The need for new and evidence-based solutions for mobilizing stakeholders and resources in sport for development and peace (SDP) is increasingly emphasized in a number of recent policy documents including the Kazan Action Plan and a set of publications by the Commonwealth Secretariat. This paper provides a response to these calls for the development of mechanisms and toolkits to support multistakeholder collaboration. We draw on our combined experiences in SDP research, practice, and funding to identify how multistakeholder initiatives in SDP can be better leveraged. Specifically, we discuss how Brown’s (2015) five elements of bridge-building for social transformation, namely, compelling and locally relevant goals; cross-boundary leadership systems; generative theories of change; systems enabling and protecting innovation; and investment in institutionalizing change, apply in the SDP domain. The practical framework we have outlined provides a common ground and starting point to build upon for generating improved synergies among a multitude of stakeholders.
Per G. Svensson and Richard Loat
Per G. Svensson and Chad S. Seifried
Sport leaders are redefining organizational paradigms by blending elements from traditional forms of organizing. Leaders of emergent hybrid forms face unique challenges in managing tensions associated with the paradoxical elements they embody. This paper introduces the concept of hybrid organizing and examines its applicability to Sport for Development and Peace (SDP). Specifically, Battilana and Lee’s (2014) multidimensional framework is used to examine the core practices, workforce composition, organizational design, interorganizational relationships, and organizational culture of hybrid SDP entities. Findings from this exploratory empirical work with nine organizations indicate SDP hybrids operate under a multitude of legal structures yet are underlined by shared beliefs that these new forms provide better opportunities for achieving social impact and organizational sustainability. Organizational leaders appear to use a multitude of internal mechanisms for managing the seemingly paradoxical nature of hybrid organizing. Strengths and challenges associated with these efforts were revealed and are critically examined.
Marion E. Hambrick and Per G. Svensson
Sport organizations can use social media to build relationships with current and potential stakeholders. These opportunities are pertinent for smaller niche and sport-for-development-and-peace (SDP) organizations, which rarely receive the same media and consumer attention as their larger, more mainstream counterparts. This study examined the role of social media with 1 SDP organization and used qualitative data collection and analysis to explore what social-media platforms the staff members selected, how they used these platforms, and what benefits and challenges they faced with this use. Their identified social-media activities were 3-fold: disseminating news, promoting events, and educating stakeholders. Some hurdles arose with this use, in particular attempting to engage readers in conversations and ensuring that the posted messages uniformly relayed organizational goals. SDP and other organizations can use social media to achieve communication objectives but should recognize the potential challenges associated with these efforts.
Marlene A. Dixon and Per G. Svensson
Sport for development and peace (SDP) agencies increasingly deal with complex institutional demands. In this article, the authors present an in-depth case study of how a nascent SDP organization created from within a local community in Kenya responded to institutional complexity through a series of pivotal moments that shaped the nature of the SDP agency. Throughout the formative stage in its life course, organizational leaders faced increased institutional complexity as they grappled with a series of incompatible prescriptions and demands from multiple institutional logics. The case organization—Highway of Hope—responded to this complexity through a process of organizational hybridity. Five pivotal decision points were identified and analyzed to explore how they shaped the organization over its early stages of existence. Our findings provide guidance for advancing our understanding of hybridity processes in SDP, both theoretically and practically.
Per G. Svensson, Seungmin Kang and Jae-Pil Ha
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of shared leadership and organizational capacity on organizational performance and innovative work behavior (IWB) in sport for development and peace. An electronic survey was distributed to 1,120 sport for development and peace practitioners. A total of 215 completed surveys were recorded for a response rate of 19.2%. Structural equation modeling revealed significant relationships between shared leadership and both organizational performance and IWB. In addition, shared leadership fully mediated the relationship between capacity and IWB, and partially mediated the relationship between capacity and organizational performance. Altogether, the results indicate that shared leadership and capacity combined to explain a significant proportion of variance in performance and IWB. The results provide empirical support for the significant role of shared leadership in sport for development and peace. In addition, the significant direct and indirect effects in the tested model highlight the value of examining both capacity and shared leadership.
Per G. Svensson, Fredrik O. Andersson and Lewis Faulk
The ability of Sport for Development and Peace (SDP) organizations to achieve desired outcomes depends on the ability of leaders to develop and utilize a set of organizational capacities. This study provides insight into the current state of capacity in the SDP landscape and the relationship between capacity and key phases of the life of an organization. A sample of 165 organizations from across all six continents rated 65 capacity-related elements. We employ a multilevel analysis to explain variation in capacity within and across SDP organizations. This allows us to identify the probabilities of having low capacity across five different capacity dimensions (human resources, finance, partnership, infrastructure, and planning and development capacities). Results indicate critical capacity strengths and challenges across organizational life stages, the positive influence of size, foundation and government funding, the role of geographical location, and the insignificant or limited effect of earned revenues and interorganizational networks on capacity in SDP.