AStudy of Organizational Effectiveness for National Olympic Sporting Organizations

10.1177/0899764005279512Shilbury, MooreOrganizational Effectiveness

A Study of Organizational Effectiveness forNational Olympic Sporting Organizations

David ShilburyKathleen A. MooreDeakin University

This study applies the competing values approach (CVA) of organizational effectivenessto a sample of nonprofit Australian national Olympic sporting organizations (NOSOs).The purpose of the study was to determine the psychometric properties of the subscalesdeveloped within each of the four quadrants composing the CVA. Two hundred eighty-nine constituents from 10 NOSOs participated in this study. Initial factor analysisresulted in six of the eight theoretically derived cells in the CVA each yielding one reliablefactor. These were Flexibility, Resources, Planning, Productivity, Availability of Infor-mation, and Stability. The other two cells, Skilled Workforce and Cohesive Workforce,each produced a two-factor structure. To understand the relationship between these mani-fest factors (cells) and organizational effectiveness, a confirmatory factor analysis wasconducted, which revealed that the rational-goal model, comprising Productivity andPlanning, was the critical determinant of effectiveness in NOSOs.

Keywords: organizational effectiveness; competing values; national sporting organi-zations; professionalization

Until the late 1970s, sport administration in Australia was the sole province ofvolunteers, both in terms of decision making and implementation of sportsactivities and programs. With the intervention of government at all levels andthe subsequent infusion of financial resources, it quickly became apparentthat volunteers could no longer dedicate the requisite time to determine pol-icy as well as implement programs. The result has been a transition frompurely volunteer-administered organizations to organizations managed increas-ingly by professional staff supported by a cadre of volunteers (Mills, 1994;Shilbury, 1993, 2001). This transition is similar to that experienced in Canadaand other parts of the world (Enjolras, 2002; Koski, 1995; Thibault, Slack, &Hinings, 1991). By the mid-1990s, the Australian Sports Commission, statedepartments of sport and recreation, and many sports had begun to recognizethe need for improvements in the overall management of sport structures,

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, Month 2006 5-38DOI: 10.1177/0899764005279512© 2006 Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

5

systems, and governance, including mechanisms to ensure accountability andeffectiveness.

National Olympic sporting organizations (NOSOs) in Australia are respon-sible for the provision of sports services to the community. This includes thedelivery of programs designed to foster participation and those required toidentify and develop elite athletes. Typically, the structure of NOSOs mirrorsAustralia’s federated model of government in which state sporting organiza-tions make up the NOSO and are predominantly responsible for the deliveryof sport services in their state. NOSOs are nonprofit organizations relying onfederal and state government grants, supplemented by revenues from mem-berships, competition, and program fees, and, depending on the size and pro-file of the organization, sponsorship. As a consequence of the conversion fromvolunteer-administered entities to professionally structured and managedorganizations supported by volunteers, governance practices by these non-profits became blurred struggling to define the roles of volunteers in relationto professionally appointed staff (Hoye & Auld, 2001; Shilbury, 2001). Embed-ded in this transition is the need to develop more sophisticated mechanisms toimplement the dual governance functions of conformance and performance,and therefore the need for accountability and measures of effectiveness.

This study is based on the work of organization theorists Quinn andRohrbaugh (1981, 1983), who proposed the competing values approach (CVA)to measure organizational effectiveness. Their work is underpinned by recog-nizing that different, and at times competing values drive management deci-sion making. The essence of Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s model is that “an organi-zation is effective when it satisfies multiple performance criteria based on fourvalue sets” (Buenger, Daft, Conlon, & Austin, 1996, p. 558). The CVA is there-fore based on three dimensions of organizational effectiveness that recognizethe need for multiple performance criteria. These dimensions include thecapacity to measure organizational structure and preferences for flexibilityand control, and focus, in terms of an organization’s emphasis on people or theorganization itself. In addition, the CVAmeasures the means and ends of eachstructural orientation through four quadrants, including the human relationsmodel, internal process model, open systems model, and rational-goal model.The theoretical framework on which this study was predicated is discussed inmore detail in subsequent sections where we overview some of the methodol-ogies used to measure organizational effectiveness.

Understanding and measuring organizational effectiveness in NOSOs is animportant outcome of increased government funding coupled with height-ened commercial activity. Increased revenues and commercial activity broad-ly highlight a potential clash of values where formerly, pure nonprofit volun-tary organizations typically valued the intrinsic benefits of participationabove the need to maximize success at national and international competi-tions. It also illustrates, in the contemporary sports environment, the potentialfor competing values within NOSOs in relation to the provision of resources tosupport elite athlete programs at the expense of programs designed to encour-

6 Shilbury, Moore

age and boost participation in sport broadly. Both these goals are central to therole and purpose of NOSOs. For example, an additional $AUS135 million over6 years was provided to sporting organizations to assist NOSOs prepare theirathletes for the 2000 Olympic Games (Australian Sports Commission, 1994).Moreover, following Australia’s outstanding success in winning 58 medalsand finishing fourth on the medal table at the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games,the federal government announced in 2001 further emoluments to Austra-lian sport through the injection of an additional $AUS161.1 million over 4years, bringing the 4-year commitment to $AUS547 million. Of the additional$AUS161.1 million, $AUS122.2 million was directed to elite athlete supportand $AUS32 million to support participation initiatives.

Herman and Renz (1999) would argue, based on the struggle for limitedgovernment revenues, that this automatically creates a sense of comparison interms of effectiveness. Effectiveness is therefore an “objective reality or socialconstruction” that is also multidimensional and for nonprofits can never be“reducible to a single measure” (p. 110) as is evidenced by the multiple goalspursued by NOSOs. Measuring success in nonprofits has been described bySawhill and Williamson (2001) as “mission impossible,” largely becausenonprofits have not traditionally relied on “profit” as a primary measure ofperformance. The nonprofit literature (Bryson, 1995; Drucker, 1990; Forbes,1998; Oster, 1995) is consistent in recognizing the difficulties of measuring suc-cess and by default the mission that nonprofits seeks to achieve. This literaturenotes the need for multiple measures (Forbes, 1998; Sawhill & Williamson,2001), and consequently, this article reports the use of a multidimensionalframework designed to measure effectiveness in a specific cohort of nonprofitorganizations.

Productivity, for instance, forms one of eight measures of effectivenessused in this study but cannot be measured according to its traditional eco-nomic definition, which views productivity as output per worker hour. Unlikemanufacturing industries, for example, where daily productivity can be mea-sured and related to worker hours, nonprofit hours worked do not necessarilydirectly equate to daily or monthly gains in terms of measurable goods pro-duced. Nonprofit “currency is typically measured through programs and insocial-good terms and is often more difficult to neatly quantify. In this study,for instance, productivity is one of eight measures of effectiveness specificallyrecognizing goal achievement rather than efficiencies between worker hoursand output. Paradoxically, the CVA acknowledges and reinforces the elusivegoal of measuring the effectiveness of nonprofits while endeavoring to developa framework to achieve this goal in respect to NOSOs. The CVA accommo-dates multidimensionality and is therefore suited to the analysis of nonprofitNOSOs.

Australian sport’s progress into a more professional era of management isreplete with contradiction and paradoxically indifferent thinking in relationto acceptance of business practice. For example, sport’s intrinsically attractiveelements of play, leisure-based culture, and amateur and nonprofit orientations

Organizational Effectiveness 7

have served to impede the acceptance of effectiveness, efficiency, and man-agement practice as necessary components of organizational life. Such effi-ciency has clearly not been an integral part of the sports culture in Australiansport for the greater part of its history (Shilbury, 1993, 2000; Stewart-Weeks,1997). Ongoing professionalization of the sector since the 1980s has slowlyeroded this thinking, and as a consequence, the practice of determining effec-tiveness becomes paramount as increasing amounts of public money are pro-vided to Australian national sporting organizations (NSOs).

The question of why one organization is more effective than another is asold as organizational research itself (Lewin & Minton, 1986). It is this question,addressed at the individual organizational level, that is important yet difficultto answer through an effective research method and related instrument. It isalso a question that can only be asked and answered once a valid and reliableinstrument has been established. Ultimately, this is the goal of effectivenessresearch, but in this article the focus is on stage one of this process—identify-ing a valid and reliable instrument through psychometric analysis.

This study, therefore, operationalizes the CVA for Australian NOSOs iden-tifying quadrant and, specifically, cell-relevant scales using principal compo-nent analyses followed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to better under-stand the impact of quadrant variables on the organization as a whole. Inessence, this study extends Kalliath, Bluedorn, and Gillespie’s (1999) work bymoving from an analysis of the four-quadrant framework composing the CVAto developing scales specific to a common group of organizations and examin-ing the psychometric properties of individual cells constituting the CVA.Although there has been some limited work in examining the psychometricproperties of scales used to operationalize the CVA (Buenger et al., 1996;Kalliath et al., 1999; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991), none of this work has been spe-cific to sport. In fact, studies in this area are limited. This study preceded the2000 Olympic Games, and the researchers believed that NOSOs were a homo-geneous cluster of organizations attuned to the imperatives of organizationaleffectiveness by virtue of their focus on preparations for Sydney 2000.

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Organizational effectiveness is the prime dependent variable in manyorganizational contexts (Cameron, 1986; Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1991), andits multidimensionality, according to Chelladurai and Haggerty (1991), is thecause of conceptual ambiguities and measurement difficulties. What consti-tutes effectiveness is in itself a paradox. There appears to be no universalagreement on precisely what organizational effectiveness means, as organiza-tional effectiveness means different things to different people. Although thereis no definitive meaning of organizational effectiveness, the majority ofauthors agree that organizational effectiveness requires measuring multiplecriteria and the evaluation of different organizational functions using different

8 Shilbury, Moore

characteristics, and it should also consider both means (processes) and ends(outcomes).

