Fluent Essays

Read the two assigned articles and provide a brief review of the article(Clearly & succinctly addresses the major points of the article ), your major takeaways(At least three major takeaways were discussed in a reflection that demonstrates a critical, yet thoughtful reasoning of the article), and questions(At least three thoughtful questions were posed and discussed to the author(s)’ study and findings ) in response to the authors’ main findings. Approximately two pages per article is expected however, there are no page requirements. This assignment should be formatted in APA, double-spaced, and 12-point font. toward_a_multidimensional_framework_of_capacity_in_community_sport_clubs.pdf creating_a_sustainable_competitive_advantage.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview 509892 research-article2013 NVSXXX10.1177/0899764013509892Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyDoherty et al. Article Toward a Multidimensional Framework of Capacity in Community Sport Clubs Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X) 1­–19 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0899764013509892 nvsq.sagepub.com Alison Doherty1, Katie Misener2, and Graham Cuskelly3 Abstract Community sport clubs are a type of membership association largely run by member volunteers who organize and deliver opportunities for recreational and competitive sport participation. These clubs are where people are most likely to engage in organized sport, and have become a focus for achieving social policy objectives. It is important to understand the structures and processes that enable these organizations to meet their member-focused mandates. The purpose of this study was to develop a framework of organizational capacity in this context by uncovering critical elements within multiple capacity dimensions, namely, human resources, finance, infrastructure, planning and development, and external relationships. Focus groups with presidents of 51 sport clubs across Ontario revealed key strengths and challenges that impact the ability of these organizations to achieve their sport delivery goals. Variation by club size was observed. Implications for practice and future research on community sport clubs and membership associations are presented. Keywords organizational capacity, membership association, community sport Membership associations are an intriguing subset of nonprofit organizations as they offer a structure and place of identity for those with similar interests to come together in an associational form of organization (Smith, 2009). Community sport clubs are an 1Western University, London, Ontario, Canada of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 3Griffith University, Queensland, Australia 2University Corresponding Author: Alison Doherty, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Kinesiology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3K7. Email: adoherty@uwo.ca Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 2 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X) important type of membership association formed around a social contract between people with a common interest in (a particular) sport (Thiel & Mayer, 2009). The interests of individual members, and thus the collectivity (Tschirhart, 2006), are served by the mandate of the local soccer, baseball, rowing club, and so forth, to provide members with recreation and competitive programs that focus on both individual and sport development. Clubs are typically started by parents (e.g., a children’s soccer league) or participants themselves (e.g., a mountain biking club) in response to an identified need in the community. They may be further classified as grassroots membership associations, given their almost exclusive reliance on volunteers who tend to be drawn from the members, their local focus, their relatively informal structure, and their modest budgets, the largest proportion of which comes from membership fees (Smith, 2000; Tschirhart, 2006). Member volunteers engage in a variety of (often multiple) roles, including planning and organizing for the club and any special events, fund-raising, and coaching and related aspects of program delivery in support of the club’s mandate (Cuskelly, Hoye, & Auld, 2006). Community sport clubs provide opportunities for physical and mental health benefits, economic returns, and social capital that may accrue through the programs and services they offer (organized physical recreation and sport) and the range of members they serve (from children through to adults; Bloom, Grant, & Watt, 2005; Commission of the European Communities, 2007; Doherty & Misener, 2008; Donnelly & Kidd, 2003). As such, they have become a focus for achieving social policy objectives as a major player in the health and well-being of individuals and their communities (Adams, 2007; Nicholson, Hoye, & Houlihan, 2011; Taylor, 2004). Notably, community sport clubs comprise one of the largest proportions of nonprofit voluntary organizations in many Western countries (Misener & Doherty, 2009) and are where people are most likely to engage in organized sport (Adams, 2007; Misener & Doherty, 