 100.0

Public Organizational Resources1 million drachmas (3,000 euros) 43.9 43.91.1–5 36.6 80.55.1 and over 19.5 100.0

Performance (Sports Programmes)1–2 programmes 29.3 29.33–5 36.6 65.96–10 26.8 92.711 and over 7.3 100.0

Performance (Sports Developed)1 sport only 41.5 41.52–3 53.7 95.14 and over 4.9 100.0

Organizational Size (Active Volunteers)1–3 persons 19.5 19.54–10 68.3 87.811 and over 12.2 100.0

Organizational Size (Athletes Served)� 50 31.7 31.751–200 46.3 87.8201–500 12.2 90.2501 or more 9.8 100.0

Organizational Size (Technical Staff)1–2 staff employed 34.1 34.13–5 48.8 82.96 or more 17.1 100.0

Organizational Size (Scientific Staff)none 48.8 48.81–2 39.0 87.83 or more 12.2 100.0

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 211

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

subsidies and very often, as practice hasshown, irregularly and unpredictably admini-stered. The limited resources available tomost LSCs account for the tendency of thestate to confine public spending in sportingactivity, and for the inability of the organiza-tions to seek support from a relatively un-exploited local environment.

As the data presented in Table 1 indicates,the majority (68%) of the LSCs carry out theirsports-related activities with the help of fourto ten active voluntary board members.Given their voluntary nature and the com-plex nature of the sporting activity, thisimplies a rather low participation ration ofvolunteers in the leadership and day-to-dayoperation of the clubs. These low numbersraise critical questions regarding the viabilityof values such as altruism and voluntarism inthe management of the local sports deliverysystem.

The technical staff employed on the part-time basis by these organizations numberfewer than five, while one-third of the clubshire only one or two part-time coaches.Whereas the introduction of technical staff inthe LSCs has become an undeniable neces-sity, the important role of the scientific staffhas not yet recognized. Almost half of theorganization samples have not establishedany formal working relationship with adoctor or physiotherapist and the remaininghalf reported only occasional cooperation.Given the increased professionalization andcommercialization of the high performancesector of all sports, this notable lack ofspecialized staff may put insuperable bar-riers to the LSCs’ performance in the highperformance sector.

Thirty two of the LSC sampled provideservices for a rather small membershipwhich accounts up to 50 athletes (seeTable 1), while almost half of the clubs offerservices for a rather small number of ath-letes, ranging from 50 to 200. The twoindicative performance variables employedin this study reflect the LSCs’ activity in the

development sector of the sports. The re-sults indicate rather low performance. Thirtyper cent deliver services associated with upto two sports programmes, which in mostcases refer to soccer. Usually, these pro-grammes are a competitive team and anacademy for new talents. Over 65% organizeup to five sports programmes on a regularbasis which, either refer all to a single sport,usually soccer, basketball, volleyball or hand-ball, or involve a combination of two or threeof these sports. A striking finding derivingfrom this data was the confined variety ofdifferent sports for which LSCs’ services areavailable to the public. Ninety-five per cent ofthe organizations (Table 1) deliver servicesin relation to a maximum of three differentsports. Most often these include soccer,basketball and volleyball or handball. Thisindicates that, in the third largest city of thecountry, sports services at a non-profit basisare completely unavailable for a majority ofOlympic and non-Olympic sports. Examplesinclude popular sports such as gymnastics,cycling, sailing, fencing, skiing, table tennisand climbing. Although further research isneeded to adequately interpret the shortageof services for a number of sports, this resultquestions the general suggestion that volun-tary organizations provide increased choiceto the consumers and opportunities forvoluntary participation to society members.

Table 2 reports findings regarding the threestructural variables studied. The centraliz-ation of most administration aspects of theLSCs’ operation was characterized as abovemoderate. The high performance and devel-opment planning in addition with the athlete-related issues were the only administrativeaspects for which data showed less thanmoderate scores of concentration in decisionmaking power. This is associated with theintroduction of technical staff and their ex-pertise to handle these subjects.

By contrast, the formalization and special-ization scales obtained low scores in alladministrative items examined. For all

212 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

administrative and technical aspects, there isa complete lack of standardization of routineprocedures. Furthermore, the division oflabour among the board members and thetechnical staff was described as unclear.