This conceptual and measurement ambiguity is consistent with efforts toassess success in nonprofit organizations. As Sawhill and Williamson (2001)stated, “One of the key components of the business model continues to eludenonprofits: they have been unable to duplicate the crisp, straightforward waythat businesses measure their performance” (p. 371). In other words, neatquantitative financial outcomes are not necessarily indicative of nonprofitsuccess nor a surrogate for having achieved the mission, or charter, of nonprofits.Kanter and Summers (1987) for example, noted that the charter of a nonprofitis often grounded in “societal values about which there may be little or no con-sensus” (p. 154). If this is the case, determining whose view of effectiveness isimportant becomes a significant issue and central to the use of constituents orstakeholders to measure effectiveness. This is consistent with the social con-structionist view espoused by Herman and Renz (1999), which in effect sup-ports the proposition that constituent groups collectively ascertain the impor-tance of the societal values that create the common cause for why the entityexists. In other words, nonprofit effectiveness is a socially constructed view bykey constituent groups as to areas that the organization must be deemed effec-tive to have satisfactorily responded to its mission. An overview of the maintheories of measuring organizational effectiveness follows next, but is note-worthy for its early focus on one-dimensional measures slowly evolving torecognize the multidimensional nature of effectiveness. As already indicated,the evolution to a multidimensional framework to measure effectiveness isconsistent with the collective need to ascertain and measure the key outcomesof nonprofits.

Theorists have postulated four approaches to measuring organizationaleffectiveness. The first is the goal attainment approach (Price, 1968) and ischaracterized by an identification of goals to measure performance. There areweaknesses in the goal approach, as the right goals require identification, andthey should be measurable and time bound. The goal attainment approachassumes that organizations are deliberate, rational, and goal-seeking entities.Early studies in the area of organizational effectiveness of sporting organiza-tions used the goal approach and tended to focus on, or note, the potentialimportance of win-loss records as a measure of effectiveness (Frisby, 1986).Clearly, this approach may have some merit for elite-level sport, but at themass participatory level and in the totality of organizational responsibilities itis less useful. The weakness in this approach is clearly manifest in the sportingenvironment. That is, the propensity to measure effectiveness in terms of goldmedals and success at international competitions is too great to overlook.Much of sport’s history is cluttered with administrators’ myopic views ofsuccess.

The second framework is the system resource approach (Yuchtman & Sea-shore, 1967). As is the case with systems theory in general, this view of effec-tiveness focused on an organization’s ability to attract resources to ensure


viability. Attracting necessary resources and maintaining a harmonious rela-tionship with the environment is central to the application of the systemsmodel. In the case of national and state sporting organizations, the true natureof this interrelationship is “manufactured,” as public money is guaranteed toensure organizational stability. Equally, sporting organizations have typicallybeen single-minded in their search for sponsorship dollars, often at theexpense of broader integrated marketing strategies. Once again, this approachhighlights the ability to measure some inputs and outputs, but this is notnecessarily a measure of effectiveness.

Frisby (1986) extended the research in this area by integrating the goalapproach and the systems resource approach. Using the goal model, the worldranking for each sporting organization’s Olympic team or teams, the percen-tile ranking of each Olympic team, and the most recent change in world rank-ing was used. System resource issues explored included an examination of theoperating budgets and increase in funding from Sport Canada (federal gov-ernment department responsible for sport in Canada). Frisby’s study pro-duced weak positive correlations between variables of the goal and systemsresources model. Specifically, the study showed that larger operating budgetstended to be associated with successful results in international competition.Chelladurai, Szyszlo, and Haggerty (1987) also investigated the effectivenessof Canadian NSOs employing the systems resource approach. The theoreticalframework of this study was “derived by superimposing the distinct domainsof elite and mass sport on the systemic input-throughput-output cycle toyield six dimensions of effectiveness—input-mass, input-elite, throughput-mass, throughput-elite, output-mass, and output-elite” (p. 112). Although theempirical results did not completely support the theoretical conceptualizationof NSO effectiveness, the study represented an important attempt to betterunderstand the operations of Canadian NSOs.

The third framework is the internal process approach (Steers, 1977) and rec-ognizes a shift in thinking; thinking that suggests that the dynamic betweenemployees is an important effectiveness criterion. Factors such as trust, inte-grated systems, and smooth functioning are viewed as more accurate mea-sures of organizational effectiveness compared to, for example, the goalattainment approach.

The emphasis on human resources leads to the fourth framework, knownas the strategic constituencies approach. Emanating from the work of Con-nolly, Conlon, and Deutsch (1980), the identification of the key stakeholder’sview of effectiveness is considered paramount. Each constituent group mayhave a different interest in the way the organization performs. Equally, eachconstituent group provided support in some way as an employee, boardmember, sponsor, player, official, or volunteer. The actions of the constituentgroups are critical to this approach, as is their perception of effectiveness.

Koski (1995) was able to integrate the goal and systems models to measurethe effectiveness of Finnish sporting clubs. In addition, Koski integrated twoother approaches: the internal process approach and the strategic constituen-

10 Shilbury, Moore

cies approach. Koski found an overall positive relationship between the goaland systems resource approaches. Categorizing members as resources, Koskifound that the number of members an organization had affected nearly everyother area. Chelladurai and Haggerty (1991) also used the strategic constitu-encies approach to study effectiveness of sporting organizations. In this study,the authors attempted to develop a tool for measuring the effectiveness ofCanadian national sport organizations. Constituents forming the basis of thisstudy included Sport Canada, voluntary administrators, and professionaladministrators. Effectiveness variables used included elite and participationrankings by Sport Canada and measures of job satisfaction and perceivedeffectiveness as rated by the constituent groups. A notable finding from thestudy was the difference in effectiveness perceptions between volunteer andprofessional staff. The volunteers, in effect, viewed their organization to bemore effective than did the professional staff.

Morrow and Chelladurai (1992) also used the multiple constituents approachto examine effectiveness dimensions in Synchro Canada. Significantly, thisstudy was directed at examining effectiveness at the individual organiza-tional level, unlike many other studies where aggregated data have been thebasis for determining effectiveness dimensions for a relatively homogeneousgroup of organizations. The dimensions used in this study were a compositeof process and structural characteristics commonly found within the organi-zational theory literature. For example, process variables included activitiesto ensure resources, work-flow activities, and control activities, to name a few.Structural variables revolved around the traditional elements of formaliza-tion, centralization, and complexity. Morrow and Chelladurai were able toconfirm the subscale structure of their questionnaire; however, the signifi-cance here is the ongoing search for a reliable and valid set of criteria with thecapacity to be applied to organizations of a similar type and function. Thisonly serves to highlight the difficulty in operationalizing and measuringeffectiveness.

More recently, Papadimitriou and Taylor (2000) reported the identificationof a five-factor structure of organizational effectiveness representing the per-spectives of constituent groups from within Hellenic NSOs. These results fol-lowed an extensive process of constituent identification, scale developmentbased on semistructured interviews, and a panel of expert reviewers to ascer-tain the content validity of the initial scale. A 40-item scale was subsequentlyused to ascertain the common dimensions of effectiveness to constituentgroups associated with Hellenic NSOs. Although 11 constituent groups wereidentified, 6 were classified as major and formed the basis for identifying therespondents used in this study. “Exploratory factor analysis was used todelineate the underlying dimensional structure of the 40-item inventory ofeffectiveness” (p. 32). The five resulting dimensions included (a) caliber of theboard and external liaisons, (b) interest in athletes, (c) internal procedures, (d)long-term planning, and (e) sports science support. Papadimitriou and Taylornoted that


The findings from the factor analysis substantiate the general premisethat organisational effectiveness is a multi-dimensional construct. How-ever, the five effectiveness factors extracted in the context of HellenicNSOs are only partially consistent with previous measures suggested byChelladurai et al. (1987), Chelladurai and Haggerty (1991), Morrow andChelladurai (1992) and Vail (1985) in reference to Canadian NSOs. Forexample, previous studies have described process characteristics (e.g.,work flow, personnel relations, resources, programming, planning, etc.)of NSOs as contributing to effectiveness. This was also found in the pres-ent study. However, the investigation of the Hellenic NSOs reveals twoadditional factors that have not been noted in the Canadian work. Thesereflect the critical role of the voluntary boards and the satisfaction ofnational teams athletes’ expectations and requirements while participat-ing in the preparation of national teams. (pp. 37-38)

Although Chelladurai and Haggerty (1991), Koski (1995), and Papadimitriouand Taylor (2000) all employed the strategic constituencies approach, limitedresearch reporting the use of the CVA in studying the effectiveness of sportingorganizations was identified in the literature. The outcome of the Papadimitriouand Taylor study is, in effect, a statement about effectiveness criteria relevantto NSOs, rather than an individual analysis of effectiveness of each NSO.

The strategic constituencies approach has been the precursor to the CVAand it is therefore logical to extend the measurement of effectiveness incorpo-rating constituent groups within the three dimensions composing the CVA. Inaddition, and as noted earlier in this article, contradiction and paradox besetsporting organizations in Australia, as the forces for change have been obvi-ous during the 1980s and 1990s. On one hand, increased government fundingwas demanding more accountability and professionalization in terms ofmanagement practice, and on the other hand, many national sporting organi-zations remained grounded in the traditional amateur values that had under-pinned Australian sport for most of its history. With paradox and contradic-tion in NOSOs evident, together with the conceptual and measurementambiguity associated with nonprofits, using the CVAto measure effectivenessin individual sporting organizations is further reinforced.

