Previous studies acknowledge the importance of sporting organizations’ developing partnerships with clubs for athlete development purposes. However, there are no studies that address the way partnerships influence athlete progression and pathways. This study explores interorganizational relationships (IORs) between a tennis federation and tennis clubs in their efforts to improve player development processes. Document analysis and semistructured interviews with representatives from clubs and the Flemish federation were used. The findings show that the federation and the clubs engaged in IORs to achieve reciprocity and efficiency. The federation anticipated gaining legitimacy and asymmetry, and clubs expected to develop stability. Formal and informal control mechanisms facilitated IOR management. The conceptual model discussed in this study shows the types of IOR motives, management, and control mechanisms that drive and influence the attraction, retention/ transition, and nurturing processes of athlete development.
Popi Sotiriadou, Jessie Brouwers, Veerle De Bosscher, and Graham Cuskelly
Katie E. Misener, Kathy Babiak, Gareth Jones, and Iain Lindsey
The study of interorganizational relationships (IORs) in sport has developed significantly over the past 30 years, whereby IORs represent the array of forms of interaction between organizations 1 ( Babiak et al., 2018 ). During this time, there have been many environmental, cultural, and political
Fei Gao, Bob Heere, Samuel Y. Todd, and Brian Mihalik
, the coordination and cooperation between stakeholders are of the utmost importance and that scholars should examine these temporary partnerships. Research on interorganizational relationships (IORs; Gray, 1985 ; Lee, 2001 ; Selsky & Parker, 2005 ) shows the complexity and challenges of setting up
Kathy Babiak, Lucie Thibault, and Annick Willem
As the nature and scope of the sport industry have changed around the world, the role of interorganizational relationships (IORs) has become central to the operations of a variety of sport organizations (cf. Bingham & Walters, 2013 ; Franco & Pessoa, 2013 ; Grix & Phillpots, 2011
Chad Seifried, Brian Soebbing, and Kwame J.A. Agyemang
interorganizational relationships (IR), which Babiak and Thibault ( 2008 ) defined as “voluntary, close, long-term, planned strategic action between two or more organizations with the objective of serving mutually beneficial purposes in a problem domain” (p. 282). The literature overall emphasizes IR as purposive
Jonathon Edwards, Diane Culver, Ross Leadbetter, Kate Kloos, and Luke Potwarka
credibility and recognition of coaches. ( Coaching Association of Canada, 2018 , para. 1) To gain a better understanding of the relationships within a coaching systems context, we have drawn on a relatively new approach within the field of sport: interorganizational relationships (IORs). Sotiriadou, Brouwers
Gareth J. Jones, Katie Misener, Per G. Svensson, Elizabeth Taylor, and Moonsup Hyun
Interorganizational relationships (IORs) have been highlighted as a useful strategy for nonprofit youth sport organizations to acquire resources and improve organizational effectiveness ( Babiak, Thibault, & Willem, 2018 ; Casey, Payne, & Eime, 2009 ; Cousens & Barnes, 2009 ). Both conceptual and
Interorganizational relationships have become increasingly important for sport organizations. The purpose of this study was to explore the determinants and conditions of partnership formation in a group of collaborating nonprofit, public, and private organizations. A conceptual framework that includes the determinants of legitimacy, stability, necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, and efficiency were used. Conditions including interdependence and presence of an interpersonal network were also explored. This research employed qualitative methods to examine partners’ reasons for developing interorganizational relationships in a sport context. For the collaborating organizations, the determinants of legitimacy, stability, reciprocity, and efficiency prevailed as important motives for relationship formation. These findings help to refine and apply contemporary theory to sport management and can be used to help manage interorganizational relationships.
Paul Turner and David Shilbury
Environmental factors such as emerging technology, globalization, economic reform and social change are creating a background in which sporting organizations must seek to quickly adapt to manage their ongoing activities and operations. Focusing on emerging technology in the area of sport broadcasting, this research examined six preconditions for interorganizational relationship (IOR) formation from the perspective of professional football clubs in Australia. Based upon theories derived from the IOR literature, these six preconditions for IOR formation were considered to determine if emerging broadcasting technologies impact on IOR formation between Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL) clubs and broadcasters. Semistructured in-depth interviews with senior managers of 11 AFL, and 10 NRL clubs were undertaken and data analyzed, coded and emergent themes identified. Results indicate that professional club managers display most of these attributes that precipitate the preconditions for IOR formation, but although these preconditions exist, there is little willingness by the clubs to formulate IORs with sport broadcasters.
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.