The structural data provided support for asimple, rather informal, structural design,which is characterized by relatively highcentralization, and low formalization andspecialization. Most LSCs rely on volunteers

to carry out the administrative domain ofactivities and on technical staff to completethe technical duties. In this relatively flatstructuring of activities, all major and minorauthorities are maintained in the absolutecontrol of the board, which is very oftenrepresented by one or two active individuals.The establishment of rules and regulations inLSCs is kept limited as it implies standar-dized response to routine administrative

Table 2 Means, standard deviations and reliability coefficients for thestructural measurements

Scale Mean SDScaleAlpha

Centralization 0.82Technical coordination 2.25 0.56Finance 2.15 0.36Sport equipment 2.18 0.53Athletic programmes 2.00 0.43High performance planning 1.96 0.40Sport development planning 1.78 0.55Communication 2.37 0.55Human resource technical 2.09 0.46Human resource administrative 2.12 0.33Human resource athletes 1.65 0.70

Formalization 0.75Committees 1.24 0.43Decision making 1.75 0.92Sport equipment 1.05 0.22Athletic programmes 1.10 0.39Sport development planning 1.43 0.68Communication 1.13 0.34Human resource technical 1.43 0.64Human resource volunteers 1.54 0.55Human resource athletes 1.43 0.60

Specialization 0.64Sport equipment 1.08 0.54Public relations 1.21 0.47Committees 0.75 0.92Advertising 0.48 0.65Sponsoring 0.75 0.68Programme evaluation 0.62 0.75Administrative coordination 0.45 0.80Technical coordination 0.86 0.85External communication 0.89 0.73High performance finance 0.59 0.59Sport development finance 0.91 0.49

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 213

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

matters and hinders any political manipula-tion by the board. As Mintzberg (1979)claims, small and relatively young organiza-tions exhibit a simple structure design tocope better with coordination and operatewith increased flexibility in a simple ordynamic environment. However, the dis-advantages of the excessive centralization ofpower, especially in a sports organization,lies in that volunteers, with often insufficientknowledge, decide on important adminis-trative and technical matters (i.e., coaches’management, equipment-related decisions,programme management, etc). LSCs mayimprove their performance if they decen-tralize some of decision-making authority,which is related to the technical aspects oftheir operation.

The introduction of professional coachesin the LSCs was expected to have influencedsome form of specialization and formal-ization in their internal organizational struc-ture. The findings of Thibault et al. (1991)point to the higher standards that usuallysport professionals import into the organiza-tional environment. The results of this studyare not consistent with the latter observa-tions. It appears that the long involvement ofthe LSCs’ coaches, in part-time positions,have discouraged any significant division oflabour and establishment of written rulesand guidelines. Furthermore, the role andresponsibilities of each board member re-main undefined, few or no committees areformed to carry out specific administrativeor technical responsibilities and very oftencoaches hold no clear understanding of theirrole, responsibilities and performance ex-pectations. This manifests the need of LSCsto explore ways that would enhance theirboards of directors with technical and mana-gerial knowledge.

While some distinction between technicaland administrative tasks was apparent in thestructure of many LSCs, it was difficult todifferentiate the strategic apex from theoperating core (Frisby, 1985). The centrali-

zation of both, strategy and operation-oriented decisions, in the hands of thevoluntary boards hinders the LSCs’ perform-ance in the strategic domain. The predomi-nant involvement of volunteers in theday-to-day operation of the organization,very often obstructs them from reflecting onthe strategic issues of the organizations.Furthermore, it discourages the few pro-fessionals hired to suggest new ideas andeffective procedures regarding the programselection and implementation of the LSCs.This finding raises interesting questionsabout which are the proper activities of theboards of directors in a Greek local sportclub. In relation to this, the empirical work ofInglis (1997) indicated that board membersin Canadian provincial sport organizationsperceive their role as involving operationswith internal and external focuses and set-ting of policy. Nevertheless, questions aboutshared leadership or interdependent rela-tionships between paid and volunteer boardmember remain dominant especially in theCanadian relevant literature with inadequateempirical clarification (see Kikulis, 2000).

The examination of the strength and direc-tion of the association between the variablesemployed (see Table 3) reveals some inter-esting observations. Contingency-orientedtheorists claim that the organizational size ispositively related to a number of variablesincluding organizational age, formalization,specialization and decentralization. Simi-larly, older organizations manifest greaterspecialization and formalization, while in-creased specialization is governed with writ-ten rules and procedures (Pugh et al., 1968;Child, 1973).