CVA

The competing values model was developed to explain differences in thevalues underlying organizational effectiveness models and operates by com-bining two values in each of three areas. Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981)reported results of an initial exploratory study in which they invited sevenexperts with proven research interests in organization theory to reduce Camp-bell’s (1977) often-cited list of 30 indices of effectiveness. In this study theauthors reported that

12 Shilbury, Moore

The method of investigation . . . although multivariate, was a radicaldeparture from previous factor analytic efforts employed to derivedimensions of organizational effectiveness. Here the focus was on thecognitive structure of the organizational theorist, not the organization.The question posed was, “How do individual researchers actually thinkabout the construct of ‘effectiveness?’” Multidimensional scaling wasused to approach this conceptual problem, as the basis for developing aunified set of indicators of effective organizations. (p. 126)

The purpose of Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1981) study was to “reduce the listto contain only singular constructs” (p. 129). Experts were then asked to makeall possible pairings between the remaining 16 constructs. The result, and theCVA framework, is based on two axes, which are organizational structure,with opposing preferences being flexibility and control, and concern for an or-ganization’s focus in terms of its emphasis on people or the organization itself.The model, as shown in Figure 1, operates by combining the two axes as wellas the means and ends for each of the eight cells to produce four quadrants.

• Quadrant 1: Human relations model—people focus and flexible struc-ture (2 cells);

• Quadrant 2: Internal process model—people focus and stable (control)structure (2 cells);

• Quadrant 3: Open systems model—organizational focus and flexiblestructure (2 cells);

• Quadrant 4: Rational-goal model—organizational focus and stable (con-trol) structure (2 cells).

In 1983, Quinn and Rohrbaugh reported results of a primary study basedon the initial exploratory work. In the second study, a much larger, diversegroup (45 of 76 authors completed study) was used to follow the same proce-dures as those used in the exploratory study. Results from the second study re-inforced initial study findings. Slack (1997) noted that

the strength of the CVA is that it takes into account the paradoxicalnature of organizational effectiveness. It also acknowledges that differ-ent constituents use different types of criteria in their assessment of anorganization, that some of these criteria may be conflicting, and thatsome may change over time. (p. 34)

Slack also noted that “the biggest problem with the CVAis determining whichconstituents are important to an organization, and then measuring the criteriathey value and use in determining the effectiveness of their organization”(p. 34). This also has the added benefit of identifying groups most likely tobenefit from the social impact (Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1999) of sportingorganizations.


Despite this limitation, the CVA has been used extensively in the study oforganizations in a variety of ways. It has been used as originally designed tomeasure effectiveness and also as a diagnostic tool in the change process(Quinn & McGrath, 1982). The CVAhas also been used to study organizationalculture (Colyer, 2000; Quinn & McGrath, 1985; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991;Zammuto & Krakower, 1991), to investigate similarities and differences ofmanagerial roles at various levels of organizational hierarchy (DiPadova &Faerman, 1993), and by Wolfe, Slack, and Rose-Hearn (1993) to examine healthpromotion programs. In the case of Wolfe et al., the flexibility of the CVA wasdemonstrated, as the researchers’ primary purpose in using the CVA was to“determine the relative importance of program objectives from the perspec-tive of senior management and of program professionals” (p. 194). For exam-

14 Shilbury, Moore

Flexibility

Control

Organization People

Means : Flexibility

Ends : Acquisition of Resources

Ends : Productivity

Means : Planning Ends : Stability

Means : Availability of Information

Ends : Skilled Work Force

Means : Cohesive Workforce

Human Relations Model

Open Systems

Model

Internal Process Model

Rational-Goal Model

Figure 1. Four Models of Organizational EffectivenessSource: Robbins & Barnwell (1998).

ple, managers rated program objectives such as improving morale and cohe-sion (human relations), increasing profit and contributing to productivity(rational goal), increasing flexibility and improving external image (open sys-tems), and improving workforce stability and continuity (internal processes).There were other measures within each quadrant, but this demonstrates thecapacity of the CVAto encapsulate the major theoretical themes underpinningresearch in organizational effectiveness.

More specific to organizational effectiveness was Kalliath et al.’s (1999)extension of Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1981, 1983) original work to “(a) test theCVF [competing values framework] . . . and (b) refine a scale that identifies theextent to which managers and other organizational constituents use theframework’s criteria to evaluate organizational effectiveness” (Quinn &Rohrbaugh, 1981, p. 143). One of the underlying assumptions of the CVAis thedegree to which quadrants share key dimensions of flexibility and control andan internal focus on people and an external view of the organization and itsinteractions with the wider environment. In other words, the CVA endeavorsto ascertain the degree to which control and flexibility coexist within an orga-nization. This measurement is manifested through each of the two cells in eachquadrant, and in the case of the human relations and open systems quadrants,each shares a degree of flexibility. In the case of opposite quadrants, forinstance, open systems and internal processes, the expectation is that thesemodels do not share common superordinate values (Kalliath et al., 1999).

Kalliath et al. (1999) acknowledged the previous evidence provided byQuinn and Spreitzer (1991) supporting the psychometric properties of thecompeting values framework, noting that their work extended Quinn andSpreitzer’s via the use of structural equation modeling. The researchers foundsupport for “the four-factor structure of the CVF” (Kalliath et al., 1999, p. 154),but more important, noted that

These four dimensions—open systems, rational goal, internal process,and human relations—may be used individually or together as distinctdimensions of effectiveness, but it is essential to think of the organizationeffectiveness construct as consisting of four distinct variables instead ofone. The relatively small correlations between these latent variables sug-gest that we would seriously compromise accuracy if we combinedthese subscales into a single omnibus effectiveness factor. (p. 155)

Significantly, this present research recognizes Kalliath et al.’s (1999) viewthat the CVA construct is better developed as separate scales within four dis-tinct quadrants rather than as one single omnibus scale. In fact, this study ex-tends this thinking further by examining separately the validity of the eightcells (scales) composing the CVA.

The reason for pursuing the CVA is best described by Cameron’s (1986)observation that “because effectiveness is inherently tied to paradox, the con-struct of effectiveness can be understood in only a limited way without


considering the simultaneous contradictions” (p. 549). Described by Cameronas the effectiveness paradox, these competing values serve to form the baseupon which studies of organizational effectiveness have been undertakenusing the CVA. The extent to which sport exhibits these contradictions hasalready been referred to in this article but typically includes tensions betweenprofessional staff and volunteers, support for elite athletes versus promotingmass participatory programs, the need for both government support and pri-vate funding, and the contradictions between nonprofit and commercialcultures.

The CVA to organizational effectiveness has also been adopted because ofits capacity to encompass both the means undertaken and the ends achievedby an organization (Narayanan & Nath, 1993). It also allows for views held byconstituents and the need for these to be satisfied, a particularly importantcharacteristic given sport’s capacity to bring together people from diversecommunities and its potential social impact on these communities. For exam-ple, such diversity can be found among players, coaches, officials, boardmembers, staff, and state affiliates. Social impact occurs through the opportu-nities to participate and to meet others in the community, at the same time pro-viding an outlet for physical competition. The CVA acknowledges that effec-tiveness can be a subjective evaluation and that constituents viewing anorganization as effective are vital to its operation.

The purpose of this study was to develop a psychometrically sound set ofscales (for each of the eight cells) within the construct of the CVA. In otherwords, the goal was to operationalize the CVA specifically for the purpose ofmeasuring effectiveness in NOSOs. Ultimately, as an outcome of this study, apsychometrically sound instrument could be applied as a diagnostic tool toeach NOSO in Australia.

METHOD

SAMPLE

The population for this study consisted of 28 NOSOs (summer sports) andtheir constituencies in Australia. The size of each NOSO varied from thehigher profile sports of swimming and basketball to the smaller sports of bad-minton, judo, and synchronized swimming, with the number of constituentstherefore varying between 20 and 150 people. Of the 28 NOSOs, leaders from12 organizations indicated an interest in participating in the study, with 10ultimately completing study requirements. In addition to those sports notedabove, canoeing, baseball, softball, equestrian, and table tennis participated inthis study. A total of 694 surveys were mailed out to members of various con-stituent groups as identified by each of the 10 national Olympic sports. Areturn rate of 41.6% was achieved (n = 289), with respondent return rates ineach individual sport shown in Table 1. Identification of all individuals from

16 Shilbury, Moore

constituent groups required extensive consultation with senior executivesfrom all participating organizations and ultimately included board members,paid employees, subcommittee members, player, coaches and officials, staterepresentatives, sponsors, and government agencies.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT

To operationalize the dimensions of the CVAin national sporting organiza-tions, a process of qualitative and quantitative analysis was undertaken. Toensure that the national sporting organizations were not exposed to thisresearch to avoid precluding them from this study, semistructured interviewswere conducted with six executive directors from state sporting organizationsin Victoria, Australia. The purpose of the semistructured interview was toidentify their major constituent groups and the criteria best suited to measur-ing organizational effectiveness in national and state sporting organizations.The state sporting organizations, as affiliates of the NSOs, mirror the aims andoutcomes of NOSOs. It was reasonable to postulate that constituent groupidentification would be similar (as was the case), and that the elementsdesigned to measure effectiveness in each of the eight cells would be commen-surate with NSOs. Papadimitriou and Taylor (2000) adopted a similar approachin their study of Hellenic sporting organizations by asking general managersto cite all the groups the organization dealt with in order to carry out the pur-poses of the NSO. They also formulated the initial scales from semi- structuredinterviews.

