“Volunteers Are Our Bloodline”: Examining Managerial Perceptions of the Relationship Between Volunteer Behaviour and Event Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport organizations and events rely heavily on volunteers to achieve their goals and missions. Currently, volunteer research is heavily focused on the experiences of individual volunteers and the management of volunteers in continuous positions. This research takes a different approach by examining managerial perceptions of the relationship between volunteer behaviour and event performance at Canadian national amateur sport championships. Drawn from the field of strategic human resource management, behavioural perspective theory was used to understand if volunteer managers are linking strategy to their human resource management (HRM) systems, what desired role behaviours they are expecting from volunteers, what HRM systems they put in place to influence volunteer behaviour during these events, and if they believe volunteer behaviour is mediating the relationship between strategy and event performance. To carry out this research, semi-structured interviews took place with volunteer managers from Canadian national sport organizations (n = 11). Interview transcriptions were coded using thematic analysis based on behavioural perspective theory. This research found that volunteer managers are inconsistently linking strategy to their HRM practices, they expect positive and productive role behaviours from their volunteers, they use various HRM systems to influence behaviour, and believe volunteer behaviour greatly mediates the relationship between strategy and performance. From a practical perspective, this study provides important information for event managers utilizing volunteers. Managers can learn from the experiences of others in their field, along with theory, to guide future practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".