The data in Table 3 reports positive sig-nificant correlation only between the organi-zational size variables (Var4, Var5, Var6 andVar7) and the variable of specialization(r rating from 0.52 to 0.54). This indicatesthat the structure of larger LSCs is charac-terized by some specialization compared tothose of the smaller ones. The employment

214 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table 3 Pearson bivariate correlation coefficients of the contextual, structural and performance variables (n = 41)

Var1 Var2 Var3 Var4 Var5 Var6 Var7 Var8 Var9 Var10 Var11 Var12

Var1: Total Resources 1.000Var2: Public Resources 0.918** 1.000Var3: Age 0.458** 0.589** 1.000Var4: Size1 0.528** 0.673** 0.357* 1.000Var5: Size2 0.864** 0.801** 0.317 0.714** 1.000Var6: Size3 0.604** 0.724** 0.352* 0.905** 0.746** 1.000Var7: Size4 0.500** 0.575** 0.590** 0.312* 0.447** 0.426** 1.000Var8: Performance1 0.554** 0.626** 0.356* 0.903** 0.728** 0.824** 0.308 1.000Var9: Performance2 0.160 0.245 0.159 0.568** 0.391* 0.633** 0.364* 0.620** 1.000Var10: Centralization 0.019 -0.027 0.080 -0.075 -0.128 -0.053 0.044 -0.074 -0.228 1.000Var11: Formalization 0.274 0.214 -0.045 0.233 0.339 0.270 0.184 0.222 0.141 0.035 1.000Var12: Specialization 0.426** 0.428** 0.411* 0.520** 0.545** 0.546** 0.531** 0.535** 0.428** 0.028 0.510** 1.000

* Significance at 0.05 level, ** Significance at 0.01 Level

Am

ateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs

215

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

of an increased number of coaches in thelarger LSCs may account for these relation-ships. However, in order to fully interpret thisissue, we need more complicated statisticaltests (i.e., cluster analysis), which enableidentification of homogeneous groups of or-ganizations in terms of their internal struc-ture.

Unlike the dimension of specialization, thedimension of formalization does not manifestany strong relationship with the size vari-ables. Formalization constitutes a rational re-sponse to cope with large numbers ofmembership, expansion in paid and volun-tary staff, budget increase and complexitygrowth. The results of this study contradictthis rationality. The amateur orientation ofthe voluntary management has delayed anyattempt at standardization in the daily func-tion of the LSCs. This may imply the need foran external impetus for changes towardsmore stabilized organizational processes andprocedures. However, in agreement with thefindings of Pugh et al. (1968), formalizationwas found to be positively correlated withspecialization (r = 0.51). This shows that thesports organizations, which hire a large num-ber of coaches, have introduced some formal-ization to cope better with the associatedcomplexity. This formalization refers prima-rily to rules and regulations regarding the se-lection and management of technical staffand athletes.

A striking finding is the absence of a strongrelationship between the sized-related vari-ables and the structural element of centrali-zation, as well as between specialization andcentralization. Despite the increased com-plexity that usually larger LSCs encounter,they manifest comparably the same level ofcentralization as the smaller organizations.The increased centralization in the large LSCsis explained, as Thibault et al. (1991) ob-served, by the threat that volunteers usuallyfeel as a result of the introduction of profes-sionals and their potential to challenge theorganizational structure. Furthermore, the re-

luctance of the volunteers to introduce chan-ges in the decision-making mechanisms of thesport clubs may stem from the long involve-ment of this group in leadership of these orga-nizations. Feeling part of the clubs’ history,they may face difficulties to acknowledge theneed for changes or to abandon the control ofthe organizations (Colyer, 2000).

The search of any correlation betweenstructural and performance variables re-vealed only one strong relationship. This re-ferred to the variables of performance andspecialization (r = 0.53 and 0.42), indicatingthat the LSCs which exhibit higher involve-ment in sports programs and in differentsports are characterized by increased spe-cialization. This is an expected finding, whichis attributed to the extended need that theseorganizations have for technical staff. Espe-cially, this division of labour associated withthese employees refers primarily to a broaddistinction among the roles and responsibili-ties of the chief coach, the coach of the com-petitive teams and the coach ofthe development teams.