The semistructured interview with each executive director was designed toascertain the common constituent groups associated with each organizationand to identify the measures of effectiveness within each of the eight cellscomposing the CVA. In other words, the interviews were structured aroundthe eight cells of the CVA. Common themes and statements were identifiedduring the review of data, ultimately leading to a series of statements in eachcell. Each statement was formulated for the purpose of allowing constituents


Table 1. Constituent Return Rates

National Olympic Sporting Organization No. Sent No. Returned %

Australian Canoeing 50 18 36Australian Baseball Federation 28 18 64.3Australian Softball Federation 102 45 44.1Swimming Australia 150 72 48Badminton Australia 44 16 36.4Basketball Australia 39 23 58.9Equestrian Federation of Australia 49 26 53.1Judo Federation of Australia 95 41 43.2Synchronized Swimming Australia 19 9 47.4Table Tennis Australia 93 21 22.6

to indicate their perceptions of effectiveness on a 5-point Likert-type scale foreach of the eight cells. The individual scales for each cell contributed towardthe overall perception of effectiveness, and each cell contributed to a measurein its respective quadrant leading to the potential to ascertain the extent towhich bipolar opposites coexist, and ultimately, chart effectiveness across allfour quadrants.

The instrument to result from the semistructured interviews contained 66items spread across the eight cells composing the CVA(see Tables 2 and 3). The66 items were then subject to review by a panel of three academic sport man-agement experts, followed by formal pilot testing. The pilot phase involvedeight NSOs (non-Olympic sports), which allowed the testing of both constitu-ent group identification and the structure and design of the instrument. Minorchanges to wording resulted from the panel review, and as a result of the pilottesting, refinements were made to the constituent group classifications andalterations were made to the wording of some questions, but none of the origi-nal items was removed from the instrument.

Respondents from the constituent groups of the 10 NOSOs participating inthis study were asked to rate the level of effectiveness (for their respectivesport) for each statement contained in the instrument based on 5-point Likert-type scales anchored from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Tables 2 and3 shows each statement in each cell as it appeared in the survey. For example,in the first cell, flexibility, the statement “The organization is seeking opportu-nities to develop the sport” required respondents to provide a rating based ontheir perception of how effective the sport was or was not in seeking opportu-nities to develop the sport. A high rating would naturally indicate a percep-tion that the sport was effective in seeking these opportunities.

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE CVA SCALES

Data were collected via a mail survey to all constituent groups for eachsummer Olympic sporting organization participating in the study. The datawere analyzed using SPSS/PC Version 9 and AMOS 4. As it was expected thatthe proposed factors of organizational effectiveness would be highly corre-lated, because the instrument had specifically been operationalized for usewith NOSOs, separate principal components analyses (PCAs) were used toexplore the factor structure and reliability for each cell composing the CVA. Asdiscussed in the previous section in this article, this approach was groundedin the findings of Kalliath et al. (1999), representing the extension of anapproach that suggested the CVA scales should not be considered as an omni-bus scale. The extension of Kalliath et al.’s work is the examination of each ofthe eight individual cells composing the CVAand the intercorrelations amongthe four quadrants. These analyses were followed by a CFA loading all mani-fest factors onto a latent construct termed organizational effectiveness.

18 Shilbury, Moore

(text continues on p. 22)

19

Tab

le 2

.O

ne-

Fact

or S

tru

ctu

re b

y C

ell

Com

pone

nt M

atri

xC

ompo

nent

Flex

ibili

tyT

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is s

eeki

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

to d

evel

op th

e sp

ort.

0.84

The

boa

rd is

rec

epti

ve to

sug

gest

ions

for

chan

ge.

0.81

The

org

aniz

atio

n m

onit

ors

chan

ges

in c

onst

itue

nts’

exp

ecta

tion

s.0.

80T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

mon

itor

s ch

ange

s in

med

ia a

nd p

ublic

per

cept

ions

of i

ts o

pera

tion

s.0.

77T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

mon

itor

s ch

ange

s in

gov

ernm

ent f

und

ing,

legi

slat

ion,

and

the

econ

omic

env

iron

men

t.0.

67E

igen

valu

e3.

06%

var

ianc

e61

.23

Cro

nbac

h’s

α0.

84M

ean

15.3

8St

and

ard

dev

iati

on4.

42R

esou

rces

The

org

aniz

atio

n at

trac

ts s

atis

fact

ory

num

bers

of p

laye

rs.

0.80

The

org

aniz

atio

n at

trac

ts s

atis

fact

ory

num

bers

of o

ffici

als.

0.70

The

org

aniz

atio

n at

trac

ts s

atis

fact

ory

num

bers

of v

olun

teer

ad

min

istr

ator

s.0.

69T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

attr

acts

sat

isfa

ctor

y nu

mbe

rs o

f coa

ches

.0.

77T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

gain

s ad

equa

te g

over

nmen

t fun

din

g.0.

51T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

gain

s su

bsta

ntia

l pri

vate

sec

tor

spon

sors

hip.

0.65

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

abl

e to

acq

uire

fund

s fr

om a

var

iety

of s

ourc

es.

0.72

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t att

ract

ing

spec

tato

rs.

0.72

The

org

aniz

atio

n at

trac

ts q

ualit

y pr

ofes

sion

al s

taff

.0.

59T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has

adeq

uate

faci

litie

s fo

r al

l lev

els

of c

ompe

titi

on.

0.42

Eig

enva

lue

4.43

% v

aria

nce

44.2

7C

ronb

ach’

sα

0.82

Mea

n24

.87

Stan

dar

d d

evia

tion

6.84

(con

tinu

ed)

20

Plan

ning

The

str

ateg

ic p

lan

incl

udes

cle

ar a

ctio

ning

.0.

91T

he s

trat

egic

pla

n in

clud

es c

lear

and

att

aina

ble

obje

ctiv

es.

0.89

The

org

aniz

atio

n re

gula

rly

enga

ges

in lo

ng-t

erm

str

ateg

ic p

lann

ing.

0.86

The

str

ateg

ic p

lan

incl

udes

vis

ion

for

the

futu

re.

0.86

The

org

aniz

atio

n re

gula

rly

eval

uate

s it

s pe

rfor

man

ce b

ased

on

the

stra

tegi

c pl

an.

0.85

The

str

ateg

ic p

lan

incl

udes

iden

tifi

cati

on o

f how

the

plan

can

be

reso

urce

d.

0.84

The

org

aniz

atio

n re

gula

rly

revi

ews

the

stra

tegi

c pl

an.

0.83

The

str

ateg

ic p

lan

incl

udes

per

form

ance

mea

sure

s.0.

83T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

atte

mpt

s to

incl

ude

the

view

s of

all

cons

titu

ent g

roup

s.0.

78E

igen

valu

e6.

5%

var

ianc

e72

.20

Cro

nbac

h’s

α0.

95M

ean

28.3

4St

and

ard

dev

iati

on8.

43Pr

oduc

tivi

tyT

he o

rgan

izat

ion

achi

eves

its

stra

tegi

c pl

an.

0.81

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t pro

vid

ing

serv

ices

that

mee

t the

exp

ecta

tion

s of

pla

yers

.0.

78T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is s

ucce

ssfu

l at p

rovi

din

g se

rvic

es th

at m

eet t

he e

xpec

tati

ons

of c

oach

es.

0.78

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t pro

vid

ing

serv

ices

that

mee

t the

exp

ecta

tion

s of

vol

unte

er a

dm

inis

trat

ors.

0.74

Dec

isio

ns a

re m

ade

effi

cien

tly

at b

oard

leve

l.0.

73T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

ble

to m

axim

ize

the

use

of it

s fi

nanc

ial r

esou

rces

.0.

72T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

ble

to m

axim

ize

the

use

of it

s hu

man

reso

urce

s.0.

71T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is s

ucce

ssfu

l at p

rovi

din

g se

rvic

es th

at m

eet t

he e

xpec

tati

ons

of s

pect

ator

s.0.

70T

he b

oard

focu

ses

on th

e m

anag

emen

t and

dir

ecti

on o

f the

spo

rt.

0.69

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t inc

reas

ing

affi

liate

d m

embe

rshi

p nu

mbe

rs.

0.66

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t pro

vid

ing

serv

ices

that

mee

t the

exp

ecta

tion

s of

off

icia

ls.

0.64

The

org

aniz

atio

n ut

ilize

s cu

rren

t inf

orm

atio

n te

chno

logy

.0.

55T

he e

xecu

tive

dir

ecto

r (o

r eq

uiva

lent

) has

the

auto

nom

y to

mak

e op

erat

iona

l dec

isio

ns.

0.51

Equ

ipm

ent a

nd fa

cilit

ies

0.46

Tab

le 2

(con

tin

ued

)

Com

pone

nt M

atri

xC

ompo

nent

21

Eig

enva

lue

6.56

% v

aria

nce

46.8

4C

ronb

ach’

sα

0.90

Mea

n43

.11

Stan

dar

d d

evia

tion

10.2

4A

vaila

bilit

y of

info

rmat

ion

The

org

aniz

atio

n co

mm

unic

ates

wel

l wit

h af

filia

ted

sta

te s

port

ing

orga

niza

tion

s.0.

84T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

ble

to c

omm

unic

ate

wit

h al

l con

stit

uent

gro

ups.

0.83

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

suc

cess

ful a

t gai

ning

feed

back

info

rmat

ion

from

con

stit

uent

gro

ups.

0.80

The

org

aniz

atio

n co

mm

unic

ates

wel

l wit

h ot

her

spor

ting

org

aniz

atio

ns.

0.77

The

org

aniz

atio

n co

mm

unic

ates

wel

l wit

h go

vern

men

t age

ncie

s.0.

66E

igen

valu

e3.

05%

var

ianc

e61

.05

Cro

nbac

h’s

α0.

84M

ean

15.7

7St

and

ard

dev

iati

on3.

97St

abili

tyT

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has

good

ret

enti

on n

umbe

rs o

f coa

ches

.0.

83T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has

good

ret

enti

on n

umbe

rs o

f vol

unte

er a

dm

inis

trat

ors.