2009; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). Given the pervasiveness of these organizations, and their role in the lives of their members and communities, it is important to understand their capacity to pursue their mandate related to community sport delivery. Broadly understood, capacity is the ability of an organization to draw on various assets and resources to achieve its mandate and objectives. It is important to understand the nature of those resources so that capacity may be accurately assessed, and capacity building efforts may be effectively focused. Capacity building has been of particular interest in the nonprofit and voluntary sector (Sobeck & Agius, 2007), relying on various conceptual models of capacity to guide the development of interventions and measurement of effect. The multidimensionality of the various models reflects the range of resources that may be key to an organization’s effectiveness. Despite generally common dimensions, however, there is consensus that the elements within each dimension are context-specific (Christensen & Gazley, 2008; Eisinger, 2002; Frederickson & London, 2000; Germann & Wilson, 2004; Letts, Ryan, & Grossman, 1999; Raymond, 2010; Sowa, Selden, & Sandfort, 2004). As Wing (2004) noted, “Whatever capacity building might be, it is not going to be the same across such a diversity of kinds of [nonprofit] organizations” (p. 154). What is critical in one context, Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 3 Doherty et al. such as food banks (Eisinger, 2002), may not be as relevant in other contexts, such as arts and culture (Bendle & Patterson, 2009) or health organizations (Nowell & Harrison, 2011). Therefore, it is important to understand the particular nature of capacity in a given type of organization, such as grassroots membership associations and sport clubs specifically, before efforts can begin to address building that capacity. The purpose of this study was to develop a framework of organizational capacity in community sport clubs. The investigation draws on Hall et al.’s (2003) model of capacity in the nonprofit sector as a foundation for identifying the critical elements within multiple dimensions; a model that appears to be relevant to the focal context (cf. Misener & Doherty, 2009; Sharpe, 2006; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). Organization theorists and researchers have given minimal attention to grassroots membership associations, and theory development is needed (Hoggett & Bishop, 1986; Smith, 2009; Toepler, 2003). Indeed, understanding the mechanisms by which these organizations are able to fulfill their mandates is, according to Smith (2009), a pressing topic for research. Several authors have echoed this call with regard to research on sport clubs (Adams, 2007; Harris, Mori, & Collins, 2009; Kirk & MacPhail, 2003; Reid, 2012). The current study addresses this need through an inductive investigation of the critical elements of sport club capacity. Conceptual Background Dimensions of Capacity in Nonprofit Organizations There are an ever-increasing number of multidimensional models of organizational capacity in the nonprofit sector. Broad models, purportedly representing a wide range of types of organizations, have been forwarded by Glickman and Servon (1998); McKinsey & Company (2001); Lusthaus, Adrien, Anderson, Carden, and Plinio Montalvan (2002); Connolly and York (2003); Hall et al. (2003); and Sowa et al. (2004). Some authors have used these models directly or in an adapted format (Casey, Payne, & Eime, 2009; Horton et al., 2003; Marguerite Casey Foundation, n.d.). Others have put forth their own model of capacity dimensions they feel are most germane to the particular context of study (Eisinger, 2002; Frederickson & London, 2000; Germann & Wilson, 2004; Nu’Man, King, Bhalakia, & Criss, 2007; Sobeck & Agius, 2007). Nonetheless, the extant capacity models have several dimensions in common, namely, infrastructure and operations; leadership, vision, and strategy; human, financial, and other core resources; and networks and external relationships. The continued reconfiguration of broad capacity models is reflective of the diversity of organizational types that comprise the nonprofit sector and suggests that context-specific frameworks may be more pertinent. Indeed, Eisinger (2002) identified three dimensions from the literature deemed to be most relevant to examine organizational capacity in food banks, namely, human resources, institutionalization, and networks. He measured what he determined to be particularly critical elements of those dimensions; specifically, number of staff and staff to volunteer ratio, extent of organization policies and procedures, regular meetings, and strategic planning, and willingness Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 4 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X) to seek external help. In another study, Germann and Wilson (2004) derived the critical elements of four dimensions of capacity of regional health authorities from interviews with frontline workers and managers. Organizational values, structure and processes, resources, and internal