Finally, the contextual variable of age wasstrongly correlated not only with the vari-ables of size and performance, but also withthe specialization variable (r ranging from0.35 to 0.59). This finding reinforces the long-standing postulation of previous researchersthat older organizations demonstrate in-creased size of operation and consequentlygreater specialization than ones which passthrough a formative stage. The older the LSCsare, the stronger their competitive positionfor recruiting new athletes, retaining talentedones and consequently securing public re-sources from the public or private sponsors.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The data presented in this study fails to con-firm basic organization theory-oriented hy-potheses, which suggest particular causalrelationships between contextual and struc-tural variables. The findings showed that de-

216 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

spite their age and size, LSCs have arrangedtheir operation around a simple, rather infor-mal structural design, which is characterizedby comparably low formalization and special-ization and high centralization. This type ofstructure is dominated by the amateur prac-tices of the boards of directors, which avoidseparating formally the authority for overallmanagement and policy, from the responsibil-ity for policy implementation. As a result,LSCs in this study operate on direct and cas-ual interactions between individuals andgroups who follow trial and error proce-dures.

The internal pressures associated withstaff size or budgetary growth has failed toencourage acquisition of a more formal struc-ture. The evidence showed that the long in-volvement of technical staff in the operationof the LSCs has resulted in insignificant struc-tural arrangements towards decentralizationand formalization, especially in the technicalsector of their activity. One plausible assump-tion is that this is consistent with pressuresfor institutionally prescribed structures andforms, which enable easier access to publicresources. An alternative interpretation ofthe latter finding is that the LSCs’ structuralarrangements are reflective of the dominantvalues and beliefs of the voluntary boards,which constitute the most powerful constitu-ency (which is taken for granted) (Colyer,2000; Kikulis, 2000; Slack and Thibault, 1988).However, further research is required to ex-plore in depth the institutional role and prac-tices dominating the external environment ofthe LSCs, and the various sets of dominantvalues and beliefs held by the most influentialorganizational groups.

The indicative performance data points tothe difficulties of the LSCs in setting up inte-grated systems, enabling service provision inextended sport memberships. The functionof these organizations is also characterizedby activity in a restricted number of sportsand levels of competition, which only inciden-tally meet the increasing sports-oriented

needs of the local community. This may in-dicate that Greek sport clubs face problemsto adopt a planning model and basic manage-rial practices, which specifies strategic aimsand policy objectives in relation to the mar-ket served. This is explained by the clubs’voluntary nature of operation in which con-siderations of efficiency and variety of serv-ice choice may be of a secondary concern(Koski, 1998).

In light of the significant public and privateinvestments in sport facilities and programsfor the 2004 Olympic games, the Greek sportindustry is in search of a new identity withinthe coordinates of the non-profit, the profitmaking and the public sector. Within the vol-untary sport sector there are large numbersof sport clubs that play an important role inthe provision of sporting opportunities in thelocal sector. However, the current voluntarystructural arrangements of the local sportclubs seem to encounter major problems tosecure the necessary administrative infra-structure required for the provision of sportservices. This may have implications for pro-gramme design and implementation, as allGreek national sport federations depend onthe work of their registered LSCs to identifytalented athletes and provide systematictraining and support (Papadimitriou, 1994).Furthermore, the results raise some generalconcerns about the extent to which the vol-untary sport provision represents a flexibleand effective means of adapting sport servi-ces to meet local need. Whether it can play asignificant role in promoting equality in op-portunity in sport and in enhancing self-de-termination in local communities, bydeveloping choices for self-expression andparticipation, remains an open question.

This study shares limitations which stemfrom the non-probability sample of sport or-ganizations. It is important to note that, dueto lack of random sampling procedures, theselected sample of voluntary sport clubs failsto represents all Greek voluntary sports clubsfunded by the state. Although the sampled

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 217

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

organizations have similar mandate andstructures and their strategic objective is toprovide instructional, competitive and elitesport programming, there may be some dif-ferences between the particular measures ofthis sample of sport clubs and others, whichfocus exclusively on instructional and recrea-tional sport programs. This implies that thefindings of this study have some limitations interms of their generalizability to the popula-tion of Greek voluntary sport clubs funded bythe state and thus they should be treated withcaution.