0.79

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s go

od r

eten

tion

num

bers

of p

laye

rs.

0.79

The

org

aniz

atio

n is

abl

e to

con

trol

the

grow

th o

f the

spo

rt.

0.73

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s go

od r

eten

tion

num

bers

of o

ffic

ials

.0.

70T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

ble

to m

aint

ain

a co

nsis

tent

ly g

ood

pub

lic p

rofi

le.

0.70

The

boa

rd is

abl

e to

mai

ntai

n co

nsis

tenc

y in

dir

ecti

on a

nd d

ecis

ion

mak

ing.

0.69

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s go

od r

eten

tion

num

bers

of p

rofe

ssio

nal s

taff

.0.

63T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

is a

ble

to m

aint

ain

a so

und

fina

ncia

l bas

e.0.

66E

igen

valu

e4.

77%

var

ianc

e53

.05

Cro

nbac

h’s

α0.

89M

ean

26.8

9St

and

ard

dev

iati

on6.

97

RESULTS

INDIVIDUAL QUADRANT FACTOR STRUCTURE

There was no evidence of skewness or kurtosis in the data, and the graphi-cal representations of the variables indicated unimodal distributions. PCAswere used to explore the factor structure of the scales written to represent theeight cells of the CVA. Six of the theoretically derived cells each yielded onereliable factor (see Table 2). These were Flexibility, Resources, Planning, Pro-ductivity, Availability of Information, and Stability. The variance explained byeach of these factors was satisfactory, ranging from 44% for Resources to 72%for Planning. Internal reliabilities assessed by Cronbach’s alpha were all excel-lent and ranged from .82 to .95.

The other two proposed cells, Skilled Workforce (SWF) and CohesiveWorkforce (CWF) (both representing the human relations quadrant), eachyielded a two-factor structure. SWF produced one factor related to staff andboard members (labeled SWF–Professional Support) and a second factorrelated to the training of coaches, officials, and volunteer administrators(labeled SWF–Volunteer Support). These factors were relatively independent(r = .42), and together they explained 63% of the variance. Each of these factorsdemonstrated good internal reliability (α = .77 and α = .74, respectively; seeTable 3).

The scale items related to the cohesiveness of the workforce also producedtwo factors, one related to rewards and recognition, which is named CWF–Motivation Recognition, the second related to work cohesion and goals,which is named CWF–Work Harmony. These factors correlated r = .40, andtogether they explained 64% of the variance. Internal reliabilities were alsosatisfactory (α = .84 and α = .64, respectively; see Table 3).

The intercorrelations for the 10 factors extracted from the current data arepresented in Table 4. All these factors, designed to measure various aspects oforganizational effectiveness, were significantly intercorrelated (p < .001). Asexpected, the dimensions within each theoretical cell correlated, for example,Flexibility and Resources (r = .52), Productivity and Planning (r = .76), Stabil-ity and Information (r = .68), and the correlations within the human relationscell ranged from r = .36 to r = .47. The correlations between the cells in oppos-ing and neighboring quadrants were also significant. This is not surprising,given that the quadrants represent aspects of organizational effectiveness. Forexample, the correlations between Productivity and Stability and Productiv-ity and Flexibility were each r = .78, whereas Stability and Flexibility corre-lated at .63. Planning was also highly correlated with Productivity (r = .76) andwith Flexibility (r = .75). The lowest correlations present among the factorswere between CWF–Work Harmony and Resources (r = .27) and CWF–WorkHarmony and SWF–Volunteer Support (r = .36).

Structural equation modeling was used to load each summated factor ontoits respective latent factor, and the intercorrelations among these latent factors

22 Shilbury, Moore

23

Tab

le 3

.Tw

o-Fa

ctor

Str

uct

ure

by

Cel

l

Com

pone

nt M

atri

xFa

ctor

1Fa

ctor

2

Coh

esiv

e w

orkf

orce

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s an

ad

equa

te re

war

d a

nd r

ecog

niti

on s

yste

m fo

r of

fici

als.

.87

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s an

ad

equa

te re

war

d a

nd r

ecog

niti

on s

yste

m fo

r co

ache

s..8

7T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has

an a

deq

uate

rew

ard

and

rec

ogni

tion

sys

tem

for

volu

ntee

r ad

min

istr

ator

s..8

1T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

has

an a

deq

uate

rew

ard

and

rec

ogni

tion

sys

tem

for

play

er a

chie

vem

ent.

.69

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s m

inim

al c

onfl

ict b

etw

een

paid

sta

ff an

d v

olun

teer

s..9

1Pr

ofes

sion

al s

taff

and

vol

unte

ers

are

wor

king

tow

ard

ach

ievi

ng c

omm

on g

oals

..2

0.9

0Pa

id s

taff

rec

eive

ad

equa

te c

ompe

nsat

ion.

.20

.36

Eig

enva

lue

3.22

1.27

% v

aria

nce

expl

aine

d46

.04

18.1

8C

orre

lati

on.4

01

Cro

nbac

h’s

α.8

4.6

4M

ean

12.0

610

.27

Stan

dar

d d

evia

tion

3.67

2.20

Skill

ed w

orkf

orce

The

org

aniz

atio

n ef

fect

ivel

y ut

ilize

s a

form

al p

erfo

rman

ce r

evie

w fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al s

taff

..8

4T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

appo

ints

pro

fess

iona

l sta

ff b

ased

on

the

basi

s of

ski

lls th

ey c

an b

ring

to th

e or

gani

zati

on.

.78

The

org

aniz

atio

n en

cour

ages

and

sup

port

s fu

rthe

r tr

aini

ng fo

r pr

ofes

sion

al s

taff

..7

5.1

5T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

appo

ints

boa

rd m

embe

rs b

ased

on

the

basi

s of

ski

lls th

ey c

an b

ring

to th

e or

gani

zati

on.

.66

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s an

ad

equa

te re

war

d a

nd r

ecog

niti

on s

yste

m fo

r it

s of

fici

als.

.91

The

org

aniz

atio

n co

nduc

ts a

ppro

pria

te tr

aini

ng &

dev

elop

men

t cou

rses

for

its

coac

hes.

.87

The

org

aniz

atio

n ha

s an

ad

equa

te re

war

d a

nd r

ecog

niti

on s

yste

m fo

r it

s vo

lunt

eer

adm

inis

trat

ors.

.29

.56

Eig

enva

lue

3.28

1.15

% v

aria

nce

expl

aine

d46

.87

16.4

7C

orre

lati

on.4

21

Cro

nbac

h’s

α.7

7.7

4M

ean

12.3

49.

84St

and

ard

dev

iati

on3.

412.

52

24

Tab

le 4

.C

orre

lati

on M

atri

x of

All

Ext

ract

ed F

acto

rs

CW

F-C

WF-

SWF-

SWF-

Flex

ible

Res

ourc

esP

lann

ing

Pro

duct

ivit

yIn

form

atio

nSt

abili

tyH

arm

ony

Mot

ivat

ion

Pro

fess

iona

lV

olun

teer

Flex

ibili

ty1

Res

ourc

es.5

21

Plan

ning

.75

.47

1Pr

oduc

tivi

ty.7

8.6

6.7

61

Info

rmat

ion

.64

.41

.68

.68

1St

abili

ty.6

3.6

9.6

2.7

8.6

81

CW

F-H

arm

ony

.45

.27

.41

.56

.53

.54

1C

WF-

Mot

ivat

ion

.46

.49

.46

.60

.46

.52

.41

1SW

F-Pr

ofes

sion

al.6

3.3

8.6

4.6

7.6

3.6

1.4

7.4

31

SWF-

Vol

unte

er.4

5.4

2.4

7.5

8.4

5.5

5.3

6.5

2.4

21

Not

e:C

WF

= C

ohes

ive

Wor

kfor

ce; S

WF

= S

kille

d W

orkf

orce

.

were examined (see Figure 2). Clearly, each manifest (measured) factor con-tributes to the relevant theoretical quadrant; however, these quadrants arethemselves highly correlated (r = .88 to r = .99). These high levels of multi-collinearity among the latent variables resulted in an unacceptable non-positive matrix, and therefore the data failed to support this model, χ2(29)489.10, p < .001, Goodness of Fit (GFI) .927, Adjusted Goodness of Fit (AGFI).862, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) .612, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .607 and,root mean squares (RMSEA) .109. Although some statisticians suggest reset-ting the error variance to a minimal figure, such as .005 (Hair, Anderson,Tatham, & Black, 1995), others, such as Schumacker and Lomax (1996), preferthe question of collinearity to be addressed directly. That is, in order to over-come these problems variables should be eliminated, combined, or the modelrespecified. As collinearity was present among all latent factors, suggesting,as did the high intercorrelations among the quadrants, that one factor mightbetter represent the data, it was decided to respecify the model and explore theconstruct validity of these 10 manifest factors as indicators of organizationaleffectiveness. We used CFA with the summated factors as manifest variablesand organizational effectiveness as a latent construct.

CFA

The independence model confirmed the presence of intercorrelations in thedata and therefore their suitability for CFAanalysis, χ2(45, n = 289), 1,820.63, p <.001. The data provide moderate support for the hypothesized model (seeTable 5) and the χ2 difference test indicated a significant improvement in fitbetween the hypothesized model and the independence model, χ2(10, n =289), 1,652.52, p < .001 (see Figure 3).

