empirical sponsorship data from F1 and used the lens of RBV to demonstrate that differing types of sponsorship resources impact organizational performance in different ways. Based on this review of literature and the theoretical lens of RBV, we posit the following research questions (RQs): RQ1: What
Search Results
Jonathan A. Jensen, Lane Wakefield, and Brian Walkup
Brian P. Soebbing, Pamela Wicker, and Daniel Weimar
Previous research has examined the effect of changes in upper management positions on actual organizational performance; however, the influence of leadership changes on performance expectations has been largely neglected. This gap in the literature is surprising given that failure to meet expectations leads to dismissal. The purpose of the present research is to analyze how coaching changes affect expectations of a sports team’s performance. Betting lines are used as performance expectations because they are unbiased forecasts of game outcomes. This study uses data from 13 seasons of the German Football Bundesliga. Significant positive timelagged effects on performance expectations are evident when examining underlying expected performance. These positive effects are evident 8 weeks after the leadership change, indicating that new leaders are expected to need some time before significant performance improvements are expected to occur.
Matthew Juravich, Steven Salaga, and Kathy Babiak
For profit-driven professional sport organizations, organizational performance is argued to be measurable in two ways. One approach considers the financial performance of an organization over some duration of time by measuring the profits generated by a team, primarily through ticket sales and
Per G. Svensson, Seungmin Kang, and Jae-Pil Ha
develop a set of hypotheses regarding the collective relationships between human resources capacity, shared leadership, organizational performance, and innovative work behavior. We test our proposed model through structural equation modeling, which allows us to get more adequate estimates of the direct
Patti Millar and Julie Stevens
, broader training-related research has provided substantial insight into how workplace training impacts both individual and organizational performances (e.g., Burke & Hutchins, 2007 ; Saks & Burke, 2012 ). Yet, a dominant line of this research remains focused on whether or not an impact exists, rather
Brian P. Soebbing and Marvin Washington
If the team changes the coach, does the team’s performance change? From the literature on leadership succession and organizational performance, three perspectives have emerged that seek to answer this question: common sense, vicious cycle, and ritual scapegoat. We extend these leadership perspectives by drawing on organizational theory to explain leadership succession and organizational performance in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division Football Bowl Subdivision football. We develop a model and use the Arellano and Bond (1991) linear dynamic panel data estimator to examine this relationship from the 1950–1951 season to the 2008–2009 season. Our results show that organizational performance decreases initially following a leadership change. However, as a coach’s tenure increases at the university, organizational performance improves. This offers some support for vicious cycle theory and suggests that sport managers should do a better job of managing performance expectations following a coaching change as our results show that coaching changes lead to a drop in performance.
Alison Doherty and Graham Cuskelly
resources are critical to organizational performance for goal achievement ( Hall et al., 2003 ), and thus, “the identification of elements that trigger or hinder organizational performance” has become a focal point of research and practice ( Andersson, Faulk, & Stewart, 2016 , p. 2864). There is increasing
Karsten Elmose-Østerlund, Graham Cuskelly, Jens Høyer-Kruse, and Christian Røj Voldby
Despite a rich literature on organizational capacity (OC) in voluntary sports clubs (VSCs), few studies have examined OC building and its long-term sustainability. Against this background, the authors identified changes in OC among VSCs that participated in a club development program and examined the sustainability of these changes. The authors collected survey data 9 months after participation comparing the participating VSCs (n = 62) with similar nonparticipating VSCs (n = 64). A selection of the participating VSCs was then contacted 3–4 years later for a follow-up survey (n = 48) and focus group interviews (n = 5). The results show that (a) significant differences in human resource capacity, planning and development capacity, and infrastructure and process capacity were visible between the participating and nonparticipating VSCs, and that (b) certain changes in OC remain in the clubs 3–4 years after participation. A sustainable change was that core volunteers related differently to the work in their respective VSCs.
Florian Hemme and Marlene A. Dixon
James Park has been hired as the new CEO by the board of directors of GoSports Inc., a large national sporting goods retailer, which has been battling economic and internal issues over the previous years. Despite Park’s experience at the helm of large companies in need of profound strategic and structural change, in his new position at GoSports he has been “butting heads” with a powerful collective of executives unhappy with the hire and threatened by the new CEO’s accolades. To complicate matters, rumor has it that the decision to hire Park was far from unanimous, with various factions vying for control in the company, waiting for a chance to fill the power vacuum a quick departure by Park would leave behind. After two weeks with the company, Park is called before the board of directors to report on the progress made and how he plans to return GoSports to its former glory.
Jeffrey Q. Barden and Yohan Choi
the relationships among payroll advantage, team performance, and risk behavior. They contribute to the organization risk behavior literature by differentiating between the effects of input-based reference metrics—resource advantage—and outcome-based reference metrics—organization performance