In the context of increasing complexity sur-rounding the LSCs’ internal and external envi-ronment, these findings urge for furtherreplication across a wider sample of Greekvoluntary sports clubs. This will enable theconfirmation of the structural arrangementsand the contextual parameters and their im-pact on the organizational performance of thespecific type of organizations. More specifi-cally, a more in-depth examination is requiredon the structuring and process of the volun-tary board of directors of the LSCs, to shedlight on their actual roles and competencies.The most prevalent questions about theircurrent function relate to the clubs’ leader-ship, the values and dominant culture, the or-ganizational change and the externaldependence for resources and politicalpower. Additionally, our understanding aboutthe internal functioning of the Greek volun-tary sports clubs can be enhanced if researchis undertaken on the dynamics of the relation-ship between boards and technical staff (In-glis, 1997).

REFERENCES

Bryson, A. (1989) Research Methods and Organiza-tional Studies, London, Unwin Hyman.

Child, J. (1973) Organizational structure, environ-ment and performance: the role of the strate-gic choice, Sociology, 6, 1–22.

Colyer, S. (2000) Organizational culture in selectedwestern Australian sport organizations, Jour-nal of Sport Management, 14, 321– 341.

DeVellis, R. (1991) Scale Development: Theory andApplications, Newbury Park, CA, Sage.

Frisby, W. (1985) A conceptual framework formeasuring the organizational structure andcontext of voluntary service organizations, So-ciety and Leisure, 8, 605–613.

Greek Government (May 1999) The new legislationfor sport, 2725, Ministry of Sport, Athens, Na-tional Publications.

Hage, J. and Aiken, M. (1967) Program change andorganizational properties: a comparative anal-ysis, American Journal of Sociology, 72,503–519.

Handy, C. (1990) Understanding Voluntary Organi-zations, London, Penguin Books.

Horch, H.D. (1998) Self-destroying processes ofsport clubs in Germany, European Journal ofSport Management, 5, 46–58.

Inglis, S. (1997) Roles of the board in amateur sportorganizations, Journal of Sport Management,11, 160–176.

Koski, P. and Heikkala, J. (1998) Professionaliza-tional and organizations of mixed rationales:the case of Finnish national sport organiza-tions, European Journal of Sport Management,5, 7–29.

Kikulis, M.L. (2000) Continuity and change in gov-ernance and decision making in national sportorganizations: institutional explanations, Jour-nal of Sport Management, 14, 293–320.

Kikulis, M.L., Slack, T., Hinings, C.R. and Zimmer-mann, A.K. (1989) A structural taxonomy ofamateur sport organizations, Journal of SportManagement, 3, 129–150.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967) Organiza-tion and Environment, Boston, Harvard Univer-sity, Division of Research, Graduate School ofBusiness Administration.

McPherson, B. (1975) Past, present and future per-spectives for research in sport sociology, In-ternational Review of Sport Sociology, 10,55–72.

Mintzberg, H. (1979) The Structuring of Organiza-tions: A Synthesis of the Research, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Papadimitriou, D. (1994) The organizational effec-tiveness of Greek national sports organiza-tions: an empirical application of the multipleconstituency approach, Unpublished Doc-toral Dissertation, University of Sheffield.

218 Papadimitriou

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014

Pitters, R (1990) Power and Control in an AmateurSport Organization, International Review ofSport Sociology, 25, 309–319.

Pugh, D.S., Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R. and Turner,C. (1968) Dimensions of organizational struc-ture, Administrative Science Quarterly, 13,65–105.

Slack, T. (1985) The bureaucratization of a volun-tary sport organization, International Reviewof Sport Sociology, 20, 145–163.

Slack, T. (1997) Understanding Sport Organizations,Campaign, IL, Human Kinetics.

Slack, T. and Hinings, B. (1994) Institutional pres-sures and isomorphic change, OrganizationalStudies, 15, 803–827.

Theodoraki, E. (1996) An organizational analysis ofthe national governing bodies of sport in Brit-ain, unpublished PhD., Loughborough Univer-sity.

Theodoraki, E. and Henry, I. (1993) Organizationalstructures and management processes in thenational governing bodies of sport in England,paper presented in third international confer-ence of the Leisure Studies Association,Loughborough University.

Thibault, L., Slack, T. and Hinings, B. (1991) Pro-fessionalism, structures and systems: the im-pact of professional staff on voluntary sportorganizations, International Review of SportSociology, 26, 83–99.

Amateur structures and voluntary Greek sports clubs 219

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

33 0

8 D

ecem

ber

2014