Model respecifications were examined using Schumacker and Lomax’s (1996)recommendation that a substantive basis be the criteria for change rather thanstatistical advantage alone. Three substantive modifications were made to themodel, and their respective effects are presented in Table 5. These modifica-tions involved allowing Resources (e.g., The organization gains substantialprivate sector sponsorship) to correlate with Stability (e.g., The organization isable to control growth of the sport); Resources to correlate with Productivity(e.g., The organization is successful at providing services that meet the expec-tations of players, coaches, administrators), and Motivation-Recognition forstaff with the SWF factor Volunteer Support. The final model provided a goodfit of the data to the model, χ2 = 96.50 (n = 289), 96.50, p < .001; normed χ2 = 3.02,GFI = .936, AGFI = .899, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = .947, IFI = 964, CFI = .963,RMSEA= .084, p = .002. Examination of the standardized residuals covariancematrix revealed no significant discrepancy between the sample and theimplied covariances matrices.

All the manifest factors loaded significantly onto organizational effective-ness. The variable with the highest loading was Productivity (.91) followed byPlanning, Flexibility, and Stability (.81). The variables that contributed least to


the solution were Resources (.58) and Motivation-Recognition for staff (.60)and Staff Harmony (.60).

DISCUSSION

The aim of this study was to develop a reliable and valid measure of organi-zational effectiveness applicable to national sporting organizations basedupon the dimensions of Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s (1981, 1983) competing val-ues theory. Given Kalliath et al.’s (1999) recommendation regarding the lim-ited value of combining the scale into a single omnibus effectiveness factor, the

26 Shilbury, Moore

Volunteer

Support

Professional

Support

Work Harmony

Motivation

Recognition

Stability

Information

Productivity

Planning

Flexibility

Resources

Open System

.84

.78

Rational

Goal .92

.83

Internal

Process

.81

.92

Human

Relations

.93

.93

.88

.93

.92

.99

.68

.65

.77

.67

Figure 2. Intercorrelations Among Quadrants

27

Tab

le 5

.G

ood

nes

s of

Fit

Sta

tist

ics

for

Mod

els

of E

ffec

tive

nes

s

χ2d

fp

Nor

med

χ2G

FIA

GFI

NFI

IFI

CFI

RM

SEA

p

Hyp

othe

size

d m

odel

168.

1135

.000

4.80

.895

.836

.908

.925

.925

.115

.000

Ad

d c

ovar

iati

on p

aths

Res

ourc

es-S

tabi

lity

129.

4834

.000

3.81

.912

.858

.929

.947

.946

.099

.000

Res

ourc

es-P

rod

ucti

vity

112.

7133

.000

3.41

.925

.875

.938

.955

.955

.092

.000

CW

F: M

otiv

atio

n-SW

F: V

olun

teer

Sup

port

96.5

032

.000

3.02

.936

.889

.947

.964

.963

.084

.002

Not

e:G

FI=

Goo

dne

ssof

FitI

ndex

;AG

FI=

Ad

just

edG

ood

ness

ofFi

tInd

ex;N

FI=

Nor

med

FitI

ndex

;CFI

=C

ompa

rati

veFi

tInd

ex;R

MSE

A=

root

mea

nsq

uare

erro

r of

app

roxi

mat

ion;

CW

F =

Coh

esiv

e W

orkf

orce

; SW

F =

Ski

lled

Wor

kfor

ce.

purpose of this analysis focused on the individual quadrant factor structureusing PCA.

PCA confirmed six of the eight scales: Flexibility, Planning, Productivity,Resources, Availability of Information, and Stability, whereas the other twocells each yielded two factors: CWF–Motivation Recognition and CWF–WorkHarmony and SWF–Professional Support and SWF–Volunteer Support. All10 factors demonstrated good internal reliability and, as expected among fac-tors designed to measure organizational effectiveness, moderate to strongintercorrelations.

As, contrary to Kalliath et al. (1999), there were significant correlationsamong all the measured variables, a subsequent analysis was conducted toexamine the relationships among the four latent factors. These results are dif-ferent to Kalliath et al. where relatively small correlations were found between

28 Shilbury, Moore

SWF:

Volunteer

Support

.59

.60

.74

.24

CWF:

Motivation

Recognition

.43

.28

.81

.78

.91

.81

.58

.81

Resources

Flexibility

.60

Planning

Productivity

Information

Stability

CWF: Work

Harmony

SWF:

Professional

Support

Organizational

Effectiveness

Figure 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Organizational EffectivenessCWF = Cohesive Workforce; SWF = Skilled Workforce.

latent variables. In addition, significant correlations were observed betweenall eight cells, with some polar opposites (e.g., Stability and Flexibility)showing high correlations.

Correlations of particular interest are perceptions of the organizations’ pro-ductivity with Stability and Flexibility, Planning and the Flexibility of man-agement, and Planning and Productivity. These results suggest that theimportance of planning in NOSOs is associated with flexibility, and given therelatively small size of some NOSOs, flexibility remains an important dimen-sion of effectiveness. It also signifies an interesting combination of means,from both the rational-goal and open systems quadrants, emphasizing a focuson organizational processes. Stability is also an important cell, particularly inlight of the transition from volunteer to full-time professional administrators.The tendency here may be toward the recognition of organizational stabilityafforded NOSOs resulting from continuity of professional staff. Ultimately, itcould be hypothesized that the professional staff are also effecting culturalchange through the implementation of sophisticated planning procedures,resulting in the correlation between planning and productivity and the needfor flexibility (and creativity) in the planning process. Productivity, as an end,reflects the processes inherent in planning, but equally, the importance offlexibility and the process to ensure stability is an important end.

It is interesting that organizational resources (e.g., players, coaches, offi-cials, funding, sponsorship) and the cohesiveness and harmony of staff andvolunteers (another resource and a means in the human relations quadrant)demonstrated the lowest correlation. This might suggest that resource acqui-sition is an ongoing challenge, and although in theory would benefit fromstaff cohesion and volunteer support, this is not a critical interrelationship. Inother words, a sport will continue to attract players, coaches, and officialsdespite the state of its internal operations. There are numerous examples ofsports that have been subject to internal turmoil, yet the sport through its vari-ous structures maintains an ongoing presence. Turmoil such as this may beshort term, with some negative impact on attracting essential resources, butultimately if a sport is culturally ingrained within a society it can withstandsuch challenges.

Similarly, CWF–Work Harmony and SWF–Volunteer showed weaker cor-relations, suggesting that the divide between professionals and volunteers inthe workplace is continuing to widen. This is not to be viewed as a negativeoutcome but a realization of the need to clearly define the various roles thatvolunteers fulfill within sporting organizations (Chelladurai, 1999) and theirrelationship to the full-time paid staff. In practical terms, paid staff are increas-ingly responsible for a wider range of programs and activities. One activityimportant to effectiveness within a sporting organization is the need to recog-nize service-volunteer contributions. Normally, it is the paid staff that put inplace the strategies to reward volunteers and determine appropriate training,development, and accreditation courses suitable for each cohort of volunteers.


In relation to the overall strength of the correlations and inconsistencieswith Kalliath et al. (1999), the formulation of the instrument specific to NOSOsmight explain the high correlations. The instrument used in this study wasspecifically operationalized to overcome one of the major weaknesses of theCVA. Specifically, this weakness is the application of generic measures asopposed to a cohort-specific set of measures for a homogeneous group oforganizations. Kalliath et al., for example, perpetuate this problem by utiliz-ing the psychometrically sound scales reported by Quinn and Spreitzer(1991). The argument developed and tested in this article has been based onthe need to construct psychometrically sound scales (for each of the eightcells) that are institutionally specific and relevant measures of effectiveness.

Inconsistencies in relation to the actual correlations illustrate the effective-ness paradox described by Cameron (1986) earlier in this article. The simulta-neous contradictions evident in these results are in effect the basis for examin-ing and understanding organizational effectiveness. In other words, thesecontradictions potentially lead to a deeper analysis of these interactions andwhy they occur. Therein lies the value of applying the CVAas a diagnostic toolat the individual organization level. Significantly, Quinn and Rohrbaugh(1983) highlight the paradoxical nature of their original research, stressing theimportance of the coexistence of contradicting values.

However, the critical point to be made is that although certain pairs ofconcepts are at opposite locations in value space and therefore are para-doxical in nature, this does not require that they are empirical opposites,mutually exclusive in actual organizational environments. Indeed, anorganization might be cohesive and productive or stable and flexible. Forthat matter, stability might be as likely to contribute to flexibility as itwould to inflexibility, or vice versa. Propositions derived from this CVAneed not be contradictory; they need only take into account the possiblecontradictions in every organizational setting (Quinn & Rohrbaugh,1983, pp. 374-375).

An examination of the intercorrelations among the latent variables (see Fig-ure 2) revealed that all four quadrants were highly correlated and, in fact, rep-resented a high degree of multicollinearity in the current data. This interde-pendence was interpreted to suggest that these 10 separate factors may bebetter represented as contributing to one latent variable, that is, organizationaleffectiveness.

Accordingly, we conducted a CFA loading each of the 10 manifest factorsonto the latent construct, organizational effectiveness. This model was sup-ported after minor modifications. These modifications were substantivelyappropriate and involved allowing Resources (open systems quadrant; e.g.,The organization gains substantial private sector sponsorship) to correlatewith Productivity (rational goal quadrant; e.g., The organization is successfulat providing services that meet the expectations of players, coaches, adminis-

30 Shilbury, Moore

trators), a neighboring quadrant, and with Stability (internal process quad-rant; e.g., The organization is able to control growth of the sport), from anopposed quadrant. This last relationship is congruent with Kalliath et al.(1999), who reported a relationship between the internal process and the opensystems quadrants wherein these factors are located. It is also reasonable toassume that the stability or growth of the organization would be to someextent related to its ability to secure resources. In addition, the two factorsfrom within the human resources quadrant, Motivation-Recognition and Vol-unteer Support, were allowed to covary.