working relationships were identified from the data as factors that contribute to “empowered and autonomous front-line workers” that influence community development practice (Germann & Wilson, 2004, p. 292). These studies and others (e.g., Frederickson & London, 2000), and the evolution of the nonprofit organizational capacity literature in general, suggest that capacity is context-specific and warrants continued examination in different settings. Hall et al.’s (2003) broad framework was used as a foundation for the current study as its dimensions—human resources, finance, infrastructure, planning and development, and external relationships and networks—align with several of the distinguishing features of grassroots membership associations; specifically, the critical reliance on human resources in the form of volunteers, relatively fewer economic resources, a more informal structure, a focus on member benefit goals and activities that address those goals, and relatively fewer external linkages (Smith, 2000). The Hall et al. framework was conceptualized from the literature on human (and particularly intellectual), financial, and structural capital, as key resources that an organization may be able to deploy to achieve its objectives. Human resources refer to the paid staff and volunteers, their competencies, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Finance refers to revenues, expenses, assets, and liabilities of an organization. Infrastructure includes aspects related to internal structure and day-to-day operations, while planning and development refers to developing and drawing on strategic and program plans. External relationships refer to connections with, for example, funders, partners, government, media, and the public. Each of the capacity dimensions is expected to have varying influence on the ability of an organization to fulfill its mission and achieve its objectives (Hall et al., 2003). Dimensions of Capacity in Community Sport Most research on community sport clubs has focused on a single dimension of capacity in any given study, with human resources and external relationships dominating the literature (see Misener & Doherty, 2009). A few investigations have considered multiple dimensions within a single study, relying on a list of factors investigators felt were most pertinent to the community sport context (Allison, 2001; Reid Howie Associates, 2006), or dimensions derived from a theoretical framework of organizational capacity (Gumulka, Barr, Lasby, & Brownlee, 2005; Misener & Doherty, 2009; Sharpe, 2006; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). Allison’s (2001) and Reid Howie Associates’ (2006) large-scale government-commissioned surveys of key issues in sport clubs in Scotland focused on human resources, finances, facilities, structure, and links with other organizations. Critical challenges to club development were formalization, facilities, and limited and unequal partnerships, particularly as alternate sources of funding (Allison, 2001; Reid Howie Associates, 2006). Gumulka et al. (2005) focused on Hall et al.’s (2003) human resources and finances dimensions to describe the critical aspects of sport club capacity. They used data drawn Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 5 Doherty et al. from a survey of Canadian nonprofit voluntary organizations in general. Critical factors were generating external revenue, recruiting and retaining the type of volunteers needed, and the dedication demonstrated by club volunteers focused on member needs (Gumulka et al., 2005). Drawing on data from a large-scale survey of sport clubs in Germany, Wicker and Breuer (2011) reported key “problems” experienced by those clubs. Scarcity of volunteers, access to sport facilities, and a growing imbalance of expenses to revenues were identified as critical factors in club capacity. However, Wicker and Breuer acknowledged that not all, or even the most relevant, sport club capacity elements were necessarily considered in their study. Sharpe (2006) considered financial, human, and structural dimensions of capacity to describe the particular aspects of each that affect the quality of participants’ experience in one grassroots sport organization. She concluded that a positive experience was compromised by a shortage of human capital, in terms of both volunteers and their skills and knowledge. Social capital inherent in structured relationships was a valuable and abundant resource within the organization. Sharpe urged further empirical attention to the role of human capital in grassroots organizations but, consistent with the multidimensional capacity perspective, noted that it should not be considered in isolation from other forms of capital. Misener and Doherty (2009) also based their case study of one community sport club on Hall et al.’s (2003) multidimensional model, uncovering what were perceived to be the critical elements within all five dimensions of capacity in that club. Critical human resources factors included a sufficient number of volunteers with positive attitudes, knowledge and skills, and a sense of trust and shared values. Financial factors included adequate