Governing national and provincial/territorial non-profit sport organizations: insights on board decision making and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose/Rationale Decision making is the most central process for national and provincial/territorial non-profit sport organization (NPSO) boards. Prior research provides insights into decision making, although a knowledge gap exists regarding its ability to influence performance (i.e. the group’s ability to fulfill its assigned roles). Thus, this study explains the relationships between decision-making constructs and performance in national and provincial/territorial NPSO boards.Design/Methodology/Approach Strategic decision-making theory’s constructs and a typology of board roles to measure performance were applied. Data were gathered via an online self-administered questionnaire completed by 81 NPSO boards in Canada (24 = national, 57 = provincial/territorial). Multiple linear regressions were conducted in SPSS for both national and provincial/territorial NPSO boards.Findings Results demonstrated significant relationships between decision-making constructs and performance, with variations according to national or provincial/territorial NPSO boards. The relationships are multi-dimensional, whereby decision making positively or negatively influences performance.Practical implications Results inform strategies to enhance national and provincial/territorial NPSO boards’ decision making and performance.Research contributions Results provide insights into the operationalization of constructs, advancing knowledge about relationships between boardroom processes and outcomes.Originality/Value The study’s novelty lies in its ability to provide empirical knowledge on board decision making and performance at multiple levels of a federated sport model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".