All 10 manifest factors contribute to organizational effectiveness (see Fig-ure 3), however, it is Productivity (e.g., The organization is successful at pro-viding services which meet the expectations of players, coaches, administra-tors [i.e., its members, constituents, etc.]) that is the marker variable fororganizational effectiveness, at least as indicated by these data. In terms of thefour quadrants composing the CVA, it is interesting to observe that aspects ofthree of these quadrants—Productivity (rational-goal quadrant), Flexibility(open systems quadrant), and Stability (internal process quadrant)—were thethree major contributors and markers in their respective quadrants. A similarpattern can be discerned in Kalliath et al.’s (1999) study, where they foundthese same three quadrants were intercorrelated, but to a lesser degree. Of thehuman resources factors, it was SWF–Professional Support that was themarker variable that contributed most to the factor solution. As these currentfactors were marker variables and highly interrelated, it may be interesting forfuture research to examine the impact of just these four factors—Flexibility,Productivity, Stability, and SWF–Professional Support—with respect to orga-nizational effectiveness and indeed with staff’s perceptions of their satisfac-tion with their organization.

In terms of the NOSOs on which the current assessments were focused, itseems that the organization’s ability to be productive, that is, to achieve itsstrategic goals, provide services to players and coaches, and maximize the useof financial and human resources, while at the same time maintaining stabilitythrough retention of coaches, volunteers, players, and officials as well as dem-onstrate consistency of decision making and a high degree of flexibilitythrough board receptivity for change, monitoring constituent group expecta-tions, plus monitoring changes to government funding and economic condi-tions, are primary indicators of it effectiveness. Equally, Planning, from thesame quadrant as Productivity (rational-goal), was the next most importantdeterminant (although equal with Stability and Flexibility). These resultstherefore point to the rational-goal quadrant as the key determinant of effec-tiveness in NOSOs. Further research could investigate more fully constituentviews on what specifically constitutes productivity. For example, one of theclassic competing values in NOSOs is balancing resource allocation betweenelite athlete support and support for mass participatory programming. Inother words, and in rather simplistic terms, do gold medals and world cham-pionship victories unduly influence perceptions of NOSO productivity? Rojas


(2000) reinforces the productivity dilemma confronted by nonprofit organiza-tions, stating, “The concept of productivity in the nonprofit sector is less tangi-ble and more perceptual than in the for-profit sector” (p. 99), highlightingsocial construction (Herman & Renz, 1999) as an important facet of measuringeffectiveness in nonprofit sporting organizations. This perception noted byRojas is ultimately the social construction and interpretation of a NOSOs pro-ductivity by its constituents.

The productivity paradox in respect of nonprofits is again highlighted bythese findings. For example, it is possible to meet targets (goals) and not neces-sarily be effective. It is also possible to set unrealistic goals and consequentlythe final outcomes are meaningless. Productivity, (which was best seen throughearly efforts to examine effectiveness [the goal approach, Price, 1968]), as thesole measure of effectiveness is counterintuitive to the multidimensionalnature of the CVA, which in essence recognizes and reinforces the view that noone model of effectiveness is capable of defining and measuring effectiveness.Furthermore, the CVA attempts to facilitate an analysis of the associations ofthe various models, bringing together the collective strengths of each model.The correlations between these models are shown in Figures 2 and 3. More-over, as discussed earlier in the article, the added difficulty of measuring effec-tiveness in nonprofits further complicates the use of productivity as the domi-nant measure.

It is somewhat surprising that the human relations quadrant was the onethat contributed least to the measurement of organizational effectiveness.This, however, may be due to what the organization does (Productivity) andhow it does this (Stability) and with what resources (Flexibility), and this maybe seen as the primary focus in determining effectiveness. The factors in thehuman relations quadrant may be more relevant to determining the level ofjob cohesion or satisfaction experienced by staff and volunteers, processes notalways visible to all constituent groups. Moreover, constituent group analysisat the individual organization level would reveal staff and volunteer percep-tions of these human resource factors.

Stability, Flexibility, Planning, and Availability of Information all reflectedhigh factor loadings (.81 to .78), indicating consistent levels of influence asdeterminants of effectiveness. The Stability-Flexibility dichotomy is interest-ing, as again, these two cells are diagonally opposite each other. This resultexpounds nicely Cameron’s (1986) effectiveness paradox referred to earlier inthis article showing how NOSOs must be both stable yet possess the capacityfor flexibility, particularly in light of the small size of some NOSOs that rely onvolunteers and a limited resource base. Flexibility, given the limited resourcebase of many NOSOs, might be an important dimension to examine further inorganizations of this type. The capacity to seek opportunities, be responsive tochange, monitor constituent’s expectations and those of the media, as well asscrutinize government and policy changes may well extend flexibility to therealm of competitive advantage. In other words, flexibility, although being a

32 Shilbury, Moore

key determinant of effectiveness, might also be an important source of competi-tive advantage in NOSOs limited in size and by resources.

It is interesting that resource acquisition (attracting players, coaches, fund-ing, sponsorship, etc.), although a significant contributor, contributes least tothe effectiveness of the organization. It is difficult to explain why this is thecase, particularly in light of previous studies (Frisby, 1986; Koski, 1995) whereresources such as funding or members were found to underpin productivity,or the goals pursued by sporting organizations. Clearly, results from thisstudy do not support the assertion that resources underpin effectiveness.Most NOSOs, however, consistently wish for more resources to fund theirever-increasing range of programs. It was noted earlier in this article, in rela-tion to systems theory, that effectiveness is focused on an organization’s abil-ity to attract resources from its environment to ensure its viability. In the caseof NSOs, the true test of maintaining this equilibrium with the environment ismanufactured as government money, and increasingly, funds from the Aus-tralian Olympic Committee are guaranteed to provide organizational stabil-ity. Therefore, resource acquisition, at least in terms of financial resources, isnot perceived as a critical determinant of effectiveness. At least some level ofeffectiveness is guaranteed. As Shilbury (2000) noted, however, this perspec-tive represents a potential pitfall for NOSOs in the future as the proportion ofgovernment funds relative to overall expenditures declines as a consequenceof an expanding range of programs and activities capitalizing on previoussuccesses. As constituent groups come to this realization, this might lead toresource acquisition being recognized as a more important determinant oforganizational effectiveness.

As noted earlier in this article, the governance of sport organizations inAustralia has shifted from volunteer administration to a professionally ori-ented system based on paid personnel. Increasingly complex issues confront-ing the modern sport manager have also flowed through to the board, influ-encing the type, style, and nature of governance of sporting organizations.Tensions evident in the transition from amateur to professional governancehave contributed to the need to examine the role of the board of directors insporting organizations and may be evident in the two-factor outcome derivedfor both cells in the human relations quadrant. Research with regard to sport-ing organization governance grounded in nonprofit volunteer systems hasevolved during the past decade (Hoye & Auld, 2001; Hoye & Cuskelly, 2003;Inglis, 1997; Shilbury, 2001) and is more broadly based on the nonprofit litera-tures examining governance (Bradshaw, Murray, & Wolpin, 1992; Chait &Taylor, 1989; Herman & Renz, 1998; Herman, Renz, & Heimovics, 1997).

Most of the sport-based governance research has focused on the changingroles of volunteers as directors and as service personnel as increasing govern-ment funds, commercial pressures, and the need for greater accountabil-ity and improved management practices have led to change from previousamateur-oriented cultures. Tensions inherent in this transition are evident


through both CWF arrangements and the skills of the workforce required byNOSOs. For example, Table 3 shows through the two-factor structures foundin the human relations quadrant that reward and recognition systems andprofessional development programs are fundamentally different for volun-teers such as coaches, officials, and players compared to paid staff. This mayalso relate to the distinctions between service volunteers and volunteers asboard directors.

“The prescriptive literature on nonprofit boards has long asserted thatboards have crucial legal and moral responsibilities and can substantiallyaffect the performance of the organization” (Herman & Renz, 1999, p. 113).Coupled with multidimensionality in terms of measuring organizationaleffectiveness, boards of NOSOs continue to grapple with businesslike practicewithin a culture that has traditionally been resistant to such practice. Thereinlies a competing value that NOSOs must grapple with in their search for anoperational framework. On one hand, NOSOs must increasingly be business-like, professional, and accountable. On the other hand, they cannot be so pro-fessional and bureaucratic that the vital contribution of volunteers to deliversport to the community is hampered and, at the same time, the NOSO as anoutlet for their recreational pursuits is diminished. The reliance on volunteersto assist with the delivery of sport and in turn the reliance of volunteers on theNOSO, although similar to other nonprofits, may be stronger in sport than inother nonprofit domains. The two-factor outcomes shown in the human rela-tions quadrant point to an important area of research that might determine ifvolunteer-professional relationships in both governance and program deliv-ery are different from other nonprofits also relying on volunteer assistanceand whether they affect to a greater or lesser extent measuring organizationaleffectiveness.

CONCLUSION

The major aim of this study was to operationalize the CVAto develop a reli-able and valid instrument capable of measuring, in subsequent studies, theeffectiveness of individual NOSOs. The CVA was viewed as a useful tool toexplore because of its capacity to integrate the major theoretical models usedto measure effectiveness. Although there have been some attempts to measurethe effectiveness of sporting organizations in Canada, and more recently inGreece, the studies reported in the sport management literature are few andlimited in application. This should come as no surprise, as in the context of theorganizational theory literature there is no universal agreement on what isorganizational effectiveness or the best way to measure it. This article hasattempted to clarify some of the major streams of thought in relation to effec-tiveness with the specific intention of integrating and applying existing theoryto a homogeneous group of nonprofit organizations.