and stable revenues, manageable expenses, and financial management. Frequent and open communication, a positive organizational culture, club formalization, and adequate facilities were identified as critical aspects of infrastructure. Strategic planning was acknowledged as critical to club goal achievement, although planning to date had been reactionary and informal. Finally, critical external relationship factors included connections with a variety of sport and nonsport partners and effective relationship management (Misener & Doherty, 2009). The current study builds on these efforts to date, examining the range of capacity dimensions outlined by Hall et al. with a broad sample of clubs. Method Participants Fifty-one presidents, or their representatives, of community sport clubs participated in 1 of 13 focus groups in six communities across the province of Ontario. A total of 180 clubs representing a wide variety of team and individual, summer and winter sports were contacted by email from information available in the public domain (World Wide Web) and invited to participate in the study. A follow-up was conducted to determine interest and availability for a focus group session. Participants represented 23 different sports (13 team sports, 10 individual sports; 11 summer sports and 12 winter sports). Their clubs had been in existence for an average of 31 years (SD = 2.82), ranging from 5 to 106 years (Mdn = 30), with an average of 506 members, ranging from 22 to 4,800 Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 6 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly XX(X) (Mdn = 280). Less than half of the clubs (n = 23; 45\%) had paid staff and only 12 (23.5\%) of those had a paid administrator with the remainder in paid coaching, officiating, or food and beverage staff roles. Focus Group Interview Guide and Procedure Focus group interviews were used as they provide an environment for the discussion of phenomena that can elicit rich data as participants consider their own perspective in relation to others (Krueger & Casey, 2009). A semistructured interview guide was developed to tap into perceived strengths and challenges within each dimension of capacity, as indicators of key assets and resources. Club presidents were asked to reflect on the critical strengths or “best things” and critical challenges or “worst things” about a given dimension with respect to their club being able to achieve its goals, with one dimension discussed at a time. The focus group moderator, who was one of the investigators, encouraged all participants to contribute to the discussion and to elaborate on their comments. The focus group design enabled thoughtful reflection and engaging discussion among sport club presidents about capacity issues in their club. Participants would often reflect on someone else’s description when recounting about their own club (e.g., “We’re in a little different situation than [other club in the group] . . . ” (FG12/2); “I think [other participant] hit it on the head. We’re in the same set up . . . ” (FG6/4)). The focus group interaction appeared to enhance the participants’ ability to provide a rich description. The intent was not to achieve consensus within the group but to allow for interaction that could generate richer discussion. The moderator provided an oral summary at the end of each focus group, which enabled the group members to verify that their perspective had been included and the summary was accurate and complete (cf. Siegenthaler & Vaughan, 1998). Focus groups comprised three to six participants from different sports and clubs of different sizes (see below). The sessions lasted 90 min to 2 hr and were audio recorded. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and transcripts were stored in a secure venue, as per research ethics requirements of the first author’s institution. Audiotapes were destroyed after transcription. Data Analysis A multistep approach was undertaken to identify patterns in the data across the full sample (Krueger & Casey, 2009). First, the transcripts were reviewed independently by the investigators for a general sense of the data. Next, the investigators reread the transcripts, scrutinizing individual phrases to create an emergent coding scheme that represented themes consistently identified by club presidents within each capacity dimension. Themes representing critical elements of capacity were evidenced by examples of strengths and/or challenges. Transcripts were then coded independently and discussions held to resolve any discrepancies between the investigators’ coding, to verify code descriptors, and to collapse any codes that were deemed too similar. The data were also coded by club membership size to further consider any variation in the prominence of the capacity elements according to the number of members served. Nichols, Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on April 8, 2016 7 Doherty et al. Table 1. Framework of Critical Elements of the Dimensions of Community Sport Club Capacity. Capacity dimension Critical elements Human resources Finance Infrastructure Planning and ... Purchase answer to see full attachment