By virtue of their formal role in sport organizations, sport administrators are responsible for empowering subordinates to establish and achieve goals. The extent of their leadership skills will largely dictate the outcome of their actions with subordinates. After nearly a century of research on leadership, the question still remains as to what makes an effective leader. There are no absolute truths and no general panaceas about effective managerial leadership. However, a careful review of the literature reveals that a lot more is known about this topic than is usually acknowledged. The purpose of this article is to (a) express a perspective regarding leadership, (b) draw lessons from the leadership literature, (c) gain insights from research about leadership effectiveness, and (d) infer from this literature prescriptions for practicing sport administrators. The article reviews the research literature that pertains to (a) leadership influence and power, (b) leadership traits and skills, (c) leadership behaviors, (d) situational leadership, and (e) charismatic and transformational leadership.
Effective Managerial Leadership in Sport Organizations
Perceptions of the Causes of Procrastination by Sport Administrators
Carol Anne Parsons and Daniel Soucie
This study investigated the perceived causes of procrastination by sport administrators (N=63) in Canadian sport governing bodies. More specifically, it attempted to determine why these administrators would procrastinate or avoid decisions and actions for which they are responsible. Results obtained from an original questionnaire comprising 25 Likert statements and 7 open-ended questions generally indicate that (a) the most important cause of procrastination is the inability to say no to various requests for one’s time; (b) there is evidence that sport administrators tend to attribute the causes of procrastination to the organizational environment rather than to themselves; (c) some of the more important organization-related causes of procrastination appear to be unpleasant aspects of the task, heavy workloads assigned, too many options or no guidelines given for task completion, no fixed deadlines or time limits, and unimportance and insignificance of tasks.