34 Shilbury, Moore

Results from this study have produced encouraging outcomes and rein-forced the argument that organizational effectiveness, in particular for non-profit sporting organizations, is a multidimensional construct. Six of the theo-retically derived cells each yielded one reliable factor, with the remaining twocells producing a two-factor structure. More important and significant interms of demonstrating the multidimensionality of organizational effective-ness and the predilection for future studies were the results produced by theCFA enhancing our understanding of the critical determinants of effective-ness. The CFA showed productivity as the principal determinant of effective-ness in NOSOs. Given the difficulties of measuring nonprofit productivity tojustify progress in relation to the mission, these results reinforce the use of theCVAand its capacity to chart the paradoxes of organizational life and broadenthe measures defining effectiveness. Although the results of this article high-light the rational-goal model as the most important quadrant, but not of soleimportance, the issue of what are important measures of productivity israised. Planning, Flexibility, and Stability were the next most important deter-minants of effectiveness. The impact of the rational-goal quadrant (Productiv-ity, Planning), therefore, as a key determinant of effectiveness was an impor-tant finding to emerge from this study. Although Productivity was viewedfrom a goal perspective, given its perceived importance, it does raise an inter-esting question. Is this socially constructed view of productivity a reflection ofa mimetic response by constituent groups to the need for NOSOs to be seen asmore businesslike (given the forces of professionalization), as opposed to adeeper understanding of measuring nonprofit effectiveness?

Results from the CVA and its use in this study would facilitate a discussionwithin the major constituents as to the most important and relevant measuresof productivity given the overall charter of these nonprofit NOSOs. This is themajor purpose of the CVA; to facilitate this discussion as a form of organiza-tional diagnosis. Productivity measures should also be considered in relationto other organizational dimensions (in other quadrants). For example, Flexibility,Stability, and Planning were also important variables. Therein lies the value ofmeasuring effectiveness using the CVA.

One of the advantages of the CVA is its capacity to visually articulate effec-tiveness results on each of the four models and eight cells. Visualization in thisform, referred to as an amoebagram, allows managers to quickly ascertainstrengths and weaknesses of an organization in terms of effectiveness. Over-all levels of effectiveness are shown, but more important, the perceptions ofeffectiveness of each of the major constituent groups can also be plottedonto the CVA. For example, differences between volunteer constituent groupsand paid staff (Chelladurai & Haggerty, 1991) or the board and paid staff(Papadimitriou & Taylor, 2000) may identify important gaps requiring actionto redress perceived weaknesses in terms of effectiveness. The CVA construct,therefore, is the basis for organizational diagnosis, prompting the processesrequired to either rectify work practices, policy, or strategies or facilitate


channels of communications where perceptions are believed to be incongru-ent with actual practice. As has been espoused in this article, the value of non-profit effectiveness research is grounded in its ability to provide a constructcapable of measuring effectiveness at the individual organizational level yetcapturing the multidimensional societal measures often defining the successof nonprofits. The logical extension of this study, therefore, is to use the CVAtoreport and illustrate effectiveness in each of the NOSOs participating in thisstudy and furthermore apply the framework to measure effectiveness inAustralian NSOs.

References

Australian Sports Commission. (1994). Olympic athlete program. Canberra: Australian Govern-ment Printing Service.

Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (1992). Do nonprofit boards make a difference? An explora-tion of the relationship among board structure, process and effectiveness. Nonprofit and Volun-tary Sector Quarterly, 21, 227-249.

Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buenger, V., Daft, R., Conlon, E. J., & Austin, J. (1996). Competing values in organizations: Contex-tual influences and structural consequences. Organization Science, 7, 557-576.

Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as a paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of orga-nizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32, 539-553.

Campbell, J. P. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman, J. M.Pennings, & Associates (Eds.), New perspectives on organizational effectiveness (pp. 36-41). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chait, R. P., & Taylor, B. E. (1989). Charting the territory of nonprofit boards. Harvard BusinessReview, 67(1), 44-52.

Chelladurai, P. (1999). Human resource management in sport and recreation. Champaign IL: HumanKinetics.

Chelladurai, P., & Haggerty, T. R. (1991). Measures of organizational effectiveness in Canadiannational sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 16, 126-133.

Chelladurai, P., Szyszlo, M., & Haggerty, T. R. (1987). Systems-based dimensions of effectiveness:The case of national sport organizations. Canadian Journal of Sport Science, 12, 111-119.

Colyer, S. (2000). Organizational culture in selected Western Australian sporting organizations.Journal of Sport Management, 14, 321-341.

Connolly, T., Conlon, E. M., & Deutsch, S. J. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple con-stituency approach. Academy of Management Review, 5, 211-218.

DiPadova, L. M., & Faerman, S. R. (1993). Using the competing values framework for manage-ment information systems. Human Resource Management, 32, 175-202.

Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the nonprofit organization: Practices and principles. New York:HarperCollins.

Enjolras, B. (2002). The commercialization of voluntary sport organizations in Norway. Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 352-376.

Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organizationaleffectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 183-202.

Frisby, W. (1986). Measuring the organizational effectiveness of national sport governing bodies.Journal of Applied Sport Science, 11, 94-99.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.)Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

36 Shilbury, Moore

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1998). Nonprofit organizational effectiveness: Contrasts betweenespecially effective and less effective organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9, 23-38.

Herman, R. D., & Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 107-126.

Herman, R. D., Renz, D. O., & Heimovics, R. D. (1997). Board practices and board effectiveness inlocal nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7, 373-385.

Hoye, R., & Auld, C. (2001). Measuring board performances in non profit sport organisations.Australian Journal on Volunteering, 6(2), 108-116.

Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2003). Board-executive relationships within voluntary sport organisa-tions. Sport Management Review, 6, 53-74.

Inglis, S. (1997). Roles of boards in amateur sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 11,160-176.

Kalliath, T. J., Bluedorn, A. C., & Gillespie, D. F. (1999). A confirmatory factor analysis of the com-peting values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 143-158.

Kanter, R., & Summers, D. (1987). Doing well while doing good: Dilemmas of performance mea-surement in nonprofit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. InW. W. Powell (Ed.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 154-166). New Haven CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Koski, P. (1995). Organizational effectiveness of Finnish sporting clubs. Journal of Sport Manage-ment, 9, 85-95.

Letts, C. W., Ryan, W. P., & Grossman, A. (1999). High performance nonprofit organizations. Managingupstream for greater impact. New York: John Wiley.

Lewin, A., & Minton, J. W. (1986). Determining organizational effectiveness: Another look, and anagenda for research. Management Science, 32, 514-538.

Mills, R. (1994). The professionalisation of Australian sport: Practice and discussion. Leisure andRecreation, 4(2) 43-55.

Morrow, W. W., & Chelladurai, P. (1992). The structure and process of Synchro Canada. Journal ofSport Management, 6, 133-152.

Narayanan, V. K., & Nath, R. (1993). Organization theory: A strategic approach. Homewood, IL:Irwin.

Oster, S. M. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and cases. New York:Oxford University Press.

Papadimitriou, D., & Taylor, R. (2000). Organisational effectiveness of Hellenic national sportsorganisations: A multiple constituency approach. Sport Management Review, 3, 23-46.

Price, J. L. (1968). The study of organizational effectiveness. Sociological Quarterly, 13, 3-15.Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1982). Moving beyond the single-solution perspective: The com-

peting values approach as a diagnostic tool. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 463-472.Quinn, R. E., & McGrath, M. R. (1985). The transformation of organizational cultures: Acompeting

values perspective. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. L. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.),Organizational culture (pp. 315-334). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1981). A competing values approach to organizational effective-ness. Public Productivity Review, 5, 122-140.

Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a compet-ing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29, 363-377.

Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instru-ment and an analysis of organizational culture on quality of life. Research in OrganizationalChange and Development, 5, 115-142.

Robbins, S., & Barnwell, N. (1998). Organisation theory in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney, Australia:Prentice Hall.

Rojas, R. R. (2000). A review of models for measuring organizational effectiveness among for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 97-104.

Sawhill, J. C., & Williamson, D. (2001). Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit orga-nizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 11, 371-386.


Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shilbury, D. (1993). Determining the problem of order in the AFL. Journal of Sport Management, 7,122-131.

Shilbury, D. (2000). Considering future sport delivery systems. Sport Management Review, 3, 199-221.

Shilbury, D. (2001). Examining board member roles, functions and influence. A study of Victoriansporting organisations. International Journal of Sport Management, 2, 253-281.

Slack, T. (1997). Understanding sport organizations: The application of organization theory. Champaign,IL: Human Kinetics.

Steers, R. M. (1977). Organizational effectiveness: A behavioral view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.Stewart-Weeks, M. (1997). The third wave: Developing a post-2000 sports policy framework.

Sport, 17(1), 6-12.Thibault, L., Slack, T., & Hinings, C. R. (1991). Professionalism, structures, and systems: The

impact of professional staff on voluntary sport organizations. International Review for the Sociol-ogy of Sport, 26 (2), 83-99.

Vail, S. E. (1985). Organizational effectiveness and national sport governing bodies: A multiple constitu-ency approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

Wolfe, R., Slack, T., & Rose-Hearn, T. (1993). Factors influencing the adoption and maintenance ofCanadian, facility-based worksite health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Pro-motion, 7(3), 189-198.

Yuchtman, E., & Seashore, E. S. (1967). Acomparison of multiple constituency models of organiza-tional effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 9, 606-616.

Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizationalculture. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 83-114.

David Shilbury is the foundation chair of sport management and head of the Bowater School of Managementand Marketing at Deakin University. He is a former editor of Sport Management Review, and hisresearch interests focus on sport governance, effectiveness and strategy, and sport development.

Kathleen A. Moore is an associate professor in the School of Psychology at Deakin University. Her researchfocuses on health psychology, anxiety disorders, and stress and coping.

38 Shilbury, Moore

AStudy of Organizational Effectiveness for National Olympic Sporting Organizations

Documents